Kim Jaym Il Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Rogal Dorn' timestamp='1341558873' post='3004681'] move along deinos... go do something like improve your war machine or the lackthereof. [/quote] haha what Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1341555363' post='3004647'] Whoever came up with that coalition name should be shot, and then court martialed. [/quote] In that order? [quote name='Rogal Dorn' timestamp='1341558873' post='3004681'] move along deinos... go do something like improve your war machine or the lackthereof. [/quote] Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh snap. Wicked burn, bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Nice, the old "surrender and we will put you on a ZI list we'll never be able to enforce" joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1341550760' post='3004557'] Points at Stelios and then blames Mia [/quote] I like the new tooty-fruity Lightbringer Brehon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1341550760' post='3004557'] Points at Stelios and then blames Mia [/quote] Stelios is terribad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 ~shining light into a dark scary world~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1341555004' post='3004642'] At what point do you realize that anyone that peruses the owf and follows terms like this doesn't deserve to be here. Do you think alliances send these terms out to their members or something? At least it isn't standard practice for alliances at war to take up space announcing individual surrender terms knowing exactly that the audience they're trying to reach doesn't know !@#$ about the medium they're using. [/quote] This is a completely random outburst. Also what the hell this coalition name is [b]horrible[/b]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 mmmm ominous. Happy hunting, friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 I, for one, welcome our new luminescent overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1341583798' post='3004790'] I, for one, welcome our new luminescent overlords. [/quote] This little light of ours, I'm gonna help it shine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1341555363' post='3004647'] Whoever came up with that coalition name should be shot, and then court martialed. [/quote] coalition, Noun: An alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states. so do you have a better name for it then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Birdman' timestamp='1341585858' post='3004798'] coalition, Noun: An alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states. so do you have a better name for it then? [/quote] are you really that dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 This is infinitely better than MKs [b]NO [/b]individual surrender terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1341586979' post='3004806'] This is infinitely better than MKs [b]NO [/b]individual surrender terms. [/quote] How so? Individual surrender terms were never a benevolent thing, they are offered to weaken the opposing alliances. Besides that, why shouldn't people face the consequences of their alliance's actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1341586979' post='3004806'] This is infinitely better than MKs [b]NO [/b]individual surrender terms. [/quote] I'm pretty sure we're offering surrender terms to nations under 60k NS in NATO and RnR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1341587272' post='3004807'] How so? Individual surrender terms were never a benevolent thing, they are offered to weaken the opposing alliances.[/quote] In this case MK and their toadies are trying to keep SF together so they can beat on them harder and longer in MKs nocb war. [quote] Besides that, why shouldn't people face the consequences of their alliance's actions? [/quote] The consequences of being attacked for no reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Not the best name our wartime coalition has had, but as long as we're fighting alongside allies I'm happy. o/ All [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1341552415' post='3004599'] As per our normal policy which we have had in every war since karma, I would just like to officially note that any Viridian nation who accepts these terms will be placed on our ZI list until their sentence is fulfilled. Given that we are rather occupied at the moment, I'm guessing this will extend into the post war period as well. As I don't suspect any material number of Viridians will surrender, there shouldn't be any issues, but it's always good to be clear. Also, I didn't get around to mentioning it in any of the counter declarations, but good luck to TPF, IRON, etc in the war. [/quote] A very tough choice you leave your members with there. But in all seriousness I'm glad we can be civil about this. I wish you good luck as well. [quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1341555004' post='3004642'] At what point do you realize that anyone that peruses the owf and follows terms like this doesn't deserve to be here. Do you think alliances send these terms out to their members or something? At least it isn't standard practice for alliances at war to take up space announcing individual surrender terms knowing exactly that the audience they're trying to reach doesn't know !