TehChron

Well, have fun learning to use the forums before posting. When quoting someone, it's usually best to not highlight a large portion of the quoted text and then type something, as that tends to erase the highlighted text. What's more, if you do make that mistake, simply right-click in the writing space, and select "undo", that should take care of that nasty issue in the future. Hope I was able to help.

Really? Opportunistic? When the guy literally asks for it? That's rich. Well...its common knowledge that sarcasm is wasted over the internet.

...No you didn't. Those forums are nothing like these...I said that. Several times. Are you delusional, or something? If so, that would explain soooo much. In fact...I destroyed that "human nature" argument, because it had no factual basis...in anything. At all. What were you thinking, saying that? Seriously. What you said, and the reality, are completely unlike one another.

When did I declare an attack or threaten to jump into the fray? Still doesn't make the private conflict any of your business.

An open challenge he accepts, whom the one making that challenge accepts without any hesitation... Im sorry, but quite frankly, aren't you the one who has no business butting into this private matter? Then problem, there is. I suppose. You don't butt into a man's private fights, it goes against The Code.

It's "Jackass", actually. Jack-$@!. Being Politically correct is so overrated.

As a matter of fact, it was a risk he specifically requested he face. He did dare to be attacked, after all. Clearly this isn't something you can justify as being "unprovoked" under any circumstances. Let him fight his own battles, maybe? He did pick them, after all.

Huh, and here I thought that presenting an open challenge to attack would also make him immune to needing you guys defending him. But whatever you say, I mean, they're your rules, they mean whatever you say they mean. I mean, it's not like you can prove something like "without exception", we'll just make sure to take your word for it.

For the record...What the hell are you even referring to? If its OOC, you dont have to say "Other World", and frankly, you didn't even give examples of anything, and just made a broad, generalized claim based off that simple inferred "fact".

Eventually, I'm sure.

LOL, well, you used actual quotes, which makes yours better. But the point remains the same, as they ignored mine nonetheless. Doesn't mean you were actually doing anything about it, either.

No it doesnt. After I threw his quotes back at him I thought we were finished. Guess I'll start ignoring him, then.

Then an open invite for all comers to go and stop him is also legal, and would be honored as a condition of said sanctioned action, wouldn't it?

I think he was laying down conditions for equivalency. Your "member" acted like a dick, and then bragged about it. He also then dared all "hippies" as he called them, to go and stop him if they wanted to do anything about it. The man then took him up on his challenges, which the aforementioned "member" than gleefully accepted. Honestly now, I dont see how you can claim Merrie is "enforcing" anything when all he did was take your "member" up on an offer the "member" himself offered.

Hmm. Good point...I may have to rethink my position on this.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1516511 I believe that post is enough of a purview of what transpired over the past couple of pages to satisfy any curiosity as to what your claims were. If they "were" (love the past tense), then surely you wouldn't mind linking or quoting the relevant parts for everyone to see? I mean...you even let me get away with pointing out how you hadn't even posted a single opinion up to that stage in the thread. If you can't properly defend your claims, why are you still here? I gave you the chance to back off when your claims were utterly defeated. I gave you a chance at some dignity. No one can say that what you're doing now is improving your rhetorical standing in any way at this point.

You were the one who disputed my claim to begin with. And I never said "sole ownership" I said that it occurred only after GOLD was relegated to the sidelines politically, and was thus incapable of doing anything more than support it. Why they signed on was irrelevant, ultimately. The Y#5 doctrine was a claim of ownership of Yellow, and based on that claim, Tech Raiders had no business being there lest they incur the wrath of the controlling parties. That's what matters. If we both agree, then what ARE we arguing about?

Dismissing your baseless arguments isnt a character attack. If you point out my hypocrisy, please do. Im waiting. I am also waiting for that "historical evidence" you cited so often. Im waiting for a lot of things from you, actually, like knowing when to quit.

The precedent of holding "dominion" over a colored Sphere and thus being able to enforce policies was established by the Moldavi Doctrine. All other claims of soveriegnty based on color afterwards were continuations of the principles behind it. If the Moldavi Doctrine had not existed, then no one would have accepted folks claiming a color-based declaration of soveriegnty without seriously !@#$%*ing about it.

...What did you beat me at...exactly? So you're admitting that you don't even care about the topic of this thread anymore, and are just trying to troll me? That's low, man. I quoted your previous posts to disprove your claims...But you're doing nothing more than flame. I'm pretty sure that's against forum rules.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1514665 Re-edited for intended tone. As I said before: Focusing on a single off-topic point while ignoring the larger point being made is evidence of your own failing at making an argument. Sad but true. Context is everything, and you, frankly, don't have any context of anything to support you. We're done. I suggest you quit embarassing yourself.

Hypocrisy is new. So...where be those Historical Evidence quotes you were referring to earlier?

Considering I was the one that made that statement, I can safely state that I am correct. It was the codified statement of ownership that gives any sort of "legal justification" to claiming that an entire color is under the defensive umbrella of an alliance. FAN did it too, after GOLD was reduced to cinders after GWIII, specifically because they were the undisputed masters of yellow. And to piss off Walford. Both of which are awesome reasons. Insofar as International Laws and "Ownership"? They were whatever Pacifica said they were, we enforced them, and no one disagreed.

Nope, GWI was. Literally about every individual member had 2 or more wars going on at one time. And that was without any sort of coordination.

You make excellent points, John Michaels, but let me tell you something. That is what it was reduced to. A fact I am disgusted by to no end...It originally meant something, but you know what? The NPO no longer has any right to claim that legacy for themselves. @Conrad LOL, you got served. I think we're done. You didnt have any historical evidence, if you did, I'm sure you are more than capable of going back and quoting it, like I just did. When you do, then maybe we'll pick up again, until then, have fun. And I hope this was a learning experience for you.