Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1348221733' post='3032661'] Beyond saying it just to fire GATO up and have them react to the criticism of C&G, perhaps even try to turn them against TIO, why would you imply GATO have anything to be ashamed about? They're not featured in those screenshots and a lot of people seem to be saying poor GATO for being associated with C&G. INT weren't very secretive about expecting to take NoR out, whether C&G promised it or not — you're arguing semantics (people knew what INT wanted and people assumed that C&G would support them whatever happened, it's common sense to expect there would have been some C&G dialogue about it or else INT would have never deluded themselves) and undermining a relationship held by one of your allies... it's the exact opposite of saving face. [/quote] You are right, INT were not secretive about, they are not secretive about it to this day. But the insinuation was, that their SS's showed a promise (I didnt use the word promise, Hereno did when he 1st alluded to C&G renegging on a promise to hit NoR to save LSF after MK-SF ended). People alluded to SS's existing that prove a promise was made. My challenge was to show a SS showing a C&G PROMISE to LSF to hit NoR. Instead? What do we get? SS's that show nothing of the sort. At the very least, posting these SS's was in por taste, as they did not prove what was said by Hereno, which precipitated this entire line of dicussion.. that C&G promised to save LSF after the MK-SF war, then renegged on it. Keep ignoring it, and soaking up the drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348220781' post='3032651'] Berbers, does anyone being upset that MK didnt drop NoR = C&G going to war to hit NoR to save LSF? That is what insinuated. That is what the gauntlet was thrown for. Show me where anyone says it? Im a patient man. I will wait. If the entirety of that thread was posted, you would see lots of INT folks suggesting (after AI didnt keep NoR) that we go ahead and hit them then, and all 3 other govs of C&G opposing... OPPOSING...look up what opposing means, kiddos, doing that. [/quote] I think you are being factually honest in every post you are making, don't get me wrong. But I also think you might be a little pissed that you have to make these arguments because some people couldn't follow through on what was offered (whether a promise or an implication) So I will ask these questions and I hope you answer honestly because I am bowing out of here after that, to many LSF members have asked us to stop, for me to continue would be disrespectful. 1) Did CnG have an expectation of MK to drop NoR after the war? 2) Was there support for Int to hit NoR if/when MK dropped the treaty? (No timeline on this, I don't mean right away, could be as far off as next global war) 3) If you answer no to the above questions, would you also be willing to bet there are no screenshots supporting the above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348221678' post='3032660'] I know what INT wanted. And as I said 47684768398 other times, Int ALWAYS had the option to unilaterally decide to hit NoR to save LSF. If they did so, they would do so over the objections of EVERYONE in the bloc. Do you just choose to ignore where I say this? I have said it multiple times. This is why, as a bloc , we discuss things. The notion that because INT wanted to do it, that all of C&G in turn wanted to do it, is ridiculous. INT gov was the only body interested in helping LSF through war. The rest of us were willing to help them get peace, but we knew what or MADP obligations were has INT chose the war route. And we stood ready to honor them. We did not , however, at ANY time... ANY TIME my friends, support helping LSF as a unified bloc move. [/quote] Now try sharing with me the last time CnG agreed upon [i]anything[/i] as a "unified bloc move." GATO's entrance perhaps? That's the last time I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348221473' post='3032658'] Im spinning nothing, point me to anything that shows an intent to hit NoR to save LSF. Only in this peanut gallery can a community come together and say [/quote] http://i.imgur.com/xceIL.jpg -> The Secretary of State of ODN(?) agree about the need of MK drops Nor and fulfill their promise. http://i.imgur.com/ZkqKl.jpg-> The gov who wasn't gov but now is gov of your alliance shows how much his is discontent with MK treatment of CnG and ;The Int gov(3rd in power line says wiki) specifically talks about Leet making promises who he/Mk not fulfilled. http://i.imgur.com/QfsMd.jpg -> Former Int Leader says "We want blood" and clearly shows the intent of The International attack NoR now that Dave war is over. Also someone of ODN clearly lies since ODN being supportive to wars where victory is not assured is just impossible. I lol'd. http://i.imgur.com/PS613.jpg -> Here the former leader of The international one more time talk abut the promises that MK made and not fulfilled, he also talks about the fact that LSF was expecting The International to help them after the war ended and looking at the way he talks we see that he intended to enter in the war. OsRavan defends MK (as always) but do not deny promises were made by Leet. Now I know you are going to play semantics, but anyone with eyes can see the truth. So feel free to spin but please take care for the G force not kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348222160' post='3032664'] So you admit that MK did "promise" to give NoR up some time in the future? Since TLR are the honourable bunch that you are I really don't think you would attack an ally of MK's if they hadn't given them up to CnG.Would I be correct in that reasoning? [/quote] I admit nothing, what happens in regards to MK - NoR -INT and the rest of C&G is up to them. It is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is , do your screenshots