Crymson
-
Posts
2,745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Crymson
-
-
It's actually pretty funny, we've come full circle.
First Umbrella and TOP came for our upper tier in DH-NPO, now they're doing it again. When will they learn, they cannot hope to ever beat us into submission.
I will respond to the Optional Aggression coalition as Emperor Blackbird once did.
*chuckles*
Bring it.
Unfortunately for your argument, our involvement in that conflict was relatively minor in scale and did not include war against your alliance.
-
lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there. I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous. So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO.
Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky. Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude. Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP? You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days? Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.
NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.
You're not even nearly the propagandist you've always believed yourself to be. That fact is in very clear evidence here. Give it up, Steve.
Sadly these days the most clever things posted are just carbon copies of an original. However it is flattering that TOP still needs to emulate NPO :blush:
This is a minor point, but you've been around a long time, and during that entire time I don't think you've ever seen TOP try to emulate NPO in anything.
Extortion is extortion whether it's 8 days or 80 days.
You've finally succeeded in bludgeoning me into agreement through sheer force of self-righteousness! I now subscribe to your point of view!
...
-
One thing I've come to admire is that TOP and Umbrella are excellent at getting alliances they hate to fight for them not realizing that they will target them next war. They did it last war (moreso Umb) and they are doing it again this war; and people are again falling for it in the oA Coalition. I guess I can't knock them as I was lied too as well last war and believed it, but I hope people start realizing that now.
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first from Steve Buscemi, renowned bastion of truth and objectivity.
With that, I appear to have exhausted my sarcasm reserves.
-
You have no idea how it hurts me being in peace mode right now.
A bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say?
-
I hope he told them to $%&@ off too. The fact that there is a counter offer in the table is more than you deserve.
Those are legitimately strange words for a guy whose side has already lost.
-
Those on NPO's side will agree with the OP, those on the other side will disagree. This reality is almost certainly lost on him, and he no doubt wrote his lengthy and thoroughly pointless monologue under the rather conceited impression that with it he could effect some significant change of opinion. Wrong. Though this is clearly lost on some present, public complaint about the presentation of undesirable terms is, in a very general sense, more likely to stiffen the spine of the other party than to effect a reduction in the severity of those demands. Perhaps if the OP and his cohorts had not chosen to immediately take to the streets in comically self-righteous fury but had instead elected to continue dialogue in private, the lot of their alliance may have been lessened. This very basic concept is one they apparently find impossible to comprehend.
-
As the 10th alliance TOP has to fight in this war, you should get a bonus.
TOP is once again using its puppets in TOP to fight against TOP's enemies whilst TOP sits on the sidelines. Turpitude, I tell you!
-
Interesting times.
-
That's not any more humerous now than it was then.
Are you speaking of the bone or the adjective?
-
-
How very mature of you :)
Kampfgruppe DragonAspect has proven its superiority once more.
-
Oh this again, yeah? :|
Child's play.
Translation: only when convenient.
-
Funny that you'd say that, considering that as the aggressors, and the 4th/5th of 6 alliances to attack us, you'd figure you'd have more aggressive wars on us than we do on you.
But I'm probably talking out of my ass.
Speaking of talking out of one's ass, everyone's still waiting on TIO and NATO! An attack on one is an attack on all, right?
-
Well... people whom it matters to me that they know, do not require the explanation. That people like you dont get it, just makes me smile.
This looks like the fevered raving of someone in the advanced stages of Pink Elephant Syndrome.
-
I know, right. It's almost as if there is a hidden irony in there. ALMOST. But that could not be it, because a ruler with an IQ the size of yours could never allow something to zoom over his head.
Your persistent claims of irony are generally not accompanied by any explanation of just what that irony is.
-
Edit: Aw no, my feelings are hurt by the one whose alliance his spent years riding the coattails of those bigger and brighter than themselves.
You're part of an alliance that spent years doing precisely that. Were you not around then, or are you simply lacking in self-awareness?
Let's not forget your alliance rode MK's dick into the ground - you're just as filthy as GOONS in that respect.
Haha. Is that drivel really the best you can come up with?
-
Don't you think you should maybe offer more than $100 million? $100 million isn't exactly a lot of money these days. VirtuCon alone makes over nine billion dollars a year!
-
You are the one accusing these Pacifican PM nations of sitting out multiple wars. It is you who should be providing the proof based on your own accusation.... fortunately for you, Dajobo, since you showed your ability at math is terrible (you know, 9% loss in PM)... I have rode in once again to make the case for you about these 17 NPO nations over 100K who cower every war in Peace Mode. Here is what my investigation concludes...
STOP HIDING THESE SAME NATIONS EVERY WAR NPO :wub:
Dajobo accused NPO of protecting large numbers of top-tier nations in peace mode during every war. Never did he say that these were always the same nations. Not even an idiot would ever claim that the likes of Arcades and Kingdom of Dark are habitually absent from war. The top-tier nations that NPO has kept in peace mode during this war are simply the group of nations that were selected for protection in this particular conflict.
How you have entirely missed the essence of his argument is beyond me.
-
Let's play with some more actual numbers again!
On November 2, 2013, TOP had 68 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 59 nations.
On October 21, 2013, NPO had 106 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 39 nations.
Therefore, TOP still has 87% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations, and NPO only has 37% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations.
