open All Channels
seplocked Intergalactic Summit
blankseplocked Atlas Alliance Deploy to Rahadalon outlook for Providence looks grim.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Damu'Khonde
Posted - 2010.02.27 15:33:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Stratio on 27/02/2010 15:37:48



Originally by: Trywell
So, now the policy is Blue on Neut = NRDS?

You don't seem to know our general ROE at all.


We are NBSI in Providence and Catch, so in those regions:

Blue on Neut - support blue
Neut on Neut - do whatever
Neut on Red - do whatever


We are NRDS everywhere else, so in those regions:

Blue on Neut - do nothing
Neut on Neut - do nothing
Neut on Red - kill red

Hope this makes things crystal clear.

Andreus LeHane
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2010.02.27 15:59:00 - [62]
 

NRDS does not mean you protect every person who comes into your space. It means you try to keep people you know full well are hostile out of it.

Borza Slavak
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.02.27 16:36:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Trywell

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
let's try this once more, maybe these CVA and AM people will understand:

Blue on Neut (NBSI) - support blue

Blue on Neut (NRDS) - do nothing




So, now the policy is Blue on Neut = NRDS? I guess you should tell all your Allies that since I quoted the exact opposite.

If you wish to spout ignorance, I'll be forced to respond with derision. Here, I'll repeat the quote so you might see why you look like a clueless tool:

Originally by: Sapphrine

No. U'K don't set people red just because they fired on an ally.

Blue on Neut (NBSI) - support blue
Blue on Neut (NRDS) - do nothing





Quoting for reading comprehension failure and irony.

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.02.27 17:07:00 - [64]
 

Aegis Militia. Putting their foot in their mouth every time. LaughingLaughingLaughing

Thanks Borza, I needed this laugh.

Gigis Nooj
Recombination Solutions
Posted - 2010.02.27 18:27:00 - [65]
 

Why is it that the pilots of Star Fraction act as if they have anything to do with the current situation in Provi? You don't even benefit from it. After this is all over you will still have no space and whatever happens to us will have had nothing to do with you...

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.27 18:37:00 - [66]
 

Circumstances overtake people all the time. Given our ideology and approach to these matters, I can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit and I also can't see Sev3rance being swept out of the region a disbenefit even if it so happened that we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Curious, though, that Archbishop seems to think he will be able to hold the Star Fraction to account for anything that happens in Providence that is not to his liking.

I would assume Sev3rance think the turbulent old priest is deluded. If so, it is probably the only topic on which we would agree.

The Cosmopolite

Irongut
Sex Money Guns
Posted - 2010.02.27 19:33:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Wildcard Trek

I welcome you to come and shoot me, I pray for it daily.


Please undock and defend your I-Hubs, TCUs and stations for a change. Our fleets would welcome the chance to shoot at CVA pilots instead of just structures.

Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
Posted - 2010.02.27 22:26:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Originally by: Xina Tutor

Just to clarify to everyone...

You are not welcome in UK NRDS space unless you come there ready to shoot and defend yourself against any and all. This is already well known.



Hmmm, I see.

NRDS (as defined by CVA +pets): "I'll hold your hand and protect you from all ebil piwates. Will also force you to comply to my standings. Now pay up."

There lies the flaw, your cognitive dissonance.

NRDS means (for all others bar CVA and pets): If you are neutral (not an enemy, not an ally) and you take no action against me, I will not engage you. If you engage me, I will respond.



Which of course is exactly what we do. We just set standing on enemies of the coalition as a whole rather than per alliance, which seems to be where UK has a problem as they prefer different standings to their allies, or at least they claim to.

We do not, of course, force nuetrals too shoot our enemies (which will be hostile to them so they are likely to engage anyway) or any such nonsence. We simply allow them to shoot our enemies (which are normally hostile to them anyway).

We don't allow them to shoot those who are not considered hostile in our space.. ie other nuetrals. That would tend to make them look hostile. If they have a war... take it elsewhere.

But yes, we try to extend the policy beyond ourselves so that the space is here for more than just ourselves, which is a rare opportunity in New Eden. And if that is holding the hand of the weak, or whatever, then I am certainly proud to do so.

Now put all the spin you like, but everyone knows what providence is all about already. The huge numbers of nuetral parties which have come to the area over the years say all that is needed.

So knock yourself out :)

Omal Oma
Shadowed Command
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.27 23:04:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Omal Oma on 27/02/2010 23:04:18
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Circumstances overtake people all the time. Given our ideology and approach to these matters, I can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit and I also can't see Sev3rance being swept out of the region a disbenefit even if it so happened that we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Curious, though, that Archbishop seems to think he will be able to hold the Star Fraction to account for anything that happens in Providence that is not to his liking.

I would assume Sev3rance think the turbulent old priest is deluded. If so, it is probably the only topic on which we would agree.

The Cosmopolite

Wait a minute...

You now want to hold space?
The Star Fraction (Player Alliance) - EVE Wiki

Bullet 1 = * We do not claim space. That is to say we do not put up a flag and say: "this is our backyard, come here and we’ll set the dogs on you!"

What changed this?

Kali Shoumei
Gallente
Cyno Network Inc
Big Bang Quantum
Posted - 2010.02.27 23:16:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Omal Oma
Edited by: Omal Oma on 27/02/2010 23:04:18
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Circumstances overtake people all the time. Given our ideology and approach to these matters, I can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit and I also can't see Sev3rance being swept out of the region a disbenefit even if it so happened that we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Curious, though, that Archbishop seems to think he will be able to hold the Star Fraction to account for anything that happens in Providence that is not to his liking.

I would assume Sev3rance think the turbulent old priest is deluded. If so, it is probably the only topic on which we would agree.

The Cosmopolite

Wait a minute...

You now want to hold space?
The Star Fraction (Player Alliance) - EVE Wiki

Bullet 1 = * We do not claim space. That is to say we do not put up a flag and say: "this is our backyard, come here and we’ll set the dogs on you!"

What changed this?


though i'm pretty sure disbenefit is not a real word what he is clearly trying to say is that them not holding pace is not disadventageous to them - so they still dont hold space or plan to by the looks of things

Omal Oma
Shadowed Command
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.02.27 23:45:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Kali Shoumei
Originally by: Omal Oma
Edited by: Omal Oma on 27/02/2010 23:04:18
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Circumstances overtake people all the time. Given our ideology and approach to these matters, I can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit and I also can't see Sev3rance being swept out of the region a disbenefit even if it so happened that we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Curious, though, that Archbishop seems to think he will be able to hold the Star Fraction to account for anything that happens in Providence that is not to his liking.

I would assume Sev3rance think the turbulent old priest is deluded. If so, it is probably the only topic on which we would agree.

The Cosmopolite

Wait a minute...

You now want to hold space?
The Star Fraction (Player Alliance) - EVE Wiki

Bullet 1 = * We do not claim space. That is to say we do not put up a flag and say: "this is our backyard, come here and we’ll set the dogs on you!"

What changed this?


though i'm pretty sure disbenefit is not a real word what he is clearly trying to say is that them not holding pace is not disadventageous to them - so they still dont hold space or plan to by the looks of things
I read it as, if the opportunity were presented, they'd take it.

That's how I interpret "can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit"

Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
Posted - 2010.02.27 23:46:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: The Cosmopolite
I can't see us not holding space being a disbenefit



I can not see us not holding space being a (not) benefit...

yeah... that's pretty clear Razz

Lord Makk
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.02.28 00:26:00 - [73]
 

Now, you religious piece of ****s.

You will listen to me, and you will listen well.

You are going to die, we are sick of your bull, your holders are sick of your bull and even your dear god is sick of your epic arrogance.

The amount of crap you spew out here is beyond all reason, never ever before have I seen such an amount of tears and accusations wich are so untrue they fail to even be funny.

"99% of all fleets agains UK, we win" by Wildcark Trek.. I'll pull this one out because that is absolute crap and you can hang yourself in a pear tree at any random vacation resort on Gallente Prime.

Do you really view ganking 3 man roaming teams with a 25 man security fleet as great fleet victories? Or bringing ALL your allies to defeat ONE entity?

You better pray, because that is ALL you can do when your litte empire falls on your head and sucks you down the drain.

We're far more competent than you all are willing to admit.

We are coming, and you better 1# Load your guns or 2# Make yourself scarce.


The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.28 00:44:00 - [74]
 

My, my, literary criticism.

First, 'disbenefit' is a real word.

Second, 'litotes' is a real word too.

I leave it to individuals to judge the clarity or elegance of my construction but what I said expressed the meaning that I wished to convey.

The Cosmopolite

Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
Posted - 2010.02.28 02:04:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: The Cosmopolite
My, my, literary criticism.

First, 'disbenefit' is a real word.

Second, 'litotes' is a real word too.

I leave it to individuals to judge the clarity or elegance of my construction but what I said expressed the meaning that I wished to convey.

The Cosmopolite



Yes, we get it... It was deliberately obscure.. :)

But feel free to clarify for us simple and somewhat uneducated pilots. I skilled only weapon... stuffs...

ANDYB1972
Amarr
Ascendancy.
Posted - 2010.02.28 19:23:00 - [76]
 

the time has come for cva and thier pets to leave
cva has had its time and should now vacate providence while they can
and to there pets i would say the same LEAVE NOW while you can

its over a greater power and truth is coming

Illiartiznaiey
Posted - 2010.02.28 20:47:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Illiartiznaiey on 28/02/2010 20:47:33
Amarr victor!
Lord Aralis, bad news

Archbishop
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.28 21:02:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: The Cosmopolite

Curious, though, that Archbishop seems to think he will be able to hold the Star Fraction to account for anything that happens in Providence that is not to his liking.

The Cosmopolite



I have no particular "liking" in regards to anything as my existence is defined by my morality and my dedication to God and Empire.

Still the answer is YES I do hold you accountable for your actions based on your own words in the past. The Star Fraction has always been about consequences. People speak up on IGS and are targeted by you as a consequence of their speech. People claim space and are targeted by you as a consequence of their actions.

But lets look for a moment at the consequences of your own actions in the past. You come into a peaceful area of space (like Mito), declare war on the one force holding peace in the area and protecting people from pirates, then fly off after allying with this pirates (while claiming your not) and leave those pirates to plunder.

The consequences of your actions are piracy, murder and sin. It's pretty plain really. If you kill the policeman guarding your floor of a station and someone on that floor is subsequently killed as a result of that policeman being gone you can hardly claim you had nothing to do with it.

The Mito action is actually where I finally came to understand the Star Fraction. You are prone to violence, focused on combat and warfare and really could care less about "freedom". You hypocritically join forces with one space holding alliance against another and likewise hypocritically condemn slavery while your CEO falls into bed nightly with a slave owning harlot Sani Sabik follower. You claimed in Mito to fight the "oppressive" Caldari loyalists and likewise stated people there should fight for themselves yet you would sit at gates with this same pirates and ignore their "oppression" of the innocent.

All in all your commitment to "freedom" and your cause seems highly suspect. You are either ALL for freedom or you're not. Which is it? Based on these actions I can only conclude you are not and instead are merely using "freedom" as an excuse to engage in what amounts to little more than piracy under the guise of a "cause". A cause you frequently ignore with it's inconvienent (as in the case of your CEO's lover).

How committed to your cause are you Cosmo? Will the Star Fraction stand by in space they recently "freed" and protect people from pirates who also oppress the innocent? I would welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong, to see the Star Fraction actually walk the walk and fight all oppressors not just a few, I would be happy to stand here and acknowledge you are doing that. Sadly though given your long history of hypocrisy and only using your "cause" as an excuse for combat and not a morality or code of honor I believe I will be proved right. But I give you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Archbishop

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.28 22:15:00 - [79]
 

On Mito, your second-hand view of what was happening is quite incorrect. There was an attempt in Mito to extend state power such that defence should be the exclusive domain of Caldari State paramilitaries acting in proxy for the State. As always happens, there was an attempt to stop people from resolving their own disputes as they wished. You easily swallow the line that there were 'pirates' and 'innocents' but the situation was far more complex than that. Some 'innocents', for example, find it convenient to slander other people as 'pirates', a charge that many people prefer to believe and act upon before actually looking at the evidence, you among them I would say, and have 'anti-pirates' attack the others. When the others fight back the charge is that they are 'confirmed pirates'.

I have seen the accusation of 'piracy' thrown around too many times to accept it too easily. The CVA is regularly accused of piracy. Yet, I don't believe they engage in what I would call piracy. The Ushra'Khan is regularly accused of piracy. We've had a list of 'pirates' provided by your good friend 'Lord' Aralis. I think that list is laughable. Therein lies the problem with the easy accusation of 'piracy'. It often doesn't stack up in any way.

