wherorangi

i agree with your underlying sentiment. Dont buy anything that doesnt fit within our budget parcel auctions come up for discussion now and again. My advice is always: When participating in a parcel auction then: a) dont place any early bids at all. Dont signal our own interest in the parcel to anyone else b) Work out what price we can afford and are willing to pay c) place our one bid as near to the final close datetime as we can manage might not win the auction bc somebody else has done the same thing at a higher bid price, but it does give us the best chance of winning the auction at the price we have decided is affordable for ourself

Pamela Galli wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: Oh, you monster! In this forum, any discussion of microaggressions needs a trigger warning. :smileylol: jejejjeee (: we defo need more chocolates on here (:

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: put "NOT gacha" in the search area.. ^^ that works great

i dunno why your post disappeared either. I didnt see anything wrong with it myself. It was a restatement of your previous posts pretty much i only quoted the bit I did bc you seemed to think I was saying something that I wasnt, apart from that was all good I thought. I didnt see anything contentious in it myself that would warrant it being removed i dunno whats going on with stuff getting deleted on here. Seems pretty random to me

Phil Deakins wrote: you cannot claim that member countries have not signed away some rights to self-government to the EU i have never claimed this about the Jordanian. Lets be clear on this ok i got it from the court proceedings as a aside to start with. The judges on the EU Court of Human Rights are elected. They are not unelected bureaucrats as you keep insisting what are british human rights based on ? the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1948 Britain was a sponsor of and signatory to this. Article 5. "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." thats pretty simple for anyone to understand. Why 5 unelected Lords of Parliament didnt understand that, when every other Court in Britain did, is a bit of a mystery their ruling was basically: Dont worry it if he gets tortured. Is not our concern did that not cause you any concern at the time ? It caused lots of other people concern. Luckily for everyone in Britain those 5 unelected politicians didnt get the last say as another aside. In October of the same year, the Lords of Parliament were sacked as the final arbiter of law in the UK. You have a proper Supreme Court now, independent of the Parliament. Thats a good thing. Cant now be a Supreme Court judge and a politician at the same time + about your point which is: if Ireland wasnt in the EU then the EU wouldnt have any legal jurisdiction over Ireland which is: now that the Britain is no longer in the EU then the EU no longer has any legal jurisdiction over Britain in return for this we give up the freedom for our people to freely live and work in Europe anywhere they like, without having to get permission from anyone. And we give up tariff and quota free trade with Europe and in your opinion this is a price worth paying thats a pretty obvious point is pretty tragic as well. Reversion to tribalism you have optimism that tribalism will work for you. It doesnt but you are optimistic that it will

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: on the second. Apple taxes this is an opinion of the tax department. And as with any tax department in any jurisdiction their opinion is challengeable in the courts. The courts will decide this, not the tax department again this is called due process the alternative to this is for a government of the day to decide who pays taxes and who doesnt. Favouring some over others in the same industry. Apple gets tax breaks that Google or Facebook or Microsoft dont And yet again you choose to ignore the point. Due process, yes. No problem with that. The problem lies in whose due process it is. In this case, there are two sides - one pays the tax and the other receives the tax. Apple and the country of Ireland respectively. They had due process and both agreed that Apple does not have pay to Ireland. But a 3rd party stepped in, without being asked to. The EU beaurocrats. They decided that Apple does have to pay Ireland, even though Ireland doesn't want them to. That's an extra due process. again you have no idea what you are talking about when as a country we have a trade treaty with another country (as many countries outside of the EU also have with each other) and in that treaty are provisions in how we both treat taxes on corporate earnings and we breach that to benefit ourselves then how does the other country (our partner to the treaty) respond ?

