Where to now, Immortals and TFP?

[SleepingNinja]

I've heard of double posting but this is ridiculous Phoenyx.

[Phoenyx]

3 hours ago, PhantomThiefB said:

I've heard of double posting but this is ridiculous Phoenyx.

No, it's not. It takes some time to go over all the points that Sphinx brought up, as well as giving him a recap on events to give him a fairly good understanding of what's transpired while he was gone. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to, but I thought he and perhaps others in the audience would appreciate some explanations as to how this war started and has been perpetuated. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Nah, 7 ish posts is actually ridiculous. Especially since some of them are only like one paragraph and could very well just have been included in another posts.

Frankly, it comes across as poor ability to structure them.

 

[Phoenyx]

58 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Nah, 7 ish posts is actually ridiculous. Especially since some of them are only like one paragraph and could very well just have been included in another posts.

Frankly, it comes across as poor ability to structure them.

 

 

Pfffft :-p. I think the effort it takes to read them is dwarfed by the effort it took to write them. Had to be opening up threads, quoting, getting screenshots I've saved, was a piece of work I tell ya :-p. I note that you aren't actually disagreeing with any of the content, which could be seen in a positive light...

Edited December 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[Shiho Nishizumi]

You're implying that I read it, which I did not.

[kalev60]

Jesus frick, I was actually mentioned in a serious post about gag orders, LMAO... ego-tripping my balls off on full stomach of vodka and beer right now

[Sir Scarfalot]

51 minutes ago, kalev60 said:

Jesus frick, I was actually mentioned in a serious post about gag orders, LMAO... ego-tripping my balls off on full stomach of vodka and beer right now

I can respect that

[Phoenyx]

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

You're implying that I read it, which I did not.

I suspected you hadn't, but I had given you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose I should be more cynical sometimes :-/. Anyway, I'll leave you with this- do you think it's possible that the -reason- you are so critical is not because of the formatting so much as the general message that I've been conveying for a while now?

Edited December 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[Adrienne]

20 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I suspected you hadn't, but I had given you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose I should be more cynical sometimes :-/. Anyway, I'll leave you with this- do you think it's possible that the -reason- you are so critical is not because of the formatting so much as the general message that I've been conveying for a while now?

No. Seven posts back to back is just actually ridiculous.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Adrienne

[Phoenyx]

36 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

No. Seven posts back to back is just actually ridiculous.

Here's a question for you- why are you all so focused on peripheral things, such as the quantity of my posts? Did you even read their content or, like Shiho, did you skip that too? I ask you, and the audience, to consider that something else is at work here.

[Justin076]

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

Here's a question for you- why are you all so focused on peripheral things, such as the quantity of my posts? Did you even read their content or, like Shiho, did you skip that too? I ask you, and the audience, to consider that something else is at work here.

We're focused on the quantity because the quality is also trash. So we have to scroll through 7 shitty posts, not just 1. 

 

[Adrienne]

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Here's a question for you- why are you all so focused on peripheral things, such as the quantity of my posts? Did you even read their content or, like Shiho, did you skip that too? I ask you, and the audience, to consider that something else is at work here.

I did look over it but no one really actually needs to because they already know what it says because they all say the same thing just about, which is why people are annoyed with you. As for focusing on the "periphery" - it's because no one does what you just did. It's unnecessary and if you want people to actually read what you write, you should stop doing it and follow what Shiho said about actually structuring your posts. Quality over quantity, Phoenyx. Take it as advice rather than apparent offense.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Adrienne

[Phoenyx]

43 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

I did look over it but no one really actually needs to because they already know what it says because they all say the same thing just about, which is why people are annoyed with you. 

 

Alright, how about you sum up your understanding as to what they all say?

[Adrienne]

4 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Alright, how about you sum up your understanding as to what they all say?

[Phoenyx]

46 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

 

Made me smile :-). Alright, I'll give you my take as to why you don't want to elaborate. It's actually pretty simple- all this time, my central message has always been the same- that the mainstream narrative is fundamentally wrong. I'll elaborate in the next few paragraphs, but I imagine you will stop here, if you even get this far. I'll continue because I do believe that some people are interested, even if they aren't the most vocal here.

 

So, the Quack side came in with Partisan's CB about Sphinx/TCW, HM and Swamp preparing to attack Quack. Well, Sphinx just completely denied it and  Immortals and TFP,  the only 2 Swamp Alliances who responded to this allegation, also denied it. HM denied it as well, but the one sliver of hope for your narrative is Ronnie's statement, since turned into an ad, that Swamp had reached out to HM about attacking Quack.

 

In my quest to find out the truth, I looked into Ronnie's statement. Turns out, he never spoke to anyone in Swamp. His HM leader source, who may have spoken to someone in Swamp, was far more ambiguous in what he said. It now seems clear that Ronnie doesn't want to reveal anything more. A curious individual would wonder why that is. Someone like me would start to come up with theories.

 

My initial theory, which I think could still be true, is that Ronnie realizes, consciously or unconsciously, that his allegation regarding Swamp doesn't hold water. An alternate theory that I've been thinking about ever since the rift within Swamp became public, is that 1 or more Alliances in Swamp may well have wanted to go to war with Quack, but left Immortals and TFP out of the loop. Regardless of which theory is right, a lot of people here clearly jumped on to the bandwagon that Immortals and TFP were guilty and it's hard to walk back statements of this kind.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[katashimon13]

tldr of this thread if anyone is interested

"how many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man" cause i was too lazy to caption

rawr

[Prefonteen]

15 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Made me smile :-). Alright, I'll give you my take as to why you don't want to elaborate. It's actually pretty simple- all this time, my central message has always been the same- that the mainstream narrative is fundamentally wrong. I'll elaborate in the next few paragraphs, but I imagine you will stop here, if you even get this far. I'll continue because I do believe that some people are interested, even if they aren't the most vocal here.

 

So, the Quack side came in with Partisan's CB about Sphinx/TCW, HM and Swamp preparing to attack Quack. Well, Sphinx just completely denied it and the only 2 Swamp Alliances who responded to the allegation that they wanted to do this, Immortals and TFP, also denied it. HM denied it as well, but the one sliver of hope for your narrative is Ronnie's statement, since turned into an ad, that Swamp had reached out to HM about attacking Quack.

 

In my quest to find out the truth, I looked into Ronnie's statement. Turns out, he never spoke to anyone in Swamp. His HM leader source, who may have spoken to someone in Swamp, was far more ambiguous in what he said. It now seems clear that Ronnie doesn't want to reveal anything more. A curious individual would wonder why that is. Someone like me would start to come up with theories.

 

My initial theory, which I think could still be true, is that Ronnie realizes, consciously or unconsciously, that his allegation regarding Swamp doesn't hold water. An alternate theory that I've been thinking about ever since the rift within Swamp became public, is that 1 or more Alliances in Swamp may well have wanted to go to war with Quack, but left Immortals and TFP out of the loop. Regardless of which theory is right, a lot of people here clearly jumped on to the bandwagon that Immortals and TFP were guilty and it's hard to walk back statements of this kind.

Once again, a denial by a suspect/perpetrator (however you want to call it) is irrelevant when measured against conflicting narratives + overlapping admissions that contradict said denial.

It's been proven and admitted that plans existed and approaches were made. That's enough as far as Quack's CB is concerned. Who specifically spoke to who when and where (as everyone is putting their hands up in public, going "WELL WASNT ME CHIEF") is irrelevant to our justification at this point, due to the approach *and treaties* having been admitted to have existed.

You're free to continue your quest for the "truth", but given the pathway you have been taking toward it, I suspect you won't find it. Instead, you'll determine your own truth from what you'd like to hear and see.

[Phoenyx]

10 minutes ago, katashimon13 said:

tldr of this thread if anyone is interested

"how many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man" cause i was too lazy to caption

rawr

 

It started with me wondering what Immortals and TFP would do now that they were no longer in Swamp and has moved on to whether the mainstream narrative that Swamp, which included Immortals and TFP at the time, was really set on attacking Quack or not.

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

Once again, a denial by a suspect/perpetrator (however you want to call it) is irrelevant when measured against conflicting narratives + overlapping admissions that contradict said denial.

It's been proven and admitted that plans existed and approaches were made. That's enough as far as Quack's CB is concerned. Who specifically spoke to who when and where (as everyone is putting their hands up in public, going "WELL WASNT ME CHIEF") is irrelevant to our justification at this point, due to the approach *and treaties* having been admitted to have existed.

You're free to continue your quest for the "truth", but given the pathway you have been taking toward it, I suspect you won't find it. Instead, you'll determine your own truth from what you'd like to hear and see.

 

I think the one thing -everyone- agrees with is that treaties were being made. Where we part ways is whether those treaties were defensive or offensive in nature. I think I've made a strong case that everyone who has spoken on the anti Quack side has said they were defensive. All you have on -your- side is Boyce's statement that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack in December/January. How did he come to that conclusion? That's never been clarified. And you seem content to not look into it. And I mean, in a sense, I can understand that. Why look into something that might show that your CB was fundamentally flawed?

 

On our side, we have something similar, with Ronnie not wanting to investigate and/or make public what his HM leader source meant, or who this HM leader's source or sources were. I think if there's one thing I've learned in my many quests for the truth, it's to always play close attention to those who don't want to reveal information.

[Prefonteen]

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

It started with me wondering what Immortals and TFP would do now that they were no longer in Swamp and has moved on to whether the mainstream narrative that Swamp, which included Immortals and TFP at the time, was really set on attacking Quack or not.

 

I think the one thing -everyone- agrees with is that treaties were being made. Where we part ways is whether those treaties were defensive or offensive in nature. I think I've made a strong case that everyone who has spoken on the anti Quack side has said they were defensive. All you have on -your- side is Boyce's statement that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack in December/January. How did he come to that conclusion? That's never been clarified. And you seem content to not look into it. And I mean, in a sense, I can understand that. Why look into something that might show that your CB was fundamentally flawed?

 

On our side, we have something similar, with Ronnie not wanting to investigate and/or make public what his HM leader source meant, or who this HM leader's source or sources were. I think if there's one thing I've learned in my many quests for the truth, it's to always play close attention to those who don't want to reveal information.

No. Ronny's statement is frankly direct evidence that the intention was there. Your inability to clear up where and how it occurred is testimony to those conversations having been (and being) kept under wraps.

I noted before that politics in backrooms is generally not conducted in absolutes until the deal is as good as done. Parties manouver with plausible deniability until they are certain the risk of backfire is nullified. This standard M.O. exists specifically for situations like this.

You're never going to get a direct admission (until perhaps 2 years from now when the oldies reflect and when it no longer matters), and where others would account for that in their analysis, you structurally choose to interpret that as a mark against the CB.

 

Which is hella dumb lmao

[Shiho Nishizumi]

15 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I think I've made a strong case that everyone who has spoken on the anti Quack side has said they were defensive.

Your 'case' is little more than an exoneration attempt for TFP/Immortals due to your inherent bias. That's made explicit by this statement in particular:
 

Quote

Regardless of which theory is right, a lot of people here clearly jumped on to the bandwagon that Immortals and TFP were guilty and it's hard to walk back statements of this kind.

Nobody singled them out, be it on our or their end (we just said that the entirety of spheres were involved whilst their coalition shifted blame to the other one). A focus was put on Tyrion and Kaz simply because they were the ones who made statements at all., rather than because of their specific AA's.

Such deliberate obtuseness is one of the reasons why people simply skim if not skip what you post. It being an entire page's worth is just an aggravating factor.

[Phoenyx]

12 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

No. Ronny's statement is frankly direct evidence that the intention was there.

 

Ronnie fully admits he never even spoke to anyone in Swamp. He just interpreted what another HM leader said. This other HM leader -may- have actually spoken to someone in Swamp. Their testimony on what was meant would be more valuable. However, it's not even a given that -they- spoke to someone in Swamp. What we have here is a classical example of the broken telephone effect. Perhaps that will ultimately be the name of the war. But perhaps we will have to wait 2 years, as you say, or even more, before the truth ultimately comes to light for everyone. 

[Prefonteen]

3 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Ronnie fully admits he never even spoke to anyone in Swamp. He just interpreted what another HM leader said. This other HM leader -may- have actually spoken to someone in Swamp. Their testimony on what was meant would be more valuable. However, it's not even a given that -they- spoke to someone in Swamp. What we have here is a classical example of the broken telephone effect. Perhaps that will ultimately be the name of the war. But perhaps we will have to wait 2 years, as you say, or even more, before the truth ultimately comes to light for everyone. 

No, that's *your* interpretation, based on what *you* want to hear.

It may as well be (and is more likely) that the events did occur, ronny made his statement, and it pissed other individuals off, so the information trail ended there.

[Phoenyx]

2 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Your 'case' is little more than an exoneration attempt for TFP/Immortals due to your inherent bias. That's made explicit by this statement in particular:
 

Nobody singled them out, be it on our or their end (we just said that the entirety of spheres were involved whilst their coalition shifted blame to the other one). A focus was put on Tyrion and Kaz simply because they were the ones who made statements at all., rather than because of their specific AA's.

Such deliberate obtuseness is one of the reasons why people simply skim if not skip what you post. It being an entire page's worth is just an aggravating factor.

 

Actually, they were singled out, precisely because they were the only Swamp Alliances whose denials of this were made public. Anyway, there is still scant evidence that -anyone- on the Quack side had any plan to attack you guys first. The only evidence I have seem of someone clearly claiming this is Boyce. Who did he talk to? Sphinx has now completely denied any plan on his part to attack Quack and he is not shown as talking to anyone else on the anti Quack side. Why is it that you are so unconcerned about this clear weakness for your narrative?

[Prefonteen]

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Actually, they were singled out, precisely because they were the only Swamp Alliances whose denials of this were made public. Anyway, there is still scant evidence that -anyone- on the Quack side had any plan to attack you guys first. The only evidence I have seem of someone clearly claiming this is Boyce. Who did he talk to? Sphinx has now completely denied any plan on his part to attack Quack and he is not shown as talking to anyone else on the anti Quack side. Why is it that you are so unconcerned about this clear weakness for your narrative?

Right. I'll take logs showing sphinx directly referencing a war against quack over sphinx denying it in hindsight any day.

 

Why is it that you are so unconcerned about this clear weakness in your narrative?

[Phoenyx]

Just now, Prefonteen said:

No, that's *your* interpretation, based on what *you* want to hear.

It may as well be (and is more likely) that the events did occur, ronny made his statement, and it pissed other individuals off, so the information trail ended there.

Here is what's not interpretation but fact:

1- Ronnie has made it clear that he never actually spoke to anyone in Swamp

2- Tyrion (Immortals) and Kaz (TFP) have both adamantly rejected any plans to attack Quack, or having even heard of such plans within the Swamp.

3- Tyrion, myself and possibly others find that Ronnie's source' statement is ambiguous as to what he meant.

4- Ronnie stated that this alleged plan to attack Quack seemed to fizzle out shortly after it allegedly started.

5- Ronnie stated that HM never adopted any plan to attack quack. 

 

On your side, you have Boyce saying that TCW/HM/Swamp were going to attack Quack in December/January. The source(s) for his information? No one knows. That's all you got.

2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Right. I'll take logs showing sphinx directly referencing a war against quack over sphinx denying it in hindsight any day.

 

I've looked over all the logs. Based on what I've read, he was simply referencing the defensive treaties that everyone admits were happening. I see nothing in them of any plan to initiate a first strike. Now that Sphinx has come out and straight up said that he had no such plans, it only adds to the pile of evidence that there was no first strike plan to attack Quack.