|
Title: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Dadds on July 31, 2014, 06:45:15 PM To confirm my resolve and my word of honor, IMG will not strike down any public refueling outpost controlled by TGE. If we detect a military build-up around a public establishment, we will send envoy message to dissipate forces or face an attack. I would ask a similar agreement from TGE though the point is moot, since we will not set up any public outposts, as it is clear the children who think they control this game want nothing but to ruin my gameplay.
One day, in another universe, we would envision setting up not just a refuelling depot, but a working buy/sell outpost that will accept most materials and gases, and also sell to the buyers. Naturally that is just a pipe-dream for the moment until we stamp out criminals bent on the destruction of property for the simple sake that they can. We are at war, JamJul, for words against my corporation, words you could have modified. You are good with words, except it seems when it is important. It was your call to post your opinion of us, it was my call to take offense to that. The ball is still in your court. For the rest: :death: :rip2: Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on July 31, 2014, 06:55:45 PM Dadds, if you truly have 'honor', you will respect the Shady Rest refueling station as well.
You are at 'war' with both TGE and EoS et al. You need to show the same respect to each of us. Otherwise, it will look as if you are trying to divide your enemies, and have us bicker among ourselves. You (and others) have tried to do it before. Didn't work then, won't work now... Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: JamJulLison on July 31, 2014, 08:11:03 PM To confirm my resolve and my word of honor, IMG will not strike down any public refueling outpost controlled by TGE. If we detect a military build-up around a public establishment, we will send envoy message to dissipate forces or face an attack. I would ask a similar agreement from TGE though the point is moot, since we will not set up any public outposts, as it is clear the children who think they control this game want nothing but to ruin my gameplay. One day, in another universe, we would envision setting up not just a refuelling depot, but a working buy/sell outpost that will accept most materials and gases, and also sell to the buyers. Naturally that is just a pipe-dream for the moment until we stamp out criminals bent on the destruction of property for the simple sake that they can. We are at war, JamJul, for words against my corporation, words you could have modified. You are good with words, except it seems when it is important. It was your call to post your opinion of us, it was my call to take offense to that. The ball is still in your court. For the rest: :death: :rip2: First on the issue of the reason for the war. I didn't edit anything I said. I simply was honest in my opinion. At the time that is how it looked to me. I wasn't trying to insult you or anything. I just tend to be brutally honest and not everyone likes it when I am. You did in fact try to bully me into editing my post or post a retraction. I don't respond to well to bullying. So naturally I refused. You didn't like that so you declared war on TGE. That is why we are in this war in the first place. I haven't sided with SSS against IMG either. I have simply stopped going after them since the only reason i was going after them anyways was because you were my friend and i was trying to support you. Your right there are bad apples out there who do like to go around hitting lots of people and trying to actually hurt them. I am not one of them. Anytime I do go to hit someone when doing a COM, the timer is so large if they are active all they have to do is message me and I will stop the attack. They also have ample time to remove the stuff if they want. So the only ones usually who end up getting hit are inactives. Now these others who hit can be dangerous and destructive, but so can having an attitude where if your not with me then your against me. So can assuming everyone is an enemy and attacking them based on an opinion they have. Someone who declares war on lots of people and makes lots of enemies themselves can be considered by some to be just as much of a threat as someone who goes around blowing everything else. Simply because it makes it hard for people to know if your going to end up doing the same to them. As for this agreement. We need to agree what constitutes as military force build up. I don't feel comfortable leaving any station of mine undefended. A defense station is reasonable enough provided there is only 1 and it isn't that wrong in power. The one I am going to set up it high enough that anyone wanting to hit it for profit will get no profit. Anyone who wants to destroy it will have to spend some QP to do it. But it still will be weak enough that most of the top players would be able to destroy it if they really wanted to. You will find there will also be nothing military wise on the public fueling station itself. Nor will there be anything like that on the surface of the planet. After i get things set up you are welcome to come inspect the site for yourself. You are also welcome to buy fuel if you want. Just because we are at war does not mean I will restrict access to anyone. I don't know what SSS may try, but I won't report your location when you are there and I won't attack you when you come for fuel. You have my word on that. I would like to ask that you and anyone else visiting my station though not attack anyone else that may be in orbit. I would prefer this remain a peaceful area. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on July 31, 2014, 08:22:17 PM As for this agreement. We need to agree what constitutes as military force build up. I don't feel comfortable leaving any station of mine undefended (Indeed, the Shady Rest will have defenses on board for that very reason, I don't trust YOU!). A defense station is reasonable enough provided there is only 1 and it isn't that wrong in power. The one I am going to set up it high enough that anyone wanting to hit it for profit will get no profit (the same as the 'Rest). Anyone who wants to destroy it will have to spend some QP to do it. But it still will be weak enough that most of the top players would be able to destroy it if they really wanted to. You will find there will also be nothing military wise on the public fueling station itself. Nor will there be anything like that on the surface of the planet. After i get things set up you are welcome to come inspect the site for yourself. You are also welcome to buy fuel if you want (I would like some of your money myself.). Just because we are at war does not mean I will restrict access to anyone. I don't know what SSS may try, but I won't report your location when you are there and I won't attack you when you come for fuel. You have my word on that (my customer list is just that (MY) customer list. It will never be a commodity.). I would like to ask that you and anyone else visiting my station though not attack anyone else that may be in orbit. I would prefer this remain a peaceful area(I agree and require my station gets the same respect). The Shady Rest is there for commerce, not combat... Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: JamJulLison on July 31, 2014, 08:51:49 PM As for this agreement. We need to agree what constitutes as military force build up. I don't feel comfortable leaving any station of mine undefended (Indeed, the Shady Rest will have defenses on board for that very reason, I don't trust YOU!). A defense station is reasonable enough provided there is only 1 and it isn't that wrong in power. The one I am going to set up it high enough that anyone wanting to hit it for profit will get no profit (the same as the 'Rest). Anyone who wants to destroy it will have to spend some QP to do it. But it still will be weak enough that most of the top players would be able to destroy it if they really wanted to. You will find there will also be nothing military wise on the public fueling station itself. Nor will there be anything like that on the surface of the planet. After i get things set up you are welcome to come inspect the site for yourself. You are also welcome to buy fuel if you want (I would like some of your money myself.). Just because we are at war does not mean I will restrict access to anyone. I don't know what SSS may try, but I won't report your location when you are there and I won't attack you when you come for fuel. You have my word on that (my customer list is just that (MY) customer list. It will never be a commodity.). I would like to ask that you and anyone else visiting my station though not attack anyone else that may be in orbit. I would prefer this remain a peaceful area(I agree and require my station gets the same respect). The Shady Rest is there for commerce, not combat... I know. The same goes for the station I am setting up. I only want a defense station there for just that. If all goes well it will just detour others from wanting to attack and there won't ever be any combat with it. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on July 31, 2014, 09:33:23 PM amen, brother...
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on July 31, 2014, 09:37:32 PM To confirm my resolve and my word of honor, IMG will not strike down any public refueling outpost controlled by TGE. If we detect a military build-up around a public establishment, we will send envoy message to dissipate forces or face an attack. I would ask a similar agreement from TGE though the point is moot, since we will not set up any public outposts, as it is clear the children who think they control this game want nothing but to ruin my gameplay(child, what are you trying to say here?). One day, in another universe, we would envision setting up not just a refuelling depot, but a working buy/sell outpost that will accept most materials and gases, and also sell to the buyers. (This has been my goal from the very start of my existence) Naturally that is just a pipe-dream for the moment until we stamp out criminals bent on the destruction of property for the simple sake that they can. We are at war, JamJul, for words against my corporation, words you could have modified. You are good with words, except it seems when it is important. It was your call to post your opinion of us, it was my call to take offense to that. The ball is still in your court. For the rest: :death: :rip2: Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: raphael on July 31, 2014, 09:58:28 PM I would ask a similar agreement from TGE though the point is moot, since we will not set up any public outposts, as it is clear the children who think they control this game want nothing but to ruin my gameplay. It's good that you have learnt your place in the galaxy, which is under the mercy of the Syndicate. If you want to prove me wrong, make a base like SSS Jupiter. We'll see how long it will last. :)) Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Dadds on August 02, 2014, 06:15:05 PM my point exactly. The children want to break things. My point is that you all are siding with this child probably out of fear, i dont know.
