Jump to content

Brooklyn666

Members
  • Posts

    365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Brooklyn666

  1. And now for a list of other states where bestiality is legal but same-sex marriage (prior to United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) was illegal: Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. And just for a little comparison, here's the list of states where bestiality is illegal and same-sex marriage was legal before United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Anyone notice a pattern?
  2. You should move to Texas. Their legislature voted to decriminalize bestiality while at the very same time voting to make same-sex marriage MORE illegal. Clearly this means Republicans like having sex with animals and want to encourage others to do so.
  3. You'll get nothing and like it!
  4. How does Rose get 16 pages but SK only gets 3
  5. Yea we still have Valyria. They're going to be our only treaty for the foreseeable future.
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI
  7. Is it confirmed that's what he said? Honest to god I listened 12 times and couldn't tell. And the sad part is I'm not sure which one is worse.
  8. Taking bets on how long anyone is going to care about this once food production goes back to normal. I'll be generous and give it a full week.
  9. I just don't understand how the league plans to operate in any sort of secrecy. You'll have to perform several spy ops on any target just to get rid of their spies, and then however many ops for each nuke you want to get rid of. The odds are almost certain that you'll be identified during one of those ops. The target would then reasonably assume the ops were sanctioned by the league, and retaliate against the aa of the league member.
  10. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, especially when I'm really only responding to Partisan and he doesn't seem to have the same issues you do. Regardless, I'm not going to keep running in circles with you because neither of us are going to get anywhere. If it's important to you to feel like you won this, then call it a win for you I guess. I'm out. I understand people don't act rationally, but you know us. You've known us for a long time. Does that kind of 180 seem like something we would do? Sure, we can go over every single possible line of decision making, have me refute it, and you question my refutation, but I don't have the stamina for this that you do I understand your suspicion, but I think you have to apply your knowledge and interactions with us to inform you of our intentions. I personally, and SK gov in total, doesn't think that peaceful coexistence with tS and a 3rd sphere are mutually exclusive. As to Mikey's comment, He partially answered it and I'll let him clarify if needed, but I interpreted it as a combination of bluster, him not being in gov, and the factual basis that this war happened sooner than we planned and had to scramble to get it together. I think you and I are having a pretty civil conversation right now while at the same time non-gov members on both sides are getting hostile and saying all kinds of stuff. I'm not mad at anyone, just saying that to my knowledge, that's all Mikey was doing. And this is for everyone else: I had several long talks with Vanek, Partisan, Manthrax, and Roquentin about what were gonna do with Gandalf after the leak. I laid out our reasons for keeping him with suspension, and they understood even if they didn't agree. I'm not invalidating your feelings. You have a right to be angry, but don't base your anger off faulty assumptions.
  11. Well why don't you point out what you find problematic and I'll address it. It's not really helpful or informative for you to point the finger at me for doing what literally everyone else in every one of these threads does all the time unless you're gonna provide some constructive criticism. Otherwise it's just a double standard.
  12. Yea, I understand why you might interpret things that way, but can you also understand that there might be some confirmation bias in play on your part? It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative in this instance, so there's no way for me to absolutely prove to you that I'm telling the truth, but let's look at this way If we can agree on the following: 1. That tS and SK were extremely close allies for a long time and we worked together to smash paracov together many times 2. That we have witnessed firsthand your side's war capabilities by being on your side and winning with you all the time 3. That we know the less than stellar fighting capabilities of our current allies by having fought against them many times If we can agree that the above things are true, then why on earth would we plan for months to deliberately turn on you for absolutely no reason just to run to paracov where'd we be certain to get our asses kicked by you? One of two things are true. Either we deliberately planned and schemed for months to drop you and then roll you in a war that we had also been planning the whole time (if you look at the buildup prior to the war, you'll see in the beginning we were a day or two behind everyone else, so we clearly that far in still hadn't planned on attacking), or, we tried to do something different but it just didn't work and we ended up back in the same pattern but on the other side because of our treaty changes. Can you honestly say that the former seems like the more likely scenario?
  13. Like 3 or 4 days before the war started. Once Rose told us their plans, we knew you would preempt us anyway so there was no reason for us to hold back. This is mostly true. The Jessica thing and the NAC thing are separate. Jessica sent out targets to our members without going through our gov but that was unrelated to NAC.
  14. Partisan and I chatted, yes, and no, he's not lying. I'm assuming you're talking about this: "We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part". Narrative implies I'm telling a story, which ok, I get why you might think that, but I have no reason to. I told Partisan and Manthrax the same thing and I have receipts. I told them both we weren't dropping tS with the intention of hitting you, but that it was possible it could end up happening due to the circumstances and treaty web, and the fact that you guys fight rose a lot and with us allied to them, it was a distinct possibility. Partisan is saying (I think) that the fact that we were planning to roll in on you with rose is incontrovertible proof that we in fact dropped you with the specific intention of hitting you, contradicting what I said in private. Now that depends on whether you believe Partisan or not. I can't prove a negative, other than to say that we've all consistently said here that we had no plans to roll tS until a few days before war kicked of when Rose told us their plans. You can be mad that we hit *you*, but you can't be mad that we backed up our allies the same way literally everyone else does and is standard op in this game. Here's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance: Partisan says he has believed/known for months that SK was plotting against tS, yet he seemed to acknowledge that at least at the time, he believed what I had said in pm, although it's possible I misread that. Both those things can't be true. Either he believed at the time of our pm that I was lying about everything, or he believed I was being sincere. If he thought I was plotting at the time, why would he have believed me? We talked about a lot of stuff and it makes no sense that he would selectively believe certain things and not others if he thought there was a plot already in motion.
