>Captain Arrr,
>
>My appologies for misnaming you. Both the original message and the message
>sent to my neighbor encouraging them to attack me apparently had the
>mistaken name "Mark" attached to the header.
>
>I notice that you have not chosen to refute my claims that the Yellowleaf
>Accord has been violated by PLATO and the IC. I am forced to assume that
>the Accord has been violated unless I hear otherwise.
>
>I will add a third point. My recollection (I can't find the final copy)
>was that Harn and the LotC chose to withdraw from the treaty. The result
>was the ghazi announced by a Harn faction. I've heard no mention of the
>LotC seizing land by force after the Accord was signed but before they
>launched their counter-attack. If this is in error I would like to know.
>
Dear Jackel:
Point of order. All this talk of Treaties and Accords, I want to make
sure that I understand correctly. Harn and LotC withdrew from a Treaty
between the two of them? Or are you using the word "Treaty" inter-
changably with "Accord"? The clarification I desire is whether or not
the Treaty was part of the Accor, or a separate issue entirely.
And I believe the timeline is such that the LotC invasion of Harn territory
in response to the ghazi is _well_ after the Accord was posted as a
done deal. I base this entirely upon looking at postings in the Times
Archives.
If the Harn/LotC border was part of the Accord, both sides seem to have
chosen to discard said Accord.
>Additionally it is my understanding that both Harn and the LotC wish to
>address their conflict between themselves without outside interference. I
>have great respect for this wish and will do what I can to help uphold it.
>
>I welcome any response to either the above statements or to the two
>citations of violations of the Yellowleaf Accord stated in my previous
>post. These (and appologies for inaccuracies) are the only issues I'm
>interested in discussing reguarding Accord.
>
>Mike Brand
>Jackal Alliance
>