Thomas Jackson

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='21 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266779392' post='2195283'] Which means of course if these 'fringe' members that you seem to be implying exist of quantities greater than one actually exist, and they care at all about the "core" members and all that the core members have done for them by welcoming them into our collective brother/sisterhood in arms, they will stay with us, even unto the bitter end. Because ultimately, we will have their back in a way that no one else will. Whether that is on the battlefield now, or after the war as we grow together again in peace. [/quote] To be perfectly honest, I thought the most we would get is three. The one who surrendered was not the one who I thought would, but I think the one I originally thought would surrender hasn't been paying attention lately. But as fare as core members, no, I wouldn't expect any unless they were destroyed to the point of incapability, and even then surrender would be a long shot.

[quote name='RePePe' date='21 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1266774737' post='2195175'] It's obvious. I honestly have no clue how you could miss it. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80931&view=findpost&p=2193958 [/quote] Perhaps not all of your nations are up to the task of fighting this war forever? That is what the terms are for: those who are unable or unwilling need not fight if they cannot or do not wish to. One of your nations was being hammered, didn't seem to be getting aid, and surrendered because they felt like Valhalla had left them out to dry. I don't believe that's the case, as I doubt he was the highest priority to receive aid. Perhaps your core members are in this for the long haul, but not every single member of Valhalla is. Perhaps they'll take these terms, as one did. This frees up slots to further attack the members that matter.

[quote name='Havamil' date='20 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1266695022' post='2193996'] This is the "Valhallan" that you took prisoner. Just fyi he has posted his resignation on our boards. Hes your problem now. If these are the kind of surrenders you are looking for I have to thank you. It helps us clean out the weak links [/quote] [quote name='Alterego']The public humilation of a PoW is a low and vile thing to do just so you could get one up on people who made you admit to your initial lies. This is utterly pathetic...[/quote] He will be coming by shortly to chastise you as well, you monster!

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1266691675' post='2193902'] \m/ is now 100% [i]ad hominem[/i] based instead? [/quote] Apparently one statement constitutes 100% of everything \m/ has ever said.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='20 February 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1266671744' post='2193543'] They don't each a lot of public relations classes around your office building do they there, Marxie? See...I've kinda gone out of my way to try to help you guys out a bit and give your part in this fight some validity and this is my reward? Good luck I guess in getting the other 79 of us to surrender. At your current rate of progress, you be ZIed about 1/3 of the way through the roster. EDIT/PROTIP: Less RAD, more quietly ruining games, man...just sayin' [/quote] Thanks for the advice, but we do not want or need it. \m/ is now 100% ChairmanHal free for a reason.

Very classy post, Graphix. Props to you, good sir.

All this fighting is nice, but I think it's better when done on the battlefield.

[quote name='Anarcho Jesse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266551185' post='2191266'] The LSF is not a large alliance. Yet, for the seeming insignificance that we're being told we have, we still haven't been pushed out of the war. Why do you think this is? [/quote] Perhaps because your opponents have more to worry about, although with UCN out, your words will surely increase the GOONS war effort upon LSF. Good going there, hero.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1266549304' post='2191141'] It wouldn't be GOONS without #2. Good luck to our allies. [/quote] And the bawwing begins! Congrats to our brothers at Poison Clan on another victory!

The shareholders have spoken! Keep on seizing them assets, Corp.

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1266522206' post='2190043'] What? PC was not affiliated with FAN other than being friends which you have stated, FAN already had the numerical/NS/nuke/and a few others advantages over us the second we declared war. [/quote] I believe he could also be referring to little p declaring on \m/ "in defense" of FoA.

Have fun bagging them commies GOONS!

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='18 February 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1266480787' post='2189340'] [center][img]http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq240/Rebel_Virginia/failmark4.jpg?t=1265310979[/img] [size="5"]Imperial Decree from the New FAIL Order[/size][/center] [color="#0000FF"]Look! Look! Look at me! Guys, seriously! Look! Come on, look! I'm still here! Guys! Look! Look! Look! YOU GUYS, SERIOUSLY! Signed, God Emperor Rebel Virginia, Hero of the Pacific, Savior of GATO, Destroyer of Atlantis, Scourge of Sparta, and Defender of All That is Good and Right in the World[/color] [/quote] I have created a Cliffnotes of this esteemed document. I hope it comes to be of great use to you all.

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1266474767' post='2189083'] I am not insulting your surrender terms, it is normal to post them, what I am stating is that I doubt any Valhallan (or BAPS) would choose to surrender to the alliance doing the least damage to them and so these are pointless but needed because people would baww about it later. The only insulting thing is that claim about members wanting to surrender which both BAPS and Valhalla have stated as not true (except for ghosts but nobody counts them) and is pure propaganda. [/quote] I doubt the nation referred to is a ghost. It has existed for 91 days, and has been in Valhalla for those 91 days. It has also been aided several times, engaged in tech deals, and received packages of money, tech and soldiers. Either Valhalla treats their ghosts with the utmost care and respect or its not a ghost.

Those are some swell terms, congrats on the peace. To those still on the field, keep having fun and to those departing, good luck rebuilding.

[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844'] Given that you're a triumvir in the alliance that is offering the terms, can you really be depended upon to provide an impartial opinion on these terms?[/quote] Apparently we're going to need to clearly start denoting things as sarcasm - this one flew right over your head. Also, as someone who has very clearly proven to be biased against \m/, can [i]you[/i] be trusted to give an impartial opinion on these terms? Let's keep reading... [quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']That said, I don't see how forcing that ridiculous soldier % term on anyone can be called fair, honorable or just, as you're almost certainly have included it only so that you will have an excuse to attack any PoWs who might mistakenly have more than 25% (perhaps you'll ZI them, as noted in term #9; that term doesn't seem so fair, honorable or just either---it certainly seems severe!). Given that one can buy his or her nation's maximum number of soldiers in all of ten seconds, what other use could that term have?[/quote] Jumping to conclusions are we? Do you really believe we're so evil and terrible that we'd write that into the terms so that we can continue to obliterate BAPS and/or Valhalla well after this war ends? It seems as if you attacked the wrong group of alliances, for clearly we are the true hegemony. Also, you completely and utterly failed to respond to the point brought up by Arcturus Jefferson. He references to a previous remark you made [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16985]here[/url], which I will also quote to save everyone time: [quote name='Crymson']Hopefully the GPA learned from this situation in general. They have nothing to fear so long as they remain neutral, but if they create political incidents they'll be dealt with just as would be any other alliance. That said, cheers and hugs to all those alliances and individuals alongside whom TOP fought in this war. Job well done.[/quote] Really? You don't bat an eye at forcing the payment of 10,000 tech (then unprecedented I believe), a similar ratio limit on soldiers, as well as similar terms regarding tanks, cruise missiles, nuclear missiles and improvements. However, our terms lack the meddling clause, as well as the ability to re-declare war on an entire alliance should one nation break the terms. So, with the previous differences mentioned, all else that remains different is a 5% differential in the amount of soldiers per population allowed and there is absolutely [i]zero[/i] (compared to 10,000) tech reparations in these terms, they're quite similar. So why are the terms given for the Woodstock Massacre so jolly and good, while the ones we have imposed are seen as unfair and dishonorable? Should we add that 10,000 tech must be paid to TOP as part of the terms? Might that make it fair and just in your eyes? [quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']Anyway, this is all moot, because it's very unlikely that individuals of such high fighting quality as the members of BAPS (Edit: or Valhalla; sorry, I missed your name in the OP) will surrender to you. [/quote] It does not matter how unlikely the possibility of surrenders are, the fact remains that the possibility exists. From my current engagements, along with other reports I have heard, a good number of nations have very little to no money left. Should this be true, perhaps we will see a few surrenders. I'm not expecting scores and scores of them, as both Valhalla and BAPS have a very die-hard core of members, but I do not see it as so unreasonable to offer a way out for those who are not as gung-ho and do not have a means to continue the fight. Should they peace out, then that will open our slots to press the attack onto those who [i]do[/i] still care, and who still [i]will[/i] fight. Further destruction of those nations is what will end this conflict. I am sure you will wave this off with another cutesy attempt at being a tough guy, but you're fooling no one but yourself.

[quote name='Lord Panda' date='16 February 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1266376769' post='2186861'] What is a man?! -wine glass- A petty little bag of secrets! But enough talk, have at you! [/quote] Miserable little pile of secrets is the correct line IIRC. [OOC]Great, now I want to play through that game AGAIN.[/OOC]

[quote name='Lord Panda' date='16 February 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1266375799' post='2186792'] Your words are as empty as your soul. ...Yes, all I wanted to do was make a Castlevania reference. Sue me. [/quote] Mankind ill needs a savior such as you!

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1266358705' post='2186313'] Aww... is something wrong? Can I help you with the fear that is driving you to not respond to my argument? [/quote] Your argument has already been handled multiple times today. If you wish for me to repeat them to you, then please notify me. Maybe you'll get it on the third or fourth repeat.

[quote name='Alterego' date='16 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266348898' post='2185967'] Re-arming and re-entering the war are much different than having 26% troops but both would result in a ZI sentence from /m\ This term turns a nation from a POW into a lifer depending on the /m\ood of /m\ [/quote] Can you find me anywhere where we have stated that not being at strictly 25% will result in being ZId? I'd like to imagine our triumvirs have better things to do than make sure POWs have exactly 25% troops at all times. Your argument is completely baseless and you know it.

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266346570' post='2185895'] Would you like to get together on IRC sometime, so I can train you in how to form a viable thesis? I would be very happy to help. Please contact me. [/quote] If \m/ desires to prolong this war further with an unwarranted aggressive strike, I will get in touch.

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1266346385' post='2185886'] I don't think that insisting on the old, patently useless 25% troops term, and then noting that violators will be ZId, demonstrates any sort of noble intentions. [/quote] So if I were to surrender to TOP, then turn around, violate my terms after re-arming myself and attack TOP again, you would be a hypocrite by your logic here for ZIing me.

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1266331219' post='2185547'] Ill be along in a couple of weeks to take that back so just hold on tight. Ill then redistibute it gladly back to the valhallans that you seized it from [/quote] I hope you do, luck of the draw appears to have given me the absolute worst Valhalla has to offer, and it'd be interesting to see how much it compares to its very best.

Mo' targets, mo' fun.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266293348' post='2184386'] [color="#0000FF"]Penkala has attacked a member of FAIL, turning this into a defensive conflict. For this he has received the first of many nukes. Justice has been served, and I deserve a medal for this valuable service to the world.[/color] [/quote] Here you go! [img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/158/failmedal.jpg[/img] I hope to present you with many more!