A Cancellation

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348223616' post='3032683']
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]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Lvl07.jpg [/img]


I'll agree with you that there are more than one way to read the [i]"but you promised"[/i], but the way I read looks like MK wasn't the only one to make promises after all, looks like The International allies in CnG also promised something to them, if it was only support The International in their request to MK fulfill their promise or the support to attack NoR I honestly don't know.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1348224396' post='3032691']
Wouldn't MK find you uppity for thinking you can maneuver anyone in front of an ally of theirs?
[/quote]

Ironic from an MK puppet, wouldnt you say?

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348223221' post='3032679']
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]

Actually I never claimed this, nor will I. But nice try. To be truthful I don't care.. we got asked if we would support in a war against NoR and after we pledged support it was turned against us justifying a cancellation because we were trying to force Int into a tough war.. Not gonna lie, MK breaking their promise, screwing Int over and killing their chance to hit NoR.. I have to correct myself, I do care cause it's very entertaining to me It's probably the first dickmove MK made that I actually enjoy.

I'm just simply pointing out with the way C&G acts, a MK promise might as well still be a C&G promise. And don't even pretend MK is 'just' a C&G ally, or do I have to point out C&G attacked a C&G ally in defense of MK last war (breaking an age old tradition in the process). Or that among the cancellation reasons (one of the few I heard that actually is true) was that R&R acts against MK and thus against C&G's best interest. You can try and spin it all you want but anyone that denies MK is more than 'just' a C&G ally is either lying or incredibly stupid.

So yeah, their signatures might be crossed from the treaty but a MK promise might as well count as a promise from C&G itself.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1348224473' post='3032692']
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Lvl07.jpg [/img]


I'll agree with you that there are more than one way to read the [i]"but you promised"[/i], but the way I read looks like MK wasn't the only one to make promises after all, looks like The International allies in CnG also promised something to them, if it was only support The International in their request to MK fulfill their promise or the support to attack NoR I honestly don't know.
[/quote]

So once again, you completely eschew the promise that I am referring to (you know, I will remind you for the 4th time now, not that you will do anything other than ignore it)... the promise that Hereno said... now FOLOW ME HERE DEATH.. FOLLOW ME... Where C&G (thats us) promised to hit NoR (thats NoR) to save LSF (thats where Hereno was) and give LSF ultimate victory over NoR. I know, I know, you will ignore that, even though that is the only promise I am talking about. Something about a horse being lead to water, and not drinking.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348224657' post='3032693']
Ironic from an MK puppet, wouldnt you say?
[/quote]

I mean, I could see you guys having the seeds to ask, but I would think Os would lose a lot of sleep contemplating such temerity.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1348224850' post='3032694']
Actually I never claimed this, nor will I. But nice try. To be truthful I don't care.. we got asked if we would support in a war against NoR and after we pledged support it was turned against us justifying a cancellation because we were trying to force Int into a tough war.. Not gonna lie, MK breaking their promise, screwing Int over and killing their chance to hit NoR.. I have to correct myself, I do care cause it's very entertaining to me It's probably the first dickmove MK made that I actually enjoy.

I'm just simply pointing out with the way C&G acts, a MK promise might as well still be a C&G promise. And don't even pretend MK is 'just' a C&G ally, or do I have to point out C&G attacked a C&G ally in defense of MK last war (breaking an age old tradition in the process). Or that among the cancellation reasons (one of the few I heard that actually is true) was that R&R acts against MK and thus against C&G's best interest. You can try and spin it all you want but anyone that denies MK is more than 'just' a C&G ally is either lying or incredibly stupid.

So yeah, their signatures might be crossed from the treaty but a MK promise might as well count as a promise from C&G itself.
[/quote]

Once again, what does any of this have to do with what I have been railing against? Which is what Hereno said C&G promised? Why do you all continue to go on tangental runs at something totally unrelated to the outright lie that we promised to rescue LSF.

[D34th]

Read what I said again after the screenshot rush, in your hurry to spin the things you aren't even paying attention, I said: "I'll agree with you that there are more than one way to read the "but you promised", but the way I read looks like MK wasn't the only one to make promises after all, looks like The International allies in CnG also promised something to them, if it was only support The International in their request to MK fulfill their promise or the support to attack NoR I honestly don't know."

