Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Good point. "We". Tell your side, I tell mine, we hold hands. Till then, $%&@ the police, kind sir. Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties?That sir, is bullying. Neither of these responses make any sense, though ejay actually seems closer to reason, despite his incoherency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties?That sir, is bullying. Clearly they're so defenseless as to not have Citadel be threatening the entire alliance bloc were a part of with a curbstomp. Really. Either you are making stuff up, or you just ignored the vast majority of posts in both threads.... If its the latter, God I envy you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 We Sith disagree with that commonly held belief. We have put up, and apologized for what was inappropriate of us to do. I believe the fact that we don't especially care what anyone else thinks outside of the involved parties kind of invalidates your entire post. And all of theirs. Well see, that's the thing. You can't just say that our opinions are invalid, simply because you disagree - especially given most would agree with the viewpoint that your opinions are incorrect. Your impression is flawed as well, because you have already indicated you dont know what you're talking about. You're just putting words into my mouth now. It's funny how you lot like to deceive and shift the discussion in different tangents. Wait. So you're saying [ooc]Derailing the thread[/ooc] is what occurred, and is perfectly acceptable? That was meant to be "relevant". I do understand the context better than you. See I don't think that you do...think you have it all figured out, but I can see you're wrong from a mile away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties?That sir, is bullying. Because Sparta and TOP do not follow the path of a Great Lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Is that all you had to say? God, I will need to drink much more after reading comments like this.Oh look, I am not adding anything constructive to these arguments. I am cool like EVERYONE on BOTH sides. $%&@ yeah. C'mon! Bullying?!?! Really?! Is it bullying when the "victim" is like five times your size? Come back when you actually have an argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) I fail to see how any neutral alliance is defenseless. They are not defenseless, but they are certainly not powerful. Let's be honest, if NSO went to war they would bring in FB, and against any of the main blocs the neutral alliances would be crushed in a war. NSO picked the weakest, though not defenseless, alliances to send these messages to. When the bigger party insults a weaker party, simply because that party is weaker, then that is bullying. If you had sent these messages to Citadel or SF or C&G, then people would see it differently. However, you didn't. You sent messages to the weakest alliances as you knew that you would get away with it, and would get your name out there. You spawned a 60 page thread bearing your name, so congratualtions, you did what you intended. You got your PR. Edited July 5, 2009 by Kaiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 This topic is great. First NSO blatantly insults neutrals, then they say "We're kind of sorry," then when a Citadel person comes along and says something not even close to as insulting as the original message they come in yelling about how Citadel is so insulting to neutrals.And people say Citadel is the one posturing. I bet it sucks to be on the defensive in a thread that is made in a defensive manner by an alliance entirely unrelated to your own. Perhaps you guys can teach a lesson in the Citadel forum about what caused this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 So now you are not just policing the thoughts of others by telling them that their thinking that recruiting from alliances is wrong despite them saying they will no longer recruit from alliances that do not recruit from them Again, sidestepping the issues. Neither of these responses make any sense, though ejay actually seems closer to reason, despite his incoherency. I fail to see how any neutral alliance is defenseless. I do believe you are both simply playing dumb. It is clear to anyone with any thinking capability that these alliances were picked because of their inability to defend their sovereignty as rigorously as non-neutral alliances. You damn well know, that had you picked any non-neutral alliance in the top 12, you would have faced a declaration of war. Clearly they're so defenseless as to not have Citadel be threatening the entire alliance bloc were a part of with a curbstomp. NSO is great at putting words in people's mouths aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 C'mon! Bullying?!?! Really?! Is it bullying when the "victim" is like five times your size? Come back when you actually have an argument You really believe your own stuff, don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 They are not defenseless, but they are certainly not powerful. Let's be honest, if NSO went to war they would bring in FB, and against any of the main blocs the neutral alliances would be crushed in a war.NSO picked the weakest, though not defenseless, alliances to send these messages to. When the bigger party insults a weaker party, simply because that party is weaker, then that is bullying. If you had sent these messages to Citadel or SF or C&G, then people would see it differently. However, you didn't. You sent messages to the weakest alliances as you knew that you would get away with it, and would get your name out there. You spawned a 60 page thread bearing your name, you congratualtions, you did what you intended. We sent them to the alliances most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint. Discussing war is pointless as war was never going to occur. Also, we never used our allies in this issue or hid behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) C'mon! Bullying?!?! Really?! Is it bullying when the "victim" is like five times your size? Come back when you actually have an argument yeah that arugment doesn't work when the "victim" doesn't have half a dozen alliances ready to come to its defense Edited July 5, 2009 by agnews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) Neither of these responses make any sense, though ejay actually seems closer to reason, despite his incoherency. It makes sense, I just do not feel like throwing down 5 paragraphs explaining it when inferring and some thought processing is all which is needed for a single sentence. We have many laughs right now. Both sides are showing idiotic responses here, I think it is hysterical both are pointing the finger at the other, though I do respect the few from both sides in this situation grasping logical arguments. I am also proud to say I am proud to not be typing long paragraphs for once and only laughing at the idiocy. People are so biased it makes them sound so redundant - on both sides. Bullying is subjective, but yes, it is logical to consider it somewhat of a bully move. Find, go into semantics and e-lawyer, I'd rather be a realist and look upon it simply since this isn't complexed. To the other side, they apologized. Get the $%&@ over it. We all make mistakes and have different policies. To those bringing Citadel into this, shut up. To those bringing Frostbite into it, shut up. To those who aren't have a good july fourth, LIVE IT UP, ninjas. If not in America, live it up, enjoy the evening. (to Americans, thanks hein) Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 NSO is great at putting words in people's mouths aren't they? Well you could certainly use the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) Well see, that's the thing. You can't just say that our opinions are invalid, simply because you disagree - especially given most would agree with the viewpoint that your opinions are incorrect. Thats a difference of opinion then, not something to declare war over. The fact we dont care that they disagree, and that they really have nothing to do with the issue, is what makes your opinions in the context of the thread invalid.You're just putting words into my mouth now. It's funny how you lot like to deceive and shift the discussion in different tangents. Do you want me to put your words in your mouth? If so, I suggest [ooc]You go back and edit those posts of yours REAL fast before I nail you with them[/ooc] covering up before I make a fool out of you with them.That was meant to be "relevant". I dont quite understand what that has to do with what you quoted.See I don't think that you do...think you have it all figured out, but I can see you're wrong from a mile away. How can you see if Im wrong if you didnt read the whole discussion and are basing all of your analysis' off inference [ooc]from a page or two of posts[/ooc]? Edited July 5, 2009 by Chron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 We sent them to the alliances most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint. Discussing war is pointless as war was never going to occur. Also, we never used our allies in this issue or hid behind them. Based on the ax you are grinding with Citadel, I'm gonna go ahead and say this isn't true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I do believe you are both simply playing dumb. It is clear to anyone with any thinking capability that these alliances were picked because of their inability to defend their sovereignty as rigorously as non-neutral alliances. You damn well know, that had you picked any non-neutral alliance in the top 12, you would have faced a declaration of war. All those alliance's we messaged could have declared war. They most likely would have had quite a bit of support too. They chose diplomacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Again, sidestepping the issues. Time for you to put up instead of simply sidestepping me. How did I sidestep? I even stated my thoughts on the whole issue and they were not kind as far as the recruiting goes. Unfortunately for you those issues are done and over with. Those poor defenseless alliances without any treaties defended themselves and were successful at bringing the most famous person in CN these days to apologize to them. I challenge you, yet Again, to bring up what the issue is still? Seriously. You really believe your own stuff, don't you? Yes, as do I. Do you think it was going to end up in a Frostbite beatdown should any of those alliances have sent a few attacks in response? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) We sent them to the alliances most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint. Discussing war is pointless as war was never going to occur. Also, we never used our allies in this issue or hid behind them. Oh OK then. I guess it was just massively convenient that you happened to send these messages to the alliances that would never go to war over it. Edited July 5, 2009 by Kaiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 yeah that arugment doesn't work when the "victim" doesn't have half a dozen alliances ready to come to its defense When we have our armies in your bases, then you can call us bullies. Until then, your argument fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Oh OK then. I guess it was just massively convenient that you happened to send these messages to the alliances that would never do anything about them. They did do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Based on the ax you are grinding with Citadel, I'm gonna go ahead and say this isn't true. We grinding no axe, we are responding. Certain individuals within or related to Citadel seem to have an axe to grind with us. We may have disagreements with Citadel over certain issues, but we are not so ideologically opposed to them as we are to alliances which espouse neutrality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) They did do something about it. Good point. I suppose I should have said "never gone to war about it" that would have been more accurate. I'll edit. Edited July 5, 2009 by Kaiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 However, you didn't. You sent messages to the weakest alliances as you knew that you would get away with it, and would get your name out there. You spawned a 60 page thread bearing your name, so congratualtions, you did what you intended. You got your PR. Yeah, some pretty terrible PR, but press is press I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Good point. I suppose I should have said "never gone to war about it" that would have been more accurate. I'll edit. No sensible alliance would have gone to war about it, so that's a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) We sent them to the alliances most opposed to us from an ideological standpoint. Discussing war is pointless as war was never going to occur. Also, we never used our allies in this issue or hid behind them. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that for a second. Like I said - the Cyberverse has changed, you lot haven't. You still think you can pull your imbecile stunts and fool everyone. Thats a difference of opinion then, not something to declare war over. The fact we dont care that they disagree, and that they really have nothing to do with the issue, is what makes your opinions in the context of the thread invalid. So first it's about validity, then it's about war, then it's about relevant and then it's about context? Why do you have such big problem focusing on one line of discussion. Do you want me to put your words in your mouth? If so, I suggest [ooc]You go back and edit those posts of yours REAL fast before I nail you with them[/ooc] covering up before I make a fool out of you with them. I have never indicated that I do not know what I am talking about. You are full of garbage. How can you see if Im wrong if you didnt read the whole discussion and are basing all of your analysis' off inference [ooc]from a page or two of posts[/ooc]? OOC: Where did you get the idea that I only read a page or two? The fact that I didn't read every single post, does not mean I read the minimal possible posts. I have been following this thread as well as the two others involving similar issues for days now, and I can assure you I am versed enough with the discussions to contribute. /OOC I can see you are wrong because you are making silly and incorrect assumptions about everyone's motives, even mine. Edited July 5, 2009 by Starcraftmazter 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.