wickedj Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The OP apparently is unwilling to concede that his allegations toward TOP were incorrect. Further, he has gone so far as to admit on IRC that he did not do proper research on the matter at hand before posting, but he is unwilling to admit to this on these forums. Given the OP's claims that he is swamped by queries regarding this topic, I'll give him some time to own up to his errors before I resort to simply dumping the pertinent logs into this thread. A few words of advice to the OP: if you wish to create a thread making significant negative implications about an alliance and you do not wish it to be labeled as blase slander, I suggest you put in the time to research the information before making the thread. Of course, such won't be necessary if the simple intent of your post is to slander. Sounds like Jack touched a nerve... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Wow this topic wouldn't be so hilarious if TOP didn't come in here and make pathetic excuses about their tendency to disregard any and all treaties they sign. Thanks for really enhancing this thread guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sounds like Jack touched a nerve... Not really. I just like to encourage people to take proper responsibility for their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Not really. I just like to encourage people to take proper responsibility for their actions. I think thats what Jack is trying to do as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So.. tl;dr TOP is bear hugging their stats? y/n? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think thats what Jack is trying to do as well. Man up now, I believe we were speaking of beverages. Or are you a mass-brew type of person? Looking for the kinds of beer with the least amounts of flavor, perhaps ones imbibed with lime to cover the horrible taste? Come on, you're quickly losing my manspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchh Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So.. tl;dr TOP is bear hugging their stats? y/n? Always Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Man up now, I believe we were speaking of beverages. Or are you a mass-brew type of person? Looking for the kinds of beer with the least amounts of flavor, perhaps ones imbibed with lime to cover the horrible taste? Come on, you're quickly losing my manspect. Far from it; however that is not the topic of this thread. I seem to remember it being something about a list of cowardly survivalist alliances, with TOP being on top (hah!) of said list. Feel to create a new thread in the appropriate area or find me on irc if you wish to discuss brew. Edited October 13, 2009 by willirica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 They are annoyed I didn't discern between chaining and non chaining treaties. As there is no public record of canceled treaties I am asking alliance leaders instead. Everyone can be happy I guess, and I won't have to deal with the threat of a log dump. Until I make my amazing log dump race thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This is the typical muckraking and revisionist sensationalism Mr. Diorno is known for... Wild, spurious claims tied together by the barest threads of relevance. MHA withdrew from Continuum; so did many other alliances. We had our grievances and complaints and they went unheeded. You try to make the MHA complicit in some sort of cowardly conspiracy to save our pixels when in reality we lost a bulk of them defending our brothers in the trenches just like you and Athens did. Surviving and thriving are what alliances function to do; its why Londo maintains a diplomatic corps to keep your pixels and everyone flying the Athens AA from zero infrastructure. Saying we rendered no assistance to NPO is a damned lie; we did not do anything that contravened the letter of the treaties we were obligated to uphold. We defended NPO from spurious attack, doing so on four separate occasions. If this brand of journalism - incorrect-to-fact loaded with more conjecture than evidence - is the type we must swallow on Planet Bob, we shall be all the worse for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This is the typical muckraking and revisionist sensationalism Mr. Diorno is known for...Wild, spurious claims tied together by the barest threads of relevance. MHA withdrew from Continuum; so did many other alliances. We had our grievances and complaints and they went unheeded. You try to make the MHA complicit in some sort of cowardly conspiracy to save our pixels when in reality we lost a bulk of them defending our brothers in the trenches just like you and Athens did. Surviving and thriving are what alliances function to do; its why Londo maintains a diplomatic corps to keep your pixels and everyone flying the Athens AA from zero infrastructure. Saying we rendered no assistance to NPO is a damned lie; we did not do anything that contravened the letter of the treaties we were obligated to uphold. We defended NPO from spurious attack, doing so on four separate occasions. If this brand of journalism - incorrect-to-fact loaded with more conjecture than evidence - is the type we must swallow on Planet Bob, we shall be all the worse for it. You're just mad Jack saw through your cover story. HE IS NOT A MAN TO CONTAIN THE TRUTH, MR. TANIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Not really. I just like to encourage people to take proper responsibility for their actions. So I take it this is one stat thread TOP is not happy to be on top of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So I take it this is one stat thread TOP is not happy to be on top of? Good sir I do believe that you are indeed quite correct. In fact I am 97% sure of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This topic continues to provide the laughs. I congratulate Jack, once again, on a great topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Far from it; however that is not the topic of this thread. I seem to remember it being something about a list of cowardly survivalist alliances, with TOP being on top (hah!) of said list. Feel to create a new thread in the appropriate area or find me on irc if you wish to discuss brew. You're the one that started off about the beer, broceratops. If you can't deal with the heat, stay off my lawn. As for the notion of TOP being a cowardly survivalist alliance, sure thing boss. I hear we also run from babies, girly men, and people whose name begins with "Al". Al Gore, Al Bundy, Al Borland all terrify my precious infrastructure to the core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This topic continues to provide the laughs. I congratulate Jack, once again, on a great topic. Indeed. It's great to see the bawwing from TOP and MHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I lost 10 IQ points reading this thread. Thank you Crymson for saving the sanity. To my fellow Paradoxians, keep it classy guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You're the one that started off about the beer, broceratops. If you can't deal with the heat, stay off my lawn. As for the notion of TOP being a cowardly survivalist alliance, sure thing boss. I hear we also run from babies, girly men, and people whose name begins with "Al". Al Gore, Al Bundy, Al Borland all terrify my precious infrastructure to the core. Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 490,139 Attacking + 311,850 Defending = 801,989 Casualties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Indeed. It's great to see the bawwing from TOP and MHA I don't see any "bawwing" as you called it. I see us defending ourselves from slander and lies. Thanks for your helpful input in the topic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Indeed. It's great to see the bawwing from TOP and MHA The fact they're even taking the time to baw at this topic is what's funny. This is how you do a...jab (that t word is off limits) thread right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I don't see any "bawwing" as you called it. I see us defending ourselves from slander and lies. Thanks for your helpful input in the topic though.Just like how the 2 days before/after was a blatant lie, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 490,139 Attacking + 311,850 Defending = 801,989 Casualties Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 505,602 Attacking + 230,547 Defending = 736,149 Casualties I went to ZI and back. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 505,602 Attacking + 230,547 Defending = 736,149 Casualties I went to ZI and back. What's your point? You went to ZI in under 230k casualties? How much infra did you lose exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) They are annoyed I didn't discern between chaining and non chaining treaties. As there is no public record of canceled treaties I am asking alliance leaders instead. Everyone can be happy I guess, and I won't have to deal with the threat of a log dump. Until I make my amazing log dump race thread. Try again, Jack. You didn't own up at all. What treaties say is of utterly paramount importance as to whether or not those treaties were violated, a fact that I don't believe many will disagree with. Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 505,602 Attacking + 230,547 Defending = 736,149 Casualties I went to ZI and back. What's your point? For your guys size thats less that a week of war, and he has been around for 961 days? and you 1000? Also what infra level did have before going to ZI? 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.