Drue

Think you missed my point completely too, GoodDay2Die, but I'll clarify. My point is simply that everything has an "opportunity cost" associated with it, and that cost is simply "what you must go through to obtain it". If, to take my ferrari example, buying individual parts and assembling the ferrari, with chances of breaking stuff and having to replace it... well, if it was the only way to get that ferrari, and it was important enough to me, sure, I'd do it. That process would then be a part of the ferrari's opportunity cost. If you need vial molds and alembics, and there isn't a readily available supply of them to be purchased, then one must either a) make them yourself, and all the OC that this involves, or be willing to supply materials/GC to others who can make them for you. Which, again, is an opportunity cost. Experiential economics are a bit different from market economics. In EL, a game, the only "market economics" that really come into play are a) Ent's cash income from the game vs Ent's expenses for servers/bandwidth/development time/etc. While the "in-game economy" makes attempts to *simulate* a market economy, it can only do so in a fashion reflected in the experiential economy. Experiential economies deal pretty much solely with Opportunity Cost vs Desired Ends. Nobody *needs* anything in EL. They *want* stuff. They want things that are needed to achieve their desired ends. Those things, and the effort of their acquisition, are their opportunity cost. What else you could be doing instead of pursuing those particular ends. If nobody makes vial molds because they are not cost effective, either pay the people who can more, or just buy the vials. It's all the opportunity cost of your pursuit of potion making skills, and OA levels as a result. Sure, the notion of the ingredients costing more than the end product sells for isn't common in the "Real World".. but it does happen. The Xbox 360, for example... Microsoft lost darn near $100 a unit on every sale of that game console. Why'd they do it then? Because it represents a long-term strategic investment in developing a new market for them that could, eventually, prove quite profitable. Why sink craptons of GC and time and effort into building up your Manu skill? Because it's a strategic investment in your character that might, at some point, prove profitable... either in terms of GC or capacity. It's not a flaw in the game economics... it's just a conflict between people's desires for an end and their willingness to pay the opportunity cost to reach that end. That was my point.

Been a long time since I've posted anything, and I don't play much regularly anymore due to RL concerns, but... It seems to me that a lot of this economic debate is silly. EL has a pretty well managed economy. Prices haven't changed much on most items (with some fluctuations, of course) since I disappeared 6 months ago. There's no massive, runaway inflation. There's no insane volatility. EL's pretty stable. I've seen *much* worse. Every MMO has these threads, it seems.. At least every one that I've played. And generally, they all boil down to "I'm pissed because I can't afford teh-uberist widgets right now!!!!" And then a few, more rational minds, getting into a bunch of economic theory and trying to explain things to the others. There's also always a set of "real life examples" vs the "you can't compare RL to IG" statements. Well, you can, and here's the crux of this little post of mine... I can't afford a ferrari. Not *right now*. If I went and got a job, and saved up my cash for long enough, I could eventually. So could every one of you. It's a small point, but an important one. What the real issue boils down to is "Patience vs. Opportunity Cost". Want to be one of the top 10 players? Be ready to pay the opportunity cost, and be ready to be really patient. It'll take you thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours worth of *work*. Not just "play".. not just combat training, but *work*. Putting in the time you need to get the skills, get the stuff, and gain the knowledge of the best ways to do everything you need to do. That includes harvesting, alching, whatever. Whatever you need to do to accomplish the goal. Just like buying that ferrari. Sure, you can live in Mom's basement and eat ramen noodles and work at Wal-Mart for $7 an hour for several years till you've saved up enough cash.. or you can go to college, get a degree, get a high-paying job, and buy it. Either way, you're still putting in the work. You're still paying the opportunity cost. The only things in EL that you can't get are things that don't exist in the game. Everything else is obtainable, it just requires work. If you really want it, put in the work. If it's not worth the work to you, then you obviously don't really want it that badly. This is life, be it Real Life or EL Life. Set your goals, save your money, work forward, and prosper. And try to have some fun while you do. It ain't that complex.