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: on the first. Crimes what happens now with our own citizens who commit crimes ? We follow due process and when convicted they serve their sentences. We dont put due process aside for any reason what happens now with foreign nationals who commit crimes for which they can be deported ? We follow due process. As you say, in the case of the foreign terrorist, due process was followed and the person was deported You missed the point - again. Yes, due process was followed and the terrorist was deported. BUT... he wasn't deported until the EU beaurocrat gave permission. Due process was followed in the UK and the decision was to deport him. But not governing ourselves any more, the EU beaurocracy stepped in and said we can't do it. The point being, and always was, that we do not govern ourselves any more. Instead, EU beaurocrats govern us in some respects. It's no good ignoring that point. It's the point I made, it's what you are replying to but failing to address, and it won't go away just because you choose to ignore it. you have no idea what you are talking about. Zero Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman the reason he wasnt deported immediately was that the UK had no extradition treaty with Jordan that precluded a person being tortured on arrival in Jordan so the UK re-negotiated a new treaty with Jordan. And it took the Jordanian government nearly 10 years to agree. And until they did agree he stayed in Britain the UK will not extradite anyone to be tortured, doesnt matter what they have done and when the treaty was ratified, he voluntarily surrendered himself for deportation for sure there were plenty of British officials keen to deport him earlier and plenty of Jordanian officials keen to get their hands on him earlier as well, but yanno he fought the British officials who did want to deport him thru the courts. Due process. bc he didnt want to be tortured. And the UK courts agreed wth him about this the whole thing had nothing to do with any unelected EU bureaucrats

Phil Deakins wrote: Example: If your country was part of the United States of Australasia, which included Tonga, Samoa, etc., and you had a terrorist there that you wanted to deport, but the bureaucrats, perhaps a Tongan or Samoan, said that you cannot do it, you would not be allowed to deport the terrorist, even though everyone in New Zealand wanted him out of there. Your government would be powerless to make that decision. That's an example of the point I made. It actually happened here. Britain wanted to deport a terrorist to Jordan. Jordan wanted to receive him so that he could go on trial for terrorism. But the unelected european burocrats said no, and our hands were tied - in our own country. It took years, but we did eventually send him to Jordan. ... Here's another example that's been in the news in the last few days. The unelected EU bureaucrats decided that Apple (the computer giant) has to pay 13 billion euros to Ireland in back taxes. Apple have appealed against the decision, and get this - Ireland has also appealed against the decision! Ireland doesn't want the money. They made a deal with Apple in the first place, and they say that they are not entitled to the money. But they are not allowed to govern themselves. They signed away those rights. The bureaucrats have spoken, and what they say goes. Ireland and Apple now have to go to court to try and get the decision reversed. That's a European court, incidentally. As a member of the EU, Ireland has signed away its power to govern itself in many respects, including that one. If neither of them can get the decision reversed, Apple will have to pay the money and Ireland will have to receive it, regardless of the fact that they don't want it because they don't think they should have it. ... And while we're here, I should inform you that the brexit decision has caused an upturn in our manufacturing industry. The £ is a little weaker so goods cost less to buy, and orders for export are on the increase. on the first. Crimes what happens now with our own citizens who commit crimes ? We follow due process and when convicted they serve their sentences. We dont put due process aside for any reason what happens now with foreign nationals who commit crimes for which they can be deported ? We follow due process. As you say, in the case of the foreign terrorist, due process was followed and the person was deported + on the second. Apple taxes this is an opinion of the tax department. And as with any tax department in any jurisdiction their opinion is challengeable in the courts. The courts will decide this, not the tax department again this is called due process the alternative to this is for a government of the day to decide who pays taxes and who doesnt. Favouring some over others in the same industry. Apple gets tax breaks that Google or Facebook or Microsoft dont + on the third. Export growth i saw you earlier ref to 14 tril. and then your reassess to 1 tril the source for accurate numbers is here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments and the one thats important is Balance of Payment. At 30 June 16 was -36.6 bil the reasons for that are on the right of the page. You will read that: a) the -36.6 bil was due to british overseas investments returning less earnings than foreign investments in the UK. This has everything to do with the judgment of the investors themselves, and has nothing do with government b) the UK, like everyone else, has been in a recession for a number of years now. And we are all clawing our way out of it. As at 30 June 16 (prior to Brexit) UK trade exports had already recovered, and are outpeforming global world export trade + my opinion is: you got conned Phil by the tribalists. On the economics and on how due process actually works in civilised democracies

to avoid curdled chocolate and cream then always use chocolate that is tempered, and use a cheese grater to make chocolate shavings bring the cream to simmer and then let it cool down to 40.5 C (105 F) and then use a wooden spoon and mix in the chocolate at 2 spoon revolutions a second. The chocolate will just like all melt and blend smooth as and then eat half of it out of the pan bc is yummy and then make ganache with the half left, for the other person and dont tell them that you dribbled in the mix when you already ate your half or can tell them and they go ewwww!! and then they go hmmm! is maybe a cunnng plan to trick them out of their half. And they scoff it all anyways (:

