Jump to content

Krack

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    653

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Krack

  3. Omniscient1

    Posted

    jerdge, not my fault. Krack called me out.
    Yes, I did. You consistently and conveniently leave out of your diatribes and impotent machinations that (1) you are the person primarily responsible for the state of Planet Bob that you incessantly complain about, and (2) you had no problem whatsoever with this type of behavior when you were an active participant.You're the CN embodiment of the word "hypocrite" - and that's really saying something when you are talking about Cybernations and the OWF.
    I don't understand how that makes him a hypocrite. You are essentially saying things never change.Things have changed. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

    Oh, then I will explain it to you ...

    A hypocrite is someone who professes a philosophy, set of virtues or way of behaving, yet does not follow it himself. This describes Roquentin perfectly because the behavior he (correctly) chastises as abhorrent, was the same behavior he encouraged, emboldened and supported when he believed he was a decision maker in the hegemony.

    He has situational ethics and an ever changing moral code.

    tl;dr:

    It was okay then; it's not okay now. The only thing that has changed is that they threw him out and he knows he's not in charge anymore.

  4. Omniscient1

    Posted

    jerdge, not my fault. Krack called me out.

    Yes, I did. You consistently and conveniently leave out of your diatribes and impotent machinations that (1) you are the person primarily responsible for the state of Planet Bob that you incessantly complain about, and (2) you had no problem whatsoever with this type of behavior when you were an active participant.

    You're the CN embodiment of the word "hypocrite" - and that's really saying something when you are talking about Cybernations and the OWF.

  5. Omniscient1

    Posted

    Um, you're dumb Krack. The NS exists. Am I going to have to do all the target lists and match-ups in advance to show they can? Omni is an ODN senator, by the way.

    Oh, sure ... the NS exists in theory. However, I live in a world where half the game players don't even pay attention (and would have no idea if a war had begun), where a ton of the available NS is tied up in neutrals that are content to sit there until the next time someone decides to destroy them, and where much of the remaining NS will not (and can not) work with others in the remaining NS (even to further a mutual goal).

    But, by all means, go back to pretending there's an insurrection around the corner. It's cute.

    Omni is an ODN senator, by the way.

    Omni could be the Pope of Planet Bob and he's still not able to change reality.

  11. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    Krack, those points were not raised when giving NPO, an alliance with a much lower tech build than MK had had before it, reps as high as they did.

    I don't even know what this sentence means, but I'm fairly certain I don't really care since its protagonist appears to be NPO and they aren't involved in this war at all.

    Regarding damage, MK in noCB specifically targeted their nukes where they would do the most damage (nations with high infra and no SDI, and forced several NPO nations into deletion through anarchy collections. MK had around 1500 nukes back then if I remember right, compared to around 3000 TOP ones pre-war, but SDI coverage was much lower so the number of successful hits would probably be around the same. You'd need to get MK and NPO people to find out exactly, of course.

    Hmm ... I bet MK's tech levels back then were much, much higher than what TOP's are right now, so their 50% less nukes, proportionately, caused the same amount of infrastructure damage. Right? And I bet that MK's targets 18 months ago had much higher infrastructure levels than TOP's current targets, so that when their nukes hit, it was almost the exact same economic setback, proportionately, as C&G is seeing today. Right? Because otherwise, your entire argument falls apart - and you wouldn't come here with an argument that falls apart that quickly and easily, would you?

  12. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    Regarding proportionality, MK at the time of noCB was 170 members, TOP now is 204, and you're asking for roughly four times as much tech (from TOP) as you (MK) were asked for back then. So the reparation demands are three times worse than Hegemonic. And yes, TOP broke a convention of war by declaring pre-emptively, but so did MK in noCB, going completely nuke-free. Being hypocritcal by only a factor of 1.5 would be more reasonable.

    Anybody else find it funny when Bob starts a paragraph with "Regarding proportionality" and then proceeds to ignore concepts like:

    1. The percentage of MK's total tech that was asked for at the time of noCB versus the percentage of TOP's tech asked for now in reparations, and

    2. The total amount of damage caused by MK back then versus the total amount of damage caused by TOP in the current war?

    I don't even know what the answers are to these two questions, but since they are the most obvious questions to ask, and Bob ignored them completely, I have a feeling proportionately-speaking C&G and company (I suppose that includes myself) are behaving like saints.

  13. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    C'mon, these are fake. I can prove it. I specifically demanded that Crymson be made my butler for a year as Aloha's surrender terms. I don't see that anywhere in there. And what about the review of Episode 7 of Season 7 of Little House on the Prairie that I wanted from IRON? It's a big "Almanzo" episode and I think the Cybernations community would like to know what happened!

×
×
  • Create New...