| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
twilights 
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
 Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 13:31 |
|
lol, I just hope harm and nc give us their A game and not turn into surrendering wimps that they claim soup was...kill them...kill them all! and lets all have fun and play this game the way it suppose to be! good luck to everyone and silverlake...omg ur troops are dying! sara I plan on having a party on your razed castles...u others better move...u don't belong in the west any more! twerks the leaders of the enemies
|
 |
Redfist
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Location: Duraz Karag
Status: Offline
Points: 91
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 10:21 |
Soup is a term dreamt up by H? and peddled by Kumo in a derisory way to initially to deride the fact that Consone's alliances were not concentrated in military type hubs. It then took another derisory meaning which was in no way mean't to show "that Consone achieved more than it was given credit" - quite the opposite in fact.
Nonetheless, I think that Consone did achieve a lot in this game. As a confederation it achieved more than any group of alliances. It also had some amazing talent and developed initiatives eg Eaque and Illy tools. It's detractors will probably now follow with series of posts (including some from Deranzin using big black bold type) denying this and that or deriding Consone even further - but for me Consone may have been Illy's finest hour :)
Edited by Redfist - 05 Nov 2013 at 10:24
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 08:19 |
|
Sticks and stones scar, I was in Soup and it kinda makes me chuckle when its used because it proves that Consone achieved more than it was given credit for and still riles its opponents to the extent that "Soup" is still being used. Maybe soup is a term of endearment just like coal is for coalition, there's lots of analogies about coal that can be used but we are above that aren't we folks.
|
|
scaramouche
Forum Warrior
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 07:28 |
 Kumomoto wrote:
It will make the Soup War look like a tea party and be bloody beyond anything Illy has ever seen.
|
Kumo..it still riles me to see you quoting the " soup " reference to an organisation that deserves a little more respect than you STILL resorting to childish name calling. They were the coalitions enemy and they lost the war admittedly, but still, cmon, show some respect for the looser? All your accomplishing is making people more determined to wipe that sarcastic grin of your face.
|
|
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
|
|
Tamaeon
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 04:42 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Tamaeon wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
If you are telling your alliance mates and allies that this war is going to be anything less than over a year of bloody slugfest, then you are deluding them. This war will likely never end. It will make the Soup War look like a tea party and be bloody beyond anything Illy has ever seen. |
The way I see it we'll be having fun until one of the sides surrenders 
|
I suspect that after you have some more experience of war in Illy, you might rethink that statement. I applaud you on taking actions to do what you think will be fun. I think everyone should try to have fun. But I strongly suspect that you may be disappointed with the fun level of the result after a while...
|
Can't we just have some fun without losing ourselves to unnecessary drama?
|
|
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
|
|
Aral
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 205
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 03:04 |
|
I could use some cliffs notes myself...
|
|
Aral Llc is not responsible for any grievous bodily harm sustained while reading this signature. No rights reserved.
|
|
Silverlake
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 417
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 02:22 |
|
Is there a Reader's Digest to this thread?
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 01:14 |
|
it's 2013... weapons are defensive... and so is war? At least that's what the man tells us now days...
Edited by Meagh - 05 Nov 2013 at 01:14
|
|
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 04 Nov 2013 at 21:40 |
Tora wrote:
scaramouche wrote:
again you use an analogy that is irrelevant, mace does not kill people...hahaha...we can back and forth on this topic all day
so lets end this now. |
You're misinterpreting the whole point of the analogy. It isn't irrelevant, because it's not about the tool and what it's capable of doing it's about the intent of the individual that carries it.
Weapons are first and foremost defensive tools. People who are wicked and evil use them for more twisted and foul means. This does not automatically preclude that because someone carries the same TOOL that the wicked and evil carry that they are automatically wicked and evil. You can not determine by the presence of the gun that one is seeking trouble.
To do so would assume that police officers are always out being troublemakers, looking for trouble. Actually, they do keep an eye out for troublemakers, but they themselves are not out seeking trouble. They carry them because so do wicked and evil people and in the course of their duties they may have to defend themselves.
This is also not to get into the issue that many LEOs are also no more than thugs, but let's not go there for the sake of the argument.
It is perfectly valid, for the purpose of illustrating 'INTENT OF USE' to compare WHY someone carries a firearm with WHY someone carries money or mace or lipstick or wears freaking pants.
It's about the intent of the user. Not about the tool's usefulness in mayhem or not. |
Weapons are never defensive. The purpose and form of a weapon is to inflict harm. I think the work you are looking for is 'armour' which prevents (defensive) injury.
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 04 Nov 2013 at 20:10 |
Tamaeon wrote:
Ok, except its not. This is simply what you made of it.
Feel free to reread my post on page 7. |
I re-read it ... I still consider that you where crystal clear on those matters.
Deranzin wrote:
Bring what on .?. It was not a threat you know. 
It is the simple fact that since you go into a war, you will learn your
way into it and the differences it has from a tournament. |
Tamaeon wrote:
Allow me to quote you...
"the obvious fact that facing other players in a good natured contest over the control of specific map spots during tournaments (when everyone piles troops on those spots and nowhere else ) is a totally different process of trying to hit live moving players and their whole alliances." - Deranzin |
I do not see your point ... aren't both the things I said the same .?. where is the threat .?.Is it not a fact that a war and a tournament are quite different .?. And since when is it considered a threat to point out the details of such an obvious fact .?. 
Tamaeon wrote:
There you go again, trying to paint everything black and white. Nice try, but I'll reiterate that your assumptions are just assumptions. Machinations devised to promote your agenda...
Simple research would enlighten you. For a good example, please read our alliance profile.
Also note that we haven't been recruiting a while...
|
There is no machination ... Since uCrow was a part of the CrowFed, my assumption was that uCrow was as well a peaceful alliance (I hope that you do not disagree that CrowFed IS peaceful), which I think that you will agree that was not an unreasonable assumption. If the whole is by principle peaceful, then part of the whole can be safely assumed to be peaceful, as well. Now you tell me that this assumption of mine was mistaken (but still not unreasonable as I explained, so no machination there, sorry  ) and that I was wrong in making it ... I have not a problem in accepting this correction since as part of the alliance's leadership you are the only one that can explicitly define such things beyond any shadow of a doubt.
|
|
Tweet
Why are we fighting?
