HellAngel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 There was a gathering of aqua alliances to determine whether or not we would we would support TDO and how far this support would go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 There was a gathering of aqua alliances to determine whether or not we would we would support TDO and how far this support would go. I was aware of a announcement of support, yes. I'm not sure how that translated into threatening Frostbite, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I was aware of a announcement of support, yes. I'm not sure how that translated into threatening Frostbite, however. I did not threaten Frostbite. You guys just interpreted it that way and i didnt care. Fact is, what i said was you guys are in for an interesting time. And thats a given should NSO continue to start hostile acts against alliances. That doesnt necessarily mean Gremlins, Aqua or Citadel will have anything to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I did not threaten Frostbite. You guys just interpreted it that way and i didnt care.Fact is, what i said was you guys are in for an interesting time. And thats a given should NSO continue to start hostile acts against alliances. That doesnt necessarily mean Gremlins, Aqua or Citadel will have anything to do with it. Oh, so you just thought you'd tell us the bleeding obvious then. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 OOC: Hey its a forum after all. And it was a one-line comment. If you wish to overinterpret everything i say, thats not my fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 OOC: Hey its a forum after all. And it was a one-line comment. If you wish to overinterpret everything i say, thats not my fault. Not sure what you are driving at. You told me what you meant and I commented on what you meant. No pleasing some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I just confirmed what you said. It WAS the bleeding obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I just confirmed what you said. It WAS the bleeding obvious. Well, if you are confirming what I said then you must be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) So, since Hell 'threatened' Frostbite, it means now Citadel will be blamed? Just as much as you bashing Citadel because of one member 'insulting your alliance" from Umbrella? But when Heinous and I were debating (Love him btw, has a good head), you tell me he is just a member and doesn't represent STA. Awesome. Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Did Valhalla bother to speak to NPO about that or did they just take the word of the big mouth running all across the cyberspace of CN (IRC) shouting to the heavens about NPO being the betrayer and thus giving all of NPO's allies the excuse they were praying for? Not everyone was praying for that excuse. And I think you know the answer to this question already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) So, since Hell 'threatened' Frostbite, it means now Citadel will be blamed? I thought it only fair seeing as he was blaming Frostbite as a group for the actions of a few. Unless HellAngel was planning on taking out NSO on his own if they transgressed again? Just as much as you bashing Citadel because of one member 'insulting your alliance" from Umbrella? I didn't bash Citadel over it at all. LJ Scott bashed the STA and I debated his comments and scenarios. But when Heinous and I were debating (Love him btw, has a good head), you tell me he is just a member and doesn't represent STA.Awesome. When did I say that? Not that it isn't true, of course. Edited July 5, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 *KahlanRahl checks back in at their thread. ...holy crap guys, I would think you'd jabbed at each other enough that there would be enough holes in each of you to water the grass like a sprinkler! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) I thought it only fair seeing as he was blaming Frostbite as a group for the actions of a few. Unless HellAngel was planning on taking out NSO on his own if they transgressed again?I didn't bash Citadel over it at all. LJ Scott bashed the STA and I debated his comments and scenarios. When did I say that? Not that it isn't true, of course. When you bring the word "Citadel" into your comments and debates, you're shining the light onto all of our alliances. Hell just did it with Frostbite, in your opinion, "[was] blaming Frostbite as a group for the actions of a few", yet you tend to use "Citadel" when your finger pointing rather than pointing the finger at specific individuals, which it seems you are saying Hell should have done, if anything. I just see it as hypocritical. It is so blatantly obvious you possess extreme distaste in Citadel, even your 'own people' know it, I mean every other post is sarcasm or a direct jab at Citadel, it is quite obvious you simply do not like us - which is fine, but admit it. If what I am saying is false, its even worse as your conveyance supports my assertion as you would do it and not knowing you're doing so. It seems you're trying to play innocent and act as if there is 'no problem' when whenever there is a thread with a Citadel member, that wonderful sarcasm arises. "THE MIGHTY CITADEL', etc. As to Heinous, you merely stated he would never lead an alliance. I can post logs if you'd like, they exist in our Cupcakery logs, but I am not a fan of log dumping without permission. Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 *KahlanRahl checks back in at their thread....holy crap guys, I would think you'd jabbed at each other enough that there would be enough holes in each of you to water the grass like a sprinkler! It's a fun time to be in a neutral alliance, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Actually, I am referring to the fact that NSO chose those alliances specifically because they knew it would not come to war, and if it did, they would not lose. This is contrary to the official explanation by Ivan, claiming it was for ideological reasons. People can think what they want, as we have been saying it is not anyone's place to police other's thoughts. How many times do you need to continue saying that you think Ivan is lying? Yeah, we get it, you are going to continue to insult him until he says exactly what you want him to. Maybe it is just me but that is pretty rediculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 People can think what they want, as we have been saying it is not anyone's place to police other's thoughts. How many times do you need to continue saying that you think Ivan is lying? Yeah, we get it, you are going to continue to insult him until he says exactly what you want him to. Maybe it is just me but that is pretty rediculous. To the contrary, your esteemed colleagues didn't seem to get it not so long ago, which is why I had to repeat myself. Either that, or they purposely misinterpreted me. Nor do I recall insulting Ivan - accusing him and NSO of lying isn't really the same as insulting him. And I don't see what's so ridiculous about calling people out when they do something wrong, and don't even have the guts to admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 When you bring the word "Citadel" into your comments and debates, you're shining the light onto all of our alliances. Hell just did it with Frostbite, in your opinion, "[was] blaming Frostbite as a group for the actions of a few", yet you tend to use "Citadel" when your finger pointing rather than pointing the finger at specific individuals, which it seems you are saying Hell should have done, if anything. I just see it as hypocritical. It is so blatantly obvious you possess extreme distaste in Citadel, even your 'own people' know it, I mean every other post is sarcasm or a direct jab at Citadel, it is quite obvious you simply do not like us - which is fine, but admit it. If what I am saying is false, its even worse as your conveyance supports my assertion as you would do it and not knowing you're doing so. It seems you're trying to play innocent and act as if there is 'no problem' when whenever there is a thread with a Citadel member, that wonderful sarcasm arises. "THE MIGHTY CITADEL', etc. I have no extreme distaste for Citadel, I just call things as I see them. You are free to draw consclusions from that as you wish. I actually held Citadel in high esteem for sometime although that has waned recently. As for the "mighty Citadel" is was used in contrast to the mindless sheep reference to my alliance that LJ Scott used when comparing the STA to *gasp* Citadel alliances. It is all in the context. As to Heinous, you merely stated he would never lead an alliance. I can post logs if you'd like, they exist in our Cupcakery logs, but I am not a fan of log dumping without permission. What does that have to do with him voicing his opinion on matters here on the forum? HeinousOne himself states his views are his own and I'm happy for him to express them. In my opinion I don't think HeinousOne will lead an alliance, I'm not sure he even aspires to. You are welcome to ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 As to Heinous, you merely stated he would never lead an alliance. I can post logs if you'd like, they exist in our Cupcakery logs, but I am not a fan of log dumping without permission. Admitting that I am a topic of discussion in #cupcakery was a mistake my friend. Honestly though, I will never be the leader of an alliance because I do not desire to be such. I participate in the aspect of this game that I enjoy and I do hope that such reflects positively upon my alliance but I leave the guidance of the alliance to others. To the contrary, your esteemed colleagues didn't seem to get it not so long ago, which is why I had to repeat myself. Either that, or they purposely misinterpreted me.Nor do I recall insulting Ivan - accusing him and NSO of lying isn't really the same as insulting him. And I don't see what's so ridiculous about calling people out when they do something wrong, and don't even have the guts to admit it. Yes but others already called out in similiar fashion and those call outs were responded too. If you do not like the answer that comes forth, continuing to repeat the call out is not going to end with a different result. To reiterate, they admitted it was wrong to do such but they did not admit that they think it is inherently wrong to do such. Unfortunately for NSO they are not able to follow up with their beliefs because it is just a stupid thing to do considering the world as it is. They do not have to change their method of thinking for anyone, just their actions. Understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 *KahlanRahl checks back in at their thread....holy crap guys, I would think you'd jabbed at each other enough that there would be enough holes in each of you to water the grass like a sprinkler! At some point it will start to dawn on you that this altercation stopped being about the girl at the bar about three or four posts into the thread... As for me, I'll be over here at a corner table, sipping some whiskey (we went past the popcorn stage yesterday) and making sure I've got a clear path to the back exit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 To reiterate, they admitted it was wrong to do such but they did not admit that they think it is inherently wrong to do such. Unfortunately for NSO they are not able to follow up with their beliefs because it is just a stupid thing to do considering the world as it is. They do not have to change their method of thinking for anyone, just their actions. Understand? I understand that it is highly inadequate, an oxymoron of actions even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I understand that it is highly inadequate, an oxymoron of actions even. So you truly do wish to not just keep them from acting in certain ways that are not acceptable but you support the changing of the way in which sovereign players and alliances actually think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 So you truly do wish to not just keep them from acting in certain ways that are not acceptable but you support the changing of the way in which sovereign players and alliances actually think? If the change is from bad to good - then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 And I don't see what's so ridiculous about calling people out when they do something wrong, and don't even have the guts to admit it. What do you call this then? I would also like to offer them an apology for the wording of the message that went out to their membership. While I do not agree with the concept of neutrality and believe it is a tool of the great lie, it was unnecessary to convey that disagreement with direct insults towards their alliance, specifically the last line of the message itself.Again, to the nations of the Green Protection Agency, I apologize if the wording of our message caused damage to your morale or insulted you in any way. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 What do you call this then? I would say that is not an appology for recruiting from another alliance, nor purposely picking alliances which can be considered as weak or easy targets for this kind of bullying behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 What do you call this then? I would call that an apology for the wording of the recruitment message. Not an apology for the act itself. But I'm just speculating. 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.