TIVIUM and EAGLES

Rill wrote: Edited to add:  It is impossible to edit the subject line of a thread after it has been posted.  (Except possibly for GM Luna, who surely has more important things to do than correct spelling errors.)  Therefore all the hur-hurring about Hathaldir's failure to edit the subject line is as silly as ... well ... this entire "war."  I give the participants credit for consistency, at least.

It is not impossible: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/edited-to-show-it-can-be-dOne_topic4555.html

EDIT: After the usefulness of changing its name waned, the title of the thread referred to above has been restored.

Edited by abstractdream - 25 Jan 2013 at 02:45

Elmindra wrote: If you have been in this since before Trivium was formed then that has everything to do with the fact that you were helping siege our allies, attacking our sieges, and then when asked in IGM about your intentions you refused to declare.  By acknowledging this Hath made no misrepresentation of your intentions.  Attacking our allies and our sieges is not defending yourselves.

Very well. I admit (and have never denied) that we were attacking your allies and one of your sieges. Why the declaration now? When one of EE's general membership contacted me in a rude and demanding way, insisting I explain TVM's intentions with respect to Druids, why not declare then? After all, it was clear then that we were sieging a Druid member. Was this Druid member not worth the effort? It is only VALAR that matters enough to declare and post?

Again, I have no qualms about the declaration. This IS a war. I am arguing the blatant hypocracy demonstrated by the OP and illustrated again by waiting until it is "important" enough to act and then using all previous action to retroactively reinforce that action.

If you have been in this since before Trivium was formed then that has everything to do with the fact that you were helping siege our allies, attacking our sieges, and then when asked in IGM about your intentions you refused to declare.  By acknowledging this Hath made no misrepresentation of your intentions.  Attacking our allies and our sieges is not defending yourselves.  

Elmindra wrote: No and No Abraxox.  Number 1, you sieged a confed so expect for that siege to be attacked.  Anything different would be idiotic and I refuse to believe you are that dumb.  Number 2, Trivium itself may be a new alliance but you have been assisting in offensive sieges to "help" your friend Fromfrak since the beginning of the war.  Your members in Trivium helped raze a number of Druids towns in Ursor while they were still in TLR.  If you were truly content to live in peace alongside EE you would not be involved in military action.   You come on these forums crying foul when you have been the aggressor.  Don't cry pity me when you are declared upon.

Number 1.1 We had made ZERO statements to ANYONE about Haller's attempt to break our siege before EE's silly post.

Number 2.2 We have been the aggressor against two Ursor based Druid members and when the player who was in our sights came on here and "cried pity me" we did not argue that fact. We are not declaring our "peaceful" intentions here, we are defending our name against the OP.

Ander wrote: Myr wrote: Trivium is at war with Valar and had a siege up. EE attacked that siege. EE is at war with Dlords and had a siege up. Trivium attacked that siege. Why is the second one so much worse than the first one? They look pretty similar to me. I suppose everything is a blur for Myr, but I have marked the worst part (and the first part) in bold.

Again, the point of this was to paint TVM with a certain color while keeping EE as it's "pure" original color. EE did exactly what we did but expects us to live up to a higher standard. Hypocritical.