A call to those betrayed by Polaris

[Voytek]

There are a huge difference between people changing their positions over time, and people who change their positions only because and when their old ones aren't beneficial for them anymore, those ones are called [s]NpO's members[/s], ops, I mean hypocrites.

[D34th]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1296831299' post='2619262']
There are a huge difference between people changing their positions over time, and people who change their positions only because and when their old ones aren't beneficial for them anymore, those ones are called [s]NpO's members[/s], ops, I mean hypocrites.
[/quote]

The irony of your post is so delicious.

[Voytek]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296833953' post='2619287']
The irony of your post is so delicious.
[/quote]
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97705&st=320&p=2601342&#entry2601342]I couldn't agree more![/url]

[Corinan]

This thread is dumb and shouldn't have been created.

[Solaris]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1296695398' post='2616775']
[b]One thing Polaris never does is lie to you.[/b] You are perhaps just too simple to understand what you are being told. Hug those pixels comrade, they keep you warm at night in that cold friendless world out there.
[/quote]
This is very amusing coming from you.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Solaris

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I think Grub meant internally: that Polaris leadership (therefore: Polaris) never lies to its members, since he was replying to one of Polaris former members.

Because just about everyone knows damn well that the word of a Polaris emperor is worth !@#$.

[hizzy]

why does it seem like the people who are the most butthurt over the BiPolar war are the ones who actually benefited from it? It's like they don't appreciate who's boots they'd be licking if Polaris hadn't switched sides.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1296831299' post='2619262']
There are a huge difference between people changing their positions over time, and people who change their positions only because and when their old ones aren't beneficial for them anymore, those ones are called [s]NpO's members[/s], ops, I mean hypocrites.
[/quote]

yes, MK should know plenty about hypocrisy.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296844434' post='2619407']
why does it seem like the people who are the most butthurt over the BiPolar war are the ones who actually benefited from it? It's like they don't appreciate who's boots they'd be licking if Polaris hadn't switched sides.
[/quote]

oh i know. the betrayal by MK on Polaris is much worse than any sort of screwing over of TOP/co by Polaris since MK was actually allied to Polaris and used Polaris to defend MK.

and others think that MK gives a damn about anyone besides MK? please. MK is mastering the art of using their allies for MK's own gain.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296846406' post='2619427']yes, MK should know plenty about hypocrisy.[/quote]
I warmly invite you to share in the punchline to the joke:

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1296835573' post='2619302'][url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97705&st=320&p=2601342&#entry2601342]I couldn't agree more![/url][/quote]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1296846492' post='2619428']
I warmly invite you to share in the punchline to the joke:
[/quote]

i warmly invite you to look over everything MK said during Karma and everything MK has done since Karma.

just because you think you are mocking D34th does not mean D34th is not correct. it just makes you look stupid and as if you are trying to deflect from the fact that MK are hypocrites.

[trance addict]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296846406' post='2619427']
yes, MK should know plenty about hypocrisy.



oh i know. the betrayal by MK on Polaris is much worse than any sort of screwing over of TOP/co by Polaris since MK was actually allied to Polaris and used Polaris to defend MK.

and others think that MK gives a damn about anyone besides MK? please. MK is mastering the art of using their allies for MK's own gain.
[/quote]


awwww I think someone needs a hug.

[o-dog]

I think the only good thing to have been said in this thread was the wish to see VE burn.

Edited February 5, 2011 by O-Dog

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296844434' post='2619407']
why does it seem like the people who are the most butthurt over the BiPolar war are the ones who actually benefited from it? It's like they don't appreciate who's boots they'd be licking if Polaris hadn't switched sides.
[/quote]
As for my own part, despite my current Alliance Affiliation, I was in Paradoxia when the Betrayal occured.

Also, I am sure you understand that base members can have their own opinions of foreign alliances and that those opinions may differ from their leadership's, right?

[hizzy]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1296870161' post='2619704']
As for my own part, despite my current Alliance Affiliation, I was in Paradoxia when the Betrayal occured.

Also, I am sure you understand that base members can have their own opinions of foreign alliances and that those opinions may differ from their leadership's, right?
[/quote]

oh absolutely, I'm not saying that EVERYONE in MK hates Polaris, but you sure as hell don't see any banners flying in their support. And it's still funny to see so many (even without members such as yourself) who hold such contempt for the single alliance that is responsible for them not being under surrender terms to TOP atm.

Lots of ungrateful cunts, is what I'm getting at.

[o-dog]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296870636' post='2619709']
Lots of ungrateful cunts, is what I'm getting at.
[/quote]

Couldn't put it better myself. Perhaps just miss out the 'ungrateful'?

[Crymson]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1296843981' post='2619402']
I think Grub meant internally: that Polaris leadership (therefore: Polaris) never lies to its members, since he was replying to one of Polaris former members.
[/quote]

Even if that's what he meant, his words still had no basis in reality.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296846634' post='2619432']
just because you think you are mocking D34th does not mean D34th is not correct. it just makes you look stupid and as if you are trying to deflect from the fact that MK are hypocrites.
[/quote]

You are displaying a curious inability to determine between the objective and the subjective, Dochartaigh.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296872370' post='2619737']
You are displaying a curious inability to determine between the objective and the subjective, Dochartaigh.
[/quote]

not really. fact is TOP/co and Polaris held no treaties. fact is Polaris/MK held a treaty. fact is TOP/co hit MK/CnG. fact is MK asked Polaris to uphold the treaty. fact is Polaris upheld the treaty. yes, it was pretty !@#$%* that Grub went back on his word to TOP/co, but to not go back on his word would meant not honoring a treaty. Grub screwed himself and Polaris cuz either way he went, he broke his word to someone. unfortunately for TOP/co, he chose to break a handshake with alliances that were traditionally unfriendly with Polaris versus a written document with supposed friends.

