Lord bagel Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think we can all agree that we all approve of Lord Bagel. Your nukes did some magic and got Betsy to do some work, some IRONers are in state of shock. Also, my blind support to Berbers o/ always. Sorry i tapered out a couple days early. I had to go on a trip and couldn't find the motivation for a few last minute spite nukes. I can only hope that those who fought me were kind enough to share their liberated bagels with the rest of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Well I can certainly admit when I am wrong. TOP fought just as hard or harder than most people this war and agreeing to 3 weeks of war to get its allies out plus agreeing to keep everyone that was in warmode out of peace mode was clearly not pixel hugging.Good fight TOP, and for the first time ever...O/ TOP I'd like to take a moment to say that this statement surprised me. For the most part my interactions on the owf with you could be characterized as poor. I've assumed you to simply be a dogmatic opponent, and that regardless of our behavior or actions you would universally find fault. Credit where credit is due though, I appreciate that I have also misjudged you, and that you are not the cynical partisan I supposed you to be.Regarding the extension to the war. I think it is unfair to say that it was an onerous condition. It is one we accepted, in light of delays we had made over uncertainty regarding the question of additional support on the front. This could have evolved into an entrenched issue, IRON could have made hard demands or imposed measures which have established precedent, but they instead opted for restraint. Furthermore the term meant offering an exit to our allies, and those who had supported us in the war and on the front. It also gave us a defined table for our exit that was largely in line with soft dates that had already been suggested.The basic fact of the matter is that this war, while started in aftermath was an answer to policies largely determined by ourselves, and a few other parties in the coalition. There were grievances and historical animosities to be answered for, so while in form we were simply a tertiary front far removed from the center of the fight- the conflict remained largely concerned with ourselves. In this context, the need or desire for satisfying closure, or a complete fight shouldn't be seen as something exceptional, but quite typical. I think I speak for everyone involved in this, that we're happy to put these matters to bed, and to close the book rather than letting this be the start of a sequel. Edited February 23, 2015 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 o/ Everyone Involved ^_^ >Every noob complaining about extended war ^_^ o/ Berbers ^_^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Regarding the extension to the war. I think it is unfair to say that it was an onerous condition. It is one we accepted, in light of delays we had made over uncertainty regarding the question of additional support on the front. This could have evolved into an entrenched issue, IRON could have made hard demands or imposed measures which have established precedent, but they instead opted for restraint. Furthermore the term meant offering an exit to our allies, and those who had supported us in the war and on the front. It also gave us a defined table for our exit that was largely in line with soft dates that had already been suggested. The basic fact of the matter is that this war, while started in aftermath was an answer to policies largely determined by ourselves, and a few other parties in the coalition. There were grievances and historical animosities to be answered for, so while in form we were simply a tertiary front far removed from the center of the fight- the conflict remained largely concerned with ourselves. In this context, the need or desire for satisfying closure, or a complete fight shouldn't be seen as something exceptional, but quite typical. I think I speak for everyone involved in this, that we're happy to put these matters to bed, and to close the book rather than letting this be the start of a sequel. Well said, it's posts like these that made me think to nominate you in the CN Awards for Best Poster, despite being an enemy at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord bagel Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hang on and hold up on the peace. I'm just 7k ns shy of giving out 100k damage. Can i get an extra extension? Just one more round with Onbekende should do the trick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hang on and hold up on the peace. I'm just 7k ns shy of giving out 100k damage. Can i get an extra extension? Just one more round with Onbekende should do the trick! See what happens when you don't do those last minute nukes?!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I dunno man, I just don't feel it anymore. Last few weeks everyones been a good sport. For me personally, this is over. I got nuked plenty and sent out plenty. That's where it ends and where it should end. I enjoy seeing hatchets buried. So I am particularly happy to see this said. Regarding the extension to the war. I think it is unfair to say that it was an onerous condition. It is one we accepted, in light of delays we had made over uncertainty regarding the question of additional support on the front. This could have evolved into an entrenched issue, IRON could have made hard demands or imposed measures which have established precedent, but they instead opted for restraint. Furthermore the term meant offering an exit to our allies, and those who had supported us in the war and on the front. It also gave us a defined table for our exit that was largely in line with soft dates that had already been suggested. The basic fact of the matter is that this war, while started in aftermath was an answer to policies largely determined by ourselves, and a few other parties in the coalition. There were grievances and historical animosities to be answered for, so while in form we were simply a tertiary front far removed from the center of the fight- the conflict remained largely concerned with ourselves. In this context, the need or desire for satisfying closure, or a complete fight shouldn't be seen as something exceptional, but quite typical. I think I speak for everyone involved in this, that we're happy to put these matters to bed, and to close the book rather than letting this be the start of a sequel. I am also very happy to see this has been said. Congratulations to my allies in IRON, the allies of my allies in TOP, and all the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Glad to see you've got peace, bros. o/ TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Glad to see you've got peace, bros. o/ TOP. o/ Legacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.