A sad truth about the Swampy Rose Hedge...

[donsberger]

Everything we say. You will quote the previous response and just say the exact same thing over and over again. You won't address any points raised other than to say you don't believe those points and then repeat your previous words for the 100th time.

[SleepingNinja]

2 minutes ago, donsberger said:

Everything we say. You will quote the previous response and just say the exact same thing over and over again. You won't address any points raised other than to say you don't believe those points and then repeat your previous words for the 100th time.

Wow you just gave me flashback to an old employee I used to work with. Guy would make up the most ridiculous stories and kept thinking if he repeated them enough times they'd become true.🤣

[Phoenyx]

7 minutes ago, donsberger said:

Everything we say. You will quote the previous response and just say the exact same thing over and over again. You won't address any points raised other than to say you don't believe those points and then repeat your previous words for the 100th time.

 

When I make points, I generally make long arguments with evidence in them. When my detractors make points, they generally don't. There are some exceptions, ofcourse, but that seems to be the way of things. 

[donsberger]

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

When I make points, I generally make long arguments with evidence in them. When my detractors make points, they generally don't. There are some exceptions, ofcourse, but that seems to be the way of things. 

How many times have you posted the same Ronny screenshot? 2 Times in your last 6 posts on this thread alone

[Phoenyx]

13 minutes ago, donsberger said:

How many times have you posted the same Ronny screenshot? 2 Times in your last 6 posts on this thread alone

 

Probably because no one's addressing the point I'm trying to make. 

[donsberger]

4 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Probably because no one's addressing the point I'm trying to make. 

Because your basis for your point is Tyrion told me so. 

Quacks Points:

1. We have been told we are a  hegemony
2. We have been told we are too big
3. All 3 other spheres have M level treaties
4. All above points have been admitted in public and in discord

If Quack is too big how do you make them small:

• Declare war on them
• Get them to break treaties(Wasn't going to happen as they have actively avoided signing treaties to stay at current size)

Solution:

• Must have war on Quack to try to reduce their size.

Quack Answer:

• Since they are going to obviously war us anyways lets start the attack.

[Eumirbago]

4 hours ago, Orcinus Orca said:

For sure. @Eumirbago hasn't started self censoring at all after the war started. 

Here we are trying another narrative.

Look bro, I can come to these forums at ANY time and embarrass any character to rile up my people.

Ex. @Akuryo @Epi @King Arthur @Azazel @Grave

You can try and embarrass me, but how the frick do you embarrass someone who has contributed nothing?

I've done it every fricking war and this war is not different.

Try again.

[Phoenyx]

37 minutes ago, donsberger said:

Because your basis for your point is Tyrion told me so. 

43 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

57 minutes ago, donsberger said:

How many times have you posted the same Ronny screenshot? 2 Times in your last 6 posts on this thread alone

Probably because no one's addressing the point I'm trying to make. 

 

 

My screenshot of my conversation with Ronny has nothing to do with what Tyrion has said publicly or privately. Instead, it is look at one of the sources that your side uses as evidence that Swamp was, in fact, going to attack you guys first. Problem is, Ronny, by his own admission, never spoke to Swamp on this. Instead, he had been informed by another HM leader, whose words were far more ambiguous than Ronny's. Both Tyrion and I believe that his source may have just been talking about the defensive Coalition that did indeed materialize. 

 

There's an easy way to resolve this- Ronny could ask his HM Leader source whether Swamp was talking about a counter attack defensive initiation of a first strike initiative. Similarly, on the Quack side, Boyce could be asked caused him to state that HM/TCW/Swamp was going to attack in early December. Easy questions to ask, but it seems that either no one's bothered to do so or they have and not liked the responses they've gotten. So which is?

37 minutes ago, donsberger said:

Because your basis for your point is Tyrion told me so. 

Quacks Points:

1. We have been told we are a  hegemony
2. We have been told we are too big
3. All 3 other spheres have M level treaties
4. All above points have been admitted in public and in discord

If Quack is too big how do you make them small:

• Declare war on them
• Get them to break treaties(Wasn't going to happen as they have actively avoided signing treaties to stay at current size)

Solution:

• Must have war on Quack to try to reduce their size.

Quack Answer:

• Since they are going to obviously war us anyways lets start the attack.

 

From what I've seen of forces currently at war with Quack, the biggest issue wasn't just your size- it was your CBs. I and others strongly believe that had you not attacked first, this current global war wouldn't have happened.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Phoenyx

[WarriorSoul]

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

words and pictures

surely you realize that these screenshots reveal someone looking to confirm their own preconceived notion of how the events unfolded? and furthermore go to show that you are willing to simply take anything your own coalition leaders say at face value while not only not affording our coalition the same privilege, but denying the aforementioned slew circumstantial evidence in our favor?

it's not that I blame you for this - anyone would do the same in your position (or would simply choose not to speak). but to do so, you'll need to drop this pretense of being in some pursuit of truth and peace, and just admit to being a shill for your side like 99% of the other inhabitants of this wasteland

[HeroofTime55]

2 hours ago, Thalmor said:

The name of my show (Thalmor Radio) isn't some curse that strikes down the person who utters it. It's okay to say it lol.

I've claimed several times that your side controls the narrative, but it's an observation. I have not claimed that my side is hiding nor that there isn't 'a leg to stand on' in diplomatic talks. Don't read so much into what I say. 

You aren't interesting and the name of your show was and is not relevant to me.  I only listened to the recording to witness the train wreck that is Phoenyx.

You and everyone else saying we "control the narrative" is just plain silly.  And it absolutely should be read into, because our "narrative" is the factual one, and the one that your side abandoned was nothing but easily debunked lies.  The reason your side have issued massive gag orders to the rank and file is simply an effort at damage control, when it became apparent you weren't going to win the messaging fight.  Things like coalition wide gag orders among the winning coalition are not trivial things unworthy of note.

[donsberger]

Holy  you are dense. Our size has been a main focal point mentioned many times so yes our size was an issue. The only way to reduce our size is war. I wasn't even mentioning the CB's. This further proves my point you just quote people to make it seem like you are replying to them and then don't address any of their points.

[Phoenyx]

13 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said:

surely you realize that these screenshots reveal someone looking to confirm their own preconceived notion of how the events unfolded?

 

Tell me, why are you so keen on avoiding actually -talking- about the screenshots I post? Is there a part of you that is uncomfortable with the possibility that Boyce got it wrong? That perhaps Ronnie misinterpreted his fellow HM leader? I mean, it would certainly throw into question the reason for Quack going to war, now, wouldn't it?

[HeroofTime55]

1 hour ago, donsberger said:

Because your basis for your point is Tyrion told me so. 

Quacks Points:

1. We have been told we are a  hegemony
2. We have been told we are too big
3. All 3 other spheres have M level treaties
4. All above points have been admitted in public and in discord

If Quack is too big how do you make them small:

• Declare war on them
• Get them to break treaties(Wasn't going to happen as they have actively avoided signing treaties to stay at current size)

Solution:

• Must have war on Quack to try to reduce their size.

Quack Answer:

• Since they are going to obviously war us anyways lets start the attack.

But this isn't what Tyrion said happened

[Phoenyx]

5 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

You aren't interesting and the name of your show was and is not relevant to me.  I only listened to the recording to witness the train wreck that is Phoenyx.

You and everyone else saying we "control the narrative" is just plain silly.  And it absolutely should be read into, because our "narrative" is the factual one...

As the old saying goes, "Never argue with someone who knows they're right." Probably why so few on our side bother to engage with you guys any longer... 

[Sir Scarfalot]

4 hours ago, Orcinus Orca said:

Therein lies the problem. You jump at every little thing you see, instead of standing back, reading more, and learning the situation instead. 

I absolutely cannot upvote this enough.

4 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I don't agree with that at all. I think I've done a great deal more analysis on the origins of this war then anyone else posting.

Phoenyx... stop, stop and LOOK at what you've just disagreed with.

You've done a great deal more analysis and opining on the war than anyone else posting... for that matter anyone else at all. That's not his point.

His point is: Why? Why are you continuously barraging the forums with your nauseatingly well-established opinions? You do not need to weigh in on literally every post, and you certainly don't need to make a half dozen threads on the same hecking topic. Walls of text are highly discouraged when you can make your point in a more compact form.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and imo it shows cowardice and an unopen mind to feel the need to respond to literally everything that anyone ever writes.

Please, for your own sake, learn how to step back from an argument. It could very well save your actual IRL life one day.

[TRM]

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

I asked those questions 11 days ago. Still no response from Ronny.

I wonder why?

Look, if you Sphinx everything people DM you, do you really think that they'll continue DMing you?

[Phoenyx]

16 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Phoenyx... stop, stop and LOOK at what you've just disagreed with.

You've done a great deal more analysis and opining on the war than anyone else posting... for that matter anyone else at all. That's not his point.

His point is: Why? Why are you continuously barraging the forums with your nauseatingly well-established opinions? You do not need to weigh in on literally every post, and you certainly don't need to make a half dozen threads on the same hecking topic. Walls of text are highly discouraged when you can make your point in a more compact form.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and imo it shows cowardice and an unopen mind to feel the need to respond to literally everything that anyone ever writes.

Please, for your own sake, learn how to step back from an argument. It could very well save your actual IRL life one day.

 

You guys simply can't be satisfied. On the one hand, most of the forces arrayed against quack -have- stopped debating things with you guys. You guys seem to take this as meaning that their arguments are weak. On the other, when I -do- debate you guys almost singlehandedly, you object to that too. Just can't win that argument with you guys :-p. 
 

Me, I kind of see things a little like this...

 

[WarriorSoul]

21 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Tell me, why are you so keen on avoiding actually -talking- about the screenshots I post? Is there a part of you that is uncomfortable with the possibility that Boyce got it wrong? That perhaps Ronnie misinterpreted his fellow HM leader? I mean, it would certainly throw into question the reason for Quack going to war, now, wouldn't it?

This goes back to my earlier post about the simplest answer usually being true. In order for your interpretation of events to be true, both of those people would have had to clearly misinterpret the not-too-ambiguous "countering Quack's growth". 

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just now, Phoenyx said:

You guys simply can't be satisfied. On the one hand, most of the forces arrayed against quack -have- stopped debating things with you guys. You guys seem to take this as meaning that their arguments are weak. On the other, when I -do- debate you guys almost singlehandedly, you object to that too. Just can't win that argument with you guys :-p.

And again you didn't look at it.

I'll make this as simple as I can:

He said you post often.

Your response was that no, you post often.

Can you see the fundamental discrepancy now?

[Phoenyx]

8 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said:

This goes back to my earlier post about the simplest answer usually being true. In order for your interpretation of events to be true, both of those people would have had to clearly misinterpret the not-too-ambiguous "countering Quack's growth". 

 

Clearly, people differ as to whether or not "countering Quack's growth" was ambiguous. At the very least, Tyrion and I think he may have simply been referring to the defensive treaty that everyone fighting against Quack has admitted to. Surely, this warrants Ronnie taking a bit of time to ask his HM leader source what he really meant? 

 

Similarly, how hard could it be to ask Boyce how he came to the conclusion that HM, TCW and Swamp would be attacking Quack in early December?

[SleepingNinja]

14 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

You guys simply can't be satisfied. On the one hand, most of the forces arrayed against quack -have- stopped debating things with you guys. You guys seem to take this as meaning that their arguments are weak. On the other, when I -do- debate you guys almost singlehandedly, you object to that too. Just can't win that argument with you guys :-p. 
 

Me, I kind of see things a little like this...

 

Gag orders are usually a sign that someone, somewhere is hiding something. It's very typical for the side with a weak narrative to go into radio silence, it helps prevent any slip ups.

Apparently you forgot you were kicked for that, though.

[Phoenyx]

18 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And again you didn't look at it.

I'll make this as simple as I can:

He said you post often.

Your response was that no, you post often.

 

No, that's not what happened, but feel free to try to prove otherwise. 

6 minutes ago, PhantomThiefB said:

Gag orders are usually a sign that someone, somewhere is hiding something. It's very typical for the side with a weak narrative to go into radio silence, it helps prevent any slip ups.

Apparently you forgot you were kicked for that, though.

 

I don't believe that's why I was kicked. I believe I was kicked because the TFP Alliance leadership felt that my not knowing certain things was causing more problems than my continued presence in TFP was worth. Tyrion had much the same concerns as TFP as he has recently said himself:

 

Furthermore, I think it's worth mentioning that while I am no longer in one of the larger Swamp Alliances, I am still in a Swamp Alliance.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Phoenyx

[SleepingNinja]

10 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

No, that's not what happened, but feel free to try to prove otherwise. 

 

I don't believe that's why I was kicked. I believe I was kicked because my not knowing certain things was causing more problems then the Alliance I my continued presence was worth. Tyrion had much the same concerns as TFP as he has recently said himself:

...It's in the first sentence. "If not for the forum stuff"

Also @Lord Tyrion Bro don't lie to the guy and tell him he'd make a good gov right off the bat, damn dude that's savage AF.

[Phoenyx]

11 minutes ago, PhantomThiefB said:

...It's in the first sentence. "If not for the forum stuff"

Also @Lord Tyrion Bro don't lie to the guy and tell him he'd make a good gov right off the bat, damn dude that's savage AF.

My point is, he's not saying that TFP and Immortals are trying to hide something compromising and that's why they don't want me posting. I think it's more that they think that my posting weakens them politically. They seem to be alright that I'm in Swamp so long as it's in a smaller Alliance whose political moves aren't so closely scrutinized. 

 

Anyway, there the Quack side goes again, assuming that the other side is lying when it doesn't fit into their narrative.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Phoenyx

[WarriorSoul]

31 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Clearly, people differ as to whether or not "countering Quack's growth" was ambiguous.

Yes, and one of those interpretations necessitates ignoring like a decade and a half of nation sim history about what terms like "countering X's growth" means.

 

31 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

At the very least, Tyrion and I think he may have simply been referring to the defensive treaty that everyone fighting against Quack has admitted to. Surely, this warrants Ronnie taking a bit of time to ask his HM leader source what he really meant?

And once again, are you going to take whatever that person would say at face value? If so, your analysis again boils down to "Swamp and Hedge said they had no interest in an aggressive war!" and your job is done.