RE Stance...

HonoredMule wrote:   Hora wrote:  Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself. I don't think losing 375% of everything is actually possible.  At least there is no dishonor in losing, not even in utter destruction, if you stood and fought for what was right to the last man with earnest effort.  At least then you can walk away with your head held high and your shoulders square.  I find this far preferable to mere survival, and Harmless could have easily "survived" by actually destroying enemies instead of merely knocking them down, then picking them back up and dusting off their clothes.

Jeez..
this topic jas gotten so out of hand i can't even understand it anymore.
It seems to me that every topic started, no matter about what, ends up with ppl twisting words and bickering and such...

And i thought WoW was a harsh enviromnent...

Like a true WoW player all i can say is: TAKE A CHILL PILL!
(cookies and 1k beer to whoever understands the pun)..(even if they're on the other side of the war).

/me goes back to killing Paragons of the Klaxxi...or trying to..


Edited by Tyrande Whisperwinds - 23 Jan 2014 at 22:13

Hora wrote: Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself.

I don't think losing 375% of everything is actually possible.  At least there is no dishonor in losing, not even in utter destruction, if you stood and fought for what was right to the last man with earnest effort.  At least then you can walk away with your head held high and your shoulders square.  I find this far preferable to mere survival, and Harmless could have easily "survived" by actually destroying enemies instead of merely knocking them down, then picking them back up and dusting off their clothes.

Tameon wrote: I begrudge the fact that my side is being forced to raze hundreds, maybe thousands of towns before being able to end the war.

Gee, I'm sorry that the war you started isn't ending promptly to your satisfaction.  There was a time when your side had all the power in the world to stop the war.  Your only cost would have been accepting failure to achieve your objectives.  Just imagine, leaving the war without even contributing millions of resources and billions of gold toward continued destruction of your friends.

Now you have given us objectives.  We should at least return the favor of destorying every isolated, overwhelmed satellite city and account to be found, to the last fragment of existence.  Then, as battle lines are formed, perhaps we'll consider eventually stopping some point short of the total annihilation your side has so recklessly and indiscriminately sought from the start of this war.

But after watching alliances and players with whom we previously warred on a limited and reasonable scale and afterward built peaceful, positive relations join this battle purely for the profit, glory, and our utter destruction - I can't imagine why we should suffer such coexistence again.

But go ahead and offer platitudes here, while you harvest inactives (or claimed inactives), non-combatants, and whatever non-key players are handy.  It's far easier than focusing your efforts on tactical objectives designed to disrupt continued war operations, and it looks really good on paper.  It would even work if you were up against mewling, easily spooked cowards.

But tough break: you're up against us.

Edited by HonoredMule - 23 Jan 2014 at 20:15

jtk310 wrote: Pardon me folks, I would like to post something from page one of this thread: Praetor Nistiner wrote: I will Consider These  Topic closed as it had the  other effect i didnt want it to have. Hope everyone has  a  good day. This thread is obviously far off topic, and since it was considered closed on the first page I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would consider this matter closed.

belargyle wrote: Tamaeon wrote:  It looks like your concern is based more on the outcome of previous wars, than the reality that governs our side's perception and objectives in the current conflict. The idea that RE are prohibited from speaking their minds, or are under any kind of threat is false. My objection as repeatedly stated, was based on the simple fact that RE -- to their credit -- were able to accomplish peace with no losses. An option which by the way, is also available to DLord. No. It is based upon THIS war and All previous wars. We discussed your terms, and rejected them. We do thank you for discussing them. There is more to peace than loss of cities or armies, till you understand that you will be hard pressed to find ...peace.