Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326585066' post='2899745'] NPO already got rolled for all their Hegemonic actions – or did you miss Karma? If that wasn't enough, then they got rolled [i]again[/i] thanks to Doomhouse deciding to take them out last year, and FAN got their piece of them in that one. But then again, having Krack say I'm wrong is about as good an endorsement as it's possible to get on these boards, so I'm not too bothered. [/quote] God damn it, Bob Janova. Omni has even said Legion was being held off from entering as part of a deployment strategy. I mean, if you want to keep spinning BS feel free, but you're being a moron especially considering your apologetics for TOP/IRON. [quote name='Dajobo'] Omni I just need to correct this statement. Legion offered to enter for us on many occasions but we held them back thinking when they entered it would bring a lot more firepower in against them than they could add, and therefore not help the situation. A cruel twist of fate saw NPO pre-empted on the very day that we were going to accept Legions offer. Legion have some damn nice people in their membership and while lots of people on Bob don't give a hoot about that, we do. Friends > Infra. They didn't fight with us no, but they didn't shirk their obligations to us for one second either. [/quote] Edited January 15, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 I'm not even sure what your point is. NPO weren't entering fast enough for you and you wanted to roll them, so you pre-empted. So what? You (and FAN) still got to roll them. And considering how MK and Umbrella treated TOP for a pre-empt in the previous war, you were hardly justified as using that as your reason for entering on that occasion. But DH's actions there are pretty much irrelevant to the point that NPO have already been rolled at least once explicitly for what FAN and Fark complained about in their entry to this war, and FAN at least have already had a second bite at the cherry (I can't remember what Fark did in your rolling of NPO last year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Like I said earlier people, there is a much more fun (and evil) way to go about this. Simply start reengaging the allies of FARK and Sparta again. Might I suggest MHA go first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326587340' post='2899762'] I'm not even sure what your point is. NPO weren't entering fast enough for you and you wanted to roll them, so you pre-empted. So what? You (and FAN) still got to roll them. And considering how MK and Umbrella treated TOP for a pre-empt in the previous war, you were hardly justified as using that as your reason for entering on that occasion. But DH's actions there are pretty much irrelevant to the point that NPO have already been rolled at least once explicitly for what FAN and Fark complained about in their entry to this war, and FAN at least have already had a second bite at the cherry (I can't remember what Fark did in your rolling of NPO last year). [/quote] How exactly did we treat TOP? I mean, TOP sided with an opposing force and it turned sour for them. I never agreed with the NpO-\m/ stuff to begin with. They didn't do anything. I agree, which is why I said it might have to stop now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1326587455' post='2899764'] Like I said earlier people, there is a much more fun (and evil) way to go about this. Simply start reengaging the allies of FARK and Sparta again. Might I suggest MHA go first? [/quote] Why don't you try Sparta first, Zoom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326587586' post='2899769'] Why don't you try Sparta first, Zoom. [/quote] Peace mode. Anyway, back to the actual point, I think Fark doesn't care, but it's still unreasonable to prolong the war indefinitely. Edited January 15, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Could always declare now and wait till/if they come out if we all feel so poignantly on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326583060' post='2899719'] Seriously? The CB was NPO's chosen involvement in the conflict via the declaration of support. Jesus. Don't be obtuse about that. Even NPO acknowledged it was just a preemptive attack to open up a new front. ... How many times has FAN gotten revenge? Once and it wasn't even really about their revenge, but a tactical strike against the flagship alliance of the Polar coalition.[/quote] So, you suggest that FAN is justified in continuing to attack NPO, because last time wasn't about their revenge, but rather a "tactical strike". But you claim that this time isn't about their revenge either, but is in response to NPO's DoS. Does it therefore follow that you believe that FAN is justified continuing to attack NPO [i]ad nauseam[/i] in the future, because you think its previous attacks were not about revenge?!? I don't even think FAN believes that. [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326586418' post='2899754'] God damn it, Bob Janova. Omni has even said Legion was being held off from entering as part of a deployment strategy. I mean, if you want to keep spinning BS feel free, but you're being a moron especially considering your apologetics for TOP/IRON. [/quote] You continue to run this line (i.e.that the war was a "tactical strike", rather than revenge or preventing NPO from getting back into power), and yet the majority of your coalition at the time doesn't even seem to believe it, and Wiki reflects the consensus view. You were the only poster at the time that seriously defended the line, and you can blame it on Archon's absence, but I think it is closer to the truth that your reasoning was used by your other coalition partners as a means to achieve their own ends (i.e. satisfying the desire of their memberships to attack NPO). Edited January 15, 2012 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326587586' post='2899769'] Why don't you try Sparta first, Zoom. [/quote] This literally makes no sense. You make IRON look bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1326587998' post='2899777'] So, you suggest that FAN is justified in continuing to attack NPO, because last time wasn't about their revenge, but rather a "tactical strike". But you claim that this time isn't about their revenge either, but is in response to NPO's DoS. Does it therefore follow that you believe that FAN is justified to continue attacking NPO in the future, because you think its previous attacks were not about revenge?!? I don't even think FAN believes that. You continue to run this line (i.e.that the war was a "tactical strike", rather than revenge or preventing NPO from getting back into power), and yet the majority of your coalition at the time doesn't even seem to believe it, and Wiki reflects the consensus view. You were the only poster at the time that seriously defended the line, and you can blame it on Archon's absence, but I think it is closer to the truth that your reasoning was used by your other coalition partners as a means to achieve their own ends (i.e. satisfying the desire of their memberships to attack NPO). [/quote] What I'm saying is since they've gotten to do it a second time, it's not as big of an issue anymore. I can get SirWilliam's posts and he was the head of GOONS military. [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1296616626' post='2615464'] I'm sorry you're not understanding this but I can't really be any clearer. That would be a fair assessment to make [i]after[/i] the fact and if we were content with waiting. Neither was the case. Wait for NPO's eventual entrance? Wait while our allies burn? Wait and give up the tactical advantage? Yeah, no thanks, no thanks, and no thanks. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326588238' post='2899779']I can get SirWilliam's posts and he was the head of GOONS military. [/quote] Sure there was a tactical advantage. That doesn't change the fact that there was little serious support for your underlying justification at the time, and enough support for the other justifications that are now reflected in the consensus view. You can't blame that on NPO propaganda or naivety, because it reflects the views held by the memberships of your coalition partners. Edited January 15, 2012 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1326589475' post='2899789'] Sure there was a tactical advantage. That doesn't change the fact that there was little serious support for your underlying justification at the time, and enough support for the other justifications that are now reflected in the consensus view. You can't blame that on NPO propaganda or naivety, but on the views held by the memberships of your coalition partners. [/quote] I think naivete had a lot to do with it. You're right that did hurt us, but at the very least my membership always knew the reason, hence Kowalski saying Van Hoo was really the savior of NPO and not NpO when he did his jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Sorry, but I think it is naive to not believe that your coalition partners had their own justification or motives, but that yours was deemed to be the most politically convenient. Edited January 15, 2012 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyas Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326583094' post='2899720'] What, no one offered an ad hominem for his alliance affiliation on this one? [/quote] I think most people understood it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 If I may so inquire, what exactly is being alleged of my/GOONS's/Doomhouse's views this past war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1326588195' post='2899778'] This literally makes no sense. You make IRON look bad. [/quote] No kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1326587455' post='2899764'] Like I said earlier people, there is a much more fun (and evil) way to go about this. Simply start reengaging the allies of FARK and Sparta again. Might I suggest MHA go first? [/quote] I think you'd end up with two problems. The first being finding people willing to re-engage (which wouldn't be extremely hard I don't guess). The next thing to deal with would be what Umbrella would say. I don't think they'd like it very much. I'm just guessing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1326597889' post='2899856'] I think you'd end up with two problems. The first being finding people willing to re-engage (which wouldn't be extremely hard I don't guess). The next thing to deal with would be what Umbrella would say. I don't think they'd like it very much. I'm just guessing though. [/quote] Voting this post for understatement of the year 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1326587455' post='2899764'] Like I said earlier people, there is a much more fun (and evil) way to go about this. Simply start reengaging the allies of FARK and Sparta again. Might I suggest MHA go first? [/quote] Do this. Great plan. Definitely do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1326587455' post='2899764'] Like I said earlier people, there is a much more fun (and evil) way to go about this. Simply start reengaging the allies of FARK and Sparta again. Might I suggest MHA go first? [/quote] MHA is not holding up peace. Reps are not really harsh at all. What would be harsh is if to get peace, NPO/Co. demands Sparta's top tier come out of peace mode and fight for a few weeks. In fact, that should already be an option. Sparta, take the off white peace, surrender, and no re-entry or be forced to come out of pm. Undefeated war record and Wiki are not really that important. Sparta: Wiki > Allies ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proest Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1326574490' post='2899638'] People can twist your words to the same effect even if you do post, in fact it's easier. [/quote] Here's how you avoid that: don't have dumbass government representing you and muzzle the poodles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Brehon, if I didn't know better, I'd call you a decent guy. I think this is a reasonable post which has generated interesting discussion, although I agree with Omni that if would have spiced things up a bit to add logs of the negotiations. From me this is high praise (I can't remember the last time I said something nice about anyone in your alliance leadership and really meant it.) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1326493876' post='2899058'] Fark would love to make NPO the bad guy again. By refusing the entirely reasonable terms you've offered them, they hope to provoke you into demanding reps and making the world fear the "ebil NPO" again. Unfortunately for them, the entire world recognizes how !@#$@#$ retarded Fark are, and would have no sympathy for them if you levied reps. Hell, most would applaud you after they spit your offer back at you. [/quote] Oh please, NSO is the alliance that came up with this crap. Something about a plank in your eye. [quote name='Westernfront' timestamp='1326573730' post='2899628'] Brehon for Sparta viceroy [/quote] Sparta are your allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1326596016' post='2899839'] If I may so inquire, what exactly is being alleged of my/GOONS's/Doomhouse's views this past war? [/quote] Meh, the issue actually has little relevance to current events, imo. I only raise it because Roq continues to call out posters in multiple threads who make reference to the other motivations described in the original DH CB (e.g. revenge on NPO for the heg era) rather than accepting Roq's view it was purely a "tactical strike" within the confines of the VE/NpO war. I honestly don't care, and I accept that the tactical aspect was a key consideration (or, at least, a convenient reason). I just don't think that posters should called out for being naive, or that there has been some kind of NPO-led conspiracy to revise history, when all they are doing is making reference to the CB plus the opinions expressed by MK and GOONS posters at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1326603525' post='2899905'] Meh, the issue actually has little relevance to current events, imo. I only raise it because Roq continues to call out posters in multiple threads who make reference to the other motivations described in the original DH CB (e.g. revenge on NPO for the heg era) rather than accepting Roq's view it was purely a "tactical strike" within the confines of the VE/NpO war. I honestly don't care, and I accept that the tactical aspect was a key consideration (or, at least, a convenient reason). I just don't think that posters should called out for being naive, or that there has been some kind of NPO-led conspiracy to revise history, when all they are doing is making reference to the CB plus the opinions expressed by MK and GOONS posters at the time. [/quote] Well, given the employment of preempts in this war being widespread and the controversy over Fark, it does have some relevance. It set the precedent to some extent, since before DH, it was considered a taboo to preempt after the TIDTT thing. Edited January 15, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyas Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1326603419' post='2899901'] Sparta are your allies. [/quote] It was a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.