berbers Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 SF came into this war mostly on the side of PB/CnG/DH and are now getting insulted by those same people on the OWF. I mean PB/DH have two extremly terrible CB's and the majority of SF went along anyways due to frienship and treaty obligations, and now you repay the favour by insulting them? RV I can understand, he spews vitriol like an ur-vile (that's right, dropped a Thomas Covenant bomb right up in this !@#$%*), but to see MK and VE members jump into his thread like this is shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299536419' post='2655799'] They did, but I think it was a list of every treaty SF members ever had with Pandora members. [/quote] Ahh right my bad, I'm tired and never read the post correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1299452276' post='2654738'] NoR ... felt more obligated to DT (who they like exponentially more than FAN from my understanding) [/quote] Well that is just plain silly; why would any one like DT more than FAN? [quote name='tblindparrot' timestamp='1299522380' post='2655578'] The CyberWorld was a better place when the good alliances, like NPO, forced the !@#$ alliances to disband. [/quote] You are just such a cool fratboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1299536434' post='2655800'] SF came into this war mostly on the side of PB/CnG/DH and are now getting insulted by those same people on the OWF. I mean PB/DH have two extremly terrible CB's and the majority of SF went along anyways due to frienship and treaty obligations, and now you repay the favour by insulting them? RV I can understand, he spews vitriol like an ur-vile (that's right, dropped a Thomas Covenant bomb right up in this !@#$%*), but to see MK and VE members jump into his thread like this is shameful. [/quote] Are you sure you really see that on PBs end in regards to GOD or SF as a whole? Or are you referring to Bob's post, an individual who has long been recognized for speaking his own opinion. Be careful not to generalize. Edited March 7, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tautology Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299535924' post='2655788'] Are you a moron?[/quote]No. [quote]Are you unable to follow [along with] a simple discussion?[/quote]I've never had that problem. "Follow along with" is redundancy. In fact it's an example of a linguistic tautology. [quote]Yeah, you're just full of !@#$ Taut.[/quote]Sorry if I hit a nerve. It wasn't my intention. p.s. This thread needs more FOK/iFOK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1299537144' post='2655815'] No. I've never had that problem. "Follow along with" is redundancy. In fact it's an example of a linguistic tautology. Sorry if I hit a nerve. It wasn't my intention. p.s. This thread needs more FOK/iFOK. [/quote] Hey, so where's your no-surrender clause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1299537117' post='2655814'] Are you sure you really see that on PBs end in regards to GOD or SF as a whole? Or are you referring to Bob's post, an individual who has long been recognized for speaking his own opinion. Be careful not to generalize. [/quote] Just assuming I go dig through 4-5 threads to find examples of nations in PB insulting SF, would you do anything other than say "that's individual member's opinions". Because if that's the case, I'd rather save myself the effort. Now if you say that if I find evidence you will apologize on behalf of PB, then it might be worth it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299537702' post='2655826'] Hey, so where's your no-surrender clause? [/quote] As I said earlier: "Furthermore, I'm not sure why people are trying to e-lawyer RoK's philosophy. They don't have to have written documentation that they don't surrender when it is known among the membership that that is the case." You know, for an alliance that is perfectly fine with continuing the war, you guys sure are Hell-bent on trying to convince RoK to surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299530789' post='2655716'] Valhalla have offered future aid to other alliances who wanted to roll Poseidon members. Everyone knows this. [/quote] Everyone? Well ive seen far more people question the validity of your statement then coraborate it, so I would say your assertion that 'everyone' knows is false..... Thats just first off, second off, Ive found that in my years people whom make vague unsubstantiated statements are talking out their ass. Thirdly and last, you whine to much....but thats a diff story Though I am curious as to what out of context post/comment or complete pre-fabrication you are talking about...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299537702' post='2655826'] Hey, so where's your no-surrender clause? [/quote] Join RoK and find out i was going to say something about about stats, how PC defeated our top tier nations, how we knew this wasn't going to end well for us when we joined NpO (while defeat wasn't a given we knew even if we won the damge would be just as severe) but frankly this has all been covered about 30 times already. at this stage PC is about as stubborn as rok and if they want a "We Beat RoK 1v1" Award then im sure AvT could whip one up for them, either way we aren't surrendering but keep asking us too im sure we going to fold any second now.. now.. hmm nope now..hmm nothings happening. ...now >_> damn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1299443927' post='2654589'] Asside from GOD, what other alliance are you talking about? [/quote] Pretty sure I know of some CSN gov who told a certain group to just $%@! off and "got a promotion for it"[ref?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 *Pansy gulps down some Kool-Aid waits for Uncky Haf to tell a story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1299537117' post='2655814'] Are you sure you really see that on PBs end in regards to GOD or SF as a whole? Or are you referring to Bob's post, an individual who has long been recognized for speaking his own opinion. Be careful not to generalize. [/quote] This. We're getting the same hate from the same haters we always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299539660' post='2655867'] As I said earlier: "Furthermore, I'm not sure why people are trying to e-lawyer RoK's philosophy. They don't have to have written documentation that they don't surrender when it is known among the membership that that is the case." You know, for an alliance that is perfectly fine with continuing the war, you guys sure are Hell-bent on trying to convince RoK to surrender. [/quote] [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299517975' post='2655517'] The no surrender clause has existed since RoK was founded. It has nothing to do with any "winning streak" ... [/quote] Your exact words were that there is a no surrender clause. A clause is part of a written document. I don't give a rat's ass about your philosophy, does a no surrender clause exist or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1299540012' post='2655872'] Join RoK and find out i was going to say something about about stats, how PC defeated our top tier nations, how we knew this wasn't going to end well for us when we joined NpO (while defeat wasn't a given we knew even if we won the damge would be just as severe) but frankly this has all been covered about 30 times already. at this stage PC is about as stubborn as rok and if they want a "We Beat RoK 1v1" Award then im sure AvT could whip one up for them, either way we aren't surrendering but keep asking us too im sure we going to fold any second now.. now.. hmm nope now..hmm nothings happening. ...now >_> damn [/quote] No one is demanding you surrender, I don't think PC is even asking you to. You were told that if you wanted out of the war you could surrender with no terms or do some tech deals. Why you want to be one of those crappy alliances who spin every defeat into some kind of strategic victory is all anyone is wondering. It doesn't fool anyone, it just makes you look ridiculous for trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrow Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1299522011' post='2655569'] I personally don't care whether the terms say surrender. Anyone who isn't a retard will know who the clear winner was. [/quote] Great, then offer new terms reflecting this statement so that we can all move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299539660' post='2655867'] You know, for an alliance that is perfectly fine with continuing the war, you guys sure are Hell-bent on trying to convince RoK to surrender. [/quote] I don't see anyone whining about it. I think people are just dumbfounded that Ragnarok is taking such a retarded stance on the issue. Its kind of sad to see an alliance that was once a major player be nearing 1million NS. Then again if they want to drag out a war because of semantics then by all means. Infact, if they stay in the war then so does your alliance and I'm all for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Don Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 We went into a war to honor a treaty...where we knew we'd get our pixels burned. Why? Because we care about principle over pixels. If we don't measure ourselves on pixels why the hell would we give up when we run out of pixels. Personally I am sitting on well over 6 months warchest now that my pixels are depleted...so I'm more than happy to continue the fight. Everyone wants to know why we won't surrender...I can say as a member of the Ruling Council and now two years in Ragnarok I personally would NEVER consider it. I can't tell you if or where it is in the charter, but I can tell you it is in the CULTURE of Ragnarok. Hell, look at our slogan...TO HELL AND BACK TOGETHER. AKA...we don't care if we burn...we don't care about the consequences, we care about the alliance and what it stands for. Surrender is giving up...it is crying UNCLE. We don't do this...and never will. We went into the war knowing that we couldn't match up in a lot of areas, but that didn't deter us, nor will it. As mentioned we have not only offered, but actually told our allies to take their peace offerings. We are not the hold up to the peace process, and anyone who thinks we are hasn't been paying attention. As for semantics...we don't play that crap. Shake hands and walk away, or keep fighting. We offered a haiku or a beer review, but that's about the best terms you'll get from Ragnarok. If you want surrender go ask someone who cares about their pixels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299541179' post='2655888'] Your exact words were that there is a no surrender clause. A clause is part of a written document. I don't give a rat's ass about your philosophy, does a no surrender clause exist or not? [/quote] I never wrote it, no. It is still a clause that all of RoK understands and supports though ... so, why does that matter? [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299541304' post='2655890'] No one is demanding you surrender, I don't think PC is even asking you to. You were told that if you wanted out of the war you could surrender with no terms or do some tech deals.[/quote] You offered, they declined. The end. Shut up and fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Garrow' timestamp='1299541697' post='2655900'] Great, then offer new terms reflecting this statement so that we can all move on. [/quote] Since when are non-gov allowed to offer new terms? There is a reason why he used "personally." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299541881' post='2655908'] You offered, they declined. The end. Shut up and fight. [/quote] What did he offer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1299542007' post='2655911'] What did he offer? [/quote] "You" obviously means PC. I missed his AA. Sorry. Edited March 7, 2011 by Van Hoo III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299541881' post='2655908'] You offered, they declined. The end. Shut up and fight. [/quote] This man makes an excellent point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299541881' post='2655908'] I never wrote it, no. It is still a clause that all of RoK understands and supports though ... so, why does that matter? [/quote] RoK wouldn't have looked any sillier for just saying they wouldn't surrender. Making up some story about it being outlawed by the charter sure didn't gain any sympathy or points for honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299542974' post='2655927'] RoK wouldn't have looked any sillier for just saying they wouldn't surrender. Making up some story about it being outlawed by the charter sure didn't gain any sympathy or points for honesty. [/quote] Where did I say it was in the charter? Unless they added it somewhere after I left, I am not aware of it being there. I suppose we can call it a "verbal no surrender clause" if it makes you happy. Tell you what. I'll start calling it a "verbal no surrender clause" if you stop posting drivel on the OWF ... deal? 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.