EVE Search - IAC brings you

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

IAC brings you

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.12 03:36:00 - [91] Originally by: El'Shaitan I used to hate IAC and CVA, and like the minmatar dudes. Now I hate ushrakan or whatever they call themselves. They are just a bunch of bobbit pets. Go CVA! to bad I dont fly amarr (yeah I still dislike iac or whatever is left of em) Eh ? , we dont even have blue standings with em and last BOB I saw in curse was being ganked by our camp . Next totally irrelevant accusation ?.
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.12 07:39:00 - [92] Originally by: El'Shaitan I used to hate IAC and CVA, and like the minmatar dudes. Now I hate ushrakan or whatever they call themselves. They are just a bunch of bobbit pets. Go CVA! to bad I dont fly amarr (yeah I still dislike iac or whatever is left of em) You are a rather confused and silly person are you not. Just because CVA and IAC were fighting together, and IAC were an open part of the naptrain, that hardly makes UK part of the GBC.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.12 07:57:00 - [93] Originally by: El'Shaitan I used to hate IAC and CVA, and like the minmatar dudes. Now I hate ushrakan or whatever they call themselves. They are just a bunch of bobbit pets. Go CVA! to bad I dont fly amarr (yeah I still dislike iac or whatever is left of em) Heh, well read about re: GBC Also I'm not sure what CVA have to do with this thread tbh. CVA are not a force that UK have been focusing on, and for very good reason - UK can't win a stand-up fight with them, and we all know that. CVA are very good at what they choose to do, and that is defensive PvP. No-one is better at protecting their space from roaming gangs than CVA, imo. No-one. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Lord Marmalade Amarr Categorically Amarrian Trade Services	Posted - 2008.10.12 08:05:00 - [94] Edited by: Lord Marmalade on 12/10/2008 08:06:47 Originally by: Butter Dog CVA are not a force that UK have been focusing on, and for very good reason - UK can't win a stand-up fight with them, and we all know that. CVA are very good at what they choose to do, and that is defensive PvP. No-one is better at protecting their space from roaming gangs than CVA, imo. No-one. Does your puny brain also believe that CVA took Unity purely via "defensive PvP"? Your kind are terrorist cowards. Far smaller pirate entities cause more havoc than your cause ever will. The people of eve have spoken; Unity is no more and UK is now but a smelly, irrelevant, carcass. Come dare step in Providence and you shall find God at the end of CVA's holy laser light.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.12 08:14:00 - [95] Originally by: Lord Marmalade Edited by: Lord Marmalade on 12/10/2008 08:06:47 Originally by: Butter Dog CVA are not a force that UK have been focusing on, and for very good reason - UK can't win a stand-up fight with them, and we all know that. CVA are very good at what they choose to do, and that is defensive PvP. No-one is better at protecting their space from roaming gangs than CVA, imo. No-one. Does your puny brain also believe that CVA took Unity purely via "defensive PvP"? Your kind are terrorist cowards. Far smaller pirate entities cause more havoc than your cause ever will. The people of eve have spoken; Unity is no more and UK is now but a smelly, irrelevant, carcass. Come dare step in Providence and you shall find God at the end of CVA's holy laser light. No, they took it via a the 'blob' route. Everyone knows CVA is stronger than UK, hardly a suprise. They also brought all their providence pets to help. It took them a long time and cost them quite a few capitals, but they got it in the end. They simply wanted it more than UK I guess. PS - post with your CVA main ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Ariebos Black Plague.	Posted - 2008.10.12 12:23:00 - [96] Originally by: Lord Marmalade Edited by: Lord Marmalade on 12/10/2008 08:06:47 Originally by: Butter Dog CVA are not a force that UK have been focusing on, and for very good reason - UK can't win a stand-up fight with them, and we all know that. CVA are very good at what they choose to do, and that is defensive PvP. No-one is better at protecting their space from roaming gangs than CVA, imo. No-one. Does your puny brain also believe that CVA took Unity purely via "defensive PvP"? Your kind are terrorist cowards. Far smaller pirate entities cause more havoc than your cause ever will. The people of eve have spoken; Unity is no more and UK is now but a smelly, irrelevant, carcass. Come dare step in Providence and you shall find God at the end of CVA's holy laser light. lol ... plonker :)
CiderKing Gallente Perpetua Umbra	Posted - 2008.10.12 14:17:00 - [97] Holy thread derailed batman!!! Time to clicky! -Cider IAC ex-BOS
Luke Lor'aul Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.13 03:48:00 - [98] Edited by: Luke Lor''aul on 13/10/2008 03:49:53 I hear Curse is a nice place to lay down and die, IAC. Also, CVA used mercs to take down UNITY.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 04:01:00 - [99] Originally by: Luke Lor'aul Also, CVA used mercs to take down UNITY. Is that what they're telling folks these days? Wowee. Butter Dog got it right. It was a long, messy campaign. I don't know if it was so much a matter of CVA wanting it more than U'K...or rather all the alliances arrayed on the CVA side wanting it more than all the alliances arrayed on the U'K side. At the outset of our invasion of 9uy in particular, we were facing supercaps at a time when we had none, as well as the likes of 0utbreak and Establishment. At the end of the campaign, those folks fell by the wayside (mostly because they had gotten what they wanted: lots of CVA-and-friends killmails) and those with a vested interested in lowly Providence hung about with CVA. Ushra'khan was indeed badly outmanned at that point. There's no real need for smack for sure...that better not have been a CVA alt a few posts above. When we speak on forums, it better be in a tone that doesn't need to be hidden behind an alt.
