EVE Search - [ISS] Offer to IAC

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

[ISS] Offer to IAC

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Gutsani The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:46:00 - [91] Edited by: Gutsani on 01/01/2007 23:48:54 Originally by: Press Officer Hint for the Priory ... they don't operate like Stargates Arhm .. yes they do, you bubble em wait till someone comes out of it. Bump him if needed and blow him up. You gonna tell me thats not how stargates work?! What game are you playing :/ And just to stay in the forum rules (EA, this is not offtopic ): Stop the pafethic whining about a "genuine offer" etc, since its obviously not. Would you trust anyone that wanted you dead 3 days ago? I wouldnt, thanks for your time, kk byebye. Go IAC! Originally by: Serenity Steele B) It's posted here because we want all IAC members to be aware. Ok, so open your books. We like to know all of ISS's leaderships secrets and contacts and stuff since OBVIOUSLY it is important. Why in gods name would IAC members need to know this in the first place? If leaders says no you can: follow or desert. SIMPLICITY.. ------------------------ Stop reading my siggy!
Arrgs Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:48:00 - [92] Originally by: Gutsani Originally by: Press Officer Hint for the Priory ... they don't operate like Stargates Arhm .. yes they do, you bubble em wait till someone comes out of it. Bump him if needed and blow him up. You gonna tell me thats not how stargates work?! What game are you playing :/ I think he's playing WoW. My first video!
Zhen Komai	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:49:00 - [93] [ 2007.01.01 20:05:09 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > ohnoes outnumbered ! [ 2007.01.01 20:05:17 ] James Lyrus > hiya [ 2007.01.01 20:05:17 ] Count TaSessine > the ISS blob [ 2007.01.01 20:05:20 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > hi [ 2007.01.01 20:05:25 ] Count TaSessine > anyway [ 2007.01.01 20:05:46 ] Count TaSessine > Tyrrax, tell us what you want for IAC, it seems like a good place to start [ 2007.01.01 20:06:30 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > hum, i'd prefer if you presented the solutions you came up with [ 2007.01.01 20:06:46 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > last time i talked to you guys it was all me talking and iss said nothing ;p [ 2007.01.01 20:06:55 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > except to ask questions [ 2007.01.01 20:08:36 ] Count TaSessine > ok [ 2007.01.01 20:10:00 ] James Lyrus > Right, well, lets see. Let's start with the assumption that whilst this fight has been interesting, both sides basically want it to stop. [ 2007.01.01 20:10:14 ] James Lyrus > Assuming relative desires can be satisfied accordingly? [ 2007.01.01 20:10:54 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > for the sake of argument sure [ 2007.01.01 20:12:19 ] James Lyrus > Now, there's a certain amount of tension each way. At the moment, ISS holds the F4 outpost. But ... well frankly, it's not a lot of use to us - after all, we already have a gallente outpost 2 jumps away. [ 2007.01.01 20:12:48 ] James Lyrus > But at the same time, we've had quite a lot of time and effort involved in fighting the last few weeks. [ 2007.01.01 20:14:00 ] James Lyrus > We took F4 because basically an outpost one jump away full of 'hostiles' is a strategic threat. [ 2007.01.01 20:16:23 ] James Lyrus > Now, at the moment, tensions are a little high, on both sides. [ 2007.01.01 20:16:58 ] James Lyrus > But we recognise that you've got a lot invested in the F4 outpost, and Catch in general too. [ 2007.01.01 20:18:07 ] James Lyrus > I think the general suggestion was to basically to leave ISS Sov, but essentially put IAC back in charge of it, with a staged withdrawal over a couple of months. [ 2007.01.01 20:18:34 ] James Lyrus > And of course, open docking access etc. to all the stations to IAC once more. [ 2007.01.01 20:19:23 ] James Lyrus > With a view to further discussions after a couple of months. [ 2007.01.01 20:19:24 ] Count TaSessine > it is worth noting that all IAC office rentals run out on Jan 3-4 [ 2007.01.01 20:20:28 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > Heh [ 2007.01.01 20:20:34 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > I thought I'd made myself pretty clear [ 2007.01.01 20:20:45 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > that we'd be in a permanent state of hostility while you guys have sov in f4r [ 2007.01.01 20:20:54 ] Count TaSessine > let me clarify [ 2007.01.01 20:21:53 ] Count TaSessine > possible scenario: we keep 6 POS in F4R-, with sov OFF. You have 5 with sov ON. After a 1-2 months, we remove our POS. [ 2007.01.01 20:22:10 ] Count TaSessine > we sign a NAP, and move on [ 2007.01.01 20:25:13 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > or you guys could unanchor all your POS in f4r, leaving them for us to redeploy, and then we can start peace discussions [ 2007.01.01 20:26:01 ] James Lyrus > So basically give away our only incentive to make peace, before making an agreement? [ 2007.01.01 20:26:29 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > remove the only hurdle to peace discussions [ 2007.01.01 20:28:05 ] James Lyrus > Wouldn't that leave us in exactly the same situation we all were a couple of weeks ago? Just after IAC declared ISS KOS? [ 2007.01.01 20:29:57 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > hmm not really [ 2007.01.01 20:30:53 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > leaving the POSes would be a good apology, and would go a long way to reducing animosity towards ISS [ 2007.01.01 20:32:30 ] James Lyrus > Do you mean an apology for taking F4? [ 2007.01.01 20:32:39 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > apology for whatever [ 2007.01.01 20:34:29 ] James Lyrus > Well, several of those towers belong to various member corps. They could perhaps be persuaded to sell them.
