Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:47:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Syyl'ara
Being given space, told what you may or may not do with it, and having those expectations backed by threat of expulsion from the entity that installed you is the very definition of being under a leash.
They will be able to do whatever they wish. If they were just having an arguement with a neighbour, I doubt we'd get involved.
The only reason they would ever be removed is if they threatened UK or AAA sovereignty. But that applies to all of our enemies, it's fairly standard practice for an alliance who has invested in it's space to be protective of it.
In short, they would be free to do whatever they wished. It's very unlikely they would wish to assault a member of the Southern Coalition territorially, because it would be pure suicide. But they can still try it if they want, and face the inevitable consequences.
That is the very definition of freedom of choice. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Darveses Darveses](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1767714451/portrait?size=64)
Darveses
DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:27:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Garreck
If the replacement of one authoritarian, enclosurist regime with another authoritarian, enclosurist regime is a victory for freedom, Ms Constantine, then not only do I have nothing further to add...but I must agree with you.
I suppose it goes without saying that I find the premise utterly rediculous.
Let's have this argument again when AAA controls Providence, right now it seems a bit...off. --- Star Fraction Public - The new Channel
|
![Andreus LeHane Andreus LeHane](https://images.evetech.net/characters/179995450/portrait?size=64)
Andreus LeHane
Gallente Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 20:12:00 -
[63]
YEAH, BUT STAR FRACTION... -----
|
![Merdaneth Merdaneth](https://images.evetech.net/characters/665320754/portrait?size=64)
Merdaneth
Amarr Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:01:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Butter Dog
In short, they would be free to do whatever they wished. It's very unlikely they would wish to assault a member of the Southern Coalition territorially, because it would be pure suicide. But they can still try it if they want, and face the inevitable consequences.
That is the very definition of freedom of choice.
Merdaneth laughs loudly.
I'll tell that to my slaves mr. Dog:
"Dear slaves, you are free to do whatever you wish. It is very unlikely you would wish to escape, because it would be pure suicide. But you can try if you want, and face the inevitable consequences.
That is the very definition of freedom of choice. An Ushra Khan bigshot told me so, and you know, they are experts on that area"
Merdaneth continues laughing. A excellent one mr. Dog, most excellent! ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
![Garreck Garreck](https://images.evetech.net/characters/329036612/portrait?size=64)
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:13:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Darveses
Let's have this argument again when AAA controls Providence, right now it seems a bit...off.
What, because observing current regions held by the Southern Coallition isn't an adequate baseline to determine whether or not they are standings-enclosurist?
Or because it's an inconvenient truth that all that is happening here is one authoritarian standings enclosure regime is replacing another authoritarian standings enclosure regime and the Fractionites need a couple more weeks to figure out how to wordsmith that reality into something relevant to the Fractionite vision?
|
![Syyl'ara Syyl'ara](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1682520992/portrait?size=64)
Syyl'ara
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:21:00 -
[66]
Basically, if you are truly of the conviction you are on a righteous crusade with the abolitionist stance, then make that your position. I'd truly admire you for it.
Free the slaves, and don't apologize for one second about the consequences for doing it, at least you could be admired for the strength of your convictions and steadfastness to a cause that's sympathetic and easy to identify with.
The way you're choosing to go about this, however, the justifications and rationalizations endlessly pouring out, I can't help but feel it is a cloak for other purposes.
When asked about the nature of how Providence will run going forward (complete contradictions to AAA statements in the media aside), you instead choose to respond to the unasked question of "what would happen if an entity attacked the SC?" when events unfolding in the present clearly demonstrate what the results of that act would be. The statement that "its common sense" should have equally led you to realize this was not the question asked, but you already know that.
Whatever you do, don't use freeing slaves as a justification for your own gains. In such a case, you would be treating them like pawns, their plight and suffering only a bargaining chip to deal with.
Since this, of course, isn't the case, perhaps U'K can dispense with the apologetics on SC's behalf?
|
![Xyla Vulchanus Xyla Vulchanus](https://images.evetech.net/characters/319844160/portrait?size=64)
Xyla Vulchanus
Amarr Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:19:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Halarach Edited by: Halarach on 16/03/2010 11:41:22
Originally by: Xyla Vulchanus
Originally by: Merdaneth If anything, the attack on Providence was an attack on freedom, perpetrated by the enemies of freedom.
