Phil Deakins

Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I was for increasing the traffic count. It can't be considered camping but it's intended to artificially inflate the traffic count, so it's no longer allowed on land that's set to show in search. I did a brief search of the gaming traffic rules and I could have sworn this particular issue was covered but couldn't find it. Hence my use of the word "fudging." Interestingly, my googling turned up a number of services engaging in this type of activity. That doesn't surprise me. When we had the long thread years ago, the idea of building the traffic count with a cones-type system was very desirable. Any artificial building of traffic is outlawed now, of course, and the "traffic cones", which is what it's called, is therefore outlawed on parcels that are in search, so now they are only a method of giving money away - unless they are used illegally.

I was for increasing the traffic count. It can't be considered camping but it's intended to artificially inflate the traffic count, so it's no longer allowed on land that's set to show in search.

So that old cone system is still going? Very interesting. Thank you Coby.

What's cone jumping? We had a long thread years ago (in the RA forum) about cones. I don't remember anything about them except that they were cones and were basically used by place owners to build traffic numbers. I've completely forgotten what benefit they were to the people who went from cone to cone.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Well if they have set hours of operation, which most companies do, then thats when they are in the office. The mods on the forums are not Linden employees. That's what I thought for long enough, and I even posted it recently, but someone posted something to indicate that that's changed and that they are now LL employees. It was a Linden saying that the forum would be moderated by their <.....> team. I've forgotten what the team was but it was an LL team.

Sy Beck wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I can't argue with any of that because I simply don't know. If it's all true, it surprises the hell out of me. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States And I knew you were being tongue in cheek :smileywink: That's a very good link. It enables me to get more understanding of Ceka's potted history. Over here, were don't tend to get to know such details and I do find them interesting. For some reason, I've always found the American history to be interesting - 19th century and earlier.

I'd just leave them to it if I were you. They have eyes in their heads, and brains to recognise the mass of spam, so leave them to do what they are paid to do. There's no need for any of us to do their work for them.

I can't argue with any of that because I simply don't know. If it's all true, it surprises the hell out of me. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Charly Muggins wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: Charly Muggins wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits. So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived. i think she was talking about before people started sailing over from spain.. at least that is how i read it. If she had meant that then she should have said it. Incomplete or implicit arguments are inadequate arguments. You're probably the only one who didn't understand what was meant. I think it was clear to everyone else.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charly Muggins wrote: No new ones for a while. But there are lots that haven't been deleted. Perhaps nobody RICed the latest ones, which are still there. If there were any moderators for this forum, they would have been deleted by now. The 'managers' only respond to RICs - they don't actually moderate the forum. Phil, ive seen one hour ago a mod displayed as online.. maybe there were more, i havent checked.. but this one showed in my forum homepage. Nevertheless the spams made before i noticed this fact are still active. im sorry this is not my job to RIC... im not paid neither hired for that, while there are ppl who are. I wont volunter to do their job, they wont volunter to do mine.... That's fair enough. On top, when i take in consideration that they have zero regards to us... they never thanks, never answer neither read our pms and all i feel is that we are not respected at all....We dont even know who we can call when we need an opinion or a mediation...Its just like if they hide from ourselves because we are demons... So i wont even less volunter to help someone who seems to not respect me. they have a job... the less we can ask to them is to do it correctly. just like my boss ask to me and just like i do every day when im at work. It's not my job to help them, and they certainly don't deserve any help, so I don't help them any more.

I don't bother RICing them any more. I used to but not now. The way I see it is that the managers are paid to manage this forum. It's part of what they are paid for, so they can do it if they bother at all.

Profaitchikenz Haiku wrote: I don't see how Linden Lab can be blamed for what looks like a concerted effort. All that I think we can do is keep RIC-ing one message from each usename that is spamming, and let somebody else work out how to detect each new joiner who might have the same location or characteristics as the growing number of blocked accounts. It's very easy for a forum to prevent the spam. Most forums use a 'capcha' method, which is very effective.

Charly Muggins wrote: No new ones for a while. But there are lots that haven't been deleted. Perhaps nobody RICed the latest ones, which are still there. If there were any moderators for this forum, they would have been deleted by now. The 'managers' only respond to RICs - they don't actually moderate the forum.

