Neuronia Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298862205' post='2646527'] Really? You sure? [/quote] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?View=Charts&Alliance=Commonwealth%20Of%20Sovereign%20Nations"]Really, he's sure.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298862205' post='2646527'] Really? You sure? [/quote] [img]http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z300/LOSSPanther/Picture22.png[/img] Dunno I am not sure now that you questioned me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Finch' timestamp='1298862607' post='2646531'] [img]http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z300/LOSSPanther/Picture22.png[/img] Dunno I am not sure now that you questioned me. [/quote] So.. if we're losing.. why is DT going to be the one surrendering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298863093' post='2646534'] So.. if we're losing.. why is DT going to be the one surrendering? [/quote] A little panicky that more and more of them "warchests" are drying up, aren't we Gibs? Edited February 28, 2011 by MaGneT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298863093' post='2646534'] So.. if we're losing.. why is DT going to be the one surrendering? [/quote] Well the fact that together DT and LoSS outnumber you in both nations, NS and the fact your alliance is dropping faster than they are Id say you pretty much lost this one if they keep fighting. If they choose to surrender which I would not understand why they would at this point, tho I don't see the whole picture and all the backdoor stuff etc... then that is their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298863399' post='2646536'] A little panicky that more and more of them "warchests" are drying up, aren't we Gibs? [/quote] They can borrow some from LoSS, should have anything left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobo t baggins Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298841270' post='2646291'] everything. DT was the one who offered the terms, not CSN. CSN then refused the terms only to go back 30 hours later to accept. By that time, due to the refusal and no word sent to DT that CSN was discussing said terms, the terms were off the table. At this point, DT offered white peace and an apology, CSN refused the apology which was promptly taken off the table, then walked out. Then we get to Goose's blog. so, basically everything that Penk had said was a lie or complete distortion. at no point did DT walk out. in fact, DT has not walked out of a single negotiation, whereas CSN has walked out of several. [/quote] actually we offered terms first (remember the 40k tech so many of you fellows are constantly complaining about?), as is the progression one expects when someone surrenders. the person who is surrendering is given the terms upon which they can do so by the person(s) they are surrendering to, not the other way around. (think "say uncle" like your cousin used to make you do to get him to stop torquing your arm out of socket behind your back) and he did not say DT walked out, but that they walked away from the offer. which they did, figuratively. almost everything anyone says in a figurative way can be called a lie if you are going to be pedantic about literal definitions. but if you are going to do so, at least have the sense to accuse them of saying the words they actually said. allow me to assist you in learning the definition of the term "walk(ed) away"; "abandon problem"; "to survive with minimal injury"; "to leave a [b]situation[/b], place or person". in the figurative sense, "walk away" here would mean they chose interjection. and then chose a second interjection that drove a wedge into the entire process by offering terms and refusing to allow anyone time to consider them in private. this is not the way negotiations should be carried on. lets think before we do next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298863399' post='2646536'] A little panicky that more and more of them "warchests" are drying up, aren't we Gibs? [/quote] Where do you get panicky from? [quote name='Finch' timestamp='1298863638' post='2646541'] Well the fact that together DT and LoSS outnumber you in both nations, NS and the fact your alliance is dropping faster than they are Id say you pretty much lost this one if they keep fighting. If they choose to surrender which I would not understand why they would at this point, tho I don't see the whole picture and all the backdoor stuff etc... then that is their business. [/quote] Lol. I'd take that bet to continue fighting. I can tell you for fact we wouldn't lose, just like we're not losing now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuronia Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298864343' post='2646556'] Where do you get panicky from? Lol. I'd take that bet to continue fighting. I can tell you for fact we wouldn't lose, just like we're not losing now. [/quote] Regardless of how you spin it, CSN is losing NS at a rate unbecoming an alliance that's supposedly "winning". The charts don't lie. MaGneT: Warchest? [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=369917&Extended=1"]What warchest?[/url] Edited February 28, 2011 by Neuronia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1298863883' post='2646546'] actually we offered terms first (remember the 40k tech so many of you fellows are constantly complaining about?), as is the progression one expects when someone surrenders. the person who is surrendering is given the terms upon which they can do so by the person(s) they are surrendering to, not the other way around. (think "say uncle" like your cousin used to make you do to get him to stop torquing your arm out of socket behind your back) and he did not say DT walked out, but that they walked away from the offer. which they did, figuratively. almost everything anyone says in a figurative way can be called a lie if you are going to be pedantic about literal definitions. but if you are going to do so, at least have the sense to accuse them of saying the words they actually said. allow me to assist you in learning the definition of the term "walk(ed) away"; "abandon problem"; "to survive with minimal injury"; "to leave a [b]situation[/b], place or person". in the figurative sense, "walk away" here would mean they chose interjection. and then chose a second interjection that drove a wedge into the entire process by offering terms and refusing to allow anyone time to consider them in private. this is not the way negotiations should be carried on. lets think before we do next time. [/quote] i read what he wrote and the way he wrote it made it sound like DT walked out of negotiations which never happened. We counter-offered which is completely different from "walking away". So even figuratively he is lying since DT counter-offered terms but never walked away from a term. not to mention, you defined the term "walk(ed) away" and then redefine it in the same post. according to your definition walk away means to abandon the problem (which DT never did), survive with minimal injury (this has yet to be determined), or to leave a situation, place, or person (which DT never did). wait, your definition sounds exactly like me stating that DT never walked out of negotiations.... wow. and you are trying to lecture me on what a definition is... then, as i stated before, you redefine it to mean that DT interjected... wait, if we left the situation, how did we interject anything? seriously dude, don't lecture me on something you clearly know nothing about and are just pulling crap out your ass and flinging it around like a monkey. so please, learn some reading comprehension before you attempt to lecture me on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298864395' post='2646558'] Regardless of how you spin it, CSN is losing NS at a rate unbecoming an alliance that's supposedly "winning". The charts don't lie. MaGneT: Warchest? [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=369917&Extended=1"]What warchest?[/url] [/quote] Well, when all LoSS wars (minus three dudes) are taking place under 30k NS (where they outnumber us like 4:1), and just about every DT guy fighting has three people on them, it's not surprising we'd be losing a lot. Also, LoSS is completely decimated. The only reason you're not rapidly losing NS is because anyone with anything to lose is in PM. DT is losing a good amount for how many nations are fighting (minus the last couple days when a couple joined them). Also Neuronia, LoSS is not one to preach war chests. Edited February 28, 2011 by Gibsonator21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuronia Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298864944' post='2646569'] Well, when all LoSS wars (minus three dudes) are taking place under 30k NS (where they outnumber us like 4:1), and just about every DT guy fighting has three people on them, it's not surprising we'd be losing a lot. Also, LoSS is completely decimated. The only reason you're not rapidly losing NS is because anyone with anything to lose is in PM. DT is losing a good amount for how many nations are fighting (minus the last couple days when a couple joined them). Also Neuronia, LoSS is not one to preach war chests. [/quote] Why you're losing a lot is irrelevant. The fact is, you're losing a lot. I like that. Edited February 28, 2011 by Neuronia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298865657' post='2646576'] Why you're losing a lot is irrelevant. The fact is, you're losing a lot. I like that. [/quote] The fact is, there's nothing left to destroy of LoSS, also. Edited February 28, 2011 by Gibsonator21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuronia Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298865926' post='2646582'] The fact is, there's nothing left to destroy of LoSS, also. [/quote] I think it reflects rather well on LoSS that we've managed to fight the war only in the range that it is tactically beneficial for us. LoSSers that wanted to slip into peace mode did so easily because there were no staggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298866218' post='2646586'] I think it reflects rather well on LoSS that we've managed to fight the war only in the range that it is tactically beneficial for us. LoSSers that wanted to slip into peace mode did so easily because there were no staggers. [/quote] Yeah, we were rather unorganized at the beginning.. says a lot about how badly we hurt you though. It got sorted out though. And, you don't win wars in the bottom. Just in case you were wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298862205' post='2646527'] Really? You sure? [/quote] I'm sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuronia Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298866506' post='2646593'] Yeah, we were rather unorganized at the beginning.. says a lot about how badly we hurt you though. It got sorted out though. And, you don't win wars in the bottom. Just in case you were wondering. [/quote] A. "Yeah, we were rather unorganized at the beginning.." Therefore B. "says a lot about how badly we hurt you though." Questionable reasoning you've got there, but luckily I needn't even address it when [url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?View=Charts&Alliance=Commonwealth%20Of%20Sovereign%20Nations"]I can drop this bad boy in here again[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1298866677' post='2646594'] I'm sure [/quote] Well, that's kind of too bad you have no say in it. [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298866696' post='2646595'] A. "Yeah, we were rather unorganized at the beginning.." Therefore B. "says a lot about how badly we hurt you though." Questionable reasoning you've got there, but luckily I needn't even address it when [url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?View=Charts&Alliance=Commonwealth%20Of%20Sovereign%20Nations"]I can drop this bad boy in here again[/url]. [/quote] Our MoD went away without telling anyone. Didn't you notice we appointed a new one in the middle of the war? And don't worry, it'll all be covered in your surrender to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298866977' post='2646598'] Well, that's kind of too bad you have no say in it. [/quote] As if we need to have any say in it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1298867160' post='2646602'] As if we need to have any say in it [/quote] Right. Guess we'll see then won't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298866218' post='2646586'] I think it reflects rather well on LoSS that we've managed to fight the war only in the range that it is tactically beneficial for us. LoSSers that wanted to slip into peace mode did so easily because there were no staggers. [/quote] You mean fighting with 3k nations? How about you declare on none, might have a fair fight...their organization might rival yours too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If DT and LoSS feel they are winning, feel free to not surrender. You are not winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Neuronia' timestamp='1298866218' post='2646586'] I think it reflects rather well on LoSS that we've managed to fight the war only in the range that it is tactically beneficial for us. LoSSers that wanted to slip into peace mode did so easily because there were no staggers. [/quote] right. Why buy anything? Own the lower tiers, mirite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1298866506' post='2646593'] And, you don't win wars in the bottom. Just in case you were wondering. [/quote] Gramlins made that same claim to IRON, and it pretty much destroyed them. They still haven't gotten back to 1 million NS, even months after it all happened. Another post implied that DT has had several nations join them recently. That's always a bad sign, when you are offering unreasonable terms and the "losing" side is gaining new members. [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1298869608' post='2646631'] If DT and LoSS feel they are winning, feel free to not surrender. You are not winning. [/quote] They haven't surrendered. And even if CSN is "winning", you are still losing a lot of NS. At best, it looks like a Pyrrhic victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='mmansfield68' timestamp='1298778990' post='2645821'] That's not a fact. You're such a damned nuisance, and not productive to anything. You keep spouting the same memes add nauseum. Why are you here, Penkala? You talk too much - WAY too much for a non-involved party. Go hump somebody else's leg. EDIT: hump/leg [/quote] Somebody needs to switch to decaf. [quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1298872009' post='2646669'] Gramlins made that same claim to IRON, and it pretty much destroyed them. They still haven't gotten back to 1 million NS, even months after it all happened. Another post implied that DT has had several nations join them recently. That's always a bad sign, when you are offering unreasonable terms and the "losing" side is gaining new members. They haven't surrendered. And even if CSN is "winning", you are still losing a lot of NS. At best, it looks like a Pyrrhic victory. [/quote] So best case scenario for DT is what? Being enough of the nuisance that the rest of SF piles in just to make a point? The amount of damage DT can inflict is irrelevant if DT themselves get leveled. I know the idea of "Well I'll take you with me" is popular but its ultimately foolish because it skips over the part where you also suffer badly. DT stands here beating its chest and trumpeting how it can hurt CSN too, but misses that they'd have hurt less if they'd just taken terms to begin with. Had DT taken the original 40k tech 17 days ago when the OP was posted they'd already be nearly done paying it off. Assuming a mildly competent IA/econ. Instead they got another 15 or so days of nukings, which is good for about 1500 tech per nation (probably more) blown off them, and when the dust settles they [i]still[/i] are going to be stuck paying something. Assuming 20 guys were nuked 15 times each in the last 17 days (and that's a conservative assumption I think) DT just had 30k tech blown off via nuclear hellfire. Tell me again how this was a better idea than just paying up? Edited February 28, 2011 by TypoNinja 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.