Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) So you going to use that stick, or is this just more talking? Of course he will not. Doing so without his alliance back up will essentially just make him a rogue nation, and subject to the same fate. You ask too much for him to risk his infrastructure for what he believes in. You must understand, alterego is not like us. We believe in tech raiding, and as such we find it acceptable to follow through with our actions and our ideals, all without regard to how anyone else feels what our ideals and actions should be. Edited January 16, 2010 by Atanatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Pick 3 guys from your alliance and name the date.my stats: Highest rank:507. Nukes taken: 25, Nukes sent: 44. Over 12,500 infra lost in combat. War is the only option for Bog Land, Well you're just too hardcore for us. I surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 They are the only stats that matter. Ah, yes...your own personal stigmata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizenkane Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Hey PC and GOONS, it's \m/'s job to ruin the game for people. )):Good luck to FOA and such. Thats rich, coming from someone who used to be government in an alliance which fully supported tech raiding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Of course he will not. Doing so without his alliance back up will essentially just make him a rogue nation, and subject to the same fate. You ask too much for him to risk his pixels for what he believes in. You must understand, alterego is not like us. We believe in tech raiding, and as such we find it acceptable to follow through with our actions and our ideals, all without regard to how anyone else feels what our ideals and actions should be. you know me so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Well you're just too hardcore for us. I surrender. I accept your surrender, change your AA to poopy pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Thats rich, coming from someone who used to be government in an alliance which fully supported tech raiding That went over your head, CK. You should know me better.. I love tech raids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Of course I know you, Ego. Your actions are guided by your need to be relevant, to be on the bleeding edge of controversy. Ego, what you fail to realize is that we have only indulged in this thread because we derive more amusent from it than the actual tech raid. We expected some talk, but Ego, you have truly given us in \m/ a wonderful present. But, alas, your dogged determination to be our Messiah will fall on deaf ears. And as to golan: NPO rolled FAN the second time because they obtained info from their boards that FAN plotted revenge. I wonder, how was this more morally unjust than our actions? Did NPO not have a duty to secure their alliance from future threats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 And as to golan: NPO rolled FAN the second time because they obtained info from their boards that FAN plotted revenge. I wonder, how was this more morally unjust than our actions? Did NPO not have a duty to secure their alliance from future threats? Never heard that part of the story; I'm curious if I can have someone come in and confirm that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I'm glad you're so educated on the affairs of the world and I'm also glad you support restricting the freedoms of alliances and their members. I can tell right now you've got a bright career waiting for you in this world with that attitude. fair enough. Seek a therapist. It seems as if there are several skeletons you need to address. You are not free to abuse other alliances and it's just a matter of time until you are punished for it, as you were in the past.It will probably take some time until you piss somebody strong enough to stop you, but I count on you to do this at some point nippy, I don't have anything to be ashamed of, but maybe you can refresh my memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 An unfortunate occurrence for FoA. Hopefully you'll have better luck in getting this sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golan 1st Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 And as to golan: NPO rolled FAN the second time because they obtained info from their boards that FAN plotted revenge. I wonder, how was this more morally unjust than our actions? Did NPO not have a duty to secure their alliance from future threats?Wut??FAN of that time deserved to be rolled for the very same reason you did, regardless of the reason they eventually failed. The main difference is that FAN seem to have changed their attitude and otherwise gained many people's respect in the way they handled that war. /m\ and GOONS obviously did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) nippy, I don't have anything to be ashamed of, but maybe you can refresh my memory. Sorry, I'm not a hypnotherapist. Anyway, your Nostradamus-like predictions are as pointless as you threatening me at your NS. The balance indeed favors your nation, militarily. Should the balance measure something else, say, eloquence and logic...a mirror image result would occur. Edited January 16, 2010 by nippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Next time something like this happens, I'm just going to post the 20 pages of replies myself so that the rest of you don't have to bother. <generic OP>: )): <generic alliance> )): Bob Janova: You guys suck I can't wait 'til you get rolled. Also Karma bullied people into not bullying because that is what it was totally about. Marx: I really don't care what you guys think but am going to post so you get upset about it. Doitzel: This is me trying to be a brilliant philsophist do you see how smart I am and how smart you are not yet? Nippy: Thank you for your opinion even if it is retarded. Rebel Virginia: Someone should do something about this. Not me, I'm not ready yet. In a few weeks. Peanut Gallery: I play an e-lawyer on TV. OR Peanut Gallery: I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU ALL. <just about anyone in MK, Umbrella, NpO, maybe a few others>: Hahah this is HILARIOUS even if it's not the way our alliances roll. I can't wait until there's new material to read in these forums. Edited January 16, 2010 by salithus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Next time something like this happens, I'm just going to post the 20 pages of replies myself so that the rest of you don't have to bother.<generic OP>: )): <generic alliance> )): Bob Janova: You guys suck I can't wait 'til you get rolled. Also Karma bullied people into not bullying because that is what it was totally about. Marx: I really don't care what you guys think but am going to post so you get upset about it. Doitzel: This is me trying to be a brilliant philsophist do you see how smart I am and how smart you are not yet? Nippy: Thank you for your opinion even if it is retarded. Rebel Virginia: Someone should do something about this. Not me, I'm not ready yet. In a few weeks. Peanut Gallery: I play an e-lawyer on TV. OR Peanut Gallery: I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU ALL. <just about anyone in MK, Umbrella, NpO, maybe a few others>: Hahah this is HILARIOUS even if it's not the way our alliances roll. I can't wait until there's new material to read in these forums. You should write for Cliff's Notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Meet the new world, same as the old world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Meet the new world, same as the old world. ...except you're no longer rotting in our ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Gee, this new \m/ and new GOONS seem awfully familiar. It's as if they are acting like the old GOONS and old \m/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Sorry if this was already stated somewhere and I missed it, but I have a question for those that accept the following two premises (I presume \m/, GOONS, and PC): 1) It is ok to tech raid AA's that do not have defense treaties with other alliances 2) Thresholds on membership numbers are invalid with respect to determining whether or not an AA can be raided or not If you accept these as true, then wouldn't a logical conclusion be that it is ok to raid neutral alliances such as GPA and TDO? Not saying that you or your alliance will or even should, I just can't see how that conclusion doesn't automatically follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Of course I know you, Ego. Your actions are guided by your need to be relevant, to be on the bleeding edge of controversy. Ego, what you fail to realize is that we have only indulged in this thread because we derive more amusent from it than the actual tech raid. We expected some talk, but Ego, you have truly given us in \m/ a wonderful present. But, alas, your dogged determination to be our Messiah will fall on deaf ears. I thought I was a new sheriff with a shiny new silver star. Turns out there is already an old sheriff with a weathered badge. Please I'll take off my silver star if you put away your rusty sheriffs badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
African Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Sorry if this was already stated somewhere and I missed it, but I have a question for those that accept the following two premises (I presume \m/, GOONS, and PC):1) It is ok to tech raid AA's that do not have defense treaties with other alliances 2) Thresholds on membership numbers are invalid with respect to determining whether or not an AA can be raided or not If you accept these as true, then wouldn't a logical conclusion be that it is ok to raid neutral alliances such as GPA and TDO? Not saying that you or your alliance will or even should, I just can't see how that conclusion doesn't automatically follow. Of course it's ok, doesn't mean it's smart. If they want to be a neutral alliance, that's fine. But they aren't able to defend themselves, they knew the risk and took it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Rebel Virginia: Someone should do something about this. Not me, I'm not ready yet. In a few weeks. Oh, don't worry, I will do something about it. Just give me time to finish my preparations. The CB you all have given me by raiding FoA, in my opinion, has a shelf life of at least six months. So plenty of time there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Next time something like this happens, I'm just going to post the 20 pages of replies myself so that the rest of you don't have to bother.<generic OP>: )): <generic alliance> )): Bob Janova: You guys suck I can't wait 'til you get rolled. Also Karma bullied people into not bullying because that is what it was totally about. Marx: I really don't care what you guys think but am going to post so you get upset about it. Doitzel: This is me trying to be a brilliant philsophist do you see how smart I am and how smart you are not yet? Nippy: Thank you for your opinion even if it is retarded. Rebel Virginia: Someone should do something about this. Not me, I'm not ready yet. In a few weeks. Peanut Gallery: I play an e-lawyer on TV. OR Peanut Gallery: I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU ALL. <just about anyone in MK, Umbrella, NpO, maybe a few others>: Hahah this is HILARIOUS even if it's not the way our alliances roll. I can't wait until there's new material to read in these forums. 100% spot on, also good luck waiting for that new material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Sorry if this was already stated somewhere and I missed it, but I have a question for those that accept the following two premises (I presume \m/, GOONS, and PC):1) It is ok to tech raid AA's that do not have defense treaties with other alliances 2) Thresholds on membership numbers are invalid with respect to determining whether or not an AA can be raided or not If you accept these as true, then wouldn't a logical conclusion be that it is ok to raid neutral alliances such as GPA and TDO? Not saying that you or your alliance will or even should, I just can't see how that conclusion doesn't automatically follow. Do you really consider that a logical conclusion, or are you simply attempting some sort of weird argument that removes all logic from your thought processes? I'm sure with a little bit of basic math and an energy drink even the newest member of GOONS can figure out why we're not attacking GPA or TDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huang Ti Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Their member threshold is 10 members. They're just dancing around having to admit they broke their charter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts