Starfox101 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Or it could be they were fine with his leadership when he was a good leader, and then he messed up badly and got them killed, so they expelled him. I wasn't around for GW3 so I won't argue the validity of his expulsion (maybe he was just a scapegoat) but he WAS expelled from the Blue Turtle Alliance, how can he reform an alliance he isn't allowed to be a member of? You weren't there, and as such, really shouldn't be arguing about it. Those were different times. It was a time where you could blame the leader for everything, wipe your hands clean of any "mistakes", and join those who just destroyed your alliance. MD really only did what his alliance and allies pushed for. He was then crucified for it, and lost control of his alliance, like just about every AEGIS leader did. The fact that you are buying into the supposed fact that he is some sort of criminal, incompetent leader only shows your lack of knowledge. The only mistake he made, was losing a war...I guess. 100% Support for Starfox101o/BTA Thank you, old friend. Edited June 29, 2009 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 MD is one of the worst leaders i have ever seen, so i think TAB should just sit back and enjoy the situation. He will run BTA to the ground (again) soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 This seems pitiful like your a spiteful ex-wife lashing out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 How much were the reps TAB had to pay for MDs war...? Well, there doesn't seem to be any record of the reps that BTA/TAB paid in either GWII or GWIII. MD paid twenty million on top of whatever the BTA/TAB reps were though. I did find this rather strange thread too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Well, there doesn't seem to be any record of the reps that BTA/TAB paid in either GWII or GWIII. MD paid twenty million on top of whatever the BTA/TAB reps were though.I did find this rather strange thread too. lol his reps were 5 million per month for 4 months? Oh how times change hahahaha Is it just me or have you been spending way too much time in the archives, Haf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Last night, I made one of my regular incognito outings in order to gauge my peoples' real mood, interests and so on. I do this all the time. I care that much. As my aide and I walked past one of my capital's finest movie theaters, he suggested we pop in to see a film that came out today. I decided to take a closer look at the poster: I turned, looked at him and said, "Forgive me, but that looks like it could be one of the biggest 'steaming piles' in the history of film. Let's wait for it to come out on DVD. Then you can watch it and tell me if I'm right." Added Bonus - Rare Photo of kingzog in Disguise: (Yar!) Edited June 29, 2009 by kingzog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 In usual fashion, I skipped over the entire topic to post this: if TAB does in fact force the BTA to change their name, will they be resuming the BTA name? I mean, no point in letting it to go waste after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 In usual fashion, I skipped over the entire topic to post this: if TAB does in fact force the BTA to change their name, will they be resuming the BTA name? I mean, no point in letting it to go waste after all. You know, that's an excellent point. [OOC]In other news, the Federal Republic of Germany today announced that it holds exclusive rights to the use of the term 'Third Reich'. Even the rutabaga agrees that this would be ridiculous.[/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 You know, that's an excellent point. Damn it Zog, don't you know that clarifying something as a good point dooms it to be ignored? People don't want to deal with good points! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 In usual fashion, I skipped over the entire topic to post this: if TAB does in fact force the BTA to change their name, will they be resuming the BTA name? I mean, no point in letting it to go waste after all. The fact that that's not even the most nonsensical part of this whole situation is slightly unnerving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Alliances can be very personal to some people, just look at the slew of reformed alliances that have sprung up in the last month or two. Those who reformed them could have started a new alliance at any time, but felt attached to a specific name and identity. TAB's point of view is understandable; they were forced to change their name and now the person responsible for that punishment and expelled for it at the time is using the name again. It's a slap in the face, no matter how you look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I call this passive aggressiveness. It's a tricky situation, and both sides certainly raised good points. I however think that requesting other people to stop trading with them because of that is too harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Ah Starfox, you always love to be dead centre in the middle of conflict. Keep it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incitatus Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I believe that TAB has the right to do this. I may not like this decision and I like several of the members from BTA, but I still believe TAB has the right to do this. Hopefully this will end in a peaceful manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum T. Gundraw Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Ivan Moldavi forms his own alliance. Calls it NSO. Awesome! Why? No connection to NPO - at all. If he called it the Pacific Order of Newness, would they have let it fly? Of course not. Did he get his blessing from NPO leadership to create NpO? Yes he did! Did these guys, despite the obvious connection? No! Wait, what sort of ignorance is this? Ivan was Emperor of NPO at NpO's creation. Of course he had their 'blessing'. And NSO was taking a shot at NPO, if you hadn't noticed. You're not even making a point here. BTA was a legitimate alliance, not just a joke name to play on TAB. In fact, if you look at the timing, it's quite the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelenAzrael Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Just as a thought. If TAB was officially a different alliance than BTA from the surrender thread onwards, why did TAB have to pay reps for the BTA, being a separate alliance? Edited June 29, 2009 by CelenAzrael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Going to a war over an alliances' name is utterly pathetic, i hope this can be resolved peacefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Going to a war over an alliances' name is utterly pathetic ... I completely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 The poll on MK's forums says otherwise. (we are the true BTA) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I completely agree. No, the right way to do that would be to link the time TAB DoW'd The Arctic Brotherhood for using a name with the same acronym. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 No, the right way to do that would be to link the time TAB DoW'd The Arctic Brotherhood for using a name with the same acronym. Did they actually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Did they actually? Yeah, I already linked it. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...amp;pid=1648756 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 No, the right way to do that would be to link the time TAB DoW'd The Arctic Brotherhood for using a name with the same acronym. Those were before my time somewhat, but interesting nonetheless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah, I already linked it.http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...amp;pid=1648756 Well now. This is a fun and interesting bit of information I never knew before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah, I already linked it.http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...amp;pid=1648756 a perfect example of the kind of crap that was regarded as normal and acceptable back then. 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.