Search For Author: Detmer - Earth Empires Forum

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 19th 2012, 1:10:45

Originally posted by incin22:

I sadly did not sand it with a harsh enough paper before I started, leading to some clear coat complications, but hopefully will get them resolved. If not, lots are seeing it and I've gotten one commission from it already, so in my mind worth it

If you like it I would imagine it was worth it without views and a job. Like that is clearly a project that you planned out and completed with good results.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 19th 2012, 0:20:36

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 18th 2012, 17:09:24

The only downside I see is that it makes it a very good tech which just increases the demand for techers. Otherwise I think it is a great suggestion. (and very similar to adding medical tech reciprocity, which I think would be less of a boon for techers)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 18th 2012, 4:00:26

I wouldn't do it to my car, but I think it's somewhat cool

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 17th 2012, 5:28:10

LT is just sad that he is getting destroyed by inferior strategists. Ironic coming from a LaFer where the ends justify the means.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 16th 2012, 4:31:15

Originally posted by martian:

except that this change would encourage early wars.. you realize that...

Early wars already seem to be an epidemic. This would only encourage early wars if people thought that killing was better than crippling early in the game. Considering restarts will get land and CS that definitely makes early kills less advantageous. Considering a country can easily jump out of protection at well over 667 acres (the minimum to not be killable) makes it so kills are not exceptionally easy anyways. Country growth is relatively high in the early stages of the game so I just don't see it as being particularly sound war strategy to start early wars. I think the reasons for early wars remain the same as ever - preemption and attrition.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 14th 2012, 17:04:18

Like qz, I have a Galaxy Nexus. It fits in my pocket nicely and I can still stick my hand in there to pull it out. I have never stuck a note in my pocket but I imagine it would not be hard either. I am wearing cargo shorts right now so maybe I'd be singing a different tune if I was wearing jeans.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 23:44:28

Originally posted by locket:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by Flamey:

What's the point in private talk, when all we get is bullfluff; might as well not bother ;)

I'd tell you, but I'm not posting it here and clearly a private talk means nothing to you - so you'll just have to take my word for it since I can't trust you enough to tell you the point. Ironic huh?

Not denying that you are declaring war eh Detmer? Either you lied in your private talks or you were lied to.

"Everybody lies" ~House MD

None of your business. I have already sent private messages to the non-idiots of the involved parties.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 23:32:17

Originally posted by Flamey:

What's the point in private talk, when all we get is bullfluff; might as well not bother ;)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 23:30:48

Originally posted by Servant:

Generally,

One sits down and talks to look for peace....Before making an aggressive move.

Last time LaF and SoL reconciled it was after LaF declared war on SoL. I do not think there would be anything wrong with the reverse happening.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 23:29:55

Originally posted by Flamey:

From: archaic
To: Sov
Subject: end of 'coalition'
Date: Jun 13th, 16:10
Message Body:
sol, pdm, evo, and md have given up on trying to war you guys. Other than evo, nobodies hearts were in it, plus we can see it would still be a slaughter for us. We will be doing friendlies amng ourselves instead.
Md will be posting something on at today.

*cough*

Good to know what private talks mean to SoF.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 19:37:50

Well it sounds like martian would be fine there...

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 14:58:41

Originally posted by Eric171:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by Eric171:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by Eric171:

Anyways, what is really interesting here is why is detmer mixing his mod forum powers with his PDM interests?

I didn't realize keeping the forum free of flames is a PDM interest. I thought that was a general EE policy. There are a *LOT* of things I could moderate that would be abuse. That was not one of them. I am proud to receive my first accusation though, even if it was only implied.

I see. Just let me restate here.

(1) I can`t be 100% sure that you abused your mod powers when you rewrote what ivan said because I don`t know what was there before the editing.

(2) there is a difference between keeping flames out of AT and maliciously editing what someone posted to make him/her look silly.

(3) if that actually happened, there is a clear conflict of interest between where you play and your forum moderator status. You should be impartial here.

There is a precedent for editing flames to conceal their original meaning. I could have deleted the entire post and almost certainly no one would have noticed, but I did not consider that to be fair since Ivan (seemingly, since I have no idea how much he contacted Archaic) presented facts in an otherwise innocuous post. I do not think that what I changed the text to read makes Ivan look silly. No one else commented on it to be sure.

One of the reasons by which mods are selected is for their ability to be impartial. I am sorry you doubt my abilities.

It is hard to argue without knowing what was written before, but it would be stupid for ivan to post that he will slander archaic...

If that was the change done, it is preferable to delete a post than to change the meaning that way.

How is that preferable? The part about slander is clearly the mod edit. It is clear he had previously posted something not-allowed about archaic and retains the content of his post. I am not sure why you would advocate for harsher regulation of posts. Censoring limited content is the approach most people want...

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 4:12:49

Most of your pals are probably in Collab/Sanct

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 4:04:13

Originally posted by Eric171:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by Eric171:

Anyways, what is really interesting here is why is detmer mixing his mod forum powers with his PDM interests?

Edited By: Detmer on Jun 13th 2012, 4:06:36
See Original Post

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 13th 2012, 3:40:40

Originally posted by Eric171:

Anyways, what is really interesting here is why is detmer mixing his mod forum powers with his PDM interests?

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 8th 2012, 22:37:35

Originally posted by Trife:

team has/was always been a cesspool, before RD ever went over there

from day 1 that server has been broken.

just about everyone over there is guilty of making the game unplayable. that is, anyone who has been in an alliance that has more than 1 tag.

singling out RD for that failure of a server is incorrect and shows personal bias, pang.

I disagree. RD was *more* culpable than others, although there are many who have lesser guilt, as well. I certainly admit that once the stance was taken that there would be no admin intervention to enforce team limits I became more guilty than many.

As to if team was broken before RD, I wasn't around for that.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 8th 2012, 21:37:51

Originally posted by Cougar:

To anybody reading this thread and thinking "oh, here he is talking about this person, or that person"....

No, its really to/about ALL of us.

I hope everybody enjoys the game while it lasts, because one day it will be gone. I seriously have no idea why pang puts in the time and effort that he does into this....

He is talking to all of us, but I guarantee it is directed more at some than others.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 8th 2012, 2:34:12

Originally posted by Link:

old imag recruitment messages were awesome.. now they are full of suck

The original iMag recruitment message from Beltz nearly lured me.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 8th 2012, 0:17:18

Originally posted by elvesrus:

at least I tried to get him to upload to streaming sites so we wouldn't have to actually download them

Honestly, I probably would have watched more than just the first one if it was streaming online... I find novelties like this amusing... but not when I have to do more than click on a link ;)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 7th 2012, 2:10:29

Whatever you say ninang. ;)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 23:59:22

Originally posted by qzjul:

well... took a few more than that, i had to be careful it didn't uninstall php like the last upgrade i tried, as being beyond the maintenance dates meant that some of the repos i had tried to install pieces with dependencies which i couldn't get through my maintenance repos, which meant that the install failed, so it just uninstalled the piece, which php was dependant upon....

What is the server running? When I installed curl it took probably 30 seconds and had no deleterious effects on anything else =P

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 23:54:00

Originally posted by qzjul:

well curl is installed at least heh

Well I am sure that took all of 30 seconds ;)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 23:53:18

I am not an economist by profession but I consider the views expressed in that article to be accurate.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 17:19:23

Originally posted by elvesrus:

lies. that was 2 :p

Don't make me mod abuse you! ;)

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 16:29:15

@ParadigmEE

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 16:24:47

I still have at least one of your poems saved.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 3:08:50

Originally posted by Sov:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Mar 18th 2012, 5:52:30
We know you think you're hot fluff.

You're wrong.

I guarantee you we are smarter and more creative than you are and down the road you and your allies will regret the way you have behaved. You will not be capable of fulfilling your obligations as allies to your allies. You have picked the wrong game to attempt to bully. That card was played years ago and you failed to adapt

We took the above as a statement of intent.

Yes, and I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong. Son Goku and Henrik told you as much as well yet you think you're hot fluff so you don't listen to wiser heads.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 6th 2012, 1:54:46

Originally posted by Sov:

LAF had ZERO to do with SoF's attack on PDM. Stop inventing stories to make yourselves feel better about it. Your leadership threatened us and we took them seriously and attacked PDM for it.

We never threatened you. We didn't pact you because we don't believe that warring you makes you a friend and SoF has a history of hitting an alliance and then asking for a pact so they can find someone else to go hit freely next time. We're tired of you ruining the game for other alliances so we left ourselves open in case you chose one of our allies.

So yeah, stop making stuff up.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 5th 2012, 19:46:23

I don't.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 3rd 2012, 22:36:27

Originally posted by CKHustler:

Am I the only one here that finds it rather ironic that those who have argued for years that a larger government would help the people now find it appalling that they would lie to the people?

The only given of this entire equation is that government will lie to the people. It's just a matter of to what scale.

The government is a tool for the people. They can use it to do grand and great things or they can not. They can also use it to their benefit or their detriment. There is no irony in wanting a government that serves society and wanting to keep it accountable to the people.

So yes, you are probably the only one who finds it ironic.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 2nd 2012, 2:37:53

Another one

http://globalgrind.com/...zombie-apocalypse-details

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 1st 2012, 20:12:31

Originally posted by Klown:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by martian:

@Detmer:
*all* governments use propaganda to some degree.
What is "lying" to further an agenda anyway. It's tough to define in many cases.
It's the responsibility of the citizens to take the government to task when they feel they have been mislead or mistreated. A government/country is only as good as its citizens. Ultimately the quality of a government is measured in how well it satisfies the needs and goals of the citizens (note that democracy isn't necessary for this). It goes back to the quote: "people get the government they deserve". Of course one can always cite military dictatorships (or the current situation in Syria) as counter examples.. but my question is: how was this allowed to happen in the first place.

I agree, when someone can say they believed WMDs existed when they quite clearly didn't, it is hard to say what is a lie for propaganda purposes vs idiots trying to make basic interpretations of data. It practically would be difficult to identify what is an outright lie.

Whether or not a ban on intentional government lies was practical is not my question =P

I must have missed this, have you ever seen any piece of evidence that suggests the government/Bush administration did not thoroughly believe there were WMDs in Iraq?

My point is just that - I think Bush was so stupid that he truly believed that Iraq had WMDs. If I were to have gone to war with the information presented, it certainly would have been under false pretenses. Bush may have truly believed there was a threat.

Detmer

Member
4261

Jun 1st 2012, 1:56:30

Originally posted by aponic:

I believe this thread is a response to the bill on the Senate floor regarding propaganda which may be voted on as early as next week and would legalize the use of foreign propiganda at home.

Many of you are aware that we have a CIA, NSA, and other such organizations. On a world scale, the CIA can launch operations that discredit other governments or support other governments in a way that benefits the United States. This is rather straight forward.

The new legislation would allow such operations to be conducted at home. In effect, this would redefine the beneficiary from the people of the United States to the government of the United States (or those in control of the government). This may appear insignificant but it is a major legal reclarification.

Here is a hypothetical example:

A non-profit organization is lobbying for increased government spending on GMO labeling (genetically modified organism). Excluding a tax increase, this means less funding for something else. The majority of the federal government is not interested in this issue. In response the new law is applied and the group, along with other similar groups is defimated. The leader is made to be a massochist, allegations of terrorism are propigated against various members of these groups in the media. Attempts to clear the allegations are thwarted by shielding from the new law. Further legal action to refute the original propiganda could be met with, you guessed it, more propiganda.

Hopefully this helps to quanitfy the effect of the new law if passed into legislation.

That is what prompted me to make this thread.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 31st 2012, 18:19:31

Originally posted by Dibs Ludicrous:

sounds like a typical campaign to get elected or re-elected. let them deal with it using the libel or slander laws.

If the government is allowed to lie without discretion, would libel or slander laws override that? Couldn't the government just say the presiding judge was corrupt until they found one who agreed with them? From a theoretical standpoint they could do that anyways, but it would be illegal. If it were legal I think it would almost certainly happen.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 31st 2012, 18:15:31

Originally posted by martian:

Detmer

Member
4261

May 31st 2012, 17:58:54

Originally posted by Dibs Ludicrous:

could we have some examples of propaganda that you feel should be made illegal because it contains lies? my experience is that they don't explicitly lie, they just don't tell the truth...

Sure.
"Political Candidate X has been caught funding terrorists"
"We have uncovered a massive conspiracy in the public education system to overthrow the American government"
"Private Doe fed information to foreign operatives in an effort to undermine the current president's re-election campaign."

There are limitless ways to try and manipulate the public for political gain.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 31st 2012, 17:08:18

Originally posted by H4xOr WaNgEr:

The issue would be proving it while it is happening.

Your point is that if you can't stop the government from lying on the fly then there is no reason to make it illegal? Maybe I misunderstand you but that is how I interpret your post.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 31st 2012, 15:14:01

By propaganda I don't mean biased release of facts to show more positive results than negative results or anything like that - but I mean lying and saying anything to influence the people of the country to further the agenda of whoever in the government is releasing the propaganda. I think the government is here to serve the people, not the other way around. I think that such propaganda should be illegal. What do others think? Is it ever necessary for the government to the lie to the people to further some goal?

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 22:09:35

Originally posted by qzjul:

then what are the black lines? new districts? old ?

Black lines are county borders... the 'natural' political boundaries.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 21:26:10

Originally posted by qzjul:

i don't understand the colours

I interpret it to mean that the colors are the legislative districts.

Taking number 4 (pink) as an example, we see that it has some bizarre shape, clearly meant to include or exclude some area.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 21:11:46

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:

Originally posted by aponic:

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:

My family came to the US with couple hundred $ in their pockets in early 80's, we all worked hard, were not rich but we live confortable, key word "work hard" thanx.

Well if that story holds true for you (it is YOUR story) then it must be true for everyone else in the world! Great logic!

I know dozens with similar stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKie-vgUGdI

Kids get all sorts of odd jobs - I am glad your family is thankful you paid the rent and bought the groceries. Oh wait... that probably didn't happen did it? Making some pocket change as a kid has nothing to do with this.

"This generation" (whatever you mean by that) does not believe they should not have to earn a wage - no one believes that. There are more people who want to work hard for money than there are jobs. When hard workers exceed jobs then it is impossible for working hard to guarantee success. (not like hard work has ever guaranteed success, but it used to be a lot more helpful)

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 21:06:38

Originally posted by hawkeyee:

I don't know what link you meant to post, but I don't think it was the right one...

What's gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is redrawing political districts for partisan advantage.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 19:18:59

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:

My family came to the US with couple hundred $ in their pockets in early 80's, we all worked hard, were not rich but we live confortable, key word "work hard" thanx.

1) Hard work does not guarantee success. There are lots of hard working people who can not make ends meet. It is one of the most common fallacies of people who have things to assume that those who do not did not work hard.
2) The 80s are drastically different than now. If your family had come towards the end of the 70s they would probably still be in poverty. That is just based on how groups who start working during economic down turns never catch up.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 13:38:20

Originally posted by crest23:

This thread was made even more worthless with this statement.

Originally posted by martian:

If one person makes more, others have to make less. It's as simple as that.

Talk about horse chit pedaling.

No, what martian said is completely true. There is finite wealth. When someone gets some, that is less for everyone else.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 30th 2012, 13:21:01

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:

Funny how losers always want to leach of the rich, wanna be rich? come up with something people will use and buy, OR get educated and grow your networth by climbing the latter, damn you people who think we all should have what everyone else has, seriously...WHAT THE F U CK??????

This isn't about people trying to get rich for nothing - it is about people wanting to just have a job and thereby get food and shelter. The problem is we live in a world that caters towards a few individual amassing all the wealth rather than letting people get basic necessities for survival.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 29th 2012, 22:25:31

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:

always good that they give you some perspective of just how lucky you are coming from a country where $100k household wealth is considered lower middle class (for someone who's been working a few years.)

I think you have lived a privileged life. You seem to lack any understanding of what normal wealth is. The average (2010) gross income in the United States (the highest in the world) was about $53k. If you think $100 is lower middle class then you are completely unaware of the economic issues your country (whatever it may be) faces.

not sure why you think your comparison of income (per all people) to wealth (per adult) proves anything here. it doesn't take a completely unrealistic set of assumptions to go from $53k income to $100k wealth in 5 years either...

Ok, I admit I misread what you wrote. In fact I operated on the assumption that you misinterpreted the article as I noted that you might have confused the wealth with income... as it turns out that confusion only existed between my head and your post.

Detmer

Member
4261

May 29th 2012, 21:59:35

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate: