Recognition of Hostilities

[Thrash]

7 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Hey look, it's the guy bandwaggoning CB-less against ISX lecturing Polar.

 

Big difference between not having a CB and going with it versus claiming to have a CB when you don't. People can respect the former, not the latter. If you have to defend your CB (across multiple threads), you're doing it wrong.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Thrash

[Haflinger]

The SNX war doesn't have anything to do with this one in the overall geopolitical situation. Also, the odds in the SNX war are far, far closer than in this one (NADC being 4M NS at the start of war, with you guys being 2.3M, and the Polar coalition is a lot more than twice the size of the SLAP coalition.) I'm not going to discuss our war in this thread any further.

[AlmightyGrub]

2 hours ago, Thrash said:

 

Big difference between not having a CB and going with it versus claiming to have a CB when you don't. People can respect the former, not the latter. If you have to defend your CB (across multiple threads), you're doing it wrong.

 

 

 

1.  There are multiple threads because the NADC decided they would start their own thread, rather than just use the existing DOW as would be normal.  I find it much more convenient to confine my arguments to one place, but I can accommodate up to 1000 threads at once with the upgraded TrollMaster2000.

 

2.  We have no need to defend our CB.  It exists and NADC are being rolled because of it.  I find it entertaining to respond to anyone and everyone who tries to have a shot at the CB, stop feeding me and I will have to stop posting.

 

3.  Nothing you do or say will change the facts as we believe them.  Defend the NADC or don't, but don't whinge because someone is posting something besides ''Junka Sux'' (as entertaining as that is all by itself).

 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by AlmightyGrub

[Noctis Lucis Caelum]

3 hours ago, Thrash said:

 

Big difference between not having a CB and going with it versus claiming to have a CB when you don't. People can respect the former, not the latter. If you have to defend your CB (across multiple threads), you're doing it wrong.

I think they're just restating their CB because people keep asking about it & so NADC knows where to begin if they wish to discuss peace at any point with NpO. So its to NADC's benefit they know why they are being attacked.

 

NADC & friends aren't doing a very good job defending them; so really NpO doesn't need to give a reason. However since they do have a reason, they might as well state it even if you don't think its a good CB. 

 

Whatever NADC's "strategy" in this war might be seems to be failing badly. Haven't seen any great propaganda coming out of them or any reasons for why the Blue Team would be better off with NADC. So nobody really cares.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Noctis Lucis Caelum

[The Big Bad]

10 hours ago, Thrash said:

 

Big difference between not having a CB and going with it versus claiming to have a CB when you don't. People can respect the former, not the latter. If you have to defend your CB (across multiple threads), you're doing it wrong.

 

Never in the history of Planet Bob has some numb skull not attacked a CB.  When a CB is weak it tends to attract a large mob of people with evidence that calls the CB into question.  In other cases you end up with nonsense like, it would only be a solid CB if NADC were a  greater threat.  If you want the respect of people you earn it the same way you deal with  threats, action not words.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by The Big Bad

[Williambonney]

3 hours ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

3.  Nothing you do or say will change the facts as we believe them.  Defend the NADC or don't, but don't whinge because someone is posting something besides ''Junka Sux'' (as entertaining as that is all by itself).

 

 

 

Let me pull up the old Websters here.

fact

fakt/

noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

   "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"

   synonyms:

   reality, actuality, certainty; More

   • used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.

     noun: the fact that

     "the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
   • a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

     synonyms:

     detail, piece of information, particular,item, specific, element, point, factor,feature, characteristic, ingredient,circumstance, aspect, facet; information "every fact was double-checked"

      

     The fact of the matter is that a fact is not a fact just because you believe it to be.  That is why they are called facts and not gospels.  

     I could explain this to you a gozillion times over and over as to why so many people are calling your cb a pile of bull, but I can already see that your never going to get it.  

