Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Even if they were true, they would contribute nothing to destroying my points, and are therefore pointless and unnecessary. They point out the rather shallow motivation for your "article". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 You are saying that a member of GATO who joins and looks over GATO's history and sees what was done to their alliance has no basis for a personal dislike of the NPO yet a new NPO member is quite able to show pride in a celebration of an event they never took part in nor witnessed. I see no relationship between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by jumping their allies. Wrong again. We entered the war in defence of our own allies, we did not choose who we attacked. Ignoring your airswing, what vengeance did we exact on their allies be giving them white peace after a week or so of war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Wrong again. We entered the war in defence of our own allies, we did not choose who we attacked. Ignoring your airswing, what vengeance did we exact on their allies be giving them white peace after a week or so of war? I'd rather not be drawn into an argument on STA's involvement in the war, as I am talking about Pacifica here. If you'd like a debate on STA's involvement, we can go to private messages, or you can shoot me a query on IRC. Then we can keep this thread on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I see no relationship between the two. Because it benefits you not to. In both cases members of an alliance are displaying an emotional reaction to events in their alliance's histories they were not present for. In one example the alliance was not even in existance for the event they now celebrate. According to you, there is no reason for such a personal reaction to such events in GATO's case but not NPO's. You are truly blind to your own hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Because it benefits you not to.In both cases members of an alliance are displaying an emotional reaction to events in their alliance's histories they were not present for. In one example the alliance was not even in existance for the event they now celebrate. According to you, there is no reason for such a personal reaction to such events in GATO's case but not NPO's. You are truly blind to your own hypocrisy. Stop trying to portray me as an opportunist. It simply reflects badly upon you. Let me give you a specific example. I have very good, personal reasons to dislike TSO and their leadership. That is very different to the sort of emotional response you might get from a random MCXA member who had their alliance destroyed by TSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'd rather not be drawn into an argument on STA's involvement in the war, as I am talking about Pacifica here. If you'd like a debate on STA's involvement, we can go to private messages, or you can shoot me a query on IRC. Then we can keep this thread on topic. I'm using the STA as an example as you are well aware. Your argument is a blanket assessment of all Karma alliances and I'm pointing out to you that your blanket assessment is overly simplistic and deliberately so. Your inability to grasp the complexities of politics is not a new discovery for me so, by all means, do go on ignoring anything that contradicts your assertions. It makes for a wonderful "discussion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Stop trying to portray me as an opportunist. It simply reflects badly upon you. You actually made me laugh there. Let me give you a specific example. I have very good, personal reasons to dislike TSO and their leadership. That is very different to the sort of emotional response you might get from a random MCXA member who had their alliance destroyed by TSO. But does that make the reaction of the random MCXA member invalid as you are trying to claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'm using the STA as an example as you are well aware. Your argument is a blanket assessment of all Karma alliances and I'm pointing out to you that your blanket assessment is overly simplistic and deliberately so. Your inability to grasp the complexities of politics is not a new discovery for me so, by all means, do go on ignoring anything that contradicts your assertions. It makes for a wonderful "discussion". It's a blanket assessment of the alliances who were opposed to the New Pacific Order. The entire argument revolves around NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 You actually made me laugh there. Generally, making attacks on other people's character in place of actual argument isn't held in high regard on these forums. One begins to question why you need to resort to such tactics. Don't know much about debating? But does that make the reaction of the random MCXA member invalid as you are trying to claim? It's not invalid. It's simply not hatred on a personal level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 It's a blanket assessment of the alliances who were opposed to the New Pacific Order. The entire argument revolves around NPO. Karma fought more than the NPO, perhaps you should be more careful with your generalisations in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Stop trying to portray me as an opportunist. It simply reflects badly upon you. That's actually the funniest thing i've seen on the owf this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Karma fought more than the NPO, perhaps you should be more careful with your generalisations in future. I'm talking specifically about the Karma alliances who were fighting NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Generally, making attacks on other people's character in place of actual argument isn't held in high regard on these forums. One begins to question why you need to resort to such tactics. Don't know much about debating? Your character gives insight into your argument. You are an opportunist who will say and do whatever you think will ingratiate you with whoever it you are seeking allegiance. It serves you to now ramble on about Francoism and make gross generalisations about Karma because you have joined the NPO. You are very