The US government is *not* representative enough. Neither is state government, for my liking. However, the platform of "states rights", when it comes up against the question of essential human rights, and the preservation thereof, don't mean jack to me. Perhaps it is easier for a person to influence the law in their own state. For every occasion that this opens the door for positive change, it *also* opens the door for a group of bigots with some particular hate fetish to push their agenda in an isolated region. Now, if there was a sort of overarching constitutional guarantee of equal rights for absolutely *everyone*, implemented by a system that was truly representative *and* binding, then it matters little.. but simply removing any sort of oversight potential does nothing but *invite* abuse, regardless of how you want to spin it. Call me a hypocrite, I call you a libeler. I am not a "baby killer".. nor are we even close to using the same measure. I have not intended to force anyone to kill children. I have not killed children. I have not even scraped a non-conscious sack of cellular matter off the inside of a uterus. I'm a 32 year old guy who's never engaged in procreation, even. So you can stop libeling me. See, you right to life people always make that assumption... you think that just because somebody isn't a facist adherent to your completely unproven doctrine and personal moral assumptions that they are somehow *FOR* abortion.. and that they suggest that we should all run around murdering babies, just because it's fun! Unfortunately for you, and the rest of us, that position is full of shit. My position is that it's not your right to determine the morals for the rest of us. Period. It's also not your responsibility, or even your *business*... moral or religious motivations included. You just *assume* that "life begins at conception".. and get all fucking militant when somebody suggests that it's not proven, (because it isn't)... and you get bent out of shape because you believe, without any actual *evidence*, that we only get 1 time around... that early death "wastes" life... that perhaps a soul is being "deprived" of a chance for a life... all based on a bunch of religious bullshit that absolutely *IS NOT* universally shared, and emphatically *CANNOT* be scientifically proved. And you want to use this as the foundation for secular LAW that determines what a woman can and cannot do with her own body? And you call yourself an american, or a libertarian? Both notions of which embrace thoroughlly the separation of Religious Law from Secular Law, and the idea of the supremacy of individual liberty? Who's Really the hypocrite, Ent? This is perhaps the biggest pile of drivel I have heard in quite some time. Mindless Patriotism FTW, anyone? Save the self-righteous flag waving for somebody who's impressed by it, Ent.. the argument doesn't hold water. Lemme just recap something you've said here... "You do NOT inherently have the right to live, or to be free, or to be happy." I take it that you disagree with the fundamental ideas that this nation was founded upon, then? Because sure as shit, the Declaration of Independence.. the statement of principles by which we justified revolution and war against England, breaking away at the cost of thousands of lives, says unquestionably THAT I DO. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Or perhaps the concepts of "self evident" and "unalienable", being in a somewhat archaic language, confuse you? Self Evident means that "Hey, any idiot can see this, without it needing to be pointed out to him... and Unalienable means "Cannot Be Denied", ie, that which can never be separated from someone. But you're a smart guy, Ent.. you did manage to code this game after all, and I can't do that... so I assume you do understand these words... So is it then that you simply just disagree with this basic premise that our nation was founded upon? That you find lacking the core values that birthed the Great American Experiment? It seems to me to be unfathomable that someone could so emphatically stand up for a system of laws and regulations which fail to uphold the ideals that led to their founding, and yet reject those ideals out of hand in the same breath.. My contempt for the Government, and for the Constitution, is entirely based upon the fact that they do *not* measure up to the ideals upon which this nation was founded. Your contempt for me is, apparently, based upon you not agreeing with those ideals in the first place, and finding more value in the hero worship of a man who tells you what you want to hear than in a person who is angry and insists that certain principles be upheld even in those circumstances which are unpleasant to experience. That you have a right to feel this way, I will not question. I will absolutely not agree with your point of view, for I find no merit whatsoever in it, but it's your right to hold such views. At any rate, I am withdrawing from this debate, in the interests of keeping the peace. edited to remove temporary overuse of profanity.

Oh, what did happen on 9/11? Seems fairly simple what happened. No need for people to make up long, wild and crazy conspiracy theories. And what part of "I'm not even going to go anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11" Says to you that I'm intending to start up a long, drawn up conversation with you on the subject?? You just believe what you want, because no amount of evidence or suspicion is going to matter to you in the slightest. I might suggest you stop trolling. Just because he is against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, "dont ask, don't tell policy," etc, as you are saying he does, doesn't mean he is homophobic. Same thing for "Sanctity of Life Act"/anti-abortion, which does not equal being anti-woman. You seem quite good at taking people's support or non-support for an issue and giving them labels. And you seem to be quite good at playing "dutifully oblivious" when it comes to certain points you disagree with. With regard to Homosexuality.. There is not one *shred* of viable scientific evidence that says that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. *none*. There are physiological differences in homosexuals.. in genetics, in brain structure and activity. Homosexuality is recorded in nature, among animals. It is even *commonplace.* The only reason *not* to afford the homosexual relationship the same benefits and protections as the heterosexual relationship is religious bigotry. Period. Anti-Woman vs anti-abortion/etc... I beg to differ with you, sincerely. When someone suggests to me that a person who was brutalized in a rape must be forced by law to carry her rapists child to term, I say they're some right sick bastards. That's about as anti-woman an idea as you can get. So is the idea of Abstinence Only Sex Ed, in addition to being an utter failure. And quite frankly, I fail to see how it is *ANY* of a government's business telling a woman under what circumstances she can give birth, or decide not to. Abortion has been practiced for thousands upon thousands of years, mostly carried out *BY* women, for women.. It was carried out in Biblical times in Israel, in ancient Rome and Greece, in the great empires of Asia.. All around the world.. And yet you see *nothing* of it mentioned in the Bible or other "holy books".. You simply see a giant hue and cry raised by a radical Protestant minority based on medieval Roman Catholic dogma. That makes the whole "abortion" issue, in terms of its legality, nothing but an attempt by a religious group to impose *its* morals upon people who don't agree with them by the force of secular law.. and that is as "Un-American" as it gets. Commonplace, but Un-American. This ain't real complicated. Regardless of how much the idea perhaps offends you, simply discounting it doesn't make it any less valid.

