LOLtex 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 You're just jealous we collected these stats too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You're just jealous we collected these stats too. Yeah I'm jealous of having a week and a half worth of casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Just like how the 2 days before/after was a blatant lie, correct? Right. Because we all decided to drop the treaty 2 days before the war, and not because we had been discussing about it for MONTHS before that. If TOP could react that quick, I would be happy. I take it you haven't heard of TOP Speed? I also take it you haven't read Crymson post because you kept reiterating the same thing over and over without refuting any of Crymson's points. Even Jack Diorno the OP of this thread has conceded. That says a lot about your ability to comprehend and the willingness to see the real truth. Your only intention is to sling mud and to that extent, there is no point debating with you. This will be my last post in this thread. Enjoy your mud slinging. Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You're just jealous we collected these stats too. you call those stats? Yeah I'm jealous of having a week and a half worth of casualties. its a week, get it right Edited October 13, 2009 by mushi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Right. Because we all decided to drop the treaty 2 days before the war, and not because we had been discussing about it for MONTHS before that. If TOP could react that quick, I would be happy. I take it you haven't heard of TOP Speed? I also take it you haven't read Crymson post because you kept reiterating the same thing over and over without refuting any of Crymson's point. Even Jack Diorno the OP of this thread has admitted he was wrong. That says a lot about your ability to comprehend and the willingness to see the real truth. Your only intention is to sling mud and to that extent, there is no point debating with you. This will be my last post in this thread. Enjoy your mud slinging. It was three days, not two. The OP made reference to a three-day notice of cancellation, yet still claimed that there were only two days between our notice of cancellation and the announcement of our withdrawal from the Continuum. As Ice says, it's also impossible, based on the fact that all matters are discussed at length before our representative voting body---which, indeed, votes on the basis of the aforementioned discussions---for TOP to react so quickly. This is how things are done in TOP; either believe it or don't believe it. Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) 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. Your input was a valuable necessity to this thread, and confirmed all of the statements that have been made. Thank you for your helpful input ON the topic. And in regards to this thread, class act. Edited October 13, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) It was three days, not two. The OP made reference to a three-day notice of cancellation, yet still claimed that there were only two days between our notice of cancellation and the announcement of our withdrawal from the Continuum. "Excuses are like @#$holes; everyone's got one and they are all full of !@#$." 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? ZI and back? Zero-One is a large sized, superbly developed, and ancient nation at 1001 days old Infrastructure: 14,229.99 Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 505,602 Attacking + 230,547 Defending = 736,149 Casualties Right............ Edited October 13, 2009 by willirica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Right. Because we all decided to drop the treaty 2 days before the war, and not because we had been discussing about it for MONTHS before that. If TOP could react that quick, I would be happy. I take it you haven't heard of TOP Speed? I also take it you haven't read Crymson post because you kept reiterating the same thing over and over without refuting any of Crymson's points. Even Jack Diorno the OP of this thread has conceded. That says a lot about your ability to comprehend and the willingness to see the real truth. Your only intention is to sling mud and to that extent, there is no point debating with you. This will be my last post in this thread. Enjoy your mud slinging. Even way you guys decided to cancel the treaties before, you did it on the cusp of war which is probably the most cowardly thing you could do.[insert all of Contiuum here] I really don't even see why somebody would bother signing a treaty with any of you because all of you have proven that they aren't anything more than scraps of paper to wipe your $@! with. Edited October 13, 2009 by lcdt94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Yeah I'm jealous of having a week and a half worth of casualties. No, but you sure are jealous of my other stats, else you wouldn't be trying to nitpick at the most pointless stat in the game (other than alliance score mind you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) No, but you sure are jealous of my other stats, else you wouldn't be trying to nitpick at the most pointless stat in the game (other than alliance score mind you). Casualties. They mean nothing to the gobblers of stats. Edited October 13, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Right. Because we all decided to drop the treaty 2 days before the war, and not because we had been discussing about it for MONTHS before that. If TOP could react that quick, I would be happy. I take it you haven't heard of TOP Speed? I also take it you haven't read Crymson post because you kept reiterating the same thing over and over without refuting any of Crymson's points. Even Jack Diorno the OP of this thread has conceded. That says a lot about your ability to comprehend and the willingness to see the real truth. Your only intention is to sling mud and to that extent, there is no point debating with you. This will be my last post in this thread. Enjoy your mud slinging. Interesting. It takes you months to debate it with no conclusion, but a war pops up on the horizon and all of a sudden TOP cancels? Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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? Unjust War. I went all out on STA and NpO's top 6 infra guys. I had 5-6K infra at the time. If anything though, nothing changes your perspective than when you're in an all out war and you had nothing else to lose. I found out STAs are pretty chill dudes, and that NpO's are actually not all that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Unjust War. I went all out on STA and NpO's top 6 infra guys. I had 5-6K infra at the time. If anything though, nothing changes your perspective than when you're in an all out war and you had nothing else to lose. I found out STAs are pretty chill dudes, and that NpO's are actually not all that bad. And you got 230k defending? I got 180k losing under 2,000 infrastructure. I call shens, unless you turtled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Unjust War. I went all out on STA and NpO's top 6 infra guys. I had 5-6K infra at the time. If anything though, nothing changes your perspective than when you're in an all out war and you had nothing else to lose. I found out STAs are pretty chill dudes, and that NpO's are actually not all that bad. Let's be done with this thread for now; our interactions with those accusing us of whatever manner of things are not producing anything constructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Interesting. It takes you months to debate it with no conclusion, but a war pops up on the horizon and all of a sudden TOP cancels? Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me. Certain events before the war accelerated the process. I can assure you that the discussion to leave Continuum had been going on for much longer than that. Take it for what it's worth. People won't believe it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Certain events before the war accelerated the process. I can assure you that the discussion to leave Continuum had been going on for much longer than that. Take it for what it's worth. People won't believe it anyway. Like the constant threats of war that kept emerging? I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 No, but you sure are jealous of my other stats, else you wouldn't be trying to nitpick at the most pointless stat in the game (other than alliance score mind you). So essentially what you're saying is that you guys have huge e-penises but no e-testicles to back them up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It was three days, not two. The OP made reference to a three-day notice of cancellation, yet still claimed that there were only two days between our notice of cancellation and the announcement of our withdrawal from the Continuum.As Ice says, it's also impossible, based on the fact that all matters are discussed at length before our representative voting body---which, indeed, votes on the basis of the aforementioned discussions---for TOP to react so quickly. This is how things are done in TOP; either believe it or don't believe it. Well I don't have to bother with that then. You're problem is with me saying you violated treaties? Fine I'll change the wording, TOP's stats are now: Total treaties cancelled/no assistance: 5 Total Allies not defended/cancelled: 7 And I don't really see how incoherent logs are going to prove anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Let's be done with this thread for now; our interactions with those accusing us of whatever manner of things are not producing anything constructive. Aww can't take the heat? Get off my lawn poser; you can take your weak casualty counts and your exaggerated accounts of battling to ZI and back with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Let's be done with this thread for now; our interactions with those accusing us of whatever manner of things are not producing anything constructive. And we see the typical reply of TOP: When we could lose, avoid conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Interesting. It takes you months to debate it with no conclusion, but a war pops up on the horizon and all of a sudden TOP cancels? Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me. It's not a coincidence, but not in the way you want to label it as by putting the cart before the horse. A lot of people thought the OV issue was being agitated BECAUSE MHA and TOP were about to leave Q, and wanted to fight the growing "opposition" before MHA and TOP had had the chance to fully "defect". It didn't help that the rest of Q were doing things like holding secret meetings without them to severely alienate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 And you got 230k defending?I got 180k losing under 2,000 infrastructure. I call shens, unless you turtled. Just ask Moridin. Him and STA's best took me on. Let's be done with this thread for now; our interactions with those accusing us of whatever manner of things are not producing anything constructive. Agreed. All that needed to be said had already been said. Signing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Agreed. All that needed to be said had already been said. Signing out. Guys i'm losing the debate so bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sounds reasonable to me. Some stranger tells me how things are and I, being the total idiot, believe him! Also, go ahead and flee the thread as your ex-Leader is instructing you to; apparently that's just about all TOP is good at anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shardoon Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So essentially what you're saying is that you guys have huge e-penises but no e-testicles to back them up? e-testicles found here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1901100 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.