"i DEFENDED myself, and what were the terms of the alliance? A defensive alliance,"

1) we were ordered to enter into the war to defend TFC, not to defend you, so if you were defending yourself, the point is not relevant.

2) If I am mistaken, it is because I was misinformed by people within USA, who repeatedly told me that they had told you to stop fighting DM and that you simply weren't listening. So, either the alliance was lying to me or they were trying to blame the situation on you. Either way, again, this does not seem to reflect well on the alliance.

"Although i could see a more reasonable solution to this argument, such as communication, communicating with the other USA leaders, to sort the problem out."

1) while I certainly agree that communication is the best solution within an alliance, I communicated plenty. When you go to the other team leaders and say "can your team stop killing my players - we're supposed to be allies" and they do nothing to stop it (or if they did, it clearly failed since Traders kept killing my players) it seems quite clearly a waste of breath to say "stop making fun of us."

"where you and Underdawgs got ballsy, and decided to war me when i joined LC, instead of talking to Sharky, and discussing the situation."

1) we had every reason to war you, and you know it. You'd already been warred, just as a member of iWin and not you personally. There was clear and obvious bad blood between you and our team.

"But, I'm sorry USA showed you and your team respect when they took you in, when your team was weaker than it was now, they took you under their wing, which gave you protection, as USA was THE alliance in game."

1) If you buy someone a house and then take a dump in their living room, buying them the house does not make the dump less insulting.

"And as far as DM and TW treating you with respect, in turn using you as meat shields and going behind your back to make deals with certain people, that involve your alliance, proves, that they have no respect, and that they are laughing at you while your back is turned."

1) without specific evidence, this is pure and speculative heresay, even if it were to be true.

2) it's also based on an unfounded assumption - you have no idea what I know.

3) this sounds like any description of politics as they are actually conducted. Also, this sounds an awful lot like certain events that occurred while we were in USA among certain allies. Again, even if this were to be true, and least they have the political sense to deal with us well to our face - which is more than I can say for many in USA.

4) you don't know what RE's goals or intentions are.

"DM and TW want nothing more than the destruction of LC,"

1) I'm well aware that this is their priority.

2) You don't know what RE's goals or intentions are.

"including dragging as many people into this war to help them in their conquest."

1) They didn't drag us in. We volunteered. We have our reasons, which you also don't know.

First of i just want to say RE welcome to the alliance thought it would be rude not saying this

Secondly i want to say reading all that stuff Seronys said with an iWin flag is hillarious.

See everyone for a bright and happy new uni. Hopefully they will change BvB rules

/signed

mowmates

First off, the person trying to blame me was you, and i was explaining what exactly i was doing, and you just said clearly that it was my doing by dragging everyone else in it, so your argument is invalid.

Second, i do not agree with the way traders was treating you, that's when you call an alliance meeting to discuss the situation.

Third, Every reason to war me, sure, every reason to war me without consulting the leader of the team? Bad leadership, and plunging your team into something they weren't ready for, as was seen, when you later retracted the war.

Fourth, You may know what i don't know, and i may know what you don't know, we could spend all day telling each other things we don't know. As for your intentions, i can only see one, aiding your allies in destroying LC, as that is the intention in every war, to eliminate your opponent.

And please, tell me your reasons, I'm sure everyone is wondering what lead you to such a brave action.

"First off, the person trying to blame me was you, and i was explaining what exactly i was doing, and you just said clearly that it was my doing by dragging everyone else in it, so your argument is invalid."

Read more carefully. My statement was a conditional if/then statement. If/then statements simply posite that the material following "then" is predicated on the possibily that situation described before it is true. Thus, I was pointing out that even if your defensive statements were correct, your fellow alliance members were actually abusing you, therefor either situation - the one I presented or the one you presented - result in a negative outcome. Also, if your argument is true, members of the alliance were still misrepresenting the truth. In fact, my original argument assumes better of the alliance then yours does.

"Second, i do not agree with the way traders was treating you, that's when you call an alliance meeting to discuss the situation."

Alliance meetings were called. More than once. The situation was never resolved in any way. Thus, alliance meetings had no effect on resolving alliance issues - and this was a very significant issue.

"Third, Every reason to war me, sure, every reason to war me without consulting the leader of the team? Bad leadership, and plunging your team into something they weren't ready for, as was seen, when you later retracted the war."

We retracted the war because of diplomatic discussions between LC leadership and RE leadership, not because we "weren't ready for" a war.

"Fourth, You may know what i don't know, and i may know what you don't know, we could spend all day telling each other things we don't know. As for your intentions, i can only see one, aiding your allies in destroying LC, as that is the intention in every war, to eliminate your opponent."

I entirely agree with the first part - obviously there's a certain uselessness to such allusions to knowledge outside the discussion, as we can share no common ground on such subjects without first changing the premise of the argument to include them.

Second, though I would certainly not claim that there was no interest in "winning" the war, you do neglect the fact that this game - despite the importance that it plays in most of the playerbases lives (myself being no exception) - is still a game, and part of the enjoyment of the game is playing different aspects of the game.

Though there are certainly additional motives for fighting against LC, I believe I was very clear in an earlier post in this thread: Part of the reason we are fighting is that LC is a respectible and formidable opponent. They have fought and are fighting admirably, and they are resourceful and well knowledged within the game. If I were playing a game of chess, I would pick an opponent who's skill I esteem.

Indeed, you may point out that RE is part of an alliance against a single opponent, but to continue the chess metaphor, its not at all unusual for a player to consult other players. In the real game, I've been on both sides of the chessboards before, playing against a single opponent, myself adviced by several, and playing against several opponents advising each other.

"And please, tell me your reasons, I'm sure everyone is wondering what lead you to such a brave action."

This I'm afraid I won't go into at the moment. I prefer not to discuss publically team policy and agenda. Though I know this certainly inhibits deeper discussion into our intentions vis a vis the direction of certain parts of this discussion (a discussion I'd like to indicate that I'm enjoying with you) and I'm sure there are some interested parties who would like that knowledge as well, I do hope you understand that given the active state of the war it would not be in RE's best interest to reveal central plans and strategies which are often linked directly to our reasoning for the conflict.

CLAM.
Summaries, please.

And also a reply to Seros post above^.

Torchwood have not made deals behind REs back with "Certain People"
Torchwood have responded as fast as possible to every attack you guys have made on RE and weve killed alot of LC defend RE galaxys and players.

The fact that we go out of our way to patrol RE galaxys and keep in communcation with them on vent really shows how little you know about the relationship we have with RE.

Im not a director or counciller so maybe somethings going on i dont know about ? but i speak to the directors /councilers pretty much every day and have known Tallon + Reaper for many years.

Basactly what im saying is your Wrong sero. RE are a valued part of our alliance. I cant speak for DM but im sure they feel the same way.

Torchwood will go out of thier way to defend RE and assist them in thier war with LC and so far i feel weve shown that we mean that.

clam are you a lawyer?

clams writing makes me jizz

'sup people?

yo