Doesn't matter, the Constitution is flexible and allows for changes. If you are not happy with it, start a movement and change it. But most of the people, including me (and I am not easy to please when it comes to politics) are very happy with it as it is. So it doesn't matter that the foundational basis for what claims itself to be a "representational" government was not in any way "representational" when it was created? It doesn't matter that the document you hold to be the basis of all law is, in and of itself, not particularly legally binding upon anybody through any means other than threat of force? Or that the only reason it is held as such is because the last people who tried to exert their "Rights" to withdraw from its auspices were smashed into compliance with utmost violence? Don't you see a wee bit of a double standard here? It doesn't matter a damn if its "flexible" or not, if its very conception is against the very things it purports as "Essential values". Like, say, in the Bill of Rights? Ah yes, that pompous bag of foolery.. To begin with, if I have a "Right".. then it is nothing to be permitted me by a document of law. If it is my right, it is an absolute. If it is extended to me by a document.. a document which can me amended at will, then it is *NOT* a right, it is simply a privilege that those who would call themselves my "Masters" choose to extend to me. The "Bill of Rights" attempts to take what *ought* to be natural rights and makes them "privileges" extended to me by the Government. Secondly.. from a constitutional standpoint, 90% of the laws enacted by the federal government since the Civil War are unconstitutional. They draw their basis from a subtle re-defining of "Citizenship", by which we are assumed to have "voluntarily" already surrendered most of our "constitutionally protected rights" in exchange for certain "additional benefits". The main problem is that people are not *informed* of this, nor is there any effort made to educate them, and its only with significant difficulty that such information can be obtained in the first place. Which means our "Voluntary Compliance" is the result of "Extensive and Willful Deception by Omission". This is a direct violation of the supposed "Right" of every American to "Liberty". Unless one has renounced their citizenship in the Federal Government of the United States, while simultaneously re-affirming their citizenship in the State of their Birth, essentially, the "Bill of Rights" doesn't apply to you anyway.. it's only held thus at the convenience of the State.. as the USA PATRIOT Act, and many others so adroitly prove. 1. This is not technically possible yet (not everyone has access to the Internet). 2. Would be a huge security problem to make sure that there is no fraud. 3. People are stupid, are you sure you want to let them vote for every single issue? Remmeber, 70% of the Americans were for the war, when it started. 1. Not everyone *needs* access to the internet. For Direct Democracy, it would be helpful.. but for an effective Proxy system, it's unnecessary. All one needs is for polling places to be secure, permanent, available, and interconnected. The ability to change one's Proxy "on the fly" up until a certain time before a vote is cast makes the reasonable assurance that the people who actually *care* will have their voice heard on an issue. 2. As opposed to the current system, where there is no assurance of any kind that there is no fraud? We are simply *told* that the system works.. there is never any "proof" of security or legitimacy.. Aye, security and fraud prevention are big big issues.. and need to be implemented *regardless*. If you've got to do it anyway, why not just revamp things to make the government actually *representative* instead of merely paying lip service to it? 3. Of course people are stupid. How is letting them vote any more dangerous than letting them be lead around by the nose by a corrupt and incompetent government whose interests are, by and large, opposed to the people's own? If the people actually *have* a say, they are at least responsible for their own state of "getting fucked up by what happens." Makes em more honest. In actuality, what you wind up with isn't much different.. The vast majority of the people will still vote however the tv tells them, when they can be arsed to stand up and do so. The difference is, however, that the people who actively *care* about government, who are motivated and educated on the subjects, will be able to have their voices heard, instead of just being assumed to fall in line with a certain percentage of the mindless masses that match their polling demographic. It still doesn't solve the problem of the deliberate dumbing down of the citizenry, nor the deliberate engendering of political apathy that has allowed this nation to be taken to the cleaners to the extent that it has.. But it does give people who *do* care, and those who perhaps might be able to be arsed to care, an actual *reason* to get involved, instead of this pointless non-representative nonsense we currently engage in. There are many grass roots organisations that changed a lot of things. One example is the fascist cunts from MADD that managed to make the minimum drinking age to be 21 years old in all the US states (or else the states lose federal funds). You don't have to have a lot of money, but you need to be dedicated and persistent. And how do you think those "Facist Cunts" from MADD got all that done? They bought themselves some Senators. They built themselves up a grassroots organization to raise *funds* to allow themselves to be able to lobby full time. They, in fact, built a political *business* out of their "cause". Nothing happens without money to grease the wheels. Nothing.

