Jump to content

Questioning the causes of serious Orbis Wars


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Phoenyx No offense, but I think a whole zero people are still reading your messages. 

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

This post is complicated enough without me trying to find something you're referring to. So I'll just say that I believe the -reason- that Ronny won't reveal his HM leader source is probably because that HM leader doesn't want to be revealed. As to why Boyce doesn't want to elaborate on where he got this notion that tCW, HM and Swamp were probably going to attack in December or January, I'm also not sure, but I suspect it's because he either knows or suspects that his guess didn't have much evidence behind it. 

No. Its because you are a totally irrelevant person. Have you any idea what you are asking? 

You're asking for the leader of a major alliance to leak confidential talks that he had with another alliance leader. Should he leak this, this therefore means that other alliance leaders will be less inclined to speak to him, because they have no guarantee that what they say will not end up on the forums. No serious alliance leader would ever consider revealing these things to a general member not even in his own alliance (except a certain ex-leader of TCW :P ). These backroom conversations are none of your business.

No doubt it would be interesting to know all these things, and no doubt it would be beneficial to Quack's cause, as further evidence of what we already know. But just because you want it, doesn't mean you will get it, because ultimately, its none of your business. Your job is to fight wars for your alliance (which you have failed to do, I do hope you're on the No Pixel Order list) -- not to engage in pointless "investigation", weeks after the war comes to an end.

What do you hope to achieve? For the anti-quack coalition to say "oh, sorry, yes, we were going to attack Quack"? That's water under the bridge -- come the end of the NAP in April, there will be new tensions, and new conflicts as the cycle goes on and on. We may even find ourselves fighting alongside the same people we were bitterly arguing with just a few months prior.

18 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Regarding this Global war, I think I know quite a bit. But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong :-p. 

Seeking proof involves the ability to admit you are wrong. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Corpsman said:

@Phoenyx No offense, but I think a whole zero people are still reading your messages. 

Not only are people reading my messages, they are -replying- to them.

7 hours ago, dtc justice said:

Don't tell him our secrets....we all just short reply to him so he spends 20+ min per response, wasting his time on a useless matter

Not everyone feels that way on these things. And some replies are much longer than a sentence or 2.

6 hours ago, legoboyvdlp said:
On 12/30/2020 at 7:19 PM, Phoenyx said:

This post is complicated enough without me trying to find something you're referring to. So I'll just say that I believe the -reason- that Ronny won't reveal his HM leader source is probably because that HM leader doesn't want to be revealed. As to why Boyce doesn't want to elaborate on where he got this notion that tCW, HM and Swamp were probably going to attack in December or January, I'm also not sure, but I suspect it's because he either knows or suspects that his guess didn't have much evidence behind it. 

  No. Its because you are a totally irrelevant person.

 

You act as if I'm the only person involved here. This was a global war, affecting most of the active players in the game. Many may not care why the war started, but a good number do. Anyway, from your tone and the tone of others, I think I'll skip most of the rest of your reply, at least for the time being. I'll just respond to the last bit:

 

  

6 hours ago, legoboyvdlp said:

Seeking proof involves the ability to admit you are wrong. 

Indeed it does. I've looked a long time for the evidence to bolster my case and bring it to be seen by the public, because I prize the truth above other considerations. I really don't think a lot of others here can say the same. 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I've looked a long time for the evidence to bolster my case and bring it to be seen by the public, because I prize the truth above other considerations. I really don't think a lot of others here can say the same. 

And that is your problem. You don't look for evidence for the sake of finding the truth, you look for evidence for the sake of bolstering your arguments. You clearly don't value the truth for its own sake, or you'd realize that the evidence simply doesn't line up in the way that you're hoping it will. Instead, you'd rather dig and dig and twist and turn and analyze and pester because you don't want to accept the truth that is in front of you.

That's intellectual dishonesty, and it is your problem. You are the one that cannot, absolutely cannot say with any pretense of honesty that you 'prize the truth over other considerations', and you can tell because you are the one that is desperately trying to overturn the evidence that exists and instead manufacture evidence in favor of your pet theory that you just don't want to give up on.

So heck the hell off, you are NOT NOT NOT the superior person here and to dare imagine that you are is childish beyond how actual children can be described. You are in the wrong, you are arrogant, pretentious, and pathetic as a matter of objective fact.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
underlined your freudian slip that shows your true intentions
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And that is your problem. You don't look for evidence for the sake of finding the truth, you look for evidence for the sake of bolstering your arguments.

No, I looked at all the evidence I could find. And what I found was a -lot- of evidence that no one was going to attack Quack. Not from anonymous sources, from the heads of Alliances! Tyrion, Kaz, Ronny, the very people who run the Alliances who you claim were going to attack you. And what do you have on the other side? Boyce -.-

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

No, I looked at all the evidence I could find. And what I found was a -lot- of evidence that no one was going to attack Quack. Not from anonymous sources, from the heads of Alliances! Tyrion, Kaz, Ronny, the very people who run the Alliances who you claim were going to attack you. And what do you have on the other side? Boyce -.-

Exactly. You're so desperate to 'prove' the 'truth' that you've arbitrarily decided is the case that you take the public statements of alliance leaders as objective evidence rather than the propaganda that those statements are.

This proves my point yet again, and again proves that you don't care at all about the actual truth but instead on convincing yourself that you were right all along, even when you weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You have an Alliance head who wasn't actually in any of the Alliances, apparently interpreting some ambiguous statements from Sphinx. Who later -also- denied having intentions to attack Quack. So you have all these Alilance heads denying any serious plans to attack you guys, but you decide to take Boyce's word over all of theirs. Unlike all of them, Boyce has never come here to defend his statements. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that very convenient, for Boyce. And perhaps for all of Quack, to be honest.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It'll be ongoing even by 2050.

Oh great...

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Yes, exactly. You have an Alliance head who wasn't actually in any of the Alliances, apparently interpreting some ambiguous statements from Sphinx. Who later -also- denied having intentions to attack Quack. So you have all these Alilance heads denying any serious plans to attack you guys, but you decide to take Boyce's word over all of theirs. Unlike all of them, Boyce has never come here to defend his statements. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that very convenient, for Boyce. And perhaps for all of Quack, to be honest.

Right, because offhand public denials count for so much more than concrete evidence. Because of course nothing exists unless it is on this forum. Because of course it's reasonable to expect everyone to lay their cards flat on the table before anyone makes their play. Because of course plans are a strict and binary thing that go directly from 'nonexistent' to 'confirmed, enacted and committed to' with no intervening status. Because of course you can always trust a leader... unless they're an enemy, in which case of course they're inept, ignorant and irresponsible. Because of course people you like will tell you the total truth of everything without reservation, despite you having a history of leaking private conversations, as long as your initial impression of them was what you wanted to hear.

You are laughable.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No, I looked at all the evidence I could find. And what I found was a -lot- of evidence that no one was going to attack Quack. Not from anonymous sources, from the heads of Alliances! Tyrion, Kaz, Ronny, the very people who run the Alliances who you claim were going to attack you. And what do you have on the other side? Boyce -.-

To be fair, why would anyone tell you, an irrelevant player, if they were going to attack a sphere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Right, because offhand public denials count for so much more than concrete evidence.

No, it's public denials from Alliance heads vs. Boyce's word, based on who knows what. 

3 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

To be fair, why would anyone tell you, an irrelevant player...

dtc, if I'm so irrelevant, why are you even responding?

21 minutes ago, Corpsman said:

Can you not start off 2021 with this? Please? 

Corpsman, you can look away if you like. As to me, this is just something I have to do.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im busy nigh dying in a bunch of spammed threads, so you wont see me here anymore.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No, it's public denials from Alliance heads vs. Boyce's word, based on who knows what.

Right, and you trust those particular alliance heads' word because you feel their statements help your argument, and you don't trust Boyce's word because it undermines your argument.

Proving my point yet again.

  

19 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

dtc, if I'm so irrelevant, why are you even responding?


He's pointing out a glaring flaw in your logic; if the truth is something you'd care about, you'd be willing to accept that and improve upon it. Instead, you dodge it, because you're invested in your pet theory.

Proving... blah blah blah.

  

19 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Corpsman, you can look away if you like. As to me, this is just something I have to do.


Why do you have to? More importantly, why won't you learn to do it properly?

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No, it's public denials from Alliance heads vs. Boyce's word, based on who knows what. 

dtc, if I'm so irrelevant, why are you even responding?

Corpsman, you can look away if you like. As to me, this is just something I have to do.

You are irrelevant because nobody worth mentioning takes you seriously. You provide entertainment thats why I respond.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Right, and you trust those particular alliance heads' word because you feel their statements help your argument, and you don't trust Boyce's word because it undermines your argument.

No, I trust them because they don't go to war for spurious reasons. Boyce seems to go to war at the drop of the hat. When I asked someone in his gov why they went to war with Pantheon, the answer was that it was "Raidmas".

8 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

You are irrelevant because nobody worth mentioning takes you seriously.

You're too hard on yourself dtc justice.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phoenyx said:

No, I trust them because they don't go to war for spurious reasons. Boyce seems to go to war at the drop of the hat. When I asked someone in his gov why they went to war with Pantheon, the answer was that it was "Raidmas".

Neither of those things are reasons either to trust or mistrust anyone on the internet. Again, you like what they say, so you trust their word as if it were concrete evidence. That is your problem.

Pacifism is not a virtue.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Neither of those things are reasons either to trust or mistrust anyone on the internet.

Sure, fine, in your world, I guess someone who doesn't really care about the reasons for starting a war is the same as someone who's adamant about not getting into aggressive wars for no good reason. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Sure, fine, in your world, I guess someone who doesn't really care about the reasons for starting a war is the same as someone who's adamant about not getting into aggressive wars for no good reason. 

Pfff, you think that's some kind of hot rebuttal?

Because yes, both of these hypothetical "someone's" words are worth the same: both individuals' statements are nothing intrinsically and are only worth what can be verified from an evidentiary perspective.

If you're unwilling to accept that, then you are the one failing to value the truth. You are, again, the one valuing your own pat judgements of character over concrete and verifiable data.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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