An apology to the GPA

[Nizzle]

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?

...thanks for proving my point for me.

[Kaiser]

Yeah, some pretty terrible PR, but press is press I suppose.

Ivan Moldavi himself has said "Any PR is good PR"

No sensible alliance would have gone to war about it, so that's a moot point.

Perhaps they would have, but probably not. However, you still picked the ones that would never, under any circumstances go to war about it. You went after the weakest link.

[Voodoo Nova]

Ivan Moldavi himself has said "Any PR is good PR"

Perhaps they would have, but probably not. However, you still picked the ones that would never, under any circumstances go to war about it. You went after the weakest link.

You don't know what they would have done.

[HeinousOne]

...thanks for proving my point for me.

The original point you quoted and insulted was about how funny it is to think of an alliance five times the size of another being bullied by that smaller alliance. One would be led to believe that you think such makes sense. That would likely mean that you would think that the NSO allies, that likely being Frostbite but perhaps you mean some of NSO's brown buddies, would come running to help beatdown one of those neutrals should the neutrals respond to the mails with attacks on some NSO nations.

So tell me, is that the point you were making that I proved?

[Xiphosis]

Ivan Moldavi himself has said "Any PR is good PR"

Well that settles that then.

*chastised*

[Ejayrazz]

No sensible alliance would have gone to war about it, so that's a moot point.

What is 'sensible'? What do you define as a 'sensible' alliance? Do you consider NSO a sensible alliance?

Just wondering.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Heft]

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.

Of course the cyberverse has changed, stop acting like that means something. The messages would not have made sense sent to anyone else. Since apparently your argument is based on the perceived past actions of some individuals, it's pretty clear you aren't going to accept any argument that wouldn't put us in the worst light possible.

[HeinousOne]

What is 'sensible'?

This thread is more evidence that such varies depending on with whom you fly your flag with. You know what? That is ok and should be accepted but it is not.

[Heft]

What is 'sensible'?

"Sensible" is a lot of things. Immediately considering war as the natural response to every perceived affront to one's sovereignty is not one of those things.

[Starcraftmazter]

Of course the cyberverse has changed, stop acting like that means something. The messages would not have made sense sent to anyone else. Since apparently your argument is based on the perceived past actions of some individuals, it's pretty clear you aren't going to accept any argument that wouldn't put us in the worst light possible.

There is no argument, there is NSO doing something wrong, and not being able to own up to it.

[Nizzle]

The original point you quoted and insulted was about how funny it is to think of an alliance five times the size of another being bullied by that smaller alliance. One would be led to believe that you think such makes sense. That would likely mean that you would think that the NSO allies, that likely being Frostbite but perhaps you mean some of NSO's brown buddies, would come running to help beatdown one of those neutrals should the neutrals respond to the mails with attacks on some NSO nations.

So tell me, is that the point you were making that I proved?

No, I was definitely trying to say that NSO stood alone.

[Kaiser]

You don't know what they would have done.

No, I can't know that. However, would you agree that neutral alliances, that have never gone to war, and that are constitutionally forbidden from it are least likely to go to war, thus minimising the chances of this whole stunt backfiring?

[HeinousOne]

There is no argument, there is NSO doing something wrong, and not being able to own up to it.

You really cannot be this slow. They did own up to it. They apologized and said they wouldnt do it again unless an alliance recruited from them. They can do that and still say they think it is silly but that they will abide by such.

You really need to catch up with the situation.

No, I was definitely trying to say that NSO stood alone.

So you were agreeing with him then in a way that I did not quite understand upon reading such right?

Edited July 5, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Ejayrazz]

This thread is more evidence that such varies depending on with whom you fly your flag with. You know what? That is ok and should be accepted but it is not.

Good response to my general question. Also, nice ninja posting. This is the most realistic thing said for the most part. Some people accept it when its the best time for them.

@Heft: Well, what would you say if someone responded to your sentiments with a "Any sensible alliance wouldn't condone messages sent to a neutral alliance merely for recruitment-like purposes"? (I say condone since the message, as far as I know, was condoned by Doppel)

[Voodoo Nova]

No, I can't know that. However, would you agree that neutral alliances, that have never gone to war, and that are constitutionally forbidden from it are least likely to go to war, thus minimising the chances of this whole stunt backfiring?

I am almost positive no charter in any alliance says they cannot go to war to defend themselves. The stunt did backfire. If it did not, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

[Heft]

Good response to my general question. Also, nice ninja posting. This is the most realistic thing said for the most part. Some people accept it when its the best time for them.

@Heft: Well, what would you say if someone responded to your sentiments with a "Any sensible alliance wouldn't condone messages sent to a neutral alliance merely for recruitment-like purposes"? (I say condone since the message, as far as I know, was condoned by Doppel)

Sensible alliances can disagree on whether or not this particular type of action was good or bad. Sensible alliances would agree that a military response to this type of action is silly.

[Kaiser]

I am almost positive no charter in any alliance says they cannot go to war to defend themselves. The stunt did backfire. If it did not, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

So you are admitting that what you did was an attack on their sovereignty, and they had ever right to defend themselves through war? I thought you guys didn't think what you did was that bad?

[TehChron]

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.

For someone who complains about having his own posts called out on as "putting words in [his] mouth" you sure do go to great lengths to make a hypocrite of yourself.

I have never indicated that I do not know what I am talking about. You are full of garbage.

Ho-Hum, let's begin the slideshow:

NSO is great at putting words in people's mouths aren't they?

And i expect their allies to punch some sense into them. If they continue this path, FB is in for an "interesting" time.

I think a thinly veiled threat from a citadel member evidenced throughout the thread, which you claimed to believe was limited Aqua alliances (lawl) is pretty good evidence of my point regarding pointless posturing and threats. Either you dont know what you're talking about, or you're lying. Either way, 0/1

Although I haven't been following this thread religiously, in my opinion you are either missing the point or misinterpreting said comments.

Waiting to see you prove either of those claims, and considering the fact you left yourself some wiggling room to maneuver indicates you werent entirely sure of what you were saying either. 0/2

You don't have to be a representative to get a good idea of most people's opinions in a discussion...

This entire Dialogue with Sponge, in which you fly in the face of common sense. So suddenly polls are effective tools of measuring CN consensus on an issue by your logic? 0/3

I don't disagree, I just wished the appology given was at least half sincere or legitimate. It sounds more like the appology is in regards to the content of the messages rather than the act of recruiting from another alliance...

You needed me to explain the obvious to you. 0/4, because I felt like going for overkill.

I can see you are wrong because you are making silly and incorrect assumptions about everyone's motives, even mine.

I never claimed to know or even care what your motives are.

[agnews]

When we have our armies in your bases, then you can call us bullies. Until then, your argument fails.

The only thing that fails here is your unsubstantial post, lacking any intelligent content.

Dictionary: bul·ly1

A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.

you see the cyberverse has a sort of code of respect for each

it can be summed up as don't step on my shoes and i wont step on yours

going around recruiting from other alliances especially those that have no hostile position towards you is considered wrong in todays universe because it is steping on others shoes

you are bulling because u are picking on a target that lacks the ability to mount a proper defense against a assault (No allies) or mount a propper assault if you step on their shoes

and to be lecturing a x-vox member on ethics ... you should be ashamed

Try harder

your post is weak

and stop trying to play with the big boys leave sponge and star alone nobody cares about what vox ment to you as a alliance

and to on topic a apology is a step in the right direction

Edited July 5, 2009 by agnews

[TehChron]

There is no argument, there is NSO doing something wrong, and not being able to own up to it.

Oh dear...Clearly you didnt read the OP...Although I did kind of reference that in my last post.

0/5 then. You're going at a pretty good pace at failing rhetorically, my good man.

[HeinousOne]

The only thing that fails here is your unsubstantial post, lacking any intelligent content.

you see the cyberverse has a sort of code of respect for each

it can be summed up as don't step on my shoes and i wont step on yours

going around recruiting from other alliances especially those that have no hostile position towards you is considered wrong in todays universe because it is steping on others shoes

you are bulling because u are picking on a target that lacks the ability to mount a proper defense against a assault (No allies)

and to be lecturing a x-vox member on ethics ... you should be ashamed

Try harder

your post is weak

and stop trying to play with the big boys leave sponge and star alone nobody cares about what vox ment to you as a alliance

Ok, seriously. You need to go do some math as well as read some treaties, then top that with a few history lessons on the actions previously shown by NSO's current allies.

After you catch up in that regard you will see that it is entirely impossible to consider NSO's actions as bullying towards any of those alliances because all of those alliances are much larger or atleast of similiar size to NSO.

Now, do you wish to state out here in public that you think the other Frostbite alliances and NSO's brown friends would have jumped in on such if NSO would have faced attacks by one or more of those neutral alliances? Come on.....say it.

[Tygaland]

He tends to do that. We usually ignore it. Really, its like listening to a drunk person preach about a war which never existed, then attempting to snorkel dive in a puddle. Once someone says The Citadel needs an enemy, it becomes a laughing stock post, which a rebut by a post such as this comes into play.

Yes, unlike others here who would never leap to conclusions based on assumptions, right? As far as I'm aware, this issue has nothing to do with Citadel and was resolved by the parties involved. I'm not sure why HellAngel would need to deliver the threat he did towards Frostbite. Perhaps he can clarify. I wasn't aware of any particular issue between Frostbite and Citadel until posts of that ilk were made.

I will say however the biased opinions is absolutely amazing in this thread. We all know if it was 'the other side', those supporters would be wrecking them in a public. PLEASE argue it, PLEASE. I mean, 3 years of playing this game and NOTHING has changed, haha. Everyone needs to shutup and drink. Peace.

I'm not sure the Cyberverse does unbiased opinion.

[Voodoo Nova]

So you are admitting that what you did was an attack on their sovereignty, and they had ever right to defend themselves through war? I thought you guys didn't think what you did was that bad?

You can go to war for any reason. Knowing we were wrong and thinking what we did was bad are two different things.

[Azhrarn]

19 pages over an apology? If I don't see a war declaration (or two) come out of this I'm going to be seriously disappointed.

[agnews]

Ok, seriously. You need to go do some math as well as read some treaties, then top that with a few history lessons on the actions previously shown by NSO's current allies.

After you catch up in that regard you will see that it is entirely impossible to consider NSO's actions as bullying towards any of those alliances because all of those alliances are much larger or atleast of similiar size to NSO.

Now, do you wish to state out here in public that you think the other Frostbite alliances and NSO's brown friends would have jumped in on such if NSO would have faced attacks by one or more of those neutral alliances? Come on.....say it.

so what ur saying is that if this whole thing had gone bad and GPA had taken badly to being recruited from and attacked NSO straight up?

sta wouldn't of come to NSO defense?

as for what i think i believe that if one of NSO allies decided to help GPA would of been in a tough position

i don't have any relations with the said alliances so it doesn't concern me what they would of done. its more of a IF

nice reply

but u jumped into that one

Edited July 5, 2009 by agnews