astronaut jones Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I really don't get how you connected "at some points willing to accept peace without reps" to "always wanted reps". I think you should go back and read the conversation they were having, it would help you in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I really don't get how you connected "at some points willing to accept peace without reps" to "always wanted reps". Understanding English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you read Haflingers original statement he said "Mhawk always wanted reps." I think you should go back and read the conversation they were having, it would help you in this case. I understand AirMe's point. Nevertheless, Haflinger supplemented his post to explain that "mhawk was at some points willing to accept peace". For me, accept and wanted are two different things. Which ever you take it to mean, I hardly think it is justified to jump at it and declare outright that Haflinger is a liar. Understanding English? Ahh, the vaunted Mr. No U strikes again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I understand AirMe's point. Nevertheless, Haflinger supplemented his post to explain that "mhawk was at some points willing to accept peace". For me, accept and wanted are two different things. Which ever you take it to mean, I hardly think it is justified to jump at it and declare outright that Haflinger is a liar.Ahh, the vaunted Mr. No U strikes again! He only changed his tune when I challenged him on the accuracy of his statement. People in the game communicate no matter which side they are on. And believe it or not, some us actually work to prevent all out war instead of provoking it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 He only changed his tune when I challenged him on the accuracy of his statement. People in the game communicate no matter which side they are on. And believe it or not, some us actually work to prevent all out war instead of provoking it. He didn't change his tune. He still says that mhawk wanted reps, and further explained that mhawk was willing to accept reps. Two different things here. You are fair enough in challenging his accuracy of his statement. That is however, quiet different from outright accusing someone of lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilo Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Seriously, all the lame stuff about supposedly peaceful resolution is so yesterday. Supercomplaints had 6 days to find a peaceful solution to their aggressive conflict. They didn't find one. Then supposedly minutes before those being baited by Supercomplaints for 6 days attack, and then suddenly Supercomplaints were ready to give a reasonable peace? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 He didn't change his tune. He still says that mhawk wanted reps, and further explained that mhawk was willing to accept reps. Two different things here.You are fair enough in challenging his accuracy of his statement. That is however, quiet different from outright accusing someone of lying. "It all depends on what your definition of is is." - Bill Clinton, Honorary Citizen of Maedonia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Supercomplaints had 6 days to find a peaceful solution to their aggressive conflict. They didn't find one. Again with the TPF being the innocent defenders... First strike was launched when mhawk started his stupid little plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Is it also a coincidence that the first DoW was made during peacetalks with Athens and RoK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 "It all depends on what your definition of is is." - Bill Clinton, Honorary Citizen of Maedonia. Not what my definition is, what the meaning of words mean. Accept and want are two different things, that's not just my definition. This may seem to be an infinitely irrelevant technicality, but I am pointing it out int he severity and the venom of your accusations. You would feel the same way if I accused that you are obviously out to smear Haflinger's name through mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Again with the TPF being the innocent defenders... First strike was launched when mhawk started his stupid little plan /me facepalm. Did you miss the whole 6 months late thing or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilo Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Again with the TPF being the innocent defenders... First strike was launched when mhawk started his stupid little plan So you are acknowledging that TPF infact never got peace by the Karma forces, but was at war with them the entire time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Not what my definition is, what the meaning of words mean. Accept and want are two different things, that's not just my definition.This may seem to be an infinitely irrelevant technicality, but I am pointing it out int he severity and the venom of your accusations. You would feel the same way if I accused that you are obviously out to smear Haflinger's name through mud. Smearing his name through the mud would consist of me getting people to follow him around and hounding him on his every word. I pointed out where he had lied and left it at that. And that point would have died a while ago if you didn't keep bringing it up by defending him. I have been the victim of smear campaigns. I can guarantee you this is not one. I won't say that I like Haflinger but I certainly don't wish harm or ill will against him. Certainly not enough to launch a smear campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So you are acknowledging that TPF infact never got peace by the Karma forces, but was at war with them the entire time? So you acknowledge that attacking when peace is being finalized is ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Seriously, all the lame stuff about supposedly peaceful resolution is so yesterday.Supercomplaints had 6 days to find a peaceful solution to their aggressive conflict. They didn't find one. Then supposedly minutes before those being baited by Supercomplaints for 6 days attack, and then suddenly Supercomplaints were ready to give a reasonable peace? LOL If people want the war prolonged...by all means...I don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Smearing his name through the mud would consist of me getting people to follow him around and hounding him on his every word. I pointed out where he had lied and left it at that. And that point would have died a while ago if you didn't keep bringing it up by defending him. I have been the victim of smear campaigns. I can guarantee you this is not one. I won't say that I like Haflinger but I certainly don't wish harm or ill will against him. Certainly not enough to launch a smear campaign. I think you have mistaken me. I did not mean to actually accuse you of launching a smear campaign, but the point was that such an accusation would be over the top and highly inappropriate. You are correct in your other point. I will leave this issue alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilo Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So you acknowledge that attacking when peace is being finalized is ok? I am acknowledging a lame attempt at trying out "NPO vs. OV version 1.5". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Similarly, Moo's offer of peace was rejected in the early days of the Karma War, after it became clear that the defending coalition had enough strength to take on NPO and her allies. If you think that you are going to be on the winning side, you have a poor grasp of figures. There is no problem in principle with TPF demanding reparations for coming under attack, but the fact is that you are not going to get better terms than no terms. Hell, even if you do win, the damage done to your nations (in TPF and in TPF's allies) will far outdo any reparations you can extort. TPF have effectively used their allies' blood (and the blood of non-allies who are also a part of this coalition, notably TOP) to cover for their own stubbornness, when they had the offer of the immediate end of the war on the table. The PR victory they could have taken from being the wronged party (having taken relatively minor damage in the big scheme of things, easily rebuildable by aid from their treaty partners) would have been far greater than the reparations they might have wanted. Now all they will do is suffer a military defeat, probably with worse terms at the end, and take their allies down with them so rebuilding will be harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 /me facepalm.Did you miss the whole 6 months late thing or what? Did you miss that 1. Alliances that were to be infiltrated were NOT at war with TPF 2. Plan was revealed recently and that Proof was then aquired so that a Proofless CB wasnt provided (not like the whole RISH WAS AN HIGH LEVEL PERSONNAL ADVISOR TO HOO KING TITLETHATDOESNTEXIST SO HE FOR SURE SPIED FOR ROK) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 How are you leading a coalaition and moreso responsible for delaying it with TOP currently at war with no alliance whatsoever? Shall i take this as an official declaration of war from TOP on an alliances from the side opposing the one you're currently organizing? I haven't seen in my whole time of playing CN a coalition to take so many days to !@#$@#$ react to a DOW. And somehow a single person being reponsible for a resectable number of alliances (who have been around for quite a while) not being able to respond just doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I am acknowledging a lame attempt at trying out "NPO vs. OV version 1.5". And I am acknowledging that I am conversing with someone who has ignored the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you think that you are going to be on the winning side, you have a poor grasp of figures. There is no problem in principle with TPF demanding reparations for coming under attack, but the fact is that you are not going to get better terms than no terms. Hell, even if you do win, the damage done to your nations (in TPF and in TPF's allies) will far outdo any reparations you can extort.TPF have effectively used their allies' blood (and the blood of non-allies who are also a part of this coalition, notably TOP) to cover for their own stubbornness, when they had the offer of the immediate end of the war on the table. The PR victory they could have taken from being the wronged party (having taken relatively minor damage in the big scheme of things, easily rebuildable by aid from their treaty partners) would have been far greater than the reparations they might have wanted. Now all they will do is suffer a military defeat, probably with worse terms at the end, and take their allies down with them so rebuilding will be harder. The motivation of TPF and their allies are far above material means. Infrastructure lies low on the priorities when the Coalition considers its response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) How are you leading a coalaition and moreso responsible for delaying it with TOP currently at war with no alliance whatsoever? Shall i take this as an official declaration of war from TOP on an alliances from the side opposing the one you're currently organizing?I haven't seen in my whole time of playing CN a coalition to take so many days to !@#$@#$ react to a DOW. And somehow a single person being reponsible for a resectable number of alliances (who have been around for quite a while) not being able to respond just doesn't make sense. I agree with my Romanian friend here, I really don't get how an alliance can lead a coalition but isn't engaged in any wars whatsoever (or hasn't officially declared war). But uaciaut, didn't the coalition of cowards (consisting of the same alliances that make up this coalition of 'coincidence') wait about as long as this one? edit: for the love of spelling Edited January 2, 2010 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 This may have already been covered, as I haven't read the entire thread. I find it... interesting that the CoC here was willing to sit limp, ignoring their allies plight because one person told them to. Is LiquidMercury really so important to the CoC that it can't erect a defense for TPF without it? If I were a betting man, I'd argue more along the lines of this announcement simply giving CoC a little relief from the calls of cowardice and attempting to direct them at a single person. It seems I remember in the past LiquidMercury doing a similar thing for TOP shortly after the Karma war. At least they're finally on the "side" of the war they wanted to be on. It was humorous to see CoC explode into this conflict with their.. 30 wars, but I suppose that was expected given their current strategy. I wonder, though, when/if TOP is eventually pulled into this mess. Are they planning on negotiating a nuke free war with all of their opponents? Is that just reserved for when you get stuck fighting against alliances you'd rather be hugging? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilo Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 And I am acknowledging that I am conversing with someone who has ignored the facts. I continue to enjoy your propaganda, while similarly rejecting the content of it 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.