Jump to content

BAPS response to UPN


moshea
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1276214982' post='2332380']
Why would you need to argue about semantics when the initial challenge was expressly clear as to the terms of engagement?

"I would like to propose a small-scale engagement between an alliance that apparently has a lot of hatred to work through and a portion of UPN. ... A one-on-one interaction with even numbers that just might help create a different relation than the one that exists."

Maybe you could try to understand those simple words before giving your take on the situation. Peggy's challenge and this challenge are totally different. BAPS rejected UPN's challenge and presented their own, which UPN have also chosen to reject. Two challenges... two rejections. So, it's pretty odd (who am I kidding, it's not odd, this partisan nonsense was entirely predictable) to try and label one side as cowardly when BOTH sides have shied away from the challenge of the opposition thus far.
[/quote]

Baps offered them a better deal they will give the advantage to UPN so why not take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 503
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1276214982' post='2332380']
Why would you need to argue about semantics when the initial challenge was expressly clear as to the terms of engagement?

"I would like to propose a small-scale engagement between an alliance that apparently has a lot of hatred to work through and a portion of UPN. ... A one-on-one interaction with even numbers that just might help create a different relation than the one that exists."

Maybe you could try to understand those simple words before giving your take on the situation. Peggy's challenge and this challenge are totally different. BAPS rejected UPN's challenge and presented their own, which UPN have also chosen to reject. Two challenges... two rejections. So, it's pretty odd (who am I kidding, it's not odd, this partisan nonsense was entirely predictable) to try and label one side as cowardly when BOTH sides have shied away from the challenge of the opposition thus far.
[/quote]

Though how do you explain the fact that I warned Peggy Sue that BAPS doesnt 'play' war that way and the fact that she not only acknowledged that point, but accepted it? She didnt think BAPS would take up her gauntlet but she certainly knew the conditions being outlined...

edit-spelling

Edited by chefjoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Imperial' date='10 June 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1276215411' post='2332389']
Nothing reaffirms the death of Purple Unity more than this proposal of all out nuclear war between our two allies.
[/quote]
Welp guess Legion would have conflicting treaties so UPN wont mind if they sit out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='11 June 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1276215235' post='2332386']
Baps offered them a better deal they will give the advantage to UPN so why not take it.
[/quote]
That's for UPN to answer. My point was simply that people giving the impression that UPN backed out of their initial duel 'call out' are wrong. If anything, BAPS have bottled the original duel, and chosen to offer a new one. One which is obviously more difficult to accept because as has been said repeatedly all it will achieve is mutual destruction.

[quote name='chefjoe' date='11 June 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1276215458' post='2332392']
Though how do you explain the fact that I warned Peggy Sue that BAPS doesnt 'play' war that way and the fact that she not only acknowledged that point, but accepted it?
[/quote]
Your warnings are all fine and dandy but the only people who could actually reject the initial duel were BAPS, so I can see why she made the offer regardless of your important advice and points. Maybe she offered the deal knowing they wouldn't accept, just as she has alleged that they have offered a new deal knowing that it also won't be accepted? All speculation of course, I really can't answer your question, it's for the respective leaders to clear up.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1276215830' post='2332396']
That's for UPN to answer. My point was simply that people giving the impression that UPN backed out of their initial duel 'call out' are wrong. If anything, BAPS have bottled the original duel, and chosen to offer a new one. One which is obviously more difficult to accept because as has been said repeatedly all it will achieve is mutual destruction.
[/quote]
The hilarious part is that UPN, after being MDPed to BAPS for nearly two years, still didn't know them well enough to realize that the original duel offer was doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Imperial' date='10 June 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1276215411' post='2332389']
Nothing reaffirms the death of Purple Unity more than this proposal of all out nuclear war between our two allies.
[/quote]
This, above all. I've been Purple for four years, and if [ooc]Nebraska can dump 110 years of proud membership in the Big 6/7/8/12 in favour of greener pastures[/ooc], then even this stalwart can be swayed to consider another color sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1276215830' post='2332396']
That's for UPN to answer. My point was simply that people giving the impression that UPN backed out of their initial duel 'call out' are wrong. If anything, BAPS have bottled the original duel, and chosen to offer a new one. One which is obviously more difficult to accept because as has been said repeatedly all it will achieve is mutual destruction.


Your warnings are all fine and dandy but the only people who could actually reject the initial duel were BAPS, so I can see why she made the offer regardless of your important advice and points. Maybe she offered the deal knowing they wouldn't accept, just as she has alleged that they have offered a new deal knowing that it also won't be accepted? All speculation of course, I really can't answer your question, it's for the respective leaders to clear up.
[/quote]

So you are saying that when UPN(the bigger party here) offered to fight BAPS but only if BAPS tied one hand behind their back while doing so, and BAPS saying hell no we fight with everything we have if were going to fight, and then UPN saying ummmm no thanks then guys.....is undrstandable and something OK? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='chefjoe' date='11 June 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1276216163' post='2332403']
So you are saying that when UPN(the bigger party here) offered to fight BAPS but only if BAPS tied one hand behind their back while doing so, and BAPS saying hell no we fight with everything we have if were going to fight, and then UPN saying ummmm no thanks then guys.....is undrstandable and something OK? :blink:
[/quote]
I don't see how the original offer was asking BAPS to tie a hand behind their back, it was designed to level the playing field when UPN has a lot more members. You can argue the relative merits of the two alliances in war capability and all that, but in terms of members the original offer was UPN offering to tie one hand behind [i]their[/i] back.

E: I was thinking in terms that if BAPS' individual nations are more prepared for war than UPN's, especially in terms of military wonders, they would have the advantage in an equal numbers situation. Which I think they still would, but they wouldn't be at the disadvantage I thought they would be in a full alliance duel, due to their particular strengths.

Edited by WorldConqueror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='chefjoe' date='11 June 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1276216163' post='2332403']
So you are saying that when UPN(the bigger party here) offered to fight BAPS but only if BAPS tied one hand behind their back while doing so, and BAPS saying hell no we fight with everything we have if were going to fight, and then UPN saying ummmm no thanks then guys.....is undrstandable and something OK? :blink:
[/quote]
You are not making any sense. If BAPS (the smaller party) has one tied behind their back in the terms of the duel, does that mean that UPN would have eight or nine hands tied behind their back, since they are so much larger? Freaky.

If BAPS is half as macho as you are painting them out to be, they would simply declare war outright. They haven't, they've offered a counter duel ... one which would result in mutual destruction, and one which there is no shame in rejecting. Unless, of course, you are a simpleton with an e-peen complex who needs to take up every challenge regardless of the circumstances and consequences just to show how STRONG you are! Rawr!

In that case you might feel some shame and/or embarrassment.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='11 June 2010 - 05:36 AM' timestamp='1276216575' post='2332411']
If BAPS is half as macho as you are painting them out to be, they would simply declare war outright.
[/quote]

Its a duel on offer, not a war. Regarding being macho, UPN will surely keep that in check henceforth.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1276216575' post='2332411']
You are not making any sense. If BAPS (the smaller party) has one tied behind their back in the terms of the duel, does that mean that UPN would have eight or nine hands tied behind their back, since they are so much larger? Freaky.

If BAPS is half as macho as you are painting them out to be, they would simply declare war outright. They haven't, they've offered a counter duel ... one which would result in mutual destruction, and one which there is no shame in rejecting. Unless, of course, you are a simpleton with an e-peen complex who needs to take up every challenge regardless of the circumstances and consequences just to show how STRONG you are! Rawr!

In that case you might feel some shame and/or embarrassment.
[/quote]

Embarrassment for wanting to see an alliance of infra hugging elawyers glow e bit?

not a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1276216575' post='2332411']
You are not making any sense. If BAPS (the smaller party) has one tied behind their back in the terms of the duel, does that mean that UPN would have eight or nine hands tied behind their back, since they are so much larger? Freaky.

If BAPS is half as macho as you are painting them out to be, they would simply declare war outright. They haven't, they've offered a counter duel ... one which would result in mutual destruction, and one which there is no shame in rejecting. Unless, of course, you are a simpleton with an e-peen complex who needs to take up every challenge regardless of the circumstances and consequences just to show how STRONG you are! Rawr!

In that case you might feel some shame and/or embarrassment.
[/quote]
BAPS is not stupid outright declaration of war with out the pre agreed terms would tear purple apart so stop. They wont outright attack but they will however be more than happy it seems to oblige UPN as UPN is the one who issued the challenge. Its obvious BAPS doesnt give two !@#$% about its pixels and UPN on the other hand wants to protect as many as they can. There is no e-peen here simply look at baps history there all in every time so UPN knew those terms would never be acceptable they know whats on the table they threw the guantlet now let them pick it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1276216575' post='2332411']
You are not making any sense. If BAPS (the smaller party) has one tied behind their back in the terms of the duel, does that mean that UPN would have eight or nine hands tied behind their back, since they are so much larger? Freaky.

If BAPS is half as macho as you are painting them out to be, they would simply declare war outright. They haven't, they've offered a counter duel ... one which would result in mutual destruction, and one which there is no shame in rejecting. Unless, of course, you are a simpleton with an e-peen complex who needs to take up every challenge regardless of the circumstances and consequences just to show how STRONG you are! Rawr!

In that case you might feel some shame and/or embarrassment.
[/quote]

Nonsense. BAPS top 20 are 71K to 39K. UPN's are 152K to 71K. UPN can easily cover baps under the initial proposal, going as high NS on each guy as is possible. EASILY.

Allowing BAPS to make use of their smaller size at least does something to reduce UPN's overwhelming advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='10 June 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1276214219' post='2332364']
You obviously dont know bapsters very well
[/quote]

No, not really. But i do know that they are pretty decent fighters. However, the fact of the matter is, UPN has more nations to use.

It is basically the same situation MK was in during the noCB war. We fought NPO(and others but meh). We did massive amounts of damage to them, but we still "lost".

I guess it all depends on what everyone will view as winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='11 June 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1276217017' post='2332421']
They wont outright attack but they will however be more than happy it seems to oblige UPN as UPN is the one who issued the challenge.
[/quote]
Good god man, can't you read? There is not one challenge, but two challenges. UPN's challenge on their terms, and BAPS' challenge on their terms, both of which were rejected by both alliances. I cannot continue to discuss this with you until you grasp this basic fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Atlashill' date='10 June 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1276216538' post='2332410']
For reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=86827
[/quote]
ok so they are allied to UPN i believe they have a treaty with baps as well so my point still stands. They are free to follow in precedence with UPN history and declare neutrality as levels of treaties mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='10 June 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1276202359' post='2332010']
^
that's not you, it's "nobody expects" or something




Valhallan literacy rates are at an all time low I see.
[/quote]

What'd you expect from Chefjoe? He's like the worst leader of all time, in the WAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are having difficulty understanding, so I will put this in terms of aircraft.

At first glance, UPN has 380 fighter planes while BAPS has only 50, so it seems quite the generous offer for UPN to offer a 20 v. 20. Levels the playing field, right?

Well what then, if you consider that only 20 of UPN's planes are F-22 Raptors, while the rest are a collection of Yak-9's and P-51 Mustangs. Furthermore, all 50 of BAPS planes are F-22 Raptors.

Now with this in mind, it is clear that a 20 v. 20 levels the playing field in [i]UPN's[/i] favor, not in BAPS.

With this in mind, it is clear that "a gentleman's agreement to level the playing field" is actually a pre-conceived act of cowardice, in line with a history of realpolitik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kryievla' date='11 June 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1276217046' post='2332422']
Nonsense. BAPS top 20 are 71K to 39K. UPN's are 152K to 71K. UPN can easily cover baps under the initial proposal, going as high NS on each guy as is possible. EASILY.

Allowing BAPS to make use of their smaller size at least does something to reduce UPN's overwhelming advantage.
[/quote]
I didn't realise UPN had stated that they were going to use their top 20 for the fight. Please direct me to these statements so I can enhance my knowledge on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='10 June 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1276217176' post='2332426']
Good god man, can't you read? There is not one challenge, but two challenges. UPN's challenge on their terms, and BAPS' challenge on their terms, both of which were rejected by both alliances. I cannot continue to discuss this with you until you grasp this basic fact.
[/quote]
UPN called them out do i need to go find it in the other thread then they tried to set it for minimal damage to themselves after the guantlet was thrown. So please instruct me on basic facts do try to keep up with things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...