Dmanwuzhere wrote:Without the words training guild it still does not make it honorable.
And casting on innocents is honorable ??
Your sense of logic never ceases to amaze.
Dmanwuzhere wrote:Without the words training guild it still does not make it honorable.
Sir Edward Pellew wrote:Assurances were made provided those on the otherside did not involve them.
We did not threaten, Dman did that first, all we stated was our intention to return the same should it go there. If no nation was hit, we wouldn't hit one either.
Feniks wrote:Sir Edward Pellew wrote:Assurances were made provided those on the otherside did not involve them.
We did not threaten, Dman did that first, all we stated was our intention to return the same should it go there. If no nation was hit, we wouldn't hit one either.
Again, maybe Phoenix should share with you the entire message thread. seems there is some confusion who threatened who first.
Dmanwuzhere wrote:I am done talking about it.
Control the action or deal with a reaction.
I made you aware and it did not stop so a reaction was needed.
Cowardice used as a term to try to change a tactic will not work.
The deal with actions with my list of what I prefer will not work.
Casting 400 and 32 blue moon voodoo will not work.
Eradicating the action will work. God that is so simple.
But no I am the old gaurd and you must do as I want is the expectation.
Done with it if there is no change that is due to your wish for no change.
Stan Rogers wrote:Feniks, quit acting as thick as a mud fence.
You are smart enough to know that is not what I did or said in context. Pointing out that national attacks begot reciprocal attacks is something most learn in their early days of playing.. I would hardly call that a threat. Just an observation of past conflicts
Feniks wrote:Stan Rogers wrote:Feniks, quit acting as thick as a mud fence.
You are smart enough to know that is not what I did or said in context. Pointing out that national attacks begot reciprocal attacks is something most learn in their early days of playing.. I would hardly call that a threat. Just an observation of past conflicts
Yes, but pointing it out in this particular thread was construed as a threat.
No one points out how past conflicts went unless they are threatening to escalate things to that point in the current one.
If the intent is not to go down the path of past conflicts, then there was no need to bring it up.