Now, we fought the Caldari State paramilitaries because they sought to increase state power and act as its proxy in that area. Where others defended themselves or called in allies, we made no interference. We confined ourselves to operations against the statists. You were not, to my knowledge, ever present in the field. You didn't even, so far as I know, accompany the ludicrous PIE 'live fire exercises' intervention into that conflict. I'm sure our enemies have fed you all sorts of tales but you'll forgive me if I take the view that you don't know what you are talking about.

On the question of consequences, yes, we will and do take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We're not, though, going to take responsibility for the actions of others or, indeed, the inactions of others. I think it is fascinating that you appear to think we are the ones who should be held especially responsible for whatever happens in Providence from this time on.

Even I wouldn't make the claim that the Star Fraction is the leading force behind the revolutionary change taking place in Providence. It amuses me that your words imply we are even while I repudiate the notion, however flattering it may be.

The Cosmopolite

ANDYB1972
Amarr
Ascendancy.
Posted - 2010.02.28 22:53:00 - [80]
 

congrats to the victors SYLPH is dead
now remove the rest of the cancer from the area

Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.01 00:14:00 - [81]
 

If all u'k can refrain from continuing the idiocy of a discussion of our ROE with enemies that intentionally fail to understand i'd be most greatful. Anyone with a genuine standing confusion to u'k should contact one of our diplomats.

Gorion Wassenar
Caldari
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.03.01 00:29:00 - [82]
 

Of all the things that happened during that conflict, it was the fact that we were looking outward instead of inward. Oh the follies of youth.

Archbishop
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.01 02:14:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Archbishop on 01/03/2010 02:17:13

Originally by: The Cosmopolite
On Mito, your second-hand view of what was happening is quite incorrect. There was an attempt in Mito to extend state power such that defence should be the exclusive domain of Caldari State paramilitaries acting in proxy for the State.


Funny I don't recall the Caldari loyalists saying no one else could come there and also protect residents from pirates. While they were Caldari loyalists their operation seemed more focused on the anti-pirate stuff.

Quote:
As always happens, there was an attempt to stop people from resolving their own disputes as they wished. You easily swallow the line that there were 'pirates' and 'innocents' but the situation was far more complex than that. Some 'innocents', for example, find it convenient to slander other people as 'pirates', a charge that many people prefer to believe and act upon before actually looking at the evidence, you among them I would say, and have 'anti-pirates' attack the others. When the others fight back the charge is that they are 'confirmed pirates'.


Some groups like the Black Rabbits seemed very happy to admit their pirate acts. Shooting people without justification at a gatecamp certainly sounds like "piracy" to me. What do you call it?

Quote:
You were not, to my knowledge, ever present in the field. You didn't even, so far as I know, accompany the ludicrous PIE 'live fire exercises' intervention into that conflict. I'm sure our enemies have fed you all sorts of tales but you'll forgive me if I take the view that you don't know what you are talking about.


Actually I spent some time up in Mito and was present for the "Live Fire Exercises" operation. I also recall reading all the IGS posts about the issue and likewise spent some time in a cloaked ship in Mito and surrounding areas where I saw Star Fraction forces sitting at gates with Black Rabbits pirates. I also noticed those Black Rabbits pilots frequently shot at innocent passers by (obviously oppressing their right to free transit). I also noticed they did not shoot at the Star Fraction ships and likewise the Star Fraction ships did not seem to mind the oppression the pirates were thrusting upon the innocent. So again if sitting at a gate shooting everyone who wanders by doesn't fit your definition of piracy what does?

Quote:
On the question of consequences, yes, we will and do take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We're not, though, going to take responsibility for the actions of others or, indeed, the inactions of others. I think it is fascinating that you appear to think we are the ones who should be held especially responsible for whatever happens in Providence from this time on.


I only assign that responsibilty to you because you are the only one talking about "revolution". With -A- and UK the reasons for this war are very clear and they have nothing to do with "revolution".

Quote:
Even I wouldn't make the claim that the Star Fraction is the leading force behind the revolutionary change taking place in Providence. It amuses me that your words imply we are even while I repudiate the notion, however flattering it may be.


