Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Syzygy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1265918994' post='2175363']
This ridiclous analogy about people beating each other and walking away ... the true analogy is that TOP and IRON saw C&G picking up a bar stool and waving it over NSO's head, so they smacked C&G before he could swing. (And NSO was already participating in a mass brawl.) Analogies aren't really helpful but let's not claim that C&G are innocents just caught up in the crossfire.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Now, I hate to do this to you Bob (not really) considering we essentially hold the same opinion on this war, but really now? What does NSO have to do with this? CnG picking up a bar stool and trying to hit NSO on the head with it? I am pretty sure CnG had better things to do than go after NSO when when they already had twenty other alliances on them.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='12 February 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1265934372' post='2175898']
[color="#0000FF"]Now, I hate to do this to you Bob (not really) considering we essentially hold the same opinion on this war, but really now? What does NSO have to do with this? CnG picking up a bar stool and trying to hit NSO on the head with it? I am pretty sure CnG had better things to do than go after NSO when when they already had twenty other alliances on them.[/color]
[/quote]
Have I ever told you that I love you? :wub:

Mind you, this was [i]back[/i] when CnG had good reason to believe Polaris had our back, like we had theirs, so I think they were going to avoid attacking us directly.

I mean, I know we're tough, but I'm pretty sure that their coalitions organizers didn't have us fight 2 sanctioned alliances, and various other hangers-on because they thought they'd need all of that firepower just to take us down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='11 February 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1265934592' post='2175908']
Have I ever told you that I love you? :wub:

Mind you, this was [i]back[/i] when CnG had good reason to believe Polaris had our back, like we had theirs, so I think they were going to avoid attacking us directly.

I mean, I know we're tough, but I'm pretty sure that their coalitions organizers didn't have us fight 2 sanctioned alliances, and various other hangers-on because they thought they'd need all of that firepower just to take us down.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Now I'm not saying CnG wouldn't mind hitting you. Who wouldn't? Last time I heard hating NSO is the cool thing to do these days. I'm just saying that IRON and TOP did not preemptively strike CnG to prevent them to rescue NSO, like Bob is trying to say. I am just asking the simple favor that he avoid mentioning the NSO by name as you guys really have nothing to do with the idiocy between these two here besides Ivan telling your allies that it would be a bad idea to hit CnG. Why does nobody ever listen?[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='12 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1265934847' post='2175916']
[color="#0000FF"]Now I'm not saying CnG wouldn't mind hitting you. Who wouldn't? Last time I heard hating NSO is the cool thing to do these days. I'm just saying that IRON and TOP did not preemptively strike CnG to prevent them to rescue NSO, like Bob is trying to say. I am just asking the simple favor that he avoid mentioning the NSO by name as you guys really have nothing to do with the[b] idiocy between these two[/b] here besides Ivan telling your allies that it would be a bad idea to hit CnG. [b]Why does nobody ever listen?[/b][/color]
[/quote]
Why do people ask questions they already have answered for themselves?

It's such a tragedy. That being said, I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest, simply positing that Bob is misunderstanding what happened on this occasion, not perpetuating a set of circumstances at odds with the reality of the situation.

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='12 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1265935197' post='2175930']
[color="#0000FF"]Well, as long as everyone burns by the time this is over I'll be happy. Everybody has to go.[/color]
[/quote]
That would explain the fine scent I smell wafting around the planet.

Mhmmmm, uranium-charred everything. Delicious. I can't wait until this is all over, and it's time for cleanup.

By the way, it's such a shame that some folks don't like it when called out on their own hypocrisy. Aw well. Lookin' forward to the end of this war, and all this assorted self-made drama.

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only read the OP, I could care less about the useless drivel that has no doubt followed it, but I have a response:

Get off your damn high horse. Everyone has a reason for fighting, your reason doesn't make you any less of an $@! than theirs. The point is thus: TOP attacked, they have no say over what happens after that. They opened the can of worms, now they have to deal with the fallout, whatever that may be. While it may be the "gentlemanly" way to let them go on their way after it was revealed their CB was !@#$%^&*, both sides absolutely hate each other, so the gloves are off. It doesn't matter what rhetoric they use for their defense, you're inventing your own rhetoric right now to try to explain why you can unilaterally declare your entire alliance idiots.

War is always and has never been about just what is declared publicly, there are always underlying angles, and pointing out the obvious ones doesn't make you observant or clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='12 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1265935549' post='2175945']
I don't see how it's wrong of CnG to take advantage of an enemy's idiocy. There is no moral dimension to this, so there's no need to take sides other than the one of your friends.
[/quote]

You do realize CnG vowed to handicap IRON and TOP permanently, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The AUT' date='12 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1265935957' post='2175959']
You do realize CnG vowed to handicap IRON and TOP permanently, right?
[/quote]
Yeah, that's the part I find hard to swallow.

Y'know, the hypocrisy. I guess that's just me, since so many otherwise upstanding folks seem to revel in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The AUT' date='11 February 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1265935957' post='2175959']
You do realize CnG vowed to handicap IRON and TOP permanently, right?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Remember Sponge's terms to \m/ in the UJW? As much as I liked them, he knew \m/ would never accept. He didn't want to end the war just yet. That is what people tend to do when they don't want a war to end: offer ridiculous terms and act unreasonable. Give it a few weeks and MK and Co. will have taken quite a beating as well and will want to end the war. By that point they'll be ready to offer actual terms.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The AUT' date='11 February 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1265935957' post='2175959']
You do realize CnG vowed to handicap IRON and TOP permanently, right?
[/quote]
So where exactly did we says this, could you please provide evidence of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey remember that time TOP (et al.) declared offensive war on NpO cause "NpO was coming to get [them]"... and remember how TOP declared war on CnG because "CnG was coming to get [them]".

Call me paranoid, but I think TOP likes to declare war on people who they feel are a threat. You can claim "hey nobody ever talked about rolling MK in Citadel"... well, could it have been simply a matter of influence now vs. then? MK is much more well connected and stronger now than they were 6 months ago.

It would be retarded to let them go now that they've played their hand and showed their true colours yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1265938000' post='2176023']
And honestly, what the hell are you people talking about? Nobody has any intention of keeping [i]anybody[/i] in eternal war. This war can end whenever TOP/IRON asks for our terms and surrenders.
[/quote]
Someone said eternal war? Where?

I thought it was just horribly crushing reps that you all put on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='11 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1265938209' post='2176029']
Someone said eternal war? Where?

I thought it was just horribly crushing reps that you all put on the table.
[/quote]
[citation needed]

No terms have been decided on, and especially no reps figures. Where did you get that?

Edited by Sandwich Controversy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1265938299' post='2176032']
[citation needed]

No terms have been decided on, and especially no reps figures. Where did you get that?
[/quote]
Oh, you know, grapevine.

Wait, so you're saying that you have no terms in mind, and yet say that this war is simply a matter of TOP/IRON accepting something that doesn't exist?

Catch-22, it seems to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='12 February 2010 - 05:37 AM' timestamp='1265938674' post='2176043']
Oh, you know, grapevine.

Wait, so you're saying that you have no terms in mind, and yet say that this war is simply a matter of TOP/IRON accepting something that doesn't exist?

Catch-22, it seems to be.
[/quote]

What's the point of drawing up terms when the war doesn't have any sign of ending?

I'm sure if TOP asked for terms then CnG would get together and debate what would be fitting at that time. But there's no point in having terms ready from week 1 when you know circumstances will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 February 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1265939080' post='2176052']
Uh we're not going to come up with terms when we haven't actually won the war yet and are busy doing so. They can request them and then we negotiate. Your grapevine source is pulling stuff out of its $@! to feel important, sorry to inform you. Was it that Nebula-X guy? No no, don't tell me.
[/quote]
[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1265938000' post='2176023']
And honestly, what the hell are you people talking about? Nobody has any intention of keeping [i]anybody[/i] in eternal war. This war can end whenever TOP/IRON asks for our terms and surrenders.
[/quote]
Then the war really wouldn't end when TOP/IRON ask for terms, would it?

Generally folks ask for what kind of deal they're getting when they want terms, so as to be able to see if it's really worthwhile. But if you're saying you're not going to even consider terms until TOP/IRON ask for them, then coming out and saying that the war ends once TOP/IRON asks for terms is highly disingenuous.

Wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 February 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1265939620' post='2176065']
No, it wouldn't, at least not at that immediate point in time. That's when the peace process would begin. I stand by what I said, I see nothing wrong with it.
[/quote]
And of course, if TOP/IRON rejected what they consider to be absurd terms, then the onus would be on them for continuing the conflict, and bringing an end to peace.

I guess my problem is that I define "peace" as being when both alliances accept terms and the end of fighting is confirmed, rather than when one side makes an innocuous query into whether or not there are actual terms on the table.

But I guess that just makes me jaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...