magicninja Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Hold on. *runs to get pen and paper*"IRON wants to see CnG destroyed." Got it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Good lord Heart. Let me simplify it. Polar was in the wrong channel. If I misquoted the channel and that offended you, my apologies. Let me go read my log and see what channel he said. Thanks. It did offend me when you decided to say (and then repeat) that the screw up was approved and coordinated to the TOP front when of course none of that was true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third King Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Why would you want to exchange valentines with us anyways? You just dropped NPO because you claimed they supported us more than they supported you. It happens to be one of my favorite holidays, and I'm sure a well written one would improve you all's mood. No, but I don't think further discussion will change your interpretation. Hold on. *runs to get pen and paper*"IRON wants to see CnG destroyed." Got it. Thanks. I doubt our buddies in Int agree with that, somehow. Do I know you? Hmmm did we fight in IRON-LSF? If not, hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 My apologies he was in the CnG front room. I misspoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That is because I haven't. In fact when the NG position was unrecoverable yes, when I was asked how about them getting hit my response was "have at it". Don't worry that will be spun too. Particularly when I would not agree to more war on CnG.. you know the group that was not a target of the war. You Monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Everyone freaked out. It was a strategic blunder, and one that shouldn't have been made, certainly not without informing the coalition. Now why is the TOP front getting blamed by Brehon? I would love to hear the reason... All threads must become about TOP, even indirectly. Edited May 23, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Those bastards on TOP front were always up to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 My apologies he was in the CnG front room. I misspoke. CNG had a room? See this is exactly what this thread was all about!!! :P (Okay carry on with whatever the new roaming topic is.) :popcorn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 My apologies he was in the CnG front room. I misspoke. Clearly, you were in the CnG room. Otherwise you couldn't have made sure nobody was hitting them, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I have the urge to blame GOONS for this for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 It happens to be one of my favorite holidays, and I'm sure a well written one would improve you all's mood. No, but I don't think further discussion will change your interpretation. I doubt our buddies in Int agree with that, somehow. Hmmm did we fight in IRON-LSF? If not, hello. You just had a long post where you cancelled on an ally for caring about CnG..... Somehow, I don't think INT are that stupid. It's noted and stored for future reference IRON. Thank you. We were kind of wondering who on that side was just trying to buddy up to us for bullshit reasons. Suspicion 1 confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Clearly, you were in the CnG room. Otherwise you couldn't have made sure nobody was hitting them, right? No one responsible for the coalition can really be blamed for TLR getting hit. Polar&co's retaliation made all our jaws drop. There was a lot of jockeying to avoid what happened, it was concluded to be in the best interest of the coalition (to try to pull NG onto our side), but in the end a small segment decided for themselves what would be appropriate for everyone else. Edited May 23, 2013 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 No one responsible for the coalition can really be blamed for TLR getting hit. Polar&co's retaliation made all our jaws drop. There was a lot of jockeying to avoid what happened, it was concluded to be in the best interest of the coalition (to try to pull NG onto our side), but in the end a small segment decided for themselves what would be appropriate for everyone else. it was a joke about Brehon supposedly making sure CnG got "light damage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 What a shame. o7 NPO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Interesting move, IRON. It was getting pretty boring around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third King Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You just had a long post where you cancelled on an ally for caring about CnG..... Somehow, I don't think INT are that stupid. It's noted and stored for future reference IRON. Thank you. We were kind of wondering who on that side was just trying to buddy up to us for bullshit reasons. Suspicion 1 confirmed. Guess this means we can't expect a v-day card from you either? Looks like we'll have more for Int then! And it's a shame that getting to know our ally's allies constitutes BS to you. Makes parties awkward, I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Irony is fun. IRON is literally mad at NPO for doing to EQ.... exactly what IRON did to our coalition in the last war. And... they do not even see it. It was IRON who pushed, damn near demanded for that war to end. Now they stand before us... crying that NPO demanded this war to end, despite the fact that others in the coalition had not yet fulfilled their goals. Yep, it makes tons of sense. Are you illiterate or missing a chromosome? IRON specifically said they are not angry at NPO nor is "stopping the war" the reason they cancelled (at least according to IRON and I think they'd know). The highlighted situation merely illustrates that there are irreconcilable differences between IRON and Pacifica, in both demeanor and foreign policy. I wouldn't expect anyone from CnG to understand this since your own foreign policy is spread wider than an inner city's hookers legs on the first and fifteenth. Now if IRON wished to follow your example then they would have made a topic called "drop NPO" proceeded to discuss what has been posted here and procured promises from NPO for the ability to roll CnG. IRON's version of Airme would have announced that he saw no reason to keep the NPO treaty, but overall they would have done nothing. However, IRON does not follow CnG's FA policy. They're not pussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Those bastards on TOP front were always up to something. We are a corporation of fiends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) it was a joke