Given your posts on the Providence issue outnumber -A-'s about 10 to 1 I thought for sure you were taking full credit. My mistake then I guess you're just more vocal. But is it a "revolutionary change" or just one alliance fighting another? You see change and I see a response to perceived expansion. Are you of the belief that both -A- and UK represent "revolutionary change" and like you believe holding space is wrong? The concept of "revlutionary change" implies some greater movement and goal but in this case it seems -A- and UK have other motivations.

Perhaps the "revolutionary change" you speak of is the violence on a peaceful population you bring with your actions as you have before? Certainly a "change".

Archbishop

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.03.01 13:22:00 - [84]
 

Well, despite having discussed the Star Fraction's campaign in Mito many times, this is the first time I have seen you claim to have been present there. In the past, your remarks were always couched as if you had been told things or merely read accounts of the period. Certainly, during the period itself you were remarkably silent on these communication channels. Rodj Blake brayed his best. Gaius Kador roared his usual foam-flecked insults. Lallara Zhuul raved like the ultra-religious loon she is. Gaven Lok'ri made his usual measured but mistaken interventions. Even Ruah Piskonit made comment. But where was Archbishop? Absent from all channels where comments were made.

Now, forgive me but I think an objective observer would agree with me that you, Archbishop, are not one to stint yourself when it comes to commenting on the Star Fraction. Yet during a period when PIE had declared open war on us (so afraid of losing, as it did, that it used a pathetic 'live fire exercises' get-out clause to cover it), you made no comment whatever. Had you taken a vow of silence?

However, you tell me you were involved. You tell me you did sterling service in the 'live fire exercises' from the comfort of your cloaked ship 'watching' gates. Very well, I am bound to accept what you say even if I find it rather incredible. Still, interestingly, you are telling us that the Star Fraction observed its RoE when it happened to be on the same gate as an entity that may or may not be piratical. (I leave it up to the Black Rabbits to speak for themselves.) I'm not sure I can regard that as a damning charge.

As to the revolutionary changes that may or may not be taking place in Providence. There are many types of revolution and revolutionary outcomes. I am not claiming any special and definitive role for the Star Fraction. We are involved certainly. What will come of the current process remains to be seen.

Now, given the topic of this thread, do you perhaps have a view on ATLAS alliance? Do you, like your good friend 'Lord' Aralis, regard them as pirates? Indeed, do you agree with his list of 'pirate' entities operating in Providence? I referenced it above for your convenience. For me it is an illustration of the very common casual abuse of the term 'pirate' that tends to make polemical points based on accusations of 'piracy' or 'support for piracy' highly suspect. What view do you take of it?

The Cosmopolite


Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.01 13:55:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: The Cosmopolite

However, you tell me you were involved. You tell me you did sterling service in the 'live fire exercises' from the comfort of your cloaked ship 'watching' gates.



One of the major purposes of the exercises was to practice deployments outside of our normal theatres of operation. As a part of this, we wanted to test PIE's scouting ability in previously unfamiliar systems.

So yes, all those PIE pilots who were on surveillance duty and managed to safely observe hostile vessels in the field can be said to have done sterling service.


Revan Neferis
Amarr
Propaganda Due
Posted - 2010.03.01 16:14:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Archbishop
your CEO falls into bed nightly with a slave owning harlot Sani Sabik follower.


Again Archbishop? It's becoming some kind of Fetish to your and yours?
Let me correct a few statements to you: "Falls into bed nightly" - Wrong. Not only nightly but daily too. Sani Sabik doesn't have restrictions about this sort of rituals. For 4 years now mind you * Irony implicit and rolls eyes *

Originally by: Archbishop
(as in the case of your CEO's lover).


Twice in a single post? What's happening old man, your slave boys aren't covering your fetishes well enough lately?

You have become a pathetic waste of skin Archbishop. No wonder you steeped down from PIE's leadership to pursue your "spiritual" matters. You show extreme need of it.

Revan Neferis
Thrice-Illustrious Sovereign
Sani Sabik

Danny Lonnegan
Caldari
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.03.01 17:26:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Roderigo Borgia
<snip>

could be an interesting experiment in 0.0 management - an attempt at the sandbox ccp tells us about but without all the lag associated with mega blob sov warefare
Also, conveniently, it would leave Providence balkanized and unable to threaten AAA's flank in any future war with the NC, without AAA having to go through the expense and trouble of actually occupying the region.