Zhen Komai	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:50:00 - [94] Edited by: Zhen Komai on 01/01/2007 23:51:07 [ 2007.01.01 20:36:36 ] James Lyrus > Actually, could you clarify for me please, the process of coming to some agreement? I'm afraid I'm not very sure how IAC works internally. Do you vote on proposals? [ 2007.01.01 20:37:30 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > Yeah we vote on stuff, for this would just vote within executive board [ 2007.01.01 20:37:59 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > there isn't going to be anything to vote on until we are in full control of f4r however [ 2007.01.01 20:40:22 ] James Lyrus > That seems a little strange to me. Are you saying that IAC is not prepared to negotiate at all until you have control of F4? [ 2007.01.01 20:40:48 ] James Lyrus > Not even for an arrangement that would allow for a planned and careful withdrawal? [ 2007.01.01 20:41:31 ] James Lyrus > Because as I see it, that's what we're discussing at the moment. [ 2007.01.01 20:42:32 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > hmm [ 2007.01.01 20:42:54 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > your planned and careful withdrawal sounds like it takes months [ 2007.01.01 20:43:17 ] James Lyrus > Timescales are also negotiable. [ 2007.01.01 20:43:17 ] Count TaSessine > we can set a very definitive deadline on it [ 2007.01.01 20:43:33 ] Count TaSessine > we're not interested in refueling POS in F4 forever, you know Smile [ 2007.01.01 20:43:33 ] James Lyrus > But yes, that was our initial suggestion. [ 2007.01.01 20:46:28 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > well time's running out for a peaceful resolution [ 2007.01.01 20:48:25 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > i can't really think of one you guys could stomach either [ 2007.01.01 20:50:02 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > are you guys open to the idea of paying rent to operate in catch ? [ 2007.01.01 20:51:10 ] James Lyrus > Well, we do have arrangements like that already in place. [ 2007.01.01 20:52:24 ] James Lyrus > F.ex we pay LV rent, for some corps. Then again, whilst ISS built and ran the outposts, LV paid for them. [ 2007.01.01 20:53:21 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > Hm yea [ 2007.01.01 20:54:31 ] James Lyrus > But it's not really something we'd considered. [ 2007.01.01 20:54:47 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > well peace might be possible, but IAC would have to be compensated [ 2007.01.01 20:55:18 ] James Lyrus > Compensated for what? [ 2007.01.01 20:56:14 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > compensated is a subtle word for bribed [ 2007.01.01 20:56:18 ] James Lyrus > It wasn't ISS who started the shooting. [ 2007.01.01 20:56:33 ] James Lyrus > Ah. [ 2007.01.01 20:56:51 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > Yeah but IAC doesn't like ISS, without compensation I don't see that changing [ 2007.01.01 20:57:33 ] James Lyrus > I don't think a pirate 'likes' a victim more when he gets a ransom [ 2007.01.01 20:57:43 ] James Lyrus > OK, do you want to buy Marginis and Tycho? [ 2007.01.01 20:57:59 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > can't afford either one [ 2007.01.01 21:00:08 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > I think if IAC benefited from ISS presence then IAC would like ISS more [ 2007.01.01 21:00:30 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > landlord scenerio more applicable than pirate ransom [ 2007.01.01 21:01:11 ] James Lyrus > Hmmm [ 2007.01.01 21:02:23 ] James Lyrus > But at the same time, we have considerable amounts of investment tied up the two outposts in the region. [ 2007.01.01 21:02:35 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > something like that could possibly be worked out once we were in control of f4r, if that was in the next 2 days [ 2007.01.01 21:04:00 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > altho rent would probly be more than the isk you send out to your shareholders every month, so probly not viable idea [ 2007.01.01 21:07:24 ] James Lyrus > Hmm. [ 2007.01.01 21:09:37 ] James Lyrus > What would be your thought on some kind of ceasefire?
