Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Convince him of what? That Meth is allowed to retaliate against Dre4m and Dre4m only?

Why would this be the case, other than maybe Walsh telling you this? Why should Walsh determine my response when his alliance is attacking me? There is no precedent for it being permissible for alliances to let certain members attack other alliances, then being able to tell that alliance they can only retaliate against the members attacking directly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 583
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Walsh also said Dreamweaver's attack was an act of war in any rational leader's book, so we had a valid CB against them. Xanth & Tyrian AA hopping to attack us during this, then being back in SRA before the Dreamweaver War was even over, just added more fuel to the fire.

 

I'm not sure how you see politics, but when an alliance leader lets their alliance heirs attack the leader of another alliance and their members (while refusing to put a stop to it when diplomacy is tried); that's starting a war. I doubt M16 would allow members of another alliance to attack them freely and keep the war limited to just the nations attacking directly; if the alliance they are in clearly support the attacks and sends them aid to assist in their war against you.

 

So, essentially, it's only okay for people to ghost an Alliance at war with another Alliance and be let off the hook afterwards when they belong to your Sphere of lackeys. Check.  :popcorn:

Edited by DeathAdder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walsh also said Dreamweaver's attack was an act of war in any rational leader's book, so we had a valid CB against them. Xanth & Tyrian AA hopping to attack us during this, then being back in SRA before the Dreamweaver War was even over jjust added more fuel to the fire.

 

I'm not sure how you see politics, but when an alliance leader lets their alliance heirs attack the leader of another alliance and their members (while refusing to put a stop to it when diplomacy is tried); that's starting a war. I doubt M16 would allow members of another alliance to attack them freely and keep the war limited to just the nations attacking directly; if the alliance they are in clearly support the attacks and are sending them aid to assist in their war against you.

 

Actually, we had this scenario when MI6 fought Kaskus/NEW. We had CommanderBean and Bobdole hit our largest nation at the time. Bean and Bobdole were/are DBDC members. When MI6 went to DBDC, we were told that no one was allowed to hit Bean or Bobdole and if anyone did, DBDC would retaliate. For insurance, DBDC stuck Bones on Kaskus's AA. So, we got our allies to help end the raid by Bean and Bobdole and instead of getting our upper tier obliterated by DBDC/allies, we opted to not hit Bean or Bobdole. 

 

So, to sum it up, we did what any forward-thinking, rational-minded, alliance would do. Not get obliterated for some stupid fucked up reason. You are none of the former as you have shown repeatedly. You seem to care very little for anyone other than yourself as is shown by how often you allow your members to suffer in wars to stroke your ego. I am not sure how you see politics but I see politics as a more than just herr derr let's war everyone!!!!!!! If I were ever in your position, I would have just hit Dre4m and obliterated him using whatever aid was sent to him to fuel my war effort. Instead, you allowed your small nations, most of whom have nations under 1 year of age, to get slammed. Yes, you are truly an inspirational leader. Letting your small nations do much of the heavy lifting, while your heavily wondered nation can rebuild much easier than they could ever hope considering how often you cause them to go to war. No wonder you have no nation with an AA seniority over 30 days right now. Most have probably grown sick and tired of you and your ego-driven wars and either left the AA or left CN for good. Yes, truly and deeply inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, essentially, it's only okay for people to ghost an Alliance at war with another Alliance and be let off the hook afterwards when they belong to your Sphere of lackeys. Check.  :popcorn:

The Dreamweaver War was enough to hit them back over. Them blatantly having members attack other LN members from other AAs while this is ongoing does increase our alliance's desire to hit them back. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, since I'm sure Sparta wouldn't have put up with SRA's aggression and not responded with force.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would this be the case, other than maybe Walsh telling you this? Why should Walsh determine my response when his alliance is attacking me? There is no precedent for it being permissible for alliances to let certain members attack other alliances, then being able to tell that alliance they can only retaliate against the members attacking directly. 

 

You clearly have not been paying much attention to CN have you? It is called raiding. Though for that, we have to get into the very grey area of what defines an alliance, which varies from alliance to alliance and even from nation to nation. 

 

Also, I am very certain that in at least one war, an alliance being hit only attacked the members that directly attacked it, in order to limit the engagement so that said alliance being hit would not be obliterated. 