      

     P.S. Junka Sux 

[AlmightyGrub]

14 minutes ago, Williambonney said:

 

Let me pull up the old Websters here.

fact

fakt/

noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

   "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"

   synonyms:

   reality, actuality, certainty; More

   • used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.

     noun: the fact that

     "the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
   • a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

     synonyms:

     detail, piece of information, particular,item, specific, element, point, factor,feature, characteristic, ingredient,circumstance, aspect, facet; information "every fact was double-checked"

      

     The fact of the matter is that a fact is not a fact just because you believe it to be.  That is why they are called facts and not gospels.  

     I could explain this to you a gozillion times over and over as to why so many people are calling your cb a pile of bull, but I can already see that your never going to get it.  

      

     P.S. Junka Sux 

 

Facts are facts.  They are not in dispute as far as I can see.  Unless Aurelius now wants to claim he did not make the statements so clearly displayed, they are indeed facts.  If this was a legal proceeding, the screenshots would be admitted into evidence and because the screenshots are not disputed they are indeed facts as per your definition

 

I think you are confused about what you are arguing about, though I wont take a gozillion (sic)  times to walk you through it.  The trouble with being an amateur e-lawyer is you often talk complete !@#$%^&* trying to sound intelligent and end up looking exactly like the knobjockey you are.  If you need a further explanation I can draw you a picture with a crayon as long as you don't eat it.

 

 

 

 

[Williambonney]

1 minute ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

Facts are facts.  They are not in dispute as far as I can see.  Unless Aurelius now wants to claim he did not make the statements so clearly displayed, they are indeed facts.  If this was a legal proceeding, the screenshots would be admitted into evidence and because the screenshots are not disputed they are indeed facts as per your definition

 

I think you are confused about what you are arguing about, though I wont take a gozillion (sic)  times to walk you through it.  The trouble with being an amateur e-lawyer is you often talk complete !@#$%^&* trying to sound intelligent and end up looking exactly like the knobjockey you are.  If you need a further explanation I can draw you a picture with a crayon as long as you don't eat it.

 

 

 

 

OK.   Again.  The facts are that you interpret his statements as a threat to polar.  Fact two is that zero diplomacy was attempted by you.  Fact three is that NADC was hardly in any position to pose any real threat to the mighty polar.  Fact four is that you are on the position you are in because of your interpretation of fact one.  

 

Any real lawyer would eat your case for breakfast and crap on your cb.

 

 

  If you do draw a picture please make sure they are crayola, those are the most exquisite

[AlmightyGrub]

5 minutes ago, Williambonney said:

OK.   Again.  The facts are that you interpret his statements as a threat to polar.  Fact two is that zero diplomacy was attempted by you.  Fact three is that NADC was hardly in any position to pose any real threat to the mighty polar.  Fact four is that you are on the position you are in because of your interpretation of fact one.  

 

Any real lawyer would eat your case for breakfast and crap on your cb.

 

 

  If you do draw a picture please make sure they are crayola, those are the most exquisite

 

No, interpretations are not facts, they can never be facts, only inferred or derived from facts.  The screenshots stand alone as the facts, not your interpretation of them, nor mine.  They are facts.  They are not in dispute.  Again, you don't seem to comprehend what you are trying to argue, please do so before trying to use the old dictionary horse !@#$ again.

 

Fact #1 - Aurelius makes a recorded statement, of which documentary evidence exists and such statements are undisputed.

Fact #2 - Polar receives the screenshots of these recorded, undisputed statements.  This is also undisputed.

Fact #3- NADC is at war with Oculus. This is also not disputable.

 

So whatever you think facts are, and however you think they apply to this case, is irrelevant.  My statement that the facts are not in dispute is entirely 100% correct.

 

Please stop eating the !@#$@#$ crayon.

 

 

 

[Williambonney]

I feel like bashing my head on the wall here.

 

Like I said, your obviously not getting it.  

[AlmightyGrub]

1 hour ago, Williambonney said:

I feel like bashing my head on the wall here.

 

Like I said, your obviously not getting it.  

 

It is not I that doesn't get what a fact is, it is you.  You have watched too many court room dramas and not spent enough time in a real one.  