Welcome to a losing war. Furthermore, your chosen reference point was highly arbitrary. Our average NS on the eve of war was well in excess of 50K, and it therefore stands to reason that a large percentage of our nations would still be above that mark; as such, your statistics have precisely no relevance.
Oh hey, think maybe bankers are nations who want to exist on Bob, but their activity level doesn't enable them to fight? You know, just as you said: our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows.
Or are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?
As I said just a few minutes ago: for obvious reasons, it's far too late to be making that sort of argument.
It's quite hypocritical for a winning alliance to be complaining about a losing alliance's use of peace mode when the former has more of their alliance in peace mode than the latter.
And once again, the vacuous fixation on irrelevant numbers to the exclusion of the point at hand.
By the way, exactly who is complaining? And at what point did I become an alliance?
-
I personally see nothing wrong with either alliance doing this, since both have exhibited that their remaining members are more than able to put up a superior level of fighting prowess than the average alliance can without keeping people in peacemode.
Get to the crux of the matter: point out all of the 100K+ nations we've protected in peace mode with the excuse that they're banks.
So now the argument for these terms is that your nations are inactive and it's not possible for it to be the case for NPO's nations because ..... You say so? .... "Check the facts Letum, because I'm too lazy to do it and qualify my own words"
With NPO having already claimed repeatedly that the large nations in question are being protected as banks, you're more than a bit too late to be making that argument.
-
Let's do the same thing with TOP
See above. Nobody is stupid enough to eat up this idiotic logic. But hey, if you want to go this route, let's do it. Go through that list and compare it to yours in terms of nation strength, tech level, activity, the works, and get back to me. I don't think you will do that, because you wouldn't like the results.
As Dajobo has said, we've never deliberately secreted any number of top tier nations in peace mode; our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows. The same cannot be said for your alliance, one with a long history of ensconcing large numbers of top-tier nations during wartime.
-
1. TOP has more nations in long-term PM than NPO does and they're both on the "winning side" and don't use banks.
Exactly how many times are you going to try to push this line before you'll realize that people aren't retarded? Looking purely at number of nations and utterly excluding the size and potency of those nations from the equation makes about as much sense as me offering to pay my dentist in unnamed units of currency. Rarely are numbers alone the entirety of the story, and that maxim certainly applies here as well. The majority of our nations that have remained in peace mode throughout the war are small nations that have no tech and do hardly anything beyond sending it out, and the rest belong to inactives. NPO put dozens of nations, including 17 of strength 100K or above, into peace mode for the entire war with the avowed purpose of protecting them from damage. So we have this: small nations versus big nations. Incidental versus deliberate. And so on.
Either you're too dense to make this distinction yourself, or you're firmly confident in some supposed sense of vast intellectual superiority over everyone around you. Whatever the case may be, all you're accomplishing is making yourself appear a foreigner to logic and reason.
Are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?
-
TOP gov screamed from the mountain tops that they were only here to support Polar's defense. Now suddenly they want to levy a judgement on NPO as to how they chose to fight the war ... over what amounts to 16 nations in an alliance of 300+(at the beginning of the war.) If the war was only about Polar's defense, and that is adequately settled, and if TOP were only here to that end, why the concern for "judging" and punishing 16 NPO nations. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased they have taken this tach, as it finally puts an end to the BS they slung for months.
The degree of attention and significance you lavish upon us, frenzied, uninformed, and generally nonsensical though it may be, is flattering. Thank you.
Redacted to prevent conflict of interest.
But watching you suggest that NPO gov is lying to its members, is precious.
What conflict of interest?
Also, your claim---as is becoming the general case for everything you say---has neither substance nor sense.
Aye, spot on for the most part. But TOP is a major part of the backbone of the coalition and to suggest that they do not have a large amount of sway in decision-making would be dishonest.
Is "We'll go with the consensus" really so difficult a concept for you to comprehend?
The notion that you cannot concentrate the blame game is 100% freaking absurd. Ask MK. There is always one alliance that holds wields the largest club, and the rest have no alternative but to fall in line when a decision is made. Ask NPO. Not one time Robster, in all the of the post-Karma CN world, has there not been ONE alliance who was the crux point of both the winning and losing coalitions. Just because you now want to take advantage of UPNs 1st glow of sunlight in 8 years, and sally forth and be a good and loyal ally, you simply have neither the stroke, nor the personality to sell it off. Even TOP are not so dumb as to believe that the kudos and blame as well, from all corners of planet Bob, falls squarely with them. There will come a point in time where they either have to smack down the uppity upstarts who are riding their coattails, or spend all of their post-war political capital to put a smile on their faces.
But to suggest that it does not begin and end with them, is absurd.
Err... what????
-
Gang of Eight, oA coalition, puppetmasters, and people say my propaganda is bad...
Well said.
A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by Crymson
Is that really the best you can do?
Thoroughly comical though it may be, the propaganda geared toward making TOP appear a vicious puppetmaster is a tad flattering; we're glad so many people think so highly of our oratorical abilities. That said, trying to sway opinion by accusing alliances of being manipulated is exactly the sort of maladroit bumbling I'd expect from the poster to whom I'm currently responding; implying that people are mindless dunces isn't likely to make them feel friendly (of course, this would require them to care about what he says in the first place, and they almost certainly don't).