  15. It's gettin' meta up in here! Lets see what happens when I do a little something: "No its just you guys doing that", without extraneous words, becomes "No its just you guys doing that"
  16. What? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't make any sense.
  17. Subtext, man. No, you didn't "literally" say that, and you didn't "literally" 'disown us', but I'm not Amelia Bedelia so I'm capable of deriving non-literal meaning from words and broader discussions. And whatever I said in query, you've already accused me of lying about everything else, so I'm not sure why you think *that* part would be the one thing that was true. Sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on. 1. No one is bemoaning anything. We own our mistakes. I told Manthrax several weeks ago we were prepared for the large chance that this would happen to us. As for driving narratives, this may surprise you, but not everyone in SK thinks or feels the same way about things, and people are free to talk about what they want. That doesn't make it our policy. All this "direct evidence to the contrary" e-lawyering is beneath you. 2. You're clearly still angry about it. And no I don't agree. Every time I talk to you you push back the date that we allegedly started plotting against you even further, so it makes for a good story for you, but it doesn't even hold its own internal logic. At some point we'll have created SK just to take down a tS that didn't even exist yet. 3. Yep. 4. See #2 5. It was planned and initiated by Rose and we rolled in because 1. they're our allies and 2. we knew you would pre-empt us anyway because we are Rose allies even if we didn't plan on it. I'm not upset about because that's how the game works and you shouldn't be either. 6. It was an invitation that you're free to decline, although I think it makes all of this a lot more unpleasant for everyone. Nothing more. 7. Great. 8. See #1 9. For us it's individuals expressing their opinions, for you it seems to be your MO. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems like it, and I guess you're free to interpret the same for us, although I think an objective observer would see a pretty stark contrast. 10. You already responding to this in your follow up, but again, even if all we did was switch sides, (which wasn't our intention but turned out to be the de facto result), that's still us in a different position than before. And as predicted, your denial just makes me believe it even more. - And yea, sure. I don't disagree nor did I say anything to the contrary. You're just responding to things you wish I'd said and not things I actually said. What is dead may never die!
  18. It's not a coded message. It means exactly what it means, which is "not being your allies anymore". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of different, regardless of what you think our sphere is. I'm not sure why you thought picking apart this one very clear point was worth anything. In case anyone else is confused and needs help understanding my big words, "different" means "not doing the same thing we were doing before" ; as in not being allies to tS anymore. I can make some visual aids if this still isn't clear.
  19. Why don't you go ahead and take several seats. First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity, although it does speak a lot to how you view your position in the game. "If only we had bowed our heads lower and said more nice things about our overlords, maybe they wouldn't have disowned us." Go ahead and save this garbage for someone who cares. As for the rest, here we go: 1. True, but couldn't be less relevant to anything happening now, so I really have no idea why you're bringing it up other than to throw out one more minor blemish on our record that everyone already knows about. 2. True, but you guys won by a landslide anyway. If you were angry enough about it then to drop us and/or roll us then or even months after, you had every opportunity to do so, but you didn't. You accepted our decision then so you forfeited the right to bring it up every time you want to blame us for some unrelated shit way later as if it was some sort of fresh wound. 3. Nothing to disagree on here. 4. See number 2 but also with the additional note that we're not responsible for trying to refute your paranoid delusions. I also don't know who those quotes are from but they're not from me. I don't deny it's possible someone else in sk said that, but if you're gonna put words in our mouths, you better have receipts. 5. See my preamble and the above vis a vis paranoid delusions. I personally went way above and beyond to try to keep things cool between us after the split, and I steered SK in that direction even when others didn't want to. If you want to believe it was all a lie and some elaborate conspiracy (although to what end I can't possibly imagine), that's on you. One of two things is true though: either we are master manipulators who plot and scheme the likes of which would make Cersei Lannister proud, or we are incompetent and can't even win a war. You can't have it both ways. 6. Sorta true, but let's have a little context here. This is a browser based game, not the Hundred Years War, so feel free to tone down the melodrama and histrionics, although I know you won't. 7. True, I don't disagree. 8. We've never ever mentioned or pretended to have a moral high ground because we don't care. That's your game.See the above. 9. I don't give a sack of rotten bear turds what you personally think. There's zero precedent for this (because it's an absolutely ridiculous notion). "We attacked you but you are the attackers because we said so!!" Good luck in all of our future wars where you are the aggressive party because the other person said so. 10. See the above. At this point this has become a pretty transparently personal grudge because we had the gall to do something different, and the more you protest the more obvious it becomes. But it's ok, I fully expect you to do so anyway. Gotta demonize big bad SK who has half the members you do and is losing a war to you but is still somehow an existential threat. And now I'm quite finished.
  20. I'll say this for Rose, they're consistent. From way back when we were allies long ago, to the stretch of time when we were enemies, and all the way to the present, their blitzes have always been terrible. Never change guys. But really please do because this is getting embarrassing at this point.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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