Yes, but it has been very rare. Can recall at least once, maybe twice.


These forums are atrocious and full of negativity. However if you wade through all the crap, there actually is some good input. I often debate if it is worth wading through all the crap for, yet I still do at times.

because after adjusting the time line your point was so convincing.

There are roughly 0.03x the number of deaths from guns per day than there were on 9/11

Technically guess no one, just that you inferred it with your quoted statement about banning knifes etc .. that is usually when I hear such statement anyway are when someone is talking about banning guns. So sorry, yes you did not actually say that and was my mistake.

However, if you think my pointing out all the illogical comparisons you made is not convincing, than is no point talking further. I am obviously not replying to someone with an open mind and knows how to debate much. Keep trying to compare apples to oranges I guess and good luck with it.

*goes off wondering if you even know what straw mans argument even means*

OMG, where to begin. This is wrong on so many levels.

Are you seriously trying to compare 1 day/incident to a whole year?

The 10x is technically correct, however trying to take total number of deaths via one cause (guns) and comparing it to another action such as violence is level of appalling discourse in of itself. You might as well said the number of deaths from autos per YEAR than there were on 9/11. It has no relevancy at all and is a poor comparison. The vast majority of the 33k deaths due to guns is suicide. Even if you assume that the remaining deaths via guns are all of violent nature (which it isnt) that would make it more 4x the number of violent deaths from guns per YEAR than there were on 9/11. (12k vs 3k). While this would be more accurate comparison, it is still wrong due to stated above, whole year compared to one day. A more realistic number would be 3x btw and imho that is not very much when you are attempting to compare whole years worth.

IF you do insist on keeping whole number of deaths via guns, since vast majority as I said are suicides, this actually makes the "why not ban knives or hands?!?!?! dur hur" statement relevant. Once someone has gone through the process or has reached state of no longer wanting to live, they are going to end their life no matter what. If they had no access to a gun, they will find some other method, such as knives, ropes, gas inhalation, pills etc. Banning a gun will not stop it, you would need to ban every other method used and is a stupid reason to even suggest banning guns. Hence the stupid question asking about banning other things. Guns is not the issue, so attempting to ban something that is not cause or reason for such actions is yes stupid, how about addressing the real problem(s) such as mostly kids with issues/problems as well as other reasons why the number of adults are wanting to commit suicide.

For the record, violent deaths in the US has steadily been decreasing every year since long before 9/11. This is true for violent deaths via guns as well.

That is indeed absolutely horrible news and very sad to hear. I will pray for you and your family mate.

#1. Have to agree with archaic

#2. Meh, dont really much care one way or another. But leaving UN is prolly the better choice.

#3. Get back to me when you have compared US poor homeless and hungry. I somehow doubt you have seen real 3rd world starvation. Unlike in those 3rd world countries, US has plenty of charity places where homeless and hungry can go and get food.

#4. Hypocritical. On 2 accounts. US must first stop selling and providing weapons to islamic states in the first place, or stop providing them to countries who in return give them to islamic states before US could even consider other countries actions.
Secondly this is hypocritical because it is in major conflict with your #10. Do you want US to stop policing rest of the world and bullying it around or dont you. Make up your bloody mind.

#5. Have to agree with archaic once again. NO, companies have proven time and time again that they will choose profits over safety. Both for its own employees as well as for its clients.

#6. I am not big fan of more period. Think are way too many laws, etc that are not even being enforced as it is. HOWEVER, this is one more that I can go along with.

#7. I am torn about this. When times are good and the economy is doing well, SURE why not. But currently would have to say No. Put those plans on hold. Sure it can be greatly beneficial to many other industries, but not during time when so many US are homeless and hungry.

#8. Oceana hit the head on the nail. Sure US must spend and attempt to discourage. It is a losing battle, but still US needs to make some efforts. However, the only way to really discourage them from coming or even wanting to come in the first place, is if they have no advantages to do so. In the end if they spend what ever it takes to make in US, only to find out there is no benefit and they cant survive, they will go back home and stop wanting to come in the first place.

#9. NO, NO and NO. There is freedom of press and it should always remain such for any real free society. The answer is not make more laws. The fault lies squarely on society, not its laws. This means you and me. If people would stop listening to all the rubbish, stop believing in all the published BS w/out doing some simple fact checking and using common sense. Guess what, media would find it no longer profitable and would stop. More importantly society needs to step up and start criticizing when they do continously see such BS media around. Simply boycott those media's til they can get their act together.

#10. See my #4 above. You cant have it both ways. Personally I would choose your #10.

Where the rest of the playerbase went more like

Yes I have been wondering this myself. Per GSK report on both studies (public and confidential) they seemed to find more problems with INFANRIX Hexa (vaccine) along with Prevnar (vaccine) and even put warning about it.

I have also read and even makes sense about giving babies with not as built up immune systems, six required vaccines in such short period of time. It just seems that in itself would at first weaken them and make them more susceptible, they havent even really had time for their immune system to adapt and get stronger before receiving another one. Sadly I have not been able to really find any research even looking into this. Like mrford said, where are the control results? Comparing test results of one vaccine to results of another vaccine like so many research I have seen is just so lacking. You might as well compare results from cocaine to results from heroine and say nope its not dangerous. (Yes I know I am over emphasizing, just making a point). GSK also did test comparing to placebo of non-activated vaccines, so there are some control results, just not really enough control results. Their follow up at bottom of their confidential report into reported trouble cases seemed to be much more thorough and looking into control results than their actual initial test research. *However I will admit that is just what it seems, they could have looked into it more in-depth to begin with and it is just not reflected in confidential report.

I fixed your post for you.

Sorry but it was not me (although I am honored you think so highly of me) that made up the GSK confidential report, nor was I one of their expert scientists or statistician (or whomever compiled their GSK list of medically serious terms criteria). Those I am sure can all be blamed on experts. You can not simply deny with no experience in that field whatsoever what is written in plain black and white text from the companies own confidential report available for anyone to see.

Nervous System Disorder - Mental impairment disorders - Autism - 5 - Event Level Seriousness: YES

As well as many other Nervous System Disorders which was put out in their public report specifically stating was NO casual link to any Nervous System Disorders, yet they admitted they lied when confronted in court with evidence which clearly states otherwise in their confidential report. Just short list:

Nervous System Disorder - Central nervous system infections and inflammations - Encephalitis - 19 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Central nervous system vascular disorders - Cerebral haemorrhage - 5 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Cranial nerve disorders (excl neoplasms) - Facial paresis - 10 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Encephalopathies - Encephalopathy - 14 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Increased intracranial pressure and hydrocephalus - Brain oedema - 11 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Mental impairment disorders - Mental impairment - 7 - Event Level Seriousness: No
Nervous System Disorder - Movement disorders (incl parkinsonism) - Brain oedema - 46 - Event Level Seriousness: No

Your logical fallacy example is totally irrelevant when compared to actual facts, from experts even admitting they lied and hid the truth. The only thing you have said so far with any validity to it is yes this is only 1 research compared to the 100 done after which showed no link. There are however 2 problems with this.
1) The first was done by the actual company who had the most vested interest in the results and yet still found links to all kinds of nervous system disorders including Autism.
2) GSK does not have good track record and has even admitted to bribery, falsifying records and research to the FDA that they got caught and busted for. So who knows how many of those 100 other researches done after has not been tampered with or led by Dr's and scientists on their payroll.
So does that discount ALL the other research? NO I do not believe so. Yet it does throw serious question in to how many, and I also question were those thorough enough and/or big enough test sample base. I was looking for answers to this, instead of some sheep blind answer trying to ignore facts, all at same time providing no evidence of support for your simpleton replies.

The Italian court said yes they do. FDA banned the usage so apparently they seem to think so. As well as most of Europe which has also banned.

Face it the big pharmaceuticals can simply get away with lying and not warning of the dozen or so serious medical side affects that can happen.

Oddly enough GSK disagree with you and admitted they do.

Hmm believe Ford or pharmaceutical company that created and tested it. Sorry ford you lose.


Edit: technically you are correct, the actual vaccine does not, the adjuvant does however. But since it is/was part of the vaccine, you still lose.

Some did not have appropriate answers so will give them here :D

How comfortable are you with receiving energy saving tips based on data collected about your energy consumption? N/A, I would simply disregard it along with all the other junk mail. So feeling comfortable is N/A.

Would you like to be able to receive maintenance notices for your appliances based on your energy consumption (i.e. your fridge is running inefficiently, time to get it serviced)? No*



*Since that is a yes/no question, kinda surprised neither of those were options as answers.

Ok so now I must ask did the so called scientific studies get it all wrong? Or how many of those studies were tainted and/or cover ups?

Personally I tend to not believe such conspiracy theories and even personally doubt ALL studies are tainted or cover ups. If anything I tend to think they were just inadequate .. either due to too small of test samples or just not being thorough enough.

So why am I bringing this up? Well interesting enough the big pharmaceutical company was even aware that its vaccines DO cause Autism, they were even aware and admitted that vaccines do also cause several deadly adverse side effects which they have neglected to let their consumers know about. In GSK report which can be seen publically here: http://ca.gsk.com/.../537989/infanrix-hexa.pdf it does actually list that SUD (Sudden Unexpected Death) IS one of side effects, yet strangely enough it is still not actually listed as Warning and Precaution to Consumers. Nor is any mention of any other severe deadly side effects mentioned which GSK finally admitted to knowing about.

I had heard that US did actually ban Thimerisol (mercury) to be made with it any more. However, the US did allow them to still use all the stored doses with Thimerisol (we are talking about billions of stored doses). So I had apparently assumed that FDA had primarily banned it due to more of precautionary measure and to appease community fears over such usage.

Italy court has ruled that INFANRIX Hexa causes Autism based on GSK confidential report which shows that even the big drug company was aware that it can cause Autism among several other fatal diseases and adverse side effects which they did NOT inform or warn their consumers about. http://republicbroadcasting.org/...lackout-of-medical-truth/

So now I am second guessing myself, IF the big drug companies knew about this and kept it hidden from the public, did the FDA also know about this, was this the actual reason it banned the use of Thimerisol and IF so than how and why did FDA allow all those stored doses to be used?

As best as I can ascertain (without actually being able to see confidential GSK report) it is around 3% can cause Autism. Also as best as I can ascertain most of the deadly fatal side effects are only around 1%. However when you add them all up that is over 10%. To put this in perspective for vaccines, one example Diptheria at its worst was 10 - 20% of child population resulted in deaths back in early 1900's. So overall, just to follow diptheria example, you have saved 20% of child population only to replace it with killing 10% with adverse side effects. Is it still worth it?

I really do not know, all I can say at moment is sure vaccines are worth it IF is a huge pandemic, but otherwise I am not so sure and question continued use once that pandemic is reigned in. Their really needs to be much more studies done, especially if the so called scientific studies could not find any link between Autism, when even the big drug company knew otherwise.

Why create a new tag next reset, why not just restart LUST again next set?

Tag will never establish itself if you keep creating new ones every set.

*bogus post of the week*

LOL, another hilarious thread. Love all the whingers trying to forget they did exact same things. Bogus post.

whether FA was sent or not, its still low class.

This thread is just too funny lol. Go Imag, bogus post for the week.

True, but I was talking from perspective of potential new people joining. They would not be able to determine just by looking at the game whether it was 300 bots and 1000 players or 1000 bots and 300 players or maybe even 1250 bots with only 50 players. All they could quickly see is there are bots and wonder how many are actual real people.

I never actually played e2025 but yes I have heard about all the tons of multies and bots, before I even started playing here.

Agreed, the more you increase bot numbers IF it is significant enough of an increase will mean less new people being farmed. As you pointed. However if that were done I wouldnt stick around. It is already far too easy with not much skill required to net here as it is, so dont think making it even easier will make game better. Would be opposite.

That is actually a good thing and I wished it were that way now. I have played elsewhere that it was like that and miss it.

I look at game activity prior to joining any new game and I am sure I am not the only one to do this. IF a game has bots playing, than noob cant really tell how active the game really is. This is not my overall final decision on whether to try the game out or not, but is huge factor.

For example before I started playing here I was looking for an e2025 clone to play temporarily, so half my decision was already made up on if to start new game or not. I looked at ee as well as mars. Mars clearly had lots of multi's .. not bots that I could tell but who knows might have had them too, but I could not determine how active Mars really was but it didnt appear that active. So I looked here at ee, bots were being spoken about but were not really that far along yet and as far as I could tell dont think were even in-game yet. Multi's were not allowed here and it appeared some effort was in place to keep them out. All of this meant that at time it appeared to be at least 500 if not 1000 actively playing. So I decided to try this game. However IF bots were around like they are today I would not have even bothered to start an account here.

I dont come on-line to play against the computer, I can do that with out internet. I have heard others say the same thing from time to time in various different places. So I know for fact it would deter some (like myself), I just do not know how many .. or whether I am in small minority or not.

^^

Only join this clan if you want to learn all the wrong ways to play in alliance server.

@Justtaint - Bots also detract newer players from ever starting the game. I would guess that bots actually deter more newer players than it retains. I cant prove that ofc, but would not be surprised.

@Forgotten - NO!!!!! We all dont know that Alliance/FFA server does not work well for newbies. I actually recommend newbies to play on these servers first so that they can join a clan and learn how to play well. Your statement most definitely is NOT A FACT, it is your personal opinion. It is much less likely they will be able to teach themselves how to play well on a solo server.

Pfft, how long ago does not matter. I was suspicious of Google tracking like 15 years ago. I noticed when I logged into google and than did searches I started getting spam email in relation to my searches. So I looked up some distinct thing to see, in this case it was medical mesh screens. I only did search, never actually clicked on any site from the search. BAM!!! Over next 24 hrs I started receiving spam email not only for all kinds of medical crap, but also tons just about mesh screens. So I pretty much stopped using google and especially stopped logging in to google unless I needed too.

Over the years the spam email has slowly gone down. About 6 mo's ago, I logged into google work on someone's spread ... BAM! Started getting spam for mesh screens once again almost 15 years later. Just because I simply logged into google, even though I have set all options I could find not too on numerous occassions, way back than as well as 6 mo's ago. If I had a gmail account I could maybe understand, but google should not be selling my non gmail email address just because I did searches for it ages ago.

Oh my, you live in a sheltered world dont you. Lol.

The markets alone will effect tons of people. But not counting that, I have heard many people from all over the globe talking about how difficult their jobs have become, what with their companies planned expansions into europe now being put on hold or unknown status. Or even companies that already have lots of expansion in europe in a panic and now trying to minimize damage control.

I have not kept current in last decade, but Milwaukee used to have the best reciprocating saw. However, really you can not go wrong with either brand's tools. Both Dewault and Milwaukee are some of the best tools.

As to getting sidetracked, IF Spirit had any issues with this they would have pursued it way back when Led Zeppelin first released the song. Dont you think they would have noticed and recognized the similarity from their own song? Obviously THEY did not feel they had been plagiarized so this should never even have gone to court now in first place. Court got this one correct.

nope was not around back than. Only started here in 2012.

Lame AI so far, but than except from big gaming company, I have only seen one game that had decent AI.

Make them do retals if they are LG'd.

Quality over quantity.

NO!

nope, you are thinking of someone else Hawkeye maybe

Another e2025 variant was on FB which didnt really attract that much attn. Besides the days of FB games, while still around, is past its prime hey day. So if any time is spent updating the game it should be more for mobile app.

Also welcome back.

I am and have never been top tier tree hugger, however if I put in honest effort should be able to just maybe sneak in top ten or at least get close. I have started off several sets here saying I will attempt to put in serious NW netting set ... only to find I lose interest and many lost turns. Tbh it just is not challenging to net here with all the sissy piss ant netting policies around here (running with no military as netting norm, ghost acres, land trading, top feeding policies, typical farming of countries which should result in country being killed yet doesnt, bots, etc)

All I see is "Under Construction". Was going to throw in some numbers and see if spotted any differences between this and what I have on my spread.

Not sure what Vic is on about either. Didnt take me that long to set up calcs either from what I recall. Ratio isnt much harder.

For a number of reasons. I know galleri has already stated they arent, but since you asked. Just to list few off top of my head.

1) I am NOT here to play against an AI (can do that off line), for them to be untagged is still not preferable, but I can easily ignore those IN an alliance server. But if they are inside of clans, I can no longer do that.

2) Why does one (or couple) clans get luxury of having some bots to artificially pad their numbers or any number of other benefits (see below). IF they are inside clan(s), than EVERY clan should have some, not set specific one or couple.

3) Bots inside of clan COULD be used as personal clan farms, while other clans that have pacts with that clan are unable to now hit them. Even IF clan is not pacted and hits bot, that clan can now take retal (still in essence using those bots inside their clan as personal land farms).

4) What if clan decides to war that clan partially made up of bots? This could either be pro or con for that clan with bots depending on how you look at it. But all I can think is how boring and disappointed I would be if I had made several hits against country that does not fight back and more importantly isnt even played by a real person. What is even the point of warring that clan now ... which at least imho is once again huge benefit especially for a typically netting clan that will help detract clans from possibly even considering going to war with them.

If true, think this is my last set.

Curious, did enshula run farmer strat?

Pfft, in theory 500m is possible ... but in theory this is SUPPOSED to be a war game which would mean 500m may be possible but totally un-realistic.

In a real war game, no one would be able to run country with no military and no country would have luxury of farming AI bots, but be forced to actually do some real LG's in order to grow, which might cause conflict and possible war. And no, land trading should also not be alternative on this sissy server.

600m will just prove this is farmville instead of war game. Ofc I already think that with current 400m marks.

I think you are confusing religion with organized religion.

I wont say that you are wrong, as am sure is little more risk. Yet I think that risk you speak of has more to do against the clan. (also would not be surprised if those 2 were not too lean and easier targets, but could be wrong). Oddly enough, my 25k all-x country got suicided on, so did Mr Ford all-x country. Not all land traders get that fat either. So sorry but I am not totally buying your "so many risks" thing.

I can definitely understand this and even agree, but that is not what OP stated specifically.

Personally I think if there is going to be land trading on the alliance server, it just makes better sense for it to be internal. So while I think internal land trading is pathetic with very low risk and skill, at same time I dont fault your clan or any clan that does it. I have more issue with just land trading in general. So if clans are going to insist on doing it, by all means do it internally and help out your clan as opposed to other clans ... if you can get away with it that is. And yes for the record I have even done land trading set or two, found it to be just as lame as it sounded and gave up on it. (I did find it cool to do it with MD that just set or two prior had been to war with though).

But once again the market buyouts you are referencing is in regards to just tech. Yes that is easier focusing on one of lesser bought techs than some other market good. I dont really call that a market buyout though, that to me is more of a push or alternate form of FA. All I can say is that it is totally w/in game parameters and if you or any clan does not like it, they should use some clan political clout and try to stop it (ie go to war). Not whinge about it on AT. But doing a real market buyout imho does not rank near as low as FA nor land trades nor running with no military.

As to the douche remark, yes I have taken note of that, plus fact that even though your clan does do internal land trades, it is what I would say done minimally. That point is appreciated and has not escaped me.

From the best I can tell, you have already put your own spin on this. So uhm what, you dont want us to spin your spin ???

1 person doing a buyout (which you seem to want to call cycling instead of buyout for w/e reason) takes talent. Uhm yea sure. Any market manipulation guess would take talent as there are numerous ways it can fail and/or backfire. I have seen many attempts of someone trying to do this and resulted in a fail.

Selling tech for high done by multiple people takes no talent and has no risk. LOL. Anything that involves multiple people takes organization and talent. No risk lol. There is always risk that techer will sell tech at real values, which means you have to than buy out all that tech first to even reach the high priced tech. I will admit the risk is much lower, but its not NONE.

The end result is both are just various forms of market manipulation. Which has been done in almost every set, if not every set, that I have played. Often times by your own clan LaF. So maybe if you think so low of market buyouts, you should rant and rave in your clan forums first.

I personally dont give much legitamacy to LaF clans netting skills since internal land trading is much more pathetic than any market buyout. Lower risk and lower talent. Which to me is sad, cause I do know some top netters are in that clan, but ah well, clan stigma carries over for everyone in it.

FYI - I am in NA and as I started late plus was suicided on, offered anyone in my clan help since my netting for set was over, prolly before I even started. This offer was mostly for clan members that had been suicided upon but was for anyone that wanted it via FA, land farm or w/e. Guess how many took me up on that offer? No one. Of course this does not mean it hasnt been done, but it does mean its not highly used as you seem to think. If even at all. You are still stuck back in the ol days me thinks.

I thought Evo was fighting alongside Elders .. so what happened to vs Elders, Evo.

But than again have not really kept up much this set.

If you had actually taken the time to read my post you would already know I have already looked up and read and fully comprehended your arguement. I paraphrased it all and none of anything you have provided supports Hillary being eugenics supporter. I also noticed you failed to provide any real evidence to support it like I asked, because you cant. All you can do is make some mere allusions and try to draw some lines between them .. when in fact you have taken it completely out of context.

I have no pals that have posted in these forums in over a year, so no idea what you are talking about. However, this explains a lot if you want to lump us all together and treat us as same person. No wonder why you seem to think Hillary IS Margaret or they are both the same. Clearly your closed mind wont actually consider anything else said.

LOL, the only fact you have provided is that Margaret might be supporter and that Hillary has her employed and stated she admires Margaret. But this debate isnt about IF Margaret is supporter or not, it is about IF Hillary is.

So where are all these facts you supposedly provided about HILLARY that needs to be looked at? Show me one example of Hillary saying she supports it or even one example of her attempting to pass laws in support of it. Or heck I would even settle for one example of Hillary donating to organization or company that has verifiable claims to be supporters. Why do keep expecting everyone here to provide facts to contradict what you have said when you have not shown any facts at all other than just simply your opinion I will never understand.

But than I noticed you ignored my last question so dont really expect to get any real substance from you other than more BS.

Pfft, Hillary is not my political master. She is a conniving, power hungry, liar whom I would never vote for if she was last person on earth. Sadly that means I would vote for Trump before her, thankfully there are other choices or even write in if I were to vote.

Just because when ever I hear someone spouting BS and I call them out on it, does not mean I support the opposite of w/e BS is being said. You certainly like to draw lines between 2 points mighty quickly with no basis in fact. Is everything just black and white to you?

So does this mean your paraphrased quote "Unfortunately for you she elaborated on why she admired Sanger---> courage, Tenacity, VISION..." had spin to it? Obviously it does since it was not direct actual quote and you attempted to take it out of context. Also news articles (even ones on the web) normally have video with them. I HAVE already heard exactly what Hilary said with no spin, just her own words. So whom is the one not thinking now.

Besides there is no need for me to think when you have not actually provided shred of proof to even consider.

Still wrong.

I do not waste my bandwidth on watching youtube crud. However I did read what you said as well as have read many news articles on exactly what Hilary said in regards to Margaret.

Once again you still have not provided any actual proof, just some mere allusion and YOUR interpretation of what someone else meant. An employer quite often will commend by using term vision. An employers use of that term will almost certainly be different than that actual persons. But w/e, you can keep trying to draw lines between things all day long, you apparently dont know what actual proof really means. Hell anyone can do that with anything.

Just because a person admires someone does not mean they agree with every single thing the other person agrees with, nor even means they have any of the same philosophies and ideas.

For example I admire Trump .. however I would never vote for Trump as Pres of the US. There are also many multitude of ideas and ways that Trump thinks that I do not concur with. I have also been known to admire and even respect my enemies as well. Once again that does equate to same thing nor provide proof that I agreed with them.


I would technically refer to it more as Slander than lying. But anyway, you keep stating that Hilary is eugenics supporter without providing any factual proof of such. Unless for some odd reason I was not aware of, Hillary has changed her name to Margaret.

+1


Actions speak louder than words, not that I expect will understand my meaning.