Kura Accipter
The Littlest Hobos
Dead Terrorists
Posted - 2010.03.02 00:40:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Archbishop
Some groups like the Black Rabbits seemed very happy to admit their pirate acts. Shooting people without justification at a gatecamp certainly sounds like "piracy" to me. What do you call it?


Archbishop you are certainly right about the Black Rabbits being a pirate organisation, however your assessment of the progess KD were making before SF arrived is sadly wide of the mark. We were beating the State loyalists just fine on our own, then SF showed up and we never saw more than a token interceptor leaving high security space.

Shame really, that was a fun war we had ourselves for a while.

Archbishop
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.02 01:41:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Kura Accipter
Originally by: Archbishop
Some groups like the Black Rabbits seemed very happy to admit their pirate acts. Shooting people without justification at a gatecamp certainly sounds like "piracy" to me. What do you call it?


Archbishop you are certainly right about the Black Rabbits being a pirate organisation, however your assessment of the progess KD were making before SF arrived is sadly wide of the mark. We were beating the State loyalists just fine on our own, then SF showed up and we never saw more than a token interceptor leaving high security space.

Shame really, that was a fun war we had ourselves for a while.


Perhaps you can tell me then... were KD insisting no other organization was allowed to bring in outside help to protect themselves as the Star Fraction claim? I certainly don't recall that KD demand being posted anywhere but Cosmo says it happend.

Archbishop

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.03.02 02:42:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Archbishop

Perhaps you can tell me then... were KD insisting no other organization was allowed to bring in outside help to protect themselves as the Star Fraction claim? I certainly don't recall that KD demand being posted anywhere but Cosmo says it happend.



I made no claim that the Kimotoro Directive posted a demand or openly made insistences regarding outside help. You won't find that in anything I said.

Stop misrepresenting me. Stop telling lies.

But weren't you there? Are you now saying your memory is defective and you need help to recall these important details?

I suppose it's no surprise as you are incapable of accurately rendering a representation of words that exist in plain view on this very channel.

I stand by what I actually said.


What you fail to understand is that the Kimotoro Directive drove a number of entities out of the Mito pocket in their 'anti-piracy' assaults. It was and remains our view that not all of those entities were established beyond doubt to be pirates. An area where disputes were being settled privately and sometimes with mercenary forces was occupied by a State loyalist paramilitary force that regarded itself as the definitive 'anti-piracy' police for the area. Our intervention was in opposition to this extension of state power by a paramilitary proxy and was totally in line with our view that people should be permitted to settle their disputes as they wished. This is what I refer to: the actions of the Kimotoro Directive.

That is what we opposed. That the only other force remaining that stood up to the Kimotoro Directive was a self-confessed outlaw entity seems to me more a case of the Kimotoro Directive driving out every independent-minded entity but the Black Rabbits by the time we became aware of their activities. I find it fairly extraordinary that this is something you implicitly laud. Extraordinary but not surprising.

Now, it so happens that I don't agree with Kura Accipter's analysis of the Kimotoro Directive's capabilities. For the first several weeks of our war with that alliance the fighting was very heavy indeed and was by no means limited to hanging around stargates. There were multiple pitched battles with creditable fighting spirit on all sides. It is true that by the latter two weeks of the campaign, the Kimotoro Directive was essentially a spent force, its various allies having abandoned it (including, be it noted, the 'live fire' exercisers of PIE) and fighting was much more sporadic and in the nature of a mop-up operation. Still, I wouldn't have their fighters dishonored by suggestions that they did not fight after we arrived, however inadvertent the suggestion may be.

I realise this is a narrative that doesn't suit you, though. Easier for your purposes to just slander the memory of those fighters your opportunist gang ran out on to make it appear that we 'crushed' a massively lesser force battling against all odds.

You will forgive me if I treat your thesis with contempt.

May we now return to the subject of ATLAS alliance? Or even some insight into whether or not you agree with Aralis on the subject of who is and isn't a pirate in the Providence conflict. You know, something rather more up-to-date than raking over the coals of a conflict that took place many years ago on the other side of the cluster.

The Cosmopolite


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only