Aurion Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Oh God I got grammar'd however will I survive Intensive therapy and a twelve-step program will see you through, WC. Edited May 31, 2009 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Oh God I got grammar'd however will I survive Wait, That'd isn't a valid contraction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Well since you seemed to have missed my point;Your (and others) expectation that there should be a single individual to talk to is a fantasy, there isn't. So your 'apples and oranges' bit is irrelevant, there are no oranges to compare to, the other scenario does not exist. I am not involved in this discussion, in case you haven't noticed. I merely observed that WC and Halflinger were talking two different things and decided to make it obvious to both of them. Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I am not involved in this discussion, in case you haven't noticed. I merely observed that WC and Halflinger were talking two different things and decided to make it obvious to both of them.Thanks again. You are not involved in the discussion but your giving input on it. Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 You are not involved in the discussion but your giving input on it. Gotcha. Trying to start an argument? I didn't give input, either. I tried to make it clear to both parties that they were talking about different things. No where did I present a claim or an argument. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Now you have successfully distracted the conversation trying to attack me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Trying to start an argument?I didn't give input, either. I tried to make it clear to both parties that they were talking about different things. No where did I present a claim or an argument. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Now you have successfully distracted the conversation trying to attack me. I can read thank you. edit: I not we Edited May 31, 2009 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I can read thank you.edit: I not we No, thank you. Can you two continue your discussion now or will this continue to be about my post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 No, thank you. Can you two continue your discussion now or will this continue to be about my post? Okay you're telling me I can't read and subsequently hope to end the discussion over pointless semantics that didn't even concern you yet when you were called on it backed out because it was obvious you were just trying to play semantics and not offer anything insightful because of your pre-conceived sense of importance and ability to somehow feel like you should be involved in every discussion everywhere. K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahnite Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 In the words of my hero Dick Cheney, "So?" He hasn't shot you yet, so you can't be that close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 WC strikes again. Also: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Spades Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Double post... my bad. I've had a wee bit too much to drink Cheers Edited May 31, 2009 by In Spades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Spades Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 hahahaha, I'd love to see someone make NPO pay those reps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) He hasn't shot you yet, so you can't be that close. That quote was taken from a completely different Cheney story, but this is the wrong place to discuss your inability to just laugh at a simple political joke without actually trying to attack the person in question. My point is that it's no skin off my arse whether or not NPO submits to terms. Surrender is a way of saving your nations from eternal war, so if they choose to sit in peace mode forever, that's okay with me. Now, when Karma punishes NPO for their flight to peace mode, they are not doing anything close to the bawwing NPO did when FAN slipped into peace mode (I say "slipped in" to highlight another difference: NPO saw what was coming and sent its top nations into peace, while FAN was attacked out of the blue and had to sneak into the land of the pretty doves). I recognize that switching to peace mode to avoid decimation is a simple strategy, much like turtling is a legitimate strategy of desperation. However, for every strategy there is a counter, and for Karma that counter must come in the form of aggressive negotiations against peace mode. This separates the NPO situation from the VietFAN situation: Peace terms were not an option for VietFAN, so all NPO could do was BAWWW. Sure Karma is unhappy, but at least there is a device between Karma and NPO that can allow NPO to escape years of peace mode. So, there's a short analysis, for those saying that Karma is bawwing like NPO once did (Mogar). I was going to write more, but I suddenly completely forgot what I was saying. Holy hell, I've forgotten where I am. Edited May 31, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbacher Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 What is this thread about again...Last 2 pages completely off topic. Oh yeh, how bout those pre-terms given to the NPO that make about as much sense as giving them peace once they hit 5 million NS. Does anyone from Karma(officials) have anything to add, like maybe what the terms kinda sorta maybe might look like, and when possibly Pacifica might see them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) What is this thread about again...Last 2 pages completely off topic. Oh yeh, how bout those pre-terms given to the NPO that make about as much sense as giving them peace once they hit 5 million NS. Does anyone from Karma(officials) have anything to add, like maybe what the terms kinda sorta maybe might look like, and when possibly Pacifica might see them? Don;t bother. Karma is trying to play head games either out of sheer stupidity or lack of any willingness to want an end to the conflict. It'll come back to bite them in the $@!. I'm not even worried about it anymore. I actually realized I was trying to help Karma by telling them they were going about this all wrong. If they wanna be stubborn and not reasonable then they will get theirs in the end. No skin off my back. I say just let them be. It'll be fun referencing this thread once they fall flat on their face. Edited May 31, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Okay you're telling me I can't read and subsequently hope to end the discussion over pointless semantics that didn't even concern you yet when you were called on it backed out because it was obvious you were just trying to play semantics and not offer anything insightful because of your pre-conceived sense of importance and ability to somehow feel like you should be involved in every discussion everywhere.K. Do you often read so far into things, or do you just enjoy arguing and labeling people? It seems like a mix of both here, to be honest. I can't "play semantics" if I didn't propose an argument or make a claim. The discussion wasn't over "semantics", it was people somehow inferring I had an opinion on your discussion when there was none expressed. The semantics were important, because neither one of you were talking about the same thing. Oh, WC, a day without reading angry, argumentative, and senseless words from you would be like a day without sunshine. Don't forget to right a review on the "jump to conclusions and derail a conversation" mat. It's so much fun to post when people have their blood boiling already! EDIT: Blah blah blah, the same to you Nozzle. You just described yourself. Blah blah blah. You have no content. You're escaping an argument (that never actually existed). Stop telling me I can't read (Which never actually happened). Go hide in your hole with *insert people WC enjoys picking a fight with or mocking*. There, now you have no need to respond but can skip my post and continue doing whatever it is you think you do. Edited May 31, 2009 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Ellen Red Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 New Pacific Order Reps Race Day 5 Old Total 622 Nation Violations 1.866 Billion 62,200Tech +8 days of terms Today's Add-on's 152 Nations Violated 456 Million 15,200 Tech + 2 days of terms Total so Far 774 Nation Violations 2.322 Billion 77,400 Tech +10 days of terms Comments: I had a few people ask me to only update on the OP, but I find that for one, my post will get really long. Two, its just as good to get a direct post link on the OP to link to the new day. Three, people will not know when I update and so-on. So I am just going to stick with making a new post and updating the OP with a direct link, since its much easier to me that way. And its like the Sanction Race, which is the way I wanted it. Also Total Reaches over 2 Billion! Also the number of nations and fines drop just a little today. That is why it was takeing so long, cuz i double checked the numbers. [Disclaimer: Now this topic isn't a debate about those terms, as the title says, I made this to inform everyone what those terms would be, if added up. I am simply informing you what they are, so please don't write mis-informing reports. I am not here to debate how good/bad/ok/not-ok the terms are. I am just simply writing what they would be. So please don't throw tons of flames out there. Pwease ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 For those not keeping up with the numbers, the new sum could be payed off by the top 60 NPO nations in peace mode (their first three pages) in a little over two aid cycles for the cash, and a little over 4 cycles for the tech. However smaller nations can more easily move tech than cash so the orignal number of 2.15 aid cycles stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Do you often read so far into things, or do you just enjoy arguing and labeling people? It seems like a mix of both here, to be honest. I can't "play semantics" if I didn't propose an argument or make a claim. The discussion wasn't over "semantics", it was people somehow inferring I had an opinion on your discussion when there was none expressed. The semantics were important, because neither one of you were talking about the same thing. No, the discussion was over you playing semantics in an argument I was having with someone else as that person was trying to argue with me on a point that I wasn't trying to make, thus making his claim moot and therefore his argument as a whole null and void. However for some odd reason you still felt the need to insert yourself and try to play the argument to your own liking, which when you leave the argument to itself, kind of speaks for itself as evidenced by everyone else agreeing with me and disagreeing with the other guy. Do try and keep up next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 For those not keeping up with the numbers, the new sum could be payed off by the top 60 NPO nations in peace mode (their first three pages) in a little over two aid cycles for the cash, and a little over 4 cycles for the tech. However smaller nations can more easily move tech than cash so the orignal number of 2.15 aid cycles stands. Yeah but a mere 5 days in and the "side" reps are already the highest reps ever seen for one alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yeah but a mere 5 days in and the "side" reps are already the highest reps ever seen for one alliance. Well it's not like these were forced upon NPO or anything. They have chosen this route after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Well it's not like these were forced upon NPO or anything. They have chosen this route after all. Still, an idiot move by Karma any way you look at it. This was never gonna work. It's funny that this wasn't shot down once it was brought up. They've already lost their window of opportunity with this plan. SHould've presented the full layout in the first place and used this to pressure them to accept the whole package instead of making it a condition to see the whole package. They failed hard with this move. Everyone knows. Anyone still backing this plan is just doing it out of loyalty to Karma. Even they have to see how bad of an idea it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Still, an idiot move by Karma any way you look at it. This was never gonna work. It's funny that this wasn't shot down once it was brought up. They've already lost their window of opportunity with this plan. SHould've presented the full layout in the first place and used this to pressure them to accept the whole package instead of making it a condition to see the whole package. They failed hard with this move. Everyone knows. Anyone still backing this plan is just doing it out of loyalty to Karma. Even they have to see how bad of an idea it was. OK while you keep saying that, NPO still keeps getting pounded and terms will still be offered anyway. Does it change the final outcome at all? No? K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 OK while you keep saying that, NPO still keeps getting pounded and terms will still be offered anyway. Does it change the final outcome at all? No? K. That may be true but these terms won't be part of it. At least not all of it. So, it was basically a hollow threat. That was obvious from the get go. Will it change the final outcome? Maybe not but it still shows the ineptitude that Karma brought to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I still support these terms.. Eternal war for NPO is pretty much a dream come true as far as I'm concerned and we all know they could pay off any amount of reparations so it can never be only Karma held responsible for NPO's eventual disbandment. o/ o/ o/ 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.