My resolve vs the criminal who also chooses to taunt ingame and with name changes is the game's biggest criminal. He always has been. Its why the first Galactic Council made him a criminal. Nothing has changed, not from my resolve. Sadly others choose a different path. @Sargas: you always had a non aggression pact with us, simply because we dont attack miners, until you attacked my position at Jupiter. I now know your true colours as a betrayer and can never trust your word again. "Liar, liar pants on fire" oh wait, you dont wear pants, that burn will hurt. Until all top corps can come to an agreement about orbitals, and i know the children out there will never honor an agreement, then sorry to say Sargas, that anything you build will be removed or liberated by IMG. @ Jamjul: My statement regarding TGE is still valid. What constitutes a defence vs military outpost? hmmmm well lets look at this. the top 15-20 players can kill it regardless of what you put there. So what are you wanting to defend against? My agreement says we wont attack your public orbital. look down the list of who will attack it. if the top corps are all your allies, then guessing you only need around 3M power to defend it. If you want to pick a number let me know. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: raphael on August 03, 2014, 09:35:34 AM my point exactly. The children want to break things. My point is that you all are siding with this child probably out of fear, i dont know. My resolve vs the criminal who also chooses to taunt ingame and with name changes is the game's biggest criminal. He always has been. Its why the first Galactic Council made him a criminal. Nothing has changed, not from my resolve. Sadly others choose a different path. @Sargas: you always had a non aggression pact with us, simply because we dont attack miners, until you attacked my position at Jupiter. I now know your true colours as a betrayer and can never trust your word again. "Liar, liar pants on fire" oh wait, you dont wear pants, that burn will hurt. Until all top corps can come to an agreement about orbitals, and i know the children out there will never honor an agreement, then sorry to say Sargas, that anything you build will be removed or liberated by IMG. @ Jamjul: My statement regarding TGE is still valid. What constitutes a defence vs military outpost? hmmmm well lets look at this. the top 15-20 players can kill it regardless of what you put there. So what are you wanting to defend against? My agreement says we wont attack your public orbital. look down the list of who will attack it. if the top corps are all your allies, then guessing you only need around 3M power to defend it. If you want to pick a number let me know. Since you are inferior to me in all aspects of the game, you are left with nothing to criticize but my name changes. Hahahaha That's pathetic. LOL About EOS, they can always build a base like mine and you wouldn't be able to do anything with it. We all saw how you miserably failed at Jupiter. http://forum.astro-galaxy.com/index.php/topic,8773.0.html. LOL Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: JamJulLison on August 03, 2014, 03:53:28 PM @ Jamjul: My statement regarding TGE is still valid. What constitutes a defence vs military outpost? hmmmm well lets look at this. the top 15-20 players can kill it regardless of what you put there. So what are you wanting to defend against? My agreement says we wont attack your public orbital. look down the list of who will attack it. if the top corps are all your allies, then guessing you only need around 3M power to defend it. If you want to pick a number let me know. How about for defense stations of these they can not exceed 7 mill in power? Also I am not allies with all the top players. TGE and SSS has no NAPS or treaties signed at the moment. We just tend to leave each other alone. But that doesn't make us allies. We have no NAPs or anything signed with Wayup's corp. So not all the top players are allies. Even Sargas really isn't an ally at the moment. Same with ITO. We just have a NAP with them both. Yes I am friends with both their leaders. But that doesn't make us allies at the current time. I am also not working with anyone to hunt down IMG. I don't even bother looking for IMG. I just hit you guys whenever I run into you. Though public fueling stations I now won't hit. So if you ever set any up, as long as they are standing TGE won't hit them. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 03, 2014, 04:45:02 PM @Sargas: you always had a non aggression pact with us, simply because we dont attack miners, until you attacked my position at Jupiter. I now know your true colours as a betrayer and can never trust your word again. "Liar, liar pants on fire" oh wait, you dont wear pants, that burn will hurt. Until all top corps can come to an agreement about orbitals (Are you willing to enter into a discussion regarding public stations? If so, I am opening a new forum in the AG forums. Your comments (as long as they are on topic) will be respected. , and i know the children out there will never honor an agreement, then sorry to say Sargas, that anything you build will be removed or liberated by IMG. The following was the 'Declaration of War' (just because we attacked first, doesn't make us the villain): An ally of SSS will be considered as a protagonist towards IMG. I understood that the empire of sargas [EOS] was of neutral standing. Any alliance will unfortunately make them our enemy of state(the underlining is mine and not Dadds). IMG wait on this treaty information with interest. By your words, as soon as the treaty was validated, we would be at war. And as soon as the treaty was validated and signed, by your words, we were at war. This tactic of yours seemed to the EoS as your saying 'play the game the way I want you to do or else'. So, our only option was the 'or else'. That bloody idiotic statement of yours guaranteed the alliance. You have been wanting me for a long time (how's that gotten you so far?). The EoS is still 'of neutral standing'. Your "DECLARATATION OF WAR" didn't make us non-neutral. It only puts IMG on the 'negative-side' of the balance bar. The EoS will still defend you if you are being manipulated in the same way you try to manipulate others. Yes, we are neutral (and will always be). We are a corporation of "fairness and justice". Your corporation is still running down the same track as before (you are either with me, or against me (there is no middle ground). All you are is a nuisance. "The itch from a mosquito bite, the sting of a bee, the boredom of a traffic jam, the stench of a flatulent man on an elevator, etc." @Dadds, if you want to end this war of yours, just ask! (edit because I wanted to add this: I guess this will amount to another declaration of war from IMG. How many is that now?) Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 05, 2014, 02:28:00 AM Actually, I didn't really expect Dadds to respond to this, did you?...
(at least not in a timely manner)... (other than yet another declaration of war...) Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Dadds on August 06, 2014, 03:06:00 PM See what you fail to understand, all mighty sprookers of the forums, is i actually have a life to attend to, and cant be bothered reading all the crap you sprook every hour. i generally deal with it every week or fortnight, since what you say here has total lack of value and meaning to me.
Having said how unimportant your points are, lets analyze a couple of concepts. (get your lawyers books out again Sargas lol) Quote By your words, as soon as the treaty was validated, we would be at war. And as soon as the treaty was validated and signed, by your words, we were at war. This tactic of yours seemed to the EoS as your saying 'play the game the way I want you to do or else'. So, our only option was the 'or else'. That bloody idiotic statement of yours guaranteed the alliance. You have been wanting me for a long time (how's that gotten you so far?). By your words, I wasnt "privvy" to any alliance details, so how can i decide who is ally, neutral or enemy? If you read into my statement that an alliance with SSS automatically declares war on us, then you need to point that out to us before you attack in such a dishonorable way.I have told all those who i am at war with well in advance of such an action. It is the only honorable way. On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions and by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS. Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 06, 2014, 05:24:27 PM Quote from: Dadds on July 11, 2014, 02:50:25 PM
"An ally of SSS will be considered as a protagonist towards IMG. I understood that the empire of sargas [EOS] was of neutral standing. Any alliance will unfortunately make them our enemy of state. IMG wait on this treaty information with interest." end quote How else was I supposed to read it? Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Matamaure001 on August 06, 2014, 07:00:36 PM Dadds: I had placed on the forum a warning that I was to attack you about 24 hrs before the fact...
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 06, 2014, 07:02:31 PM and, that was after your declaration of war...
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 06, 2014, 07:20:04 PM See what you fail to understand, all mighty sprookers of the forums, is i actually have a life to attend to, and cant be bothered reading all the crap you sprook every hour. i generally deal with it every week or fortnight, since what you say here has total lack of value and meaning to me. Having said how unimportant your points are, lets analyze a couple of concepts. (get your lawyers books out again Sargas lol) Quote By your words, as soon as the treaty was validated, we would be at war. And as soon as the treaty was validated and signed, by your words, we were at war. This tactic of yours seemed to the EoS as your saying 'play the game the way I want you to do or else'. So, our only option was the 'or else'. That bloody idiotic statement of yours guaranteed the alliance. You have been wanting me for a long time (how's that gotten you so far?). By your words, I wasnt "privvy" to any alliance details, so how can i decide who is ally, neutral or enemy? If you read into my statement that an alliance with SSS automatically declares war on us, then you need to point that out to us before you attack in such a dishonorable way.I have told all those who i am at war with well in advance of such an action. It is the only honorable way. What are you trying to say? "We are officially at war, and I will attack you next Monday? No, war does not work that way. If we are at war, you will be attacked whenever you are spotted (even before you start shooting yourself). A true combat veteran will understand that. On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions What bloody actionsand by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS.What have I ever done to you, except disagreement? Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives. And, truth be told, I don't give a bloody rat's arse how you rank me. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: JamJulLison on August 07, 2014, 06:35:19 AM Quote from: Dadds on July 11, 2014, 02:50:25 PM "An ally of SSS will be considered as a protagonist towards IMG. I understood that the empire of sargas [EOS] was of neutral standing. Any alliance will unfortunately make them our enemy of state. IMG wait on this treaty information with interest." end quote How else was I supposed to read it? To me that looked like a declaration of war. That is why I had assumed you had declared war on EoS. If that isn't what you ment, perhaps it be best to explain it a little better. To a lot of us that is how it looked and I am pretty sure that is why Mata hit you at Jupiter. So if you didn't mean it as one, perhaps this entire thing between EoS and IMG was a misunderstanding. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: raphael on August 07, 2014, 12:03:27 PM Y'all don't need to worry about IMG. Once WHDs are improved, rivers of blood will flow, and IMG will know the true meaning of terror. They will be killed each single day, over and over again, even if I have to spend hundreds of QPs everyday! :diablo:
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Dadds on August 10, 2014, 05:06:57 PM Quote What are you trying to say? "We are officially at war, and I will attack you next Monday? No, war does not work that way. If we are at war, you will be attacked whenever you are spotted (even before you start shooting yourself). A true combat veteran will understand that. OK lets do a count of how many "combat veterans" are here today. Now, including me, i count one. who wishes to add to that number? On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions What bloody actionsand by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS.What have I ever done to you, except disagreement? Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives. And, truth be told, I don't give a bloody rat's arse how you rank me. Who has stood up to fight for their country? Dont go quoting "that isnt how war is conducted" you sanctimonious piece of dribble. You obviously are blissfully unaware of how things are done. To answer the "lookers" and "sprookers" did you also not read, IMG wait on this treaty? let me give you a clue. Sorry for those non-English speakers, but the clue was in "wait" I know i am a heck of a lot cleverer than you, but i didnt think i was talking to vegetables when i made that quote. Obviously i need to adjust my language to that of a new-born so everyone can U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D me. Get it? or do i need to explain further. As for raphael...pfffft! you are as lame as it gets. a benchmark for underachievers. I laugh in your general direction. Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Rostin on August 10, 2014, 05:57:10 PM I laugh in your general direction. (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/altreel/Top%20Ten/Movie%20Insults/montypythonandtheholygrail.jpg) Not the exact quote... But name that movie! Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 10, 2014, 07:01:59 PM (sic) Quote What are you trying to say? "We are officially at war, and I will attack you next Monday? No, war does not work that way. If we are at war, you will be attacked whenever you are spotted (even before you start shooting yourself). A true combat veteran will understand that. OK lets do a count of how many "combat veterans" are here today. Now, including me, i count one. who wishes to add to that number? On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions What bloody actionsand by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS.What have I ever done to you, except disagreement?2 Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives. And, truth be told, I don't give a bloody rat's arse how you rank me. Who has stood up to fight for their country? 