Gregory House Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 whatcha say? What Hans said is not for me to reply to. It also changes nothing with regards to my belief that assisting an ally is enough justification for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What Hans said is not for me to reply to. It also changes nothing with regards to my belief that assisting an ally is enough justification for war. So to sum it up your alliance finds it despicable that we supported our ally in attacking a group that was proactively plotting against us and was seen as a tangible threat, yet you have no issue in rolling a much smaller alliance for the shits and giggles because your ally, who is much stronger than the alliance attacked, asked for support. No double standard there at all. 4 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So to sum it up your alliance finds it despicable that we supported our ally in attacking a group that was proactively plotting against us and was seen as a tangible threat, yet you have no issue in rolling a much smaller alliance for the shits and giggles because your ally, who is much stronger than the alliance attacked, asked for support. No double standard there at all. There were two options, accept or reject the request for assistance. Option 1, accepting the request, strengthened our bonds with our ally and allies (allies because it shows our commitment to all of our allies), while annoying or irritating non-allies and otherwise non-involved parties. Option 2, rejecting the request, would have weakened our bonds with our ally and allies, while non-allies and otherwise non-involved parties would have been indifferent. It is obvious which option is the better choice. Hint: it's the first one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) justification for the war doesn't matter... what matters is that nobody cares enough to do anything about it that doesn't, however, mean that there won't be repercussions. continued guardian/test military presence is costing exponentially greater political capital. green eyes are watching... Edited March 10, 2015 by Hereno 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Thank you for saying it's okay for this to happen to SI, but not CU. Also GPA, apparently we have to fight now, foxfire said it's okay.Well, Fox Fire is the boss, after all. He used to be a moderator, remember? I'll start getting my folks ready for your sudden, but inevitable betrayal. I'm guessing Saturday at reset? Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Well, Fox Fire is the boss, after all. He used to be a moderator, remember? I'll start getting my folks ready for your sudden, but inevitable betrayal. I'm guessing Saturday at reset? Yeah, something bigger than this war is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Sterling Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yeah, something bigger than this war is coming. You're right. It's my dick cuming everywhere. Quote Genesis, best band NA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You tease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Hahahaha it censored me so I had to use British slang to make my joke it means a girls lady parts. Back on topic we go... !@#$ing brits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Mussolini Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm glad you don't care about me because then I'd have to commit honorable sudoku.... god not the 7's they always skimp out on the 7's. I think you mean "seppuku"... XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think you mean "seppuku"... XD that's the joke tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Mussolini Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 that's the joke tho I noticed literally 10 seconds after I read that again... I swear to god if I don't get my head out of my ass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohu Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I don't really have anything of substance to add to the thread as everything important has been pretty thoroughly covered up to this point. But I'll echo the disappointment others have displayed with Guardian sphere aggression's towards the weak and helpless alliances of the world. You can only claim the benefit of all so many times before they wise up to the detriments each of these actions produce. But I've never been one to interrupt someones party, so enjoy the hurrah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 Well, Fox Fire is the boss, after all. He used to be a moderator, remember? I'll start getting my folks ready for your sudden, but inevitable betrayal. I'm guessing Saturday at reset? How about pistols at noon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 There were two options, accept or reject the request for assistance. Option 1, accepting the request, strengthened our bonds with our ally and allies (allies because it shows our commitment to all of our allies), while annoying or irritating non-allies and otherwise non-involved parties. Option 2, rejecting the request, would have weakened our bonds with our ally and allies, while non-allies and otherwise non-involved parties would have been indifferent. It is obvious which option is the better choice. Hint: it's the first one. No shit Sherlock. Everyone here knows what the options were, and it's been made fairly clear why you did what you did already. What we are saying is that your actions have been hypocritical, and you are full of double standards. Clearly you are not capable of intellectual discourse. You are merely repeating the same shit over and over again, instead of addressing the points made. inb4 more parroting. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) No !@#$ Sherlock. Everyone here knows what the options were, and it's been made fairly clear why you did what you did already. What we are saying is that your actions have been hypocritical, and you are full of double standards. Clearly you are not capable of intellectual discourse. You are merely repeating the same !@#$ over and over again, instead of addressing the points made. inb4 more parroting. I believe you may be confusing me with Prefontaine, if by calling me hypocritical, you are referring to the quote Hansarius produced. This is not to say that I find Prefontaine hypocritical, I'm working from your perspective. I never once said that assisting an ally is not justification for war, so my stating that it is justification for war here is in no way hypocritical. You're quite pissy about this anyway. We could have declared with no CB at all and it wouldn't matter. Edited March 11, 2015 by Gregory House Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I believe you may be confusing me with Prefontaine, if by calling me hypocritical, you are referring to the quote Hansarius produced. This is not to say that I find Prefontaine hypocritical, I'm working from your perspective. I never once said that assisting an ally is not justification for war, so my stating that it is justification for war here is in no way hypocritical. When I said you, I am talking in general form and referring to Guardian as a group. And collectively, you have all been hypocritical in your actions, and I am glad that others in the game are finally finding it just as transparent. You're quite pissy about this anyway. We could have declared with no CB at all and it wouldn't matter. It's the bullshit that gets people. I imagine the backlash from people would not of been this bad had you decided to just attack them outright, without taking up some sort of "world police" role and instructing people on how they should be playing this game. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) When I said you, I am talking in general form and referring to Guardian as a group. And collectively, you have all been hypocritical in your actions, and I am glad that others in the game are finally finding it just as transparent. It's the !@#$ that gets people. I imagine the backlash from people would not of been this bad had you decided to just attack them outright, without taking up some sort of "world police" role and instructing people on how they should be playing this game. Well I don't speak on behalf of Guardian, nor do I claim to, so you should treat my words as merely my own opinion, not as representative of our alliance. In that sense, you may be able to make the case that my opinion is contradictory to the Prefontaine quote from way back, but that doesn't change the validity of my opinion in that, contradictory to what he said or not, it's still my belief. Anyway, I'm sure Prefontaine cleared up the misunderstanding with the quote with Hans in private. See this post: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5078-guardian-military-action/page-8#entry77337 I think you're just hopping on the anti-Guardian bandwagon for quite obvious reasons. Edited March 11, 2015 by Gregory House Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Well I don't speak on behalf of Guardian, nor do I claim to, so you should treat my words as merely my own opinion, not as representative of our alliance. In that sense, you may be able to make the case that my opinion is contradictory to the Prefontaine quote from way back, but that doesn't change the validity of my opinion in that, contradictory to what he said or not, it's still my belief. We've already established this anyway, so it's redundant to repeat it again. Like I said to you before, I know that your perspective isn't representative and doesn't hold much value when it comes to Guardian's larger goals. Anyway, I'm sure Prefontaine cleared up the misunderstanding with the quote with Hans in private. See this post: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5078-guardian-military-action/page-8#entry77337 You are operating on assumptions. There was no misunderstanding. Hans' point still stands. And Guardian's public stance has been full of double standards. I think you're just hopping on the anti-Guardian bandwagon for quite obvious reasons. That's a silly metaphor to use when referring to me/UPN about this situation and Guardian at large. But continue spouting nonsense and using buzzwords that you believe add substance to your arguments. Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 House >.< Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) what so secret about giving out private messages, I wonder hans is shocked. Edited March 11, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Guardian needs to get the shepherd's crook we used for House at GPA. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 You are operating on assumptions. There was no misunderstanding. Hans' point still stands. And Guardian's public stance has been full of double standards. That's a silly metaphor to use when referring to me/UPN about this situation and Guardian at large. But continue spouting nonsense and using buzzwords that you believe add substance to your arguments. Yes, I am operating on an assumption that Prefontaine cleared up the misunderstanding with Hansarius in private. If you understand that I'm putting forth my own opinion, that assisting an ally is justification for war, then why you keep whining about hypocrisy and all that to me makes no sense. Clearly, your issue is with Prefontaine, not with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 And Guardian's public stance has been full of double standards. Please show me one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Yes, I am operating on an assumption that Prefontaine cleared up the misunderstanding with Hansarius in private. If you understand that I'm putting forth my own opinion, that assisting an ally is justification for war, then why you keep whining about hypocrisy and all that to me makes no sense. Clearly, your issue is with Prefontaine, not with me. !@#$ dude, do you even read before replying? There was no misunderstanding. Like I said to you before, I don't care about your opinion. I have merely highlighted the hypocrisy in your alliances actions. Please show me one. Don't pretend that you can't see the extreme differences in your public statements now in comparison to the last two wars. We can all recognise political posturing and when people are acting to forward their agenda, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the views and rhetoric they pushed in the past. Comparing the statements you are making about your actions in this situation and the criticism of us going in on EoS' behalf when there actually was a tangible threat against us all is one of the many examples. Edited March 11, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.