Open Invitation from the SuperFriends

[Drai]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1312663056' post='2773704']
If this tactic was only employed post declaration then I understand completely where you are coming from. Prior to the war though, I am sure something could have been arranged to take out 1V. There were plenty of alliances around that were in Q that did not like NPO/1Vs influence, and I'm sure one with a silver enough tongue could have arranged something.

Similar to this potential SF war, I think there are plenty who don't like the potential other side either. Members of MJ also have plenty of enemies, though to be fair, Xiph has more

EDIT: @CSN: What happened to Goose and A_T?
[/quote]
I might start up this conversation somewhere else because it's off-topic. I don't really think BLEU would have had enough support if they jumped the gun and declared on 1V though.

[Ruler with Plan X]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1312613797' post='2773408']
Actually, Fark has been the SF alliance we've gotten along with worst for quite some time. As far as we've figured out, Fark partly blames us for them being held down so long in GW2 or something to those effects, IIRC.
[/quote]
We didn't hate you for being the spinoff of a spinoff of a group of traitorous scum, but it didn't help that we hated TPF for other reasons as well (as a general rule most splitting alliances just inherited the view that we had on their parent alliance until the new alliance starts making waves). Most of it had to do with your guys' attitude on the OWF and in game. It wasn't some sort of active 'Damn those guys in PC, what can we do today to ruin them!' sort of dislike. It was just a normal, everyday 'Those guys are annoying' type of dislike (most alliances have been in this category at some point in time). Our dealings were prolly reflective of that.

/and no, Fark isn't a sekrit member of SF that sekritly makes all their decisions
//I would need several small towns to be able to count on hand the amount of times Fark and SF have butted heads after and while we were in SF

[flak attack]

[quote name='Ruler with Plan X' timestamp='1312665154' post='2773733']
We didn't hate you for being the spinoff of a spinoff of a group of traitorous scum, but it didn't help that we hated TPF for other reasons as well (as a general rule most splitting alliances just inherited the view that we had on their parent alliance until the new alliance starts making waves). Most of it had to do with your guys' attitude on the OWF and in game. It wasn't some sort of active 'Damn those guys in PC, what can we do today to ruin them!' sort of dislike. It was just a normal, everyday 'Those guys are annoying' type of dislike (most alliances have been in this category at some point in time). Our dealings were prolly reflective of that.
[/quote]
I think you replied to the wrong post there. MK is anything but a TPF spinoff

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1312665894' post='2773743']
MK is anything but a TPF spinoff
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Who do you think you're fooling?[/color]

[Schattenmann]

Wow. 29 pages in 2 days and I just now saw this. If this question has already been answered feel free to just point me to a post rather than retyping things.
I was recently told that Xiphosis/GOD has been spreading rumors about MK--what are they and is it true or not?

Can GOD be a good ally to both SuperFriends and it's PB connections?
Can RIA meet its obligations to both XX and SuperFriends?
Ditto for CSN and its PB pals.

In any situtation except a direct attack on SF, can SuperFriends really, honestly be considered anything but an anachronism given it's million splits to other blocs?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Schattenmann

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1312663056' post='2773704']
EDIT: @CSN: What happened to Goose and A_T?
[/quote]

Goose is still in CSN, though he stepped down and was replaced by Liz (who was Deputy Head of State, our second-in-command, at the time). Allied_Threat deleted a long time ago due to obvious inactivity, though he is still playing under a separate alias (if he wants to reveal said alias, that is his prerogative, not mine).


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312666984' post='2773749']
I was recently told that Xiphosis/GOD has been spreading rumors about MK--what are they and is it true or not?[/quote]

Want to be a little more specific? Sure, MK comes up in discussions when talking about power spheres, future contingency plans, etc., but I can't say I've personally rummaged across any rumors in particular?

[quote]Ditto for CSN and its PB pals.[/quote]

We have made it clear to GOONS (specifically Sardonic) that we will burn for them no matter the circumstance, and that is a standard I will make sure we hold (whether or not you hold my word with any merit is a rather different story). And obviously our SF! obligations we feel the same.

[quote]In any situtation except a direct attack on SF, can SuperFriends really, honestly be considered anything but an anachronism given it's million splits to other blocs?
[/quote]

Perhaps it is an anachronism, however I would argue otherwise; in the older CN, having the highest NS was key to victory, now its political maneuverability. Obviously SF! is no longer supreme (directly) NS-wise, so we are hardly old-fashioned. Likewise (and it goes without saying), our political maneuverability and capital have been largely spent and expended. So, I suppose, if you were to label us as old-fashioned or new-fashioned (playing off of the anachronism), we're probably somewhere in between? Obviously, statistically and politically, we aren't going to match our opposition in the next major conflict if conflict were to break today or tomorrow.

[Ruler with Plan X]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1312665894' post='2773743']
I think you replied to the wrong post there. MK is anything but a TPF spinoff
[/quote]
Prolly, I think I was looking for someone from PC/NG, dunno how I got you

/or I'm just retarded
//it's prolly that I'm retarded

Edited August 6, 2011 by Ruler with Plan X

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312666984' post='2773749']
Wow. 29 pages in 2 days and I just now saw this. If this question has already been answered feel free to just point me to a post rather than retyping things.
I was recently told that Xiphosis/GOD has been spreading rumors about MK--what are they and is it true or not?

Can GOD be a good ally to both SuperFriends and it's PB connections?
Can [b]RIA[/b] meet its obligations to both XX and SuperFriends?
Ditto for CSN and its PB pals.

In any situtation except a direct attack on SF, can SuperFriends really, honestly be considered anything but an anachronism given it's million splits to other blocs?
[/quote]
I think you meant to address R&R there. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as anachronisms go,.. I don't know, though I suppose my own reasons for being here may be. I'm fine with that, though.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312668029' post='2773756']
Want to be a little more specific? [/quote]
The question included "What are they" because I don't know, I've just been told that GOD itrying to start stuff with MK, is that true?

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312668029' post='2773756']
We have made it clear to GOONS (specifically Sardonic) that we will burn for them no matter the circumstance, and that is a standard I will make sure we hold (whether or not you hold my word with any merit is a rather different story). And obviously our SF! obligations we feel the same.[/quote][quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312668029' post='2773756']
Perhaps it is an anachronism, however I would argue otherwise; in the older CN, having the highest NS was key to victory, now its political maneuverability. Obviously SF! is no longer supreme (directly) NS-wise, so we are hardly old-fashioned. Likewise (and it goes without saying), our political maneuverability and capital have been largely spent and expended. So, I suppose, if you were to label us as old-fashioned or new-fashioned (playing off of the anachronism), we're probably somewhere in between? Obviously, statistically and politically, we aren't going to match our opposition in the next major conflict if conflict were to break today or tomorrow.
[/quote]
Neither of these really address the points of the two questions. Everyone in SF has treaties pulling them all over the place and in directions that would bring you all into conflict with each other. Can SuperFriends bring itself to a point of internal fidelity again, or is this something you're all holding onto because of memories?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312668555' post='2773764']
I think you meant to address R&R there. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote]
Derp. Yes.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312668715' post='2773766']
The question included "What are they" because I don't know, I've just been told that GOD itrying to start stuff with MK, is that true?[/quote]

Couldn't tell you then. Whether that qualifies me as an impotent SF! leader is up to you, but it's not like we sit in a private channel, stroke our egos to new heights, and constantly scheme. In actuality, it generally consists of Liz praising Xiphosis' culinary prowess and Game of Thrones.


[quote]Neither of these really address the points of the two questions. Everyone in SF has treaties pulling them all over the place and in directions that would bring you all into conflict with each other. Can SuperFriends bring itself to a point of internal fidelity again, or is this something you're all holding onto because of memories?
[/quote]

I don't know how I can make it any clearer: CSN, at least, will have no problem covering for both of its PB and SF! allies. Does that bode well for SF! tactically? I suppose it's situational. As for being in conflict with one another, naturally we would do whatever we could to avoid such a distinct conflict. My apologies for not being more clear/specific, but that's all that there is to it.

As for your last question: the four remaining signatories are quite loyal to one another so I'm not sure how one would posit our internal structure as an exercise of infidelity? Nonetheless, SF! is a fragment of what it once was, but be that as it may, I don't support the SF! brand, but rather the individual allies that fill its ranks.

I promise I'm not trying to skirt around the point of your questions.

Edited August 6, 2011 by SpacingOutMan

[Diabloz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312668029' post='2773756']
Obviously, statistically and politically, we aren't going to match our opposition in the next major conflict if conflict were to break today or tomorrow.
[/quote]

Could you be more specific as to who you mean by 'opposition'

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1312671393' post='2773794']
Could you be more specific as to who you mean by 'opposition'
[/quote]

CDT and the Old Hegemony obviously. C wut I did thar?

[Steve Buscemi]

Can someone from GOD, RIA, RnR, and CSN answer this question.

If you [b]had to[/b] cancel 3 treaties between SF/XX and PB which ones would they be?

[Krack]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1312672510' post='2773803']
Can someone from GOD, RIA, RnR, and CSN answer this question.

If you [b]had to[/b] cancel 3 treaties between SF/XX and PB which ones would they be?
[/quote]

Just curious ... why would you ask this question? Your question pre-supposes that each of the treaties held by the various alliances involved do not have a friendship (or at the very least, desire to work together for protection/information, etc) behind them. It's like asking, "If you had to stop being friends with three of your friends, who would it be?" Why would they even ponder that, let alone answer your question, if they don't have to cancel treaties (which they don't)?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Krack

[Natan]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312672797' post='2773805']
Just curious ... why would you ask this question? Your question pre-supposes that each of the treaties held by the various alliances involved do not have a friendship (or at the very least, desire to work together for protection/information, etc) behind them. It's like asking, "If you had to stop being friends with three of your friends, who would it be?" Why would they even ponder that, let alone answer your question, if they don't have to cancel treaties (which they don't)?
[/quote]

Wouldn't your obsessive moralism be more suited to being in a bloc with polaris and not SF?

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312660162' post='2773666']
Fine, then I'll give you a straight answer on their behalf. They don't trust you. At all. They think you're the type of alliance that would sign an MDP with TOP (and their group of anti-social friends) [/quote]
Anti-Social!!






























Is he serious or what.

Edited August 6, 2011 by shahenshah

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312672797' post='2773805']
Just curious ... why would you ask this question? Your question pre-supposes that each of the treaties held by the various alliances involved do not have a friendship (or at the very least, desire to work together for protection/information, etc) behind them. It's like asking, "If you had to stop being friends with three of your friends, who would it be?" Why would they even ponder that, let alone answer your question, if they don't have to cancel treaties (which they don't)?
[/quote]

Just because you are friends with an alliance doesn't mean you make good allies... I have plenty of friends and alliances that I like that I wouldn't even [u]dream[/u] of treatying myself to.

[General Ozujsko]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1312596446' post='2773054']
I find it amusing, to be quite honest. How people let one incident change their entire perception of an alliance is outstanding. We were either unknown or people thought of us as honorable. Then one blip in the radar and we're Public Enemy #1.
[/quote]

A demand for 40k tech is hardly a blip...but whatever floats your failboat.

=

Well, I have a legit question: Xiph, you've mentioned Nueva Vida several times in this thread, what makes you think they're interesting in joining you/GOD/SF?

Edited August 6, 2011 by General Ozujsko

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1312590344' post='2772959']
Which one? Bi Polar or Karma war?
[/quote]

Bi polar, where gremlins kept IRON at war.

[quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1312595746' post='2773050']
Does this not all come off as a bit desperate?
RIA and R&R you had to know at the rate GOD manages to turn everyone against them that the time would come for them to answer for it, why did you not do something about before you were reduced to this?
[/quote]

Some, maybe many may look at it like that, though people seem to think this is an attempt to make a kneefall and beg for mercy, which it just isn't. We're not expecting the many people that hate SF suddenly to go "aaah i was mistaken, they're a sweet bunch of people that never hurt a fly", but we got wind of a lot of BS, at least now people get some insight in what did and did not happen, i have no illusions that with or without this Q&A, the final result will be the same.

I think we all where aware of the risk/rewards of being allied to anyone of our allies, including GOD.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1312600254' post='2773103']
What he has shown again and again is that GOD doesn't have allies; they have [i]interests[/i]. And these are useful only so long as they are prepared to do whatever Xiphosis demands of them. Ragnarok and GOONS are two very good examples. For a more current example, one need only look at this thread. It was Xiphosis' idea, but some no-name (no offense) from a bloc-mate was given the unenviable task of posting it.
[/quote]

That's funny, i recall many discussions, arguments and fights in which Xiph did not get what he would like R&R to do, yet we're still allied Some of Xiphs views we agree with, some not and know what? It's actually possible to discuss things with him, get him to change his mind or to get him to follow the majority in the bloc. I know right, unbelievable that some people can manage to see eye to eye with him

As for the thread, Xiphosis suggested something like this, then we discussed how to proceed, what we where gonna post etc, then it was time to post it, it was pretty much agreed on that Xiph wasn't the best person to post, for some as i've seen gibs state it was because of the false image that Xiph is the sole leader of SF, for me personally it was more because any topic with him as topic starter will draw the haters to it that much faster. But then I never really cared for people thinking Xiph was the big puppetmaster, as long as there are no strings coming out of me, i'm confident enough that it isn't true to not really care what others think of it.

So yeah no one was forced to post this, we actually had several volunteers, if it didn't take till 6 am my time to get this going i would perhaps have posted it.

[quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1312611935' post='2773387']
There was never another NoWedge either, but we still got Ramirus...

To all alliances:

What are your thoughts on Fark? Do you consider them to still be a part of SF? Do they have any say in what you do as a bloc?
[/quote]

No, love fark to dead, but they are no longer a member of SF. Ofcourse seeing they're treatied with everyone in SF and they're gov being friends to many of us we discuss a lot, and try to not let them be suprised too often, but they're not part of SF anymore then part of it's history.

[quote name='BastardofGod' timestamp='1312614610' post='2773410']
Eh none of these alliances have had to deal with being on a losing side of a war but always seem to talk a bunch of !@#$.

To hell with the lot of them. Cept RIA. Good randomly insane people.
[/quote]

As said, simply not true, impossible even since SF (R&R at least but my history is a bit rusty so maybe others too) and CSN at one time fought each other. So if none of us ever lost, how does that work?

And even if we never where on the losing side of a war (which we all have been), that's only a bad thing when you do it by constantly jumping sides. I don't think SF has a history of jumping sides (except for maybe just fighting both sides ) so how many losses or victories we had means nothing more then having been able to get more alliances on our side then the enemy on theirs, therefor it can only be seen that somehow we did something good over the years and i want to thank you for the compliment

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1312618863' post='2773435']
With a bit of forecasting, what or who do you see as the next big alliance/person.

What do you think about non chaining treaties?
[/quote]

I honestly have no idea, nor do i even know how to exactly evaluate something like that. What exactly is big? For an alliance strength wise? I mean i suspect Umbrella to keep growing, it's hard for them to get damaged during wars i hear As for person, surely there will be someone more visible then the average alliance leader from time to time, but what is big? I think to be really big, big actions have to be done. Besides that color politics is dead, noone really cares about senators anymore except for the convenience of not having to go to another alliance to sanction rogues and such and this game is pretty much innovated (organization wise) to the max (there's noone that will be able to give their alliance that extra edge by being the first to invent something like tech dealing). And so far I don't see anyone in the last few wars or the one thats shaping up now to become the next "Voice of (insert the next coalition)" i think the time of truly big persons and alliances is over. Now is the time for above average, average and below average people and alliances.

To open for interpretation, too optional, to vague, never really liked them. In the case of the R&R-IRON MDP the non chaining clause was so (ab)used that the treaty never had any real political weight in the case of SF it's practically a non issue. So yeah, i guess it's just how people interpret them, as long as it's clear to both parties in what perspective you see them and they aren't used to switch to the convenient side of a war, i guess they are okay.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1312625782' post='2773453']
Q for all SF members: Do you consider your score with NPO settled?

[/quote]

Definitely, R&R was open to NPO relations back when they where still in terms from karma and we've had a growing friendship with them ever since. Last war we where requested to oA on the DH/NPO front and it was one of the reasons we where not willing to activate any treaty unless of defensive nature.