GoldxRazer wrote: LL are thief's all they want is your money and they don't care if they don't run a far system if you're not in the USA you have to pay more for a full sim in the USA it's $295 in the UK it's $354 how is that far how can we all enjoy SL if they change different prices if someone out said the USA want's to run a estate they can't as there out priced this needs to be changed we all need to stand up to them and make them make SL far for everyone. I know the OP is seriously off-topic in this thread, which is about the American War of Independence, but I thought I'd post a comment anyway... I know of no way for LL to make it appear "far" (sic) for everyone, because we live in different countries that have different taxes. Europeans are able to register for VAT, and then we can claim the VAT back, which means we can pay the VAT to LL, claim it back, and end up paying the same as U.S. people do. Registering for VAT, just so that our SL costs are the same as they are for U.S. people, would be a bit extreme, and would cause more problems than it was worth, but it can be done. The best thing that we Euros can do is accept the way it is and, if it means the costs for an accommodation rental business is too much to compete with U.S. people, then find a different business to play with. It's all about land. Some Euros complain that their tier costs are too high to compete because of VAT. Some non-euros complain that their tier costs are higher than BIG land owners' tier costs, who get quantity discounts on tier,, and therefore they can't compete. So, for those who think they can't compete because of tier costs, do something different instead. There are many other types of business to get into that are equally satisfying, if not more so.

Ceka Cianci wrote: how you like mah 2 second version of history lol I like history, and I would have loved your 2 second version - if I'd understood any of it :matte-motes-confused: More recent history shows clearly that the U.S. owes its position in the world to us Brits At the turn of the previous century, the U.S. was insular and didn't want to be troubled or bothered about anything outside its borders. WWI came along and still the U.S. remained insular and wanted nothing to do with it. But persistent persuasion by the Brits caused the U.S. to join in - late in the day but with a very powerful impact. I think I'm right in saying that the U.S. troops only fought one battle and then the war was won. Not because the U.S. defeated the enemy but because the addition of U.S. troops, and the numbers that could be brought over, caused Germany to realise that it was futile to continue, especially since German people were suffering badly in Germany itself. That was the start of the U.S. awakening to the idea of the power they could have in the world. Not long afterwards, WWII came along. Again the U.S. preferred to be insular and wanted no part of it, although the President believed it was necessary. And again, because of much persuasion by the Brits, they joined in in Europe when Japan triggered war for the U.S. That completed the awakening. Ever since then, the U.S. has seen itself as being very powerful in the world, and it's we Brits who caused that to happen Note: In some ways, the power has been bad for the U.S. people - getting involved in wars everywhere - but it wasn't me who did the persuading, so don't blame me - I wasn't around at those times :matte-motes-sour:

Czari Zenovka wrote: I mentioned earlier in the thread (you may not have read back that far) that my grandfather on my mother's side was 1/4 Cherokee; Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along, so I *did* have one or more ancestors here during Revolutionary times. I haven't read a lot of the posts in this thread, so I probably missed it. About your ancestors who were there at the time: were they involved in beating the Brits? Did they fight on the British side and were actually beaten? It was only the eastern part of the continent that was involved so the chances are that most decendants of native Americans also cannot rightly say that "we beat you" on the strength of that ancestry. ETA: This really belongs in my reply to Dillon, but that post is already a bit too long, so I'm sticking in this post.... I have a lady friend here in the U.K. who has a married daughter who went to live and work in California due to her job with an international company. While her and her husband were over there, they had 2 children. The children were born there and grew into teenagers there. They are American citizens because they were born there. (They probably have dual nationality because of their parents) . They recently came back to stay, with the children, again because of the job. What can those children say to their parents? "We beat you"? That would be a bit ridiculous, wouldn't it? Nope. Only those with an actual history of beating the Brits in their family tree can correctly say, "We beat you". The rest weren't there in their forbears loins. Most of the U.S. population is made up of people who went over there after the war of independence, and their decendants. So most of the populations cannot rightly say, "we beat you". And most of those who have American Indians in their family trees, also can't rightly say it, because most of the American Indians on the continent at the time weren't involved in that war, and probably had no idea that it was happening.

