Limitless Nexus Recognition of War

[the rebel]

I'm pretty good at calling my shots. Looks like Rebell, 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.

 

That's cute, grasp that strawman hard because its all you've got on me :smug:

[Margrave]

 

That's cute, grasp that strawman hard because its all you've got on me :smug:

 

Waiting for you to put up with those german images there chief.

[Walshington]

 
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.

I don't know if it's hilarious or sad that you think asking for evidence for prove statements that you make is a petty trick.
YOU: you are just like Joseph Goebbels.
ME: really? How so?
YOU: because you do X, Y, and Z.
ME: but I've never done X, Y, or Z. Can you show me where I have?
YOU: no. I refuse to fall for your petty tricks.

All of us on the OWF writhe in the crushing grip of your reason and logic.

[the rebel]

Waiting for you to put up with those german images there chief.

Hey Walshington put your chihuahua on a leash he's at the straw you were grasping.

[Walshington]

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.

 

Better explain something to you, as "strawman" is probably you something heard someone say to you, and you thought it sounded clever and you're using it here to distract from the fact that your position is untenable.

 

You see, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy in which one party , in order to make his case more appealing, ascribes an argument to his opponent which the opponent never made, and then argues against that position.

 

I am doing the exact opposite of that;  You have made an argument, and I am asking you to provide any evidence that your argument has any validity.  Unable to do so, you choose to deflect with wordplay instead of simply citing evidence to back your position.

 

You and I both know it is because you cannot.  But you lack the intellectual honesty to admit your position holds no water.

 

Simply put, I've asked you to supply any evidence at all to support your position.  Unable to do so, you respond with "zingers such as these:

 

 

 

That's cute, grasp that strawman hard because its all you've got on me :smug:

 

 

Hey Walshington put your chihuahua on a leash he's at the straw you were grasping.

 

If you can back your position with evidence, please do so. By that I mean the argument you made, in your own words.

 

No moving goalposts there, is there?

 

But you cannot, and so we await your next deflection.

[USMC123]

I love when people attack straw men and then accuse others of doing it.

Also, TIL the rebel doesn't know the history of Planet Earth very well.

[saxasm]

I believe this more or less summarizes these threads in their entirety:

[the rebel]

Better explain something to you, as "strawman" is probably you something heard someone say to you, and you thought it sounded clever and you're using it here to distract from the fact that your position is untenable.

 

You see, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy in which one party , in order to make his case more appealing, ascribes an argument to his opponent which the opponent never made, and then argues against that position.

 

I am doing the exact opposite of that;  You have made an argument, and I am asking you to provide any evidence that your argument has any validity.

 

My statement was the comparisons and I then gave you the comparisons, which you then created an argument off one whole word taken out of context from the statement, that my friend is a strawman as you created a new statement to argue against.

 

It's strange that you're still here using the fallacy which is there for everyone to see I might add, but rather than retract the error from the start, you choose to draw attention to it and use more fallacies to back up your original one.

 

The question is why? I'm a nobody these days and have been retired from government some years now, so political point scoring can't be a reason and I'm not an enemy using propaganda against you that you must try your hardest to discredit...

So why are you even trying? I've got nothing to lose sticking to my original statement, you have everything to lose sticking to your errored reply to my statement. Carrying on with it just puts you in a bad light with the audience, it shows your flaws and weaknesses and ruins an image that you're trying to portray. It may of worked for you against Methrage and Co moving those goalposts everytime ever so slightly to make them diverge away, changing their argument ever so slightly everytime to match your goalpost moving. 

 

There is a saying for that: "give someone enough rope to hang himself or herself"

 

Unfortunately for you though I don't fall for that chestnut.

 

I'm not changing my statement to match your strawman, deal with it.

[Walshington]

 

The question is why? I'm a nobody 

 

My goodness, in that that cesspool of words I found a diamond.

 

Two things: 

1) When a guy who can ride a unicycle is accused of being unable to ride a unicycle, he doesn't argue semantics. He just hops on the unicycle and rides it to remove all doubt. 

 

2) It just hit me: Your original statement was that I was comparable to Josef Goebbels.  

 

Good Godwin, Rebel Virginia, where were you when I needed you?

 

[Blake Griffinin]

Alliance Announcements is in-character, please refrain from any further discussion involving real-life individuals. Henceforth failure to do so will result in warns.

[DeathAdder]

How many pages can Sigrun fill with nonsensical !@#$%^&*? Tune in at 11 to find out!

 

I'm down for 20.

 

It's sad. Not only can they not acknowledge a losing war, they also can't propaganda worth !@#$ without resorting to OOC personal attacks via comparing you to one of the most heinous people in history. Way to Politic, CA.

 

This is why the community points and laughs at your whole bunch.

 

As for fighting a 'defensive' war; when you attack an Alliance for the actions of an acknowledged rogue, you don't get to play the defenders. You are the aggressors. Frankly, if you did that to my alliance, you wouldn't get peace until the entire lot of you reached ZI/ZT, and I would make it a personal goal to make sure every one of your members were sanctioned on -every- team.

 

Be glad that the OP terms are the only terms you're getting. They should add onto those terms for each day you dragged your feet, and for each thread your hero made in an attempt to garner sympathy.

 

Edit: Can't spell.

Edited July 17, 2015 by DeathAdder

[kingzog]

 

I'm down for 20.

 

It's sad. Not only can they not acknowledge a losing war, they also can't propaganda worth !@#$ without resorting to OOC personal attacks via comparing you to one of the most heinous people in history. Way to Politic, CA.

 

This is why the community points and laughs at your whole bunch.

 

As for fighting a 'defensive' war; when you attack an Alliance for the actions of an acknowledged rogue, you don't get to play the defenders. You are the aggressors. Frankly, if you did that to my alliance, you wouldn't get peace until the entire lot of you reached ZI/ZT, and I would make it a personal goal to make sure every one of your members were sanctioned on -every- team.

 

Be glad that the OP terms are the only terms you're getting. They should add onto those terms for each day you dragged your feet, and for each thread your hero made in an attempt to garner sympathy.

 

Edit: Can't spell.

 

Wow.

 

Where's a 'like' button when I need it?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

As for fighting a 'defensive' war; when you attack an Alliance for the actions of an acknowledged rogue, you don't get to play the defenders.

 

Except, again, that never happened. Had it happened, we would not have needed to go to war.

 

It's truly amazing to watch new theories be invented and asserted as truth over a month after the fact.

 

All to avoid acknowledging the simple truth that your 'beloved' instigated and is prosecuting an aggressive war against us. Which anyone can see clearly simply by searching the wars and spending 5 minutes looking at it with their own eyes.

[DeathAdder]

Yes. The war screen tells lies,, and you're the only bastion of truth Bob has.

 

Maybe you should merge out of Wonderland and back into reality before you try responding to me.

[Sephiroth]

Yes. The war screen tells lies,, and you're the only bastion of truth Bob has.

 

Maybe you should merge out of Wonderland and back into reality before you try responding to me.

The war screens show me SRA attacked LN before we struck back and Kashmir also attacked Limitless Nexus before we hit them back. So I'm not sure what war screens you're looking at.

[Dochartaigh]

The war screens show me SRA attacked LN before we struck back and Kashmir also attacked Limitless Nexus before we hit them back. So I'm not sure what war screens you're looking at.

 

Actually it shows that Dre4mwe4ver hit you. What it does not show and what you refuse to acknowledge is that SRA said that you were free to hit Dre4mwe4ver all you wanted but they would not kick him off of the AA. So in response to this, you hit other members of SRA... So yes, the war screens can lie. Had you kept the war limited to Dre4mwe4ver, then SRA would not have become involved. You did not do this. Had SRA not gotten involved, then Kashmir would not have gotten involved. So you and Sigrun are lying. 

 

You can keep spinning the truth all you want but a month after the fact does not make your lies any more true. 

[Sephiroth]

 

Actually it shows that Dre4mwe4ver hit you. What it does not show and what you refuse to acknowledge is that SRA said that you were free to hit Dre4mwe4ver all you wanted but they would not kick him off of the AA. So in response to this, you hit other members of SRA... So yes, the war screens can lie. Had you kept the war limited to Dre4mwe4ver, then SRA would not have become involved. You did not do this. Had SRA not gotten involved, then Kashmir would not have gotten involved. So you and Sigrun are lying. 

 

You can keep spinning the truth all you want but a month after the fact does not make your lies any more true. 

That's the spin you want to put on it, but the truth shown by the war screen is SRA attacked first. What SRA said didn't matter when they condoned the attack and aided him to maximize damage while he was hitting me. The 2 other SRA members who switched AAs to attack during this won't be shown on the war screens as SRA attacks, but the war screens still show SRA attacking first.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Methrage

[DeathAdder]

The war screens show me SRA attacked LN before we struck back and Kashmir also attacked Limitless Nexus before we hit them back. So I'm not sure what war screens you're looking at.

 

There is no spin, bud. Lets break it down:

 

6/7/2015 11:21:48 AM
      
*Expired*

Fidensgen
Ruler: Dre4mwe4ver
Screaming Red Asses

Libertarian Empire
Ruler: Methrage
Limitless Nexus 16,327.81

20%/79%

War Expired

 

Copy/paste #1, Dreamweaver, an acknowledged Rogue by the leadership of SRA attacks you, and in the process said Leadership states you may hit him and only him in response as much as you want....

 

6/11/2015 5:34:31 PM
      
*Expired*

wreytweyewuyeyewyyry
Ruler: Kaznawim
Limitless Nexus

Xrayben
Ruler: xrayben
Screaming Red Asses

 

Copy/paste #2

 

Kaznawim, an Heir to your alliance, no less, breaks the agreement by attacking someone that isn't dreamweaver.

 

The war escalates from there.

 

So, why is it that Dreamweaver should've been kicked from SRA for rogue actions if your own High Govt does the same damn thing, and still remains High Gov?

 

And don't take my word for it, Planet Bob, page 21 of "Wars Across the Globe" shows it quite plain as day.

 

You really should lay off the drugs, or maybe just learn how to follow a screen of statistics, and basic !@#$@#$ conversation.

Edited July 17, 2015 by DeathAdder

[Dochartaigh]

That's the spin you want to put on it, but the truth shown by the war screen is SRA attacked first. What SRA said didn't matter when they condoned the attack and aided him to maximize damage while he was hitting me. The 2 other SRA members who switched AAs to attack during this won't be shown on the war screens as SRA attacks, but the war screens still show SRA attacking first.

 

There is no spin. Walsh, the leader of SRA, said flat out that you can hit Dre4m all you want. You then hit SRA in response. What you fail to comprehend is that, despite what an absolute mess this shit is, it is not black and white. You keep trying to make it black and white. There is grey there and you ignore it because that grey shows that you are lying through your teeth. This is one of the main reasons I stopped supporting your antics years back. You showed yourself to be a conniving, manipulative trickster when alliances like TOP paid GOONs off to save your skin just to have you turn around and hit GOONs again. Then you go back to TOP to try to have them pay GOONs off a second time. 

 

There is a reason why you only have new nations (who don't know any better), delusional nations (like Sigrun and therebel), and yourself supporting you. Damn near everyone else is against you. Here I am defending SRA and Kashmir when I could give two shits about either alliance, who in reality I, as a member of MI6, have usually only had negative interactions when one another or no interaction at all. And yet, here I am, defending them because you are one of those people who can really unite CN, no matter where the nation/alliances lie on the treaty web. 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

On the one side we have what actually happened, documented on the war screens and in conversations at the time.

 

On the other side we have what Walsh would now like everyone to believe happened. Which has changed a few times and may well change again.

 

And on the third side the chronic haters who will literally believe anything no matter how absurd as long as it works against Meth.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Dochartaigh]

On the one side we have what actually happened, documented on the war screens and in conversations at the time.

 

On the other side we have what Walsh would now like everyone to believe happened. Which has changed a few times and may well change again.

 

Walsh said what he said on the OWF. There is no changing it. So, on one side, we have what you and Meth like to claim, which is only a partial fact. Then we have the entire story that shows that your partial fact is only that, partial. If we take the story as a whole, it shows that you and Meth are lying by making an attempt at proposing a partial fact as the entire story. 

[DeathAdder]

Except for the fact, this chronic hater(s) believes what the war screen shows. Not what you wish it shows.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

Walsh said what he said on the OWF. There is no changing it.

 

There!

 

Now if only you can convince him of that.

[Sephiroth]

 

There is no spin. Walsh, the leader of SRA, said flat out that you can hit Dre4m all you want. You then hit SRA in response. What you fail to comprehend is that, despite what an absolute mess this !@#$ is, it is not black and white. You keep trying to make it black and white. There is grey there and you ignore it because that grey shows that you are lying through your teeth. This is one of the main reasons I stopped supporting your antics years back. You showed yourself to be a conniving, manipulative trickster when alliances like TOP paid GOONs off to save your skin just to have you turn around and hit GOONs again. Then you go back to TOP to try to have them pay GOONs off a second time. 

 

There is a reason why you only have new nations (who don't know any better), delusional nations (like Sigrun and therebel), and yourself supporting you. Damn near everyone else is against you. Here I am defending SRA and Kashmir when I could give two !@#$% about either alliance, who in reality I, as a member of MI6, have usually only had negative interactions when one another or no interaction at all. And yet, here I am, defending them because you are one of those people who can really unite CN, no matter where the nation/alliances lie on the treaty web. 

Walsh also said Dreamweaver's attack was an act of war in any rational leader's book, so we had a valid CB against them. Xanth & Tyrian AA hopping to attack us during this, then being back in SRA before the Dreamweaver War was even over, just added more fuel to the fire.

 

I'm not sure how you see politics, but when an alliance leader lets their alliance heirs attack the leader of another alliance and their members (while refusing to put a stop to it when diplomacy is tried); that's starting a war. I doubt M16 would allow members of another alliance to attack them freely and keep the war limited to just the nations attacking directly; if the alliance they are in clearly support the attacks and sends them aid to assist in their war against you.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Methrage

[Dochartaigh]

 

There!

 

Now if only you can convince him of that.

 

Convince him of what? That Meth is allowed to retaliate against Dre4m and Dre4m only? That LN is allowed to do the same against Dre4m and Dre4m only? I am fairly certain that Walsh has never contradicted that. It is Meth that needs to be convinced otherwise since he somehow mistook that to mean he was capable of hitting any other member of SRA and not have anything happen. 

 

Basically we have this timeline:

 

Dre4m hits Meth. 

Walsh states that Dre4m is a rogue and meth can treat him as such, though Dre4m is not booted from the AA. 

LN/Meth then begin hitting other members of SRA causing escalation.

SRA retaliate against LN/Meth. 

Kashmir joins SRA in retaliation against LN/Meth. 

 

 

So, as I previously stated, if LN/Meth had not hit any other member of SRA, we would not be having this conversation. Instead, LN/Meth hit other members of SRA thus causing the escalation that made SRA/Kashmir enter the situation and now we are having this conversation. So in the end, it is meth's fault for failing to comprehend who Dre4m is since other people were hit that were, in fact, not Dre4m.