Gibsonator21 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I could be wrong, but I think by "difficult" he means wars that aren't a guaranteed win. And in that case, hey, I for one couldn't fault you. If it's possible to guarantee a win, do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349305689' post='3037170'] Oh please, nobody's coming after us. Nobody has the [b]stones[/b] to attempt such a thing. [/quote] Quoting for truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1349374973' post='3037378'] Wow! It's like the build up to Karma all over again except MK is the NPO and they are the ones saying the exact same things as the NPO did during that time. Deja freaking vu! [/quote] If you're going to convince anybody to actually believe that garbage you're going to need to be much less ham-handed. [quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1349390555' post='3037437'] Your assesment of the here and now is the most accurate I have heard. Your flaw is thinking that the future must be based on one of the two options you listed. Those options aren't an absolute, there are alternative motives, motives as simple as smash everything to the intricately detailed. [/quote] Options and motives are different things, so I must admit I've lost track of what point you're getting at. As for the diversity of motives, I'm well aware. The Kingdom has allies and proximate allies that run the spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349452466' post='3037616'] If you're going to convince anybody to actually believe that garbage you're going to need to be much less ham-handed. Options and motives are different things, so I must admit I've lost track of what point you're getting at. As for the diversity of motives, I'm well aware. The Kingdom has allies and proximate allies that run the spectrum. [/quote] I do love gallows humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1349421531' post='3037573'] I could be wrong, but I think by "difficult" he means wars that aren't a guaranteed win. And in that case, hey, I for one couldn't fault you. If it's possible to guarantee a win, do it. [/quote] Yea that's what I meant. [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1349418501' post='3037568'] Hey, what's up buddy? I don't think that's entirely true, I've noticed a lot of chatter along those lines on the OWF. I would also disagree with your assessment regarding difficult wars, MK has a history of being on tough fronts. But theoretically, in a game like this it makes sense to make things easier for your wider side if you have the opportunity to do so, no? [/quote] Yea I'll give you the last point. It's good strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349452466' post='3037616'] If you're going to convince anybody to actually believe that garbage you're going to need to be much less ham-handed. [/quote] Really, it is deja vu. Just doing a quick search of the forums, here is Corinan, an NPO member at the time stating quite similarly what you say here, but only 3 years ago and a few months during the build-up to Karma: [quote] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][b][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=3037170"][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_images/master/snapback.png[/img][/url]Ardus, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:[/b][/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Oh please, nobody's coming after us. Nobody has the [b]stones[/b] to attempt such a thing.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][/quote][/size][/font][/color] [quote] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]Corinan, on Feb 10 2009, 09:41 PM, said:[/b][/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I wasn't spying and I'm maintaining that, but lets suppose for a moment I [i]was[/i] spying. [b]So what? And? What's Vox going to do about it? Or anyone else for that matter? [i]Nothing.[/i] Who cares what I do if no one's going to stop me?[/b][/size][/font][/color] [/quote] Hell, if you go through a lot of posts from that time, you can see how similar the two situations are. Now granted, MK and Co. are not nearly as dominant as the NPO was during that time, I would dare say that you all are not nearly as effective at manipulation and pulling the strings as them, but hey, you are giving it a good shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1349457447' post='3037636'] Really, it is deja vu. Just doing a quick search of the forums, here is Corinan, an NPO member at the time stating quite similarly what you say here, but only 3 years ago and a few months during the build-up to Karma: Hell, if you go through a lot of posts from that time, you can see how similar the two situations are. Now granted, MK and Co. are not nearly as dominant as the NPO was during that time, I would dare say that you all are not nearly as effective at manipulation and pulling the strings as them, but hey, you are giving it a good shot. [/quote] There is little similarity between Corinian's bellowing in your quoted post and my own post. Corinian asserted that he could do whatever he wanted and face no consequences. I do not contest the idea that the Kingdom can't just do whatever it wants. I merely assert that nobody is going to initiate war on the Kingdom of their own volition, at a time and place of their own choosing. Pacifica fell after launching a war at a target that was better connected than it perhaps realized, after one too many campaigns. The Kingdom has no interest in launching any campaigns and instead welcomes the idea that somebody other than us might look to cause a fuss. But I do not believe anybody is so audacious