tayloj7 Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 VE o/ Kowalski o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) That would be nice. You lot don't look right in terrorist garb. If Sigrun gets the surrender he appears to or claims to expect (speaking of propaganda), then presumably we can look forward to the march of shiny, shiny jackboots once more. It indeed is out of character for NPO, as we are a very formalist alliance during history. I dont expect many of such situations we have here in the future, if any. It also should have been noted clearly by now, that NPO is not seeking reparations of any kind on any of our fronts. Words of our Emperor, backed by our wars in post karma years in which we were victorious. I hope that by in large, others fallow such model as well. As ones which dealt crippling reparations and are for ever burden by that rightfully so, as well as the ones upon which crippling reparations were utilized at this point NPO couldn't be more informed about the negativity of such practice first hand. Our jackboots march only on the battlefields. Once peace is settled, they are used only for parades on our main square. Edited January 28, 2013 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Counterpoint: If your coalition doesn't care -- why did VE post the thread :| Obviously we do care or we wouldn't have posted it. It seems like you guys are the ones saying you don't care, when in reality you very much do care. Anyway, as to the crux of the argument, does NPO consider TLR to be at war with them? Does IRON consider Int to be at war with them? How about NEW and Kaskus? You are not saying "an attack on one is an attack on most", you are saying "all", which means you either feel that these allies are directly at war with each other or your entire policy doesn't hold water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Obviously we do care or we wouldn't have posted it. It seems like you guys are the ones saying you don't care, when in reality you very much do care. Anyway, as to the crux of the argument, does NPO consider TLR to be at war with them? Does IRON consider Int to be at war with them? How about NEW and Kaskus? You are not saying "an attack on one is an attack on most", you are saying "all", which means you either feel that these allies are directly at war with each other or your entire policy doesn't hold water. About all of this war DoW stuff: I really couldn't care less considering the methods used to "Chain in," others in the past, specifically by members of your coalition. It's really hilarious taken into context. I was making the connection that both users care and the prognosis that one cared more than the other or any other combination was dumb, not going on a rant of the merits or demerits of whatever it is people are blabbering about. But have fun e-lawyering to an audience that includes only your coalition, if that. Edited January 28, 2013 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 nice job not answering his questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 nice job not answering his questions It's like the hegemony all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 TCK posted a similar thread when UMB and MK began attacking the alliances on our side without a DoW during DH/NPO. Some of the first people to deride the post were from VE. Hilarious how different the world looks when you're on your back all of a sudden eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 TCK posted a similar thread when UMB and MK began attacking the alliances on our side without a DoW during DH/NPO. Some of the first people to deride the post were from VE. Hilarious how different the world looks when you're on your back all of a sudden eh? One person from VE made a comment, someone who hasn't been in the alliance/CN since not long after that post was made, yet you clearly state that multiple Viridians were deriding you, when it was one person and the post wasn't derisive at all. That thread died at five pages during an incredibly active time in CN. This thread is over ten pages in a significantly more inactive time, when many alliances don't bother to post anything. Don't try to act like your thread was this big controversial thing back then, or the limited scope of what MK/Umb did at all compares to what is being done now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) So much diplo-speak. I'll be blunt. So far so good from my perspective. Bring it bitches. Edit: Female Dogs. Edited January 28, 2013 by Bill Wallace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongo Jack IV Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Best of luck to our allies in VE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Obviously we do care or we wouldn't have posted it. It seems like you guys are the ones saying you don't care, when in reality you very much do care. Anyway, as to the crux of the argument, does NPO consider TLR to be at war with them? Does IRON consider Int to be at war with them? How about NEW and Kaskus? You are not saying "an attack on one is an attack on most", you are saying "all", which means you either feel that these allies are directly at war with each other or your entire policy doesn't hold water. If you must understand it then look at like this. One big MDP. You declare on one and they all have the option of responding. Some will not respond because of other treaties. Would it make you feel bettter if everyone signed one big MDP and dumped it after the war? Hey it was your side that made up all this coaltion war stuff to avoid all the paper work. We are just following your lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 I'm glad I've lived to see all this sort-of-ironic-but-not-really-because-butthurt e-lawyering from MK, former \m/, TOP, UMB, etc. etc. members. It's glorious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 I'm glad I've lived to see all this sort-of-ironic-but-not-really-because-butthurt e-lawyering from MK, former \m/, TOP, UMB, etc. etc. members. It's glorious. If I were e-lawyering, I'd be charging somebody e-billable hours and demand an e-retainer up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) If you must understand it then look at like this. One big MDP. You declare on one and they all have the option of responding. Some will not respond because of other treaties. Would it make you feel bettter if everyone signed one big MDP and dumped it after the war? Hey it was your side that made up all this coaltion war stuff to avoid all the paper work. We are just following your lead. "An attack on one is possibly an attack on some". Edited January 29, 2013 by Lord Gobb 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.