about Brehon supposedly making sure CnG got "light damage" Right, well tbf I don't think anyone is suggesting Brehon attempted to restrain people from hitting his allies once the war came to fully maturity. The arguments focus mostly on the diplomatic support that allegedly was given and the extent to which the shape, and setting of the final peace was dictated by NPO. There is more nuance to a peace than 'should there be reps' and 'should peace be now or later'. There was also the question of group or separate settlements - the VE front and others had been working towards separate arrangements for weeks, and all of these efforts collapsed when the prospect of collective surrender was affirmed as a possibility. While this wasn't IRON's rationale, my point is there are a lot of things to potentially take issue with and it doesn't just have to be "we wanted a longer war, and a harsher peace". The war could have ended on exactly the same day in white peace- and yet have had a completely different psychological impact. Instead what we saw was a 'mission accomplished' pat on the back and a snickering opponent. Edited May 24, 2013 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Actually VE dropped the moment they refused to have NPO on the peace document ... lol Silly Goldie :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 You are intentionally acting moronic. TLR (in fact CnG as a whole) was always going to take damage, this was an accepted known by ALL parties. There was no deal for reduced damage on them (funny how you quickly danced right over the deal struck to reduce damage on MK and GOONS which IRON and NPO were a part of in a deal with NG). We did that to keep NG either out of the war or with us. This yet again was a known BEFORE the war even started (I stated that earlier). The fact that Polaris came in and screwed that up by not getting proper coalition authority is why there was a fit of anger from me. The fact they weren't in the right channel to get proper authority is a Polaris mistake. Happy about damage to any ally? Of course not. Pissed because my ally was attacked? Inaccurate. Pissed because it triggered another alliance against us that didn't need to happen? Absolutely. The problem here isn't if NG was triggered or not, the problem is that you're trying to blaming someone else for your conflicting treaties and the problems that they created in the coalition, if NG wanted to be at your side or neutral they would have done that, if they didn't is because they weren't, no matter what they say, actions speak much louder than words. All the problem with the war is because you seems to had took some lessons from CnG and signed treaties with someone who was linked with the alliance you hated, had you kept a straight FA, this thread wouldn't happened and you still would had won the war, in fact, you could have got a much more decisive victory since it could have lasted long and caused more damage to your enemies. Also despise all the talk about how NG could have change the course of war and because of that everyone should tip toe aroung NG allies proved to be nothing more than an illusion, so I don't get why all the anger. What make me sleep well at night is that I know those mistakes will come back to haunt NPO sooner or later, and I'll be here as always to say "I told you so." with a big smile in my handsome face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) Why do you keep changing your direction? Oh wait because you already lost your previous comment argument. NP run along D34th :)Also I never said anything about them changing the course of the war (where are you getting this?). Not having them against us very preferable, hence the neutral or with us. NG in the war was a matter of having to have resources there to deal with them vs keeping those assets on another target. But you wouldn't know about that board warrior. Edited May 24, 2013 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 No one responsible for the coalition can really be blamed for TLR getting hit. Polar&co's retaliation made all our jaws drop. There was a lot of jockeying to avoid what happened, it was concluded to be in the best interest of the coalition (to try to pull NG onto our side), but in the end a small segment decided for themselves what would be appropriate for everyone else. To be fair, I think the "attack on one is an attack on all" philosophy adopted by the coalition bears at least some responsibility, given it came with so many caveats that may not have been fully communicated to everybody. Not saying that is my perspective, but I can understand how some may have interpreted it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 At the end of it, NE and I talked and he said he trusted my judgement. Rush, you reading this? Next time know what you're talking about. lol. Yes I had an anger attack. I wasn't happy they hit TLR (and because they coordinated this with the TOP front folks vs the main command folks) but I was angry they triggered NG. Get your facts straight. The only one that screwed up there was Polaris. What I was referring to was they stated they were in that channel and that is where they said the go ahead came from. This is hilarious. Thank you for the entertainment. Can't run a war? Blame TOP front Don't know who wants reps (your allly)- blame TOP front. Don't know who told NpO it was ok to attack? ..Blame TOP front. All threads must become about TOP, even indirectly. in Brehon's mind, it must be TOP front's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) Why do you keep changing your direction? Oh wait because you already lost your previous comment argument. NP run along D34th :) Also I never said anything about them changing the course of the war (where are you getting this?). Not having them against us very preferable, hence the neutral or with us. NG in the war was a matter of having to have resources there to deal with them vs keeping those assets on another target. But you wouldn't know about that board warrior. I'm sorry if your attempt to change the subject didn't worked and I stick to what I was talking about. Don't worry, may be next time you have success. Also I never said anything about them changing the course of the war (where are you getting this?). Not having them against us very preferable, hence the neutral or with us. NG in the war was a matter of having to have resources there to deal with them vs keeping those assets on another target. But you wouldn't know about that board warrior. I didn't said that was you who said it, just that was the general opinion. Edited May 24, 2013 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts