muffasamini Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) O.o... When they're put right next to each other like that, it's hard to argue who's right and wrong... Because they're contradictory I'm not understanding whats contradictory. Between the two statements, it seems pretty easy to piece together what happened. Peace talks were held yesterday, they obviously hit a complete wall, in which niether party (that includes OV) could agree or accept resolutions that didn't lead to war. The NPO then met OV today to check that OV was really going to be unyielding in its decision. Upon this bieng confirmed by OV, attacks ensued. I see nothing contradictory or underhanded about this. In fact, what seems odd is since OV would have to have known that steadfastly clinging to their spy would lead to war. Then, when met with ultimatum, the day after peace talks failed, and an obvious military build up had occurred, they still stayed firm. They had to have known they would be attacked immanently (this update or next) for doing do. So the true question is, why was OV asking for war? Edited April 21, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 haha wonderful show of unity with those back-to-back contradictory posts on the parts of trotsky and cortath Brainwashing isn't what it used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiawatha Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Brainwashing isn't what it used to be. himmler's rolling over in his grave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I'm not understanding whats contradictory. Between the two statements, it seems pretty easy to piece together what happened. Peace talks were held yesterday, they obviously hit a complete wall, in which niether party (that includes OV) could agree or accept resolutions that didn't lead to war. The NPO then met OV today to check that OV was really going to be unyielding in its decision. Upon this bieng confirmed by OV, attacks ensued.I see nothing contradictory or underhanded about this. In fact, what seems odd is since OV would have to have known that steadfastly clinging to their spy would lead to war. Then, when met with ultimatum, the day after peace talks failed, and an obvious military build up had occurred, they still stayed firm. They had to have known they would be attacked immanently (this update or next) for doing do. So the true question is, why was OV asking for war? They were asking for peace and you had not even heard their last offer before attacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 All's fair in love and war. I am sad to see you say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 There were ongoing peace talks going on TONIGHT, after VE supposedly ended them last night according to NPO. While these neutrally moderated talks were ongoing war declarations began.The lie that talks were over is a gross attempt to twist the truth. That is all <3 Srqt You participated in these talks and therefore the knowledge is first hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovyet Gelibolu Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I seem to recall that it was not the NPO and TORN who organized tonight's meeting. I wonder who it could have been, and why they did what they did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 You participated in these talks and therefore the knowledge is first hand? I was getting a live feed of logs from 2 independent sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I was getting a live feed of logs from 2 independent sources. So you admit that you have no firsthand knowledge of the situation and that all of your assumptions are based on hearsay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Full logs please? It would ease my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you admit that you have no firsthand knowledge of the situation and that all of your assumptions are based on hearsay? I have gotten my logs from verified two independent sources thats good enough for journalists and it is good enough for me. Also Moo has confirmed his error to some of us in private Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have gotten my logs from verified two independent sources thats good enough for journalists and it is good enough for me. Also Moo has confirmed his error to some of us in private Oh, well if you say so, it must be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Oh, well if you say so, it must be true. I have garnered quite a bit of credibility in my years here i think most people know I wouldn't be saying it I I didnt know it to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Orpheus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have garnered quite a bit of credibility in my years here i think most people know I wouldn't be saying it I I didnt know it to be true. Well forgive me if I don't accept the "but I heard [x]" defense; no offense to your credibility, of course, I am sure that you have gained a lot of respect for spewing out Vox talking points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Well forgive me if I don't accept the "but I heard [x]" defense; no offense to your credibility, of course, I am sure that you have gained a lot of respect for spewing out Vox talking points. I was a founder after all. But I somehow doubt that is how I got the credibility I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrilobyteMan Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 The title indicates that this topic is directed to people whom "believe everything they read." I clicked on it, naturally, because of curiousity. Then I read the contents of the original post, and realised why it was directed towards this group of individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Rockatansky Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I don't believe everything I read, but I do have this annoying tendency to believe people when I know they're telling the truth and not trying to cover their own sorry asses. You know what you did was wrong, and now you're trying to justify it by any means necessary. Guess what? We're not buying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I was a founder after all. Believe what Srqt says (ignore the thread title of course): he was a founder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) There is a difference between stalling and negotiations. Edited April 21, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 There is a difference between stalling and negotiations. That is the line you're taking on this? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I'm waiting for screenshots to be posted. Although anyone good with photoshop could edit them.. it's still better than just taking people on their word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 That is the line you're taking on this? Really? Actually I dont really care at this point. People were crying for war, (Some still are lol) so now lets enjoy the game. Good Luck whatever side your on or plan to be on or something lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Well forgive me if I don't accept the "but I heard [x]" defense; no offense to your credibility, of course, I am sure that you have gained a lot of respect for spewing out Vox talking points. May I ask if you were present during the talks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I'm sure Moo felt some pressure to wrap things up since he could see the tide turning against them. Better to strike now while a lot of treaties are still in effect than to wait for deeper and deeper isolation, only to get picked apart later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 That is the line you're taking on this? Really? Yeah, the first counter from them was essentially "how about we do nothing." Sounds good to me, right? 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.