@#$ about the medium they're using. [/quote] To what shall we reference should we come across an nation who wishes to surrender? This thread wasn't directed towards you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1341587556' post='3004809'] In this case MK and their toadies are trying to keep SF together so they can beat on them harder and longer in MKs nocb war. The consequences of being attacked for no reason? [/quote] We're only fighting half of SF, and AFAIK we're the only ones not offering individual surrender terms. I'm sure between you, myth, ogaden and SCY you can convince everyone our coalition is terrible though! The consequences of implicitly supporting the nuking of our applicants by being members of that alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1341586192' post='3004801'] are you really that dumb [/quote] *Are you really that dumb? At least use somewhat proper grammar when asking a question like that, mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Birdman' timestamp='1341589794' post='3004818'] *Are you really that dumb? At least use somewhat proper grammar when asking a question like that, mate. [/quote] Sometimes I'm lazy. I'll take that over replying to someone complaining about 'Lightbringers' with the definition of coalition and being smug about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre4mwe4ver Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 o/ Lightbringers Hmm... I suppose it does have a ring to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1341588446' post='3004814'] The consequences of implicitly supporting the nuking of our applicants by being members of that alliance. [/quote] ^^ This is just [s]plain dumb[/s] a poor attempt at rationalization (fyi rationalization means trying to make what you did "the right thing to do"). I can only assume that "nuking of our applicants" refers to the targeting on Dave93 for ZI. I am unaware of any other MK "applicant" that was nuked by CSN - please enlighten me if I am misinformed (a.k.a. "tell me I'm wrong"). CSN explicitly warned Dave93 that he was a ZI target before he sought protection and MK made an exception to its own charter to create the "crisis" - no need to revisit that issue. Instead of targetting the "offending" nations, MK declares war on the entire alliance - no problem there, its an alliance's perogrative. But PLEASE don't try to argue that nations in alliances allied to CSN somehow deserve a hypothetical "beat down" because they are members of an alliance that has treaties with an alliance (or part of a bloc, etc.). That's just ignorant. Look what you are actually saying: [members of)particular group] deserve [violent consequences] because the support [bad thing (usually imaginary)] by being [members of particular group] [b]Now MADLIB that mofo with an ethnicity, gender, or any other group for hours of pogrom inducing fun[/b]. [Hippies] deserve [to be washed] because they support [free love] by being [hippies]. [SF] deserves [to be destroyed as a bloc] because they support [nuking of MK applicants] by being [SF]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Steve' timestamp='1341593112' post='3004843'] ^^ This is just [s]plain dumb[/s] a poor attempt at rationalization (fyi rationalization means trying to make what you did "the right thing to do"). I can only assume that "nuking of our applicants" refers to the targeting on Dave93 for ZI. I am unaware of any other MK "applicant" that was nuked by CSN - please enlighten me if I am misinformed (a.k.a. "tell me I'm wrong"). CSN explicitly warned Dave93 that he was a ZI target before he sought protection and MK made an exception to its own charter to create the "crisis" - no need to revisit that issue. Instead of targetting the "offending" nations, MK declares war on the entire alliance - no problem there, its an alliance's perogrative. But PLEASE don't try to argue that nations in alliances allied to CSN somehow deserve a hypothetical "beat down" because they are members of an alliance that has treaties with an alliance (or part of a bloc, etc.). That's just ignorant. Look what you are actually saying: [members of)particular group] deserve [violent consequences] because the support [bad thing (usually imaginary)] by being [members of particular group] [b]Now MADLIB that mofo with an ethnicity, gender, or any other group for hours of pogrom inducing fun[/b]. [Hippies] deserve [to be washed] because they support [free love] by being [hippies]. [SF] deserves [to be destroyed as a bloc] because they support [nuking of MK applicants] by being [SF]. [/quote] Good lord, do you guys actually read what is posted and like going on tangential rants, or do you just like shouting at MK. Yes I meant Dave93. We have the right to accept who we please. And the line you quoted was referring specifically to the members of CSN. Though the members of the other alliances fighting us are here because of the actions of their governments too. And so no, I'm not talking about all of SF, and whatever else you're ranting about. But the alliance as a whole does pay for the actions of it's government, that's the way it has always worked here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1341593630' post='3004846'] Good lord, do you guys actually read what is posted and like going on tangential rants, or do you just like shouting at MK. Yes I meant Dave93. We have the right to accept who we please. And the line you quoted was referring specifically to the members of CSN. Though the members of the other alliances fighting us are here because of the actions of their governments too. And so no, I'm not talking about all of SF, and whatever else you're ranting about. But the alliance as a whole does pay for the actions of it's government, that's the way it has always worked here. [/quote] Would you like some cheese with that whine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 [quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1341593792' post='3004847'] Would you like some cheese with that whine? [/quote] Are you retarded? I was responding to Steve's arguments, in no way was I whining. Keep throwing everything you can think of though, maybe one day something will stick! 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.