as to do so by flatly declaring war against us, directly or indirectly. Which is to say, nobody has the stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349458247' post='3037638'] There is little similarity between Corinian's bellowing in your quoted post and my own post. Corinian asserted that he could do whatever he wanted and face no consequences. I do not contest the idea that the Kingdom can't just do whatever it wants. I merely assert that nobody is going to initiate war on the Kingdom of their own volition, at a time and place of their own choosing. Pacifica fell after launching a war at a target that was better connected than it perhaps realized, after one too many campaigns. The Kingdom has no interest in launching any campaigns and instead welcomes the idea that somebody other than us might look to cause a fuss. But I do not believe anybody is so audacious as to do so by flatly declaring war against us, directly or indirectly. Which is to say, nobody has the stones. [/quote] What if we roundly declared war on you, or does it have to be flat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1349448244' post='3037605'] Quoting for truth. [/quote] Oh the irony... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1349459094' post='3037643'] What if we roundly declared war on you, or does it have to be flat [/quote] You'd have to ask Tyga if it's on his agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1349458247' post='3037638'] There is little similarity between Corinian's bellowing in your quoted post and my own post. Corinian asserted that he could do whatever he wanted and face no consequences. I do not contest the idea that the Kingdom can't just do whatever it wants. I merely assert that nobody is going to initiate war on the Kingdom of their own volition, at a time and place of their own choosing. Pacifica fell after launching a war at a target that was better connected than it perhaps realized, after one too many campaigns. The Kingdom has no interest in launching any campaigns and instead welcomes the idea that somebody other than us might look to cause a fuss. But I do not believe anybody is so audacious as to do so by flatly declaring war against us, directly or indirectly. Which is to say, nobody has the stones. [/quote] Hmm, I do believe I quoted the wrong person in my retort: [quote name='flak attack'] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]That's the funny thing. For all the talk the opposition has about being able to take us down, they have nothing but that. There are very few alliances with the balls it takes to start a war and the opposition doesn't have a single one of them.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][/quote][/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I will concede that in Corinan's post, he was speaking as an individual, and in flak's post, he was speaking from the perspective of the alliance. I will also concede that the basis of the defiant "no one has the guts" type message is mired in a reflection regarding the supposed opposition not being up to snuff to take the Hipsters down, but it is not at all a far cry to compare that same mentality with the NPO mentality pre-Karma. The one where they would challenge others to "do something about it", and here in essence, you are stating to your "opposition" that they don't have the stones to take you on. Yes, two different phrases, but ultimately they have the same purpose or meaning. Either shut up and do something, or accept that you are to weak to make a change. [/size][/font][/color] [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828][size=3]Whether or not the hypothetical engagement would be based on a grievous action taken by the Hipsters is irrelevant towards my point that similar talking points are being used as was back then, and one who was present in both eras can easily see how similar things are turning out.[/size][/color][/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think what the OP is saying is that alliances should hold themselves accountable. If they don't though, I guess it must fall to the offended parties to hold them accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1349469611' post='3037712'] Hmm, I do believe I quoted the wrong person in my retort: [/size][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I will concede that in Corinan's post, he was speaking as an individual, and in flak's post, he was speaking from the perspective of the alliance. I will also concede that the basis of the defiant "no one has the guts" type message is mired in a reflection regarding the supposed opposition not being up to snuff to take the Hipsters down, but it is not at all a far cry to compare that same mentality with the NPO mentality pre-Karma. The one where they would challenge others to "do something about it", and here in essence, you are stating to your "opposition" that they don't have the stones to take you on. Yes, two different phrases, but ultimately they have the same purpose or meaning. Either shut up and do something, or accept that you are to weak to make a change. [/size][/font][/color] [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828][size=3]Whether or not the hypothetical engagement would be based on a grievous action taken by the Hipsters is irrelevant towards my point that similar talking points are being used as was back then, and one who was present in both eras can easily see how similar things are turning out.