Dillon Levenque wrote: We continue to disagree, and there's no point in pursuing the matter. Yes, if you moved here tomorrow and then said "We beat you Brits" to your previous neighbors—or neighbours, in your case—it would be a bit ridiculous. If you stayed here and raised children and your children said that same thing to their trans-atlantic cousins, there would be nothing ridiculous about it. They'd be right. Doesn't matter what your daddy did; that was the point I was trying to make. If you're one of us, you're one of us and you get all the historical baggage to go along with it, both good and bad (we scuffle amongst ourselves, as everyone knows). And we'll have to agree to disagree And the brown text is why we don't agree. They'd be wrong. Look at it this way. If your grandfather died before he had any children, where would you be now? You wouldn't exist of course, because your potential life died with him. So there is a compelling sense that, wherever your grandfather was, you were also there. If he was over here, so were you. You agree that it would be ridiculous for me to go over there to stay and then turn round to the Brits and say, "we beat you". I say that it's equally ridiculous for my hypothetical children, who are born over there to my hypothetical wife, who also went over there with me, to turn around and say the same thing. Those children didn't beat the Brits at all. They are the Brits who were beaten even though they are U.S. citizens. So at what point do such immigrants become the U.S. Americans who actually beat the Brits and can say "we beat you"? Where is the line drawn? You say that they magically morph into those U.S. Americans who beat the Brits. I say never. They certainly become U.S. citizens, of course, but they never morph into the decendants of the people who beat the Brits, and only those whose forbears beat the Brits can rightly say that "we beat you". Their forefathers simply didn't do it, and they are wrong to say "we beat you" because they didn't. They can rightly say that those who were here (in North America) before me beat you, but not "we beat you". Just because a person chooses to align themselves with other people, and become part of them, doesn't mean that the person and/or his/her decendants actually have the history that the other people have. You are arguing that it does mean that, but it doesn't. They can say, "we Americans", of course, because they've joined, but the history of those who were there before them cannot be the history of those individuals who joined later or their decendants. It's the history of the U.S. nation - I can't argue against that - but it's not the history of those people who where elsewhere in the world (foreigners) at the time and their decendants, or of those who were on the continent at the time but had no involvement with the winning side in the war. And I believe that applies to almost all of today's U.S. Americans.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Your point that the majority of today's Americans don't have ancestors from this country dating back to revolutionary or pre-revolutionary times is 'still good', at least if the latest census information is correct. Your thesis, in my opinion, is still wrong. As it happens my tree includes at least one person born on American soil long before any Europeans—or Scandinavians, or Prester John—had visited. There's also one (of British descent) born in Massachusetts almost one hundred years before the Revolution. One who fought at Bunker Hill (on OUR side). One who rode with Light Horse Harry Lee. That does not make me even one tiny speck more American than anyone else who either grew up here or adopted this country as an adult. We are still we. And in fact we (even if our ancestors might have actually been on the other side at the time or somewhere else entirely) did in fact outlast the world's most formidable army, just because we had the guts to do it. It probably helped that Britain practically committed suicide in the process, ignoring the advice of men of good will while trying to placate a mad king. Nevertheless, beat Britain we did. I was born and raised and live in California. I'm not positive but I am fairly certain we have the highest percentage of immigrants of any state in the union. I've grown up in that. I've seen the same thing in my life that I've discerned from reading about people elsewhere. The first generation holds tight to their roots, but their kids are Americans. I live in one of the major agricultural regions of the state and the population here includes a massive number of peope whose parents or grandparents were born in Mexico. When I do my grocery shopping the week before Thanksgiving I see families who appear to be of Mexican descent buying the same things I am. They'll probably follow the instructions and overcook the turkey (and how American is THAT?) but the point is they are observing the day.They are Americans. WE are Americans. So Phil, I speak against your thesis. All it takes to be one of us is to say, "I am one of you". We don't really care who your daddy is. The point I'm making is that those who say "we did it", who don't have ancestors that actually did do it, or supported those who did it, can't correctly say that "we did it". An extreme example would be if I moved over there today and tomorrow I said that "we beat you Brits". That would be ridiculous, of course, because there's nothing in me, or my ancestry, that beat the Brits. I say that the same applies to most of today's U.S. Americans, and I believe that's true. About the line in your family tree that includes native Americans, which I think is what you meant: it depends which native Americans, because I believe that both sides had native Americans fighting with them. Maybe the ones in your family tree were beaten with us Brits More likely, though, they weren't involved at all and, if that's the case, you can't say that "we beat you" on the strength of that particular line in your family tree. However, you can say that "we beat you" on the strength of the other line you mentioned, if I understood that line correctly. But I contend that most of today's U.S. Americans don't have such a family history and, therefore, can't say it with any truth. Many of those were beaten by the Americans, because all their family lines were over here at the time, but still they imagine that they beat the Brits when in fact they lost that war.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: There are far too many 'new' posts in this thread for me to bother reading, but I do have a comment about one little sub-topic that's come up... All you U.S. citizens did NOT free yourselves from British rule, so almost all of you can completely forget that idea. Why do I say that? Because very very very few of you had ancestors in North America at the time. Almost all of you were still over on this side of the pond, as it were. So when you think about the war of independence, remember that your ancestors didn't win it. They lost it Have to agree with Charly on this one - speaking personally, the majority of my ancestors are from Ireland. I'm not going to get into a debate with you because you're too good at it...lol. Regardless of where my ancestors were at the time of the Revolutionary War, someone somewhere had the good sense to come to the U.S. *Grins* Edit: Typo - no caffeine yet today. OTOH, I'm not spewing Coke on the monitor while reading some of the replies. So the majority of your ancestors back then were under British rule, and the few people who were over in North America at the time of the War of Independence won against your ancestors and mine Actually we lost intentionally because they were too costly for us, but don't tell them that - they never knew and it's best of it doesn't get out I'm not happy about you not wanting to get into an argument with me though. I like forum arguments - they make it interesting. Btw, I was watching TV when you IMed. I've IMed back but you'd logged out

