Joint Statement from the New Pacific Order and the Mushroom Kingdom

[Bob Janova]

Hey look, they even have a Josef Thorne wannabe.

[quote]What I stated is that Pacifica was attacked because their interests and goals were opposed to our own. They were not attacked for existing[/quote]
That's what I said. You attack [i]opponents[/i] for existing. ("Because their interests and goals were opposed to our own" is nothing more than dressed up "Because they opposed us".) Or, well, perceived opponents.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306882847' post='2721572']
Hey look, they even have a Josef Thorne wannabe.


That's what I said. You attack [i]opponents[/i] for existing. ("Because their interests and goals were opposed to our own" is nothing more than dressed up "Because they opposed us".) Or, well, perceived opponents.
[/quote]
That's the most idiotic argument I've seen you post in a while. And that's saying something.

Seriously, re-read what you just said. In case it doesn't sink in, I'll explain it for you. What you are saying is that we attack opponents for existing, rather than attack opponents for being opponents. That is like saying an alliance comes to the defence of an ally simply for existing (!), not because they are an ally. Or better yet, we treaty a friendly alliance because they exist (!), not because they're a friendly alliance.

Yes, opponents exist. It would be difficult for them to be opponents if they didn't. But attempting to shift the emphasis of the sentence from the word 'opponents' to the word 'exist' does not legitimise the Janova-Alterego hypothesis that Mushroom Kingdom attacks alliances simply for existing.

Now, let me ask you something. Do you constantly criticise Mushroom Kingdom simply because we exist, or because we exist [i]and[/i] we engage in actions that have your faux-moral sensibilities all aroused in righteous indignation?

If we use your logic, you're running a campaign against MK simply because we exist, you [i]monster[/i]!

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1306885531' post='2721593']
That's the most idiotic argument I've seen you post in a while. And that's saying something.

Seriously, re-read what you just said. In case it doesn't sink in, I'll explain it for you. What you are saying is that we attack opponents for existing, rather than attack opponents for being opponents. That is like saying an alliance comes to the defence of an ally simply for existing (!), not because they are an ally. Or better yet, we treaty a friendly alliance because they exist (!), not because they're a friendly alliance.

Yes, opponents exist. It would be difficult for them to be opponents if they didn't. But attempting to shift the emphasis of the sentence from the word 'opponents' to the word 'exist' does not legitimise the Janova-Alterego hypothesis that Mushroom Kingdom attacks alliances simply for existing.

Now, let me ask you something. Do you constantly criticise Mushroom Kingdom simply because we exist, or because we exist [i]and[/i] we engage in actions that have your faux-moral sensibilities all aroused in righteous indignation?

[b]If we use your logic, you're running a campaign against MK simply because we exist, you [i]monster[/i]![/b]
[/quote]


Sounds like a pre-emp is in order then, although I haven't seen any real attempts from your end to make them your lakie's yet.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306882847' post='2721572']
Hey look, they even have a Josef Thorne wannabe.


That's what I said. You attack [i]opponents[/i] for existing. ("Because their interests and goals were opposed to our own" is nothing more than dressed up "Because they opposed us".) Or, well, perceived opponents.
[/quote]

Opponents are rarely perceived as such inadvertently

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1306885531' post='2721593']
Yes, opponents exist. It would be difficult for them to be opponents if they didn't.
[/quote]

What did NPO do to become your opponents?

EDIT: typed to fast, sentence came out badly

Edited June 1, 2011 by Mr Damsky

[Banksy]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1306886217' post='2721602']
Sounds like a pre-emp is in order then, although I haven't seen any real attempts from your end to make them your lakie's yet.
[/quote]
Yes, not only does that statement make no sense itself, but it also makes no sense when examined alongside the portion of Denial's text that you bolded.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Banksy

[flak attack]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1306866646' post='2721460']
Is it because you are gutless? Its one thing convincing people to roll the much hated and feared NPO but another to roll an alliance who is no threat to you or anyone else and mostly minding its own business. Without those huddled masses on side and taking most of the punishment MK doesn't go to war.
[/quote]
In Karma, VE, Fark and Rok were the only alliances of note on our side to take more damage as a percentage of their ns than us after the first month (VE by about .5% of their ns, Rok by 1.7%, Fark by 4.6%). We eventually ended up taking a higher percentage of damage than VE, IIRC. In the TOP war, we took more damage than any other alliance of note on our side. In this war, only GOONS lost a higher percentage of their ns than us. If you think we're afraid of taking punishment, try us.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1306890963' post='2721647']
Yes, not only does that statement make no sense itself, but it also makes no sense when examined alongside the portion of Denial's text that you bolded.
[/quote]
see: the last few [s]months[/s] years of "diplomatic" talks between NPO and mk for further assistance.

[Banksy]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1306894268' post='2721701']
see: the last few [s]months[/s] years of "diplomatic" talks between NPO and mk for further assistance.
[/quote]
Okay, i'm looking. However all you've done is make a nonsensical statement that bares no relevance to the bolded statement (outside of your head). Despite knowing about the diplomatic talks, reading your statement and reading Denial's bolded section I still have no clue what you're on about on account of your post making no !@#$@#$ sense.

Now, reword your previous post and respond with something sensible.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1306894268' post='2721701']
see: the last few [s]months[/s] years of "diplomatic" talks between NPO and mk for further assistance.
[/quote]
Please explain how this has anything to do with what Banksy was talking about.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1306907475' post='2721856']
Okay, i'm looking. However all you've done is make a nonsensical statement that bares no relevance to the bolded statement (outside of your head). Despite knowing about the diplomatic talks, reading your statement and reading Denial's bolded section I still have no clue what you're on about on account of your post making no !@#$@#$ sense.

Now, reword your previous post and respond with something sensible.
[/quote]
I was referring obviously to the preempt, and everything that lead to it.

[quote]Please explain how this has anything to do with what Banksy was talking about.[/quote]