Well, no, but you were only blaiming Bush, when it is a collective fault of everyone (Republicans, Democrats, and those who voted for them). Personally I do not blame Bush as much as I blame those who voted for him in 2004. I blame the Bush Administration. Dubya himself I think gets a small bit of a pass because he's too much of a retarded fratboy to have orchestrated 90% of the bullshit his administration pulled. However, since he is, nominally, the "chief executive", anything done by his administration is *his* responsibility. Of course, the members of various congresses are also culpable, regardless of party.. but I especially single out Bush/Cheney/Rove/Et Al for deliberately lying to not only the American people, but to Congress and the leadership of most of the rest of the world. Deliberately and premeditatedly lying out their sorry, sneaky, republican asses, in order to start an unneeded war to kill a bunch of brown people. I'm not even going to get anywhere *near* what I think really happened with 9/11... Heads need to roll here, conspiracy theories aside. Dare and the deed is done, Ent.. Let's start off with "Homophobic".. To start off with, he's a fan of this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in our military.. He's against extending federal rights and benefits to same sex couples, even though they are extended to heterosexual couples as a matter of course.. He's against the "gay marriage ban" amendment, but only on a "states rights" platform.. and he's been very careful to remain "neutral" on the whole concept of "gay marriage" or "civil unions".. but in the same speeches, he's always there to mention "family values" and "church values".. which in 90% of the USA mean "societally endorsed bigotry".. His "states rights" platform, in that regard, is built around the idea of forbidding federal judges (and federal law) from forcing states to recognize the rights of Homosexuals. Lemme quote: So He's against a constitutional amendment because it gives the FED's too much power.. but he's got no problem with treating gay people like social pariahs the way a great many states currently do. And I'd like to make one point.. just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it "right". For a couple hundred years, Slavery was "traditional".. In many places in the South, it's "traditional" for a bunch of drunk white rednecks to get together a couple times a year and lynch a black man, just because he's there. In *many* parts of the country, the idea of harassing pagans, non-christians, or any other "different" social group member is a longstanding, and I daresay *cherished* tradition of the local citizenry, even to the extent that it is ignored by local law enforcement when it violates laws, civil rights, and even the health and well-being of the victim... Segregation was "traditional"... Women not being allowed to Vote was "traditional".. In some parts of the world, murdering your own daughter for marrying outside of her caste is "traditional"... and in each and every case, it's still fucked the hell up. Ok.. let's go on to Anti-Woman... This one's easy. We can start with the Sanctity of Life Act.. which Ron Paul introduced in both 2005 and 2007.. essentially a gutting of Roe v. Wade. We can go from there to the "We the People Act".. also introduced in 2005 and 2007.. which would have forbidden the federal government from stepping in against any state laws that happened to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, sexual practices, etc.. It would also allow states to declare abortion to be murder, to outlaw certain forms of contraception... He's even gone on record as opposing abortion in cases of rape or incest. Now, I understand this gets into some heavy bullshit, especially as the "right to life'rs" get their undies in a wad.. But sorry, every nation in the industrialized world has legalized abortion. Every other "western" society has recognized that "it may not be a "good thing", but reproductive freedom is more important. " If it's outlawed, its *WOMEN* who are put at risk.... They're the ones who either have to try and raise a child they're unprepared for, and possibly do a horrible job at it, or risk prison and/or injury/death to try to get an "underground" abortion.. That, Sir, is Anti-Woman.. because there sure as hell hasn't been any effort undertaken to criminalize a young irresponsible male from "sowing his wild oats". From there we can go to his absolutely *asinine* support for "abstinence only sex education". Doesn't work, has *never* worked, and the only results you see where it has been tried is a rise in teen pregancies, sexually transmitted diseases, highschool dropouts and abortions. This, too, is also anti-woman.. it's anti-young-woman, but young women are women nonetheless. The rationale is this: "If we don't tell people about contraceptives, they just won't have sex before they're married." This, we *all* know, is utter bullshit. What it winds up doing is simply denying young people the information they need to be able to prevent making some really really *stupid* mistakes... all this in the name of what is essentially "Conservative Christian Prudishness." Which is a beautiful segue into the whole "Evangelical" bit.. Let's see.. So far, we already have a fair chunk of ammo to support that claim.. The anti-gay bits certainly.. as it's only the "conservative christian" evangelical people who are really militant gay haters... And the anti-abortion bit.. that, too, is pretty much screams "Evangelical".. since they are the ONLY major group who have *still* been pushing for that nonsense for the last 30 years... Then we have the "Abstinence-only-sex-ed" nonsense.. again, that is something that *only* a bible-thumping christian is nuts enough to support.... From there we can go into his official position of "neutrality" with regards to teaching of "Creationism" as "Science"... Nobody but a Fundie who's trying to get elected is "Neutral" on that issue... The only people who "support" it are Seriously whacked out Evangelical nutbags.. and everybody else is pretty much dead "Against" the notion. Paul carefully avoids it like he does the "Gay Marriage" issue by deliberately obfuscating it under a blanket "states rights" statement. He's also come out on the record as supporting prayer in public schools. Again, the only people staunchly in favor of such positions are Evangelicals... Granted, he's more of a libertarian than an Evangelical in his political platform.. But the end result of most of his "States Rights" approach is that the entire Southeastern United States become a bastion of state-sponsored christian bigotry. In Georgia, for example... anal sex is illegal.. regardless of whether or not it's between two gay men or between consenting married heterosexuals.. Frankly, it's none of *any* government's fucking business what kind of sex anybody has with anyone else, just so long as it's all consensual. Once powerful Evangelical groups in the "Bible Belt" get their carte blanche from Ron Paul to start abusing as they please, free from any interference by the Federal court system... you're going to see large chunks of this nation become even more of a theocracy than they already are.. which is something the Evangelicals of this country have been treasonously pushing for for the last 4 decades. So absolutely I call him a homophobic, anti-woman, Evangelical Christofacist.

