Robert Specto Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Haha good stuff . Its always fun watching treaties being canceled during the days before wars . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Ha, a good entertaining topic, which will probably serve it's purpose well. Congrats Jack, one of the better jab topics I've seen in quite a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Let me think about this.This is quite difficult. Oh wait, how about choosing your treaties and not signing them with everyone and then canceling when it gets time to honor them? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55190 So we should have stuck our heads in the sand? I fail to see how that is better in terms of honoring treaties. To summarize: I believe the evidence presented above proves that there was no violation of any of the treaties listed above, and that nor did we cancel any of them in order to avoid war. The sad reality is that you---likely knowingly---created this thread with absolutely nothing on which to base your claims besides superficial information, and with an apparent utter lack of effort to gather any information on the topic. I can only assume that this was a deliberate, utterly conjecture-based attempt to sully our name. If you're really interested in putting forth valid points, rather than simple assumptive insults, best try to do your research before your next attempt. I couldn't agree more. Edited October 13, 2009 by DogeWilliam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 War of the Coalition? Great War 2/3?edit: Also, itt TOP collects more stats. UJP? btw: War of Coalition was a curbstomp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So we should have stuck our heads in the sand? I fail to see how that is better in terms of honoring treaties. " 4. Polaris has no quarrel with any alliance right now, we are not looking for a fight, spoiling for war or seeking any action against anyone for any reason, real or imagined. Polaris however will take exception to any alliance that attacks an ally without a treaty obligation to do so OR and otherwise valid CB. We will not hesitate to respond in defense of any conflict that occurs outside of the boundaries of this war. Bandwagoners, vultures and opportunists are not welcome to feed in comfort while others do the heavy lifting. " I can has read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 btw: War of Coalition was a curbstomp I know, I was in it. Doesn't make it not a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) "4. Polaris has no quarrel with any alliance right now, we are not looking for a fight, spoiling for war or seeking any action against anyone for any reason, real or imagined. Polaris however will take exception to any alliance that attacks an ally without a treaty obligation to do so OR and otherwise valid CB. We will not hesitate to respond in defense of any conflict that occurs outside of the boundaries of this war. Bandwagoners, vultures and opportunists are not welcome to feed in comfort while others do the heavy lifting. " I can has read? You're kidding right? Stating neutrality in opposition to held treaties. Point 4 that you mentioned is moot to the argument and had no impact on anything. Edited October 13, 2009 by DogeWilliam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 ...which proves that we were already out the door prior to both NPO's war declaration and the start of the Karma War. We did not drop Continuum because of NPO's war or because of the Karma War. Neither had occured before we started the official cancellation discussion, vote, then notification and thus cannot be used against us in your funny little race.And rsoxbronco is correct. If NPO had been attacked then it would've been a different story. Slow Government structures mean little in this statistical thread, my stats cover exactly what they say they do. You notified the Continuum of your withdrawal within 5 days of war starting. What's your point? A lot of people were placed in some tough positions that war. TOP made a decision and rolled with the majority of their Citadel partners as several leaders in Karma very much wanted, if I recall correctly.I suppose if you sling enough mud some of it will stick no matter how nonsensical it is. This is far from nonsensical, TOP chose their side in the final minutes of the war, opting to fight alongside the larger coalition. That's what a survivalist alliance is, that's what my thread is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Just proving that CN needs to band together and take out TOP/MHA instead of worrying about purplol or lolpink. Please, tell me more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Holy $%&@ I LOL'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 To summarize: I believe the evidence presented above proves that there was no violation of any of the treaties listed above, and that nor did we cancel any of them in order to avoid war. The sad reality is that you---likely knowingly---created this thread with absolutely nothing on which to base your claims besides superficial information, and with an apparent utter lack of effort to gather any information on the topic. I can only assume that this was a deliberate, utterly conjecture-based attempt to sully our name. If you're really interested in putting forth valid points, rather than simple assumptive insults, best try to do your research before your next attempt. To paraphrase: Cancelling the treaties are okay because we have no friends other than the buy infra button; furthermore you are completely ignorant for suggesting that concepts such as 'Friendship' and 'Honor' have any place being in a discussion with 'Treaties' ; which are and always have been the life jacket that keeps TOP afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 That's what a survivalist alliance is, that's what my thread is about. I beg to differ. Your OP is convoluted and contradictory. Frankly its a poor excuse of a thread to start a flame war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Slow Government structures mean little in this statistical thread, my stats cover exactly what they say they do. You notified the Continuum of your withdrawal within 5 days of war starting. This is far from nonsensical, TOP chose their side in the final minutes of the war, opting to fight alongside the larger coalition. That's what a survivalist alliance is, that's what my thread is about. That you have chosen to completely ignore my post, a post that effectively disproved your original assertions, speaks volumes regarding your intentions in starting this thread and regarding your desire to actually discuss rather than simply slander. In case you missed it, you may find it by clicking here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berith Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 no friends other than the buy infra button I believe you mean the Purchase Technology button Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I believe you mean the Purchase Technology button More accurately, the send/accept foreign aid buttons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 To paraphrase: Cancelling the treaties are okay because we have no friends other than the buy infra button; furthermore you are completely ignorant for suggesting that concepts such as 'Friendship' and 'Honor' have any place being in a discussion with 'Treaties' ; which are and always have been the life jacket that keeps TOP afloat. Let's take off that wet coat of yours and get you inside, where it's nice and dry. I'll make some tea and we'll talk about the good ol' days. There's no need to be so caustic, you're special in your own way too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I believe you mean the Purchase Technology button Wow. Now that is awfully intelligent. No wonder you have such AMAZING levels of technology, you don't waste time importing it, you buy it all yourself! Why oh Why haven't i ever thought of that? You sir are a thinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Wow. Now that is awfully intelligent. No wonder you have such AMAZING levels of technology, you don't waste time importing it, you buy it all yourself! Why oh Why haven't i ever thought of that? You sir are a thinker. Well golly gee whitakers, I'm finding it awfully hard to be ever so humble with all of this praise coming from your mouth. You really shouldn't have, you little charmer you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Let's take off that wet coat of yours and get you inside, where it's nice and dry. I'll make some tea and we'll talk about the good ol' days. There's no need to be so caustic, you're special in your own way too. No thank you sir; Tea is a beverage men of my sexual orientation do not care much for, however feel free to buy a case of some quality brew. Then we can talk things over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 No thank you sir; Tea is a beverage men of my sexual orientation do not care much for, however feel free to buy a case of some quality brew. Then we can talk things over. Funny you mention brews, I was at the Flying Saucer a few days ago and had some magnificent tasty beverages. I can't decide which I liked more, Left Hand Milk Stout or Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA. Either way, I won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 No thank you sir; Tea is a beverage men of my sexual orientation do not care much for, however feel free to buy a case of some quality brew. Then we can talk things over. Look, I can laugh off most of this provocative, insult-laden thread but if you're going to insult tea, I think we're going to have a proper falling out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 No thank you sir; Tea is a beverage men of my sexual orientation do not care much for, however feel free to buy a case of some quality brew. Then we can talk things over. You brew tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Funny you mention brews, I was at the Flying Saucer a few days ago and had some magnificent tasty beverages. I can't decide which I liked more, Left Hand Milk Stout or Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA. Either way, I won. Dogfish Head is the only answer to this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Dogfish Head is the only answer to this question. That's been my answer for a long time (IPA's are my favorite, and DFH makes the best of them), but man. That milk stout. So. Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) The OP apparently is unwilling to concede that his allegations toward TOP were incorrect. This is rather low, given that all of his arguments were refuted and that, further, he has gone so far as to admit to me on IRC that he wrote a slandering thread without doing proper research first, but that he is unwilling to own up to it. Given the OP's claims that he is swamped by queries regarding this topic, I'll give him some time to admit 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. Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson 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.