| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duke Droklar
   |
Posted - 2004.09.19 09:05:00 -
[1]
XF intentionally destroyed a CA BS. XF is then wtfp0wned for 2 weeks where they lose over 250 BS to CA's 10.
CA leaves when XF refuses to fight any longer feeling they have learned their lesson.
XF sends a few noobs to fly in the quickly destroyed SA fleets and then irritates some of the CA mining ops. Not effective but they tried... i guess.
Some CA corps decide to "remind XF" that they suck roids and should stick to that. As I'm fond of saying... "poke a pitbull, pull back a stump".
|
Duke Droklar
|
Posted - 2004.09.19 09:05:00 -
[2]
XF intentionally destroyed a CA BS. XF is then wtfp0wned for 2 weeks where they lose over 250 BS to CA's 10.
CA leaves when XF refuses to fight any longer feeling they have learned their lesson.
XF sends a few noobs to fly in the quickly destroyed SA fleets and then irritates some of the CA mining ops. Not effective but they tried... i guess.
Some CA corps decide to "remind XF" that they suck roids and should stick to that. As I'm fond of saying... "poke a pitbull, pull back a stump".
|
Duke Droklar
|
Posted - 2004.09.19 12:58:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
Sorry. but CAs response to this incident was simply too fast, too organised and too widespread to have been anything other than planned and intended.
Why thank you. The very fact that we weren't staged to attack and you view that as the only way we could have attacked with such force is taken as a compliment.
Quote:
The entire point about XIF needing a lession is based upon the premise that the war was our doing. CA broke the NAP, everyone but CA saw this and yet the Duke still can't help the pitiful grab for the moral high ground.
Your alliance has admitted that they changed the "free passage" without notifying CA. You drew first blood by destroying a CA ship. You can try and paint that any way you want but it doesnt change the facts.
Quote:
I'm not unhappy about the war itself.
Well we're about to make you exstactic then  Since you haven't learned the lesson we'll take you to school again. Sooner or later your member corps are going to get fed up with paying for the lack of leadership in XF. Some of you can try and "keep a brave face" in public but everyone knows you're getting the snot kicked out of you. Carry on with your denial...
|
Duke Droklar
|
Posted - 2004.09.19 12:58:00 -
[4]
Quote:
Sorry. but CAs response to this incident was simply too fast, too organised and too widespread to have been anything other than planned and intended.
Why thank you. The very fact that we weren't staged to attack and you view that as the only way we could have attacked with such force is taken as a compliment.
Quote:
The entire point about XIF needing a lession is based upon the premise that the war was our doing. CA broke the NAP, everyone but CA saw this and yet the Duke still can't help the pitiful grab for the moral high ground.
Your alliance has admitted that they changed the "free passage" without notifying CA. You drew first blood by destroying a CA ship. You can try and paint that any way you want but it doesnt change the facts.
Quote:
I'm not unhappy about the war itself.
Well we're about to make you exstactic then Since you haven't learned the lesson we'll take you to school again. Sooner or later your member corps are going to get fed up with paying for the lack of leadership in XF. Some of you can try and "keep a brave face" in public but everyone knows you're getting the snot kicked out of you. Carry on with your denial...
|
Duke Droklar
|
Posted - 2004.09.19 16:49:00 -
[5]
In the debates that raged over this subject at the onset of the war, your own alliance mates admitted they had changed the wording of the NAP "and posted it on our alliance site. It's not our fault if you didnt come read it". I doubt I'm the only one that recalls this debate and that statement but i'm not going to spend days digging it up from the archives.
The reason CA had free passage in XF space was due to the fact that your alliance NEEDED access to CA refineries prior to POS's... ring a bell?
Non "Aggression Pact" key word being aggression:- The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
- The practice or habit of launching attacks.
- Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.
Was that solo CA BS initiating hostilities or launching an invasion of XF? Did he launch attacks? Did he display hostile or destructive behaviour? The answers are no, plain and simple.
It was the trigger happy XF pilots that did all of the above acts of "AGGRESSION". They willfully scrambled, they willfully opened fire and they willfully caused the destruction of the CA BS thereby violating the "Non Aggression Pact".
To the XF member Corps:
All of XF should understand that your leaders have caused the war you bear the brunt of. Their continued antagonistic behaviour in CA space, support of CA enemies, denial of fault and failure to accept responsibility for their fool hearty actions will bring another wave of CA hostilities directed at you.
Do you remember the day when CA allowed you to refine in CA space? Do you remember the day when you had free passage through our blockades? All that ended the moment YOUR LEADERS ordered the destruction of a CA battleship and failed to offer any compensation or even a mere apology. No, they preferred to proclaim their righteousness while sending over 250 XF BS's to their deaths.
Have they sent the XF military to defend you? Were they successful the few occasions they pulled their heads out of their safespots? Do you enjoy the prospect of another full scale CA invasion because of their lack of wisdom? Then maybe it's time to review XF leadership and publically denounce their lunacy.
|
Duke Droklar
|
Posted - 2004.09.19 16:49:00 -
[6]
In the debates that raged over this subject at the onset of the war, your own alliance mates admitted they had changed the wording of the NAP "and posted it on our alliance site. It's not our fault if you didnt come read it". I doubt I'm the only one that recalls this debate and that statement but i'm not going to spend days digging it up from the archives.
The reason CA had free passage in XF space was due to the fact that your alliance NEEDED access to CA refineries prior to POS's... ring a bell?
Non "Aggression Pact" key word being aggression:- The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
- The practice or habit of launching attacks.
- Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.
Was that solo CA BS initiating hostilities or launching an invasion of XF? Did he launch attacks? Did he display hostile or destructive behaviour? The answers are no, plain and simple.
It was the trigger happy XF pilots that did all of the above acts of "AGGRESSION". They willfully scrambled, they willfully opened fire and they willfully caused the destruction of the CA BS thereby violating the "Non Aggression Pact".
To the XF member Corps:
All of XF should understand that your leaders have caused the war you bear the brunt of. Their continued antagonistic behaviour in CA space, support of CA enemies, denial of fault and failure to accept responsibility for their fool hearty actions will bring another wave of CA hostilities directed at you.
Do you remember the day when CA allowed you to refine in CA space? Do you remember the day when you had free passage through our blockades? All that ended the moment YOUR LEADERS ordered the destruction of a CA battleship and failed to offer any compensation or even a mere apology. No, they preferred to proclaim their righteousness while sending over 250 XF BS's to their deaths.
Have they sent the XF military to defend you? Were they successful the few occasions they pulled their heads out of their safespots? Do you enjoy the prospect of another full scale CA invasion because of their lack of wisdom? Then maybe it's time to review XF leadership and publically denounce their lunacy.
|
| |
|