I strongly disagree here. While the people alive today did not vote for the constitution, it is still the 'law of the land'. And it is the law of the land because people living ever since the constitution was signed did not consider it necessary to amend the constitution (well, there were a few amendments, but it is more or less the same constitution for 200+ years). Not only did nobody who is alive today vote for the Constitution, but even those persons who *did* vote for the constitution did not represent the *PEOPLE* of the United States. They represented a minority of people, the qualifying white landowners who chose to get involved. They certainly did not, just as they do not today, represent the entire population. Within itself, the Constitution makes no claim to binding subsequent generations. It makes no claim to extablishing its authority in perpetuity to the exclusion of other authority. It also does not lay claim to enforcing itself upon anyone.. only that it is established so that those who wish to may participate under its auspices. It is a contract between specific persons.. the signatories, to engage in an attempt at government. If the people of one municipality decide to join together in a contract to establish a church, a school, and a hospital, and to do so with public funds, certainly they have the right do do so... But they just as certainly have no right to force the members of the next town over who decline to participate in their actions or to receive benefits of those services to pay for it. It's being "The Law of the Land" has nothing to do with its representative quality. It has everything to do with the fact that Lincoln and the rest of the "Unionists" decided that it was entirely appropriate to enforce membership in this compact by fire, slaughter, and death. As such, "the Great Liberator", to the accurate student of history, is nothing more than another tyrant with a good propagandist behind him, and established the present mode of governance, where "you will be governed as we see fit, or we will imprison or kill you." Whence is the liberty? Whence is the "freedom" of our "great democracy"? Farce! Sounds great in theory, but horrible in practice. Without an elected person (which wins by a 50%+1 majority), nothing would ever get done. Therefore, it is necessary to have someone to 'represent' the people, someone who is voted by the people. Bollocks. First and foremost, an honest system of election involves no more work than the current fraud does. With advances in technology being what they are, we could possibly even wind up making direct democracy feasible. But a functional proxy system where an individual's vote actually *counted*.. instead of this "plurality law" fraud, and electoral college nonsense.. Hell, let's even get straight down to the core here.. There's absolutely *nothing* in our Constitution that says that the people even should be *asked* who they want to be their president. There is *nothing* mandating that a popular vote even be *taken*. The Electoral College members are *APPOINTED* by the party reps in the state legislatures, and there has never *ONCE* been a "Faithless Elector" penalized for voting against the wishes of those he purports to represent, not ONCE in the 150-ish times that it's occurred.. Hell, in half the states, it's not even *illegal*. An actual Proxy system *ensures* that my voice is heard, instead of being totally discounted because I was among the "1 vote shy" crowd. As this government is nominally "By" me, "for" me, and "of" me, then I should damn well think that my view matters, regardless of whether or not 50%+1 of the people in my area agree with my view. As it stands now, the only way that my voice can be heard is by buying myself a Senator. If I have money, or power, or head up some special interest group, I can talk to "my" elected representative, let my feelings be known, urge support of this action or that action.. If I do *not* have money, or power, or some special interest group supporting me, I can get interaction with a low level flunkie, who will, if I am fortunate, notate my opinion in a tabulation somewhere, if said flunkie is intelligent/motivated enough to be trusted to notate it correctly in the first place.. which often is *not* the case. If I have weeks of time to spend, and money to burn to do it, I might be able to schedule an appointment with "my" elected representative.. to get 5 minutes of "face time" *if* I happen to be one of the lowly petitioners lucky enough to be chosen that day.. Or if the Chairman of "Bloatware, Inc" doesn't just happen to show up late.. No, I reject this notion that somehow, some way, participation in this fetid, stinking, bloated corpse of a governmental system is in anyway capable of producing change, or even holds the power it does legitimately. I was never asked, I never consented, I was never informed, efforts were made to deceive me from the get-go, to deprive me of my lawful rights.. UNALIENABLE rights..., and to encourage me to perpetuate a fraud by endorsing a fraudulent, corrupt tyranny held in place solely through misinformation and threat of force as "democratic" or "representative". No way, no how, does she hold water, capt'n...

