Louis Balfour Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 What is this I don't even Glad not to have a treaty obligation to this guy and his swollen head... People of NpO, please... Take your alliance back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Tick1' date='19 January 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1263883222' post='2115862'] Although you believe your acts of justice aren't immoral at all. You believe reigning your destruction upon alliances because they raid is the call for threatening someone. If the AlimightyGrub actually finds this to be disturbing and threatening he'd have already declared upon the alliances. His reckless attitude will eventually be the cause for another global war which is far worse than any tech raid. While it will be in the cause of justice it will also lead to the destruction of more infrastructure than any raiders have ever done. [/quote] [quote name='Tick1' date='19 January 2010 - 06:44 AM' timestamp='1263883440' post='2115867'] What I'm saying is you'll be the cause of more destruction than any tech raider. Your inane actions in the pursuit of justice will be the cause of a global war. Is that simple enough for you? Or should I condense it more to your satisfaction? [/quote] [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='19 January 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1263883843' post='2115886'] Where did you get that snazzy crystal ball that tells the future? My personal opinion is that using force, or the threat of, to convince others not to take people's things who have done you no wrong benefits the many, and myself as well, by guaranteeing general security. [/quote] My snazzy crystal ball predicts all and I think Kzoppistan should be more than happy to reflect upon my prediction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Seerow' date='01 February 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1265091398' post='2152465'] It being preemptive or not does not change if it is an offensive action or not. A preemptive strike by definition is offensive, I don't get why this point keeps getting argued. [/quote] Maybe the fact that C&G keeps crying they wouldn't have been involved has something to do with it? Also, the fact it was a tactical move to back NpO and company, very ballsy and strong as well. Regardless, you are right, it was offensive, in a defensive stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='RandomInterrupt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1265091229' post='2152451'] I would personally go to ZI for the NSO a thousand times before I would shed a single piece of infra for MK after the way your alliance has acted. [/quote] These are the people you kept choosing over us, MK? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Thunder Strike' date='02 February 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1265090321' post='2152398'] This almost trumps the TOP/IRON pre-emptive attack on CnG as dumbest move of the year. The reasoning behind going in is moronic. If you want NSO out why aren't you mediating for it? Attacking SF to achieve that isn't the best way to go about it. This is just a cheap move to try get brownie points. [/quote] Joining the smaller side of a bandwagon is never about getting brownie points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Seerow' date='02 February 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1265091398' post='2152465'] It being preemptive or not does not change if it is an offensive action or not. A preemptive strike by definition is offensive, I don't get why this point keeps getting argued. [/quote] The alignment of CnG versus TOP/IRON and Co. would have happened regardless. Effectively, TOP/IRON and Co. decided to attempt to gain a tactical advantage. In doing so, CnG beleived, falsely of course, that we would come to their aid on what amounted to a technicality, despite the grand amount of ridicule we have received for standing for our values. Even though the treaty still exist, I dare say that the spirit of that treaty has long since faded away. EDIT: Added a few words and took out a bad one. Edited February 2, 2010 by DictatatorDan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='deSouza' date='01 February 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1265091554' post='2152476'] Joining the smaller side of a bandwagon is never about getting brownie points. [/quote] LMAO, maybe some people take principle, and honor seriously in this game. Maybe you wouldn't have a clue though. Do I gain a brownie point now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='DictatatorDan' date='02 February 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1265091301' post='2152458'] I echo these sentiments. [/quote] Sad to see you are so against us, both you and Random. Its unfortunate considering the amount of respect I hold for my many friends in Polaris. Polaris is a friend of mine, regardless how you view our relationship. Edited February 2, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='NoFish' date='02 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1265091538' post='2152474'] These are the people you kept choosing over us, MK? Seriously? [/quote] What, do you want a picture? [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='02 February 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1265091711' post='2152480'] Sad to see you are so against us, both you and Random. Its unfortunate considering the amount of respect I hold for my many friends in Polaris. [/quote] If you alliance-mates where half as decent as you, then I wouldn't have any issues with MK at all. Sadly, that is not the case. It wasn't hard for MK to change my mind about them. Edited February 2, 2010 by RandomInterrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Well in one fell swoop Polaris resolves that moral conundrum I've been fumbling with for the past few days. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Louis Balfour' date='02 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1265091494' post='2152470'] Glad not to have a treaty obligation to this guy and his swollen head... [/quote] So, new around here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Strike Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='deSouza' date='02 February 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1265091554' post='2152476'] Joining the smaller side of a bandwagon is never about getting brownie points. [/quote] I don't see how you came to that opinion. It is a publicity stunt to make sure TOP/IRON etc don't hate NpO so much. They could get NSO out the war more easily through other routes. Yet they choose to attack GOD. Disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowdog07 Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='NoFish' date='02 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1265091538' post='2152474'] These are the people you kept choosing over us, MK? Seriously? [/quote] I'm sorry. Edited February 2, 2010 by Crowdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Chalaskan' date='02 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1265091537' post='2152473'] Maybe the fact that C&G keeps crying they wouldn't have been involved has something to do with it? Also, the fact it was a tactical move to back NpO and company, very ballsy and strong as well. Regardless, you are right, it was offensive, in a defensive stance. [/quote] Well TOP/IRON has never provided proof as to if C&G really was going to enter. I mean, here's TOP: "This bully attitude has gone on long enough. These forums should be encouraging debate!" So when they declare we get: "Yeah we don't have proof, but we knew they were going to fight. Wanna fight about it? Stop whining." Until I see absolute proof I won't believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Welp, this is a hell of an argument in favor of not letting things go. Hope it's everything you want it to be, Polar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Louis Balfour' date='02 February 2010 - 06:18 AM' timestamp='1265091494' post='2152470'] What is this I don't even Glad not to have a treaty obligation to this guy and his swollen head... People of NpO, please... Take your alliance back. [/quote] And we all know what treaty obligations mean to the ODN, regardless. Stop complaining that they didn't bandwagon on C&G's behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='DictatatorDan' date='02 February 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1265091646' post='2152478'] The alignment of CnG versus TOP/IRON and Co. would have happened regardless. Effectively, TOP/IRON and Co. decided to attempt to gain a tactical advantage. In doing so, CnG beleived, falsely of course, that we would come to their aid despite the grand amount of trolling we have received for stading for our values. Even though the treaty still exist, I dare say that the spirit of that treaty has long since faded away. [/quote] So you are going back on your treaty. Or is it treaties? Interesting move, New Polar Order. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I come from an alliance that has taken a lot of grief for not honoring treaties. I can only hope that you will never become a pariah. Trust me it's no fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 So, wait, let me get this straight. In an effort to try to get [b]Fark[/b] to peace out with NSO you decided to attack GOD, an alliance that was already willing to give white peace to NSO. Does that make [b]any[/b] kind of sense to [b]anyone[/b]? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 I'm sure this was difficult, Grub. I respect what you've done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Thunder Strike' date='02 February 2010 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1265091774' post='2152486'] I don't see how you came to that opinion. It is a publicity stunt to make sure TOP/IRON etc don't hate NpO so much. They could get NSO out the war more easily through other routes. Yet they choose to attack GOD. Disgusting. [/quote] Let's see. Staying out of the war - great publicity on Supercomplaints side (largest one in this war) Entering the war against them - good publicity with (mostly) people they don't really like I don't see how you come to the opinion that this declaration of war can be interpreted as trying to win over two alliances they clearly didn't give much of a damn about a few days ago. Like Random said, maybe you can draw me a picture and explain. Edited February 2, 2010 by Mussolandia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Seerow' date='02 February 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1265091021' post='2152443'] Compared to your actions? We're saints. But it is good to know how little we mean to you guys, and that NSO is the only ally that you guys value, really. I just hope everyone else wakes up and sees it as well. [/quote] You are the one who seems to be trading NpO for TOP/IRON's blood. The war 'ended', you know, whether you [s]chose to accept it[/s] or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Thunder Strike' date='02 February 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1265091774' post='2152486'] I don't see how you came to that opinion. It is a publicity stunt to make sure TOP/IRON etc don't hate NpO so much. They could get NSO out the war more easily through other routes. Yet they choose to attack GOD. Disgusting. [/quote] ...what?! Before this post, and likely still after it, IRON and TOP were definitely going to lose this war. Why would the NpO be trying to save face with them if they're just out for themselves as you seem to think? Your argument doesn't even make sense. Edit: Grammar Edited February 2, 2010 by Shodemofi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacramento Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='TypoNinja' date='01 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1265090452' post='2152404'] What about fighting along side your C&G allies who you just slapped in the face? Would it be unnecessary, disrespectful, and downright dumb of me to wonder why you felt the need to leave them in the dust? [/quote] Seriously, wasn't just Polaris involved in a overwhelming war, with alliances piling on top of then just a few days ago? Where were those so called "allies" when Polaris needed help? It had to come to those !@#$%^&* in TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN to come and lend a hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='NoFish' date='02 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1265091875' post='2152494'] So, wait, let me get this straight. In an effort to try to get [b]Fark[/b] to peace out with NSO you decided to attack GOD, an alliance that was already willing to give white peace to NSO. Does that make [b]any[/b] kind of sense to [b]anyone[/b]? [/quote] well obviously it makes sense to NpO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Earogema' date='01 February 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1265091820' post='2152489'] Well TOP/IRON has never provided proof as to if C&G really was going to enter. I mean, here's TOP: "This bully attitude has gone on long enough. These forums should be encouraging debate!" So when they declare we get: "Yeah we don't have proof, but we knew they were going to fight. Wanna fight about it? Stop whining." Until I see absolute proof I won't believe it. [/quote] I rest my case. Thank you. Anyone with half a brain knew C&G were trying to find the tactical advantage in entering the war, their bawwing before the peace declaration is only more proof of that. Also, NpO came to the losing side of this war. Just made it a little more even, and concentrated damage on an alliance most hate. Regardless, I do have many friends on all sides of this conflict... Edited February 2, 2010 by Chalaskan 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.