The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Who's threatening DT? What's asked is that the aggressor from DT, who had the nerve to come here and brag about his opportunistic attack against unaligned Red nations, pays reps to said nations.That being said, how on Bob is the Revenge doctrine bad? Great, 'opportunistic' is the new buzz word when people want to !@#$%* about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Ah! I see you were able to edit out the bastardized quote text from my post, thats good. TRY LEARNING HOW TO USE THE FORUM BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF NEXT TIME LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Didn't retreat, Just waiting for you to reply to make earlier post. Until then I'll just watch. Just so we are on the same page, is this the post you are referring to? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1516957 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Great, 'opportunistic' is the new buzz word when people want to !@#$%* about something. It's always been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 TRY LEARNING HOW TO USE THE FORUM BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF NEXT TIME LOL Like double-posting, you mean? Sorry to say, but that's generally frowned upon in most forums. If you're really quick about editting one of them empty, Im sure you'll be able to avoid annoying the mods. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Great, 'opportunistic' is the new buzz word when people want to !@#$%* about something. Great, you ignore what I said to mock me for a word you used yourself in the post I replied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Great, 'opportunistic' is the new buzz word when people want to !@#$%* about something. TRY LEARNING HOW TO USE THE FORUM BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF NEXT TIME LOL You should do yourself a favor and just stop posting. Friendly warning and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Just so we are on the same page, is this the post you are referring to?http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1516957 Correct that'd be ye one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 lol im not trying to brag about 'raiding red' or stealing from others nations. I was merely trying to make a point regarded the hypocrisy of certain proponents of the Revenge Doctrine. Like i said to melody props to him, if there are more like him maybe the doctrine will yet live. Either way it was not my or the dark templar's intention to destroy the weak. We always do 2 ga's and the offer peace. Also the dark templar, along with poison clan is one of the largest protectors of micro alliances. If you want to be unaligned thats your choice, but there is a reason alliances exist. The greed of a nation wanting all the benefits of alliance membership while not having to contribute, is alot greater than mine lust for something to do on CN other than collect taxes and pay bills. Im sorry if i gave the wrong impression regarding my recent attacks. Im not here to debate the morality of raiding but believe me its a great way to meet people and add another demension to CN; so long as you dont conduct yourself as merry watshisface. Im I any more aggressive than the trolls coming out here with no intention other than to get dirt all over DT's good name? My first post could have been considered trolling but my point remains valid; the revenge doctrine will be null and viod untill someone powerfull enough to enforce it arises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Like double-posting, you mean?Sorry to say, but that's generally frowned upon in most forums. If you're really quick about editting one of them empty, Im sure you'll be able to avoid annoying the mods. Good luck! Got your safety belt on there Mr. Backseat Mod? Give me a real argument or $%&@ off. Both my posts had relevance and in a fast moving thread what's the point in editing my first post just in case I accidentally end up double posting. Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Got your safety belt on there Mr. Backseat Mod?Give me a real argument or $%&@ off. Both my posts had relevance and in a fast moving thread what's the point in editing my first post just in case I accidentally end up double posting. Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake. My, you're a tempered one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 You should do yourself a favor and just stop posting. Friendly warning and all. Sorry about that, my responses seem to have degenerated to the level of the ignoramus I seem to be conversing with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake. Actually, Merrie might have already, he has done this in the past. Edited May 11, 2009 by masterof9puppets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Got your safety belt on there Mr. Backseat Mod?Give me a real argument or $%&@ off. Both my posts had relevance and in a fast moving thread what's the point in editing my first post just in case I accidentally end up double posting. Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake. I don't recall your initial post but I'm having difficulty believing that someone who can't string four sentences together without throwing in multiple petty insults is actually capable of putting together a cogent argument about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Got your safety belt on there Mr. Backseat Mod?Give me a real argument or $%&@ off. Both my posts had relevance and in a fast moving thread what's the point in editing my first post just in case I accidentally end up double posting. Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake. Oh great, now you mock people for dismissing points. Wow. Lead by example isn't your strongest side, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't recall your initial post but I'm having difficulty believing that someone who can't string four sentences together without throwing in multiple petty insults is actually capable of putting together a cogent argument about anything. Welp, let's try get back to the argument at hand then and find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Welp, let's try get back to the argument at hand then and find out. There's an argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Attacking Red right now is like attacking a recently disbanded alliance. Opportunistic and dishonorable. Raiding red is just like attacking any other color of the cyber-spectrum. Unless your alliance has specific prohibitions on attacking red or treaties with Pacifica, there is no dishonor in attacking red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 There's an argument? I dunno, I only read the first and last pages of the thread and wondered what everyone was !@#$%*ing about in a very vocal and slightly abrasive manner. Can we start an argument about something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Raiding red is just like attacking any other color of the cyber-spectrum. Unless your alliance has specific prohibitions on attacking red or treaties with Pacifica, there is no dishonor in attacking red. It's more the fact that it wouldn't be happening if NPO wasn't currently being curb stomped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Raiding red is just like attacking any other color of the cyber-spectrum. Unless your alliance has specific prohibitions on attacking red or treaties with Pacifica, there is no dishonor in attacking red. The issue in my mind is when people like Willirica specifically raid Red to be cool/tough/spite NPO/whatever. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Correct that'd be ye one. Well this is all well and good, calling DT out for raiding red. But we are not out of line in our policy, or in NPO"s policy. Every nation Willirca raided has an AA. Case closed. Unless your all just saying raiding is wrong on it's self, then this is all a bit off topic. So I'd recommend making your own topic on the matter of ebil tech raiders. So you are claiming that a one man AA equals an alliance? Before I continue with this I’d like to know if this is the case, so I can comment on this post from your boy. i have raided several unaligned and red team nations over the past few daysmy nation is here http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=274870 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I dunno, I only read the first and last pages of the thread and wondered what everyone was !@#$%*ing about in a very vocal and slightly abrasive manner. Can we start an argument about something? Was I backseat modding? Im sorry, I was only meaning to give friendly advice to someone that seemed to need it. I meant no offense. Sometimes its important to know the difference between a helping hand, and flipping the bird. But on the internet, the significance of such differences can be lost. Its alright, you dont need to apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I dunno, I only read the first and last pages of the thread and wondered what everyone was !@#$%*ing about in a very vocal and slightly abrasive manner. Can we start an argument about something? I believe one member of an alliance was bragging about raiding red right now while no one can stop him and another member of another alliance came in and slapped him silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Raiding red is just like attacking any other color of the cyber-spectrum. Unless your alliance has specific prohibitions on attacking red or treaties with Pacifica, there is no dishonor in attacking red. I said right now. I don't consider it dishonorable because NPO claims ownership to Red, but because up until recently, nations on Red enjoyed protection like they would've if they were in an alliance. Thus, it's comparable to attacking a disbanded alliance. You do consider that dishonorable 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.