Jump to content

Bollocks

Members
  • Posts

    602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Bollocks

  1. So you're admitting you're full of shit? Gotcha.
  2. Ikr? We do an excellent job of teaching how it feels to get steamrolled.
  3. We're officially playing hard mode now
  4. > Doesn't do breakdown > Throws together meaningless and decontextualized list > Tries to take credit for sketchy's actual breakdown > Claims can read lmao, if only this thread worked like banks
  5. I'll spell out for you since your reading comprehension is clearly challenged: Throwing a random list together and not even listing other alliances =/= breakdown.
  6. That's not a breakdown. A breakdown is what sketchy did. You just threw a bunch of numbers together that at best had a tenuous grasp on the facts.
  7. You got me Kastor, I think I'll wallow in sorrow, steal some banks, double deal with both sides and generally be a joke now. Unless you're referring to the super secret intel which is definitely gabage, in which case: lmao
  8. I can only speak for myself, but I could respect it when NPO went in without a CB or even a DoW in the Silent War. They just owned it, without BS or excuses. That's respectable and I didn't say shit then. Here, Roq is trying to push out some thinly veiled and wildly inconsistent narrative that makes no sense. If Roq came out and was like "We !@#$ed up how we handled the beginning, middle and end of this war. We will aim to do better next time" that'd be something I could respect.
  9. I got nothing to twist. These are just hard truths that you can't swallow. Your spin is all over the place and are neither convincing nor conherent. The facts have a nice consistency to them. The only thing you have proven is that the only place you can lead a coalition to is down into the gutter.
  10. Ya nah, these facts are golden. Even stranger than fiction in some ways. And you've actually not challenged the basic premise of these facts at all. What you have done is more like dropping a pile of convoluted drivel on the table and then pointing at it and saying "See? This is what UPN is missing out on now" Exhibit 1: IQ pushed for and initiated the war. Tried to justify with unverifiable CB. Response 1: We didn't even want war. It would have been more strategically preferrable to wait 2 months. Why would we start a war without just cause if we would have preferred to wait? Response 2: We had rock solid intel theat we gonna be hit, we had no choice but to go in. Response 3: Okay maybe the intel wouldn't fall under the smoking gun category for everyone but it was good enough for us to start a war. Response 4: Alright so intel or not we wanted to start the war despite the bad timing. So before you were saying that you and your fellow IQ leadership started the war even though it was strategically disadvantageous because you had no choice. Now you're contradicting yourself and saying you woulda started the war regardless how disadvantageous it was strategically? So which is it? You guys are just incompetent. You start a war you can't win, you drag on the war cuz you can't admit defeat. I'm not sure why people would want to be allies with you.
  11. I find it funny that my point was that you bend over backwards to desperately spin the facts, and then you come back repeat the same bull. I am conveying a simple truth: You pushed your allies into war on unverifiable and shakey "intel". You fumbled and lost the war. You dragged the war on in a failed bid to protect your ego. whew boy, I bet people are lining up to ally with yall.
  12. It's nice you're projecting and all, but the only one spinning his wheels in place is you. Lets revisit shall we: > IQ was the aggressor in this past war, IQ literally started the war > roq-tinted glasses: "but but hypothetically if tS did what we did I'm sure (totally not projecting here) that they would try to claim they weren't really the aggressors, okay maybe they would literally be the aggressors but figuratively they wouldn't be the aggressors you know what I mean? Srsly what does aggressor means these days anyway? We had no choice, our mythical CB told us we had to." > IQ has no CB and refuses to show any evidence for the claimed CB. Despite that, IQ has tried to justify its actions by citing non-existent CB. IQ even tried to validate the made-up CB via a peace term. > roq-tinted glasses: "hey my imaginary friend told me the intel, but he's shy and imaginary and doesn't want attention so I'm going to maintain his privacy. But hey friends and allies, i know dragged you into this war and all but remember I dragged you guys in to fight for a good and righteous cause yo and totally not for some shit I just made up. Please don't leave me" > IQ started the war with an numerical and tactical advantage yet still lost the war. > roq-tinted glasses: "you guys are too gud, can't you get on our not gud level?" > IQ dragged the lost war on and lengthened the suffering their allies for many unnecessary weeks just because they didn't want to admit defeat and pay 0 reps. IQ ended up admitting defeat anyway. > roq-tinted glasses: "our meatshields-- err I mean allies will do anything for us and expect nothing in return. Avoiding an L > friends, duh"
  13. > gets asked to show the smoking gun intelligence > hems and haws about showing the mythical CB > so if this is the smoking gun CB that allegedly forced your hand, why wouldn't you just show it instead trying to validate it in a peace term? > "you're biased" We all get it, you got nothing in terms of a CB. You're scared of actually admitting you got nothing because you pushed your allies into the meat grinder. And boy, a lot of the general membership would be pissed if they knew they lost so much for nothing.
  14. Oh, is this the mythical CB you threw your new allies into the meat grinder for? Pics or it didn't happen.
  15. Migrate to a new game, boom, diversity
  16. CNCNCN (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)
  17. I'm glad to see fark starting shit and not giving a !@#$
  18. Did you even bother reading the term before writing a jumbled and incoherent chin dribble you call a post? This is probably the poorest e-lawyering attempt I have ever seen. You skipped right past the reading comprehension and straight to the butthurt and salt. "2. The alliances still at war on both sides have fought well. Nothing about the conflict or its conclusion can or should be construed as humiliating or degrading in any way to the alliances of The Inquisition who are still fighting or to their memberships." What's there to enforce? There wasn't any wording saying: "any person makeing degrading comments will be reprimanded". In fact the term says "Nothing about... its conclusion can or should be construed as humiliating or degrading". So in fact, all the posts here in this thread should be considered friendly pats on the bottom.
  19. Well to be fair, Boony probably does have a tramp stamp tattoo that says "Syndisphere b4 hoes"
  20. You're absolutely right, I don't know the alternative facts you base your alternative reality on. How having a CB that sucks so bad you literally try to validate it via peace terms is good rnough to continue to use a rallying cry. How a getting IQ rekt still makes it a "narrow" loss. How no reps + admit defeat is nefarious triumpalism and oppression. Your coalition partners like UPN are all shaking their heads in disbelief and moving on.
  21. > claims no victim complex > literally everything else in your post and everything else you've said in this thread screams "QQ woe is me" > ok Roq bb, I've never claimed anyone else of having a victim complex, that honor goes to just you. I can call a spade a spade. You're doing a great job of letting your QQ getting in the way of your allies well-being. And you wonder why alliances like UPN are making the perfectly reasonable decision to step out of the ring with (omg) no reps. And then to deingrate them in public is another thing entirely. I'm not insisting anything other than just looking at the facts and then making up your own mind. To me, looking at the series of events where IQ was the aggressor and loses big, and then starts QQing and stating that disbanding is preferable to admitting defeat with no reps is both funny and kinda sad.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.