Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Usually you are pretty good but read this and tell me how it was not over before we came to surrender terms: 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace [22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out So, again, ZH pulling out somehow absolves TPF of responsibility because...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I just don't get it. At last, you see the light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I did answer the question, and what's ridiculous is your antics without substance. Antics without substance? What does that even mean? I'm going to have to say that one. You've taken issue with me using the expression "barely out of the starting gate", and you say I lack substance, call me a fool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 At last, you see the light. Yes, continue to ignore the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Interesting, nobody outside of the alliances declaring war seem to have seen these logs. From what I've seen (and I actually sat back and read all the topics involved) nobody has any definite proof of any spying after the war. Pretty much, this CB is !@#$, and it reminds me of another certain war that happened during surrender terms.Actually, it's not. No proof has been brought to the table that they did continue spying. Only that they did during the war. Are you really comparing this to FAN? Well for one thing, FAN was under peace terms and completely destroyed. TPF, has been out of terms for a couple months now and has rebuilt to a nice level. Poor comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Antics without substance? What does that even mean? I'm going to have to say that one.You've taken issue with me using the expression "barely out of the starting gate", and you say I lack substance, call me a fool? It means you're talking without facts to back you up at all. Also yes, because your post was entirely without facts and I corrected you with it. When I showed you the proof so you could educate yourself without looking like a further tool, you try to sound witty and fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 So if I ask 5 Corporation nations to DoW 5 Invicta nations about 2 months from now, and 1 month from now they decide not to do it and they tell you the whole plan, you guys would be cool with me? Yeah, pretty much. At least I would. Honestly I would probably laugh a lot, and post pictures of your face near other fail rogue attempts that have been made against us in the past for such a hilarious scheme. I like it when people make me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Instead of discussing semantics and who was at war with who is there really nobody that cares to comment on the fact that we have proof that TPF let this operation run for almost a month after the war ended (until zh ended it). Because that seems to sort of break the whole defense thing going on here. 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace [22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out It ended BEFORE we got peace. Where do you get this "TPF let this operation run for almost a month after the war ended "? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Yeah, pretty much. At least I would. Honestly I would probably laugh a lot, and post pictures of your face near other fail rogue attempts that have been made against us in the past for such a hilarious scheme.I like it when people make me laugh. Good thing the rest of us actually care about our alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbacher Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Are you really comparing this to FAN? Well for one thing, FAN was under peace terms and completely destroyed. TPF, has been out of terms for a couple months now and has rebuilt to a nice level. Poor comparison. Rebuilt to a nice level, are u f***ing serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Yeah, pretty much. At least I would. Honestly I would probably laugh a lot, and post pictures of your face near other fail rogue attempts that have been made against us in the past for such a hilarious scheme.I like it when people make me laugh. I guess you and I are good, then. I wouldn't treat it with the same levity, but to each their own. Haf, you and I have been friendly but on opposite sides for years now, we should just have a beer or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm the Demented Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Usually you are pretty good but read this and tell me how it was not over before we came to surrender terms: 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace [22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out Find logs of mhawk telling them to stop, and I'll give you a cookie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2058085JBone says it ended late August. TPF surrendered August 4th. Late August was referenced in the Athens DoW....these logs 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace [22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out clearly show it was over before August 4th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Are you really comparing this to FAN? Well for one thing, FAN was under peace terms and completely destroyed. TPF, has been out of terms for a couple months now and has rebuilt to a nice level. Poor comparison. Sir, in GOLD I was unofficially allied to FAN. In BC I was almost allied to them before they were attacked. In Vox, I was allied to FAN officially. I know more then most people do outside of FAN, and I indeed do compare this situation to being as bad and as flimsy as the CB used against them by Q. And sure, TPF has been out of terms for a bit, however have only had about 3 months to rebuild by the looks of it. Sure, that's not quite as bad as FAN had it, but it's very close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Late August was referenced in the Athens DoW....these logs 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace [22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out clearly show it was over before August 4th. Shows it being over on ZH's side... not on TPFs. Again, how does that absolve TPF? I'm getting a complex from repeating myself here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) Shows it being over on ZH's side... not on TPFs. Again, how does that absolve TPF? I'm getting a complex from repeating myself here... Did TPF create another ZH afterwards? If yes, then it continued. If no, It's stopped and TPF didn't continue. However, you are going to try to argue without understanding basic facts or time, so this comment is entirely meaningless. You keep doing what you are doing. Edited December 28, 2009 by Dilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Did TPF create another ZH afterwards? If yes, then it continued. If no, It's stopped and TPF didn't continue. However, you are going to try to argue without understanding basic facts or time, so this comment is entirely meaningless. You keep doing what you are doing. I think you've missed the whole intent argument. I'm sorry if Athens won't wait till another sleeper alliance gives itself up, but they already know what mhawk tried to do and are punishing him for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 01[22:53] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> Yohan & I have to talk to hawk as soon as TPF accepts peace[22:53] <Beernuts|Away> aboot? 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> the op 01[22:54] <DrunkMonkey[ZH]> we're pulling out It ended BEFORE we got peace. Where do you get this "TPF let this operation run for almost a month after the war ended "? Actually it was from you that said ZH broke things off in late august earlier in this thread and the logs wich claim to be up until late august. If I have been misinformed then I'll just back off and sit this one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 So, again, ZH pulling out somehow absolves TPF of responsibility because...? Do you understand the meaning of the words, it was over before terms were signed? We take full responsibility for any and all plans we made during the war.....this particular plan, however ended before we surrendered.....and did not continue after we surrendered. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I think you've missed the whole intent argument. I'm sorry if Athens won't wait till another sleeper alliance gives itself up, but they already know what mhawk tried to do and are punishing him for it. "There might be more of them!" Let the witch hunts begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2058085JBone says it ended late August. TPF surrendered August 4th. heh, well I guess that's that then. NOt ending a spy ring that you had started after surrendering was a direct violation of your surrender terms. So I guess according to JBone this war is justified as well as any war declared by any alliances TPF surrendered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) It means you're talking without facts to back you up at all. Oh is that right? Somehow I doubt you have any idea what I'm saying. Seems to me like this is all stock argumentation from a hack. Take one irrelevant point and make a big deal about it, e-peen waved around, insult thrown. Also yes, because your post was entirely without facts and I corrected you with it. You corrected me with my post? Odd. When I showed you the proof so you could educate yourself without looking like a further tool, you try to sound witty and fail. Now I know who not to waste my substanceless antics on. Edited December 28, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Do you understand the meaning of the words, it was over before terms were signed?We take full responsibility for any and all plans we made during the war.....this particular plan, however ended before we surrendered.....and did not continue after we surrendered. Pretty simple. According to you it did, unless you consider the 4th "late August" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Did TPF create another ZH afterwards? If yes, then it continued. If no, It's stopped and TPF didn't continue. However, you are going to try to argue without understanding basic facts or time, so this comment is entirely meaningless. You keep doing what you are doing. I have as much proof it continued as you have that it stopped. That said, there is proof it started. Same question to you as I posted to Haf: Assuming NPO was out of terms, and I asked 5 of my members to DoW 5 of your members 2 months from now. 1 month from now they decide not to DoW your members, and they tell you the plan. Are you and I cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm the Demented Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Do you understand the meaning of the words, it was over before terms were signed?We take full responsibility for any and all plans we made during the war.....this particular plan, however ended before we surrendered.....and did not continue after we surrendered. Pretty simple. You seem to have missed the part where TPF explicitly told ZH to stop it's operations. Oh wait, that never happened. Just because the bomb didn't hit it's target doesn't mean TPF didn't hit the launch button. 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.