Crymson

Funny, as Polar would tell you that it was they who started the war. The only true question for me right now is why I'm bothering to respond to you. Probably it's because I feel sorry for you (and not in a good way).

Say what one will about STA, they're certainly willing to take numerous bullets for an ally whenever asked.

Sparta's performance in this war gives lie to that claim. You've created yourself an interesting fantasy world.

Well fought.

I've seen this supposed manipulation mentioned several times, but nobody ever cares to explain exactly what it is.

With how poorly this thread has gone for you, you ought to be happy for any change in topic.

Have you ever heard the saying that one shouldn't throw stones in a glass house?

Please click [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/119651-over-13-of-top-has-not-yet-fought-this-war/?p=3203178]here[/url] for information.

I'm fully aware that 20% damage doesn't fall into the "incredible" category. I openly said that it's more like average, a term that is quite mutually exclusive from superlative. As such, you haven't any substance to your argument. With regards to the rest of your post, bad news for you is that what one says on an Internet forum stays there for all to see. I'll refresh your apparently very, very short-term memory. There you go.

As I never made any reference to "incredible damage," I'm afraid my post does not fit your description. Your own does.

Factcheck: It's not "pretty lackluster" either. Not even close.

Factcheck: we're part of the winning side. Alliances significantly involved on the winning side of a major war generally lose 20%-30% of their total NS, versus 50%+ for the losing side.

Your argument has been undermined numerous times in this thread already. If you're not aware of that by now, then I'm not sure what to tell you; you either suffer from substantial cognitive difficulties, or you've an enormous unwillingness to admit defeat. More, it speaks volumes that you have decided against responding to any post that factually challenges your assertions, instead opting to simply take potshots at less relevant posts so as to avoid implicitly acknowledging that your methodology is nonsensical. Of course, the fact that you believed you could accomplish anything here in the first place makes a strong case for your inability to reason.

If we weren't amongst the top alliances on our side in terms of damage caused, then your post might have a logical basis. But we are, and so it doesn't. By the way, these attempts to skew perception by using number of nations rather than the NS those nations represent are old, and these threads in general are tired and ineffective; you're only convincing those who would have agreed with you anyway (i.e. on your side of the war and not particularly interested in facts). That seems like a solid waste of time; but if it satisfies you, then by all means, keep at it.

Happy hunting.

Kampfgruppe DragonAspect has proven its superiority once again.

This reminds me of those times when you insisted that your claims were accurate because you were heavily involved in CN black ops, whatever that term actually meant. They were total nonsense then, and they are total nonsense now.

Translation: he's full of crap, and so are you.

And who would that be?

The ODN of 5-7 years ago was never so bad. They ignored treaties when they found it beneficial to do so, yes, but never did they actively conspire against an ally. What, you mean all three of you who are still active?

I wasn't aware that Kaskus was Indonesian.

In light of the fact that we are in the top three in our coalition in terms of damage sustained and damage dealt, I'd say no, it's not very interesting at all; indeed, I'd say that the claim you're attempting to further doesn't have a leg to stand on. I can't imagine you're dumb enough to believe that drawing up the aforementioned numbers and attaching your stated interpretation of them actually makes for a convincing argument, and so I will chalk your enterprise down to a very ineffective attempt at rabble-rousing.

The average person looking in from the outside might believe you, as might the average person who is not familiar with your poor character. I am neither of those. I am also aware that the aforementioned agreement was most certainly not the only disreputable action your alliance has taken so far in this war. Before you start thinking on what you might say or do next, take a gander at my sig. The information there ought to demur you from again pretending that you believe otherwise. Lies and misinformation are indeed the norm where chefjoe is involved. These revelations are very interesting, because I recall you being fully supportive of everything we did in that war. I also recall you being fully supportive of TOP just a year ago, just as you were thoroughly hostile toward us (just as now) two years before that. The very simple reality is that your opinions and recollections change fundamentally with the political winds. It has become somewhat of a joke within our halls.

I'm sure that you shouldn't be casting stones, given that your alliance is in a state of functional irrelevance.

I advise against getting your hopes up.