Pamela Galli wrote: I realize this is way off topic but: thanks for the link (: also thanks much for starting this thread Pamela has been one of best derails ever. We have been all over the world on this train trip. Has been great and with Phil now driving the engine, we could end up anywhere. Is quite exciting really. Like all good road trips are (:

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: So you have a chip on your shoulder about it. and two fish. Is history What? A chip and two fish. Fish and chip. ...British things! Yes? No? This line was still way easier to understand than a British (as in, someone with all the benefits of having grown-up under British institutions) person who didn't want to spend a negligable amount of money to help out the people around them who are doing worse-off. I'll keep trying to understand, though. you onto it (: NZ has a huge British cultural influence. Fish and chips as a meal is part of that heritage and being kiwis we put our own takes on things. Like when take a fence (: when having a meal of fish and chips in a group then is a fish and chips each, when there is enough fish for this share and if you only have a chip then eiher there arent any fish, or somebody else has two fish. And history often shows two fish eta: i had to edit this. I didnt even understand it myself, what I first wrote (:

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't want the UK to be a part of The United States of Europe. That's the direction that the EU is going in - political union - and I don't want it. Maybe you would like NZ to be be part of The United States of Australasia, where your own government isn't allowed to make all the decisions for your country, but that sort of thing doesn't appeal to me. i just quote this phrase. As everything else you said is reinforcement of this thematic i will give a perspective of this, from my pov i am a member of a minority group in a territorial space. You are a member of a majority group in a territorial space it can be a different dynamic for some, coming from a majority vs minority perspective what we share in common is (was in your case) is being subsumed into a larger group. And you are pushing back against this. Basically a reinforcement of tribalism. Defined in your case, as retention of group identity defined by territory + about Australia. If NZ joined Australia as a State it doesnt change anything for me, a minority. I will still be Ngapuhi. It would change things tho for the Pakeha. Is quite a lot them at this time who just freak out at that thought. They wouldnt be a territorial majority anymore - the dominant tribe. Just one group amongst many. Along with Queenslanders and Tasmanians, etc and if we grew that to include all the islands into The United States of the South Pacific, then nothing would change for me in terms of my identity. I still be Ngapuhi. Same for Tongans, Samoans, Queenslanders, Tasmanians, etc if i was a Australasian citizen, or a South Pasifikan citizen, how is that any different from being a New Zealand citizen. For me ? Its not Is not different for you either. Being a citizen of Europe doesnt make you Not English. Which is the primal tribal fear. To no longer be what we are now. Or even more so, to no longer be what we think ourselves to be + i think also as well that what affects how I think about this, is that I live in Auckland. Is one of the most racially and culturally diverse cities in the world. Is so many different peoples live and work here. And nobody worries about it much, bc there is no reason to worry about it. The only people who do worry about it are driven by tribal fear. That somehow they will lose their identity churches, mosques, temples, chapels. Business associations - chinese, indian, pasifika, etc. Motherland heritage friendship societies of all kinds. And festivals, like Polyfest. And annual celebrations from each of the cultures and languages. And schools: Cultural, religious, secular, state and private and the reason we dont worry about it, is that we subscribe to and practice democracy in terms of governance. And subscribe to the group dynamic of doing no harm to the other groups within the territory, and allowing them to conduct their affairs as they choose, provided they in turn do no harm to others also is all good. And in amongst all of this is me. A Ngapuhi and citizen of something greater than my tribe

Rhonda Huntress wrote: wherorangi wrote: The state governments dont have any rights other than this. They never did Exactly! It has ALWAYS been that way. Now that it has been retconed. (: what you said before to Theresa is right we do have to keep a close eye on our central governments, and our local governments. If we dont the chits are capable of doing anything. And the employees, who sometimes think just bc they on the payroll that they get to decide everything

Rhonda Huntress wrote: It does not matter what rights a state had or may have had any more than it matters who owned the land before we took it. That war was fought and lost. The states no longer have any rights. And we own the land. the people have rights. The state governments dont have any in themselves, other than to govern the affairs internal to the State in accordance with the US Constitution. The state governments dont have any rights other than this. They never did the US Congress can dissolve any State government at any time it chooses when it is the opinion of the Congress that a State government is no longer acting as a republic form of government. And have the people in the State elect a new government for themselves the people being citizens of the United States. US citizenship, an arrangement the people themselves accepted for themselves on their joining the Union has always been there this has. Since the original 13 colonies created the Union