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Seeing as one of my ancestors signed the Declaration of Independence, I feel safe in saying.. Sod off! Most of the people in my area can claim bloodlines back to the revolution. :matte-motes-wink-tongue: But the ancestors of most of today's americans weren't over there at that time. My point is still good

Deltango Vale wrote: @ everyone Again and again, people are missing the point. The REAL issue has nothing to do with tax. The REAL issue is about costs, prices and markets. See earlier post. In 2007, Linden Lab had a choice: absorb VAT as a cost of doing global business, have lower profits in the short term, grow the European market, have bigger profits in the long term charge VAT, have bigger profits in the short term, shrink the European market, have lower profits in the long term If the word 'VAT' drives you crazy, substitute any other cost instead: electricity, office rent, wages etc. The issues is not about VAT, it is about costs of doing global business and strategies for success. Linden Lab made the classic mistake of sacrificing long-term growth for short-term profits. Bottom line: Linden Lab has no vision, no ambition and no business sense. The company has repeatedly made strategic errors that have severely reduced Second Life's potential growth and profitability. By absorbing VAT, LL wouldn't have had lower profits; i.e. their profits wouldn't have gone down at that point in time. They had been absorbing the VAT before that point. You are right in that they would have lower profits relative to after they started to collect VAT from users, of course.

That's true. I did say "on this side of the pond" to cover non-British nationalities, but I also said "you lost" which only applies to those with British ancestry (which included Ireland and that time). Nevertheless, most of those in the U.S. today don't have ancestors who were there during the war of independence, and yet they often claim they won that war - erroneously, of course

There are far too many 'new' posts in this thread for me to bother reading, but I do have a comment about one little sub-topic that's come up... All you U.S. citizens did NOT free yourselves from British rule, so almost all of you can completely forget that idea. Why do I say that? Because very very very few of you had ancestors in North America at the time. Almost all of you were still over on this side of the pond, as it were. So when you think about the war of independence, remember that your ancestors didn't win it. They lost it

Do you have an alt? Maybe one email was to the alt. A number of my bot alts have had the email.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: they didnt answered me.. but im planning to ric randomly a post and tell them what i have to say there then lol. or maybe RIC an OP for off topic... i still havent decided :smileytongue: and so what did they told to you, Gadget ? If you do that, I want commission