Grigoris Lambrakis Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I'll keep this quote from VL, cause it really is the core of it: I guess the real question we have to ask ourselves at this point is whether or not we even want to heal the wounds inflicted on us all in the past year or so. If the answer is yes, the only way we'll ever move on is just by forgiveness and letting go of grudges. Continued analysis of all that BS won't get us anywhere, and neither will this war. Talking BS on OWF will certainly get us nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Okay not going to fact check that whole thing for you VL but it really needs doing, but I am going to correct the point I don't even need to go back through posts to do. I left over the R&R thing and had nothing to do with LSF, never voted for war in that situation as a member of Congress or MemComm and pretty much said it was stupid from the start, so much so in fact how you could even say I quit over it is ridiculous, so what does that say about the rest of your recollection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted February 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I live in an alternate universe of my own (sometimes constructed) memories. Just had this discussion with CG on IRC actually. Sincerest apologies Azrael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I live in an alternate universe of my own (sometimes constructed) memories. Just had this discussion with CG on IRC actually.Sincerest apologies Azrael. Accepted, like I said I was done arguing around in circles about this, but felt I need to make clear that my stance on the LSF/NoR thing hasn't changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Orite, I'll walk right into your trap and sum up some of the info and arguments that are already well known. Int's side: 1) An oA is optional. 2) Rogues??? Where's my CB??? 3) It's hard to attack the treaty partner of our allies just based on an oA, without a CB and with NoR offering peace. 4) We tried nevertheless. 5) Wtf was that IRON thingy? And a secret message, really??? 6) Trot, wtf? 7) I thought you had some more allies? LSF's side: 1) Trot said you'd back us. 2) We are LSF, your brothers of always, they are NoR... 3) Ghost us or sth, we are being stomped... These are the two sides' arguments. I call this grey because I'm a softy when it comes to LSF. -Rigas 1. oA are optional, but mutual defense isn't. You guys allowed other allainces to dictate how you would get out of your treaty obligations by elawyering, simply because Nordreich didn't post a DOW, and MK attacked CSN. 2. If INT wants to have the attitude that the CB matters that much to whether they will defend an ally who is attacked, then that is INTs decision to make, but it says a lot about INT. 3.Nor is treatied to your allies? And weren't you guys posting Delenda Est proganda about them? Don't tell me it was hard to attack them. 4. You tried to defend LSF? How many nation to nation wars did INT try to declare when you were "trying" to defend them? 5. Doesn't matter, you should have already been defending LSF at that point. 6. Trot should be able to say you guys will follow the treaty. You had already signed it. 7. LSF did have more allies, but we felt powerless to help them after the ally that could do the most to help them had turned their back on LSF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovyet Gelibolu Posted February 4, 2013 Report Share Posted February 4, 2013 7. LSF did have more allies, but we felt powerless to help them after the ally that could do the most to help them had turned their back on LSF. Oh yes, our boards and IRC channel were brimming with messages of your support. I remember reading ten of them a day... Oh wait! That's the [i]opposite[/i] of what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 4, 2013 Report Share Posted February 4, 2013 Oh yes, our boards and IRC channel were brimming with messages of your support. I remember reading ten of them a day... Oh wait! That's the opposite of what happened. Our messages of support were being sent in the form of us planning in the coalition channel. That's typically how these things work. No worries though, some of us are new here don't understand such things. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grigoris Lambrakis Posted February 4, 2013 Report Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) 7. LSF did have more allies, but we felt powerless to help them after the ally that could do the most to help them had turned their back on LSF. You sir are a hypocrite, CBs don't matter to you, treaties don't matter to you, nothing matters to you, but you seem to really love your pixels, if you honour your treaties only when you have the upper hand. Is this the moral high ground from which you judge us? I shall not discuss this further here. It's being discussed in private channels and is in a correct direction. Edited February 4, 2013 by Grigoris Lambrakis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 You sir are a hypocrite, CBs don't matter to you, treaties don't matter to you, nothing matters to you, but you seem to really love your pixels, if you honour your treaties only when you have the upper hand. Is this the moral high ground from which you judge us? I shall not discuss this further here. It's being discussed in private channels and is in a correct direction. Have an example of when I've moved to save my pixels, or disregarded treaties? Or perhaps you are just throwing out random insults that you don't know to be true out of your own ignorance. Before this war I've fought in four straight losing wars, and in the last one I left my alliance at the time so that I could fight instead of stay in peace mode and fought to the point of ZI. Also, speaking of saving pixels when will Nikita going to stop cowering in peace mode and come fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Have an example of when I've moved to save my pixels, or disregarded treaties? Or perhaps you are just throwing out random insults that you don't know to be true out of your own ignorance. Before this war I've fought in four straight losing wars, and in the last one I left my alliance at the time so that I could fight instead of stay in peace mode and fought to the point of ZI. Also, speaking of saving pixels when will Nikita going to stop cowering in peace mode and come fight? I think he was more pointing out how stupid is to call INT's cowards etc. for not joining the war when you also state that the rest of LSF's allies wouldn't help without INT helping them out, almost as if they didn't want to join a losing war, which is what we where accused of, now if that's not the case perhaps you should rephrase what you said, because that's the vibe I got from it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 i dont think this issue will ever die. cant INT admit they chicken out defending LSF. you can say it however you like. our bloc made us do it or MK made us do it. when NoR hit we shit our pants. this whole keep arguing over the same thing is old and boring. INT you would have more of my respect if you came out and was like "yup were chicken shit we didnt defend out long time ally" also why we debating this in this thread? god only knows. so another congrats to my friends in LSF and UCR on there fine looking treaty and welcome UCR to the fun side of the war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 i dont think this issue will ever die. cant INT admit they chicken out defending LSF. you can say it however you like. our bloc made us do it or MK made us do it. when NoR hit we shit our pants. this whole keep arguing over the same thing is old and boring. INT you would have more of my respect if you came out and was like "yup were chicken shit we didnt defend out long time ally" also why we debating this in this thread? god only knows. so another congrats to my friends in LSF and UCR on there fine looking treaty and welcome UCR to the fun side of the war Because no matter how many times you want to repeat it, it still won't be true? But you know what, if you really gave a damn about any of this other than scoring points you would actually come discuss it properly so I'm done trying to explain the facts to people who obviously don't give a damn about them. Also wars pretty fun on this side. Wars fun in general! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Also, speaking of saving pixels when will Nikita going to stop cowering in peace mode and come fight? That name rings a bell - I vaguely remember blowing up Nikita's nation at some point in the past. Was that last year or the year before? He wasn't in INT at the time tho' - maybe NATO or NADC? Or was it the MCXA? e: Either way, I remember nuking the shit outta him at the time, if that makes you feel any better? Edited February 5, 2013 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 That name rings a bell - I vaguely remember blowing up Nikita's nation at some point in the past. Was that last year or the year before? He wasn't in INT at the time tho' - maybe NATO or NADC? Or was it the MCXA? e: Either way, I remember nuking the shit outta him at the time, if that makes you feel any better? He was in MCXA two wars ago. I believe he hid in peace mode and then when he was ordered repeatedly to fight he left MCXA and joined INT. I don't know if you nuked him but you were very critical of him on the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 i dont think this issue will ever die. cant INT admit they chicken out defending LSF. you can say it however you like. our bloc made us do it or MK made us do it. when NoR hit we shit our pants. this whole keep arguing over the same thing is old and boring. INT you would have more of my respect if you came out and was like "yup were chicken shit we didnt defend out long time ally" also why we debating this in this thread? god only knows. so another congrats to my friends in LSF and UCR on there fine looking treaty and welcome UCR to the fun side of the war Jrkee/Keeology brings up a good point when he asks why are you still arguing this. You would want to argue your case before you face the consequences but now most people in CN have judged INT poorly for their decisions, and the result is now that INT is taking far more damage in this war then most people in their own coalition (a second reason being that they actually have over half their nations in war mode unlike the rest of their coalition) . All of you in INT would do well to just take your punishment, learn to not sign so many conflicting treaties, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Because no matter how many times you want to repeat it, it still won't be true? But you know what, if you really gave a damn about any of this other than scoring points you would actually come discuss it properly so I'm done trying to explain the facts to people who obviously don't give a damn about them. Also wars pretty fun on this side. Wars fun in general! what am i saying thats not true? its a pretty simple situation. but i will agree war is fun in general so lets keep shedding those pixels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 i dont think this issue will ever die. cant INT admit they chicken out defending LSF. you can say it however you like. our bloc made us do it or MK made us do it. when NoR hit we shit our pants. this whole keep arguing over the same thing is old and boring. INT you would have more of my respect if you came out and was like "yup were chicken shit we didnt defend out long time ally" also why we debating this in this thread? god only knows. so another congrats to my friends in LSF and UCR on there fine looking treaty and welcome UCR to the fun side of the war The reason would be what actually happened wasn't how you phrased it. The entire OWF can believe whatever it jolly well likes but it doesn't change what happened. Whether we get burnt for that or not won't make it more true, but as for the rest of it I don't expect you really care about truth or LSF all that much as opposed to scoring points, so carry on. 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.