Phil Deakins wrote: wherorangi wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Yes, the Empire has gone, which is a good thing, and the British Commonwealth has gone too - changed into The Commonwealth. I don't see your point in bringing them up. when Britain chose to join the Common Market, it overnight pretty much killed all the trade between the Commonwealth nations. Britain was the piviot and the glue that held all of that together was not just us that it affected. Canada, Australia, and all the others were cut out as well. Was quite hard for everyone when that happened. Canada and Australia were able to pretty much go straight over and partner up with the US. The rest of us being small just kinda got forgotten So you have a chip on your shoulder about it. That's what it comes across as. It's still irrelevant to this discussion. What will be will be, and the UK will continue to flourish. I'm not saying that nobody, and no businesses, will be affected. Of course they will. I'm saying that the UK will continue to flourish. Also, the EU will no longer be a financial drain on the UK and two fish. Is history the relevance is what happens when your biggest market arrangement goes from a free trade agreement to a quota/tariif agreement + and yes what be will be. It always is + the amount Britain pays is about 280 million pounds a week. Which is less than the 1% of GDP that the other EU countries pay. Mrs Thatcher re-negotiated a cheaper rate for Britain in 1984. France pays its 1% of GDP and also pays the amount that Britain doesnt pay. Which is about an extra 965 milllion pounds a year for France to pay

Rhonda Huntress wrote: wherorangi wrote: BilliJo Aldrin wrote: Historical Ignorance The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, .... read the Supreme Court ruling yourself ok + I did. It said they were not going to touch the question of whether or not a state had the right to secede. >>It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Or am I reading that incorrectly. Whether or not they could legally secede was not the question. They were under US federal governance when the case was submitted to the courts. That was one of the defendent's key points. ""6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." + i just add something there is a distinction between a) the territory of a State and its people, and b) the legal government of a State. The US constitutional authority of recognising the government of a State rests with the US Congress is the constitutional duty of the US Congress to ensure that every State in the Union is governed by a republic form of government the Government of a State cannot secede the State from the Union. Only the people of the State can do that. Either thru uprising/revolution, or by having their US Congress representatives petition the Houses to secede. And when the Houses agree (the representatives of the other States) then the petition can be granted

Sassy Romano wrote: Except that scripts (attached to an avatar) need to have a CPU upon which their code will run. Same for avatar communications. When flying up, you're still in the same sim, there's a CPU upon which code for that avatar can execute. If the avatar is supposedly flying beyond that sim, where is it? Upon which simulator platform is the avatar being simulated on? AuroraSim, the OpenSim fork, had that worked that out you could walk/fly off the edge of the sim, and even sail away on a boat off the edge, as far as you wanted to into the void. When you did crossed another sim boundary out there, then you got handed to that sim. Same like any other sim crossing was quite cool how that worked + another pretty interesting thing you could do with a mod of AuroraSim was make a small var sim of 64x64, and then at a distance create a ring of sims round it with void space between the ring and the center sim then what you could do is move all the avatars spawned on the ring sims into the void surrounding the center sim. A concert stage. I managed to get 128 ring sims and just over 3000 bots into the void next to the stage before my computer fell over nobody has worked on AuroraSim for ages now and I think has been pretty much abandoned. Was pretty cool tho what people were doing with that

BilliJo Aldrin wrote: Historical Ignorance The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, .... read the Supreme Court ruling yourself ok + whats also missing from this internets account of proceedings is that the CSA attacked the USA militarily and started the war

Phil Deakins wrote: Yes, the Empire has gone, which is a good thing, and the British Commonwealth has gone too - changed into The Commonwealth. I don't see your point in bringing them up. when Britain chose to join the Common Market, it overnight pretty much killed all the trade between the Commonwealth nations. Britain was the piviot and the glue that held all of that together was not just us that it affected. Canada, Australia, and all the others were cut out as well. Was quite hard for everyone when that happened. Canada and Australia were able to pretty much go straight over and partner up with the US. The rest of us being small just kinda got forgotten

Phil Deakins wrote: What makes you think that the UK will stop trading with the EU countries? It may even end up with a very similar agreement that we all had in the Common Market. Talks will be taking place soon. And what makes you think that we won't continue trading with the rest of the world? There's no reason for us to stop that. you wont get free trade access. You need pay attention to what the French and Germans are saying, they are not going to give you free trade. You will be quotaed, and tariffed on what quotas you do get from them and thats what kills you in the trade sense. Quotas and tariffs. 41% of your current economic output, England is not going to get that free anymore. And there is no other market to pick that up, at the zero tarriff non-quota rates you have had eta; typsos