 

Walsh, as has been pointed out by you yourself, did not attempt to determine your response. You even stated that Walsh said that you had a valid CB against SRA. You, as a smart leader though, should have realized, that your alliance could not handle such a war, particularly given that you had just finished a war (or were in the process of finishing one). Your alliance was in no shape to actually go to war against SRA. Now we have you whining about the war that you, yourself started when it could have been easily avoided. Sometimes taking the easier path is the better way. 

 

Frankly, you could have easily worked on retaliation against Dre4m while your alliance rebuilt some and then gone after SRA. But then, you could not have complained nearly as loud about the resulting war you created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dreamweaver War was enough to hit them back over. Them blatantly having members attack other LN members from other AAs while this is ongoing does increase our alliance's desire to hit them back. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, since I'm sure Sparta wouldn't have put up with SRA's aggression and not responded with force.

 

Actually, like Doc, I belong to a Sanctioned AA that has existed for years with more than a small handful of people, and like Doc, my Alliance has always handled rogue actions as that, Rogue actions. Targeting the rogue nations. NOT fucking over an entire AA's backcollect because you're so self-absorbed in begging for attention on the OWF, you can't take 30 minutes to plan a solid avenue of attack. 

 

That's why we're sanctioned Alliances, and you would never be accepted into one that has even a quarter ounce of the common sense the Gods gave to rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, you could have easily worked on retaliation against Dre4m while your alliance rebuilt some and then gone after SRA. But then, you could not have complained nearly as loud about the resulting war you created.

I try to avoid responding to you most of the time, since you always have a very negative attitude. Although I think you've done more complaining than me over this war. Most of my posting has just been to counter some of the lies and spin being put out there by SRA and people like yourself who believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am assuming this delusion of being the defender is only being held on to so that you may still grasp some hope of getting white peace.  However it is safe to say that your intentional misleadings here are not likely to change the terms, no matter how hard you argue them, over, and over, and over.  You must understand that, right?  Like, you are changing nothing by continuing this line of BS, and final terms have been offered, so why do you persist?

 

Don't answer that, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never minded the war. I've always been happy to fight just as long as Walsh wants to fight. It's the lies and the personal attacks that really upset me. And you're just as bad for enabling it as they are for doing it.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies and personal attacks?  I'd say point to just one, but you'll only ignore me.

 

The thing about Planet Bob is that almost everything is documented.  Every national act, every communication, every public statement, all archived in black and white.

 

I don't begrudge them their "defensive war" stance -- hell, that is an opinion derived from an interpretation of the facts.  People do that all of the time, and reasonable people can have differing opinions.

 

What makes no sense is assertions of opinion that are easily disproven by the public records archived by Bob.

 

If, as they say, I taunted, there should be a record you can produce.

 

If, as they say, my story has changed several times, there is a paper trail you can produce.  I didn't tell you the story over the phone.

 

If, as they say, I produce propaganda with German iconography -- hell, it had to be posted somewhere.  Give us the link.

 

What this lot loves to do is make accusations, and when called upon to prove their veracity, claim that it is some kind of trick.

What this lot likes to do is put words in your mouth, and when your actual words, archived by Bob, are presented, claim it is spin.

 

What they realize is that most OWF readers do not agree with their interpretation of the facts, which paints them as the victim of an aggressive war.  So they make posts about things that would paint them better as a victims -- the taunts!  the story changing! the things he said!    They really wish I had done those things, which if true, would add a coat of victim paint to their yarns.  But on Planet Bob, where everything is archived, they can't make a case because the records don't bear their stories out, which incenses them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alliance hopping happens all the time. War Jesus did it last time we fought you, they got off the hook when Kashmir stepped in and got terms for them. As real alliances tend to do.

I'm enjoying this show though. It's fun to see other people deal with you and try to figure out where your next pivot to something completely untrue will go on the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the absolute peak of delusion. I have trouble believing that someone can be this divorced from reality that it is a genuine misinterpretation of facts. I agree with mattski's assessment. They have to be holding onto their perceived victimhood in the hopes of securing white peace. But even through their massive delusion they should surely be able to see that it will not happen. I can't believe they honestly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the absolute peak of delusion. I have trouble believing that someone can be this divorced from reality that it is a genuine misinterpretation of facts. I agree with mattski's assessment. They have to be holding onto their perceived victimhood in the hopes of securing white peace. But even through their massive delusion they should surely be able to see that it will not happen. I can't believe they honestly don't.


Remember when you defended them last time? It's fun being on the other side isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Dreamweaver's attack was approved by their top leadership and he was an alliance heir, then his attacks were reflective of the whole alliance when they allowed it to continue. Unless people want to label SRA a rogue alliance, the argument that Dreamweaver was a rogue doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>When dream's attacks were approved.

Hmm. Ok.

Here is a quote from the official statement made by Walsh on behalf of SRA after Dre4mweaver attacked, so it was approved by their leader and they admitted all this.
 

1)Dre4mwe4ver is at war with you. He is also a member of SRA. In any rational leader's book, this is an act of war. You have a valid CB.
 
2)Smurthwaite, who is also SRA, has aided Dre4mwe4ver. This is also a valid CB for you against us. Again, anything else would be spin.
 
3)Dre4m fighting you was done with my consent. As I am the leader of his alliance, and essentially condone his actions, this completes the trifecta of CB's against us.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure he will be here shortly with his new propaganda straight off the printing press, telling us all how he actually meant this or that and we all need to learn Walsh-lish. He' is a good spin doctor, I will give him that.

Edited by the rebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what it's like to lose that last ounce of ability to produce rational, forward thinking.

 

Why don't you ask Walshington and Co, Methrage and Sigrun who have been arguing in circles since the beginning and neither standing down and wish to stay in the past  rather than as you say forward thinking....All of them are guilty of it, whose going to be the first of them to take your advice Neo Uruk ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure he will be here shortly with his new propaganda straight off the printing press, telling us all how he actually meant this or that and we all need to learn Walsh-lish. He' is a good spin doctor, I will give him that.

 

Actually, no.  Unlike anyone else in this entire debacle, I stand by everything I said and haven't tried to spin any of it.  I think the snippet of my post that Meth posted states that very thing,  Excellent use of the quote function, Meth, rather than paraphrasing me, although the entire post, which you have a screenie of and have posted several times, would have been better to provide context (for those who are interested in context).

 

I will repeat my invitation to other coalition to feel free to post any IRC log, any PM, or any post in which I lied, taunted, posted a personal attack, contradicted myself or changed my story.  I will answer any direct question without spin or prevarication.  They have not availed themselves of this invitation, because it is an exercise in futility -- they cannot find a single instance.  But the invitation is there.

 

Meanwhile, I receive PM's like this:

 

CA%20bleeding%20money_zpsoih7at1w.png

 

In it she states I lie, and brings up an example:  "You said CA was bleeding money recently."

 

Now if I said that, and it was a lie, I'd cop to it.  But not only did I not say it, I actually said the opposite of that.  

It's right here, in black and white, halfway down the post.

 

Note in that post, she actually quotes me saying the opposite, and then states that "I say the dumbest things sometimes."

 

And now she's essentially parroting my original statement.  And crowing that "the truth is inconvenient for my propaganda."

 

Yet when I point out her contradictions and what can only be a deliberate distortion of what I said, I'm accused of lying, posting propaganda, and distorting the truth.  Unbelievable, really -- refuting lies is not propaganda, in fact, quite the opposite.

 

Just because you fail at reasoned debate doesn't mean I am using trickery.

 

Again, I invite any direct questions about anything I have done, said, posted, PM'd or IRC'd. An honest man cannot be given enough rope to hang himself, and facts -- demonstrable, provable facts, logged by an impartial archiving mechanism -- are not propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man you people keep spinning your nonsense, meanwhile you have our terms. By no means do you have to abide by our terms, however; the option to die honorably is the last refuge of a soldier, and we will afford you and yours the opportunity to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to avoid responding to you most of the time, since you always have a very negative attitude. Although I think you've done more complaining than me over this war. Most of my posting has just been to counter some of the lies and spin being put out there by SRA and people like yourself who believe them.

 

Actually, I am mostly just bored and you are a rather easy target. You are delusional and probably actually believe what you say to be true. This makes it more fun. It should be wrong and I should be sorry to pick on someone like you and Sigrun (who is also basically delusional) but you two work yourselves into this froth-mouthed tizzy that is fun to watch. though therebel tries to act the same way, he seems force it instead of it just coming natural like with you and sigrun. therebel can only ever be a poser compared to you and sigrun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no delusion that we are defending ourselves and I am tempted to throw the same epithet right back at you. You all know by now that when you "make water on my shoe and tell me it's raining" you stand zero chance of actually fooling me into thinking it's anything other than what it is. It's clear such posts are aimed solely at provoking me and I need to get better at ignoring them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...