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348224085' post='3032690']
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.
[/quote]

You have admitted to wanting to help INT roll NoR. Just not right now but in the future, if anything you have confirmed the screenshots as well as MK promising to give up NoR.

I discussed this matter with Dream earlier, a very old friend of mine by the way. Since I didn't have a single critical thing to say about GATO and I haven't even mentioned GATO once during this topic it was a pretty easy conversation. It kind of went something like "sup dream, GATO is cool but ditch that piece of crap bloc". See Mr Rush, ridiculing a bloc my ally is in doesn't mean I am ridiculing my ally. I know, strange and miraculous logic to the likes of you but stranger stuff has happened.

Truth be told, I even feel pity for INT. They were misled by MK and no one likes being lied to. As a result of believing a lie they have lost a ton of credibility and an old if not their oldest ally. Something that at least one half of CnG doesn't give two hoots about and rightfully so, it isn't the place of the puppet to make life hard for the puppet master.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/QfsMd.jpg[/img]

[img]http://imageshack.us/a/img10/7169/rushmindtrick.png[/img]

Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1348224971' post='3032696']
I mean, I could see you guys having the seeds to ask, but I would think Os would lose a lot of sleep contemplating such temerity.
[/quote]

One must be careful when trying to whittle their way through the tangled and twisted world of CN politics. Things are rarely what they seem.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348225232' post='3032699']
You have admitted to wanting to help INT roll NoR. Just not right now, if anything you have confirmed the screenshots as well as MK promising to give up NoR.

I discussed this matter with Dream earlier, a very old friend of mine by the way. Since I didn't have a single critical thing to say about GATO and I haven't even mentioned GATO once during this topic it was a pretty easy conversation. It kind of went something like "sup dream, GATO is cool but ditch that piece of crap bloc". See Mr Rush, ridiculing a bloc my ally is in doesn't mean I am ridiculing my ally. I know, strange and miraculous logic to the likes of you but stranger stuff has happened.



[/quote]

In this post, you make more far reaching assumptions, that are , in large part, quite foolish.

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348224085' post='3032690']
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.
[/quote]

I'm near certain that GATO wouldn't be happy that an ally shared those screenshots with the world, because it undermines the integrity of their bloc, but I'm similarly certain that they wouldn't appreciate you feigning concern for them so that you have an excuse to do something similar — create a siege mentality within C&G and attempt to drive a wedge between GATO and TIO by making the latter look like a bad guy.


If you were really so concerned (and I know, we spoke about this with LSF and INT... almost like history repeats) I really don't think you would be so eager to place greater emphasis on the issue and undermine the relationship between GATO/TIO so that you can divert attention away from C&G. Yes, yes — Charles started it... but it's all too rich for you to imply it's a bad thing and then talk it up so GATO turn on Charles/TIO. The way you defend your own interests is impressive, but you seem to have very little respect for your allies... or, at the very least, haven't considered that they don't need you to publicly highlight and promote issues they might have with their other allies.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1348224396' post='3032691']
Wouldn't MK find you uppity for thinking you can maneuver anyone in front of an ally of theirs?
[/quote]

1. They try to maneuver them in front of NoR next war, which gives MK months time to make sure INT/C&G end up on the same side as NoR.
2. NoR is tied to DR and NG (correct me if i'm wrong), I don't see SF/XX lifting a finger to help out Int when they decide to hit NoR after last wars screw over. So good luck to Int in getting any kind of majority to roll NoR.

So even IF MK finds them uppity it's a non issue, the situation has resolved itself and Int can try to fool themselves in believing they get a shot at NoR soon but I don't see it happening XD

Edit: Changed you to they

Edited September 21, 2012 by EgoFreaky

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1348225448' post='3032703']
1. They try to maneuver them in front of NoR next war, which gives MK months time to make sure INT/C&G end up on the same side as NoR.
2. NoR is tied to DR and NG (correct me if i'm wrong), I don't see SF/XX lifting a finger to help out Int when they decide to hit NoR after last wars screw over. So good luck to Int in getting any kind of majority to roll NoR.

So even IF MK finds them uppity it's a non issue, the situation has resolved itself and Int can try to fool themselves in believing they get a shot at NoR soon but I don't see it happening XD

Edit: Changed you to they
[/quote]

I dont think NoR is tied to DR. Pretty sure AI didnt keep them. But I could be wrong, Ive been mostly detached the last 2 months.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348225304' post='3032701']
In this post, you make more far reaching assumptions, that are , in large part, quite foolish.
[/quote]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348221845' post='3032662']
I would propose a 3rd option. As I have said 476837684309 times now. My God is reading hard for you? Some of us in high gov,[b] myself included made an outright promise to INT [/b]that post-war (which included LSF-NoR), [b]we would use our gov positions to try to maneuver INT to get their shot at NoR in the NEXT war. THE NEXT WAR CHARLES STUART.[/b] Never stopped for 2 seconds to consider that most people were discussing a FUTURE FA policy possibility, and not a RAWR LETS SAVE LSF TODAY agenda? Never even stopped to consider it?
[/quote]

This just in folks, rush mind tricked himself.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1348225375' post='3032702']
I'm near certain that GATO wouldn't be happy that an ally shared those screenshots with the world, because it undermines the integrity of their bloc, but I'm similarly certain that they wouldn't appreciate you feigning concern for them so that you have an excuse to do something similar — create a siege mentality within C&G and attempt to drive a wedge between GATO and TIO by making the latter look like a bad guy.


If you were really so concerned (and I know, we spoke about this with LSF and INT... almost like history repeats) I really don't think you would be so eager to place greater emphasis on the issue and undermine the relationship between GATO/TIO so that you can divert attention away from C&G. Yes, yes — Charles started it... but it's all too rich for you to imply it's a bad thing and then talk it up so GATO turn on Charles/TIO. The way you defend your own interests is impressive, but you seem to have very little respect for your allies... or, at the very least, haven't considered that they don't need you to publicly highlight and promote issues they might have with their other allies.
[/quote]

Feign concern? are you kidding me? I am not concerned about GATO one iota, dont take the wrong way, I love them, there is just nothing to be concerned about. Nor do I want to undermine GATO-TIO. GATO are well aware that I think 90% of TIO are complete and utter crap. Sadly, there are about 6 members of TIO that I think are fantastic folks, its just too bad the bulk of them are pretty clueless. They try so hard to be a big fish in a big ocean. Almost too hard. It comes across as pathetic at times. It has been my opinion of them for a long time, if you find someone in GATO who is not aware of this, then they are someone who has paid no attention to me (and that is probably a PLUS for that person, cuz as you can tell, I tend to ramble alot).

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348225655' post='3032705']
This just in folks, rush mind tricked himself.
[/quote]

Actually, if you ask around, you will find out I did no such thing. One thing that anyone who has spoken to me post-war knows, I think we are going to get rolled in the next war (of course, I have thought this for the last 2 wars as well, and was sorely disappointed), but I am more confident this time. Moving INT into a position to get to fight NoR, does not equal rolling NoR, I even pointed this out in that very thread. INTs shot at NoR would likely be in a losing position in the next conflict. It is much easier to work to get to hit who you want to hit in a losing war. I wont even hold this gaffe against you, because you really do not know me, but ask around about how I feel about our chances in the next conflict. Ask folks in C&G. Ask folks who chat with me on IRC, you will see, Im pretty resigned to being rolled. One thing I do, is try not to stray too far away from realistic expectations, it saves me from being in a position to be let down. If we dont get rolled, I get another 6 months of laughing at the opposition's failure, if we do get rolled, then ... My God, its about time.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348225652' post='3032704']
I dont think NoR is tied to DR. Pretty sure AI didnt keep them. But I could be wrong, Ive been mostly detached the last 2 months.
[/quote]

Nope you're right I was wrong. AI didn't keep the treaty after the merger. I thought they did so disregard last post.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348226080' post='3032707']
Actually, if you ask around, you will find out I did no such thing. One thing that anyone who has spoken to me post-war knows, I think we are going to get rolled in the next war (of course, I have thought this for the last 2 ward as well, and was sorely disappointed), but I am more confident this time. Moving INT into a position to get to fight NoR, does not equal rolling NoR, I even pointed this out in that very thread. INTs shot at NoR would likely be in a losing position in the next conflict. It is much easier to work to get to hit who you want to hit in a losing war.
[/quote]

So....it's ok to mislead your CnG allies because they are going to get rolled anyway? Most likely rolled due to defending MK who is your ally? And somehow TIO is the bad ally? Wait..what the...are you out of your mind or did you just pull a roq on us?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348226317' post='3032709']
Did you just pull a roq on us?
[/quote]

Im not even really sure what that means. But what I told you was the truth. Five minutes of chat on IRC would prove it. I even told more than 1 member of INT gov, that their best shot at getting to fight NoR, was on the losing side of the next war.

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348225922' post='3032706']
Feign concern? are you kidding me? I am not concerned about GATO one iota, dont take the wrong way, I love them, there is just nothing to be concerned about. Nor do I want to undermine GATO-TIO. GATO are well aware that I think 90% of TIO are complete and utter crap. Sadly, there are about 6 members of TIO that I think are fantastic folks, its just too bad the bulk of them are pretty clueless. They try so hard to be a big fish in a big ocean. Almost too hard. It comes across as pathetic at times. It has been my opinion of them for a long time, if you find someone in GATO who is not aware of this, then they are someone who has paid no attention to me (and that is probably a PLUS for that person, cuz as you can tell, I tend to ramble alot).
[/quote]

That is great, and I say that without a hint sarcasm — it's a good that you have faith in them 'n everyone understands that they have an ally you don't like and people can live with that... but my point was more about hypocrisy and the extent you'll go to in order to manipulate the public perception. You might think it's fine, but most alliances don't like when other people talking about their issues (big or small) in public — it hurts that little bit more when allies start doing it too.


And yes, you do ramble a lot.

[Charles Stuart]

What I find particularly amusing is the change in rush's statements

We made no promise to help INT whatsoever. Gauntlet and other nonsense.
-screenies get dropped
We promised INT we would try to roll NoR in the future
- people catch on and ask "what about MK?"
We promised we would help them attack NoR in a war we will most likely lose.

What's next? "we will promise to help INT by attacking INT therefore saving them from a beating by NoR"?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348226936' post='3032716']
What I find particularly amusing is the change in rush's statements

We made no promise to help INT whatsoever. Gauntlet and other nonsense.
-screenies get dropped
We promised INT we would try to roll NoR in the future
- people catch on and ask "what about MK?"
We promised we would help them attack NoR in a war we will most likely lose?

What's next? "we will promise to help INT by attacking them"?
[/quote]

Your timeline is messed up. If you go back about 5 or 6 pages, you will find out. I said MUCH earlier in this thread, that I personally promised to help INT get their shot at NoR in the NEXT war if thats what they so desired, unfortunately, I was unable to deliver on this promise because (OOC, IRL medical issues made me step down from gov...END OOC) I said this very clearly, several pages back before you or I , said anything about screenshots, so my stance on that is not something I just pulled out of thin air after you "dropped your bombshell"... try again. You really are not very good at following along, are you? Now you think my assumption that we will lose the next is a suddenly new convenient revelation. Get your screenshot source to provide you with SS of my post in that same thread that says just that... the best chance to hit NoR will probably be in a losing war. Come on, I know you can pull this off. I dont just suddenly make up new things as I go along.

Edit: Link to my post on page 18 where I said exactly what I promised, and in the time frame I promised: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113173&view=findpost&p=3032372

Try again Chucky boy.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[Charles Stuart]

You are right, I can't pull this off. You managed to do it all on your lonesome.

Cheers.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1348227570' post='3032718']
You are right, I can't pull this off. You managed to do it all on your lonesome.

Cheers.
[/quote]

In other words, you realize I didnt change my statements at all, but I admitted to what *I* personally promised INT gov 3 solid pages before you posted a screenshot, and now you want to conveniently avoid sayin "my bad, I had that one wrong", so you give yet another dismissive post that does not address you being wrong yet again. God this is fun.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1348227663' post='3032720']
In other words, you realize I didnt change my statements at all, but I admitted to what *I* personally promised INT gov 3 solid pages before you posted a screenshot, and now you want to conveniently avoid sayin "my bad, I had that one wrong", so you give yet another dismissive post that does not address you being wrong yet again. God this is fun.
[/quote]

You promised to help INT roll NoR sometime in the future. How does that prove anything that has been stated within this topic as wrong? You made a promise to help INT!