Pamela Galli wrote: Not sure who you are addressing in you post, since my European ancestors had immigrated from Europe by the 18th c., and in any case I am part indigenous. My relatives were forced on the Trail of Tears, so I am both us and them. i was addressing the "I" people. We kinda agree about that. I just had a different perspective on it and if I was on the faculty of a university and some of the students thought it was a good and helpful idea to capitalise a word as if that would somehow be a win for the people now capitalised, then I would explain to these students that they are not actually helping anyone when they do this

Phil Deakins wrote: I do remember that New Zealand almost desperately wanted us not to join the Common Market, because it would greatly affect their lamb sales to us, but I understand it turned out not to be a problem . it actually did not turn out well. Being cut out of the UK market within 18 years we went from 1 NZD could buy 1.33 USD down to 1 NZD could buy 42 cents USD. We couldnt a trade deal with anyone. Not the US, not Europe, not anywhere. Only Australia saved us. Has only been since we got a trade deal with China that we have been able to recover about half of what we had prior to 1966 looks like we may not be getting a trade agreement with the US now, given whats happening there at the moment. If not then nothing changes for us as far as the West is concerned. We will still have quotas imposed on us by our 'friends' when England is abandoned by Scotland, as it will be, and is cut out of access to Europe, who is going to buy your stuff ? What little you still do make ? Your economy is 78% based on services now, of which 41% are financial services exported to the EU. Given that you will no longer have free trade access to Europe, who is going to buy them ? The USA ? Russia ? Africa ? Us ? After London, Edinburgh is the largest financial center in Britain. Why would the 400 internatiional banks that currently maintain offices in London, given that their market is the EU, remain in London ? They speak english in Edinburgh. They speak good english in Frankfurt as well i dont think anyone in Britain has any idea really of whats coming. The Empire is gone. the Commonwealth is gone in any meaningful sense. The EU has now gone also. Scotland will be gone to. What does England then have to offer the world, once the banks and other financial services have packed up and gone as well ? Tourism, and thats about it. The British pound be worth about 60 cents USD in about 20 years from now. A cheap holiday place for foreigners. Competing with all the other cheap places round the world Chances are Phil that in 20 years time, you wont be around to see it. The legacy you and those of your age, have left for your children

Phil Deakins wrote: ... They probably imagine that the UK will be on its knees and struggling to survive in the world when we've left. But they are wrong. I wouldn't blame them if they imagine that ... (: the latest FT report is pretty interesting: "The British economy turned in a steady performance in the first half of 2016. Data for the third quarter - which will capture the post-referendum period - is not out until the Autumn. Monthly data so far has been mixed, with consumers in a more confident mood than businesses."

Phil Deakins wrote: When you fly straight up, after a while you don't move up any more. Only the height number changes, and not your position. The sim is 4096 meters high and that's it. After that, it's just numbers. unless LL have made some new changes to how sims work then we still do physics-wise move up the most obvious sign of this is that we get so high (in the 10s of millions meters) the math calcs start to lose precision, and our avatar and attachments begin to distort i havent tested this for ages tho, so you could be right about how the sims work now + but defo on the horizontals I agree with you about how that could be done

Phil Deakins wrote: Everyone I talked with before the vote said that they were going to vote to leave. I admit to not talking about it with young people. i have. Chatted to young UK people about no longer being part of the EU is about work and travel mostly for them in the first instance and being part of something larger than the island home of their parents and grandparents, who are by and large, mono-cultural in their outlook + in my extended family we host young people from all round the world. High school age, they come and stay for a semester or a year even sometimes. From all over. Asia, the Americas, Africa and Europe incl. the UK in all of them is this sense that they are part of something larger than just their homelands we currently hosting a girl from Catalan aged 17. Speaks 3 languages now fluently. Catalan, Spanish and English. I asked what she thought of the Brexit and her reply was that she felt sorry for all her friends who live in England. Before coming to us she spend a year in England another person we have is from Brazil. 16 years old. Portugese, Spanish, 2 local tribal languages, and now English. he is as baffled as she is with them and those from the UK as well, they want to know why their parents would do this to them ? if the answer is: Nobody asked me if I wanted join so I left first chance I got, and took my children with me, bc they dont know what a castle truly means to an Englishman then they are not going to be satisfied with that answer, if thats all you have to offer them