Tweet
Clarification regarding our viewpoint
[Sent to BetaHound with additional copies to Eli, Dissident, and Jon Miller just to make sure it gets through in a timely manner.]
Greetings BetaHound and Vox Controli,
I did not mean to cause offense in my earlier message (and please keep in mind that I am an economist and not a diplomat by profession) but rather to make sure you recognized the seriousness of our concerns. Imagine yourselves in our position. A nation just told you that they respected your right to explore and hoped that you would respect theirs. Then, when your explorers actually attempted to explore their side of the continent, they found their path blocked by a unit fortified in such a way that no one could pass. Would not your first impression be that their claim to respect your right to explore was, or at least had the appearance of being, deceptive and hypocritical? And if they did not prove trustworthy when claiming to respect your right to explore, would that not cause you to question, at least a little, how trustworthy they were regarding other matters? Can you honestly say that your reaction would have been so very different from ours (except, perhaps, in how skilled your diplomats would have been in expressing your concerns)?
As we said in our earlier message, we hoped (as we still hope) that these concerns are unwarranted. But they do still exist. Search as we may, we can find no truly honorable basis for you to continue your explorations south toward us while blocking us from further exploration in your direction (although if you have an explanation that has somehow eluded us, we would love to hear it).
Nonetheless, as time passed, we decided that our desire for a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship with your people outweighed those concerns. Hence, we set them aside in order to propose a trade that would benefit us both. That does not mean that tensions over the earlier issue have abated completely, but merely that more important matters are at stake. And we have chosen not to let an annoyance (especially one that we still hope can be resolved) get in the way of those weightier matters. Our desire is for mutual prosperity so that when our nations meet the more distant nations that legend says exist, we and not they will have the advantage.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm
Nathan Barclay, Chief Economist
[Sent to BetaHound with additional copies to Eli, Dissident, and Jon Miller just to make sure it gets through in a timely manner.]
Greetings BetaHound and Vox Controli,
I did not mean to cause offense in my earlier message (and please keep in mind that I am an economist and not a diplomat by profession) but rather to make sure you recognized the seriousness of our concerns. Imagine yourselves in our position. A nation just told you that they respected your right to explore and hoped that you would respect theirs. Then, when your explorers actually attempted to explore their side of the continent, they found their path blocked by a unit fortified in such a way that no one could pass. Would not your first impression be that their claim to respect your right to explore was, or at least had the appearance of being, deceptive and hypocritical? And if they did not prove trustworthy when claiming to respect your right to explore, would that not cause you to question, at least a little, how trustworthy they were regarding other matters? Can you honestly say that your reaction would have been so very different from ours (except, perhaps, in how skilled your diplomats would have been in expressing your concerns)?
As we said in our earlier message, we hoped (as we still hope) that these concerns are unwarranted. But they do still exist. Search as we may, we can find no truly honorable basis for you to continue your explorations south toward us while blocking us from further exploration in your direction (although if you have an explanation that has somehow eluded us, we would love to hear it).
Nonetheless, as time passed, we decided that our desire for a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship with your people outweighed those concerns. Hence, we set them aside in order to propose a trade that would benefit us both. That does not mean that tensions over the earlier issue have abated completely, but merely that more important matters are at stake. And we have chosen not to let an annoyance (especially one that we still hope can be resolved) get in the way of those weightier matters. Our desire is for mutual prosperity so that when our nations meet the more distant nations that legend says exist, we and not they will have the advantage.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm
Nathan Barclay, Chief Economist
Comment