Taget Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Surely there is room for compromise. How about the Azure Tortoise Confederation or the Indigo Terapin Union or even Alianza de la Tortuga Azul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Surely there is room for compromise.How about the Azure Tortoise Confederation or the Indigo Terapin Union or even Alianza de la Tortuga Azul? Or you know.... TAB could stop with the q_q? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I support Master Debater in his efforts to bring an alliance he holds near and dear to his heart back to life. I know the feeling. You know, sometimes it is better to live and let live instead of making threatening announcements that really say nothing at all. Oh, I don't know. TAB has already requested trade sanctions for completely laughable reasons, so I wouldn't put unprovoked military agression beyond the TAB/MHA corner either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I support Master Debater in his efforts to bring an alliance he holds near and dear to his heart back to life. I know the feeling. You know, sometimes it is better to live and let live instead of making threatening announcements that really say nothing at all. I won't lie, I consider BTA to be a horrible alliance best left dead, however, due to TAB's laughable show of....might(?), I, Rebel Virginia, will hereby be joining the BTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Including leading it headlong into a war, along with its allies, via a completely manufactured treaty (a PIAT no less if I recall). Fun days. If it had a military clause, optional or not, it's valid. And no amount of bawwwwwwwwing would make it less valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) I won't lie, I consider BTA to be a horrible alliance best left dead, however, due to TAB's laughable show of....might(?), I, Rebel Virginia, will hereby be joining the BTA. I hearby request the nations of FAIL be sanctioned because his opinion is not the same as mine. /sarcasm Edited June 28, 2009 by AirMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) Master-Debater was the founder of the original BTA. Your alliance owes your existence to him, by extension if you really are evolved from the Blue Turtle Alliance. Perhaps just let it go? You aren't the Blue Turtle Alliance anymore. I think this issue isn't as big as you're making it out to be. Actually if it were purely up to MD, BTA would have been forced to disband by the likes of the initiative note: i have nothing against BTA and their members..... other than MD Edited June 28, 2009 by CptGodzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 If the creator of the new BTA is a former member of said alliance he have the same right of you to recreate the alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Actually if it were purely up to MD, BTA would have been forced to disband by the likes of the initiative And they essentially were disbanded. Their leaders were barred from government in the "successor" alliance. They lost their name. A good portion of the old community departed. How exactly is TAB the BTA as they are claiming to be? If anything TAB has tried to distance itself from its past, yet a grudge against MD has caused them to want to bring this up. As I said, I laugh this petty display of pettiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 From my understanding, Master Debater informed TAB as well as other parties relevant regarding his reforming of BTA. However, it is only now, that TAB is making an issue of the reformation. After MD spent tons of time, and actual [ooc:]irl[/ooc] money putting the new BTA together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 And they essentially were disbanded. Their leaders were barred from government in the "successor" alliance. They lost their name. A good portion of the old community departed. How exactly is TAB the BTA as they are claiming to be? If anything TAB has tried to distance itself from its past, yet a grudge against MD has caused them to want to bring this up. As I said, I laugh this petty display of pettiness. Oh I was just saying that about MD. I have nothing against anything else with the alliance.... but MD I carry petty grudges ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Guys I think we can officially discard "lol GGA" for "lol TAB" now. It was fun while it lasted GGA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 "Whereas The Aquatic Brotherhood is a sovereign alliance and by virtue of being the original is hereby entitled to the rights of the name Blue Turtle Alliance" This makes absolutely no sense. You claim to be TAB, and then immediately afterward claim to be BTA. Clearly, if you were BTA and cared about the name, you would have switched back to the name BTA a very long time ago. Just as clearly, this is a move born out of nothing more than spite and malice for the original founder of your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Next time can we please pick slightly less retarded drama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 If it had a military clause, optional or not, it's valid. And no amount of bawwwwwwwwing would make it less valid. The fact it never existed, one would think, would make it considerably less valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Or you know.... TAB could stop with the q_q? That's too boring. Might I suggest instead a name change to the Glaucous Chelonian Brotherhood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 And they essentially were disbanded. Their leaders were barred from government in the "successor" alliance. They lost their name. A good portion of the old community departed. How exactly is TAB the BTA as they are claiming to be? If anything TAB has tried to distance itself from its past, yet a grudge against MD has caused them to want to bring this up. As I said, I laugh this petty display of pettiness. Also to help your cause, IIRC they decided on their own to change to TAB, they weren't forced by CIS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 The fact it never existed, one would think, would make it considerably less valid. Having been in 2 alliances that have entered wars on no treaties and 1 alliance that stopped a war by threatening to enter on no treaties, friends are friends and you don't need a treaty to help them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Who cares if a founder wants to re-found their alliance? Christ, let the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaannndddyyy Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 This thread is funny. I think MD has the right to remake BTA. Yes I like most of you guys in TAB but this is a bad way to go about this. Should have expressed your dislike of MD's idea before the DoE was posted. You guys clearly knew about it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 The fact it never existed, one would think, would make it considerably less valid. Friends, are friends, are friends. If you need a piece of paper to tell you who it's worth to fight for, and if you're going to whine over a little lost infrastructure, you're clearly in the wrong [ooc]game[/ooc]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Also to help your cause, IIRC they decided on their own to change to TAB, they weren't forced by CIS Uh, no. CIS made them change the name. Wait, actually, if you read the announcement, it states that CIS disbanded the BTA. So, established alliances can now claim the rights to the names of long dead alliances? If that is the case, I now own all rights to the name ODS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Having been in 2 alliances that have entered wars on no treaties and 1 alliance that stopped a war by threatening to enter on no treaties, friends are friends and you don't need a treaty to help them. But sir! Surely one wouldn't enter a war without proper cause, the loss of infrastructure would be highly unnecessary and inconvenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Having been in 2 alliances that have entered wars on no treaties and 1 alliance that stopped a war by threatening to enter on no treaties, friends are friends and you don't need a treaty to help them. Whether BTA entered the war with or without a PIAT I could care less, their prerogative. That MD lied about the PIAT to get not only BTA into the war, but the entire bloc BTA was in at the time, is not excusable. There is a good reason the BTA name is stained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooold yo $@! up. The ORIGINAL FOUNDER of an alliance wants to re-establish that alliance? Good for him. I support it. Meanwhile, TAB are making a rukus for... what reason? The fact that you claim to be the real BTA? Should've stayed BTA and not changed your name, then. Your loss to the title. And, I had so much more faith in MHA than to support such a pointless daytime drama. 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.