DeletedUser
Guest
Good luck fraser, kick some TWC ass
- Status
DeletedUser57960
Guest
GL to Fraser.
I think you will need it most.
I think you will need it most.
DeletedUser
Guest
Hm, a couple of points:
1. no Fraser didn't just cause trouble while in BD. While he was there he was a good teammate. The only problem he has as a player and a person is that he has no patience whatsoever. Hopefully one day he'll learn to see why patience is a virtue in this game, but atm he doesn't. If he did have patience however and learned to focus on one enemy at a time - if necessary by arranging the pieces carefully on the map before attacking - then he'd be an unstoppable force.
2. I truly deplore this move by Fraser but if he does draw fire from t-w-c i will be supporting him. And i will ask others in BD near him to do the same. He is a bud of mine, and while people sometimes do stupid things - and this definitely falls in that category - this does not change the nature of our friendship in my opinion.
3. I will not vote to take him back in BD unless he shows me that he has learned a bit of patience. Teamplay for me is something that is viewed over months and years. Right now i personally for example am not really expanding on targets that are interesting for me to fight. More like an itch that needs scratching. That way i can contribute more D and O for the tribe against enemies that need this kind of tribal attention. However i also know that once this enemy has been reckoned with i will be able to count on the same kind of backup should i need it to expand where i want.
4. i'll put a quote here:
This is wrong, though i won't fault you for it as it is a common misrepresentation of the word anarchy that is consciously and unconsciously being used in the media today. Very few people take the time to understand what anarchy is about and of those who do several have a stake in afterwards misrepresenting anarchy to others so as to ensure that it doesn't spread. That being said, anarchists are equally responsible for the misrepresentation by choosing sometimes daft slogans to explain their views.
Anarchy is and isn't about abolishing all forms of government. Government in anarchy is defined as a structure that dictates what people can and cannot do without those people having a say in it and without allowing for freedom (which in an anarchistic sense also includes equality). Anarchists are in other words hardcore democrats who value consensus decision making and who disagree with all forms of government where the substitution principle is not implemented to it's fullest. There have been a couple anarchic governments throughout history, one of which had an army who's rallying cry is in my signature.
It is important to understand that anarchy is not about individualism. This is a common mistake made but the correct political word to describe that kind of thinking would be liberalism, nihilism or egoïsm depending on what ideas about the state and the influence it should have they hold. There are those who are dubbed "lifestyle anarchists" euphemistically who are - as those who dub themselves capitalist anarchists, like Ayn Rand - sorely mistaken and just look for a flag to put on themselves in order to excuse the blatantly egotistical behaviour that they show.
Quite to the contrast, anarchy has always been about two core values which are seen to be inextricably bound: Freedom and Equality. As an anarchist my freedom ends where yours begins and vice versa. The best way of explaining that i have found is still the example that Bakunin used back in the 1800s: Equality without Freedom is nothing but Slavery. Freedom without Equality is nothing but Privilege. Neither is a state that as an anarchist i desire.. There is an entire body of thinkers dating back to before the french revolution that backed this position with scientific research and filosofical/political/sociologic dissertations. One such, to give but one example, was Kropotkin who wrote a book called Mutual Aid as a response to Darwins Origin in which he pointed out that survival of the fittest often leads to the associated principle of Mutual Aid. He did this in the same style as Darwin did adding in numerous examples from nature where this principle could be observed in nature. He added to that observations where this principle could be seen at work in human society.
Anywho, i'll cut myself short now as i could write books on this topic. If you wish to know more, feel free to ask :icon_razz:
1. no Fraser didn't just cause trouble while in BD. While he was there he was a good teammate. The only problem he has as a player and a person is that he has no patience whatsoever. Hopefully one day he'll learn to see why patience is a virtue in this game, but atm he doesn't. If he did have patience however and learned to focus on one enemy at a time - if necessary by arranging the pieces carefully on the map before attacking - then he'd be an unstoppable force.
2. I truly deplore this move by Fraser but if he does draw fire from t-w-c i will be supporting him. And i will ask others in BD near him to do the same. He is a bud of mine, and while people sometimes do stupid things - and this definitely falls in that category - this does not change the nature of our friendship in my opinion.
3. I will not vote to take him back in BD unless he shows me that he has learned a bit of patience. Teamplay for me is something that is viewed over months and years. Right now i personally for example am not really expanding on targets that are interesting for me to fight. More like an itch that needs scratching. That way i can contribute more D and O for the tribe against enemies that need this kind of tribal attention. However i also know that once this enemy has been reckoned with i will be able to count on the same kind of backup should i need it to expand where i want.
4. i'll put a quote here:
This is wrong, though i won't fault you for it as it is a common misrepresentation of the word anarchy that is consciously and unconsciously being used in the media today. Very few people take the time to understand what anarchy is about and of those who do several have a stake in afterwards misrepresenting anarchy to others so as to ensure that it doesn't spread. That being said, anarchists are equally responsible for the misrepresentation by choosing sometimes daft slogans to explain their views.
Anarchy is and isn't about abolishing all forms of government. Government in anarchy is defined as a structure that dictates what people can and cannot do without those people having a say in it and without allowing for freedom (which in an anarchistic sense also includes equality). Anarchists are in other words hardcore democrats who value consensus decision making and who disagree with all forms of government where the substitution principle is not implemented to it's fullest. There have been a couple anarchic governments throughout history, one of which had an army who's rallying cry is in my signature.
It is important to understand that anarchy is not about individualism. This is a common mistake made but the correct political word to describe that kind of thinking would be liberalism, nihilism or egoïsm depending on what ideas about the state and the influence it should have they hold. There are those who are dubbed "lifestyle anarchists" euphemistically who are - as those who dub themselves capitalist anarchists, like Ayn Rand - sorely mistaken and just look for a flag to put on themselves in order to excuse the blatantly egotistical behaviour that they show.
Quite to the contrast, anarchy has always been about two core values which are seen to be inextricably bound: Freedom and Equality. As an anarchist my freedom ends where yours begins and vice versa. The best way of explaining that i have found is still the example that Bakunin used back in the 1800s: Equality without Freedom is nothing but Slavery. Freedom without Equality is nothing but Privilege. Neither is a state that as an anarchist i desire.. There is an entire body of thinkers dating back to before the french revolution that backed this position with scientific research and filosofical/political/sociologic dissertations. One such, to give but one example, was Kropotkin who wrote a book called Mutual Aid as a response to Darwins Origin in which he pointed out that survival of the fittest often leads to the associated principle of Mutual Aid. He did this in the same style as Darwin did adding in numerous examples from nature where this principle could be observed in nature. He added to that observations where this principle could be seen at work in human society.
Anywho, i'll cut myself short now as i could write books on this topic. If you wish to know more, feel free to ask :icon_razz:
DeletedUser
Guest
Look i prolly shouldnt nick pick here ... But it has to be said .. I respect your leadership skills JP .. but dont come on here with saying that Fraser failed at his task .. when your own personal achievements couldnt even equal Fraser at 500k points .. let alone where he is right now.
Fraser has faced a extremely Stacked Front .. As I have with LOEN .. it is todays game play style. Facing Tribes that are on the rim .. that have 1 and only 1 front ( Sorry PMP .. but i do not think TWC see you as a serious threat as BD is )
Frasers 6 Caps on a extremely Stacked area .. i feel is great.
Every Week i burn through 20k in scouts to try and find One or Two little niches to attack so i can actually move forward... and there is nothing more frustrating hitting a stacked area week after week .. as you burn so many nukes against a wall that will be higher stacked then ever before.
Obviously you could see what i am talking about JP .. but unfortunately you can only see this problem in W30 from a Report view .. and nothing first hand. You cant feel that frustration .. or that annoyance at how this game needs to move quicker...
Not to mention Fraser is a Aussie .. I need to tell you all .. Aussies and Kiwis .. we dont believe in Patience .. Life moves to slow for us .. as we want what America Has ( A Large reason why i immigrated there .. the other was my ex wife .. long ass story ), We want what UK can offer to all its people with the EU.
But we cant have that .. unless you marry into it .. so we find ourselves running a race .. alot of people cant win. But we run it anyway .. just because of a simple little glimmer of hope that we can win... You will see it in the Sports of these countries .. Soccer ( Football .. whatever its soccer!!!!! ) .. is a strategic and patience based game .. sometimes with only scoring 1 goal. The sports of these 2 Countries ( NZ/Aus ) are based on fast paced action filled movements.. that is why we live our life .. in ALL aspects at that speed.
Why dont I explode like fraser does? ** it should be mentioned sometimes i do .. just not so much ** .. is because I live and breath USA .. USA has a patience that gods should be proud of!
Good Luck Fraser! .. I wish you the best .. i certainly wish you could of waited a little longer or atleast done this differently with Gic etc .. But it is YOUR choice .. and YOURS alone ...
I think this thread should turn into a Declaration thread .. not a discussion about what he did was wrong ... or right.
Rawr!
DeletedUser
Guest
@ Badlap:
I would disagree that I am wrong with what I wrote, though you are also right with what you wrote. There are certainly innacurate stigma's on the concept of Anarchy. (For example, the assumption that anarchy means chaos, or the fallacy that all anarchists are violent by nature.) However, at the core of Anarchy, as seen by more than just modern media, there is a system grounded on the removal of government and subsequently, its restrictions. That's not to say anarchists can't join in a common cause, be a part of a nation or group, or generally achieve some degree of a social state, they would just be such of their own shared will, not by the demands of an omnipresent governing body giving them no other choice. It is for this kind of liberty and freedom that the Anarchist thrives, and such a drive is grounded on the abolishment of government.
I find the Oxford Dictionary's definition a decent one. The OD defines Anarchy in part as "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
So while I certainly don't claim to be an expert on Anarchy, from what I do know, I see us as saying very much the same thing, our only differing point being our personal definitions of the the heart of Anarchism. Having said that, I do appreciate the in-depth information. I fancy myself something of a student of Cultural Anthropology, and am fascinated by Man's multitudinous sociological views of government and society. I always appreciate it when a person with specialized knowledge is willing to share.
There is one point I am curious about, and would like to add. You said that "Anarchists are in other words hardcore democrats who value consensus decision making and who disagree with all forms of government where the substitution principle is not implemented to it's fullest." and "anarchy has always been about two core values which are seen to be inextricably bound: Freedom and Equality." Following this train of thought, you could have easily just described a Direct Democracy, where each individual is equal and all functions of government are managed by a progressive majority vote. What would you say is the defining difference in the two systems?
I would disagree that I am wrong with what I wrote, though you are also right with what you wrote. There are certainly innacurate stigma's on the concept of Anarchy. (For example, the assumption that anarchy means chaos, or the fallacy that all anarchists are violent by nature.) However, at the core of Anarchy, as seen by more than just modern media, there is a system grounded on the removal of government and subsequently, its restrictions. That's not to say anarchists can't join in a common cause, be a part of a nation or group, or generally achieve some degree of a social state, they would just be such of their own shared will, not by the demands of an omnipresent governing body giving them no other choice. It is for this kind of liberty and freedom that the Anarchist thrives, and such a drive is grounded on the abolishment of government.
I find the Oxford Dictionary's definition a decent one. The OD defines Anarchy in part as "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
So while I certainly don't claim to be an expert on Anarchy, from what I do know, I see us as saying very much the same thing, our only differing point being our personal definitions of the the heart of Anarchism. Having said that, I do appreciate the in-depth information. I fancy myself something of a student of Cultural Anthropology, and am fascinated by Man's multitudinous sociological views of government and society. I always appreciate it when a person with specialized knowledge is willing to share.
There is one point I am curious about, and would like to add. You said that "Anarchists are in other words hardcore democrats who value consensus decision making and who disagree with all forms of government where the substitution principle is not implemented to it's fullest." and "anarchy has always been about two core values which are seen to be inextricably bound: Freedom and Equality." Following this train of thought, you could have easily just described a Direct Democracy, where each individual is equal and all functions of government are managed by a progressive majority vote. What would you say is the defining difference in the two systems?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gicusan
Guest
For one second I was almost interested in this thread, the gentleman who likes to send bully boy mails then block you so you can’t respond, declaring against the Corporation.
I recall mentioning to Badlapie that if BD took him in all he’d do is cause trouble, and my prediction proved accurate even though I wouldn‘t put it past BD to concoct a little façade to draw us into attack him (I‘ll reserve judgement on that point). He destroyed his old tribe, CRY through bully boy tactics, selling them down the river when the going got tough but I don’t want this post to be an assault on fraser as he’s just not important enough to the Corporation strategy.
Fraser, posting stats of your performance against us is pointless as you don’t even feature on our list of quarterly objectives. I appreciate that Chris Shipley gives you sleepless nights but I can’t even remember the last time I read your name in our forum or Skype chat. As co-duke of the Corporation I can assure you when we attack you the outcome will be conclusive even with potwasher and his flaming parrots supporting you. Right now we’re not even going to bother marking you on the map when you decide to create your scary tribe name, although I’m sure Ben will invite you to H8 if you ask him nicely.
Will we be wasting nukes on you?
Will we be moving troops around to support Shipley?
Will we change our plans to deal with you?
Quite simply, the answer to all the above is no. You are a nobody, you have no concept of the big picture, no idea about how to execute a strategy and having sat numerous accounts you’ve attacked you unable to use the simulator to calculate the nukes needed to take a village.
Official Corporation Statement
Fraser is not recognised as a threat to the corporation, we will not be taking any action to deal with him and all players will continue with their assigned projects, this is our final official notice on this declaration.
Feel free to continue to bait our players into attacking you but the reality is we have no hotheads in our tribe who throw tantrums when they don’t get their own way.
Fraser did what he did. But Fraser is a better man and player than all you pusies in TWC. You and your big plans of warring by waitng your oponent to get bored and quit on your border stacks. You have no idea what a fight is if it is not against some rim surogate. I cannot wait to teach Fraser a lesson on acting on impulses but he will have mine and most BD support against trash like your tribe.
And your reaction now when a man, may it be fraser, provoked you... One can think that it is the smart thing to do to ignore that. But if it comes to count the balls of the twc tribe, one also may not be able to count more than several balls and even those scatered among 6 continents.
silvereclipes
Guest
I have read over each definition of Anarchy an wikipedia come's as close as you can come combining all Anarchism into one explanation.
Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its idea of freedom as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale industrial state capitalism or state-sponsored corporatism, and the political corruption that came with their successes.
Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from no ownership, to complete common ownership, to supporters of private property and capitalist free market competition. For example, most forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, capitalist markets, and title-based property ownership. In opposition, a political philosophy known as free-market anarchism, contemporary individualist anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, argues that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is voluntarist in nature.
The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities.
But for Fraseryeah I see him as a lone wolf free to run wild when the mood strikes him instead of running in a pack restricted by the pack laws since I understand that mentality so well since I am the same way, you have no idea how much I drive Paj insane when I start hunting when told to hold someone even hints at firing at anyone Paj just knows I am already firing everything including the kitchen sink at the enemy an there goes the surprise he had in store for someone but I get it done since its old school for me.:lol:
DeletedUser
Guest
You missed my point entirely it seems. What i said and what you said is completely incompatible. The OD is wrong btw, even though it may sound right. The problem is that absolute liberty = privilige. Which if you read my post is a thing that no anarchist wants. More then that, which anarchists will oppose. If you've ever read Isaac Asimov's "The Foundation" series he describes near the end how the protagonists go back in search of earth and find that earth itself has been made into a nuclear waste. However on one of the planets that was first colonised by earth a race evolved out of the humans that has an amazingly thin population density where each person has several square kilometers (or hundreds of kilometers even) just for itself (it's neither male nor female). The race describes this as the closest to absolute liberty that one can come and it has nothing to do with anarchism but is instead plain self-endulging egoïsm.
Another problem is that you seem to not have understood what i said about government. Government in an anarchic sense is a abstract concept that embodies a government which is beyond the controll of those it governs. Anarchists have formed "governments" in the sense that there is a hierarchy which makes decisions that are binding for an entire territory. And no that doesn't mean that all of the inhabitants of such an area take a vote on everything. However it does mean that everybody's voice is heard in a meaningful sense and that no decisions are made for the good of a privileged group but that decisions are made in function of what is needed for society as a whole. This means that yes, even an anarchist society will have restrictions: going around and shooting people at one's whim is absolute freedom, whereas no anarchist society could ever condone this and will always constrict the use of weapons. Similarly any anarchic society will put limits on wealth accumulation because it is detrimental to society. And i could go on and on about the kinds of limits an anarchic society will pose on itself. The point being that freedom and equality must go hand in hand. Anybody who tries to argue that anarchists are against all forms of government either has a very anarchic definition of government, or as is the case with you simply does not understand what anarchism is about.
I would like to point out to you that i am in fact an anarchist, and i'm an educated one at that who has read literally several hundred books on the subject. Do not mistake having read a couple articles about it with having read a library about it and more then that: having lived it in practice. I have been part of gatherings with 10k+ anarchists arriving to decisions through the consensus decision making model. I have lived in anarchic communities, i've helped build them, i've worked in anarchic organisations and i have travelled quite a bit seen a good many forms and different practices of the idea.
The above is not meant to brag or to flame, it is simply meant to point out to you that having read a couple articles or followed a couple classes - usually written by people with second, third or fourth-hand experience in the subject of anarchism is not enough to validate seeing your opinion as informed. I'm happy to explain things to you, but please don't assume that you now have a meaningful understanding because it is evident from your posts to me that you don't. Try studying it for 10 years, including living with and talking to anarchists and then come back telling me that your definition is right. I'm sure you won't because you'll see it isn't.
Uhm not at all. Direct democracy does not mean people are equal at all. And a majority vote is not the same as a consensus vote. In the consensus decision making model there are four kinds of votes: "yes", "no", "abstain" and "block". In the direct democracy there are two votes "yes" and "no". Major difference there already. Consensus decision making works by consensus aka: everybody either agrees or says that while they don't agree they will not block a certain course of action because while it may not be in their personal best interest they see that it is in the best interest of society as a whole (and sometimes this means that everybody loses but future generations win). Majority vote means that 50+1 can invalidate the opinion of 49 people. Not at all the same thing.
Not just that but direct democracy is untenable in large groups and is actually quite far from what anarchy does and wants. Equality does not just mean that you each get one vote. It means that you have the same option to inform people of your opinion, it means that you get the same chances in life and not that you get better ones because your dad happens to have won the lottery or swindled a lot of people into paying a lot of money for a second-grade computer system for instance. Basically your understanding of what equality is is flawed as is your understanding of freedom. The education example is a good one to illustrate this. People in our society tend to say that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in life. Everybody who has studied a bit about sociology and/or psychology will necessarily disagree (unless they simply ignore facts)... people can get a head-start because their parents can buy better schooling, because they can buy decent food, because they are wealthy enough to buy their kids free time, because they have friends that are very capable at something the kid wants to learn, ... . These differences can be offset by 1% of people through hard work (much harder then those who got a head-start) - if even that, but the vast majority of us will never rise to the top if we started at the bottom or vice versa. Bloody hell: George W. Bush junior got to be president of the united states despite being an alcoholic and running several businesses into the ground. There are not that many people who could get away with that and still get there. The man didn't get there on personal accomplishment but due to the connections of his father. A direct democracy wouldn't change that at all. Anarchy would.
DeletedUser
Guest
Wrong again. Anarchy as a philosophy with that name developed in the second half of the 1700's. It was one of a triad of philosophies about how to order the society. On the right you had liberalism that advocated liberty as the most important value. On the left there was socialism that advocated equality as the most important tenet. In the middle you had anarchism that said equality was meaningless without liberty and vice versa.
The capitalist anarchists that you refer to are followers of Ayn Rand that have given themselves the title capitalist without deserving it. The way they visualise society is as far from anything in the anarchist tradition as is fascism. Capitalism never can coexist with anarchy. It's as simple as that. Not surprisingly this group finds home with the "individualist anarchists" who also give themselves the title anarchists because it's about as anti-establishment as you can get while in fact being simply huge egoïsts who care only about themselves and care pissall about others in society.
Anarchists cannot stop people from calling themselves anarchists when they are not, but simply being against authority does not an anarchist make. The problem with wikipedia is that it tries to combine all those who style themselves anarchists into one explanation when that is simply not possible because several groups have chosen the title anarchism for themselves because of the anti-establishment connotation whilst at the same time ignoring the rich philosophical tradition that anarchy has including the sense of equality that is innate in the anarchist definition of freedom. It's about as correct as calling somebody who says "i don't like politicians" an anarchist.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
i found the last 2 posts the most intresting i have read for a long time whether that be pnp or news etc very intresting
DeletedUser
Guest
@ Badlap:
I didn't come to this thread for a fight Bad, and you obviously took this personal, but while I think you could have been a lot less asinine and confrontational about it, I do appreciate the insight into the philosophy, as I haven't studied it much, and have not heard of your denomination.
I have to say that you're wrong to think I compared my knowledge to yours (firstly, I don't know how much you truly know, and secondly, my disagreement was grounded on the thought that you misunderstood me, whereas it seems I misunderstood you), and I think you were wrong to deliver your points like you did.
I enjoy a good philosophical discussion, and I certainly do have more questions I'd like to ask as I see some flaws in your posts, but to be honest, given your response, and what I didn't come here to do, not to mention the happenings in the other thread, I think its best for everyone if I let it be.
I didn't come to this thread for a fight Bad, and you obviously took this personal, but while I think you could have been a lot less asinine and confrontational about it, I do appreciate the insight into the philosophy, as I haven't studied it much, and have not heard of your denomination.
I have to say that you're wrong to think I compared my knowledge to yours (firstly, I don't know how much you truly know, and secondly, my disagreement was grounded on the thought that you misunderstood me, whereas it seems I misunderstood you), and I think you were wrong to deliver your points like you did.
I enjoy a good philosophical discussion, and I certainly do have more questions I'd like to ask as I see some flaws in your posts, but to be honest, given your response, and what I didn't come here to do, not to mention the happenings in the other thread, I think its best for everyone if I let it be.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser92
Guest
While I can appreciate your comment with regards to the idea that I might not have achieved quite as much on my own...I disagree on two grounds.
TWStats said:
Now, while I can appreciate that Lycan is not at all the tribe it once was - and, in fact, wasn't much to start with - THE does have an outstanding state of war against them. Thus, these caps are not only in-war, but are also against a truly active player, one that's fought back.
TWStats said:
Although his assignment was apparently to take T-W-C out...And he despises them so greatly...He's captured two vils in the last month. In effect, I've got a better than 3:1 record on a pseudo-side-target (not including my participation in operations with THE) than he has against his chosen enemy. (Multiply his score by 3 and he's at 6-3.) Clearly this had nothing to do with patience - if anything, he's been asleep.
Of course, in a month he captured 50 vils, which isn't bad at all! So I'll give him credit there...
...But, that's only point #1 - that my recent activity against Joe Average Enemy is better than his against the guys Fraser is so worked up about. And, its my weaker point, because Fraser could have been doing a lot for BD, as his apparent support from a lot of its players would be. I'm not going to pick at that, because those are issues I simply lack the knowledge of to do so. I'm simply taking a single case and presenting it more in my own defense than to knock on Fraser - again, he could be doing a lot, or he could be doing nothing, but it just seems like he could have done more all along against the guys he hates so much.
My second and more important point is that I serve a role in THE, and one aspect of that role is to plan out attacks. For every successful operation that THE concludes, I have my hand in many of them. Some are handled fully by our barons and squad leaders, and their talents are impressive - but the ones that I handle are successful, too, and the ones AK_Iceman handles are just as good. The point is, its pretty hard to separate THE's success from my own - I serve my role in the tribe and I'd like to believe I serve it well, and if that role sees me doing internal work rather than external conquest, than so be it. I'll gladly accept that trade-off.
If the war cap stats don't show my impact directly, that doesn't mean I haven't accomplished something, personally. Maybe I've tutored a new player and taught them how to be more effective with their attacks? Maybe I've settled some kind of internal dispute to ensure that our guys can work together as efficiently as possible? Maybe I planned the attack? Maybe I sent support troops?
Its pretty hard to tell what I've done without being me, or without being in THE. My personal achievements, therefore, are my own - and without trying to brag about them (although I fear I already have boasted a bit), I'll just say that most people who know of them seem satisfied, and therefore I feel no shame in saying I'm doing my part.
DeletedUser
Guest
As said before JP ... i cannot flaw your Leadership skills .. Certainly one of the best in this game.
DeletedUser
Guest
There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ wikipedia. Shame on you Baddie!!
:lol:
P.S. Good luck Fraser. Just as before you were with BD and then with them, you have friends in Phoenix. You know where to find us.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Doesn't look much like like a 1 vs. 1 as anyone could expect.
Fraser must like the little hugs and love he is receiving at the moment. It's just business as usual. This thread is pointless.
Fraser must like the little hugs and love he is receiving at the moment. It's just business as usual. This thread is pointless.
DeletedUser
Guest
Things to note so far in this thread:
*1v1s are impossible.
*Pheonix are a bunch of flaming parrots, apperently.
- Well, I think thats cute...
*Art and baddie are still fighting with no end in sight.
- When I can will my way through the walls of texts, the opposing views are fascinating. Lies and truth in both arguements I believe...
- One of you guys needs to start using pictures. Make it more visually exciting
*Like nothing has changed since when Fras originally declared on T-W-C.
- He's still stacked sky high.
- He still says 1 to many words.
- He still hates cshipley because "he keeps him up at night..." lol
- Cshipley, and thus T-W-C is still going to concentrate on other larger threats.
Have I missed anything? =/
As noobaxes said "This thread is pointless"
*1v1s are impossible.
*Pheonix are a bunch of flaming parrots, apperently.
- Well, I think thats cute...
*Art and baddie are still fighting with no end in sight.
- When I can will my way through the walls of texts, the opposing views are fascinating. Lies and truth in both arguements I believe...
- One of you guys needs to start using pictures. Make it more visually exciting
*Like nothing has changed since when Fras originally declared on T-W-C.
- He's still stacked sky high.
- He still says 1 to many words.
- He still hates cshipley because "he keeps him up at night..." lol
- Cshipley, and thus T-W-C is still going to concentrate on other larger threats.
Have I missed anything? =/
As noobaxes said "This thread is pointless"
DeletedUser
Guest
Can I play?
*1v1s are impossible. --True--
*Pheonix are a bunch of flaming parrots, apperently.
- Well, I think thats cute...
--Also true, wow...pretty good...apparently--
*Art and baddie are still fighting with no end in sight.
- When I can will my way through the walls of texts, the opposing views are fascinating. Lies and truth in both arguements I believe...
- One of you guys needs to start using pictures. Make it more visually exciting
--Fascinating, yes. A good read--
*Like nothing has changed since when Fras originally declared on T-W-C.
- He's still stacked sky high. --I'm not, attack me. I'm still waiting on my T-W-C promise of a rimming by Christmas 2009--
- He still says 1 to many words. --Fraser has said the least amount here...?--
- He still hates cshipley because "he keeps him up at night..." lol --Your best yet...progression--
- Cshipley, and thus T-W-C is still going to concentrate on other larger threats. --jeez, ducks in a row?--
Have I missed anything? =/ --Nope - spot on pointless notes to a pointless thread. Notice I've made pointless notes on your pointless notes.--
As noobaxes said "This thread is pointless"
*1v1s are impossible. --True--
*Pheonix are a bunch of flaming parrots, apperently.
- Well, I think thats cute...
--Also true, wow...pretty good...apparently--
*Art and baddie are still fighting with no end in sight.
- When I can will my way through the walls of texts, the opposing views are fascinating. Lies and truth in both arguements I believe...
- One of you guys needs to start using pictures. Make it more visually exciting
--Fascinating, yes. A good read--
*Like nothing has changed since when Fras originally declared on T-W-C.
- He's still stacked sky high. --I'm not, attack me. I'm still waiting on my T-W-C promise of a rimming by Christmas 2009--
- He still says 1 to many words. --Fraser has said the least amount here...?--
- He still hates cshipley because "he keeps him up at night..." lol --Your best yet...progression--
- Cshipley, and thus T-W-C is still going to concentrate on other larger threats. --jeez, ducks in a row?--
Have I missed anything? =/ --Nope - spot on pointless notes to a pointless thread. Notice I've made pointless notes on your pointless notes.--
As noobaxes said "This thread is pointless"
DeletedUser
Guest
hahahah love it bull!
DeletedUser
Guest
Pointless topic, Flame and troll festival.
Let it run because it had potential but its gone too far and too out of hand.
Geschlossen
Let it run because it had potential but its gone too far and too out of hand.
Geschlossen
- Status
