Phil Deakins

I've no idea. I'd actually forgotten his name, even though I remember the name of his estate (Caledon). He doesn't get around here any more, which is a shame.

That'll be it then. It was Drake's previous avatar that he was remembering I wasn't around at that time, so the small bell that was ringing in my memory, about blocking Basic access, was either something I heard after the event or it came up again for some reason. I'm inclined to think it's the latter. Thank you, Amethyst.

Deltango Vale wrote: Premium Membership fees are only one aspect of the loss. More important was the loss of European landowners (some of whom owned hundreds of estates, not to mention all the mom & pop landowners). Many European landowners were also business owners who shut down their businesses when they dumped their land. They had not only invested money, but a great deal of time in SL. Also, let's not forget the non-European business owners who were renting from European landowners. They too were adversely affected when their European landlords sold out. Linden Lab's change of policy had a negative domino effect across all of SL. There is simply no way to see the "clumsy" and unnecessary loss of European investors, landowners and Premium members during the critical growth phase of a new product as a good thing. I have to go along with Theresa on this. I do remember LL starting to add VAT for we Europeans but I didn't notice any mass exodus of Europeans following it, or drop in the number of sims. I was a European landowner and businessman at the time, and I just sucked the VAT up. I had less than a sim of land but I had a very profitable business so, although I'd rather not have paid VAT, it was no big deal. I'd venture to suggest that, at the time VAT was added, any European owned businesses that were more than just managing to make tier and a bit of spending money, continued as normal. Lower profits, of course, but carrying on regardless. I honestly think that your take on the effect of VAT being added is mistaken. I don't insist that it's mistaken because I have no evidence one way or the other (except myself, of course), but I do believe it. I have no doubt that some Europeans packed their businesses and land up, but nowhere near on the scale that you are saying.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: I never mentioned VAT.. not once. I stated that at 8 am EST in the beginning of 2007 there were usually about 10k users online. Thinking about further... my first av was back in jan 06... that may be what i was thinking of. You're right. You didn't mention VAT. I was mixing your post and someone else's post up in my head. Sorry. In my previous post, I actually started to write that I could easily accept the 10k figure if it were in 2006, but I rubbed it out before posting. That's probably when it was - your previous avatar in 2006.

I didn't suggest that concurrency in 2007 was higher than it is now. I know it's not. I only corrected your 10k figure. At 8 a.m. EST, in 2007, there were always many more than 10K logged in. That's the correction I made. You said that it was 10k at the time when LL started to add VAT to European users, which came much later in 2007, when the daily low point of concurrency was much higher than 10k.. Low concurrency was much higher at the start of 2007.

As has already been said, it's a programme that automatically posts to threads and not a person at the keyboard. The text shows that very clearly. Such posts are all about getting links to other sites in search engine databases, and there are various ways of doing it. The most obvious is what we are now seeing daily - bulk. The programme operator doesn't expect forum users to actually click on the links. Instead, they want the links in place when search engine spiders come calling. Nobody in their right mind would expect forum users to click on links when they've aggravated them with a multiple threads. Another way is bound to be generally more successful, because the links will often remain and not be deleted like the bulk posts are. The idea is to make a post that is part of an existing thread. Even though the text is irrelevant to the thread, it has a good chance of not being deleted, especially because it doesn't contain any links and is not obvious spam. Some time later, the programme logs the 'user' in again and edits the post so that it now contains spam links, but nobody notices the change and the post is not removed. Then search engine spiders index the link, which helps the page at the other end of the link enormously in the rankings. Tex's example may well be that second type of spam. Or it could, of course, be someone who is writing a programme, and using this and other forums to test it as s/he goes along, but there is very good chance that the post will be edited to contain a link in the not too distant future.

Good thinking, Dillon. I've never actually seen that film but I will do one day.

Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: LOL (the angels) I have a dedicated camping parcel (4sqm) in my store. It's solely for giving away money and the only times that it benefits the store's traffic count is when a person fails to answer a question that the system asks. My rule is that the avatars must be manned (someone at the keyboard) and, if the system finds that someone isn't manning their avatar, the chair chucks them off. And since they are being chucked off, I have the chairs deposit them on the store's parcel. They aren't camping at that time so I figure that I might as well get a teeny amount of benefit from them. Fair enough. Maybe you could set up a second script so if they continue to fail to answer your interrogations it TP's them to a dark and gory dungeon. Or maybe place them on a poseball on a sexbed, so that any passer-by can 'play' with them

That idea of blocking Basic accounts from logging in rings a very small bell in my memory so yes, that also happened - not blocking but the idea of blocking. Concurrency was much higher at that time than the 10k that was mentioned.

