WarriorConcept

On this we'll just have to agree to disagree as I see him being the provocative one by telling \m/ what kind of standard tech raiding practice they can follow. It is hypocritical if the main reason he even had demand anything in the first place and threatened the war for (before the actual disrespect mind you) is that they raided an alliance. It's hypocritical because he's still allied to those that tech raid alliances. Okay then it's not all about \m/ tech raiding FoA. What? Grub's DoW was because of the comments on IRC, not because of the OWF. Unless you're about to change that story again. Threatening war over their tech raiding practices. That's the thing which he was doing. Sorry I have more proof than you in that matter. I do a lot of arguing, whether you call it complaining or not I could really care less and I know the people who's opinion matter to me know that I am being consistent on this issue.

That would be a good argument is the line he's referring to wasn't made after the war started.

Well I and my friends and even bzelger seem to grasp what that is. Just because you can't is your own fault.

So the war is just because he got pissed they called him names. OK. That was in relation to talking about CNARF and regarding tech raiding as being the reason for war. Didn't you just say it had nothing to do with tech raiding? I said the problem was if it was being disguised as it being a crusade against tech raiding alliances. Reading comprehension, it helps. First of all I never care for analogies and I never argue them, so don't expect anything there. As well: <Hoo[AWAY]> I believe he said "as long as you follow common raid guidelines" or something like that He was there doing something, basically putting his nose where it didn't need to be.

Thank you, and enjoyed our chat in that thread

If you can't answer it why are you responding to it? I'm asking a question of the alliance that declared war, not you.

So the war is over the profanity used against Grub? Not at all about raiding alliances like all the polars are talking about? Thanks for confirming that Really? You just pulled out a quote relating to a separate line of argument from a separate thread and just threw it in here? I knew I shouldn't have expected any better of you. Like I said before, if this war is just about him being butt hurt over being called bad names that's fine. Disguising it as a crusade against tech raiding alliances is just sneaky and not something he needs to do. <Hoo[AWAY]> As far as my comments in the DoW, I meant in their channel <Hoo[AWAY]> He didn't do anything to cause them to insult him or go after him Yes see he was referring to the comments in the channel. I'm referring towards the whole situation altogether with grub needing to go there on a "diplomatic mission" Funny enough we still haven't found out what that is.

If you accept payment for tech then raid, payment will still be expected.

What was the diplomacy for? From what I can tell it was NpO trying enforce their moralities on \m/, but you can clarify that I'm sure.

So the war isn't about tech raiding then? Make up your mind and try to find an argument to stick to. And what would that be? Oh right you're pulling the "I know more dirty secrets I just can't say it because I'm actually full of hot air line" Grub provoked \m/ when he came into a situation that didn't require him to. I believe Hoo was referring to the profanity used against grub when he's speaking about provoking.

Everyone has their own opinion.

I believe I'm already disproving your attempt at changing arguments in response to my words that relate to a different matter there. How about you stop clogging up this thread and stick to the topic you created for the purpose?

Hey notice how when The Corp handled it there was a matter to be resolved and it was solved without a war? Big difference but keep trying to shift the basis of your argument. Really? I thought you were claiming it was for "trying diplomacy". Pick one mate. Who provoked who? The matter was already handled and grub came in asking for "diplomatic solution". Regardless of any profanity made I don't think \m/ had a reason to submit to any of his "diplomatic efforts" at all. Refer above.

Considering your argument is based on false pretenses, it's not.

Would be moralist? I'm doing what I believe is right and taking more active measures regarding that than near any alliance in history in regards to the matter.

I did actually and even the STA guy was satisfied. What? I'm referring to the original issue at hand which was the tech raiding. The issue was already handled diplomatically. Not relevant at all to the actual argument at hand unless you're claiming the only reason he went to war was because he was called bad names. I'm pretty sure I see a war going on right now.

What this guy said.

If you read the thread further, I answered that. What? I enjoy diplomacy when it's warranted. The FoA situation required diplomacy and it was solved. If I had complained about that then you'd have an argument. There's no problem with declaring war for what you believe in, I've even stated as such in grub's thread and told him in private. What I disagree with was inserting himself into a situation that was resolved. The rest of this thread is all fluff off of your false assertion of how I think this matter should have been handled, considering the matter was handled correctly and I applauded the situation for it being handled diplomatically, which is exactly what my alliance preaches. If the FoA fiasco hadn't been completed when Grub put himself in then I'd agree I was hypocritical, but it was and therein lies my problem with this war.

Since I know this thread is going fast, maybe you skipped over it. What was the diplomatic resolution that NpO tried to approach \m/ about?

Expect something this weekend

What was the diplomatic resolution that NpO tried to approach \m/ about?

When will you be attacking MK and every alliance that allows raiding on small alliances?

I wasn't playing any games. Also I wonder where you get the implication that they didn't like it just because of the consequences of it. From what they've said it sounds as if they're very sincere about it. Also I've never liked analogies in CN nor argued them. There's no need for them.

That quote was referring to whether he believed the apology by \m/ was sincere, not about CNARF.

Why are you arguing about something you claim you don't have knowledge of then? Please point that out. No. I also asked you where I used a fake timeline. Still waiting.