Commisar Gaunt

plz no

Please don't do this

[quote name='dalstrs' date='01 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1272751305' post='2283054'] What exactly are you 'king' of? [/quote] It takes a lot to manage that ego of his tbh

.-~* ThE CaLLoUt *~-.

Gre don't betray your CODEX!!!!!

[quote name='President Buseje' date='31 March 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1270009832' post='2241859'] Urrrgh, this is ridiculous. Waking up to find your alliance being absorbed by another, and then applying to the new one only to be treated like a child and expected to tediously recite the basics in some 'Academy' process, MK is treating our members like newbies and colonies, the least they could show is show respect an leniency to us, it's not like most of us chose to have our alliance get absorbed like this. Screw that, seriously. [/quote] We make [b]everyone[/b] do the academy. If you truly know your stuff then it shouldn't be a problem.

Aggressor, n Definition: attacker, instigator Antonyms: retaliator, victim it's funny though, because it's TOP and co who are the victims of their own aggression

ctrl-f 'hegemonic' found welp

You've got to be kidding me Dochartaigh. We're not the Hegemony, we never will be the Hegemony. All you do is spew the same tired crap all over the forums. If you were talking like that during the time of the old Hegemony, you would probably find yourself on some sort of list to be hit. CnG is just as tired of this war as everyone else--it's a little thing called negotiation that takes time. We're not doing this on purpose. We're actually talking to TOP instead of keeping them in permanent war just for the hell of it. I expected better of you Bob Janova, but apparently your loyalties and need to make someone out to CNs devil is clouding your logic center. Just because we're apparently "on top" at the moment doesn't mean we're trying to be any sort of Hegemony. Being at the top of the game doesn't make us the bad guys. It's just the way the cards fall.

[quote name='Starbuck' date='08 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1268082819' post='2218282'] Voted that TOP keep fighting, focus on the alliances your fighting one at a time, put everything into taking out one alliance and then move to the next. [/quote] It's almost as if you don't know what being staggered does

[quote name='Bob Sanders' date='07 March 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1268016434' post='2217491'] Wow, this is absolutely laughable, is she going to spam and photoshop you out of the war? I can't imagine that TOP has a single member less qualified to lead. [/quote] Wow, that's not very nice.

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1267989070' post='2217033'] Well, from all the posts coming from CnG members that insist on a moral outrage, thus on punitive reparations, or the idea that it actually were possible to completely pay the damage of this war via reparations, seems to indicate quite a few people actually being butthurt. And until you guys are willing to talk business, and not whine about immorality or expect a full compensation of the damage done in this war, it seems to me that you aren't quite as rationale and cool headed as you say you are (or as you personally may be ). [/quote] Sadly, by your standards of whining and butthurt, you fall in the same category. It's really unproductive to keep that up. At the end of the day, both sides are just complaining about the reps. Both sides are arguing TOPs entrance into this war. Both sides have some sort of idea that the other side thinks is moronic. That being said, TOP skipping out on making this war just about treaty obligations by attacking us "preemptively" really takes the prize

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1267987996' post='2217016'] I don't care about you guys, I am just wondering when you get over being so butthurt and start acting a bit more rationally. I mean, if you want to keep us in war permanently because you are so pissed at us for attacking you guys, fine, say so. But if you have any any interest in getting this over with, and on top get tech/money from us, you can come and talk with us about more reasonable terms, and I am sure we will be very open for them. [/quote] If you ever wanted reasonable terms, perhaps you should have fought in a reasonable war. That being said, it's been shown that our definitions of reasonable clearly don't match up, in terms of terms OR war. Your no u arguments are just going around in circles at the moment. Nobody on any side is "butthurt", as both sides seem extremely willing to continue fighting.