The authorities cannot prevent the people from knowing the truth. Maybe they can for a while, but it will always come out in the end. The only repercussions that may happen is that those who sought to prevent the people from knowing the truth will be held accountable.

Maybe all these spam threads will turn out to have a silver lining. They are now appearing every day, and more than once a day. It might make LL do something to prevent. It's very easy to prevent so maybe they'll act.

Sonja. You haven't understood what Maddy meant by never being able to prove scientific theories, and only ever being able to prove them wrong. If they were provable they'd stop being called theories once they'd been proved, but they don't stop being called theories. The best that can be done is gather observations that support a theory, but at any moment, a piece of evidence can be discovered that actually proves the theory to be wrong. That's what's meant by never being able to prove a theory to be correct. At any moment something can be found that proves it to be wrong, so it can only ever remain a theory. It's commonly understood and nobody in the scientific community disagrees with it. To the best of my knowledge, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, so they can both be true. Maddy isn't saying that theories can be proved to be wrong. She's saying that they cannot be proved to be right - they can only be proved to be wrong but only if evidence is found that proves them to be wrong. The absence of such found evidence does not mean that a theory is proved to be right. It only means that it hasn't (yet) been proved to be wrong. As far as theories and proof are concerned, proving to be right isn't on the table, but proving to be wrong is.

LOL (the angels) I have a dedicated camping parcel (4sqm) in my store. It's solely for giving away money and the only times that it benefits the store's traffic count is when a person fails to answer a question that the system asks. My rule is that the avatars must be manned (someone at the keyboard) and, if the system finds that someone isn't manning their avatar, the chair chucks them off. And since they are being chucked off, I have the chairs deposit them on the store's parcel. They aren't camping at that time so I figure that I might as well get a teeny amount of benefit from them.

I didn't say when concurrency broke to 30k barrier. I only said that some months after I started using SL, LL is known have expressed concern that it wouldn't reach 30k. However, in the early part of 2007, I logged in to a concurrency of around 12k each day, and that would through my do something approaching 30k - e.g. 24k, 26k and numbers like that. That was early in 2007, so your statement that SL only had 10k in 2007 was wrong. That's the point I was making.

I'll tell of the Battle of Hastings, As 'appened in days long gone by, When Duke William became King of England, And 'Arold got shot in the eye. It were this way one day in October The Duke, who were always a toff, Having no battles on at the moment, Had given his lads a day off. They'd all taken boats to go fishing, When some chap in t' Conqueror's ear, Said, "Let's go and put t' breeze up the Saxons "; Said Bill, "By gum, that's an idea" Then turning around to his soldiers, He lifted his big Norman voice, Shouting, "Hands up who's coming to England." That was swank 'cos they 'adn't the choice They started away about tea-time The sea was so calm and so still And at quarter to ten the next morning They arrived at a place called Bexhill King 'Arold came up as they landed His face full of venom and 'ate He said, "If you've come for t' Regatta You've got here just six weeks too late." At this William rose, cool but 'aughty, And said, "Give us none of your cheek; You'd best have your throne re-upholstered, I'll be wanting to use it next week" When 'Arold heard this 'ere defiance, With rage he turned purple and blue, And shouted some rude words in Saxon, To which William answered, "And you!" 'Twere a beautiful day for a battle; The Normans set off with a will, And when both sides was duly assembled, They tossed for the top of the hill. King 'Arold he won the advantage, On the hill-top he took up his stand, With his knaves and his cads all around him, On his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and. The Normans had nowt in their favour, Their chance of a victory seemed small, For the slope of the field were against them, And the wind in their faces and all. The kick-off were sharp at two-thirty, And soon as the whistle had went Both sides started banging each other 'til the swineherds could hear them in Kent. The Saxons had t' best line of forwards, Well armed both with buckler and sword But the Normans had t' best combination, And when half-time came neither had scored. So the Duke called his cohorts together And said, "Let's pretend that we're beat, Once we get t' Saxons down on t' level We'll cut off their means of retreat." So they ran and the Saxons ran after, Just exactly as William had planned, Leaving 'Arold alone on the hill-top On his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and. When the Conqueror saw what had happened, A bow and an arrow he drew He went right up to 'Arold and shot him. He were off-side, but what could they do? The Normans turned round in a fury, And gave back both parry and thrust, Till the fight were all over bar t' shouting, And you couldn't see Saxons for dust. And after the battle were over They found 'Arold so stately and grand, Sitting there with an eye full of arrow On his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and Stanley Holloway.