You speak of freedom as if it has a universal application. Are you really so dim?
U'K have always, and will continue to, fight for the freedom of Matari slaves and against the freedom of the Amarrian Empire to act howsoever it chooses, despite the suffering it leaves in its wake. Maybe a further 20 or 30 discussions on this point will enable the message to get across?
Are you able to communicate in any other form than poor smack Xyla? Woof woof bark some more.
I find what defines U'K (anti-slavery) to be somewhat paradoxal. It means your only reason to exist is to be against something. It's so much easier than trying to actually build.
Also that makes you very dependent of us. What would you do, if you'd manage to destroy slavery. I guess the answer that comes to mind is collapse, since you wouldn't have any reason to exist anymore.
As such by wanting to destroy us you're destroying yourself, poor you.
You think that was smack-talk? You really are quite sensitive Halarach - like a quivering butterfly on a tremulous petal. It's quite sweet really. But anyway, I don't follow your warped logic which I will not stoop to dignify with a response here. All I will add is that U'K build very nicely thank you. We have carved out a very nice little area of space for ourselves which is prospering happily. In the near future we may even decide to build a jump bridge network, you know, like the one you used to have!
We Come For Our People (and your systems) |
![Archbishop Archbishop](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1033127867/portrait?size=64)
Archbishop
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:36:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Garreck
What, because observing current regions held by the Southern Coallition isn't an adequate baseline to determine whether or not they are standings-enclosurist?
Or because it's an inconvenient truth that all that is happening here is one authoritarian standings enclosure regime is replacing another authoritarian standings enclosure regime and the Fractionites need a couple more weeks to figure out how to wordsmith that reality into something relevant to the Fractionite vision?
In the end we'll see "Warfare Enclosurist" behaviors by -A- and -UK- as they've already stated. Then we'll see how much credibility the Star Fraction really has toward their "cause" of freedom. If they are true to their cause they will take up arms against -A- and -UK- for setting down rules the citizens of Providence must follow. If they are complete lying hypocrites they will not.
I think the anarchists are already realizing they've just helped to replace one "tyrant" with another "tyrant". But in the way they did so, screaming about "enclosurists" and "morality" they've painted themselves into a corner. I'm guessing they'll be as hypocritical as ever and ignore their cause because it isn't convenient. It's a pattern with them.
Archbishop
PIE WEBSITE ARCHBISHOP PORTAL |
![Nauplius Nauplius](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1384333221/portrait?size=64)
Nauplius
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 01:55:00 -
[69]
Perhaps I don't see what all the fuss is about. Because this freespace utopia said to be under construction in Providence is neither new nor uncommon. It exists in Insmother. And Wicked Creek. All five of Atlas's regions actually. Don't believe me?
But they pay rent, you say! I quote the Scope, if you must believe that the so-called New Providence will be somehow rent-free and thus special for that:
Quote:
Tzuko1 of ATLAS commented on the capture of 9-F0B2, ôwe have not decided yet what to do with that system, but we will surely not keep it û I think some renters will be interested in it.ö
Although I know of no public statement on the matter yet, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that similar terms will apply to whatever Atlas has been allotted out of the recently reinforced Cold Steel and -7- systems. Thus, I conclude rent does not disqualify a territory from being a freespace utopia.
But they might have slaves, you say![1] Having conquered all of the notoriously slave-holding Angel Cartel's territory (outside Curse itself), I'm sure that some individual Atlas pilots have accumulated slaves as a side-effect of operations against the Cartel. And the same number of rules and regulations govern those slaves as now govern slave-holding in this New Providence ù that is, no laws at all. No laws against slaves in the cargo hold. No laws against selling slaves at a station. No laws against keeping slaves in a POS.
But they have ù horror of horrors ù mandatory standings, you say! Well, not really. Atlas renters do not have mandatory reds. And the few mandatory blues do not include the rest of the Southern Coalition, only Atlas and the other renters, which means it is legal for an Atlas renter to gank an Ushra'khan freedom fighter, and vice versa. Really. Some of you might be surprised at this with all the blather from some quarters about how special the New Providence is going to be, but its true.
But what about NRDS, you say? Residents of Insmother may blow away any neutral that wanders in without censure from Atlas. Residents of the New Providence may blow away any neutral that wanders in without censure from -A- or Atlas or Sys-K or whomever. Now, I am just a humble Khanid Commoner, and so I sometimes miss subtleties that are apparent to my betters ù but I ain't seeing any difference here.
None of this is meant to cast aspersion on Atlas; they are a fine Alliance, a fine Dominion (if not a friend of the Amarr), and had I not felt pangs of guilt about abandoning the Amarr Empire in its time of trial I might still live in Insmother now.
I just never realized that I was living in a freespace utopia when I did.
[1] Not that there is actually anything wrong with the Enlightenment of lawfully acquired slaves, of course.
|
![Tizian Enel Tizian Enel](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1047724352/portrait?size=64)
Tizian Enel
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:03:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Syyl'ara Never once have I seen a conquering army not sell itself as a liberation force. You are proposing a system whereby smaller entities are kept dependent upon you. You claim you'll provide protection, but for weeks have frothed at the mouth and convulsed while shouting how terrible it is to foster such weakness and complacency and that those not capable of the fortitude required should stay in empire.
This reminds me of something.. let me think...
Oh yes, I've got it now! "We are doing this to enlighten the slaves, it's for their own good".
|
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 08:19:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Butter Dog on 17/03/2010 08:20:30 New Providence residents will be completely free to behave as they wish. What exactly are CVA and their pets claiming they are not free to do?
"oh but but but... they if try to assault AAA or UK territorially they will be pushed out of Providence in a counter-attack, this makes them a slave!!!"
Er, no. They're free to act as they wish, in the full knowledge that certain actions have natural consequences. They have infinately more freedom to act than any holder ever did under CVA. That is a simple, undeniable fact. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Scagga Laebetrovo Scagga Laebetrovo](https://images.evetech.net/characters/803753544/portrait?size=64)
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:00:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Butter Dog
New Providence residents will be completely free to behave as they wish.
What if a new providence resident begins to engage in the slave trade? Will they be evicted?
|
![Roderz Roderz](https://images.evetech.net/characters/484795599/portrait?size=64)
Roderz
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:44:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 17/03/2010 08:20:30 New Providence residents will be completely free to behave as they wish. What exactly are CVA and their pets claiming they are not free to do?
"oh but but but... they if try to assault AAA or UK territorially they will be pushed out of Providence in a counter-attack, this makes them a slave!!!"
Er, no. They're free to act as they wish, in the full knowledge that certain actions have natural consequences. They have infinately more freedom to act than any holder ever did under CVA. That is a simple, undeniable fact.
This is quite commendable, so install meatshield, reset them and then farm them pvp wise.I wonder if this includes UK ehehe.
Quoting a leaked post = The desired endstate will be that we have replanted the rain forest of Providence with new and different flowers plants and trees and they will yield to us a bounty of killmails.
Provi TL;DR = Remove the threat install content for us and replant the rain-forest.
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Butter Dog
New Providence residents will be completely free to behave as they wish.
What if a new providence resident begins to engage in the slave trade? Will they be evicted?
They are welcome to make whatever decisions they wish. They will of course understand what the consequences will be.
We won't tell them not to do anything - they should be intelligent enough to work out the consequences of engaging in the slave trade themselves. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Scagga Laebetrovo Scagga Laebetrovo](https://images.evetech.net/characters/803753544/portrait?size=64)
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:06:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Butter Dog
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Butter Dog
New Providence residents will be completely free to behave as they wish.
What if a new providence resident begins to engage in the slave trade? Will they be evicted?
They are welcome to make whatever decisions they wish. They will of course understand what the consequences will be.
We won't tell them not to do anything - they should be intelligent enough to work out the consequences of engaging in the slave trade themselves.
So you will enact consequences for 'new' providence residents who engage in the slave trade. I am not one to 'confidently guess' what these consequences are, for that would be presumptious. For that reason, I should ask you - what are the consequences that Ushra'khan has in store for such entities?
Am I unreasonable to suggest that Ushra'khan will set them red and try to evict them and their infrastructure from providence (or ask a powerful entity to help them achieve this)?
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:38:00 -
[76]
'Freedom' means 'Freedom for all', not 'Freedom for people to keep slaves'.
And yes, I'm quite sure we would act immediately to remove any entity who supported slavery. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Nur AlHuda Nur AlHuda](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1618015594/portrait?size=64)
Nur AlHuda
Amarr Callide Vulpis
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:21:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Butter Dog 'Freedom' means 'Freedom for all', not 'Freedom for people to keep slaves'.
And yes, I'm quite sure we would act immediately to remove any entity who supported slavery.
Quoting for future reference when UK will be at north and Providence and AAA space get steamrolled.
|
![Scagga Laebetrovo Scagga Laebetrovo](https://images.evetech.net/characters/803753544/portrait?size=64)
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:41:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Butter Dog 'Freedom' means 'Freedom for all', not 'Freedom for people to keep slaves'.
And yes, I'm quite sure we would act immediately to remove any entity who supported slavery.
Thank you for the clarification.
There is another, just question that I wish to ask. Let us we entertain the likely possibility that perchance, an entity resident to the hypothetical 'new' providence might inadvertently 'aid and abet' another entity - non grata by virtue of support for slavery. What is the Ushra'khan recourse there?
Let us define terms before we risk receiving platitudes as our response. By 'aid and abet', such may include activities in this non-exhaustive collection of suggestions: permiting docking at administered stations, maintaining standings, permiting the deployment of POS, flying in fleets together.
Again, what is the Ushra'khan recourse there? Does Ushra'khan seek forbid any resident entity in the hypothetical 'new' providen from permitting supporters of slavery entertaining such activities as aforementioned? These are valid questions, ones that may be...overlooked by entities interested in sharing a neighbourhood with terrorists as yourselves...
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:20:00 -
[79]
I think I can state with some confidence that anyone who aids slavers will be considered a valid target. We must do all we can to ensure the promotion of freedom - that is, freedom for ALL our people. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Kazzzi Kazzzi](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1894634296/portrait?size=64)
Kazzzi
Amarr Iniquitous Technologies Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:28:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Butter Dog 'Freedom' means 'Freedom for all', not 'Freedom for people to keep slaves'.
And yes, I'm quite sure we would act immediately to remove any entity who supported slavery.
Thank you for the clarification.
There is another, just question that I wish to ask. Let us we entertain the likely possibility that perchance, an entity resident to the hypothetical 'new' providence might inadvertently 'aid and abet' another entity - non grata by virtue of support for slavery. What is the Ushra'khan recourse there?
Let us define terms before we risk receiving platitudes as our response. By 'aid and abet', such may include activities in this non-exhaustive collection of suggestions: permiting docking at administered stations, maintaining standings, permiting the deployment of POS, flying in fleets together.
Again, what is the Ushra'khan recourse there? Does Ushra'khan seek forbid any resident entity in the hypothetical 'new' providen from permitting supporters of slavery entertaining such activities as aforementioned? These are valid questions, ones that may be...overlooked by entities interested in sharing a neighbourhood with terrorists as yourselves...
The war is not over Scagga. Have you lost all resolve to stop the Southern war machine? Already you seek to find loopholes in U'K Providence administration policy, a policy not yet written, in order to exploit for your future propaganda. Does this mean the Imperial forces have resigned themselves to their fate and have given up all hope? Will there be a formal surrender? |
|
![Scagga Laebetrovo Scagga Laebetrovo](https://images.evetech.net/characters/803753544/portrait?size=64)
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:19:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Kazzzi
The war is not over Scagga.
The war is not over.
We have our orders. We carry them out.
|
![Neu Bastian Neu Bastian](https://images.evetech.net/characters/789795683/portrait?size=64)
Neu Bastian
Minmatar Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:57:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Merdaneth Let us examine the following assumptions: ... Or are my assumption faulty? Is there perhaps another reason that Providence attracted so many different capsuleers?
Capsuleer Freedom has **** all to do with the freedom of the thousands or even millions of humans your ilk keeps captive against their will for political, religious or ideological reasons, or just ethnicity; coerced into doing your bidding. I couldn't care less if capsuleers can`t go into providence with out getting shot, like it is in most 0.0 regions. Capsuleers can pay not to be shot.
Capsuleers can choose to go elsewhere.
Capsuleers can shoot back.
Capsuleers will die, and resurrect in a fresh clone, free to make new choices.
|
![Conlin Conlin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1199241757/portrait?size=64)
Conlin
Gallente Mad Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 16:58:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Butter Dog 'Freedom' means 'Freedom for all', not 'Freedom for people to keep slaves'.
And yes, I'm quite sure we would act immediately to remove any entity who supported slavery.
Hmm , yet the third of U'K that was hastily recruited from Providence ,into the ranks were never asked to publicy renounce slavery . Something the Ushra'Khan of old wouldv'e demanded . Nowadays acceptance comes at the cost of a large pos or a few meagre pieces of intel . This new U'K just want numbers for cannon fodder no matter their past . And the open invitations to Providence holders to join this new Utopia , will you demand they renounce slavery publicy ? , because since the invasion of Providence it has never been asked or demanded . In fact some of U'K's newer members have a rather colourful history . You can keep lieing to your audience here Butters , but lve seen it from within , and not but a few weeks back I defended U'K. Not anymore , thats the problem , I've seen too much for myself and other pilots of principles to walk away from an alliance they called home for a very long time . Before I leave as l dont want to steal your fame you so dearly love , I'II rephrase an old saying we used to have in U'K. "Amarr will eat itself" ...... "U'K will eat itself"......fixed !!
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:23:00 -
[84]
U'K welcome pilots who have seen the error of their ways, and wish to prove this by turning their guns onto CVA and their pets.
Many of our finest pilots, such as Lord Makk, are ex Providence pilots who have saw for themselves the horror of being part of CVA's powerbloc.
Now, go back to your ~wolfpax~ and leave the revelant entites in this conflict to discuss matters on Galnet. There's a good chap. |
![Conlin Conlin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1199241757/portrait?size=64)
Conlin
Gallente Mad Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:31:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Butter Dog U'K welcome pilots who have seen the error of their ways, and wish to prove this by turning their guns onto CVA and their pets.
Many of our finest pilots, such as Lord Makk, are ex Providence pilots who have saw for themselves the horror of being part of CVA's powerbloc.
Now, go back to your ~wolfpax~ and leave the revelant entites in this conflict to discuss matters on Galnet. There's a good chap.
(ooc) I wouldve thought with the amount of trolling you spend on these forums you wouldve prepared a better response my young Bitters ![Smile](/images/icon_smile.gif) It still does not answer my questions , questions many are seeking answers too . I gave 3 years to U'K , something you quickly wish to ignore for the sake of numbers at any cost . We all know how low Makk stooped to gain his position in U'K on both sides of this war , as did many other newer pilots in U'K . Thats what makes us different Butter . I will stick to my principles and honour at any cost , whereas you will bend and twist the rules depending on what suits you on a daily basis . I was one of the first to move into Providence to fight , to remove the Provibloc , till I saw the provibloc move into the ranks of U'K so cheaply . Cheating & stealing their way into U'K . At what level are you prepared to stoop to , to get what you want ?. You got one thing right Butters , you do love to talk and steal the limelight , talk is cheap Butters ![Wink](/images/icon_wink.gif) I,II leave you to your soapbox & limelight , what goes around comes around ![Wink](/images/icon_wink.gif) |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:29:00 -
[86]
I've flown with and for UK longer than you, Conlin. I was there fighting off hostile gangs when the first POS were laid down to claim sovereignty in 9UY.
I know where UK have come from. The difference between you and I, is that I'm not stuck in the past. I appreciate the past, but I don't let it hold the alliance back.
UK is a major participant in a war to remove CVA. Many doubted this would ever happen - and yet, it's happening. You chose to cut and run because you were asked to support their removal.
Don't dare to lecture anyone else on being 'true' or 'loyal', when your own record of fighting for the cause is lying in tatters. |
![Andreus LeHane Andreus LeHane](https://images.evetech.net/characters/179995450/portrait?size=64)
Andreus LeHane
Gallente Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 03:55:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Andreus LeHane on 19/03/2010 03:56:17 The curious thing here is that accusations pertaining to this imagined future are being thrown around by the Provibloc, but the fact is CVA and its various satellites are not entitled to Providence. It was not gifted to them and it is not theirs through any law of inheritance or, if you'll pardon the expression, divine providence. It was not destined to be theirs and in truth what they hold is not de-jure but de-facto control of the region - and that is slipping, slowly. Like with any other 0.0 region, CVA took Providence by force and ruled by right of conquest. It was military strength that gave CVA Providence and if they cannot maintain that strength then it is expected, natural, some might even say inevitable that they lose it once again.
As dogmatic and self-despising as Amarrians are, CVA do not give themselves enough credit. It was not God who gave you Providence - it was you. It was not some divine being's will that you take the land, it was your own. It was not some deity's effort that built the outposts and turned away invaders, it was yours. Through your own effort and determination you took the land and held it for years. Now you are facing an enemy with the determination and the power to unseat you. If you cannot face them, if you cannot turn them away, they will cast you down and take what you worked so hard for.
Complaining that this notional future would somehow be "unfair" or "unproductive" will do you no good. At the end of the day if New Providence becomes the wasteland you predict it will come as no comfort to the thousands of pilots who lost everything for you to tell them that you were right. At the end of the day if you cannot defend it, it will not really matter whether New Providence ever matches your ideal of the old one. You may be entirely correct and Providence will end up as just another 0.0 region over which people squabble, but will having been right give you any more than a sense of satisfaction? Do you expect your appeals to consequence to motivate some massive popular counterstrike against AAA and Ushra'Khan? Do you honestly expect your enemies to be swayed by arguing that they should simply just accept your way of doing things because it's more profitable for a third party?
When this is over, one side will hold Providence and one side will not. And in the end, that side that won is the only side whose opinion will really matter. |
![Conlin Conlin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1199241757/portrait?size=64)
Conlin
Gallente Mad Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 04:25:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Butter Dog Don't dare to lecture anyone else on being 'true' or 'loyal', when your own record of fighting for the cause is lying in tatters.
At least I have my reputation & the respect of my former enemies , thats a lot more than you,or the mess you've made of U'K's roleplaying reputation . The best pilot you could think of as a role model earlier was Lord Makk , that says a lot . You may have been around U'K a few months earlier than myself helping it to build , and l guess youl,l still be playing the fiddle in here whilst it burns . You forget one important factor . When we lost Unity , I was still there in U'K keeping it alive , along with the rest of those honourable trusted pilots . You were ?.... oh yeah ! I'm surprised your taking the criticism , usually your lapdog is biting at my heels by now . Another lie by Butterdog ![Rolling Eyes](/images/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Why exactly would I cut & run to help support CVA's removal when Ive already stated l was there at the first , and 3 years previous ?. You sure your not trying to hide the real reason for my and quite a few others departure (not inc 11B)?. You spend so much time in here that your beginning to believe all these lies you create on a daily basis my young friend |
![Xina Tutor Xina Tutor](https://images.evetech.net/characters/704038464/portrait?size=64)
Xina Tutor
Amarr Black Arrows Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 04:43:00 -
[89]
Well Conlin, I can only respect your position and willingness to speak your mind.
It has given me something of a new understanding. I wondered what UK might do beyond their great conflict, but perhaps in the new UK it may not matter.
Certainly we have all seen a very different UK of late. One that is without a real purpose and mission. Further to that it has been marginalized somewhat in the latest conflict, moreso each passing day and battle.
Perhaps there is a need of a fresh start by many pilots and alliances.
|
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 10:52:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Conlin
At least I have my reputation & the respect of my former enemies , thats a lot more than you,or the mess you've made of U'K's roleplaying reputation .
The only reputation you have is of someone who cut and run when you had a real chance of helping remove CVA. You call that being loyal? You think that helps UK realise it's goals? Of course it doesn't, any fool can see you just wanted to persue your own selfish agenda.
The moment you had to align yourself to UK's true goals, instead of just killing lone sansha hunters whenever you felt like it, you ran away faster than your legs could carry you. What kind of reputation is that? Not one any self respecting pilot in UK would wish to have.
I'm not sure what you mean by "roleplaying reputation", but I'd rather UK achieved it's goals of removing CVA from Providence than engage in pointless Galnet pleasantries with our sworn enemies.
At the end of the day, I and those like me helped shape UK into the force it is today, allies and all, killing CVA and removing her allies from Providence. I understood UK's goals, and how we can realise them - no thanks to you.
You persued your own selfish agenda, and if people like you were a the helm of UK we'd still be in Curse acheiveing nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |