Jump to content

Dre4mwe4ver

Members
  • Posts

    902
  • Joined

Everything posted by Dre4mwe4ver

  1. Oh, nukes - I knew I was forgetting something. I'll send some right over. Don't let it be said that I never did anything for you!
  2. You, sir, are truly a villain! I may have half a circle and even less cash on hand, but don't think I'll think twice about sending soldiers your way... in the form of my signature style tech deal! Don't you test me, you scoundrel, you!
  3. I am highly and personally offended to have not been attacked. Fine - I'll met you halfway.
  4. Glad to see you good folk are still kicking. Congrats!
  5. I'm not gonna lie: I fell asleep. But I do thank you for dropping off all that cash during your attacks while I napped. Saves me the trouble of having to do anything.
  6. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  7. As awful as your mastery of the English language?
  8. I, too, thank Smurth for whatever it is that is happening here. o/ NPL
  9. SNX is also not spelled DBDC, but that's also not the point of that post.
  10. Don't call it a comeback? But everybody loves a good comeback story. o/ NPL iLike
  11. Aye, I always knew... but I hoped... and I shouldn't have. :(
  12. When you only act when the situation is convenient and ignore the same infractions when inconevenent, is it really "standing up for what you believe in" or is it declaring a belief to use as an excuse?
  13. Just when I didn't think it was possible, the thread got stupider.
  14. An aggressive oA masked as a reactive action? Wouldn't be the worst we've seen.
  15. And I am saying that it is ridiculous to propose that this is could be viewed as necessary by any rational actor.
  16. Do not pretend that this is an either/or situation and ignore the true dynamics of the situation in order to frame this course of action as the only reasonable one.
  17. Yes, we have no idea who wrote the wiki, so we don't know if this a reliable source or not, but we know who wrote your definition: you, and that is the least reliable source so far. In fact, judging by your logical reasoning so far, you calling something BS is almost a form of validation.
  18. TSO was the target of a mass raid by MI. By your definition, protectorate agreements only defend from raids. Therefore, TSC's protector is... not obligated to defend? While ignoring what we just said in order to twist the facts to suit the storyline may be something that is a given for you, I'm afraid those of us using logic aren't as well versed.
  19. Probably because it's the logical assumption by anyone who's not playing the spin game, unless this is a non-standard protectorate agreement.
  20. I would agree with you. It's a shame that this announcement exemplifies neither.
  21. Or imagine how much quicker the back pedal would've been if we weren't falling apart. I mean, of course we're not.
  22. In all fairness, given your track record, it's a grey area.
  23. It's not a protectorate. It's an MDoAP and yes, it was an existing treaty that was cearly posted on the Alliance Information page. That said, while I disagree that CBs aren't important, I agree that treaties shouldn't be invented on the spot and that everyone should "just roll people." I think it's clear that MI is a victim of MI's poor choices. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that MI owes everyone involved, especially MI, a sincere apology. Now, I haven't read the MI FA Guide in depth, but fortunately, we have several scholars of the MI Academy of Foreign Affairs in our midst, and they have shared with us that the best way to signal your willingness to have earnest dialogue about cleaning up the mess you made and show good faith is to punch them in the face and demand that they pay you.
×
×
  • Create New...