 

What you mean to argue is that the inference we drew from the facts is not within what you are prepared to believe, believing as you do that your definitions of threat are limited to whatever you believe it is.  I can accept that is your point of view, however it is merely an opinion, based on a amateur perusal of the screenshots released.  It is our opinion that matters however, we are the alliance aggrieved and seeking retribution.  The NADC's opinion does not matter in this case, regardless of their now stated intentions, Polar believed what Aurelius said.  We are prepared to accept his original statements exactly as written.  We believe it is very reasonable that when someone says ''I will do this'' that they indeed intend ''to do this''  We believe it also reasonable that having seen Aurelius making these promises in his campaign that the alliance reasonably understood what his stated plan was and having voted for the person also accepted his plan as their blueprint for the future.  This constitutes a plan, a vision and a way forward, stated by the leader and assented to by their General Assembly.  The fact (there is that pesky word again) is that Aurelius has clearly written in precise language a statement that can be clearly viewed and leaves no actual room for misinterpretation at all.  There is no way any reasonable person can read the Aurelius campaign statement and draw the inference that NADC is now trying to run up the flag pole.  No reasonable person could change the meaning of words so subjectively for the statement to mean anything other than what we say it says.

 

Your argument is fine to a point (apart from your confusion as to what constitutes a fact) apart from the point where our definitions of ''threat'' diverge.  Being that we were the party who felt threatened, and that you can not reasonably place yourself in our position, being not Polar, you can dance around the subject inferring whatever you like from the facts that are not in dispute.  We will infer as we have and you will be left a dollar short and two weeks late.

 

What you won't do is change facts.  The first thing you should do is actually read what you posted as the definitions and then apply that to the rubbish you posted, recognize you are too ''clever'' to comprehend an actual argument and realize there is no ''gotcha'' moment coming any time soon.

 

Our CB is as solid as any CB has ever been on Bob, it matters not if you believe our drawn inference from the facts, NADC is being destroyed and will continue to be destroyed until they surrender or until we decide to stop.  It does not matter at all to our view that someone is incapable of carrying out their plan, only that a plan exists.  It likewise is not for us to wait until they become capable of carrying out the plan in order to infer that they have a plan but rather to identify the threat and eliminate it before it has a chance to actually be detrimental to our interests.  It does not matter at all where the information comes from, it only matters that the information is not disputed.  Once the screenshots are read objectively, the only inference is that NADC's leader intended to return his alliance to Blue and that he  intended to deal with nasty Polar for their ''wrongful'' actions.  Given that in the months since the statements were made no diplomacy had been attempted by Aurelius it seems a very long bow to draw that his intention was at all civil rather that he, in his own words ''wasn't ready'' to take Polar head on.

 

This is really quite simple, I am not surprised that you are struggling to follow along given your complete lack of comprehension of the actual argument or indeed what the difference between a fact and an opinion is but hopefully even you can now use that bit of crayon in your mouth to join the dots successfully.  If not, too bad.

 

 

 

 

[The Big Bad]

4 hours ago, Williambonney said:

OK.   Again.  The facts are that you interpret his statements as a threat to polar.  Fact two is that zero diplomacy was attempted by you.  Fact three is that NADC was hardly in any position to pose any real threat to the mighty polar.  Fact four is that you are on the position you are in because of your interpretation of fact one.  

 

Any real lawyer would eat your case for breakfast and crap on your cb.

 

 

  If you do draw a picture please make sure they are crayola, those are the most exquisite

 

The facts are, if you had been following along NADC's defense was not that the statements were not a threat but, that people may have voted for him for other reasons and that he would not really try to honor his campaign platform.  So both Polar and NADC agree it was a threat to Polar.  That has only been debated by those who are not involved.  

 

Fact 2 is diplomacy would just lead to the same nonsense seen here, well we were not really going to go through with it or we are in no position to do anything.  Then they would go into peace mode.  That is the path for people like who talk and do not act.  Or as I call them, fools.

 

Fact 3 A threat is a threat.  Just because you see NADC us completely incompetent incapable of building allies and waiting for the right moment to act does mean we are stupid enough to give them that opportunity.  

 

Fact 4 is we are in the position we are in because we act instead of just talk. 

 

Fact 5 NADC is in the position it is in because its supporters are here talking and instead of acting

[Lord Hitchcock]

6 hours ago, Williambonney said:

The facts are that you interpret his statements as a threat to polar.  Fact two is that zero diplomacy was attempted by you.  Fact three is that NADC was hardly in any position to pose any real threat to the mighty polar.  

 

Fact one: considering NADC signed Sparta tontrigger directly on Polar during the last war shows that they are capable of such atrocities.

 

Fact two: NADC was plotting to antagonize Polar, I don't see why Polar had to make any diplomatic efforts given the circumstances.

 

Fact three: threat or not, doesn't all-of-sudden make NADC's actions immune

[monkeybum]

I just fail to see the point of arguing over a CB. At this point in the game, I just don't see any alliance leaping to your aid because they don't like a CB. The war is happening whether you like/agree/see as valid the CB or not. Less Jaw Jaw, more War War. 

[Supreme 142]

3 hours ago, monkeybum said:

I just fail to see the point of arguing over a CB. At this point in the game, I just don't see any alliance leaping to your aid because they don't like a CB. The war is happening whether you like/agree/see as valid the CB or not. Less Jaw Jaw, more War War. 

 

I wanted to say this but was too lazy to do so. 

[magicninja]

On 8/21/2017 at 2:45 PM, The Big Bad said:

 

Well if your idea of fun  is sitting around doing nothing waiting for your enemies to get it together at the right time and curb stomp you then more power to ya.   Me, I will stick with removing threats as they crop up.  

 

Sorry forgot I was still ruling a nation....but yeah an indecisive war would be nice. Curbsomps on either side are no fun. NADC couldn't get the backing for a curbstomp against Polar...maybe they might get enough scraps together to make it interesting before too many more nations dissolve...but unlikely.

[The Big Bad]

1 hour ago, magicninja said:

 

Sorry forgot I was still ruling a nation....but yeah an indecisive war would be nice. Curbsomps on either side are no fun. NADC couldn't get the backing for a curbstomp against Polar...maybe they might get enough scraps together to make it interesting before too many more nations dissolve...but unlikely.

 

We all know wars are won or lost before they are fought on Planet Bob.  You are the attacker or the attacked.  When you have a threat you crush it.  You do not wait until and see how well it grows.  I know you would not sit on hands and wait.

[magicninja]

1 hour ago, The Big Bad said:

 

We all know wars are won or lost before they are fought on Planet Bob.  You are the attacker or the attacked.  When you have a threat you crush it.  You do not wait until and see how well it grows.  I know you would not sit on hands and wait.

 

5 years ago....yeah. Now...pfft. What's the point of doing either....really. 

[Lord Hitchcock]

2 hours ago, magicninja said:

What's the point of doing either....really. 

 

global supremacy 

[Neo Uruk]

On 8/29/2017 at 7:59 PM, Thrash said:

 

Big difference between not having a CB and going with it versus claiming to have a CB when you don't. People can respect the former, not the latter. If you have to defend your CB (across multiple threads), you're doing it wrong.

Well, it's only two threads. And one of them was made in part to declare the events leading in to the CB didn't happen (they did)

[AlmightyGrub]

Just re-listening to the Aurelius interview last weekend on CN Radio.  I picked up quite a few things I didn't on the day.  My resolve is stronger than ever.

[CrinkledStraw]

Is that available for everyone to take a listen? I missed it and I'd be interested. 

[AlmightyGrub]

2 hours ago, CrinkledStraw said:

Is that available for everyone to take a listen? I missed it and I'd be interested. 

 

http://212.18.235.75/~nordreic/usr/~KaiserHanssen/cnradio/CNRadio-Episode4-4.12.5777.mp3

[Thrash]

5 hours ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

http://212.18.235.75/~nordreic/usr/~KaiserHanssen/cnradio/CNRadio-Episode4-4.12.5777.mp3

 

Thanks for this. Listening now.

[CrinkledStraw]

2 hours ago, Thrash said:

 

Thanks for this. Listening now.

 

Same! Thanks Grub and Mogar (sent link via Discord).