Well, this gets down to whether or not Bush is actually running the country. If he is, then the titanic series of fuckups, lies, and just outright crimes against humanity perpetrated by his administration are, indeed, *HIS* fault. If, as I strongly suspect, that Dubya is nothing more than a means for Senior to control the White House for 8 years, it matters little, as we'll likely never know the truth of the matter. The economy in the crapper hasn't a damn thing to do with any "bills" passed by Congress, per se. It has everything to do with a protracted period of *policy* fuckups within various agencies of the federal government, most of which fall under the purview of the executive branch, and we haven't even *begun* to see the damage that Dubya's little "Holy War" over in Iraq is going to inflict on the economy. Policy enacted by the FTC, the Federal Reserve, the SBA, and the IRS has been the primary "mover and shaker" in terms of causes of the economic meltdown. Those and the suppression of science, most of which has been carried out at the behest of various executive branch administrations over the last hundred years. You sound like you think I give a shit about the democrats, Ent... sadly, that's a bit wrong.. I think that Both of the major parties are worse than useless, and probably criminally culpable in a whole host of nasty activities.. The only reason I'm as pissed as I am at Bush is that I don't think anybody else could have fucked things up this badly if they deliberately *tried* to. Every single instance where Bush has made a decision, in my view, he's made the *worst* possible choice he could have made. It's pathetic to have to call someone that fucking *stupid* "my leader". And Hillary.. And McCain.. and once again, like I give a shit about the Dems? I just got done saying that the *only* reason I liked Obama was because he's got a bit of optimism about him. As if there's even *remotely* any difference between a Democrat and a Republican, Ent? Look.. they're *both* out to increase their collective power at the expense of the people.. and it doesn't matter a tinker's damn which side of the aisle you support.. As long as they *both* remain in power, they don't care. It's just a giant mass of bread and circuses designed to keep them all laughing their way to the bank. Democrats "purport" to support bits on civil rights, social issues, etc. Whether they actually *do* or not depends almost wholly on what *they* get out of it. Pretty much the same deal with Republicans... except they don't even bother to pay lip service to the ideas of civil rights, social services, environmental regulation, etc. So while I suppose that makes Republicans more *honest*.. it doesn't make them any less *bastards*. He doesn't get impeached because he serves the interests of the people who *own* congress.. and because those same people have all the media coverage they want to get the Sheeple of the american public all terrified of "emboldening the terrorists". It's the creepy plastic grin, to be honest. The "Ron Paul" cult is just.. well.. creepy. They think that he's some sort of saint, that he's going to lead them back to some "neverwas" time from the fictionalized 1950's, and that he's going to make things all better, for he is the chosen one.. To me, he's just another creepy christofacist pushing a homophobic, anti-woman, and pro-evangelical agenda. Not that this means that every one of his ideas are bad.. Just enough of them are seriously bad *enough* to make me seriously twedgy. And no, the Ron Paul cult does not have as its agenda to bring the US back to the principles it was founded upon. I've heard nobody in the Ron Paul camp call for an organized revolution against the giant pile of tyranny and bullshit that runs this nation now. Every one of the Founding Fathers would be on the streets with a musket pointed at some politicians head *LONG* before they allowed things to get this bad. No, the Parallels between the Ron Paul Cult and the Scientologists are just based in the "Creepy Denial of Reality" factor.. Ron Paul is no more the savior of American Politics than Tom Cruise is the love child of Galactic Overlord Xenu, regardless of what they or their followers personally believe. But in all my discussions with both Scientologists and Paulites... they both get the same kind of weird "disconnected" look when you start talking about "why and how the chosen one is full of shit". Kinda like the look a health nut gets when you tell them that Soy isn't as great for them as they thought, but not quite the rabid frenzy that results when you tell a mother with a young child that Barney the Purple Dinosaur is a great way to fuck kids up developmentally. It's just creepy.. it's like Fanboy-ism, but on a whole other level.

Drue don't forget that we ARE our government, that's what democracy is all about! For the people, of the people, by the people. That adds up to IS the people. Yeah, call me Pollyanna. Still it's the truth, and it will take a hella moving and shaking to change things well enough just to give some power to some good people. It can happen and it has to happen. First of all, the United States is *not* a democracy. It is not now, nor has it *ever* been in the past. We are a Republic, nominally. Secondly, "For the People".. Since when? I have trouble thinking of a single act perpetrated by our government over the last 10 years that I can construe as being "in the people's interest".. I can think of thousands of acts which are directly *against* the people's interest. "Of the People".... I highly question. Sure, before one is distinguished as being a member of that criminal cabal who enforces its will upon The People through elaborate acts of subterfuge and deception, one is nominally "Of the People".. Except that I would argue that one must, by necessity, be separated from those people in some fashion or another in order to be willing to engage in the process of lying , cheating, dirty dealing, and and the general suborning of the rights and interests of "Those you came from" in order to gain that elevated position.. By the People.. that's the only one I'll give any credence to. Yes, We *let* them get by with this nonsense. We let them rape, torture, murder and steal in our names. We give OUR legitimacy to their fraud by our consent, by not standing up and demanding these miscreants be accountable to us. We allow it to happen because we think that they have a *right* to do what they do, and that there is even a shred of legitimacy in the institutions that support them. There isn't. that's the problem. Even the vaunted US Constitution is illegitimate as a binding authority. When drafted and ratified, it was voted upon by a tiny handful of men.. and Men only, I might add, who were *not* in any means notably representative of the actual "People". Besides that, the Constitution is nothing more than an aggrandized legal contract. It contains in it no presupposition to bind the posterity of its signatories to its will, nor would such signatories have any legal authority to act in such a fashion as to bind those who are not yet born without their consent. As a contract, the Constitution is valid and applies to those who have *signed* it, not to any other. Furthermore, our process of Election is entirely fraudulent for the purposes of representation in a matter fitting a democratic republic. If, in any other contract, I authorize a proxy to speak for me, I am required to put forth, publically, that I authorize this proxy, and duly provide said proxy with a signed writ of authorization whereby he or she may act in my interest. Under no circumstances does this *ever* occur when one supposedly "elects" a candidate to that exhalted group of robbers and murderers who purport to be our overlords. Our vote is cast in secret, there is no public proof that any of these "representatives of The People" are anything of the sort. At best, they can claim to be representatives of "an anonymous cabal of unnamed and unnumbered individuals who call themselves "The People of the United States", and who conspire to project power over their fellow man by criminal conspiracy and force of arms." Just because a mechanism is presented whereby I *may* participate in a conspiracy, does not mean I am *obligated* to participate in that conspiracy. In much the same fashion, just because a group of people who happen to live on the same continent as I do, decide that *they* want to appoint someone a king over them, does not mean that *I* have to participate and recognize this pompous ass as my overlord. And in the case of a government which purports to be "Of, By, and For the People"... yet does not in any such way actually *represent* those people, or work for their interests, or even, perchance, take steps to ensure that the voice of said people can actually be *heard*... such a government has no legitimate standing to compel my participation in it, or acknowledgement of its authority, beyond its ability to employ force of arms in tyrannical oppression of my rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Your government is a fraud, and it makes of you not a pollyana, but an ignorant conspirator in enforcing that fraud upon your fellow man by acts of terror and force. Hence why I say "Don't Vote, it only encourages them." When the People have *ANY* real, honest representation in government, I might consider changing my mind.

One minor bone of contention with you, Ent... the notion that Obama could even remotely fuck up the country more than Bush has. I don't think even *Charles Manson*, if elected president, could fuck up the country more than Bush has. Under 8 years of the Bush administration we've seen the greatest assault on the "american way" concievable, short of the US losing WWII, or the Stalinists winning the "Cold War." While it's pretty much a given that "All Politicians Lie", few have done so with such enthusiasm and vigor, or to such blatantly facist and totalitarian ends. The United States has lost nearly *all* it's international credibility, save that as an immensely powerful bully in the "schoolyard of nations"... we don't even have the *pretense* of a "moral high ground" to take anymore, with anybody.. The economy's in the crapper, with gas and food prices skyrocketing, and the only industries doing really *Well* are those that the Administration has vested interests in.. namely Defense Contracting, Oil, and Prisons. If corruption were any *more* blatantly obvious, Washington DC would have a giant billboard flying over it listing bribery prices for various levels of officials and the degree of influence desired to be purchased... And, of course, we have the USA Patriot Act, and a number of less publicized but no less significant laws which effectively do nothing but entirely trash the concepts of "legal rights", "due process of law", and "constitutional protections", in order to grant the executive branch and its minions wholly unconstitutional powers rivaling that of the old soviet KGB.. So frankly, I am hard pressed to imagine how it could be *possible* for someone to fuck up this country more than the efforts of the last 8 years have already accomplished. George Bush has done more to destroy America than Osama Bin Laden *ever* could have.. even in his wildest dreams. Certainly, "King George" and his minions have had their accomplices in treason... Including almost the entire membership of the 107th United States Congress.. But that fact certainly does not absolve him of his own actions. Now, that bit being said... I kind of like Obama for one reason, and one reason only. He offers, in whatever illusory form, the notion of "hope" for the future. It's full of shit, I realize this.. the only "Hope" this nation has is the breaking of the stranglehold on power held jointly by the Republican and Democratic parties, and the establishment of what is essentially a wholly new government based on a plurality of representation... But damnit, the man is about the *only* optimism that's floating around out there, with the possible exception of the "Cult of Ron Paul".. which, frankly, is just a little too creepy for me... kinda like Scientology in that respect. Not that I'm willing to actually *Vote* for any of them.. See, Unlike most Americans, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the US Government. I just happen to recognize fraud when I see it. I also refuse to sanction the process that forces a set of rulers upon me whether I want them or not, whether they are qualified and competent or not, by participating in it. A choice to follow one of 2 walking piles of shit pretty much *always* involves living in a perpetual stink. Don't Vote. It Only Encourages Them. If voting were actually *able* to change things, things would have been changed decades ago.

