Jump to content

Rooman33

Members
  • Content Count

    948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rooman33

  • Rank
    Conservative
  • Birthday 11/04/1985

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Viridian Entente
  • Nation Name
    Rooland
  • Alliance Name
    Viridian Entente
  • Resource 1
    Iron
  • Resource 2
    Pigs
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    War Doves

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rooman33
  • Website URL
    http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=100319
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta

Recent Profile Visitors

817 profile views
  1. I endorse the GOP-ness of the OP. Very clever. Also, o/ VE
  2. Sad to retire our AA. Happy to reward VE for their years of support. O/ GOP O/ VE O/ Green
  3. Well, it's a much better looking crop of leaders, that's for certain. Happy to see the alliance in such good hands. o/ GOP
  4. Actually, it's because he continues to buy back his losses and I didn't (or haven't, yet). Much in the same way that the DBDC AA has masked its losses by adding new members throughout the war. But you're right, I won't be bigger than I was pre-war. Oh drat.
  5. Yep. Significant damage despite him downdeclaring 100k NS and having two other top 15 nations fighting me alongside him. Though not as significant as Tim. I'm curious, is this state of denial driven by an outright hatred of the GOP or of me, or is it hinged on some belief that your "power" in this world depends on people fearing your super top tier? If the former, we get it - you don't like us. No one cares. If the latter, I'm not sure pinging me - to keep bringing up the fact that your "elite" downdeclared by 100k NS and still took heavy damages from a "bill locked" "noob" nation - is doi
  6. The point was he took significant damage despite downdeclaring well over 100k NS on a nation that should have been bill locked already ;) And Tim only edged me out in damage by a margin of 55% to 45% - despite the fact that he downdeclared 100k NS and nuked me every day (though I didn't nuke him every day) - all, again, with no warchest. Yeah man... I sure am awful at fighting. Bones down-declared after two rounds of fighting (the first where I helped wipe out MQ's top two nations, the second where I managed to deal significant damage to DBDC's top two nations despite their significan
  7. I fought so "horribly" that you and two of your top-10 cronies took significant damage from me, and in some cases were only just barely able to edge me out in damage, despite your 100k NS advantage (each) and the fact that I should have been bill-locked a week before you declared on me? Hahaha! You guys crack me up. Hey everybody, look what a terrible fighter I am! Hahahahaha...
  8. I will give our opposition this, they have absolutely outflanked us on the OWF proxi troll front. You, sir, are a riot. Also, hey look at all this "limp-wristedness."
  9. That's a lovely diatribe of personal insults, but your arguments hold no merit. I don't think you've managed to string two accurate statements together throughout this entire thread. It seems your only purpose here is to insult me and the GOP. Seems to me a lonely, unsatisfying existence. But to each his own.
  10. That's the kind of thinking that got DBDC into its current mess. ;) Our politics and stances are the same they've always been. If you're only just now noticing us, or realizing we mean what we say, then that's on you. If you want to "raid" us, that's on you too.
  11. How are we defining "treaty," exactly? Because if it's just a mutual agreement between two or more parties, the GPA had that for years too with other alliances signing their DoN. But treaties in this world have always had a more elevated stature - stating what political actions the alliances must support of/for one another. We've actually railed against the "absurdity of treaties," particularly chaining ones, for years. Our agreement with VE doesn't really fit into the classical mold of a "treaty." All we did was restate which aspects of our soft neutrality could, at our discretion, benefit VE
  12. Winning? A desire to fight on our own terms? To not have the conditions of our fight dictated to us by bullies? Three weeks of fighting against an enemy who for most of that time has had more than twice our avg. NS? I dunno, take your pick. We're fine with it. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, etc.
  13. Ah, so you can't reference a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. Thanks for making my point. We entered to defend neutrality, as you noted. And, therefore, our own interests (see the 3+year old DTOM we referenced in the OP). And so your earlier statement that GOP "is the only alliance still pretending to have entered to defend TDO" is completely false, because we've never said we entered to defend TDO. You seem to have a real problem reading words as they appear, and not as you'd like them to - that's true both of MQ's obvious, broad "jihad" on neutrality, and o
  14. Please link to a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. I'll wait.
×
×
  • Create New...