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1312627831' post='2773459']
You know, if this thread was meant to try and dispel the opinions some people feel about the SF, I don't think it was very successful. If anything it seems like the entire point of this thread is to show the entire world that SF and MJ really, [i]really[/i] don't like each other. All well and good. Whatever bad blood there is either has nothing to do with me on an individual basis, or predates my time on Bob. But I can't help but notice what's been said about other members of my Alliance. I really don't care what happened years back, but calling senior figures of an alliance cowards is not a good way to endear yourselves to the rank and file. Mayhap you don't care what the rest of a particular alliance thinks outside their leadership, but you should. After all, leaders can start wars but it always falls on the rest of the crew to carry out the decision.
[/quote]

Succesfull or not, if you think it's all about SF MJ you should read again cause i've answered many questions and only a portion of that had anything to do with MJ, which of course for the moment is something many people have on their mind. I agree that calling an alliance leader (or a former one) is not the way to make yourself popular with that alliances membership. Though honesty goes both ways, so pretending to like someone who deep down you feel is/see as a coward would be counter productive as well.

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1312631813' post='2773472']
How can you run an effective QnA when certain parties cherry pick which questions they will answer?
[/quote]

Except for the question i see NoR repeating and i do not believe will ever be answered (just a gut feeling, haven't discussed it so maybe Xiph just missed it 500 times ) I can only offer that if i personally haven't answered one, please re-ask, it hapens that i either miss a question or do not feel i'm the one to answer it.

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1312640115' post='2773497']
Which 3 alliances do you believe will have the biggest influence to cause a SF curbstomp in the next war (if it was to happen).
[/quote]

PB most likely, so yeah the 3 in there with the "biggest" influence. Biggest is relative seeing they probably all have about the same voice, but total equality is something VERY hard to achieve and much easier to imagine.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1312640984' post='2773502']
What's it like being hounded in this thread by an alliance who actually let Diabloz into government?
[/quote]

I've always gotten along great with Diabloz, he even made our pip (hate him for it ) so what's your point?

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1312646033' post='2773537']
Did it ever occur to you that making this thread would turn out to be a terrible idea reeking in desperation?
[/quote]

Occur that it could be percieved like that? Sure. Should that stop us?

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1312650134' post='2773558']
1. Do you find it funny or sad that out of the 17,299 nations that are apart of the world roughly only 2% have bothered to participate in the Q&A ?

2. Do you ever sit back and in your mind find humor at those who chose to invest a great deal of their time into our world?

3. How many people do you believe are sitting out in the world at large waiting for an opportunity to rogue you (anyone of the SF in general)and then delete after exhausting their nations?

4. For the thousands, or perhaps ten thousand who find you, and those who invest heavily into the theatre of politics in CN to be idiots will you oblige silly questions toward the end of the Q&A to maintain our entertainment? (this assumes of course the brilliance of those already posting have thumped their chests and got it out)

5. Final question for Xiph specifically, when GOD gets stomped how hard will you be laughing at your aggressors if they dont mandate in the peace agreement you step down from gov and leave the alliance?
[/quote]

Actually, 2% would be about 340 people, so yeah that would be awesome But neither, the OWF isn't the place for the big masses, just for the active and interested few.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1312651742' post='2773573']
There are 3 alliances that I know of, Im sure there are others I dont. His desire to disband UPN hurt SF & showed he puts his own obsession before his alliance and allies even during a major war. I would say repeatedly trying to force someone, anyone to disband even to the determent of his alliance and the welfare of his allies is an obsession. Now his allies in SF are suffering in part for that obsession.
[/quote]

Orly? Did it.. actually R&R (GOD's only ally on that front) had no problem at all continuing fighting UPN and both iFOK and CMEA i've offered myself to take a separate peace if they wanted to, because we would take a bit more time then needed. Seeing CMEA contained a lot of former R&R, that had the same distaste for Bi-polar actions from UPN they didn't take it. And peace was signed before iFOK ever got back to me about it. As for the actual disbandment... they're still around aren't they? And i can tell you it had nothing to do with public opinion but everything to do with UPN showing last war they where no longer the UPN of the past (or at least working hard on not being it anymore). We gave UPN an out of the war several times while they where clearly defeated and nothing more then a small strain on our lower midtiers, they opted to continue (respect for that and again something that showed this wasn't the Bi-Polar UPN anymore) when they finally came for peace.. well we wanted it on our terms basically, not their earliest convenience. Giving them a good scare in the process was perhaps a bit childish but not more then that really.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1312653167' post='2773581']
To all in SF: Do you guys ever feel as though you will be able to pull off the level of hypocrisy RV has shown here? I feel as though preaching loyalty and then switching AAs to fight another alliance due to a personal vendetta is something that I cannot get behind, do you agree, or do agree with Xiphosis' mantra in the last war where when you (as an alliance) have enough NS on your coalition side, you can pick any target?

I mean why help your alliance mates in their war if they are going to win anyways?

Do you feel as though you can employ a strategy in this seemingly inevitable war to only go to war with MJ alliances instead of MJ/PB/DR alliances?
[/quote]

<3 RV, never have him change. Best way to deal with RV isn't looking at the hypocrisy, but at how he says anything. Very often something he says seems to contradict something he did or said before. Without him many topics (pretty much all R&R ones would be to boring to read ).

There are always circumstances in which a war can turn out differently then expected. For example, if NoR attacks CSN tonight with the CB "Cause we want to get the war started already", i believe GOONS has little other choice then to honor their treaty and PB to follow them. Which could be a game changer. Realistically the war if it comes or when it comes will probably start with other alliances, maybe TOP on NpO for example. In which sides will unfold and we might (looks like probably) end up on the losing side.

The only real way there is to change the course of a war is to start it yourself at the most inconvenient place for the other side, maybe somewhere out there there's a way. But we're pretty much acting on the "if they want us, they can come on get us" thought instead of the "let's try to end it before they can" thought. Both because treaties are always easier to honor defensively instead of aggressively (so why give them that advantage?) as because even though there's no love lost between SF and MJ and even though SF's welcoming party for MJ was less then friendly, we are not out to get them.

Do we WANT to lose a war? Of course not, do you? We'll try to strengthen our side more then they can strengthen theirs, or try to avoid it coming to blows. But we're playing the game as are they, the one who does best will have the biggest coalition later on and if that side decides to use it the other will lose, if that's us, well such is life, we'll take our licks, rebuild and fight another day against maybe the same or maybe another opponent.


[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1312657570' post='2773625']
I have no doubt that it's deliberate; the theory many people hold is that Xiphosis was raging so hard in private that his some of allies` leaders told him told him to stop responding to certain people. His behavior in this thread has made very clear that his ability to even moderately tone down his normal, insensible personality is very limited and very shaky, even when he's trying his absolute hardest to do so.
[/quote]

As more of your theories about our back channels lately it's so far off that i have to wonder if you make it up on the spot or if the one telling you this is making it up as he goes.

[Believland]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312660162' post='2773666']
-snip-
[/quote]

Can you also be anti-social? Why are you answering questions for SF? Your 1 man army isn't in SF.

[Believland]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312660162' post='2773666']
-snip-
[/quote]

Can you also be anti-social? Why are you answering questions for SF? Your 1 man army isn't in SF.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Striderwanabe' timestamp='1312661828' post='2773683']
If you would check the DoW of GOD on NoV, you will see the mud-slinging began before those terms were issued. To be honest, as Kaiser of NoV at the time I had never heard of GOD prior to the declaration of war against us, yet they seemed to know enough about us to throw the first insult. We were treated with nothing but contempt by our opponents from Day 0, so those terms were fully justified. There is something to be said that those terms were not extraordinary given the spirit of the times, and given the fact that NoV itself had been pounded by the war (it was assaulted as the perceived weak link in the ~ coalition by somewhere around 11 alliances, similar to GOONS in the recent DH-NPO war).
[/quote]

People have done much less to me and I make sure to talk !@#$ about them every chance I get. Just saying. You can try to spin what happened any way you want, but I'm just saying I'd hate you if you gave me those terms too.

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1312674335' post='2773820']
Just because you are friends with an alliance doesn't mean you make good allies... I have plenty of friends and alliances that I like that I wouldn't even [u]dream[/u] of treatying myself to.
[/quote]

Why?