unfortunately for Polaris; those same friends, the ones who Polaris threw away their entire political capital and much of their NS, decided to turn around and !@#$ on them hardcore. Not only did MK throw Polaris away, MK signed a treaty with TOP and then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything to ensure MK was not destroyed.

i think Polaris would have gone through with allowing MK to be destroyed had they known that MK would turn around and do this to Polaris.

so, you can try to state i am not being objective, but i am far more objective than you, or TOP, or MK or many others. i can recognize the crap that Polaris has done but i can also see the crap that is done to them.

i still find it amusing that TOP was stupid enough to think they could hit a Polar ally without consequence. Honestly, ya'll should have smelled a trap when Grub agreed to allow ya'll to hit MK/CnG. ya'll should have hit all of CnG except MK forcing MK to declare on ya'll and thus nullifying the Polaris treaty. and the fact that none of ya'll get that is ridiculous. ya'll screwed up huge by hitting MK.

[President Obama]

edit: Meh, not worth it.

Things do seem to have worked out in the end though.

Edited February 5, 2011 by President Obama

[Crymson]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835']
(snip)
[/quote]

I was referring to the fact that you were using "You're wrong! He's right!" as an argument.

[Grealind]

Death to Polaris? I like

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835']
i still find it amusing that TOP was stupid enough to think they could hit a Polar ally without consequence. Honestly, ya'll should have smelled a trap when Grub agreed to allow ya'll to hit MK/CnG. ya'll should have hit all of CnG except MK forcing MK to declare on ya'll and thus nullifying the Polaris treaty. and the fact that none of ya'll get that is ridiculous. ya'll screwed up huge by hitting MK.
[/quote]

It was more of a strategic move in what we viewed as a coalition war. We saw that we would end up facing CnG and decided to get the first strike. In our defense, I can't remember a time before that war when part of a coalition backstabbed the rest of the coalition and joined the other side. Up until that point when you joined a coalition it took precedence over everything, including treaties you may have with the other side. Alliances either chose a side and stuck with it or stayed neutral if they had conflicting treaties. Of course now we see alliances declaring on both sides more often.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296881843' post='2619893']
I was referring to the fact that you were using "You're wrong! He's right!" as an argument.
[/quote]

maybe you should have read what Voytek posted since he posted a "You're wrong! I'm gonna mock you as a deflection from any actual argument to refute that statement" style.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1296885584' post='2620067']
It was more of a strategic move in what we viewed as a coalition war. We saw that we would end up facing CnG and decided to get the first strike. In our defense, I can't remember a time before that war when part of a coalition backstabbed the rest of the coalition and joined the other side. Up until that point when you joined a coalition it took precedence over everything, including treaties you may have with the other side. Alliances either chose a side and stuck with it or stayed neutral if they had conflicting treaties. Of course now we see alliances declaring on both sides more often.
[/quote]

oh i get that the pre-emptive strike was a strategic manuever, but you don't refute my post all that much other than stating that what Polaris did had never been done before. other than that, the relationship between TOP/co and Polaris was still not really strong in the least, Polaris had an open peace offer on the table with \m/, and a treaty with MK.

with all that, i would have used far more precaution such as doing what i suggest and hitting all of CnG minus MK in order to ensure that Polaris could not switch. (again, i know it was not done before, but seriously, Polaris hated TOP for a long ass time... ya'll should have been worried about Grub being so casual with allowing an ally of Polaris to be attacked. considering the fact that before that and since, Polaris tends to not like their allies to be threatened, let alone attacked. look at Xiph and his !@#$%*ing about how he had to defend Polaris from being attacked for defending their allies and not allowing them to be attacked)

Edited February 5, 2011 by Dochartaigh

[Feanor Noldorin]

Are we really going over this again?

We all stand by what we believe and will act accordingly.

[foxfire99]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835']
not really. fact is TOP/co and Polaris held no treaties. fact is Polaris/MK held a treaty. fact is TOP/co hit MK/CnG. fact is MK asked Polaris to uphold the treaty. fact is Polaris upheld the treaty. yes, it was pretty !@#$%* that Grub went back on his word to TOP/co, but to not go back on his word would meant not honoring a treaty. Grub screwed himself and Polaris cuz either way he went, he broke his word to someone. unfortunately for TOP/co, he chose to break a handshake with alliances that were traditionally unfriendly with Polaris versus a written document with supposed friends.

unfortunately for Polaris; those same friends, the ones who Polaris threw away their entire political capital and much of their NS, decided to turn around and !@#$ on them hardcore. Not only did MK throw Polaris away, MK signed a treaty with TOP and then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything to ensure MK was not destroyed.

i think Polaris would have gone through with allowing MK to be destroyed had they known that MK would turn around and do this to Polaris.

so, you can try to state i am not being objective, but i am far more objective than you, or TOP, or MK or many others. i can recognize the crap that Polaris has done but i can also see the crap that is done to them.

i still find it amusing that TOP was stupid enough to think they could hit a Polar ally without consequence. Honestly, ya'll should have smelled a trap when Grub agreed to allow ya'll to hit MK/CnG. ya'll should have hit all of CnG except MK forcing MK to declare on ya'll and thus nullifying the Polaris treaty. and the fact that none of ya'll get that is ridiculous. ya'll screwed up huge by hitting MK.
[/quote]

You make the assumption that C&G would have lost the war if Polar hadn't sold out TOP, which I'm not sure is completely true, but that situation is rather closed to experimentation, so I won't argue that. And saying "You should never have trusted them in the first place" is unlikely to make TOP feel any better about the situation.

And for the love of Admin, please look up and learn some basic spelling and grammar rules.