Havamil

Welcome to the party goons, this will make it a bit more enjoyable at the lower ends

O/ Anarchy Inc. The ends are just the beginning

[quote name='MrCynic' timestamp='1323138523' post='2864781'] You, Buds, challenged me to find an insult. I found one. I never said that you, personally, were the one who insulted the RIA. Therefore I assumed I did not have to find an insult from you. I don't think you did insult us at any point. [/quote] It almost sounds to me like your insulting yourself, way too many circles in that phrase not too

[quote name='The Sicilian Job' timestamp='1322658968' post='2856915'] Are not a bot [/quote] you sure? write I am not a bot in this box

Love the dow, good luck and have fun out there

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1322424646' post='2853940'] QFT. I love how they pulled up an IRON NAP they completely forgot about and tried to e-lawyer it into a oDoAP. EDIT: And if it was an oDoAP, then it was canceled due to Karma surrender terms Reference: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63887]Click[/url] [/quote] Maybe it became one of those paperless treaties that were so popular for awhile?

[quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1322337986' post='2852787'] So because something has been brought up many times before, makes it invalid for justification for my point? If anything surely it having been rehashed over and over again makes it more relevant to backing up a point? To be honest, I couldnt give a rat's ass what or whom has discussed things elsewhere. I was asked to give examples and point towards the actions I have experienced and seen that would justify my position of being disappointed. I did this. And they are valid - personal opinion or not. I was there, I and many others argued within the coalition not to approach it this way. Even without NpO's actions it was felt like a bad move. Acting within a coalition without a majority approval, and then saying it was in the greatest interest for the coalition is ballsy. Not improper because I guess they had majority in the individuals who mattered - but selfish to act for your own purposes against the wishes of others. GK [/quote] It's a never ending circle and no justification will come of it unless it fits your "point" I was there also and don't remember seeing you in the planning chans. but it was a while ago. Who were you arguing it with about it being the wrong move ?

[quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1322336031' post='2852767'] TOP's actions to hit pre-emptively against CnG in my opinion was a selfish action, which put your own desires ahead of the coalition as a whole. How alliances, friends of old, treated NPO as well in Karma and after is what I refer to with regards to disloyalty - and not necessarily aimed at TOP. As I am trying to lump the declarations of both TOP and IRON into my disappointment. GK [/quote] "TOP's actions to hit pre-emptively against CnG in my opinion was a selfish action, which put your own desires ahead of the coalition as a whole." Personal opinion which you have a right to.= Inarguable The rest of your statement has been rehashed over and over again in this and other threads, and is becoming rather boring. Try something new already sheesh

I'm thinking maybe the wrong person was booted and fed to the raiders. Sometimes silence is golden.

Have fun Iron and Top. Paybacks can be rewarding [IMG]http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o466/5150wolf_album/avatars/bearcoat.gif[/IMG]

Lines being drawn O/ uhhh wait a minute

About flipping time you guys got back together again, Good luck to all involved. o/ TTK o/ Valhalla

[quote]You stated quite plainly he got them into this which in a manner of speaking is true - he set events in motion to get to this point - but also misleading as the two decisions which determined the outcome were made by other individuals. He did not assume control of Olympus and declare on his own nation nor did he assume control of AcTi nations and declare war on Olympus with them. His part is limited.[/quote] True, and he also just booted the one person that did actually call up the alliance to defend, before having knowledge of the events leading up to it. This person also realized what had happened and tried to make things right for acTi, so his part isnt as limited as you are suggesting. [quote]THe number of nations was the yes or no question. After that you began to trash Battalion, which I'm in different to. There's merely a part of your post which depending upon your intentions is either factually incorrect or misleading.[/quote] the number of nations is a fact, trashing is incorrect, try challenging to see who is more willing to take care of his alliance [quote]To clarify or correct the part of your post I quoted and responded to.[/quote] clarify i can understand, correct? meh, [quote]No, that job belongs to God and Rebel Virginia had done a far better job with that role than I could ever hope to aspire to. In fact I rather wish he'd revive it.[/quote] I dont think God really has any interest in this, or did i miss a treaty somewhere?

Overall we agree on the first point regarding bob, though as fickle as the majority is, ever changing policies and beliefs due to convenience are not irregular. So a true definition relies on the individuals acceptance. Shifting blame? no, your trying to put a twist on a simple informative statement. It was a simple yes or no answer asked of a certain person, your business in it would be what? that of the the overseer of bobs business? thanks for the useless input

the culture of Bob? Please do fill me in oh so wise one. the rest i really cant respond to as i cant make heads or tails of it.

from hear say, (Im not gov) teddyo was working on getting peace for the rest of the alliance. Could that be a reason he was booted by an

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1312067360' post='2767868'] Uhhh ok you do that [/quote] why not?

acTi started out with 42 nations on their AA they are currently down to 18? What does that tell you battalion? Were you willing to help them out of the bill lock you've gotten most of your guys/gals into? I personally have offered to help out where i can to get your "friends" out of bill lock now that they have ended their wars. Good to see someone is looking out for your alliance eh?

Well golly gosh, oh gee willuckers, I jus cant believe yall done posted this dribble. good luck with it though, Sometimes its just better to let the ill recover.

Congrats on the new treaty, but tequila and mead? that would make for a rough morning

so if someone did raid thriller, darkfall defended and couldnt handle the nation that raided thriller you wouldnt activate the mdoap to help out the one on whatever? just curious

[quote name='Style #386' timestamp='1303446172' post='2696265'] This isn't the response I'd be expecting from the leader of an alliance which has just been flagrantly attacked without cause, but I guess you don't have all that much of a choice, do you? [/quote] your'e right they dont have a chain of protectorates to depend on. tis a shame

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1303438303' post='2696132'] I want to make it clear, and Londo knows this, we talked. Any Thriller nation on the Athens AA is not afforded protection of the alliance. Athens never, at any point, and never will, support the type of action carried out by Thriller. [/quote] like it matters, since they are protected inderectly my MK and TPE through the little guys protecting em now

I still find it amusing how alliances that are under a protectorate offer protection through a chain. Rather amusing how the treaty chains become so obliterated by bs. have fun with this

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1303096565' post='2692294'] You're making a huge assumption here when you say we're not putting in effort. Both sides of this discussion have been "lacking in effort" if that is what you want to say is going. I'm just going to leave it there. [b]Our current method is how we want to go about it and we will continue to go about it that way. [/b] Changing targets, rather than escalating, is what we were told you were doing when we asked what was going on, which we all agreed would not happen. It seems like the same thing to me personally. [/quote] would the bolded part be considered attitude or arrogance? Guess some things don't really change over time eh?