[quote name='Believland' date='07 March 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1267943576' post='2216709'] I could care less [/quote] You heard it here first

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='07 March 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1267947363' post='2216730'] and my argument was with that one person. just because you came in means nothing. the debate was due to what the person posted and my response was entirely based off of that. i called ya'll hypocrites based off of what he said and ain't denying it. i can understand your confusion though. i am not stating, nor have i ever stated that everyone in MK is saying this. i simply make an argument in order to debate said post. but in reality, based off of your own argument in this post, i can easily call ya'll hypocrites since you are in fact attempting to enforce your standards on TTDiT. as you stated in this very post, "When people crash our party, they play by our rules". while this is perfectly reasonable given the situation, it is still attempting to enforce your standards on others. so i am unclear how your argument actually debates mine seeing as it is only slightly different from the original post i responded to. in case of the original post it was more about the community as a whole, whereas yours is about CnG or just MK. either way, it is still fairly clear that you are attempting to enforce your standards on others (in this case the losing side). i did reread it. it stated what i said it stated not what you said it stated. also, yeah, my definition was nebulous all the way... while i admit my first definition was not as specific, it was not nebulous by any means. my second definition (the one given to neneko later on in the same post) was more specific mainly due to it giving an example, but still was the same as the first definition. so you can continue to try and debunk/debate my definition but will fail. the reason why a preemptive attack cannot simply be called a surprise attack is that a surprise attack can be used in the middle of an ongoing war whereas a preemptive attack is done only at the very beginning of the war. hence why it usually contains an element of surprise. i actually figured on people being intelligent and that i would not have to fully explain what a preemptive attack was but it seems that i should simply not assume that and just fully explain everything lest people start with some inane argument in a some desperate attempt to debate what i state. either way, just because i state an attack has an "element of surprise" does not mean that "zomg, it is a surprise attack"... [/quote] Your definition of preemptive attack is uninteresting and ultimately irrelevant, as Supergrievances is now the leading and unchallenged superpower in CN. With the advent of the New Hegemony we'll make sure you get the proper reeducation you need to survive in our brave new world. You seem to be on the right track with the sheer quantity of posts you've been making but as this is the New World Order 2.0™ we're looking for an improvement in quality as well. As your arguments tend to go "hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy just as bad as them ruining the game hypocrisy", I'll be looking for something fresh and new in the future, as well as something that involves capitalization at the beginning of words.

Look at the tears! "Crippling reps", misuse of "nuts", don't ZI the nuke rogue we're harboring!

Yes, generous. It's nice of them to share such comedic material.

NUTS!

You would think that if you were an "art alliance" that your banner would look just a little better ehhhhhh

[quote name='bigwoody' date='03 March 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1267636435' post='2212723'] Are you implying you intend to use sanctions in this war? [/quote] It's common practice to use sanctions on rogues, sure

A flag only second in magnificence to Fly's flag

They are attempting to hide. We're keeping track of them anyways, so it doesn't matter too much. Also, it's apparent to me that Iron Will decided to hide out in Ejay's AA for quite some time during this war. Not only is it embarrassing for a nation of his size to jump ship to avoid hitting/being hit, but it looks pretty poor on Ejay when he allows such behavior, especially when he used to wave the pretense of being "neutral" around.

Hardly puffing my chest. You seem stuck in your new found role as a martyr, while the dirty laundry in your past clearly shows that you can't take what you dish out. The greatest predictor of future actions are past actions. Why should we believe what you have to say now, while you scramble for PR? Why would we have had any other reason to believe that you guys didn't come in for a chance to bloody us up, like TOP's DoW states?

Listen here bigwoody. Throughout your long and illustrious history, you and your buds have trailed on the coattails of stronger alliances than you and received reps extorted from those whom you've aggressively attacked. Now that taking reps isn't the politically correct thing to do when you're on the aggressive side, of course you would say you wanted white peace from the start. The tables have turned. You attacked us first, you get to pay for the housekeeping. Just because your little aggressive stunt backfired doesn't mean that you're the brave heroes in this situation, fighting off a monstrously aggressive force who was always hell bent on your destruction. Until you've lived under the threat of that for most of your alliance's history, then you can talk. Until then, reap some karma.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1267549305' post='2211416'] Ok, now you're just changing your talking point. The main reason we wanted a quick white peace was to help on other fronts and win the war. But at least you got what we wanted (white peace) right this time, have a gold star. [/quote] Wrong answer! I still believe that they set out to cause as much damage as possible. Causing damage and then wanting white peace (to escape further harm to their warchests of course!) at the end are not mutually exclusive.