Kalamurii Izanthor Soldiers Of Darkness Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:50:00 - [95] This is the way it is... "You can have 5/12 th's of your cookie, but if you **** in the wrong spot, we will yank that away also" You would say yes to that?
GO MaZ The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:51:00 - [96] Quote: The Mittani > I'd offer IAC F4R, tell them if they ever ever do this again you'll get this many dreads after them, chestbeat a little and then spew some more of your nauseatingly hypocritical neutrality claptrap over eveo. From the last epic thread.
Zhen Komai	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:51:00 - [97] [ 2007.01.01 21:10:18 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > if in the next two days you guys offline all your POS in f4r, leaving them for us to reanchor then we can do a ceasefire and discuss under what terms lasting peace is possible [ 2007.01.01 21:10:56 ] James Lyrus > I'm not convinced that's a viable proposal. [ 2007.01.01 21:11:21 ] James Lyrus > Give up only negotiating point, and then we negotiate isn't a particularly reasonable stance. [ 2007.01.01 21:11:57 ] James Lyrus > But if that is your final stance on the matter, then it's something we'd have to take back for consideration. [ 2007.01.01 21:12:08 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > well it was a bad idea to take it as a negotiating point [ 2007.01.01 21:14:48 ] James Lyrus > I have to ask. How did you think ISS would react to an alliance basing out of a station one jump away declaring hostilities? [ 2007.01.01 21:15:15 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > I was burned out at the time from alliance tournament, didn't think about it at all, just went along with what the others wanted ;p [ 2007.01.01 21:15:23 ] James Lyrus > It still doesn't get us away from the fact that we're back to square one, on the whole conflict. [ 2007.01.01 21:17:04 ] James Lyrus > Oh well, Just to summarise, the point we've come to is: [ 2007.01.01 21:17:35 ] James Lyrus > If ISS takes down all the towers in F4, and leaves them for IAC, then you're prepared to consider further discussions? [ 2007.01.01 21:17:57 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > yeah, if that happens in next two days [ 2007.01.01 21:17:59 ] James Lyrus > Otherwise you are not prepared to negotiate? [ 2007.01.01 21:18:03 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > then we can do a cease-fire and talk about peace [ 2007.01.01 21:18:10 ] James Lyrus > OK, [ 2007.01.01 21:18:24 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > otherwise we can always talk without cease-fire ofc [ 2007.01.01 21:19:02 ] James Lyrus > OIk. I'm afraid we'll have to discuss this internally and come back to you. [ 2007.01.01 21:19:13 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > alrighty [ 2007.01.01 21:19:15 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > laters [ 2007.01.01 21:19:20 ] James Lyrus > thanks for your time. [ 2007.01.01 21:19:51 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > yeah yous too
NITROX UpAllNightGaming Gallente	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:53:00 - [98] Quote: leaving the POSes would be a good apology Apology for what ... the IAC attacking the ISS .... This is the problem .... its called living in a fantasy world ...
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:53:00 - [99] Originally by: Serenity Steele These are the facts: A) It's a genuine offer B) It's posted here because we want all IAC members to be aware. C) It's an opportunity for IAC to enter dialogue. 1) After we have told you we wouldn't bother with such discussions? 2) Are you implying that the executives lie or hide things from their members of things of this nature? 3) I've had dialogue, very precise in nature, with James Lyrus since before christmas. Your facts are quite insulting. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Algey ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:54:00 - [100] I think saying that we'll give IAC the station back (which we never wanted anyway) in exchange for an agreement not to attack shareholder assets is perfectly sensible. We have no interest in a war (although those with Marginis shares might, traffic and hence income has increased considerably with the war), but it would be nice to know who is in charge of IAC, and able to make these sorts of decisions.

Cacauphony	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:56:00 - [101] Edited by: Cacauphony on 01/01/2007 23:58:01
Khal Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:57:00 - [102] Edited by: Khal on 01/01/2007 23:57:41 Ok, I'm sorry but can all the speculation and accusations of "They're just doing propaganda" stop.... please? ISS clearly wanted to make a public offer. We all are intelligent enough to form the english language here so we know what a public post entails and that ISS wanted to forums to see it. So what? It doesn't matter, right about where the IAC guys publicly responded "Hell No" the thread should have been over. All these new posts are doing is keeping this thread near the top of the boards... which ironically I just did. So to recap: 1.) ISS made a public offer for peace, albiet with certain terms and conditions 2.) Many uneeded posts that serve nothing to any reader of this forum were posted before any IAC response (Ten minutes of my life I will never get back... it was addressed to IAC, no one else) 3.)IAC said an emphatic no 4.) Crap Crap and more Crap The only worthwhile post after this was shareholders inquiring what this means for ISS, since they have a vested interest. Unless you have something valuable to say, please please please save everyone else the trouble of reading it. And yes, my post is just as worthless, but frustration has limits. (above posted with alt) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.01 23:57:00 - [103] Personally, I don't see what's so terrible about this offer. You get your outpost back. In exchange, you don't shoot us and we don't shoot you. I'm probably going to get slapped by ISS management for asking this, but with the strategic situation being what it is, how do you justify your opinion that IAC are winning the war? I'm not trying to flamebait, I'm genuinely interested. --------------------------------------------------------------------
DeathGrip Amarr Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:05:00 - [104] Was kinda hoping this press release would be about how ISS is the first alliance to lose a Dread in 2007. Oh well. AXE - Where the men work hard and the girls want to play.
Arrgs Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:05:00 - [105] Originally by: Algey We have noticed that whatever we've tried to do to get peace from the very start has been thrown back at us. Maybe your leaders should come up with better offers. My first video!
Sergio Ling Standard Operations Building Services Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:06:00 - [106] Originally by: Khal Edited by: Khal on 01/01/2007 23:57:41 Ok, I'm sorry but can all the speculation and accusations of "They're just doing propaganda" stop.... please? ISS clearly wanted to make a public offer. We all are intelligent enough to form the english language here so we know what a public post entails and that ISS wanted to forums to see it. So what? It doesn't matter, right about where the IAC guys publicly responded "Hell No" the thread should have been over. All these new posts are doing is keeping this thread near the top of the boards... which ironically I just did. So to recap: 1.) ISS made a public offer for peace, albiet with certain terms and conditions 2.) Many uneeded posts that serve nothing to any reader of this forum were posted before any IAC response (Ten minutes of my life I will never get back... it was addressed to IAC, no one else) 3.)IAC said an emphatic no 4.) Crap Crap and more Crap The only worthwhile post after this was shareholders inquiring what this means for ISS, since they have a vested interest. Unless you have something valuable to say, please please please save everyone else the trouble of reading it. And yes, my post is just as worthless, but frustration has limits. (above posted with alt) You say two things. One, it's a public off, and two, it's just for IAC. It's one or the other _
GO MaZ The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:06:00 - [107] Originally by: Khal I don't believe you are privy to what ISS "really" wants to do. My post was pointing out that IAC dont want to stop shooting, not ISS
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:06:00 - [108] Originally by: Gutsani Originally by: ReaperOfSly Personally, I don't see what's so terrible about this offer. You get your outpost back. In exchange, you don't shoot us and we don't shoot you. I'm probably going to get slapped by ISS management for asking this, but with the strategic situation being what it is, how do you justify your opinion that IAC are winning the war? I'm not trying to flamebait, I'm genuinely interested. it is bad because: 1) IAC will get their (or another) outpost back anyway 2) It was answered before brought to the forums 3) It gets kicked down peoples throat "accept it or i suicide" 4) Its not great at all, "you get your outpost but we keep our POS's" 5) Its a plan that would take months .. 6) Its ISS's Appart from point 6, that should be clear enough for everyone? You haven't answered my question about why you think IAC are winning? --------------------------------------------------------------------
MalaMo TMF	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:07:00 - [109] Originally by: Arrgs Quote: Tyrrax Thorrk > compensated is a subtle word for bribed Awsome. Had to agree ------------- Don't drink and drive, logon to EVE and fly.
Press Officer Leaked Memo's	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:07:00 - [110] Quote: Maybe your leaders should come up with better offers Apart from giving you the station back after your declared war on the ISS. Maybe try offering peace for the return of F4 or is that not in your "bribery" plans

Mr Manufacture	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:08:00 - [111] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: O Thief Originally by: ReaperOfSly Personally, I don't see what's so terrible about this offer. You get your outpost back. In exchange, you don't shoot us and we don't shoot you. I'm probably going to get slapped by ISS management for asking this, but with the strategic situation being what it is, how do you justify your opinion that IAC are winning the war? I'm not trying to flamebait, I'm genuinely interested. Three letters for you: AAA What about AAA? lol
N Solarz Caldari FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:08:00 - [112] Originally by: Press Officer Quote: Maybe your leaders should come up with better offers Apart from giving you the station back after your declared war on the ISS. Maybe try offering peace for the return of F4 or is that not in your "bribery" plans PWYM Beat u sergio :P _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Arrgs Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:09:00 - [113] Edited by: Arrgs on 02/01/2007 00:10:45 Originally by: ReaperOfSly You haven't answered my question about why you think IAC are winning? All of your allies have run away, and we still have ours? My first video!
Khal Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:09:00 - [114] Edited by: Khal on 02/01/2007 00:12:06 Originally by: Sergio Ling Originally by: Khal Edited by: Khal on 01/01/2007 23:57:41 Ok, I'm sorry but can all the speculation and accusations of "They're just doing propaganda" stop.... please? ISS clearly wanted to make a public offer. We all are intelligent enough to form the english language here so we know what a public post entails and that ISS wanted to forums to see it. So what? It doesn't matter, right about where the IAC guys publicly responded "Hell No" the thread should have been over. All these new posts are doing is keeping this thread near the top of the boards... which ironically I just did. So to recap: 1.) ISS made a public offer for peace, albiet with certain terms and conditions 2.) Many uneeded posts that serve nothing to any reader of this forum were posted before any IAC response (Ten minutes of my life I will never get back... it was addressed to IAC, no one else) 3.)IAC said an emphatic no 4.) Crap Crap and more Crap The only worthwhile post after this was shareholders inquiring what this means for ISS, since they have a vested interest. Unless you have something valuable to say, please please please save everyone else the trouble of reading it. And yes, my post is just as worthless, but frustration has limits. (above posted with alt) You say two things. One, it's a public off, and two, it's just for IAC. It's one or the other It is an offer they made to IAC publicly, therefore IAC publicly responded.... I believe this makes sense? And Go Maz, my bad, I misunderstood your meaning.... I agree by the way.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press Officer Leaked Memo's	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:09:00 - [115] PWYM Macro key installed I guess for when your argument fails
Sergio Ling Standard Operations Building Services Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:11:00 - [116] Originally by: Press Officer PWYM Macro key installed I guess for when your argument fails PWYM _
O Thief The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:11:00 - [117] Edited by: O Thief on 02/01/2007 00:11:21 Originally by: ReaperOfSly You haven't answered my question about why you think IAC are winning? ring ring... phone.... oh its Butter Dog, he has a message for you: " IAC are winning because with AAA on the side of IAC, further offensive operations against them are not possible... they are fighting for their home space, where they live, through passion... not because they are being told to defend a Gallente Administrative Outpost they don't even want cos MC got too scared to finish the job with AAA in the picture " oh... he hung up... how rude
Prince Asmodai United Society Starfleet Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:12:00 - [118] /me needs MORE POPCORN!!!!
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:14:00 - [119] Originally by: ReaperOfSly You haven't answered my question about why you think IAC are winning? Finally we arrive at the truth.... ISS think they have the upper hand or are bluffing. IAC think they have the upper hand, are bluffing, or are simply willing to fight ISS indefinitely. I said it earlier in another thread... the problem for ISS is time.... its just not on your side. .. also I can't help feeling that there will be no resolution or peace in this conflict till one of the sides is buried. ISS have grown an e-peen, and with that comes pride and no entity wants to swallow its pride, not even a corporate role-playing one. With an e-peen comes the transition from a neutral entity to one that will throw its weight around when it can.... even if ISS win this war they will be transformed into a different entity than they used to be. ISS got themselves a taste for power.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 00:16:00 - [120] Originally by: O Thief Edited by: O Thief on 02/01/2007 00:11:21 Originally by: ReaperOfSly You haven't answered my question about why you think IAC are winning? ring ring... phone.... oh its Butter Dog, he has a message for you: " IAC are winning because with AAA on the side of IAC, further offensive operations against them are not possible... they are fighting for their home space, where they live, through passion... not because they are being told to defend a Gallente Administrative Outpost they don't even want cos MC got too scared to finish the job with AAA in the picture " oh... he hung up... how rude Okay let's say for the sake of argument that that's true. But IAC face a similar situation. They have been backed into a dead-end constellation with us sitting right outside. I cannot see how IAC can mount an offensive operation against US. True, they managed to establish a foothold in F4, but from what I've seen, they do not posess a large enough capital fleet to convert that into taking back F4 or any other system under ISS sovereignty. --------------------------------------------------------------------



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.