Limitless Nexus Recognition of War

[USMC123]

"If we keep saying it, it will become true!"

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Apparently that is what our attackers believe, yes.

[Dochartaigh]

Do you think we need to be 'relevant' before it's ok for us to defend ourselves?

 

Most of the situations that Meth has found himself in is because of his own doing. He goes out of his way to antagonize anyone he possibly can and then tries to play the victim card when he has to finally pay the check for his actions. As for you, geez man. You are like some brainwashed sycophant mixed with a lovesick puppy. You hero worship meth like he is your entire reason for living. It was amusing when he first did this shit years ago, then it was just meh, now it is just plain annoying. 

 

You have just gotten more and more pathetic as time went on. You are delusional and completely blind when it comes to anything meth related. Maybe if you kept meth on a leash, you would not have to "defend" yourselves do often. 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Let's not talk about 'most incidents' let's talk about one specific incident. This one. He was attacked. He negotiated for a week. He got nothing but more attacks and taunts. He finally called in his friends. Just how does that constitute 'aggression' on his part?

 

You make no sense.

[Dochartaigh]

Let's not talk about 'most incidents' let's talk about one specific incident. This one. He was attacked. He negotiated for a week. He got nothing but more attacks and taunts. He finally called in his friends. Just how does that constitute 'aggression' on his part?

 

You make no sense.

 

Negotiation means more than demanding white peace. Negotiation means both sides move towards the middle. Meth has not done that so no, he has not negotiated shit. As for this incident, he moved onto a sphere that had a senate agreement and he broke that agreement. They have every right to hit him for breaking said agreement. If he did not want to be hit, he would not have moved to Brown and broken the senate agreement. 

 

So no, I make sense. It is you who have been nonsensical for several years now. 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

You're very confused. I will endeavor to help a little.

 

 

Negotiation means more than demanding white peace. Negotiation means both sides move towards the middle. Meth has not done that so no, he has not negotiated !@#$.

 

Meth wanted Dream disavowed completely but was open to less drastic options. Ultimately Walsh refused to do anything about the situation whatsoever aside from taunt us. So Methrage cannot be blamed for the failure of those negotiations.

 

 

As for this incident, he moved onto a sphere that had a senate agreement and he broke that agreement. They have every right to hit him for breaking said agreement. If he did not want to be hit, he would not have moved to Brown and broken the senate agreement. 

 

SRA is not a brown team alliance and insists that this conflict has nothing to do with our move to Brown. All of the actual brown team alliances that attacked us have accepted peace and moved on. You're getting just about everything wrong here, you dont understand the situation at all.

[Lurunin]

 
Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Walsh has been and continues to be the furthest thing from honorable here, and by supporting his aggression you only smear yourself.

Oh honey....you have no idea...I've been on Walsh's bad side and his good side in negotiations. We've been enemies a handful of times. I can speak on his character as both an enemy and an ally.

Additionally you seem to leave out a vital note in your ramblings....SRA declared Dr3AM's attack rogue actions and allowed LN to attack him as they see fit. Methrage instead decide to launch multiple attacks on the entire SRA AA. He has even acknowledged this chain of events....no use in rewriting it.

Finally, as for the "let my war screen do the talking". I have to say that statement would ring more true if you didn't sell 8-9k worth of infra after mine and gowfanatic's war with you. But hey. If you couldn't handle it in the 100k NS range where you started maybe the less wonder heavy nations where you are now will be different

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Oh honey....you have no idea...I've been on Walsh's bad side and his good side in negotiations. We've been enemies a handful of times. I can speak on his character as both an enemy and an ally.

 

So you have history with him and you believe your experience and stand by your friend. I can understand that. It's the same with Methrage and I.

 

Additionally you seem to leave out a vital note in your ramblings....SRA declared Dr3AM's attack rogue actions and allowed LN to attack him as they see fit. Methrage instead decide to launch multiple attacks on the entire SRA AA. He has even acknowledged this chain of events....no use in rewriting it.

 

 

Yeah that's simply not true. And you're the first person I've seen say it, how long after the events? Your sides story just keeps changing because  it's not true.

 

Finally, as for the "let my war screen do the talking". I have to say that statement would ring more true if you didn't sell 8-9k worth of infra after mine and gowfanatic's war with you. But hey. If you couldn't handle it in the 100k NS range where you started maybe the less wonder heavy nations where you are now will be different

 

You hit my nation on 6/25, I had been at war since 5/25. Your nations only managed to break our defenses because you were so late to the party and so many other nations had done so much heavy lifting (and taken a lot of damage) to run us out of nukes before you showed up.

 

I knew going into this my nation would have to take tremendous damage to get where we needed to be, and that's exactly what we have done.

 

We're fighting a defensive war of attrition and we've hit every one of our critical goals so far, while SRA has repeatedly missed even their easier ones. This was was never going to be easy or pretty for us, that was a given. But our goal is to cost our attackers more than they can possibly gain from their assault, and there can be no doubt we are succeeding. What's your coalitions goal?

[Neo Uruk]

Sigrun literally compared Walsh to Goebbels last night.

I don't think further debate is much more than a waste of time ... Not that it was anything else in the first place.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I said he was a propagandist spreading a big lie. You literally called me a nazi. And you think you get to throw stones?

 

Lol.

[Margrave]

I said he was a propagandist spreading a big lie. You literally called me a nazi. And you think you get to throw stones?

 

Lol.

 

You compared him to Goebbels. No ducking that one chief.

 

Also Methrage, that's adorable. Like Sigrun, you fall back on the implied threat of force when you are clearly losing the argument everywhere else. You're both baffled barbarians and it is my great pleasure to see you and yours pounded into dust.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

You compared him to Goebbels. No ducking that one chief.

 

Also Methrage, that's adorable. Like Sigrun, you fall back on the implied threat of force when you are clearly losing the argument everywhere else. You're both baffled barbarians and it is my great pleasure to see you and yours pounded into dust.

 

You've attacked us unprovoked, carry out these ludicrous and dishonest personal attacks on top of it, and then you claim *we* are threatening force and call us barbarians?

 

Man you have truly lost the plot. Completely off the deep end. Reality and your mind are non-intersecting sets. Seek help.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Margrave]

 

You've attacked us unprovoked, carry out these ludicrous and dishonest personal attacks on top of it, and then you claim *we* are threatening force and call us barbarians?

 

Man you have truly lost the plot. Completely off the deep end. Seek counselling.

 

Did you have any more comparisons to National Socialist leaders or other white supremacists to share with us?

[the rebel]

You compared him to Goebbels. No ducking that one chief.
 
it is my great pleasure to see you and yours pounded into dust.

The minister of propaganda and supporter of extermination? Quite an accurate comparison going off the multitudes of propaganda and German images for propaganda and numerous comments like yours.

Bad taste indeed but I can see where the comment would come from.

[Walshington]

Here we go again.  So fun to make accusations, so not fun to be asked to account for them:

 

Let's not talk about 'most incidents' let's talk about one specific incident. This one. He was attacked. He negotiated for a week. He got nothing but more attacks and taunts. He finally called in his friends. Just how does that constitute 'aggression' on his part?

 

You make no sense.

 

 

 

Meth wanted Dream disavowed completely but was open to less drastic options. Ultimately Walsh refused to do anything about the situation whatsoever aside from taunt us. So Methrage cannot be blamed for the failure of those negotiations.

 

 

You bring up the taunts, repeatedly.  I will repeat my invitation to provide proof of my taunting, which you have yet to avail yourself of.  Any post, any PM, any IRC log.  Lay it all out for the people to see here.  Just one, even though you use the plural.  You seem to be referring to the diplomacy between meth and I prior to MInc hitting us.  When you don't find the taunts there, feel free to expand your search to any member of your coalition, and open the scope of time to forever.  We're all waiting anxiously.

 

The minister of propaganda and supporter of extermination? Quite an accurate comparison going off the multitudes of propaganda and German images for propaganda and numerous comments like yours.

Bad taste indeed but I can see where the comment would come from.

 

You can see where the comment would come from, eh?  Due to the multitudes of German images I have used? And my threats of extermination?

 

Well, if there are multitudes, you shouldn't have a problem coming up with just ONE example.

 

You can't mean my use of this image, because it is Meth's avatar (which does look vaguely German):, which I choose to represent him because.... he uses it to represent himself:

 

It can't be this post, which has nothing to do with this war and was a humorous response to kingzog's homoerotic FapPanzer propaganda.

 

So pick from the multitudes, Rebel. Just one example of my use of German imagery that justifies the Goebbels comparison.  Feel free to expand your scope to anywhere and anytime as well.

 

SPOILER ALERT TO THE PEANUT GALLERY:

You won't see answers to this post, because there are no answers.  

 

When asked to put up or shut up, the person who can put up, puts up.  The person who cannot will change the subject, ignore the comment, or refuse to answer on fake principle ("I'm not your trained monkey!  I won't dignify your demand for proof with an answer.")  

 

The very definition of propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.  By claiming taunts where there were none, by claiming my use of German imagery in propaganda makes me Goebbelsesque, and being unable to produce evidence of any of it, you are engaging in a propaganda campaign right here.  My propaganda is is more factual than your posts, but I still limit it to the propaganda thread.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Walshington

[Dochartaigh]

And the posts replying to Sigrun pretty much do the job for me. Sigrun lies about what happened, others demand proof, Sigrun provides no proof. Rinse, lather, repeat. 

[the rebel]

You can see where the comment would come from, eh?  Due to the multitudes of German images I have used? And my threats of extermination?

 

Well, if there are multitudes, you shouldn't have a problem coming up with just ONE example.

 

You can't mean my use of this image, because it is Meth's avatar (which does look vaguely German):, which I choose to represent him because.... he uses it to represent himself:

 

It can't be this post, which has nothing to do with this war and was a humorous response to kingzog's homoerotic FapPanzer propaganda.

 

So pick from the multitudes, Rebel. Just one example of my use of German imagery that justifies the Goebbels comparison.  Feel free to expand your scope to anywhere and anytime as well.

 

SPOILER ALERT TO THE PEANUT GALLERY:

You won't see answers to this post, because there are no answers.  

 

When asked to put up or shut up, the person who can put up, puts up.  The person who cannot will change the subject, ignore the comment, or refuse to answer on fake principle ("I'm not your trained monkey!  I won't dignify your demand for proof with an answer.")  

 

The very definition of propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.  By claiming taunts where there were none, by claiming my use of German imagery in propaganda makes me Goebbelsesque, and being unable to produce evidence of any of it, you are engaging in a propaganda campaign right here.  My propaganda is is more factual than your posts, but I still limit it to the propaganda thread.

 

Do you think and read before going on that rant? I think not.

 

Where did I say "multitudes of german images"? Will give you a hint: I didn't. I said "multitudes of propaganda" So that is that most of your the argument out of the window, future reference for you, If you're going to take things out of context don't make it damned obvious. 

 

You want comparisons?

• Allied propaganda focused on moral boosting propaganda, German propaganda focused on vilifying the enemy.... Check
• Producing constant propaganda in that style like that and one of the main contributors, like you're some minister of propaganda....Check
• Keeping people at war with some ridiculous terms that you know they won't accept, like you support them being exterminated instead...Check

See if you took the time to read what I said instead of picking the word "german" and running with it ignoring the rest, you wouldn't have the problem you have with your argument which dismissed the other points I made for comparison.

 

Is it a stretching comparison? Yes, but its there.

Is it bad taste? Yes and that's the last line of the previous post you should of took to light before going on a pointless diatribe.

[Neo Uruk]

The minister of propaganda and supporter of extermination? Quite an accurate comparison going off the multitudes of propaganda and German images for propaganda and numerous comments like yours.

Bad taste indeed but I can see where the comment would come from.

Spoiler alert: none of this is that fucking serious

[the rebel]

Spoiler alert: none of this is that !@#$@#$ serious

 

Another person who didn't read the bottom line :awesome:

[Neo Uruk]

Saying "bad taste" doesn't quite state just how idiotic it is, especially when you add in "I can see where it came from!"

[the rebel]

Saying "bad taste" doesn't quite state just how idiotic it is, especially when you add in "I can see where it came from!"

 

Well I'm sorry I'm not blinded by fuax outrage to not see the comparisons to a disabled propagandist who happened to be german...the horrors.

Edited July 16, 2015 by the rebel

[Walshington]

 

Do you think and read before going on that rant? I think not.

 

Where did I say "multitudes of german images"? Will give you a hint: I didn't. I said "multitudes of propaganda" So that is that most of your the argument out of the window, future reference for you, If you're going to take things out of context don't make it damned obvious. 

 

 

 

Well, we can argue about what you said, but let's just use the quote button and put all doubts to rest, shall we?

 

 

the rebel, on 16 Jul 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

The minister of propaganda and supporter of extermination? Quite an accurate comparison going off the multitudes of propaganda and German images for propaganda and numerous comments like yours.

Bad taste indeed but I can see where the comment would come from.

 

I see -- it was your verbiage which was confusing. When you said "and", I took to mean "and" (i.e. "multitudes of men and women", so multitudes of both), but you are saying you meant "and" as in "as well as." Got it.

 

So apparently, your case for "quite an accurate comparison" of me to Josef Goebbels is due to 1. multitudes of propaganda and 2. More than one German image.  That's a strong case.

 

I'll admit I've done more propaganda for this war than any other, mainly because there is so much material.

 

I asked you to "put up or shut up" based on my use of German images, the second key part to your thesis.  Did you find one?  Because you didn't post one.  Go ahead and put up.

 

 

 

You want comparisons?

• Allied propaganda focused on moral boosting propaganda, German propaganda focused on vilifying the enemy.... Check
• Producing constant propaganda in that style like that and one of the main contributors, like you're some minister of propaganda....Check
• Keeping people at war with some ridiculous terms that you know they won't accept, like you support them being exterminated instead...Check

 

 

No, what I wanted was a single example of what you alleged.  "German images."  Without them, I don't see how your Goebbels comprison is remotely valid.  

 

While your at it, can you give me a single, concrete link or example of either of these:

-German propaganda focused on vilifying the enemy (I'll ignore "allied propaganda", since that is decidedly non-Goebbels-esque lol)

-Keeping people at war with some ridiculous terms that you know they won't accept, like you support them being exterminated

 

Put up, Rebel.

 

 

 

 

See if you took the time to read what I said instead of picking the word "german" and running with it ignoring the rest, you wouldn't have the problem you have with your argument which dismissed the other points I made for comparison.

 

Well, if you hadn't brought up Germans or Goebbels (twice now), I wouldn't need to bring it up myself. It seems to be the crux of your argument --not everyone who does propaganda is like Goebbels, now are they?

 

Go ahead and put up -- no just talk, but link to examples and screenshots.  We're waiting.  Don't just talk, prove me wrong.

[the rebel]

Still basing you whole argument on one word taken out of context while ignoring the rest I see...

 

Walshington, we will continue when you stop using a strawman. I've been here far to long to fall into the age old trap of arguing about what you think I said rather than what I actually said. Its a classic tactic to move the goal posts in your favour. A shame, it really is to try that rather than retract your error.

 

As for the rest learn your history as this isn't the boiler room.

Edited July 16, 2015 by the rebel

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Walshington, we will continue when you stop using a strawman. I've been here far to long to fall into the age old trap of arguing about what you think I said rather than what I actually said. Its a classic tactic to move the goal posts in your favour.

 

If my experience is representative he is simply incapable of arguing in good faith. It's just petty tricks like this from the rhetoricians handbook, day and night, nonstop. It's very sad.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Walshington]

Posted Today, 11:38 AM

Walshington, on 16 Jul 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

 

SPOILER ALERT TO THE PEANUT GALLERY:

You won't see answers to this post, because there are no answers.  

 

When asked to put up or shut up, the person who can put up, puts up.  The person who cannot will change the subject, ignore the comment, or refuse to answer on fake principle ("I'm not your trained monkey!  I won't dignify your demand for proof with an answer.")  

 

 

I'm pretty good at calling my shots. Looks like Rebel, when asked to put up and prove any of his assertions, has chosen option number three: spurious argument. And thank you for being so predictable.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Walshington