Originally by: PooooBear

---

Bitter Dog, you're pretty dumb. A pyrrhic victory is a victory with irreplaceable losses. You didn't inflict them irreplaceable losses, in fact, Insurgency barely managed to scar them then proceeded to lose every PR support for the "underdog" thanks to a series of terrible forum posts by you and darth solo, which switched the public opinion to "they might be underdogs but damn if they're annoying".

Also Metal Dude, way to know how to read. He wasn't talking to you, nor about BoB.

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

Actually, phyrric victory is a term used to describe not just irreplaceable losses (although it can be, and is), but overwhelming losses to achieve very little, and is commonly used in that context.

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

Actually, phyrric victory is a term used to describe not just irreplaceable losses (although it can be, and is), but overwhelming losses to achieve very little, and is commonly used in that context.

---

No. Save the money from your EVE subscription and buy a dictionary.

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

Originally by: Fred0

---

Beating INSRG had no negative affect on us at all

...

RZR lost most but the only thing that took any time to replace is the titan

---

Good post.

And since I have to spell it out: the damage it inflicted on you was showing you up. RZR and INSRG were a similar size, you were more established with Sov systems and greater ISK reserves.

The damage that conflict caused to you was that it proved, once and for all to any doubters, that RZR can do nothing alone, are nothing alone, and in the wider scheme of things are a weak alliance who have only ever relied on numbers to achieve anything.

Without your numbers prop, your alliance is nothing and you know it. INSRG scared you, you blobbed them with the NC, you lost far more than you gained, and then you crowed 'victory!'.

Shallow, hollow, and utterly pathetic

---

Originally by: Doddy

---

Edited by: Doddy on 16/09/2008 16:05:26
A phyric victory isn't to do with either irreplaceable nor very heavy losses. It simply means a victory isn't worth the cost of acheiving it. What this means in terms of losses is entirely down to circumstance. A victory with irreplaceple or heavy losses is not phyrric if it acheives its goal.

It comes from Pyrhus the great who beat the romans again and again but as he lost most of his army and the romans wouldn't give up he had to go home. If the Romans had given up it wouldn't have mattered how many losses he had.

---

Originally by: TWD

---

Originally by: Tearavygh Quillam

---

You're wasting time by trying to make me bite. But well, you're wasting time anyway.

The NC are a good bunch of guys, they'll do what they'll do and live peacefuly with it. Pretty neat, compared to what others do.

---

Then why did you leave them?

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition,

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

American Heritage New Dictionary

---

Originally by: queen1121

---

Originally by: Tearavygh Quillam

---

The NC are a good bunch of guys, they'll do what they'll do and live peacefuly with it. Pretty neat, compared to what others do.

---

They will live peacefully with anyone they can't blob to death, aka. they're afraid of, hoping to maintain status quo without any real dedication, basicly getting lazy, fat and rich.

Well tide is changing.

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

However, the matter at hand is that BD claims that Razor achieved a Pyrrhic victory. They didn't. They just... won.

---

Originally by: Butzew

---

LOL,
I see BoB came alone on MAX campain and only attacks with smaller gangs that their oponent has, just to not outblob them ....
also those 300+ capital ships are only a "blob whanabe"

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

....Without your numbers....your alliance is nothing ....

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

Edited by: PooooBear on 16/09/2008 17:05:34

Originally by: Doddy

---

Edited by: Doddy on 16/09/2008 16:05:26
A phyric victory isn't to do with either irreplaceable nor very heavy losses. It simply means a victory isn't worth the cost of acheiving it. What this means in terms of losses is entirely down to circumstance. A victory with irreplaceple or heavy losses is not phyrric if it acheives its goal.

It comes from Pyrhus the great who beat the romans again and again but as he lost most of his army and the romans wouldn't give up he had to go home. If the Romans had given up it wouldn't have mattered how many losses he had.

---

You know how much I appreciate a discussion about antiquities but alas, I have to disagree with you.

When you say "If the Romans had given up it wouldn't have mattered how many losses he had", therein lies the dilemma. Because a Pyrrhic victory, as it became known afterwards, is a victory that definitively costs you the outcome of the war, to the point which is considered the same if not worse than a loss.

According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, a Pyrrhic victory is "A victory that is accompanied by enormous losses and leaves the winners in as desperate shape as if they had lost."

Had he defeated the Romans, and then proceeded to win the war, a Pyrrhic victory would have just meant a costly victory, or it wouldn't have been famous enough to have an idiom after itself.

However, the matter at hand is that BD claims that Razor achieved a Pyrrhic victory. They didn't. They just... won.

---

Originally by: CCP Oveur

---

...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

Edited by: Kilostream on 16/09/2008 19:18:01

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

....Without your numbers....your alliance is nothing ....

---

Quoted for genius value - brilliant!

---

Originally by: Lord WarATron

---

It appears you are misinfored on what MAX is. Max is our Grifing campaing since nobody attacks us anymore, we may as well greif the hell out of everyone else until they can take no more. The next best thing to having 24/7 pvp is the tears of ejecting someone out of their homeland by force!

Most NC leaders know all about what Max is really about, dunno why they do not tell their members though.

---

Originally by: Veldya

---

BoB is just happy to metagame the game to death, they don't realise how much the way you play harms the environment. You guys stoop to cheap tricks for minor victories, you cheat in any way you can possibly get away with. For an alliance based on honor you fight more like terrorists than a noble elite force.

People will either not act and you will inevitably dominate the whole map and put pets into positions all over the map effectively destroying the ability for the other powers to stop BoB from doing what they want or everyone will get sick of it and another coalition will form.

MAX is driven on the back of the pets, the same pets gone missing during the last coalition and the same pets that will go missing again. Rent-a-corps just have no incentive to get annihilated and they will turn their backs on you if another coalition comes.

If BoB defeats the NC the other major powers will topple like dominoes, you will have pets controlling most of space that is worth controlling and BoB will be rolling around in more isk than all the Chinese farmers combined. BoB's decision to act is more about wealth than purpose, what did you guys hit with Max? Run and secured all RA weakly defended moon mining operations.

I think that highlights the intention of MAX. How many high-end moons do BoB have? 200? 300? Where is all the isk going? ;)

---

Originally by: PooooBear

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

Actually, phyrric victory is a term used to describe not just irreplaceable losses (although it can be, and is), but overwhelming losses to achieve very little, and is commonly used in that context.

---

No. Save the money from your EVE subscription and buy a dictionary.

---

Originally by: lonesomegirl

---

Are you saying that NC is better than -A- ? Or is the sky falling?

---

Originally by: Butter Dog

---

Originally by: Fred0

---

Beating INSRG had no negative affect on us at all

...

RZR lost most but the only thing that took any time to replace is the titan

---

Good post.

And since I have to spell it out: the damage it inflicted on you was showing you up. RZR and INSRG were a similar size, you were more established with Sov systems and greater ISK reserves.

The damage that conflict caused to you was that it proved, once and for all to any doubters, that RZR can do nothing alone, are nothing alone, and in the wider scheme of things are a weak alliance who have only ever relied on numbers to achieve anything.

Without your numbers prop, your alliance is nothing and you know it. INSRG scared you, you blobbed them with the NC, you lost far more than you gained, and then you crowed 'victory!'.

Shallow, hollow, and utterly pathetic

---

Originally by: CHIKA QRE

---

When INS was fighting NC I clearly remember TRI comming to help them in big numbers including supercaps. The result was a failure cascade of both INS and TRI ceasing to exist and INS loosing any credibility they ever had in EVE.

Back before that TRI was involved into an intial Delve invasion that failed. Only second time, without TRI did allies do very well against BOB and got stopped by multiple titans on cyno jammers only while BOB was cornered in few systems.

Nowdays we have GBC who are flying next to TRI. Will this be a turning point in tri history or will GBC fail miserably like all previous TRI allies? If I was GBC I would never fly next to TRI for anything just becouse of possible bad luck that alliance brings to its allies.

---