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.13 07:07:00 - [100] Garreck, you bought in a vast fleet of non RP 0.0 alliance blobbage, and also spammed 25 (or so) towers as you were unable to kill the towers. That was the time I ceased to see CVA as a roleplay alliance. Yes you wanted it more, and luckily UK didn't want it on those sort of terms. So now UK is a "failed" RP alliance that is still fighting slavers, and CVA is an excellent defensive 0.0 alliance. This has all been said a thousand times, I don't know why I'm bothering.

Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 08:05:00 - [101] Originally by: Algey Garreck, you bought in a vast fleet of non RP 0.0 alliance blobbage, and also spammed 25 (or so) towers as you were unable to kill the towers. That was the time I ceased to see CVA as a roleplay alliance. Yes you wanted it more, and luckily UK didn't want it on those sort of terms. So now UK is a "failed" RP alliance that is still fighting slavers, and CVA is an excellent defensive 0.0 alliance. This has all been said a thousand times, I don't know why I'm bothering. Fair enough. You seem to think CVA should (for RP reasons) have denied themselves the method (putting up POS to take UNITY) to most effectively reach their aim. Personally, I feel it's the other way round really. If I am to RP an Amarr slaver I'll do whatever is necessary to kill off those pesky freedom loving subhuman rebels who live in U'K - as long as the methods are approved and legal as decided by CCP. That's the nature of 0.0. We live here at our peril. As for U'K being a failed RP alliance that's just *******s! With all due respect to the FW people of today, to me you'll always be "the true" Minmatar RP'ers - because you have done your thing for so long. You have been RP Minmatar freedom fighters for my entire time in Eve, and I love you for it. I have had plenty of great times flying against you guys, and U'K are certainly one of the reasons I have stuck around EvE for so long and love the game so much. For example, I still remember my first PvP fight in EvE. Me and a friend, each of us not two weeks old and both flying our brand new Tech I laser armed (with Microwave) Omen cruisers, decided to attack a U'K pilot (Totkm) roaming around Pimebeka (wardec was in place). I believe he was in a Huginn. The fight started off very well. We jumped in, got a scramble on him and proceeded to tear away his shields. Those shields died fast and it was such a great feeling. Then things took a turn to the worse. Totkm decided to fight back, sneaky bastard as he is. Our lasers didn't make any significant impression on his armor and he then proceeded to scram and gank us rather effortlessly. Seing we were both complete noobs he refused to take our pods and sent us on our way. Naturally, I instantly vowed that if the situation should some day be reversed, I'd take down his pod in a heartbeat! After the fight I actually bothered to look up the info on his ship and found he had base resists of 92% versus EM (that was before the EM resist nerf). That was my first experience of PvP and I treasure it to this day. I have had lot's of such great experiences flying against U'K. If you try to pass of U'K as a failed RP alliance that's actually one of the few things that will make me lose respect for you - and fast. If any present or former U'K pilots feel the need to bear a grudge against CVA and all it's pilots for what has happened that is for you to decide. But please do not presume to think that such feelings are automatically returned. While I can't speak for every member of CVA, I can certainly say that there still is a lot of respect towards you guys by many of us.
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 08:28:00 - [102] Originally by: Butter Dog PS - post with your CVA main He doesn't have a CVA main. He is a Providence resident. ________________ God is my Wingman
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.13 09:39:00 - [103] Originally by: Octavinus Augustus If you try to pass of U'K as a failed RP alliance that's actually one of the few things that will make me lose respect for you - and fast. He isn't doing that, hence the " around the word 'failed'. He is running a parody of what other people say. Nice post by the way, I enjoyed reading it. Some of my best PvP memories also come from flying with (rather than against) UK and in particular the 'First Seige of 9UY' against a pirate coalition. That is where I cut my teeth as a nooblar FC and got my first capital kills Those days, Hardin actually helped UK (secretly) by hunting said pirates in their lowsec points and camping the pipes for us. I think the distaste for CVA and Algey's post reflects the fact that you went into 'win at all cost' mode in conquering their static assets. Your long time RP buddies in U'K and many observers like me were left feeling a little betrayed by all of that nonsense. You can juxtapose that with Hardins initial repsonse of covert assistance in the first siege of 9UY. Sure, objectives change, but you lost the RP credibility you previously had because it was so obvious you just wanted to 'win' and you really didn't care how that win was achieved. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:14:00 - [104] Originally by: Butter Dog Those days, Hardin actually helped UK (secretly) by hunting said pirates in their lowsec points and camping the pipes for us. Oh we made no secret of it The issue was one of roleplay style. I have always felt, and always preached, that roleplay MUST have meaning. There is no difference between roleplay and nonroleplay organizations. If CVA loses a fight, it's not because we are lolrpers...it's because we were outfought. If Ushra'Khan retained its space, it should've been through better planning and fighting, not because CVA decided to pat them on the head and say "you're smaller, but for the sake of roleplay we're gonna let you live." That's horrible roleplay. The conflict between loyalists and terrorists is bitter and no-holds-barred. There's no reason to ever hold back. Ushra'Khan didn't hold back...they had some of the best pvp organizations in the game helping 'em out at the beginning of the 9uy seige. We didn't hold back...we brought our allies as well. If we lost rp credibility for playing hard and fast and not making our "roleplay" some jokey little slapfest where everybody's alive and okay at the end of the day and nothing ever changes...then it's credibility we didn't want or need, to be honest. That's seriously the silliest thing I've heard...that we don't have credibility as roleplayers because we made our roleplay actually matter.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:22:00 - [105] Originally by: Garreck Ushra'Khan didn't hold back...they had some of the best pvp organizations in the game helping 'em out at the beginning of the 9uy seige. We didn't hold back...we brought our allies as well. I don't want to play CAOD tit-for-tat with you, but CVA started it. Before a shot was fired you brought along all the Providence residents and you had no idea Outbreak or Evoke were going to get involved. There was no 'plan' to involve them at all, but without their intervention the seige would have lasted as long as the reinforced timers. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:28:00 - [106] Originally by: Butter Dog I don't want to play CAOD tit-for-tat with you, but CVA started it. Before a shot was fired you brought along all the Providence residents and you had no idea Outbreak or Evoke were going to get involved. There was no 'plan' to involve them at all, but without their intervention the seige would have lasted as long as the reinforced timers. You're arguing a point that doesn't matter. There's no accusation being levied here. Of course CVA started it...it was us seiging them. That has to start with us.
Darius Shakor Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:29:00 - [107] God... this again. For the record, what is being said here by my fellow UK members is only half of the story. CVA know the whole story. They ignored it. I will not repeat it. Lets just say that regardless of what has been put here by our newer members (who were part of the siege but from the outside) the issue is far more deeper than CVA simply taking our space. Though people like Garreck in the CVA would have everyone believe that is all we are angry about. In face I agree with his last post about winning and losing on merits. CVA put together a heavy force for an objective and met it. This is not why I personally have no respect for CVA anymore. It has been said enough times though. Now lots stop derailing this thread please and just drop it. And on that, CVA, it is not only us that derailed this thread. It takes two to tango... And you dance so well. ------ Mirkur Draug'Tyr :: Recruitment
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:33:00 - [108] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: Butter Dog I don't want to play CAOD tit-for-tat with you, but CVA started it. Before a shot was fired you brought along all the Providence residents and you had no idea Outbreak or Evoke were going to get involved. There was no 'plan' to involve them at all, but without their intervention the seige would have lasted as long as the reinforced timers. You're arguing a point that doesn't matter. There's no accusation being levied here. Of course CVA started it...it was us seiging them. That has to start with us. You're either trolling me or you are accidentally missing your own point. You made the point that you brought all of the non-RP allies because UK brought everything to the table, so you had to. That was the clear implication. That is incorrect. You set the tone. You made the call. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Ariashley Caldari The Maverick Navy Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:44:00 - [109] Originally by: Darius Shakor ABC, I don't personally see any UK trying to take total credit for IAC's demise. [other sentences] I think Zoolkhan just pointed out (in his incomplete English due to language translator difficulties in his pod) that when IAC came to Curse to hit UK it had over 1000 people and left unsuccessful with around 300 of them. Not because of us, but more because of IAC itself biting off more than it could chew with everything else on their plate. The 700 or so who left IAC when it was retreating to Curse were leaving anyway. It had nothing to do with UK or biting off more than it could chew in regards to UK. I don't see how the above doesn't at least subtlely imply that UK had some effect on this reduction in the member count. The shrinking of IAC was a domino effect of everything else; the alliance reorganization, the standing reset with goons (which would have happened sooner or later anyway), AAA rolling in, the fact that so many corps jumped ship at the beginning of the campaign. The only reason it didn't happen faster is some wanted to stay and fight, until JZV was lost. An organization outside of an alliance can not destroy it. An organization outside of an alliance can take that alliance's space, it can destroy its assets, but it can not break its unity of purpose. An alliance is destroyed from within when the corps that are a part of that alliance no longer have unity of purpose. Chaos often leads to a loss of unity, but it is still the alliance that destroys itself. I very much enjoyed my time as part of IAC. I hope that the new purpose (whatever it may be) leads you to interesting journies.
Darius Shakor Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:59:00 - [110] Originally by: Ariashley Originally by: Darius Shakor ABC, I don't personally see any UK trying to take total credit for IAC's demise. [other sentences] I think Zoolkhan just pointed out (in his incomplete English due to language translator difficulties in his pod) that when IAC came to Curse to hit UK it had over 1000 people and left unsuccessful with around 300 of them. Not because of us, but more because of IAC itself biting off more than it could chew with everything else on their plate. The 700 or so who left IAC when it was retreating to Curse were leaving anyway. It had nothing to do with UK or biting off more than it could chew in regards to UK. I don't see how the above doesn't at least subtlely imply that UK had some effect on this reduction in the member count. The shrinking of IAC was a domino effect of everything else; the alliance reorganization, the standing reset with goons (which would have happened sooner or later anyway), AAA rolling in, the fact that so many corps jumped ship at the beginning of the campaign. The only reason it didn't happen faster is some wanted to stay and fight, until JZV was lost. An organization outside of an alliance can not destroy it. An organization outside of an alliance can take that alliance's space, it can destroy its assets, but it can not break its unity of purpose. An alliance is destroyed from within when the corps that are a part of that alliance no longer have unity of purpose. Chaos often leads to a loss of unity, but it is still the alliance that destroys itself. I very much enjoyed my time as part of IAC. I hope that the new purpose (whatever it may be) leads you to interesting journies. You seem to have misinterprited what I said because what you said is what I was saying too. With regards to biting off more than they could chew I was not talking about UK I was talking about the whole package. Hence the domino effect you mentioned came about. Hope that makes it clearer. And yes, absoloutly an alliance is only dead when the members kills it, not when someone else takes their space. UK knows this only too well. ------ Mirkur Draug'Tyr :: Recruitment

Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 21:54:00 - [111] Originally by: Butter Dog You made the point that you brought all of the non-RP allies because UK brought everything to the table, so you had to. That was the clear implication. That is incorrect. You set the tone. You made the call. I see what you mean. You're wrong: U'K brought in the Providence community by expanding their target selection on their patrols beyond CVA. This, again, was good roleplay: "neutral" targets operating inside CVA space make realistic targets for folks roleplaying terrorists. It was a good dynamic rp move for U'K to make. But as with anything in Eve, it had consequences: it became the Providence community's interest to see U'K lose their powerbase in Providence. Hence their involvement. It was not random, it was not a bunch of outsiders. It was victims of U'K actions who helped us remove them from Providence.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:28:00 - [112] Originally by: Garreck I see what you mean. You're wrong: U'K brought in the Providence community by expanding their target selection on their patrols beyond CVA. This, again, was good roleplay: "neutral" targets operating inside CVA space make realistic targets for folks roleplaying terrorists. It was a good dynamic rp move for U'K to make. No, you're wrong. You actively encouraged those parties to fight on 'your side'. UK maintained NRDS until they lost 9UY to you. How do I remember this? Because they forced my corp to practice NRDS in Providence as a condition of our docking rights. They only announced NBSI in Providence (and NRDS elsewhere) after you took 9UY in the 'Providence Must Burn' thread in the IGS. ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.13 23:35:00 - [113] Originally by: Butter Dog UK maintained NRDS until they lost 9UY to you. How do I remember this? Because they forced my corp to practice NRDS in Providence as a condition of our docking rights. Not sayin' they weren't NRDS. They just set people in CVA space red I guess. If it was terribly relevant years after the fact, I suppose I could dig up plenty of threads from Providence neutrals telling U'K to take their roleplay somewhere else or IGS threads where PIE and CVA condemned U'K's attacks in Providence and Amarr space against targets deemed to be slaver sympathizers... These discussions really never get anywhere, though, because the feelings are too strong for whatever reason...and then folks such as yourself who have been around the conflict only from the time of the perceived wrong onward claim to have better knowledge than those who have been around the conflict from years beforehand.
El Torrent Gallente Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:31:00 - [114] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Garreck I see what you mean. You're wrong: U'K brought in the Providence community by expanding their target selection on their patrols beyond CVA. This, again, was good roleplay: "neutral" targets operating inside CVA space make realistic targets for folks roleplaying terrorists. It was a good dynamic rp move for U'K to make. No, you're wrong. You actively encouraged those parties to fight on 'your side'. UK maintained NRDS until they lost 9UY to you. How do I remember this? Because they forced my corp to practice NRDS in Providence as a condition of our docking rights. They only announced NBSI in Providence (and NRDS elsewhere) after you took 9UY in the 'Providence Must Burn' thread in the IGS. This is not really true. Back then Paxton Industries was a small corporation. Neutral to everybody as we back then wanted to stay. Then, comes along gank squad of nice U'K, attacking a ships of ours, and telling us that we have to negasiate blue standings with them, to not get shot at, by them. This made is easy which side for us, us an unexperienced corporation we disliked, and which side we liked. I shame, I no longer have combat/chat logs from back then. --
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:22:00 - [115] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: Butter Dog UK maintained NRDS until they lost 9UY to you. How do I remember this? Because they forced my corp to practice NRDS in Providence as a condition of our docking rights. Not sayin' they weren't NRDS. They just set people in CVA space red I guess. If it was terribly relevant years after the fact, I suppose I could dig up plenty of threads from Providence neutrals telling U'K to take their roleplay somewhere else or IGS threads where PIE and CVA condemned U'K's attacks in Providence and Amarr space against targets deemed to be slaver sympathizers... These discussions really never get anywhere, though, because the feelings are too strong for whatever reason...and then folks such as yourself who have been around the conflict only from the time of the perceived wrong onward claim to have better knowledge than those who have been around the conflict from years beforehand. Of course UK were going to go after your pets, and I'm not surprised that you defended them. My point was that you're a 0.0 alliance that happens to do some roleplay on the side, and this still stands. UK were an inconvenience to your main goal, that of holding space in providence, which is why you mobilised such a fleet to remove them, spamming pos just before downtime rather than fighting "fairly". You can justify it however you like, and to be honest it doesn't even matter anymore (and we'll all believe our own viewpoint after all this time anyway). Personally I do not consider CVA to be a roleplay alliance, however many do. My opinion also doesn't change anything, but hey you're all going to hear it
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:48:00 - [116] This again? Clearly some parties still find the experience painfully near. The discourse here travels down the same worn path it did last time, and the time before. Better to just drop it.
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.14 06:56:00 - [117] Originally by: Algey My point was that you're a 0.0 alliance that happens to do some roleplay on the side, and this still stands. That's a fair assessment. Personally, I'd put it the other way round. We're an RP alliance in 0.0. But fair enough. Originally by: Algey UK were an inconvenience to your main goal, that of holding space in providence, which is why you mobilised such a fleet to remove them, spamming pos just before downtime rather than fighting "fairly". While it is not any ultimate truth in any way, I'd like to throw in a thought of my own on this. These are simply how I'd "write the history" of a lot of events I really has only been a second hand witness to and a few I saw first hand. Back way before I started playing EvE CVA moved to Providence in order to "secure it for the Empire". A while later U'K moved there also, because they felt (justly) it would give a series of great opportunities for RP. Unfortunately, and pretty much unrealised by all, this meant that CVA would eventually fail. It pretty much gave CVA the choice between failing to securing Providence or failing to live up to RP expectations from many. Taking or not taking Unity would be the deciding factor. Would we fail in the eyes of ourselves or in the eyes of others? After 3 (?) years of fighting, CVA stood at the brink of "victory" (In lack of a better term). We suddently/finally/whatever had the capability of taking Unity and had to make a choice between the RP expectations and securing Providence. The choice was made to follow up on the original Providence RP objective and also to hold true to our non RP friends here. The options were "Fail_1" or "Fail_2" and CVA chose "Fail_2". Anyways, this is certainly not a true story of old events, it is simply the story as I see it. Originally by: Algey You can justify it however you like, and to be honest it doesn't even matter anymore (and we'll all believe our own viewpoint after all this time anyway). I quoted this because I'm completely in agreement. I'm very sorry for the bad feelings between U'K and CVA, I truly am. However, I also feel that the path we've all been down was laid before us a long time ago. In my view, noone is to blame (although I know most U'K pilots feel differently). Regardless of how U'K feel towards CVA you have my respect. Whereever you decide to go from here you have my best wishes. If you should happen to go in front of my lasers you'll also have something more than that. I'll leave it at this and bow out of this discussion here. I believe Pezzle is right, and I'm afraid nothing good will come of bringing up these old grudges again. PS. I feel somewhat responsible for derailing this thread completely from it's original IAC content. Does that make me a real CAOD poaster? Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt.
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.14 07:55:00 - [118] Originally by: Octavinus Augustus After 3 (?) years of fighting, CVA stood at the brink of "victory" (In lack of a better term). We suddently/finally/whatever had the capability of taking Unity and had to make a choice between the RP expectations and securing Providence. I think the bitterness is more to do with the fact that CVA was not on that brink. CVA along with a huge blob of allies yes, CVA, no. Imagine if UK had called in MC or something equally silly, and you'd have an idea of how people at the time felt about it. Originally by: Octavinus Augustus PS. I feel somewhat responsible for derailing this thread completely from it's original IAC content. Does that make me a real CAOD poaster? I must admit that this is an epic derail, however IAC don't need the thread anymore
Abn Matar Minmatar Genco	Posted - 2008.10.14 10:15:00 - [119] Ill have to throw in a shoe here and just say: I hope that IAC can be put down and die, I wish this would have been done from the start since what was IAC (i.e JZV and/or executing corps) is now dead, nothing of the IAC we created is left, be that our inability to retain it or many outside factors it does not matter. IAC as a faction was formed on good friends that wanted a place in 0.0 to build a community to have fun and fight drunken battles, much of what we had was great, lots of corps and people have had fun with and in IAC. But since IAC early established a hold of JZV and in that put up stations, we grew together with the constellation. We always stated that we would wage a terrorist war from Curse if we ever lost it. Since we did not want to or were unable to unite against this hardtime IAC broke. I feel therefore a duty to let IAC die as an alliance so that we can remember the IAC that were, where we had fun, where we did stupid things and where we could call our home. I regret to this day that Genco cant call IAC home, we started this alliance with MINC, CELTS and TMK. Please do the right thing and let IAC be connected with JZV and drunken fighting and not some lame version of it. Regards, Abn Matar - 1st day member, ex. President, ex. Director and ex. Diplomat for IAC.
Kade Jeekin Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:54:00 - [120] Hey CVA people. Wondered if you'd answer somthing that's bugged me since you went for 9UY or bust. Were the then upcoming sovereignity changes, ie Jump Bridges, Cyno-Jammers and the like, a factor in your timescale? Realising that if you didn't mash us back then, then the whole job would have become a hell of a lot more difficult? --------------------------------------- Outface the depths of evil with clarity ---------------------------------------



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.