See? I was right! Unless my eyes deceive me, that's a pterodactyl that they killed. I think the confederates were using them against the north. They were flourishing on a plateau in the deepest jungles somewhere in South America and undoubtedly some migrated north.

Charly Muggins wrote: Those who have the time and the inclination to investigate similar cosmic theories might wish to look at this site. David Icke is a former professional footballer, so you might think that he's fairly down to earth. But he was a goalkeeper. And it is well known that all goalies are mad. David Icke is a bone-fide fruitcake. He was a TV sports presenter until he flipped.

Sonja Smedley wrote: Ehm well, no matter what content they have...so you live your dreams like they were reality in these moments or not? You wake up when the best moments are to come and then you realize it was only a dream. What If life here on earth is the same? One day we wake up ....and then? What if, yes For some time I've considered dreams to be every bit as real for us as when we are awake. Dreams take place in the brain, and they feel perfectly real while they are happening. The awake state also takes place in the brain, and also feels just as real. Of course, in the dream state, being attacked by Death isn't terminal, so there a subtle differences Note: In a dream, not many years ago, I saw Death it the bottom of staircase. So I attacked it! The next thing I knew I was on my back on the stairs and his cold clammy handle were around my throat. Then I woke up/ From that experience I can confidently state that, contrary to popular belief, Death does not carry a scythe around

How do I do that when I'm dreaming? If I'm aware enough to attempt it, I'm already partly awake, and that'll be the end of it. It's no good. I just can't have those nice dreams that other people seem to have Also, I can never go back to sleep and continue a dream where it left off. I'm cursed

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: the average number of people online, going by memory here, in 2007 at 8 am EST was about 10,000. Currently there are 31,599 online users... How is that tapering off or losing users? Your post has been answered well enough, but I'll add to the replies. I signed on in December 2006. In early 2007 I used to log in in my mornings (UK) which was when the U.S. was asleep. I remember very well that the number logged when I logged in was always around 12k.. Then it increased during my day, as the U.S. woke up, to approaching 30k. Some months later, LL was known to have been concerned that they'll never reach 30k concurrency. In other words, you are mistaken about your 10k figure.

Unfortunately, my dreams are very disappointing. Other people have dreams about being with someone of the opposite sex, and they get to it in the dream. But I always wake up just as we're about to get to it

I've only read the first post but if "the holographic universe" is anything to do with the silly idea that the universe we know is a holographic projection inside a sphere, or something similar to a sphere, then it's rubbish, imo - and you did ask for opinions. There are many theories of the universe, from particles to the whole thing, and even to multiple universes, that are nothing more than mathematical possibilities, many of which are so far fetched as to be ridiculous - like this one is. The cutting edge physicists of today are merely mathematicians with imagination and an interest in physics. They don't observe things and then do the sums to confirm what they think may be true about their observations. They dream up ideas and then do the sums to see if they are mathematically possible and, if they are possible, they put them forward as theories and such.

MelodyHighnote wrote: Trust me, I know better than to go to a place called "sexy island" as a little kid or a serious Old West sim as a dinosaur lol. You mean there weren't any dinosaurs in the old west? Not even any Tyrannosaurus Rex ones? I find that hard to believe. The old west is.... well.... old. And, coincidentally, dinosaurs are also old. So they both occupied the same time period and, therefore, there must have been dinosaurs in the old west, and you should be ok going to dedicated Old West sims as a dinosaur.

Wrong Indians but that aside... There's no reason at all to think that the spammer is in India. It's easy enough to write a programme that spams a great many forums, and people all over the world are in the business of posting links in forums; i.e. the chances are that s/he's an affiliate and not an actual seller of sex in India. Also, I have a number of websites and I get lot of spam emails trying to sell various types of seo services to me. One of the types is posting links to my site on thousands of forums (it's for benefits in the search engines). Our spammer may be just doing that.

It doesn't matter where the Indians were at the time of the war of independence, Czari. There were just a handful of 'european' colonies (maybe states by then) in the east and it is those who fought for independence. Both sides enlisted some of the local Indians to fight with them. I'm sorry if you're getting bored with this discussion. It would have been over and done with quickly if you'd accepted that most of today's U.S. people did not have any ancestral presence over there at the time of the war of independence and, therefore, cannot truthfully say that "we beat you"