as someone who desperately tries to prove his unique nature by saying obscure things and pretending to be different from the rest of humanity. The reality is, you're no different than anyone else. Maybe you'll grow out of it. Maybe not. No one really gives a fuck.
Either you did attack the conjie in town, or Agedlidhchdhshskhff warranted on some bullshit. He seems newbish, but I suspect he isn't and just plays that way. So you either earned it, or he placed it knowing no one would care that he did, which is more likely, and you were foolish enough to play into his plans. Either way, bad choice by you.
If possible, I'm seeking public opinion polls at the onset of the war, pre-Tet Offensive, and post-Walter Cronkite's notorious "stalemate broadcast editorial" that left LBJ saying if he'd lost Cronkite, he'd lost middle America, circa 1968
I'm working on a term paper re: Vietnam, and need public opinion polls (valid citable sources preferable) on both the war and LBJ during that time.
I'v found some sources, but they're neither reputable, nor do they indicate where they attained the poll information that is portrayed.
Thanks,
Carth
between a hater and someone calling out another player on their bullshit?
At some point, it gets tiring having to tread through posts of certain players tooting their own horns, or stroking the image/ego of their ooc connects.
Sadly, commentary regarding their annoyances often digresses into the pissing matches that spam entire pages. Such is the way of the internet, though. Most people are
is that despite Ahtieli's player actually having some PK skill, he's become so accustomed to having his lackeys there to support his efforts that he too becomes obsolete without the extra help. So basically, eliminate the support players and he's not going to bother sticking around to influence anything. At least not until his support unghosts. And he's not as much of a thr
Some people play this game because they enjoy playing the game, and all the aspects that it entails. Sometimes, that means taking on a challenge that may not be the most rewarding experience in terms of success in deathfulness, or merely survival. It has other ways of being suitably rewarding, but I'm pretty sure, having played against you, that you're very well aware of that.
So
That Ahtieli didn't stick around and try to land the killing strike on Mirto, as per every log I've ever seen of Ahtieli, sitting around waiting during fights to time it just so.
Mirto, on the other hand, would have had you both battered to death if you'd just missed a bash. And your wraths. And generally not fucked him up so badly you killed him. Really.
Is that I do not march to your beat. If you want to make your point, YOU post the fucking logs that you think validate your bullshit opinion. But if you want to impress, or really make your point, then start posting logs that show your skill as a lich (of which you have arguably none, and your gank-o-meter is off the charts) or something that was never posted on Glimo or Straad's pages.
Were you here for Istendil? Golmagus? Hvitlok? Zorszaul or Viscrinth? How about Valguernera? There was a forum that existed before Dios, and as I scroll back through my screen saves from over and nearly a decade ago (obviously not all those names apply), I don't see anything that intimates your presence, on Dios or at that time. Who were you then? You posted like you were the kingshit
You presumed, in your Russian obstinance, but if you call me out on logs that you and I have both read, assuming you were even around for the forum that existed before Dios, you can assume I've read them. In fact, I have most of them saved. Tell me though, where were you for Arkand, and his Ice axe Blizzard, when Hivtlok and Golmagus reigned? How well did you do against entropy before and du
aside your delusions of omniscience, are the myriad changes that have pervaded the entirety of the game since anyone last competently played a lich.
Sure, the numbers in the past far exceed what CF typically pulls today. And I would also agree that the big gangs that brought down said skilled liches were comprised of more players than liches face today, whereas today's liches face classe
Why would a thief who successfully garroted someone stop when they're unconscious? Why wouldn't they just continue to choke them out until they were dead? This skill seems more suited to the assassin class, and would provide assassins with a unique method for killing someone who didn't have a vuln to abuse on assassinate.
And if you think about it, thieves in general, just b
lies in the need to make any approximation. If .9 repeating was the equivalent of 1, why bother having .9 repeating?
"Therefore, the notion that you approach one and never reach the point is just in your mind, an illusion caused by your inability to write out the infinite number."
In my mind, whether or not I bother to write out the infinite number is not relevant, except for the
Is .9 repeating an approximation of 1?
Or is .9 repeating, in fact, = 1?
The proofs (read the Wiki, as much as I despise Wiki) all tell me that it is...but they never satisfy the question as to how something that continues to the infinite but remains shy of the finite is the same as the definition of the finite.
The argument was that 1.9 repeating (though there is no reason .9 repeatin
That you can take the infinite and define it? Infinite to finite. That seems like human presumption to something for which we have no real answer. But then, we made numbers, so we can define them.
When did we determine the value of infinity?
What is the "limit of the sequence?"
Forgive me if my unwillingness to accept this grows so obtuse that it annoys people, I simply wa
I think my post below surmises my difficulty grasping the notion that you have a concrete, whole number and equate it to something that continues forever yet never reaches stasis.
If you assume that 1 is 1, and stops at 1, never below or above 1, then how can something that does not equal 1 be 1?
It can't, but it can be so close as to be nearly indistinguishable.
But it's
Because it brings actuality into play. However, at what point does a repeating number cease to exist, and you presume a whole? Your 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 works, unless you separate those into their equivalents, and you're left with something inexact, IE .9 repeating, like my original argument. I understand the concept that .9 repeating is essentially 1, but it will never actually reach th
How can something that goes on forever meet the exactness of a defined number?
I'll concede that they're virtually the same thing, but at the end of the day, you still have .9 repeating for eternity, and a number (1.0) that is defined as a whole (ie, not repeating).
The only way I can see this being supported is to assume that a whole number is not exact, either, and in fact rep