Jrenster Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343008568' post='3013395'] You're kidding, right? This was [i]beyond[/i] a sure treaty, and brings nothing new to the world. [/quote] It's ridiculously easy to say that in hindsight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Niagara Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343008568' post='3013395'] You're kidding, right? This was [i]beyond[/i] a sure treaty, and brings nothing new to the world. [/quote] Bud is correct...only sure ones were ones held in some way shape or form by all three alliances. All the rest were reviewed by full membership discussions and determined by our government to continue/upgrade/downgrade or non-renewal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342998090' post='3013343'] You know, seeing this just kinda sucks. Two years ago when Valhalla didn't defend MCXA I was told several reasons. I was told they wanted to be able to defeat DH the last war, they wanted to build themselves up, that they wanted to sign treaties in new areas, but also that [i][b]they didn't want to do anything that would help an order[/b][/i]. It sucked that we had an ally tell us that they're relationship with NPO was more important than their treaty partner, and plenty of their other allies, but now I get to see them turn around and treaty the alliance that they told me led to them selling my good friends out. I'm not saying there is anything wrong people changing their minds on old enemies, but it does seam to me that that what I was told two years ago was very dishonest. [/quote] The story has moved on; with or without you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Bud, you've always had the weakness of pride, and that pride is allowing you to rationalize the decisions your alliance has made. Your post here is a perfect example by way of the wrong headed arguments you make to justify your past. [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1343008352' post='3013394'] Your answers to this post lie above SCY. Even with that ill take a stab at this post. We had multiple allies in that war. Some on one side some on the others. We were VERY CLEAR to all allies we would not participate in the attacking or defending of NPO. Yes we had opportunities to enter on the other side.[/quote] Who were the allies you had on the other side? Now list the allies that were on MCXA's side. [quote] At that particular point in time there were issues with NPO that had not been worked out and the current administration was not exactly workable with us.[/quote] As was explained to me you guys were upset that NPO treatied an ally of yours, and did not come talk to you. In other words your issues with NPO were a bruised and petty ego. [quote]We made a conscience choice to remain on the side lines of that war. For those that understood our point we were there with our long boats with rebuilding supplies as was our responsibility.[/quote] MCXA never received any aid. [quote]There are specific reasons we put non chaining clauses in our treaties, now I cant recall anymore but if i remember right you chained in to that war as well. [/quote] Valhalla seamed to be the only alliance that has ever looked at a non-chaining clause and decided it would be its first inclination to use it to avoid war, and coincidentally you found this new attitude towards your non chaining clauses in a war you would have likely lost. [quote]We didnt tell just you that we told everyone that. [/quote] Telling someone you are about to do something, does not inherently justify the action. [quote]To be quite honest Valhalla has never resigned with NPO. Valhalla remains in the hearts and souls of some of the members of AI but as a political entity it no longer exists. With that said the current admin (Brehon) as with the former admin(Mary) laid the ground work for those of us with issues to be more comfortable with what has now occured (see my original post in this thread). Now that we are all AI and have wiped the slate clean not only for us but others we may have had a grudge against this treaty works.[/quote] I don't buy it, I don't think this is about someone laying groundwork, or slates becoming clean. I think it is because now you stand to gain from a new relationship with NPO while in the past you had a new attitude that allowed you to save your alliance damage and leave out "friends" out in the field to burn. [quote] SCY i say this not to be a smart ass but more of friendly advice let go of the past if you do not you will never be able to progress. [/quote] You might want to think of things as a dichotomy between the past and future, but the past is what we look to learn, and see the actions that define the people around us. Instead of seeing things as the past or as progress I choose to see things as virtuous, honorable, or lacking thereof. I'm not questioning Valhalla's honor, I'm denying its existence. I don't think you suddenly had a change of heart about Pacifica, I think two years ago you found a way to weasel yourself out of a war, and this treaty just revealed what had happened in the past. [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1343013554' post='3013434'] The story has moved on; with or without you. [/quote] Jrenster, that may sound clever but it literally just a cliche that is meaningless. Edited July 23, 2012 by supercoolyellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343015456' post='3013443'] You might want to think of things as a dichotomy between the past and future, but the past is what we look to learn, and see the actions that define the people around us. Instead of seeing things as the past or as progress I choose to see things as virtuous, honorable, or lacking thereof. I'm not questioning Valhalla's honor, I'm denying its existence. I don't think you suddenly had a change of heart about Pacifica, I think two years ago you found a way to weasel yourself out of a war, and this treaty just revealed what had happened in the past. [/quote] You know, funny story. Valhalla burned to ashes in Karma over NPO. I know this, and I was not even present for that little fracas, so I think your claims that Val was unwilling to defend its allies even in a losing cause is lacking in merit. What I find interesting is your demands that optional aggression clauses be honored, even when an alliance disagrees with the war. The entire point of an MDoAP is to insure that if an alliance does not agree with a war, it does not get dragged into it. If the world was ordered to Supercoolyellows exacting specifications, the MDAP would be the most prevalent treaty in existence. Last I checked though, there were very few Mutal Defense AND Aggression Pacts in existence. Incidentally, have you tried tricking anymore noobs in various alliances you don't like into tech trades with your buddies? Maybe one day you will do that to an alliance far less lenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343015456' post='3013443'] Bud, you've always had the weakness of pride, and that pride is allowing you to rationalize the decisions your alliance has made. Your post here is a perfect example by way of the wrong headed arguments you make to justify your past.[/quote] LOL that is the most asinine statement you could ever make. Ive never let my pride get in the way of making a good solid decision. There is not rational for our decision it was our decision to make and we stood by it for better or worse. [quote] Who were the allies you had on the other side? Now list the allies that were on MCXA's side.[/quote] NoR was the primary on the other side but they were not the only ones to ask us. Oly SNAFU ML. But the other question you missed is who also sat out that war. Pretty much all of DR. Everyone was informed as soon as that war broke out we would not enter. DR sat we sat Oly understood as did SNAFU. [quote]As was explained to me you guys were upset that NPO treatied an ally of yours, and did not come talk to you. In other words your issues with NPO were a bruised and petty ego.[/quote] Who told you that? For god sake why would NPO come to talk to us. Now I will say that I thought at the time they might have signed and thought that as a bonus they would get us by proxy but Val never stopped an ally from signing with whom ever. Our issues with NPO were far deeper and greater than that at the time. I personally would have loved to hit them because of said un resolved issues but we had a plan and we stuck to it. [quote]MCXA never received any aid.[/quote] No !@#$ sherlock im pretty sure you can guess why. That treaty was gone shortly after the war and honestly it had a lot to do with YOU. [quote]Valhalla seamed to be the only alliance that has ever looked at a non-chaining clause and decided it would be its first inclination to use it to avoid war, and coincidentally you found this new attitude towards your non chaining clauses in a war you would have likely lost.[/quote] LOL Val was scared of loosing a war thats funny !@#$ right there. No here is the thing we had a plan in advance and we stuck to it. Its called having a direction and going with it. [quote]Telling someone you are about to do something, does not inherently justify the action.[/quote] [quote]I don't buy it, I don't think this is about someone laying groundwork, or slates becoming clean. I think it is because now you stand to gain from a new relationship with NPO while in the past you had a new attitude that allowed you to save your alliance damage and leave out "friends" out in the field to burn.[/quote] LOL no !@#$ dumb ass. There isnt a treaty signed out there today that doesnt gain you something. Today we gained an ally that we believe we can trust and whom will respect us as equals in all our decisions.(hint this is one of the problems Val had with NPO) If you thought we were so scared of damage why didnt you pony up and test your theory. Im pretty sure both friend and foe alike will set the record straight on that one. We didnt leave anyone out on the field and if your own pride and mouth hadnt got in the way MCXA may have gotten aid bombed just like all our other allies did. Instead you were being an ass and cut the last thread that was holding that treaty.(yes there were other problems between us at that time as well) [quote]You might want to think of things as a dichotomy between the past and future, but the past is what we look to learn, and see the actions that define the people around us. Instead of seeing things as the past or as progress I choose to see things as virtuous, honorable, or lacking thereof. I'm not questioning Valhalla's honor, I'm denying its existence. I don't think you suddenly had a change of heart about Pacifica, I think two years ago you found a way to weasel yourself out of a war, and this treaty just revealed what had happened in the past. [/quote] LOL and that is why we were so successful and MCXA continues to be left in mediocrity. If your so interested in hard facts take a look at that. The rest of Bob sees it yet you cant as you allow yourself to wear blinders. Valhalla lived its last 3 years very honorably. IF you want to go back further than that then by all means lets do because MCXA 5 years ago was no better than Valhalla 5 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs[/url] See above for my feelings on the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343015456' post='3013443'] Jrenster, that may sound clever but it literally just a cliche that is meaningless. [/quote] No it is not meaningless. It means that things situations change. What was a year and a half ago is not what is now. The issue is that you are conflating Valhalla's actions based on what they saw back then with what is going on now. You can't do that because it's an entirely different scenario. You can't just say it's meaningless without any points about why it is meaningless. And all you have is something about "I DONT BELIEVE YOU" which is not exactly something that constitutes as evidence. Edited July 23, 2012 by Jrenster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1343018404' post='3013454'] LOL that is the most asinine statement you could ever make. Ive never let my pride get in the way of making a good solid decision. There is not rational for our decision it was our decision to make and we stood by it for better or worse.[/quote] Anyone who has ever worked with you and some other choice characters from Val in the past and reads this, is going to be rolling their eyes. [quote]NoR was the primary on the other side but they were not the only ones to ask us. Oly SNAFU ML. But the other question you missed is who also sat out that war. Pretty much all of DR. Everyone was informed as soon as that war broke out we would not enter. DR sat we sat Oly understood as did SNAFU.[/quote] Nor fought on both sides, and then you had DT, MCXA, ML, BTA, SNAFU, Olympus, NebX, and Exodus that were all on the same side. The choice would have been easy for anyone. [quote]Who told you that? For god sake why would NPO come to talk to us. Now I will say that I thought at the time they might have signed and thought that as a bonus they would get us by proxy but Val never stopped an ally from signing with whom ever. Our issues with NPO were far deeper and greater than that at the time. I personally would have loved to hit them because of said un resolved issues but we had a plan and we stuck to it.[/quote] Chefjoe [quote]No !@#$ sherlock im pretty sure you can guess why. That treaty was gone shortly after the war and honestly it had a lot to do with YOU.[/quote] So, if an ally complains about you not defending them in a war, this now justifies you not sending them aid. Do you see why I'm saying your pride causes you to rationalize? [quote]LOL Val was scared of loosing a war thats funny !@#$ right there. No here is the thing we had a plan in advance and we stuck to it. Its called having a direction and going with it.[/quote] You can pick it all you want, but at the end of the day a scummy direction is still a scummy direction. [quote]LOL no !@#$ dumb ass. There isnt a treaty signed out there today that doesnt gain you something. Today we gained an ally that we believe we can trust and whom will respect us as equals in all our decisions.(hint this is one of the problems Val had with NPO) If you thought we were so scared of damage why didnt you pony up and test your theory. [/quote] How on earth would we test that theory? [quote]Im pretty sure both friend and foe alike will set the record straight on that one. We didnt leave anyone out on the field and if your own pride and mouth hadnt got in the way MCXA may have gotten aid bombed just like all our other allies did. Instead you were being an ass and cut the last thread that was holding that treaty.(yes there were other problems between us at that time as well)[/quote] I told you what you did was wrong, I guess that makes me an ass. [quote]LOL and that is why we were so successful and MCXA continues to be left in mediocrity. [/quote] Well as you quoted two different ideas there. I'd like to know which one you think is the reason for mediocrity. 1. A former member of theirs is a moralist who cares about honor. 2. They were treatied to a weaseling alliance known as Valhalla. Please tell me which one of those two makes MCXA mediocre. Edited July 23, 2012 by supercoolyellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Just so everyone knows, Supercoolyellow is such a moralist, he tricks noobs into trying to manufacture Casus Belli. I really don't think such a person has any right to preach to me, Valhallas former members, or anyone, on proper behavior. Edited July 23, 2012 by Aeros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343020313' post='3013465'] Anyone who has ever worked with you and some other choice characters from Val in the past and reads this, is going to be rolling their eyes. Nor fought on both sides, and then you had DT, MCXA, ML, BTA, SNAFU, Olympus, NebX, and Exodus that were all on the same side. The choice would have been easy for anyone. Chefjoe So, if an ally complains about you not defending them in a war, this now justifies you not sending them aid. Do you see why I'm saying your pride causes you to rationalize? You can pick it all you want, but at the end of the day a scummy direction is still a scummy direction. How on earth would we test that theory? I told you what you did was wrong, I guess that makes me an ass. Well as you quoted two different ideas there. I'd like to know which one you think is the reason for mediocrity. 1. A former member of theirs is a moralist who cares about honor. 2. They were treatied to a weaseling alliance known as Valhalla. Please tell me which one of those two makes MCXA mediocre. [/quote] Your inability to move on condemns MCXA to mediocre. Situations change, you need to keep situational awareness. I am in an alliance with Alterego for christ sakes, there is no greater proof that !@#$ changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1343020594' post='3013467'] Your inability to move on condemns MCXA to mediocre. Situations change, you need to keep situational awareness. I am in an alliance with Alterego for christ sakes, there is no greater proof that !@#$ changes. [/quote] MCXA is going to be really pissed when they find out that I can keep them in mediocrity by holding Valhalla in low regard and theres not a thing they can do about it. Suck it Gopher Edited July 23, 2012 by supercoolyellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1343016046' post='3013446'] You know, funny story. Valhalla burned to ashes in Karma over NPO. I know this, and I was not even present for that little fracas, so I think your claims that Val was unwilling to defend its allies even in a losing cause is lacking in merit. [/quote] lmbo. Burned to ashes in 2 and a half weeks eh? What a stunning show of commitment to your allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343020814' post='3013470'] MCXA is going to be really pissed when they find out that I can keep them in mediocrity by holding Valhalla in low regard and theres not a thing they can do about it. Suck it Gopher [/quote] Once you realize Valhalla no longer exists you might get the gest of what I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1343021334' post='3013473'] Once you realize Valhalla no longer exists you might get the gest of what I am saying. [/quote] You people who were Valhalla are still here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343021425' post='3013474'] You people who were Valhalla are still here. [/quote] Enjoy watching the world pass by your rigidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cao Pai Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 It seriously doesn't matter any more. I wasn't there when Val did what you said it did, SCY, so I can't argue those points. I can however, say this, the day Anarchy Inc. turns it's back on it's allies when they ask for assistance is the day Bob dies, and anyone who wants to test that can be my guest. New alliance, new persona, now leave this thread before I lose the respect I have for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 You are right on one thing SCY... the old Valhalla people are in AI. So are BAPS and so are Olympus. I know it is convenient to ignore that. By crying this much about Valhalla you by action, word and ignorance ignore those members and cause offense to the whole. This is what happens when you let your emotions run wild. Let it go man, move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Cao Pai' timestamp='1343022184' post='3013477'] now leave this thread before I lose the respect I have for you. [/quote] Cao Pai, Do I strike you as some one who cares what people think of myself when I post? I speak the truth as I see it, no matter how popular or powerful a person or alliance I may be critical of. If I wanted to impress people I would hold my tongue because Anarchy Inc is going to be a strong alliance with strong friends, and I would turn around and verbally abuse some alliance that is down on its luck and think to myself how cool I must be. But that is simply not me and not how I will ever roll. Edited July 23, 2012 by supercoolyellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343021425' post='3013474'] You people who were Valhalla are still here. [/quote] So you hate the individual members and have decided to hound them no matter what AA they join, how pathetic. [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1343022315' post='3013479'] You are right on one thing SCY... the old Valhalla people are in AI. So are BAPS and so are Olympus. I know it is convenient to ignore that. By crying this much about Valhalla you by action, word and ignorance ignore those members and cause offense to the whole. This is what happens when you let your emotions run wild. Let it go man, move on. [/quote] When the thing you hate is gone you lack a reason to exist. If he believes AI are valhalla it validates his existence in his own mind Edited July 23, 2012 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1343012807' post='3013425'] It's ridiculously easy to say that in hindsight. [/quote] You're kidding, right? This merge pretty much made me say "Oh great, maybe NPO will get all the lapdogs in one!" [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1343023146' post='3013487'] verbally abuse [/quote] This has to be the most delusional thing. You implying you can verbally do anything but spout off. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1343039192' post='3013549'] So you hate the individual members and have decided to hound them no matter what AA they join, how pathetic. [/quote] Never mind! I found something even more delusional, implying that members don't carry baggage with them to new alliances! Edited July 23, 2012 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Expects Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343040816' post='3013559'] This merge pretty much made me say "Oh great, maybe NPO will get all the lapdogs in one!" [/quote] BAPS in over 5 years of existence never ever held a treaty with NPO, what is this criteria you use for your sweeping and ill-informed generalisations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343040816' post='3013559']You're kidding, right? This merge pretty much made me say "Oh great, maybe NPO will get all the lapdogs in one!"[/quote] That says a lot about you, but nothing about the situation at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1343040816' post='3013559'] You're kidding, right? This merge pretty much made me say "Oh great, maybe NPO will get all the lapdogs in one!" [/quote] Is this training for you to become like our Haf/D34th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1343052455' post='3013633'] Is this training for you to become like our Haf/D34th? [/quote] Incorrect, he doesn't need any training on something he has perfected already 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.