JBone Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Very true. And that 32 page trainwreck shows it sucks for even parties who are linked in only the remotest way. Not the same topic I think. Thought I was originally replying to IRON's unexpected non-white peace. Sorry, going from thread to thread when they all have grown to 40+ pages has made my head start to spin. I edited to more accurately reflect that which I quoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 superior? Still Epic Fail! Thanks for proving my point. I think you need to check a dictionary, and perhaps come up for air. You seem to be missing a few important points. First off, surprise. Your side is losing. Badly. That puts us in a superior military position, and a superior bargaining position. Neither of those facts carry a moral implication, or any propaganda value, its just the way it is. I don't need to cop an attitude to assert these facts, no amount of talk can change them. Second, this is where the dictionary comes in. Arrogance; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. Closely related to the act of arrogating. Superior; of higher quality or performance. As you can see while the two are related (It is a short jump from superior to arrogant) they are not necessarily inclusive. It requires no exorbitant claims for me to say your losing, and the winners decide peace terms. Finally, since its likely you'll miss the distinction, I'm still not being arrogant, this is me condescending to you because I now have a low opinion of your ability to think, Critically or otherwise. ps. You'll have to look up condescending your self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Sorry, going from thread to thread when they all have grown to 40+ pages has made my head start to spin. I edited to more accurately reflect that which I quoted. Completely understandable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I think you need to check a dictionary, and perhaps come up for air. You seem to be missing a few important points.First off, surprise. Your side is losing. Badly. That puts us in a superior military position, and a superior bargaining position. Neither of those facts carry a moral implication, or any propaganda value, its just the way it is. I don't need to cop an attitude to assert these facts, no amount of talk can change them. Second, this is where the dictionary comes in. Arrogance; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. Closely related to the act of arrogating. Superior; of higher quality or performance. As you can see while the two are related (It is a short jump from superior to arrogant) they are not necessarily inclusive. It requires no exorbitant claims for me to say your losing, and the winners decide peace terms. Finally, since its likely you'll miss the distinction, I'm still not being arrogant, this is me condescending to you because I now have a low opinion of your ability to think, Critically or otherwise. ps. You'll have to look up condescending your self. Since you have your dictionary out, look up shortsighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Since you have your dictionary out, look up shortsighted. I cheat, I use google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 superior? Still Epic Fail! Thanks for proving my point. Are you friends with James Dahl? A fan of him, maybe? If not you should really get to know him. You two would hit it quite nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahnite Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I think you need to check a dictionary, and perhaps come up for air. You seem to be missing a few important points.Blah, blah, blah ... self-aggrandizing wall of text. You still don't get it, Epic Fail! Let's see if I can explain this in words you can understand. The policy you expound is a failure! Fact, you are not "the victor", because the war still drags on. Why not give your speech under the banner "Mission Accomplished", it will be just as convincing. It is precisely this attitude (not superiority) that has not brought NPO to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 What? Not even 50% of us is blue. Any bloc involving Polaris nowadays must be a reincarnation of BLEU, good-dear-sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 It is precisely this attitude (not superiority) that has not brought NPO to the table. In the words of my hero Dick Cheney, "So?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggdrazil Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 It becomes relevant now because the same people who mindlessly hailed the NPO's moves when they threated GATO's peace mode nations with EZI, and the ones complaining the loudest about how simple higher reps for nations in peace mode, is evil terrible horrible and not thought out.An interesting reversal don't you think? It was a grand idea when they did it to somebody else, but if someone does something similar to them its suddenly the worst idea ever. The NPO by your standards were victorious over Vox and Fan.Yet, both these Alliances thought otherwise. Neither accepted NPO's terms or conditions and I bet as things stand now NPO will not accept these horrible pre-conditions and will eventually get offered something different.Will NPO accept those is the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Heh, way to put a spin on misunderstandings. Karma didn't assure IRON anything, Gre did when it was under no authority to do so. It's not spin. IRON was given the impression their terms would be one thing, but when it came time they found them to be quite another. That the person who gave IRON that impression did it as a result of miscommunication doesn't matter as much as the impression left behind. Whether or not NPO can trust what they are told from someone they are fighting is now is serious doubt. What effect is this likely to have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) The NPO by your standards were victorious over Vox and Fan.Yet, both these Alliances thought otherwise. Neither accepted NPO's terms or conditions and I bet as things stand now NPO will not accept these horrible pre-conditions and will eventually get offered something different.Will NPO accept those is the question? Well I'm not the one crafting terms, (in fact im not involved at all, im just one of those people who likes to think ), but if I was my line of thought would be something along the lines of needing to cause a certain amount of damage to the NPO to prevent a repeat of the aftermath of GW1, and how exactly that damage is dealt would matter less to me than the fact that it is dealt. So large reps, or large beatdown, matters little. So with that in mind, its not unreasonable to assume that the NPO might get offered better terms eventually, but when that eventually might be is impossible to guess at this point. And relying on that assumption as your exit strategy from a war would be foolish because its virtually assures your overall damage will be larger and also extends the time before you can get back to rebuilding. I'm wandering, my point is that holding out for better terms might actually work, but when you add in the extra destruction of a prolonged war the 'better' terms still work out to more damage in the end. The sooner you end a war the sooner you get back to rebuilding. Edited May 31, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 It exists now and will continue to exist as long as the war is being fought. The fact it doesnt have a traditional bloc leadership structure doesnt change the fact it is here now and is fighting a war that shows no sign of ending anytime soon. Remember how Vox transformed from a lose affiliation of like minded people into a regular alliance. This is just history repeating itself on a larger scale. You might say these thousands will never all agree, well only the small handful of leaders need to agree. What are you smoking and what forums are you reading? Karma isn't even close to a bloc, it's a loose "coalition" thrown under one banner in order to better coordinate military fronts. If you really think most of karma is going to stay together following this you must've been on the pipe too long with vladimir or you're the most politically inept person to grace these forums since HoT, bar nozzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 It's not spin. IRON was given the impression their terms would be one thing, but when it came time they found them to be quite another. That the person who gave IRON that impression did it as a result of miscommunication doesn't matter as much as the impression left behind.Whether or not NPO can trust what they are told from someone they are fighting is now is serious doubt. What effect is this likely to have? Actually it is exactly spin, as you're trying to imply that it was all a maneuver for karma forces in order to bring in IRON to the war (but they were going to anyway, right?) when in fact it was just one person's ego and narrow-mindness getting the best of him and trying to speak in authority through multiple parties that had not been consulted at all. NPO knows that if it gets terms from the front as a whole, then those are the terms. They're smart enough to know whom to communicate with when seeking peace terms I'd imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 NPO knows that if it gets terms from the front as a whole, then those are the terms. They're smart enough to know whom to communicate with when seeking peace terms I'd imagine. You are assuming that there is a person to communicate with to get terms from the front as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 You are assuming that there is a person to communicate with to get terms from the front as a whole. Did you read my post at all or what the fairies circling your head are telling you? The people they can communicate, as I mentioned before, are the people fighting them on their front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Did you read my post at all or what the fairies circling your head are telling you? The people they can communicate, as I mentioned before, are the people fighting them on their front. May I just point out he is using "person" while you are using "persons". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leigon Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 You are assuming that there is a person to communicate with to get terms from the front as a whole. While I'm not sure there would be a single person to discuss terms with, I'm pretty sure that several alliance leaders could be trusted to inform the NPO front and get some sort of terms discussion running. First they'd have to swallow their pride and ask for peace though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 May I just point out he is using "person" while you are using "persons". That'd be because they are fighting more than one alliance now wouldn't it? There would not be a single person to talk to about it. There are many, the leaders of each alliance. Those leaders may appoint a spokesman, but that single individual would only be a messenger not a negotiator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 May I just point out he is using "person" while you are using "persons". Uhm, duh? Kinda happens when you're facing more than one alliance and kinda shows how ignorant his post is in the assumption that there'd be one person only to negotiate with. But do carry on with your pointless semantic arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) That'd be because they are fighting more than one alliance now wouldn't it? There would not be a single person to talk to about it. There are many, the leaders of each alliance. Those leaders may appoint a spokesman, but that single individual would only be a messenger not a negotiator. That is fantastic. I am thrilled you derive so much from a post intended to have the two parties realize they are talking apples and oranges. Thank you for your time, I feel we have, together, really helped this conversation. Uhm, duh? Kinda happens when you're facing more than one alliance and kinda shows how ignorant his post is in the assumption that there'd be one person only to negotiate with.But do carry on with your pointless semantic arguments. Ha ha. I challenge you to find an argument in my post. Edited May 31, 2009 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ha ha. I challenge you to find an argument in my post. That'd be hard to do with any of your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 That'd be hard to do with any of your posts. That would be hard to do with any of your posts. Are you enjoying yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 That is fantastic. I am thrilled you derive so much from a post intended to have the two parties realize they are talking apples and oranges. Thank you for your time, I feel we have, together, really helped this conversation. Well since you seemed to have missed my point; Your (and others) expectation that there should be a single individual to talk to is a fantasy, there isn't. So your 'apples and oranges' bit is irrelevant, there are no oranges to compare to, the other scenario does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 That would be hard to do with any of your posts.Are you enjoying yourself? Oh God I got grammar'd however will I survive 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.