transparent. I have more than ably pointed out faults in your argument and you choose to ignore it or request I take it to private message. I'm not sure it is debate you are after. Probably more likely it is validation you seek here. It's not invalid. It's simply not hatred on a personal level. How so? An individual in GATO dislikes or even hates the NPO because of what was done to their alliance and you tell me it is not a personal hatred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'm talking specifically about the Karma alliances who were fighting NPO. No, you used the term Karma which covers more than the alliances that fought the NPO. As I said, perhaps you should be more careful in your generalisations in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 That's actually the funniest thing i've seen on the owf this year. I don't know, MT. GGA had a few gems this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Your character gives insight into your argument. You are an opportunist who will say and do whatever you think will ingratiate you with whoever it you are seeking allegiance. It serves you to now ramble on about Francoism and make gross generalisations about Karma because you have joined the NPO. You are very transparent. I have more than ably pointed out faults in your argument and you choose to ignore it or request I take it to private message. I'm not sure it is debate you are after. Probably more likely it is validation you seek here. I requested that you take the arguments that are not relevant to my thread to private message. By all means, if you wish to start making relevant posts, you are welcome to do so. I don't see where I have lost a single point so far, but I'll leave you to your daydreams. My motivations for this thread are also irrelevant when attempting to rebut my arguments. How so? An individual in GATO dislikes or even hates the NPO because of what was done to their alliance and you tell me it is not a personal hatred? Correct. I strongly disliked and opposed the NPO when I was in Vox, and it was not on a personal level, hence my viewpoint was maleable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 No, you used the term Karma which covers more than the alliances that fought the NPO. As I said, perhaps you should be more careful in your generalisations in future. What was the coalition that NPO surrendered to, Tyga? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I requested that you take the arguments that are not relevant to my thread to private message. By all means, if you wish to start making relevant posts, you are welcome to do so. I don't see where I have lost a single point so far, but I'll leave you to your daydreams. My motivations for this thread are also irrelevant when attempting to rebut my arguments. My posts were entirely relevant replies to your posts. You only decided they were no longer relevant when you realised your gross generalisations were precisely that. Correct. I strongly disliked and opposed the NPO when I was in Vox, and it was not on a personal level, hence my viewpoint was maleable. Your viewpoint is always maleable, I think I mentioned that earlier. The fact of the matter is that members of an alliance can develop a personal hatred of other alliances based on what has happened to their alliance in the past. Who are you to tell them they can't while at the same time stating a member of the NPO can develop a personal affinity with an event they never witnessed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Your viewpoint is always maleable, I think I mentioned that earlier. The fact of the matter is that members of an alliance can develop a personal hatred of other alliances based on what has happened to their alliance in the past. Who are you to tell them they can't while at the same time stating a member of the NPO can develop a personal affinity with an event they never witnessed? Your viewpoint is far more maleable when you don't have personal reasons to detest the leaders of the bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) What was the coalition that NPO surrendered to, Tyga? From NPO's peace terms: The New Pacific Order publicly admits defeat and surrenders to the forces of Karma in general, and Ordo Verde, Viridian Entente, Global Order of Darkness, Vanguard, Greenland Republic, Athens, FOK, Ragnarok, Sparta, R&R, Majestic Order of Orange Nations, The International, =LOST=, Deck of International Card Experts, and Global United Nations in particular. The specified alliances who were part of the Karma Coalition. Yes, it even specified who those alliances were. So, are you now saying your blanket statement is directed at every member alliance of Karma regardless of whether they fought the NPO? Because I'm having trouble keeping up with your changes here. Edited September 1, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 From NPO's peace terms:The specified alliances who were part of the Karma Coalition. Yes, it even specified who those alliances were. So, are you now saying your blanket statement is directed at every member alliance of Karma regardless of whether they fought the NPO? Because I'm having trouble keeping up with your changes here. I'll give you a hint: take a look at the flag in that thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Your viewpoint is far more maleable when you don't have personal reasons to detest the leaders of the bad guys. Having your alliance destroyed/constantly attacked or threatened isn't personnal enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Your viewpoint is far more maleable when you don't have personal reasons to detest the leaders of the bad guys. Or if you are an opportunist who will change colours in the blink of an eye when it suits them to do so. Regardless, what you said does not discount what I said. You make an assumption on a persons personal feelings about an issue ir incident and try and run arguments using that as a factual basis. It doesn't work like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Having your alliance destroyed/constantly attacked or threatened isn't personnal enough? I've already been through this......... 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.