Hey hey.. not complaining per se... Just thought it was kinda strange, and was curious if anybody else had the same sort of experiences.. But it seems it's just the whole "quirks in randomness" thing, so no biggie.

Well, I also harvest a lot of Titanium... even just comparing between the pre-nap diamonds and the post-nap diamonds.. We're talking a massive level of difference.. so much so that it took me twice as long to harvest the post-nap diamonds, which were about the same amount as the pre-nap. On Titanium, I've noticed an increased amount of pickaxe breakage over other, softer ores.. and that I'm fine with.. it makes sense. But never *anywhere*, since taking Skeptic, have I experienced a run of events like that. It reminds me of one of my pre-skeptic "bad astro" days, to be quite honest. It just strikes me as slightly weird.. I've been playing with Skeptic for around a month now, and it's been one of the best perk purchases I've ever made.. but I've never seen *anything* like this in that month, regardless of what I was harvesting. Musta just been a fluke then.. but it still seems really really odd..

Ok.. let me start out by saying that I'm not *accusing* anybody of anything.. I've just noticed something really bizarre and I'm putting it out for discussion.. I'm starting to think there's a bias against nocturnal gamers in EL. Why? Well, let me explain. I'm primarily a harvester/alchemist, and these activities consume probably 85% of my playing time thus far. Today, for example, I spent about 5 hours harvesting silver, another couple hours mixing up FE's, an hour harvesting coal, and an hour or so harvesting diamonds. Then I took a nap. Upon waking, just about two hours ago, I started harvesting diamonds again.. The first load, which, for my slightly screwed up build, is 82 diamonds, I broke both pickaxes and had just randomly "stopped harvesting" several time by the time I got to 40 diamonds, and had to go back to storage for more pickaxes.. Since then, every attempt at mining diamonds has had a random stoppage event about every 1-2 minutes.. including one occasion where I hit a teleport nexus before *any* ore was actually harvested. This is about 10x the level of events that I was experiencing before my nap, be it on the silver, the coal, or the diamonds... Now, before anybody starts mentioning Astrology... I have the Skeptic perk.. so technically, Astrology shouldn't *exist* for me. Frankly, I'm at a loss to explain this fluctuation.. That dramatic an increase is something I'm leery of chalking up to "luck".. Especially as it's been confined to a specific time, and over a period of a couple hours.. The only things that pop into my head are "Skeptic doesn't work quite as well as it should".. or "there's some kind of bias in the event code during a given set of hours to deter the "nocturnal afk-harvesters"." I really don't know, but it's kinda weird.. Of course, I realize that EL has a playerbase from all over the world... and that "nocturnal" varies by geography.. It's just kinda strange, this Vast increase in events, when the only real difference is the time involved, and that there's a lot less people around.... Maybe there's a set range of events, and that gets divided by the number of players in an area? I really don't know.. Has anybody else run into this sort of thing? I also find that my likelihood of a harvesting event increases slightly when i switch away from EL to a browser window for a moment, such as when I decide to catch up on my Slashdot reading... Just throwing this out there. Please be gentle. Drue

Please forgive the newblet question, but does anyone know if the NMT perk affects tool breakage? Like pickaxes when harvesting? I also had a question on Skeptic.. I picked up the Skeptic perk, and since then I have remained joyously absent of those "bad days" that had me banging my head on a wall while trying to mine... But I seem to break more pickaxes now than I did before, although I lose a *lot* less hp from Mother Nature getting cranky.. Has anyone else experienced this with Skeptic? Thanks, Drue

Greets folks, My suggestion is for npc purchasable "hazmat boxes".. essentially a container with a certain EMU limit that allows you to place hazardous materials in normal storage. Could be single use only, or multiple, and could be combined with eliminating hazardous storage or not, depending on how much of a gold sink effect is desired. Dunno if it's a good idea or not, but as long as they weren't obscenely priced, I'd bet some people would buy em, just to save the walk to hazardous storage. I'd be likely to, at least. Regards, Drue