Sir Keshav IV
-
Posts
5,323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Sir Keshav IV
-
-
The distinct lack of countries such as India/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh is sad to see. Definitely have the finest national anthems. Also the German national anthem is up there too.
<= Indian National Anthem<= Pakistan National Anthem -
Eh my comment was more at mompson
Coming to your point I guess there are alliances with ambition and some who are fine with where they are. They tend to be moved like chess pieces only because they lack the ambition to become a mover. Now that could be because they don't want to be one or they have leaders without it. That's just how this game has always been I guess.
-
Eh Morals play a role only to a certain extent I believe, it's more the interests of the alliance first. I pretty much agree with that.
-
Gambhir deserved the MoM but o/ India
-
Awful game for someone without a team to support tbh. Hopefully the Sri Lanka-India game can be more entertaining. Some great batsmen, even if Murali and the Indian bowlers aren't in top form.India don't have good bowlers sadly except for Zaheer. Last match though was a better one for our bowlers. Should have seen em early on specially against England worst bowling line up one could find
-
With, as you call it, "Eggball", at least we can build stadiums for more the 29,000 spectators
There are Basketball arenas over here that seat pretty close to 29,000 people.
This is one of the smaller stadiums in India
-
That was one good match. Glad we won
Now off to Mumbai, Sri Lanka here we come
* Also its Wahab Riaz not Raza
-
He's worth more then Legion's reps
So handing over RV for a year would get Legion of the hook? -
I thought you hated me!
Your not bad yourself
-
Your older then me
Happy Birthday!
-
I don't think he is saying that he doesn't want to support an ally, but why an alliance support an ally's ally ? Which is why only then is the treaty considered a Non-Chaining. If a direct ally is attacked then it still is a MD. That's my opinion as to why non-chaining is needed also I do hope interpreted AlterEgo's post correctly.
-
Guess our foreign policy works
-
"Don't walk out on peace talks when an offer is given with no notice and the intent of refusing it then"
Please enlighten me.
We don't believe you. IE, we think you're a filthy liar that's going to take the offer off the table the second we accept. Find a way to convince us, or accept the offer we made. In the meantime, have a nice day, I'm done talking to you.He called DT filthy liars because the peace terms were off the table the moment you accepted. I responded by saying then don't walk out of peace talks with the intent of refusing it and then blame DT for taking it off the table.
-
Oh, so we stay in peace talks when we refuse the offer? I thought the refusal part meant the discussions were over... rats. :/
Not what I meant at all but okay.
-
We don't believe you. IE, we think you're a filthy liar that's going to take the offer off the table the second we accept. Find a way to convince us, or accept the offer we made. In the meantime, have a nice day, I'm done talking to you.
Don't walk out on peace talks when an offer is given with no notice and the intent of refusing it then
-
We accepted one of those terms. The terms were withdrawn after we accepted. The $%&@ off and refusing to talk are responses to that. You can offer us whatever you like, but we do not believe that a single offer you have made is genuine. You can either find a way to convince us you're making a genuine offer (I have no idea how you could do this, but its conceivable), or you can accept an offer we make. Throwing more offers that we don't expect you to actually sign is irrelevant.
Also, you might want to drop the whole 'we attacked Legacy not CSN' talking point, its one of the sources of our grievance with you, just makes us mad and less willing to talk.
I believe the terms were withdrawn the moment Goose left the talks with the intent of refusing it. Really it's not that hard to comprehend.
-
Nah Rihanna was hotter, Megan Fox isn't all that hot anymore Curzon D:
-
In other words, imagine if our coalition had Duckroll and TOP. You lose.
Not really no.
-
Wow I feel sorry for GOONS in those talks seriously, the sheer amount of dumbness shown by UPN in those talks would have made me want to DoW on them immediately, I mean harboring rogues and being dumb is valid CB or should be at least
-
GERMANY
-
-
if you wish to discuss that imposing your moral standards on another is wrong, then MK should not have attempted to force their moral standards on Polaris. yet they did just that. any discussion of what is right or wrong is inevitably a discussion on morals. thus, the fact that you felt Polaris was wrong in attacking \m/ is because to you, it is some moral foundation upon which you built your perception of right and wrong.
thus, you and CnG/PC/GOONS/\m/ are all pushing your own moral standard on the entire rest of us. to state you are not is false because if PC or GOONS or \m/ or Athens or FoB or any of your other allies were to raid an alliance and another third party (i.e. not allied to the victim) alliance would step in just as Polaris did, we would see ya'll do pretty much the same thing. we could even possibly see CnG be directly involved militarily in that conflict if the third party alliance is not allied to CnG as Polaris was.
now you may state that not all of CnG holds those views, but that is besides the point since CnG would be supporting those views held by a minority using military force.
thus, this whole discussion of moral standards is in and of itself, contradicting, hypocritical, and amusing. any attempt to state that no single alliance, bloc, or group of allies ever attempts to impose their moral standards on the rest of us is logically false, since every war boils down to moral standards. the fact that CnG see nothing wrong with keeping TOP at war, even for this long, shows that morally you feel justified in doing so. you feel justified in forcing your own moral standards on TOP/Co in the process. while it is true that ya'll are in fact, justified in this, it only shows that you are forcing your own moral standards on not only TOP/Co but the rest of us, who while on your side or against you, may oppose this action for one reason or another.
yet another moral standard that CnG is attempting to impose on the rest of CN is that of "preemptive attacks are wrong". while the move by TOP/co was idiotic beyond measure, this propaganda piece is one in which you (CnG) wish all to view using moralistic eyes. you wish for everyone to state that "yes it is wrong to preemptive attack and not only the aggression showed by TOP/co should be punished but more importantly it is the act of preemptive attacking CnG that makes this action even more reprehensible" style post.
so how can you claim that CnG dislikes those who force moral standards on others, when ya'll are frequently doing it and have done it since Karma. Archon, as the "Voice of Karma", used his eloquent speech to force moral standards on others. not only Archon but many in CnG did just that. in fact, the primary reasoning for the Old Heg using Karma as some sort of beacon of community standards reflects the amount of talking from the Karma side on exactly that. Community Standards and how the "Hegemony" had broken those conventions.
so if CnG, as you state, or MK at the very least, dislikes those who force their moral standards on others- do ya'll dislike yourselves?
again, you impose your own moral standard on whether the CB was justified or not, while supporting \m/'s/PC's/GOONS' right to aggressively attack whomever they feel like without a CB at all. this is the entire reasoning MK and Polaris ended up at odds, was MK felt that PC/GOONS/\m/ did nothing wrong (a moral standard) and that Polaris had done something wrong (yet another moral standard) and thus, wished to impose your (MK's) moral standard on Polaris by way of getting them to give peace to \m/ instead of remaining neutral in the war.
I should have been more clear in my original post so please forgive me, No one has the right to use "brutal force."* What we did see in the \m/ situation was that Polaris was in the wrong by using "brutal force" to achieve changing \m/ very standard of playing. That is terribly wrong because each and every alliance has a unique community and play differently and when someone uses "brutal force" to change that it is wrong. No I am not supporting what PC/\m/ did. They were in the wrong as well. If you ask me they have been in the wrong many times but the way it was handled is wrong.
MK didn't use "brutal force" on Polar and tried changing their community. We worked for peace. That in no means is forcing something onto Polar.
If Athens/FoB/PC/\m/ do something like that, the only reason CnG supports it is because they are allies. We are willing to work on a middle path instead of war. We might not agree with what our allies did but that doesn't mean we are just going to drop them and make new friends. These are friends who have stood with us through thick and thin. Dropping them over a mistake is idiotic. We aren't at any point supporting "brutal force" on any alliance to change their moral standards. What we are doing is making sure they know we have their backs while the issue is sorted out with the aggrieved alliances. I don't see how in anyway that is wrong Doch.
*Brutal Force: In this context it is an act of war.
I will reply to your other points in a bit. Just have some RL work to do first Doch.
PS: That other guy trying to do precis my post don't and thank you.
-
However, that's exactly what \m/ and PC and GOONS did when they declared on FoA.
You have no problem with these three alliances ganging up on one smaller alliance, with their only reason being "We're bigger than you, you can't stop us".
But when NpO declared on \m/ it's OMG, FAKE CB, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!
Sorry, but if your own argument is that any alliance can declare for any reason, the way that \m/ and friends did, then you can't complain about NpO following the same rules.
Well, obviously you *can* complain. Your side does all the time. But it makes no logical sense.
Interesting, I have never heard of the GOONS/PC-FoA conflict apart from the corporation helping wrap peace up. That is a conflict I know nothing about sorry.
Now NpO was not a FAKE CB get that right. Its just an invalid justification being used.
I'm sorry, I guess nothing written by us considered logical because its not o/ TOP right? Nice.
-
you are saying there that a ally should not support another ally. i think you're saying this because they aren't your allies but w/e. my advice, don't try to tell someone how to come to the aid of another ally.
if moral standards aren't uphold then we'd all run amok around here calling each other names. which i think /m/ already did
you're right... CnG = new hegemony and, since we all know the people in there won't hurt a fly, they are pretty harmless. then again... how come CnG members always flood the boards with how evil the other side is and how they (the other side) deserve to be kept in eternal war/curbstomped etc etc??
To address your first point: TOP had allies on our side as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't have aided IRON financially, but military aid was not needed. Oh and I just addressed TOP's point about how the war would have happened anyways if the NpO one continued.
To Address your second point: We all have our different moral standards. Its not in the hands of ONE or a GROUP of alliances to set the whole standard for this game.
To Address you third point: We never said we are keeping TOP in eternal war, nor have we curbstomped anyone.
So handing over RV for a year would get Legion of the hook? 
Where the players are from
in Admin's Blog
A blog by admin in General
Posted
Yes