[/size][/color][/font] [/quote] Context of how a conflict might take place is everything in your comparison. Without it your comparison boils down to "NPO said 'do something about it' just before Karma and MK is saying 'do something about it', so we must be on the verge of mKarma." That ignores that many alliances have said "do something about it" or some derivative [i]constantly[/i] over the entire history of CyberNations. Because so many have used the phrase, and because so many have fallen, you could draw the same comparison between the Kingdom and countless other alliances, whether there were any substantive similarities or not. The comparison thus becomes overbroad and meaningless. You may as well argue "NPO was allied to TOP just before Karma and MK is allied to TOP, so we must be on the verge of mKarma." More important are the meaningful distinctions between the two circumstances, which I've already pointed out: we do not believe we could do anything we wanted, the world is clearly multipolar whereas NPO fell in the titanic collapse of a rotten unipolar system (Continuum), NPO was clearly fishing for grounds to start a war through spying accusations and we are pledging peace & reconciliation, so on, so forth. Edited October 5, 2012 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Multi-polarity does not mean instability. A clever statesman is always able to insure security and power in a multi-polar system through treaties and influence. The only reason this thread even exists is that the treaty web is destabilized. Why is the treaty web destablized? Because in the last couple of wars two major centers of power, SF and XX have been subjected to a horrendous beating. In the war before the last two, it was the NPO sphere to suffer a massacre. Is it no surprise then that other centers of power yet to suffer a beat down are suddenly very nervous? And is it surprising then that the peanut gallery is suddenly whipping itself into a frothing fury over it? Edited October 5, 2012 by Aeros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1349481029' post='3037774'] Multi-polarity does not mean instability. A clever statesman is always able to insure security and power in a multi-polar system through treaties and influence. The only reason this thread even exists is that the treaty web is destabilized. Why is the treaty web destablized? Because in the last couple of wars two major centers of power, SF and XX have been subjected to a horrendous beating. In the war before the last two, it was the NPO sphere to suffer a massacre. Is it no surprise then that other centers of power yet to suffer a beat down are suddenly very nervous? And is it surprising then that the peanut gallery is suddenly whipping itself into a frothing fury over it? [/quote] I'm not nervous at all... and I'm quite near the center of power. As it stands, some of my closest allies are allied to the people that would be clamoring to topple our friends... And while the peanut gallery is definitely whipping itself up in demand of some action, that is neither a new phenomena nor an unexpected one. Not to mention MK are being conciliatory with quite a few alliances in an attempt to make up for the well documented slip ups of the past year. If not for that then perhaps you would have a case to be made but as it stands you don't. The people of the OWF are hungry for war...but I say, let them eat tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349482193' post='3037776'] I'm not nervous at all... and I'm quite near the center of power. As it stands, some of my closest allies are allied to the people that would be clamoring to topple our friends... And while the peanut gallery is definitely whipping itself up in demand of some action, that is neither a new phenomena nor an unexpected one. Not to mention MK are being conciliatory with quite a few alliances in an attempt to make up for the well documented slip ups of the past year. If not for that then perhaps you would have a case to be made but as it stands you don't. The people of the OWF are hungry for war...but I say, let them eat tech. [/quote] Technically speaking that could be considered war. I say let them eat a low Global Radiation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 because TOP has never betrayed their allies to stay on the winning side ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349482193' post='3037776'] I'm not nervous at all... and I'm quite near the center of power. As it stands, some of my closest allies are allied to the people that would be clamoring to topple our friends... And while the peanut gallery is definitely whipping itself up in demand of some action, that is neither a new phenomena nor an unexpected one. Not to mention MK are being conciliatory with quite a few alliances in an attempt to make up for the well documented slip ups of the past year. If not for that then perhaps you would have a case to be made but as it stands you don't. The people of the OWF are hungry for war...but I say, let them eat tech. [/quote] Implying I am trying to make a case here. I am not. I am merely commenting on the state of affairs as it stands. And no, this level of of peanut gallery euphoria is not normal. At least, its not in the 2 years I have been ruling my humble domain. Expectations are running rampant in all directions, and it is not because of any organized plans by any pole of power. The current state of affairs is a direct result of simple calculations. Who has been beaten, who is tied to who, and who is left. This thread is a testament to the toxic combination of hope, fear and paranoia. I simply do not buy that the current state of affairs is the result of a "win" as Ardus claims, or any planned effort by any alliance. We are where we are by a combination of humongous screw ups and tactical overreach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1349483728' post='3037780'] because TOP has never betrayed their allies to stay on the winning side ever. [/quote] I think it's ironic that you're judging us based on events that took place before any members of our government were even members of TOP... It's even funnier when you consider the fact that you have seemingly forgiven Pacifica for her actions in the past; even hoping for it's return to power in the present. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1349484377' post='3037782'] Implying I am trying to make a case here. I am not. I am merely commenting on the state of affairs as it stands. And no, this level of of peanut gallery euphoria is not normal. At least, its not in the 2 years I have been ruling my humble domain. Expectations are running rampant in all directions, and it is not because of any organized plans by any pole of power. The current state of affairs is a direct result of simple calculations. Who has been beaten, who is tied to who, and who is left. This thread is a testament to the toxic combination of hope, fear and paranoia. I simply do not buy that the current state of affairs is the result of a "win" as Ardus claims, or any planned effort by any alliance. We are where we are by a combination of humongous screw ups and tactical overreach. [/quote] Kettles are always burning on the stove top and people are usually displeased about something; such is the state of life as I've observed it for... coming on 6 years now. But just because someone wants to fire a shot doesn't mean they'll do it, or even have the means too. If you look at the treaty web you'll realize that the odds of any wars coming to a head soon are simply the pipe dreams of a vocal minority of people who want to take the reigns of power for themselves by capitalizing on that angst to justify a war or gain their pound of flesh for past grievances. To put it in simpler terms, there won't be any wars because the treaty web won't allow it and more importantly, MK will not supply the CB you'd need to justify it to the bulk of alliances seeking to get their pound of flesh. As those alliances would be repeating the actions of the alliances they wish to topple (CB less wars) if they did make a move...and that wouldn't sit well with the good vs bad narrative that's been built so far. Edited October 6, 2012 by Owned-You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349485824' post='3037789'] I think it's ironic that you're judging us based on events that took place before any members of our government were even members of TOP... It's even funnier when you consider the fact that you have seemingly forgiven Pacifica for her actions in the past; even hoping for it's return to power in the present. [/quote] MK is far worse than Pacifica ever was, the hegemony at least pretended to fight for IC reasons, your side makes no attempt to do so and MK's forums make what we did in TPF with NoR look like kindergarten insults in comparison. edit: and you pretending the treaty web actually matters makes me giggle, plenty had treaties with NPO and ignored them during Karma, what makes you think your pieces of paper have any more weight than those? Edited October 6, 2012 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349485824' post='3037789'] To put it in simpler terms, there won't be any wars because the treaty web won't allow it and more importantly, MK will not supply the CB you'd need to justify it to the bulk of alliances seeking to get their pound of flesh. As those alliances would be repeating the actions of the alliances they wish to topple (CB less wars) if they did make a move...and that wouldn't sit well with the good vs bad narrative that's been built so far. [/quote] You know, if people needed to manufacture CB's, this thread would not even exist. There is no Good vs. Bad narrative going on. Only hard calculations of survival. You have a huge section of Bob desperate to escape a cycle of annihilation and another large section desperate to avoid entering a similar cycle. This is not a recipe for stability. And a child of international relations theory could have seen the current state of affairs as the culminative result of that catastrophe called the Dave war. Clearly it was noted after the fact belated, elsewise we would not be here right now trying to pretend that everything is just fine. Edited October 6, 2012 by Aeros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1349485824' post='3037789'] I think it's ironic that you're judging us based on events that took place before any members of our government were even members of TOP... It's even funnier when you consider the fact that you have seemingly forgiven Pacifica for her actions in the past; even hoping for it's return to power in the present. Kettles are always burning on the stove top and people are usually displeased about something; such is the state of life as I've observed it for... coming on 6 years now. But just because someone wants to fire a shot doesn't mean they'll do it, or even have the means too. If you look at the treaty web you'll realize that the odds of any wars coming to a head soon are simply the pipe dreams of a vocal minority of people who want to take the reigns of power for themselves by capitalizing on that angst to justify a war or gain their pound of flesh for past grievances. To put it in simpler terms, there won't be any wars because the treaty web won't allow it and more importantly, MK will not supply the CB you'd need to justify it to the bulk of alliances seeking to get their pound of flesh. As those alliances would be repeating the actions of the alliances they wish to topple (CB less wars) if they did make a move...and that wouldn't sit well with the good vs bad narrative that's been built so far. [/quote] I think you'll find you are mistaken. Boredom with the status quo has been shown to generate all sorts of convoluted logic that creates CBs. Combine that with people who frankly will fight at the drop of a hat, any hat, so long as it looks like there's a win at the end--or at least a good time--and MK could do absolutely nothing wrong and still get nailed to a tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1349486466' post='3037792'] MK is far worse than Pacifica ever was, the hegemony at least pretended to fight for IC reasons, your side makes no attempt to do so and MK's forums make what we did in TPF with NoR look like kindergarten insults in comparison. edit: and you pretending the treaty web actually matters makes me giggle, plenty had treaties with NPO and ignored them during Karma, what makes you think your pieces of paper have any more weight than those? [/quote] Sorry bud, I've lived in both and can tell you your version of history if full of !@#$. Obviously in your mind the world is in a deplorable state, but if we were in 2007 you would have been Zi'd and driven out of the game by now. Your revisionist history is certainly cheeky though. What Slayer did with TPF (accuse anyone and everyone allied to within NoR as being Nazis and attempting to Zi them over multiple rerolls) is much worse then MK's worst actions. So again, sorry to burst your bubble. People ignored their treaties with NPO during Karma because NPO were incompetent and antagonistic at their bitter end. They preempted Ordo Verde thinking that they were invulnerable and then when the process of peace was being established for them to avoid their rolling they insulted the alliances arranged against them by ignoring them and poking fun at them on IRC. This provided ample justification for leaving them for dead; because they made little to no effort to avoid the fight. Whereas we are neither incompetent nor antagonistic I know we won't be making those mistakes...quite simply, we're not the idiots they were back then. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1349487110' post='3037793'] You know, if people needed to manufacture CB's, this thread would not even exist. There is no Good vs. Bad narrative going on. Only hard calculations of survival. You have a huge section of Bob desperate to escape a cycle of annihilation and another large section desperate to avoid entering a similar cycle. This is not a recipe for stability. And a child of international relations theory could have seen the current state of affairs as the culminative result of that catastrophe called the Dave war. Clearly it was noted after the fact belated, elsewise we would not be here right now trying to pretend that everything is just fine. [/quote] CB's are anything that can be used to justify an alliance to fight a war. My side has a flexible pragmatic definition of what constitutes a CB whilst the side presuming to take their shot at us has a very narrow view of it. They've spent the last year demonizing our side for our use of it and if they go ahead and adopt it then they'll simply find themselves losing the moral justification that is driving them towards this war in the first place. Unless you presume to say that the side seeking to hit us is paranoid of us striking them? In which case the only people fearful or paranoid of a war being the very same people who seem to be driving for it... Additionally, I'm not arguing that everything if fine. In fact I acknowledged that there are very credible reasons for people to be angry. But unlike the past, those actions are being slowly addressed and amended for by the perpetrators. If this was not taking place then the war would happen...but as it stands the efforts are being made behind closed doors to fix things. Thus a combination of factors will keep those wanting a war from getting it. [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1349489289' post='3037797'] I think you'll find you are mistaken. Boredom with the status quo has been shown to generate all sorts of convoluted logic that creates CBs. Combine that with people who frankly will fight at the drop of a hat, any hat, so long as it looks like there's a win at the end--or at least a good time--and MK could do absolutely nothing wrong and still get nailed to a tree. [/quote] If I am mistaken and that ends up being the case. Then many people will find the state of the world to be much less desirable then the present state of affairs. As a coalition that would nail MK without reason would be free to do as they wish with the world and systematically eliminate the next line of threats to it. Lest we forget that the forerunners of the alliances wishing to pin MK have a history of abuses themselves. Thus the cycle regresses anew...with a recycled face to rule the world. [Late Edit: to respond to ChairmanHal] Edited October 6, 2012 by Owned-You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1349466386' post='3037704'] Oh the irony... [/quote] How so? Also, hi bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1349493055' post='3037807'] How so? Also, hi bud. [/quote] Because your alliance once had the stones to attempt the destruction of MK, but after TOP's defeat the mushrooms domesticated you. Looks like TOP is perfectly following the maxim who says: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". MK gave you the conditions to go after Polaris and as reward you are acting like perfect puppies, but may be I'm wrong and you're just planning the best moment to abandon MK like you did to NPO before Karma, only time will tell. Also Hello 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.