JackSkellington Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) I agree with ChairmanHal... )): I'm quite honestly rather upset by that fact... Edited December 24, 2009 by JackSkellington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 So what exactly are you trying to say? If it's that this entire scenario is stupid, we're in agreement. If it's that somehow us not being interested in walking into someone else's shooting range somehow makes us cowards or backpeddlers, then I would rather say that simply makes us practitioners of common sense. I'm saying that you knew CSN's allies and you knew DF's allies, and you still chose to threaten them. When they respond asking you to 'bring it', you accuse them of setting a trap to get you rolled, when it was your own alliance that went to the store, bought a bear trap, set it, and hovered your foot over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppet Master Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 No. Again, you fail.Simply because I have no problem going to war does not mean that I will blindly declare just because people like you want me to. It will be on my terms and if another alliance does what we supposedly did to DF and there is actual evidence of it we will declare. Openly and boldly. We won't make a half assed effort to get that alliance to declare upon us instead so that we can call our allies in to save us. If you have no problem with going to war.. then go to war? Also all i am asking Ivan is for you or somebody to post this alleged apology made by DF. If you have proof that an apology was made by an alliance leader of DF then we can settle this matter once and for all. You made a post stating that an apology was made and then SCM says it wasn't, so can we just have proof it was and we can leave it at rest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) but at least they have the back to throw claims and stick to their nuts rather than threatening war and backing off because of cowardice You can not read and clearly intentionally lack punctuation in order to broadcast your failure to communicate to the rest of us. How is any of what I just quoted different from what you're supporting? Really? Edited December 24, 2009 by Chron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Neither of your alliances have balls ok? ok. You have a point. They should put up, or shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 There is no way that Darth Maul was worth more then Qui Gon Jinn. Thus i say the sith won that battle easily. Plus it led to Obi Wan teaching anakin which led to his path to the dark side which led to the creation and victory for the empire. So yeah terrible analogy man.But anyway NSO just wanted to fight with no treaties because its obvious neither one wants to be the aggressor. That isn't true. If I thought DF had the resolve to actually fight one on one then NSO would declare upon them. Since we all know that the political climate of the Cyberverse these days is such that very very few alliances will stand alone and fight it is a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 but at least they have the back to throw claims and stick to their nuts rather than threatening war and backing off because of cowardice WHY ARE PEOPLE BUTCHERING COMMON SAYINGS IN THIS THREAD? "they have the spine," not back, spine, back just sounds weird. "stick to their guns," not nuts, that doesn't even make sense. Stick to your nuts? What a bizarre thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I do not recall seeing a Dark Fist Declaration of War against the New Sith Order. Do you mind providing the link to Dark Fist backing their wish to see the New Sith Order destroyed? No, no..they had the backbone to make unsubstantiated accusations and then refuse to provide any evidence to support it nor apologise. That's how the real men handle things, right Aeternalis? You are even more manly when you run to your allies to back you up when the alliance you libel asks for said proof or an apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 If you have no problem with going to war.. then go to war? Also all i am asking Ivan is for you or somebody to post this alleged apology made by DF. If you have proof that an apology was made by an alliance leader of DF then we can settle this matter once and for all. You made a post stating that an apology was made and then SCM says it wasn't, so can we just have proof it was and we can leave it at rest? I have stated that I will provide proof when proof of the accusations against my alliance is also provided. Since those accusations started this fiasco that is only fair. Why aren't you and others demanding this same thing from DF? It is their failure in leadership that caused this issue. Posting accusations and refusing to provide evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 That isn't true. If I thought DF had the resolve to actually fight one on one then NSO would declare upon them. Since we all know that the political climate of the Cyberverse these days is such that very very few alliances will stand alone and fight it is a moot point. Yeah i know that. I meant you didnt want to be the aggressor with treaties. Thats why you wanted to fight one on one. If they agreed to one on one im sure your DoW would appear seconds later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 If you have no problem with going to war.. then go to war? Also all i am asking Ivan is for you or somebody to post this alleged apology made by DF. If you have proof that an apology was made by an alliance leader of DF then we can settle this matter once and for all. You made a post stating that an apology was made and then SCM says it wasn't, so can we just have proof it was and we can leave it at rest? Why don't you go to war rather than sit in the bleachers telling everyone else to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I need to interject into this mess one last time just to ask a quick question: Will NSO accept a 1v1 challenge with no allies from anyone at any time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes II Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 That isn't true. If I thought DF had the resolve to actually fight one on one then NSO would declare upon them. Since we all know that the political climate of the Cyberverse these days is such that very very few alliances will stand alone and fight it is a moot point. Btw, Ivan, since we have you here, any public comment on this post? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry2042768 Not sure I ever saw an official reaction on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 In all fairness this is just a deadlock because both don;t want to be seen as the aggressors in the whole ordeal. So, what's happening is each is giving the other feeble reasons to declare in hope of getting the jump on activating "defensive" pacts. Hell, this may be how it goes from here to Bob's end. Pretty sad state of affairs when you can;t even declare war because of the convoluted rules of engagement and the gelatinous mass that is the treaty web. Oh well I guess. Better luck to the bloodthirsty next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Neither of your alliances have balls ok? ok. Not all of us can be blessed with living under heel for two years before gathering enough courage and allies to finally take a stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyisraelie Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I have stated that I will provide proof when proof of the accusations against my alliance is also provided. Since those accusations started this fiasco that is only fair. Why aren't you and others demanding this same thing from DF? It is their failure in leadership that caused this issue. Posting accusations and refusing to provide evidence. Then you're full of it. Please quit now, I'm tired of seeing this drama. Declare war or shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppet Master Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I have stated that I will provide proof when proof of the accusations against my alliance is also provided. Since those accusations started this fiasco that is only fair. Why aren't you and others demanding this same thing from DF? It is their failure in leadership that caused this issue. Posting accusations and refusing to provide evidence. Right, I 100% agree that SCM should provide proof. I am just asking you Ivan to be the bigger man here and just provide proof of an apology so we can all leave it at rest. I may be their failure in leadership that caused this, dont allow you failure in leadership or rather your ego to allow this to continue. Just post the apology and we can all laugh at DF and know that NSO was in the right. Simple fix for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I'm saying that you knew CSN's allies and you knew DF's allies, and you still chose to threaten them. When they respond asking you to 'bring it', you accuse them of setting a trap to get you rolled, when it was your own alliance that went to the store, bought a bear trap, set it, and hovered your foot over it. [ooc]So you believe this nonsense that one of our members, active enough to pay attention to IRC (specifically accusing youwish), went to /b/ via whom a whole lot of coincidences enabled SCM to tie a post requesting an invasion of his alliance's boards. All clearly ignoring the fact that SCM spends an inordinate amount of time, more than anyone else, in fact, picking fights with our members on the OWF. [/ooc] We started this? Get over yourself, what did we do to piss in his Corn Flakes to begin with? If you are honestly willing to claim that SCM has never picked a fight with us before, then you either don't know what you're talking about, or are being obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Btw, Ivan, since we have you here, any public comment on this post?http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry2042768 Not sure I ever saw an official reaction on it I will discuss the CSN issue privately if you wish. PM me on our boards and I will be happy to talk about it. I can assure you that since CSN has handled this much differently than DF then I am much more willing to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 In all fairness this is just a deadlock because both don;t want to be seen as the aggressors in the whole ordeal. So, what's happening is each is giving the other feeble reasons to declare in hope of getting the jump on activating "defensive" pacts. Hell, this may be how it goes from here to Bob's end. Pretty sad state of affairs when you can;t even declare war because of the convoluted rules of engagement and the gelatinous mass that is the treaty web. Oh well I guess. Better luck to the bloodthirsty next time. This is what i meant with my post Ivan. And im seriously afraid of this becoming the norm. Because if NSO wont declare first then i dont have much faith in anyone else doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Umm, no.Have you read anything posted from DF today? They are complete cowards. They threw the claims and did absolutely nothing. Nothing. Corinan asked for an apology and implied...what exactly? Nothing. And yet NSO is called cowardly? Stupid people are stupid. http://img710.yfrog.com/img710/7578/threat.jpg http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry2044466 so what happens if reps and apologies aren't paid? They hit you how they wanted, now it's on you to put the licks on like you said you would. If nothing happens here, it's the NSO that backed off. word is word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I need to interject into this mess one last time just to ask a quick question:Will NSO accept a 1v1 challenge with no allies from anyone at any time? It'd be amazing if this could be answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Not all of us can be blessed with living under heel for two years before gathering enough courage and allies to finally take a stand. So in the end, neither of you have the balls to declare. Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Right, I 100% agree that SCM should provide proof. I am just asking you Ivan to be the bigger man here and just provide proof of an apology so we can all leave it at rest. I may be their failure in leadership that caused this, dont allow you failure in leadership or rather your ego to allow this to continue. Just post the apology and we can all laugh at DF and know that NSO was in the right. Simple fix for everyone. I have never claimed to be the bigger man. I am a petty son of a !@#$%* and I will go to my grave before I will provide anything prior to what I have demanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 So in the end, neither of you have the balls to declare. Ok. Because NSO has an actual reason to declare here, right? Goading and coaxing a militant response justifies every hostile action, correct? I used to think better of you. 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.