Auctor Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 This is going to be inconvenient for you, but no I didn't. The Republic did not plan to pull a side-switch and unless you were a member of the IRON Council a the time you might want to stop telling stories to yourself.You were an idiot at the time, so I don't expect a lot of growth from you. However, denying something that has as much documented proof as that makes you look silly. You should feel silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 This is going to be inconvenient for you, but no I didn't. The Republic did not plan to pull a side-switch and unless you were a member of the IRON Council a the time you might want to stop telling stories to yourself. Interesting tale, old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theophilos Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 You were an idiot at the time, so I don't expect a lot of growth from you. However, denying something that has as much documented proof as that makes you look silly. You should feel silly. You were always an idiot and continue to be an idiot, even more so when you lie to yourself. The fact is that no switching was planed, period. One would have expected that you'd at the very least have the decency not to be an idiot and repeat stupidity in public. Interesting tale, old chap. Not a tale Centuries, you are at liberty to disregard what I said. But it is not a tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 You were an idiot at the time, so I don't expect a lot of growth from you. However, denying something that has as much documented proof as that makes you look silly. You should feel silly. Now now kids. Dont get all crabby here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 One would have expected that you'd at the very least have the decency not to be an idiot and repeat stupidity in public. I genuinely appreciated that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montosh Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Hai Theo :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Tyrant Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 It's like a fighting pit in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 So I figured I'd weigh in with regards to Disorder, because apparently everyone else is. Looking back at my logs of the time, I can confirm IRON worded it to Argent as a "fighting both sides" venture, saying something to the effect of "not leaving front mates out to dry". I will also confirm that technically that's not switching sides. However, doing such a thing while being a high profile member of one side's coalition with the target being another high profile member of the same mentioned coalition is pretty much switching sides, technicality or no. Though I'd go further to argue it'd be making a "third party belligerent" side, fighting or having fought more than one AA on each side in the same war. Oh, and congrats on your milestone(s) IRON, don't be afraid to send some of that tech my way. :v: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 So I figured I'd weigh in with regards to Disorder, because apparently everyone else is. Looking back at my logs of the time, I can confirm IRON worded it to Argent as a "fighting both sides" venture, saying something to the effect of "not leaving front mates out to dry". I will also confirm that technically that's not switching sides. However, doing such a thing while being a high profile member of one side's coalition with the target being another high profile member of the same mentioned coalition is pretty much switching sides, technicality or no. Though I'd go further to argue it'd be making a "third party belligerent" side, fighting or having fought more than one AA on each side in the same war. Oh, and congrats on your milestone(s) IRON, don't be afraid to send some of that tech my way. :v: How politically correct of you lowsten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) You were always an idiot and continue to be an idiot, even more so when you lie to yourself. The fact is that no switching was planed, period. One would have expected that you'd at the very least have the decency not to be an idiot and repeat stupidity in public. Not a tale Centuries, you are at liberty to disregard what I said. But it is not a tale. You're a good guy theo, but you're missing the point here. If you want to have a semantics debate over the finer definition of 'side switch' and 'betray' feel free to continue, nobody really cares what words you or anyone else chooses to describe what it is you/iron council planned to do. IRON planned to attack TOP because TOP (along with others) escalated the planb front by attacking NATO. You construed the attack on NATO as an attack on TIO, through an unorthodox series of linguistic and mental gymnastics by which the ordinary planb defensive clause was read to mean something or justify more than it did.Simply put you planned to attack a member of the coalition you helped to architect. I and many other people call that turning on your coalition, if you want to call it something else cool deal. Edited November 12, 2014 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Can we argue about last years war last year? I mean, I'm going to assume that this same exact discussion has already taken place at least once before... Edited November 12, 2014 by Fox Fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Can we argue about last years war last year? I mean, I'm going to assume that this same exact discussion has already taken place at least once before... Bitterness brings out the worst in people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Can we argue about last years war last year? I mean, I'm going to assume that this same exact discussion has already taken place at least once before... People still want to take alliances to task over events from much further afield than last year. These things are still relevant when you have coalitions forming and treaties being signed in response to them. It's only being discussed here because Theo (and perhaps others in your alliance) seems to be rather confused about what actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 People still want to take alliances to task over events from much further afield than last year. These things are still relevant when you have coalitions forming and treaties being signed in response to them. It's only being discussed here because Theo (and perhaps others in your alliance) seems to be rather confused about what actually happened. They arent confused at all. I may have never been on IRONs council, but I know my own alliance and Im quite engaged in its community. You sir are the one who is confused. Now on topic, this thread is about how awesome IRON is. Not how butthurt you are. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 A tl;dr for people of this thread TOP - IRON Sucks because of these random comments IRON - We don't suck, you suck because of the actual facts TOP - Oh those facts don't count because we've changed the rules on the criteria for sucking, so that we don't suck as much. So you suck going back 4 years, well no actually it's around 2, but also ignore the war we didn't fight in because that screws with our stats, but include the one you didn't fight in because YOU DIDN'T FIGHT, also ignore percentages because we're set up differently, apart from the percentages that help us. Also ignore us being peace mode warriors, not because it isn't true, but because we don't want to talk about it. So yeah, if you stand on your head, and close one eye and squint the other and it's when the sun is halfway down, a tree can kinda look like a pencil, so trees = pencils, coz some sort of logic Everyone else - Lol TOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 no u So of course you're aware then that the IRON council passed a vote to attack TOP while IRON and TOP were in the same war coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why dont you look at what actually happened(hint:IRON did not attack TOP) Instead of whining about what ifs. I get it, if IRON hit you last war you would be mad, but they didn't so suck it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) A tl;dr for people of this thread TOP - IRON Sucks because of these random comments IRON - We don't suck, you suck because of the actual facts TOP - Oh those facts don't count because we've changed the rules on the criteria for sucking, so that we don't suck as much. So you suck going back 4 years, well no actually it's around 2, but also ignore the war we didn't fight in because that screws with our stats, but include the one you didn't fight in because YOU DIDN'T FIGHT, also ignore percentages because we're set up differently, apart from the percentages that help us. Also ignore us being peace mode warriors, not because it isn't true, but because we don't want to talk about it. So yeah, if you stand on your head, and close one eye and squint the other and it's when the sun is halfway down, a tree can kinda look like a pencil, so trees = pencils, coz some sort of logic Everyone else - Lol TOP The cognitive dissonance that went into this post is worthy of many psychological papers. Edited November 12, 2014 by Centurius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Now on topic, this thread is about how awesome IRON is. That is precisely what is being discussed. Why dont you look at what actually happened(hint:IRON did not attack TOP) Instead of whining about what ifs.I get it, if IRON hit you last war you would be mad, but they didn't so suck it up. Given that they potentially broke ranks to help you I can understand why you're defending them. Regardless that they didn't hit us has less to do with the character of the alliance and more to do with the fact that by the time they were prepared to pull the trigger we had already organized to counter them. Whether you think it was justified is immaterial to the fact that it was enormously stupid and indicative of how inconsistent and neurotic IRON can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 So of course you're aware then that the IRON council passed a vote to attack TOP while IRON and TOP were in the same war coalition. Damn shame they didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Damn shame they didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 That is precisely what is being discussed. Given that they potentially broke ranks to help you I can understand why you're defending them. Regardless that they didn't hit us has less to do with the character of the alliance and more to do with the fact that by the time they were prepared to pull the trigger we had already organized to counter them. Whether you think it was justified is immaterial to the fact that it was enormously stupid and indicative of how inconsistent and neurotic IRON can be. How can you potentially break ranks in the past? I mean looking forward you could say someone has the potential to break ranks, but looking backwards and saying they potentially broke ranks is retarded. They either did or did not break ranks. Regardless of any discussion/debate that may have occured, you judge them on their actions, not the discussion. Otherwise whats the point of having a debate if you get crucified for the path not chosen? You choose to believe the only reason it didn't happen was because they were afraid of your vicious counterstrike. But you weren't around the table...so that's just like your opinion, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 That is precisely what is being discussed. Given that they potentially broke ranks to help you I can understand why you're defending them. Regardless that they didn't hit us has less to do with the character of the alliance and more to do with the fact that by the time they were prepared to pull the trigger we had already organized to counter them. Whether you think it was justified is immaterial to the fact that it was enormously stupid and indicative of how inconsistent and neurotic IRON can be. How can you potentially break ranks in the past? I mean looking forward you could say someone has the potential to break ranks, but looking backwards and saying they potentially broke ranks is retarded. They either did or did not break ranks. Regardless of any discussion/debate that may have occured, you judge them on their actions, not the discussion. Otherwise whats the point of having a debate if you get crucified for the path not chosen? You choose to believe the only reason it didn't happen was because they were afraid of your vicious counterstrike. But you weren't around the table...so that's just like your opinion, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 How can you potentially break ranks in the past? I mean looking forward you could say someone has the potential to break ranks, but looking backwards and saying they potentially broke ranks is retarded. They either did or did not break ranks. Regardless of any discussion/debate that may have occured, you judge them on their actions, not the discussion. Otherwise whats the point of having a debate if you get crucified for the path not chosen? You choose to believe the only reason it didn't happen was because they were afraid of your vicious counterstrike. But you weren't around the table...so that's just like your opinion, man. You have to use the power of TOP logic, you see the glass is neither half full or half empty, it is actually a bright green 4x4 with dvd players in the back of the head rests for the kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3mon Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 So, IRON is bad because they didn't fight TOP in the last war when you had the advantage? Or because, once they realized how badly they screwed up, they considered defending their friends? Btw, who needs war threads when stat announcements can be so much fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts