Ivan Moldavi Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1266962961' post='2199757'] Ah the old alternative number system approach, eh? It is not that of using logic, but rather you on a completely different page. [/quote] I guess you could claim that whole numbers in their purest essence are simply representations of the entire collection of subsets of numbers below them, in which case 2 would be the culmination of every number below and up to two, but since the number of degrees between whole numbers is theoretically infinite then the whole representations are not actually constructed of the given amount. Therefore 2 plus 2 would equal a representation close to 4 but still technically an infinitesimal degree below it. At least that is how I would do it. But I study history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePePe Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 On the contrary, 2 + 2 = 5. Or at least that is what my literate population believes after reading [i]1984[/i]. They keep chanting, "Down with Big Brother." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Why are we talking about math? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1266956198' post='2199437'] I'd still argue that the majority of the total NS surrounding CnG/SF was not engaged. IIRC (and my timeline may be off) at the time of the switcheroo I still counted polaris our side, STA/NV/Genesis/Umb other side but not anywhere close to highly engaged. [/quote] Polaris, STA, NV, and Genesis were all on your side. Umbrella was on the other side. [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1266956700' post='2199459'] So because you like Polaris, their actions are forgiven over ONE incident involving SPW? What about their other victims who want revenge for other actions which they themselves never got to 'give'? It is an endless cycle and somewhere sometime someone needs to look at themselves and say "lets end this nonsense."[/quote] where did i ever say that? i stated that Polaris fought the SPW due to their past. it was the other side who mostly forgave. though that is not entirely true since while in Citadel, i remember many arguments with TOP and others (though mostly TOP) about Polaris and why many in Cit were still wary of Polaris. so to state i ever said they were forgiven is false. nor did i ever state anything about other victims and what not. all i stated was that you seem to want this to end because you are good friends with TOP and nothing more. i never saw this post when Gremlins was fighting Polaris because of Polaris's past and because ES stated he wanted to dance on TOP's/Citadel's graves. i never saw this post in the Karma war either. i am just amused that when it is TOP, all of sudden you are all about "lets end this nonsense." [quote]Your opinion is irrelevant concerning them as a faction, as is mine, but it's the point that is valid. Dwell on the past and you'll never move forward.[/quote] CN has always dwelt on the past. those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. this has been proven time and time again on CN. [quote]I never once mentioned extortionist reps as being an example, that is an obvious dispute which many have understood since long ago. But what are extortionist reps? What are "harsh terms?" One side will always claim merciful while the other claims being a victim,but I never once stated anything pertaining to reps. Furthermore, we'll see whether TOP receives fair terms or not, only time will tell. What do you feel are appropriate terms? What about if they hit 2m ns, what should terms be? I gave my opinion, its your turn. [/quote] you stated that unreasonable reps were akin to forcefully disbanding an alliance. so do not claim you never said anything about reps. extortionist reps have to be the same as unreasonable given your extreme example of unreasonable reps being akin to forceful disbandment. so yes, given what you said and the simile you attempted to draw from it, you mentioned extortionist reps. [quote]Then follow your own advice; compare TOP now to the former TOP. You may say you do not agree with their reasonings, but what about the white peace they gave in, I believe, their last war? Or not joining the blue ball wars with a stupid cb of moronic spying so they could get Gremlins to join on a technicality? I am very understanding but your so biased you're painting a fairly inaccurate picture of biased opinions rather than logical facts. If you're going to paint a picture, be reasonable to paint it all, not just certain sections you like and expecting every other artist to appreciate it as well. [/quote] i have compared TOP now to the former TOP. they joined the Blue Balls war iirc, just after 6 days of waiting. not to mention LM was involved in the planning of TPF's side of the BBW. before that we saw TOP use "threat to their security" in their aggressive war on Polaris as well as saw their side (including IRON) launch a preemptive strike against many of Polaris's allies. we saw harsh terms at the end of that war as well which can lead one to believe that if TOP had won this war, we may likely see harsh terms from them yet again considering the same "threat to their security" was the reason given. as for the last war, TPF is the one who gave white peace, everyone else just kinda stopped fighting (honestly, could not even tell if anyone besides TPF was involved in peace talks) the war did not escalate beyond that due to the white peace between Athens/Co and TPF. to state that TOP gave white peace in the last war is misleading. i am bringing up logical facts as much as you are. you are stating your opinion that everyone should forget what TOP did and just end whatever cycle you think is ongoing. tell me where i am the one that is not bringing up logical facts, considering mine are based on CN history and evidence, and yours are based pretty much on what you think should happen. as for painting the whole picture, i could go well into TOP's past including things like them hitting GPA (something that even Polaris did not partake in). so yes, TOP fought the Karma war on the side of MK and Karma and fought well and hard (though some do not seem to think so) but Polaris also fought somewhat on that side as well. so in your opinion, TOP/IRON and everyone on both sides should forget and forgive the mistakes of Grub in this war? i doubt from the posts by TOP that that would ever occur, especially given Saber's post a few pages back stating that he hopes no one would ever forget/forgive Polaris. which brings yet another reason why your point is illogical. TOP won't forget/forgive the slights made against them, why should anyone even consider doing it for TOP? [quote]When and where? My mind may be a little muddy right now. As I said, I am always open for logical debate.[/quote] seriously, WoTC. that is when/where. TOP and friends hit Polaris because ES stated he wanted to dance on their graves. don't even attempt to state otherwise because i remember debating that exact thing while in Gremlins on the TOP forums. that was one of the primary reasons behind the war for TOP and they based it off of Polaris's pension for aggressive wars. i am always up for a logical debate as well so long as you stop stating that because i do not agree with you i am somehow not bringin logic to this debate. [quote]Moves on? You're assuming he will move on. If a bully bullied someone years ago and gets himself in a sticky situation years later, deciding to throw the first punch, it doesn't necessarily mean he is still a bully, it means he wished to protect himself and for you to paint him as a bully may be your own fallacy. Was that person going to punch him? Maybe, maybe no, I am not defending them, but I'm certainly saying they aren't the brightest for their actions; which we both can agree to, but it doesn't necessarily make them a bully.[/quote] once again, you are assuming that he ceased bullying period. i simply pointed out that a bully may cease bullying you but could very well have just switched targets. i never called them a bully, i simply used your analogy in a different way than it seems you intended it to be used for. [quote]I have laid out TOP's true past, their mistakes, their resurfacing, and everything in between countless times. I am not painting them as saints, but rather giving a non-biased description of them. TOP has made mistakes, especially diplomatically, hell, they were completely moronic for this war; but not for one second do I consider them 'bullies', especially to what bullies in this world refer to as. You have shown their ugly side, I have shown both, but more importantly, you have shown TOP from 2-3 years ago, not TOP from the past year and who they are now.[/quote] wait, the SPW was in like July/Aug of 2008. that is shorter than 2 years. and TOP has not done much in between but they have been as antagonist towards CnG as CnG has been towards TOP. and again, i never stated them as bullies. i have actually stated before that i see their logic for this war and personally have nothing against it as it is their right to conduct war as they wish. i am pointing out the flaws of this war and launching the preemptive strike and also pointing out what i have gathered and deduced, why CnG does not feel like giving white peace is exactly the smartest thing to do. [quote]We will have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. [/quote] sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Tulafaras' date='22 February 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1266759030' post='2194956'] The facts of the situation are crystal clear, TOP joined a war without a CB except for "we consider them a threat" [/quote] Posts like these render this debate useless. Either down to sheer ignorance or blatant bias. Most I will put down to the latter, but some I just dont really know to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1266974620' post='2200216'] i have compared TOP now to the former TOP. they joined the Blue Balls war iirc, just after 6 days of waiting. not to mention LM was involved in the planning of TPF's side of the BBW. before that we saw TOP use "threat to their security" in their aggressive war on Polaris as well as saw their side (including IRON) launch a preemptive strike against many of Polaris's allies. we saw harsh terms at the end of that war as well which can lead one to believe that if TOP had won this war, we may likely see harsh terms from them yet again considering the same "threat to their security" was the reason given. as for the last war, TPF is the one who gave white peace, everyone else just kinda stopped fighting (honestly, could not even tell if anyone besides TPF was involved in peace talks) the war did not escalate beyond that due to the white peace between Athens/Co and TPF. to state that TOP gave white peace in the last war is misleading. [/quote] While the ultimate decision did come from TPF for white peace, other parties were involved in the peace negotiations and many in the coalition, specifically TOP and LiquidMercury were proponents of white peace. To do a brief log dump from our coalition leadership channel (I hope that those speaking in this don't mind me doing this" [quote][02:58am] mhawk: ok guys so the tenative plan is everyone meets tomorrow to see about peace, if nothing is reached 1 hour before update all continues [02:58am] Janax[Argent]: when are people meeting tomorrow [02:58am] LordFingolfin|Legion: ?^ [02:59am] Janax[Argent]: this isn't going to be one of those 10:47:01 to 11:00:00 things? [02:59am] mhawk: i will be away most the day but thanks so much [02:59am] LordFingolfin|Legion: and is it only the alliances currently engaging? [02:59am] mhawk: Janax[Argent] [02:59am] mhawk: hoo did not establish a firm time [02:59am] LordFingolfin|Legion: or alliances who are plannning to enter tomorrow as well [02:59am] Janax[Argent]: ok [02:59am] grahamkeatley: Our next move in terms of the war is to wait on the counters anyway. [03:00am] grahamkeatley: So second wave will be evening of the 3rd. [03:00am] legend608|NADC: YEH [03:00am] legend608|NADC: So tomorrow we see who hits back [03:00am] legend608|NADC: ? [03:00am] grahamkeatley: Aye. [03:00am] legend608|NADC: the day after tomorrow, the 2nd wave moves in? [03:00am] legend608|NADC: AH i see [03:00am] TheAUT: Good plan [03:00am] grahamkeatley: In support of your allies that got hit, yes. [03:01am] Airikr|TPF: Night folks, take care [03:01am] Airikr|TPF left the chat room. (Quit: There are no pacts between lions and men.) [03:06am] LM|Away: I'll be assigning counters as they come in [03:06am] LM|Away: should we need it [03:06am] legend608|NADC: i see. [b][size="4"][03:06am] LM|Away: I will stress that white peace is still the desired course but if not, we're ready[/size][/b] [03:06am] legend608|NADC: i won't be surprised MCXA or zenith will get hit [03:06am] LM|Away: everyone will be hit [03:06am] legend608|NADC: I think peace+reps from them is the best [b][size="4"][03:07am] LM|Away: no [03:07am] LM|Away: white peace will do[/size][/b] [03:08am] mhawk: thank you all for your help [03:08am] mhawk: i must go [03:08am] mhawk: but thanks again [03:08am] Borimir[Away]: Bye mhawk [03:08am] mhawk: white peace is indeed what we desire[/quote] I think this can set to rest any claims that TOP/LM are only now screaming white peace because they are on the weaker side. Clearly this stance has been in place for some time regardless of whether they were in a position to enforce terms or recieve them. Edited February 24, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 The thing is, that war wasn't going to be a real win for LM/whoever either especially given that the entire grand peace mode strategy had been botched due to the delays in declarations and the general lack of competence that the CoC was displaying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lusk Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 The declarations by TOP and IRON are enough alone to argue against their wanting white peace from the start. That seems like a silly argument to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Dylan Lusk' date='24 February 2010 - 04:44 AM' timestamp='1266986903' post='2200554'] The declarations by TOP and IRON are enough alone to argue against their wanting white peace from the start. That seems like a silly argument to me. [/quote] What? We declare war just so we can extort reps? Where the hell is the sense in that? We declare war to cause you enough damage to satisfy our original intent, then we white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='kencojenko' date='23 February 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1266987396' post='2200570'] What? We declare war just so we can extort reps? Where the hell is the sense in that? We declare war to cause you enough damage to satisfy our original intent, then we white peace. [/quote] Oh, so you're right in wanting to damage us for no reason, but we're wrong for expecting you to pay for that damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266986814' post='2200553'] The thing is, that war wasn't going to be a real win for LM/whoever either especially given that the entire grand peace mode strategy had been botched due to the delays in declarations and the general lack of competence that the CoC was displaying. [/quote] If CoC refers to the Coincidence Coalition and not the Coalition of Cowards I am going to have to respectfully disagree. As it stood, CC would likely have utterly dominated the 80k+ upper tier and been able to rain down hell from there as the majority of nations sub 80k on our side rested in peace mode. Undoubtedly it would have been a tough fight, but I'm of the opinion that it would have been a winning strategy. I'm not quite sure of what lack of competence you are refering to, the strategy was purposefully delayed in the interest of diplomatic maneuvering and getting all of our nations into white peace. The method worked nigh perfectly with the "blue balls" of the other side ready to burst, tension at a high, several diplomatic victories with key treaty cancellations and signings (such as the NSO-IRON treaty and the dissolution of Frostbite). We only had one night of actual war, the ghost declarations by several alliances so that on the following several night the entirety of the coalition could enter. Apparently the other side was nervous enough about losing that they were quick to jump on the idea of white peace and back out of a war in which they stood likely to lose or at least get drawn out into a protracted slugfest. If TOP was looking for an excuse to "kill C&G" they had their opportunity right there, many others in the coalition were calling for blood and saying to seize the opportunity to strike now yet TOP steadfastly pushed for white peace for the aggressors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='24 February 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1266987501' post='2200572'] Oh, so you're right in wanting to damage us for no reason, but we're wrong for expecting you to pay for that damage? [/quote] where did i say we had no reason? We would come in to help neutralise a future threat in the polar - \m/ war. There's your damn reasoning. But i already know that you wont accept that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1266986178' post='2200544'] While the ultimate decision did come from TPF for white peace, other parties were involved in the peace negotiations and many in the coalition, specifically TOP and LiquidMercury were proponents of white peace. To do a brief log dump from our coalition leadership channel (I hope that those speaking in this don't mind me doing this" I think this can set to rest any claims that TOP/LM are only now screaming white peace because they are on the weaker side. Clearly this stance has been in place for some time regardless of whether they were in a position to enforce terms or recieve them. [/quote] not entirely sure if they would have been in a dominant position. many alliances could have made a difference depending on where they fell. Not to mention that war would have simply split up Citadel earlier than it did since i doubt Umbrella would have sided with TOP (possibly could have gone neutral but not sure on that one). So, unfortunately, due to that white peace we will never know how that war would have gone. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1266987544' post='2200577'] If CoC refers to the Coincidence Coalition and not the Coalition of Cowards I am going to have to respectfully disagree. As it stood, CC would likely have utterly dominated the 80k+ upper tier and been able to rain down hell from there as the majority of nations sub 80k on our side rested in peace mode. Undoubtedly it would have been a tough fight, but I'm of the opinion that it would have been a winning strategy. I'm not quite sure of what lack of competence you are refering to, the strategy was purposefully delayed in the interest of diplomatic maneuvering and getting all of our nations into white peace. The method worked nigh perfectly with the "blue balls" of the other side ready to burst, tension at a high, several diplomatic victories with key treaty cancellations and signings (such as the NSO-IRON treaty and the dissolution of Frostbite). We only had one night of actual war, the ghost declarations by several alliances so that on the following several night the entirety of the coalition could enter. Apparently the other side was nervous enough about losing that they were quick to jump on the idea of white peace and back out of a war in which they stood likely to lose or at least get drawn out into a protracted slugfest. If TOP was looking for an excuse to "kill C&G" they had their opportunity right there, many others in the coalition were calling for blood and saying to seize the opportunity to strike now yet TOP steadfastly pushed for white peace for the aggressors. [/quote] according to LM, the delay was due to LM being gone in RL and nothing to do with any kind of grand strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lusk Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='kencojenko' date='23 February 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1266987620' post='2200580'] where did i say we had no reason? We would come in to help neutralise a future threat in the polar - \m/ war. There's your damn reasoning. But i already know that you wont accept that. [/quote] Right, but you see, your statement is entirely hypocritical. What your saying is it is ok for you to come in and damage us and then expect to get white peace out of it when you loose. It's perfectly fine if you wanted to give us white peace after you had beaten us. But you didn't. And now you shouldn't expect it, when your intent was to beat us down in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1266987544' post='2200577'] If CoC refers to the Coincidence Coalition and not the Coalition of Cowards I am going to have to respectfully disagree. As it stood, CC would likely have utterly dominated the 80k+ upper tier and been able to rain down hell from there as the majority of nations sub 80k on our side rested in peace mode. Undoubtedly it would have been a tough fight, but I'm of the opinion that it would have been a winning strategy. I'm not quite sure of what lack of competence you are refering to, the strategy was purposefully delayed in the interest of diplomatic maneuvering and getting all of our nations into white peace. The method worked nigh perfectly with the "blue balls" of the other side ready to burst, tension at a high, several diplomatic victories with key treaty cancellations and signings (such as the NSO-IRON treaty and the dissolution of Frostbite). We only had one night of actual war, the ghost declarations by several alliances so that on the following several night the entirety of the coalition could enter. Apparently the other side was nervous enough about losing that they were quick to jump on the idea of white peace and back out of a war in which they stood likely to lose or at least get drawn out into a protracted slugfest. If TOP was looking for an excuse to "kill C&G" they had their opportunity right there, many others in the coalition were calling for blood and saying to seize the opportunity to strike now yet TOP steadfastly pushed for white peace for the aggressors. [/quote] [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1266988931' post='2200614'] according to LM, the delay was due to LM being gone in RL and nothing to do with any kind of grand strategy. [/quote] LF, I love ya bud, but Doch has it right. Let's face it, it definitely wasn't part of any grand strategy (though it did end up playing to our benefit) it was more a mix of OOC and IC issues mixing that let the dice fall where they did and in our case a beneficial matter. Had it played out, yes I believe we would of won, it would of been an extremely long and protracted war but a win (this can be objectively debated and has been ad nauseum, these are my personal views based on internal knowledge of what was going on and not relevant to this thread so lets not bring it up..again though to give credit to LF's other bit we did have an NS advantage). But it wasn't a part of a grand plan, more of a roll with the punches and deal with the scenario how it happened. I must admit I like your version better, sounds way cooler, and we come off way smarter. You do bring up a valid point though of us being able to take a swipe at CnG right there. Edited February 24, 2010 by LiquidMercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 TOP has long been an alliance of bloodthirsty and incorrigible warmongers, hellbent on aggressively attacking alliances who posed no real threat. They are known for recklessly throwing their nations to the wind to attack without even the slightest provocation. It is their brand and trademark. Why, if you grant them peace now, they'll just continue back down this path as they have for time immemorial. Kidding aside... As far as peace terms go, we have to be presented terms before we can turn them down or (admin forbid) accept. I will say this about reps: We (TOP) have accepted them before. They aren't all they're cracked up to be. <in before "sure, you say that NOW!"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='23 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1266987501' post='2200572'] Oh, so you're right in wanting to damage us for no reason, but we're wrong for expecting you to pay for that damage? [/quote] And that right there sums up the argument being made; it's ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1266989500' post='2200629'] LF, I love ya bud, but Doch has it right. Let's face it, it definitely wasn't part of any grand strategy (though it did end up playing to our benefit) it was more a mix of OOC and IC issues mixing that let the dice fall where they did and in our case a beneficial matter. Had it played out, yes I believe we would of won, it would of been an extremely long and protracted war but a win (this can be objectively debated and has been ad nauseum, these are my personal views based on internal knowledge of what was going on and not relevant to this thread so lets not bring it up..again though to give credit to LF's other bit we did have an NS advantage). But it wasn't a part of a grand plan, more of a roll with the punches and deal with the scenario how it happened. I must admit I like your version better, sounds way cooler, and we come off way smarter. You do bring up a valid point though of us being able to take a swipe at CnG right there. [/quote] Damn you and your honesty . My version sounded cooler. Oh well. That war still makes me sad, such a waste of my winter holidays XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266990423' post='2200672'] Damn you and your honesty . My version sounded cooler. Oh well. That war still makes me sad, such a waste of my winter holidays XD [/quote] Hey I called it off for NYE. Either way yes a sad war. [quote name='Krack' date='23 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266990419' post='2200671'] And that right there sums up the argument being made; it's ludicrous. [/quote] What's your fantasy? Edited February 24, 2010 by LiquidMercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1266950411' post='2199265'] man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? [/quote] The guys you're arguing with were mostly all in Grämlins then. Remember this was before Grämlins split in two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Krack' date='24 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1266990419' post='2200671'] And that right there sums up the argument being made; it's ludicrous. [/quote] Flak's argument is specious at best. TOP didn't just decide on a fair spring day that out of the blue they were going to DoW on C&G while the rest of the world was at peace. My best analogy is you see a streetfight between some of your friends and your enemies, your friend calls out for you to help crack this guys skull open but instead you opt to take out the guy who is a friend of your enemy and is running towards the conflict with a gun ready to shoot you should you jump into the brawl. You make it sound like C&G was a little old lady crossing the street and TOP was a gang-banger who decided to grab a crowbar and start tuning her up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1266990488' post='2200674'] What's your fantasy? [/quote] It involves Anne Hathaway and whipped cream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266990811' post='2200687'] Flak's argument is specious at best. TOP didn't just decide on a fair spring day that out of the blue they were going to DoW on C&G while the rest of the world was at peace. My best analogy is you see a streetfight between some of your friends and your enemies, your friend calls out for you to help crack this guys skull open but instead you opt to take out the guy who is a friend of your enemy and is running towards the conflict with a gun ready to shoot you should you jump into the brawl. You make it sound like C&G was a little old lady crossing the street and TOP was a gang-banger who decided to grab a crowbar and start tuning her up [/quote] Nobody forced TOP to enter the war. Nobody forced TOP to declare on uninvolved alliances. Nobody forced TOP to try and conspire with MHA to isolate FARK from Harmlins. They chose to. Their argument has become: We want to cause the damage we want to cause and then when we are finished, we want to declare white peace. Unfortunately, the other side doesn't want the same things; it is ludicrous to think the C&G+SFs side would find this acceptable. Yet is argument being made ad nauseam. At least say, "We're gonna wreck your lower-mid-tier for a month until we run out of money if you don't give us peace." - that at least is an argument grounded in reality. Edited February 24, 2010 by Krack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Krack' date='23 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266991374' post='2200707'] At least say, "We're gonna wreck your lower-mid-tier for a month until we run out of money if you don't give us peace." - that at least is an argument grounded in reality. [/quote] That's just a byproduct of CnG/SF/the rest of the world not giving us white peace Nobody is forcing them to not give us white peace or forcing them to let their lower-mid-tier to be destroyed for months. That at least is an argument grounded in reality. EDIT: Fixed pronouns. Edited February 24, 2010 by LiquidMercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='kencojenko' date='24 February 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1266987620' post='2200580'] where did i say we had no reason? We would come in to help neutralise a future threat in the polar - \m/ war. There's your damn reasoning. But i already know that you wont accept that. [/quote] So you would come to help neutralize a future threat for Polar but not for Umbrella who were if I remember correct were direct allies? 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.