show what Hereno said they show. A promise by C*G to save LSF. I think you are smart enough to answer that for yourself, but instead of answering that, you will continue to sing and dance around the NoR-MK issue , which is totally not relevant to what Hereno said existed (the promise by C&G to save LSF that we renegged on, you know, the line that started this whole conversation.) Keep ignoring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348222370' post='3032668'] http://i.imgur.com/xceIL.jpg -> The Secretary of State of ODN(?) agree about the need of MK drops Nor and fulfill their promise. http://i.imgur.com/ZkqKl.jpg-> The gov who wasn't gov but now is gov of your alliance shows how much his is discontent with MK treatment of CnG and ;The Int gov(3rd in power line says wiki) specifically talks about Leet making promises who he/Mk not fulfilled. http://i.imgur.com/QfsMd.jpg -> Former Int Leader says "We want blood" and clearly shows the intent of The International attack NoR now that Dave war is over. Also someone of ODN clearly lies since ODN being supportive to wars where victory is not assured is just impossible. I lol'd. http://i.imgur.com/PS613.jpg -> Here the former leader of The international one more time talk abut the promises that MK made and not fulfilled, he also talks about the fact that LSF was expecting The International to help them after the war ended and looking at the way he talks we see that he intended to enter in the war. OsRavan defends MK (as always) but do not deny promises were made by Leet. Now I know you are going to play semantics, but anyone with eyes can see the truth. So feel free to spin but please take care for the G force not kill you. [/quote] Oh look, yet another post centered on the MK-NoR treaty. So then Death, you too agree that these screenshots do not prove that C&G promised to rescue LSF? And that C&G did not reneg on a promise to deliver a "victory"(Hereno's word) to LSF after SF-MK shut down? None of this is shown anywhere, so you must ignore the entire point that started this conversation, and focus on something that is completely irrelevant to the "gauntlet" I threw down. Glad to know you agree with me bro, this is indeed a watershed day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222412' post='3032669'] I admit nothing, what happens in regards to MK - NoR -INT and the rest of C&G is up to them. It is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is , do your screenshots show what Hereno said they show. A promise by C*G to save LSF. I think you are smart enough to answer that for yourself, but instead of answering that, you will continue to sing and dance around the NoR-MK issue , which is totally not relevant to what Hereno said existed (the promise by C&G to save LSF that we renegged on, you know, the line that started this whole conversation.) Keep ignoring it. [/quote] The two are linked. Also, no need to admit anything, you just stated that you were going to maneuver CnG possibly into a position where it could roll NoR due to INT wishing to attack NoR in revenge for attacking LSF. When of course..attacking NoR had nothing whatsoever to do with this cancellation. I have heard of circular logic but this takes the cake. Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348222653' post='3032672'] The two are linked. Also, no need to admit anything, you just stated that you were going to maneuver CnG possibly into a position where it could roll NoR due to INT wishing to attack NoR in revenge for attacking LSF. [/quote] The two are linked? Are you insnae? They absolutely are not linked. You can make the argument that one move might make the other less messy, but they are in no way linked, as the only way that C&G was going to war to save LSF... THE ONLY WAY CHARLES... is if INT unilaterally made the move over the objections of the bloc. Why is this so bloody difficult for you guys to just accept? I just caught what you said at the end, that we would help position INT to hit NoR next war in revenge of LSF. LMAO, revenge for LSF, may have been the motivation for that from a few members of INT. But the truth is, INT has had their grudge with NoR since the inception of time itself. You only add the revenge for LSF thing as window dressing for this topic. It was clever, I will give you that. Not one of us outside of INT, gave 2 !@#$% about saving or avenging LSF. Most of us feel the world is a better place with a destroyed pile of crap that is LSF, being a non-factor. Edited September 21, 2012 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348222653' post='3032672'] The two are linked. Also, no need to admit anything, you just stated that you were going to maneuver CnG possibly into a position where it could roll NoR due to INT wishing to attack NoR in revenge for attacking LSF. [/quote] Unless of course it was just horse!@#$ to get INT to stop bothering them about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222755' post='3032673'] The two are linked? Are you insnae? They absolutely are not linked. You can make the argument that one move might make the other less messy, but they are in no way linked, as the only way that C&G was going to war to save LSF... THE ONLY WAY CHARLES... is if INT unilaterally made the move over the objections of the bloc. Why is this so bloody difficult for you guys to just accept? [/quote] Oh I can't resist, this conversation is to awesome! If you don't mind me asking, why did CnG object so much to INT wanting to hit NoR when the SF front closed? Would those objections have been less strenuous if MK had dropped NoR as implied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222755' post='3032673'] The two are linked? Are you insnae? They absolutely are not linked. You can make the argument that one move might make the other less messy, but they are in no way linked, as the only way that C&G was going to war to save LSF... THE ONLY WAY CHARLES... is if INT unilaterally made the move over the objections of the bloc. Why is this so bloody difficult for you guys to just accept? [/quote] Would INT have tried to roll NoR, the same NoR who is MK's ally, if they did not have CnG's backing? We both know the answer to that because....INT didn't defend them in the first place!!! Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222412' post='3032669'] A promise by C*G to save LSF. [/quote] A simple miscommunication causes this discussion. Rush falsely believes the rumors that MK isn't C&G anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1348222894' post='3032675'] Oh I can't resist, this conversation is to awesome! If you don't mind me asking, why did CnG object so much to INT wanting to hit NoR when the SF front closed? Would those objections have been less strenuous if MK had dropped NoR as implied? [/quote] Well off the top of my head I would point to an NG and MK treaty (funny how that NG treaty is bring ingored, because it doesnt serve an underlying purpose to paint drama). Because we thought LSF were getting exactly what they deserved? Because we knew what terms were being offered to LSF (hint: the same ones they took)... And those terms were stupidly easy that fighting a war when such light terms were on the table was patently stupid. I could go on and on, but nothing I say will change your course or your mind. Edited out my last sentence about the superbowl, because I have not yet had caffeine, and thought I was replying to Charles. Edited September 21, 2012 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1348223085' post='3032677'] A simple miscommunication causes this discussion. Rush falsely believes the rumors that MK isn't C&G anymore [/quote] This is cute and pertinent. And you join in on the crowd that ignores no such proof that C&G promised to save LSF if the brave little LSF just hung on a little longer! Welcome to the club, I hear they have a cool membership card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222570' post='3032671'] Oh look, yet another post centered on the MK-NoR treaty. So then Death, you too agree that these screenshots do not prove that C&G promised to rescue LSF? And that C&G did not reneg on a promise to deliver a "victory"(Hereno's word) to LSF after SF-MK shut down? None of this is shown anywhere, so you must ignore the entire point that started this conversation, and focus on something that is completely irrelevant to the "gauntlet" I threw down. Glad to know you agree with me bro, this is indeed a watershed day. [/quote] The post is centered around MK-NoR treaty because said treaty is central to the interests of The International and consequently CnG attack NoR, I'm happy to see that you don't deny that promises were indeed made to deliver NoR as a gift in a silver plate to CnG and you also don't deny that The International wanted/want to attack NoR asap. If CnG as a whole was interested in receive this gift or if just The International was, it's irrelevant, since your bloc is a MADP and if The International decides to receive the gift, had MK fulfilled his promises, the rest of CnG theoretically would be obligated to attack too. Now as I said you are playing semantics since who made the promise(if CnG or MK) is irrelevant, what really matter is the promise was made and it involved at least one member of CnG attacking NoR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmbroseIV Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348222260' post='3032665'] You are right, INT were not secretive about, they are not secretive about it to this day. But the insinuation was, that their SS's showed a promise (I didnt use the word promise, Hereno did when he 1st alluded to C&G renegging on a promise to hit NoR to save LSF after MK-SF ended). People alluded to SS's existing that prove a promise was made. My challenge was to show a SS showing a C&G PROMISE to LSF to hit NoR. Instead? What do we get? SS's that show nothing of the sort. At the very least, posting these SS's was in por taste, as they did not prove what was said by Hereno, which precipitated this entire line of dicussion.. that C&G promised to save LSF after the MK-SF war, then renegged on it. Keep ignoring it, and soaking up the drama. [/quote] Okay. You win, Rush — you are completely right. You have successfully weathered the storm by disproving that C&G had any intentions of taking out NoR immediately after SF/XX were disposed of, and abated any/all criticism of C&G as a result. Congratulations. If only, right? I wasn't soaking up the drama, I was subtly suggesting that you sound ridiculous and that if you ceased posting it would probably benefit C&G a great deal more — to not have someone perpetuating the debate over something stupid and inviting people to be critical 'n dish as much dirt as possible. You've picked one half-correct statement to harp on about for being incorrect, while it wasn't a ridiculous assumption to make given how eager INT were, as if that's a battle/debate you could win... but the end result is that it undermines C&G more than it would have if you just left things alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348222370' post='3032668'] http://i.imgur.com/xceIL.jpg -> The Secretary of State of ODN(?) agree about the need of MK drops Nor and fulfill their promise. http://i.imgur.com/ZkqKl.jpg-> The gov who wasn't gov but now is gov of your alliance shows how much his is discontent with MK treatment of CnG and ;The Int gov(3rd in power line says wiki) specifically talks about Leet making promises who he/Mk not fulfilled. http://i.imgur.com/QfsMd.jpg -> Former Int Leader says "We want blood" and clearly shows the intent of The International attack NoR now that Dave war is over. Also someone of ODN clearly lies since ODN being supportive to wars where victory is not assured is just impossible. I lol'd. http://i.imgur.com/PS613.jpg -> Here the former leader of The international one more time talk abut the promises that MK made and not fulfilled, he also talks about the fact that LSF was expecting The International to help them after the war ended and looking at the way he talks we see that he intended to enter in the war. OsRavan defends MK (as always) but do not deny promises were made by Leet. Now I know you are going to play semantics, but anyone with eyes can see the truth. So feel free to spin but please take care for the G force not kill you. [/quote] [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img840/8573/sillyrush.png[/img] CnG were not going to attack NoR...immediately. They were going to possibly attack NoR..in the future. Rush said it. Stop giving him a hard time already! Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348223377' post='3032680'] The post is centered around MK-NoR treaty because said treaty is central to the interests of The International and consequently CnG attack NoR, I'm happy to see that you don't deny that promises were indeed made to deliver NoR as a gift in a silver plate to CnG and you also don't deny that The International wanted/want to attack NoR asap. If CnG as a whole was interested in receive this gift or if just The International was, it's irrelevant, since your bloc is a MADP and if The International decides to receive the gift, had MK fulfilled his promises, the rest of CnG theoretically would be obligated to attack too. Now as I said you are playing semantics since who made the promise(if CnG or MK) is irrelevant, what really matter is the promise was made and it involved at least one member of CnG attacking NoR. [/quote] So for the 2nd time, you admit that there was no promise from C&G to save LSF (which is the only thing I have said since it was mentioned that we did). I appreciate your support D34th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348223414' post='3032682'] [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img840/8573/sillyrush.png[/img] [b]CnG were not going to attack NoR...immediately.[/b] They were going to possibly attack NoR..in the future. Rush said it. Stop giving him a hard time already! [/quote] Bolded part is the 1st intelligent you have uttered in this thread. Glad to see you admit you were wrong. Now we can move on to bigger and better things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1348222795' post='3032674'] Unless of course it was just horse!@#$ to get INT to stop bothering them about it. [/quote] Ding ding ding. Welcome to ten pages ago when I was discussing how INT gets no respect. Y'know, I wonder how CnG would react if it was a different old friend tied to one of us that made the "stupid move." What if it was TPE ODN? Or DiCE TLR? Or IAA GATO? See the problem here isn't that it was LSF, it was all about numbers and you were cowards because you didn't think we could win. Calling them stupid is just a copout to this fact. I'm done with this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348223688' post='3032685'] Bolded part is the 1st intelligent you have uttered in this thread. Glad to see you admit you were wrong. Now we can move on to bigger and better things. [/quote] It's all good Mr rush. You have basically said "we were not going to attack NoR right now, we were intending to try roll them in the future with the reason being INT wanting revenge for NoR attacking LSF right now". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1348223405' post='3032681'] Okay. You win, Rush — you are completely right. You have successfully weathered the storm by disproving that C&G had any intentions of taking out NoR immediately after SF/XX were disposed of, and abated any/all criticism of C&G as a result. Congratulations. If only, right? [/quote] I am not looking to abate any criticism of C&G, I am merely looking to stop the spread of the lie that Hereno begun (that all of you now so conveniently ignore, because you have now found a bigger and greater calling!) Trying to abate criticism of C&G would be a full time job, and I just cannot take the position. If you are in ANY bloc of consequence on CN, you shower daily in criticism. Some warranted, some not. What I will not sit idly by and watch, are people telling me what happened in discussions that *I* was a part of. People spewing out and out lies (like C&G reneged on a promise to save LSF.) Any other criticism comes and goes like the tides, and waxes and wanes like the moon. It is an inherent part of the nature in being in an alliance or bloc on Planet Bob. And 99.9% of it, we just let fall off, because there is much more to any picture than anyone else is seeing. And people see only what they want to. You, me, D34th, Schatt, all of us. Not a single one is capable of being 100% objective, 100% of the time, and this entire conversation proves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348223894' post='3032687'] It's all good Mr rush. You have basically said "we were not going to attack NoR right now, we were intending to try roll them in the future with the reason being INT wanting revenge for NoR attacking LSF right now". [/quote] So then, you admit that your screenshots did not prove what I said they would not prove? Class act, standing up and admitting you not only failed to answer the gauntlet with the topic at hand, but you showed an amazing amount of class and tact to your allies in GATO by spinning off a completely different subject, Be proud sir, Im sure your gov is proud of you. Edit: Inb4 completely dismissive response , and possibly vague gloating about opening up new drama. Edited September 21, 2012 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Wouldn't MK find you uppity for thinking you can maneuver anyone in front of an ally of theirs? 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.