1 Dont go quoting "that isnt how war is conducted" you sanctimonious2 piece of dribble. You obviously are blissfully unaware of how things are done. To answer the "lookers" and "sprookers" did you also not read, IMG wait on this treaty? let me give you a clue. Sorry for those non-English speakers, but the clue was in "wait" I know i am a heck of a lot cleverer than you, but i didnt think i was talking to vegetables when i made that quote. Obviously i need to adjust my language to that of a new-born so everyone can U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D me. Get it? or do i need to explain further. As for raphael...pfffft! you are as lame as it gets. a benchmark for underachievers. I laugh in your general direction. 1ME, M*T*E*F*C*ER, I AM A COMBAT VETERAN!!! DECORATED!!! YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!! other wise, let's parse this missive of yours. 2 Well, what have I done? 3 "adjective, derogatory adjective: sanctimonious making a show of being morally superior to other people. I'm not making a show boss, I am superior (at least to you)... 4 didyoudorealcombat,ordidyouonlydosupport? Edit - Dadds I meant what I just said. Are you a real combat soldier, or were you one of those that got 'combat pay' and stole the beer rations that were designated for the troops on the lime? Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: FreezeLove on August 10, 2014, 07:40:10 PM I laugh in your general direction. (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/altreel/Top%20Ten/Movie%20Insults/montypythonandtheholygrail.jpg) Not the exact quote... But name that movie! Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Rostin on August 10, 2014, 07:44:03 PM I laugh in your general direction. Yes!(http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/altreel/Top%20Ten/Movie%20Insults/montypythonandtheholygrail.jpg) Not the exact quote... But name that movie! Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: sargas on August 10, 2014, 08:15:34 PM I laugh in your general direction. (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/altreel/Top%20Ten/Movie%20Insults/montypythonandtheholygrail.jpg) Not the exact quote... But name that movie! Monty Python and the Holy Grail! I believe the quote was "I laugh at your shoes"... Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: lisunken on August 10, 2014, 11:19:32 PM ouch
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: Rostin on August 11, 2014, 01:02:14 AM It was actually "I fart in your general direction"
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: lisunken on August 11, 2014, 01:09:31 AM now that hurt :))
Title: Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE Post by: JamJulLison on August 11, 2014, 05:02:03 AM Quote What are you trying to say? "We are officially at war, and I will attack you next Monday? No, war does not work that way. If we are at war, you will be attacked whenever you are spotted (even before you start shooting yourself). A true combat veteran will understand that. OK lets do a count of how many "combat veterans" are here today. Now, including me, i count one. who wishes to add to that number? On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions What bloody actionsand by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS.What have I ever done to you, except disagreement? Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives. And, truth be told, I don't give a bloody rat's arse how you rank me. Who has stood up to fight for their country? Dont go quoting "that isnt how war is conducted" you sanctimonious piece of dribble. You obviously are blissfully unaware of how things are done. To answer the "lookers" and "sprookers" did you also not read, IMG wait on this treaty? let me give you a clue. Sorry for those non-English speakers, but the clue was in "wait" I know i am a heck of a lot cleverer than you, but i didnt think i was talking to vegetables when i made that quote. Obviously i need to adjust my language to that of a new-born so everyone can U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D me. Get it? or do i need to explain further. As for raphael...pfffft! you are as lame as it gets. a benchmark for underachievers. I laugh in your general direction. It looked like to me that you were saying you considered them your enemy and that you were at war. The last part though can be taken different way. Now that yous aid what it means it's like owe that's what he ment. But with the first part of the message being so stong, it made the last part sound like a sort of mocking saying "we know your allies with them against us now. we just want to see it said". This is why it is so important to word things just right. It created a big misunderstanding then. Now if it had been me though, I would have asked you to clarify what exactly you ment. Then waited for you to do so. But not everyone reacts the same way. I know this is really none of my business anyways. I just thought i'd give my opinion anyways. After all it seems quite a bit of us misunderstood you. |