|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 11, 2006 0:14:43 GMT -5
Well I'm constantly inviting new players that want the advantage of the good games that the ladder provides, and there is nearly 600 players that have been active in the last 3 weeks, so games should be out there. I forgot to say "teamers". Anyway, it was just a small rant Some workdays are unlucky on games.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 10, 2006 7:27:02 GMT -5
New patch will be Soon™ (Soon™ is a registered trademark used for any game patches, updates, releases and expansions.)
This forum is so boring. There is nothing to discuss. I don't know how do you plan to encourage them.
Btw instead encourage players to actually play. In the recent 3 days, i was online for 15 hours at least. I got in 2 industrial teamers that ended in 15 minutes because of someone dying to a galleon drop. And i got in one Ren teamer that was laggy and was scrapped in the end. Not so much for 15 hours of time wasted.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 23, 2006 1:35:25 GMT -5
And i guess that it takes more skill to get one of the top scores in a game of the month than to play average Ren Inland teamer ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Oct 17, 2007 3:43:48 GMT -5
Communism is and has been a dictatorship most of the times it was tried, so yes, police state, poverty and starvation- maybe, and there would only be one or two brands of everything- not very good quality either because of the lack of competition. But slavery? I don't think so. Please tell me about slavery and communism. In USSR, slavery = use of prisoners so to do something. Millions were effectively slaves, they worked like slaves, they died like slaves building Egyptian Pyramids. And most of these slaves weren't criminals... So, yes, slavery. *** P.S. I see thegreatsatan didn't become any smarter since his previous ret arded topic.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 20, 2007 2:56:54 GMT -5
USA of course ;D Well, i don't exactly "hate" USA but given that they consistently act like they're enemies of Russia, it's an obvious choice.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 29, 2007 1:34:56 GMT -5
Socialist governments like russia tell the many that they are helping them by banning imports. But these type of policys only greese the palms of the people makin the Lada's and the government officials that ban there compition. America allows its people to choose what car is best (till liberals gain power). The people naturally buy the car that is best and thus get the best productivity out of it. Americans aren't stuck driving what some buracrat thinks is best (least not till liberals come to power) They choose the car that best fits there individual needs. Its like the one size fits all vs a custom fit. And thats why socialism sucks. If russia wanted to get more fords quicker, I'm sure america, japan and other are more then willing to ship u guys some, already built and ready to roll off the boat. But that wouldnt help Lada or the commies protecting them. It would only help the little pee-on that would give his left nut for a little toyota truck. (toyotas are worth it too trust me ) I'm really interested, how old are you? You sound like a stupid kid judging from your posts in that topic. No government wants a free imports because it's bad for a country's economy. Read some articles or whatever before writing something as retar ded once again in that topic. Tell me why the hell recently USA started to whine about cheap China imports? By your logic, USA commy government is to be blamed for that ;D Besides, Russia wants to join WTO. Other countries don't want Russia there. So, in your accusations you chosen a wrong target as well. I can give you a friendly advice - if you want to troll on a forums, especially about a political matters, check your facts so not to look like a fool. And finally, everyone is free to ship whatever he wants in Russa, but customs fees are relatively high for cars. That forces car manufacturers to open assembly lines in Russia itself. Obviously, it's a good thing for a Russian economy. Besides, that's exactly what other countries with a free economy are doing, but their customs fees are limited by WTO. P.S. You're right, Japan cars are better than USA cars. I heard Toyota will open their assembly line in Russia as well. However, i want Nissan Skyline GT-R aka "Godzilla" ;D 4WD sportcar, 450 horsepower with a non-hardware tuning and electronics is ages beyond Ford one ;D Oh well, it will take several years to save money for that one and it's not that easy to get one in Russia, AFAIK Nissan doesn't ship that model to other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 28, 2007 7:38:23 GMT -5
ur the man whip ;D looks like a kia. They probly stole the design. did you see anything about how good they are or is it illegal to say anything bad about the cars there Nah, that's actually a good-looking one, relatively of course. If you want something bad-looking, check this one - 2109 codenamed "smoothing-iron" for it's form. And yes, they suck and everyone says that. That's why there is a six-month queue to buy a locally-assembled Ford, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 25, 2007 2:46:37 GMT -5
It can also save them some money. After all, they do have oil but oil isn't free. They can sell that oil for it's price on an international market. AFAIK noone burns a high-quality oil in power plants. But i doubt it was a primary reason. www.power-technology.com/projects/shoaiba/Translation specifically for ret ards: noone who needs to buy oil. And another clarification just in case you'll find one more stupid link - in significant quantities. Now, when oil prices skyrocketed, it's even less efficient than before. So don't insult me with these links like they prove something. If you want to argue the case, then do so with an intelligent arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 21, 2007 8:59:09 GMT -5
Well, either my country is lieing to me or your country is lieing to you. Just who is doing the supervision? And why would a country with so much oil need a nuclear power plant? Are you sure that it's your country who's lying? Probably it's just a press. I doubt any government officials said that this reactor is not under a full supervision by IAEA or that it's illegal to build it. As about second, at the very least they'll have their own specialists who worked on their own big nuclear reactor. Probably they thought that there is a chance that they'll be able to extract plutonium from worked fuel (but it's not possible in the current situation). It can also save them some money. After all, they do have oil but oil isn't free. They can sell that oil for it's price on an international market. AFAIK noone burns a high-quality oil in power plants. But i doubt it was a primary reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 21, 2007 6:31:18 GMT -5
Maybe relations would improve if Russia would not help Iran with their nuclear program. More lies please, you surely don't lie enough in media. Maybe these lies are good enough for internal consumption but don't try that bullsh it elsewhere. It's a nuclear power station, all within international laws and under international supervision. Russia has been blaming America for thier problems since America has been around to blame. It's an interesting statement. I would like to know who exactly blamed USA and for which exact problems? The KGB have become master propaganda artist telling the people, "well. things would all be good if it wasnt for the USA. cough cough oh ya and the jews too" Well, there is no KGB around here last time i checked so i think you should awaken from a 16-year sleep. You know, life goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 20, 2007 2:52:36 GMT -5
I have not seen the actualy statements Putin has made as of late. I think I understand his motivatioon though. Putin has announced, not too recently, that he will step down for the upcomming elections. This power move he makes now not only strengthens his party yet also his credibility and legacy. Will he actually step down, we will see. Are there behind the scene activities going on that provoke his firey stance, well as a old KGB guy (as I understand it) I am sure there is... Actually, you have a wrong impression about Putin. Putin is not one of the "hawks" (using USA terms). If he was one of the hawks, you should have seen a much worse responses to all USA provocations in the last 15 years. Note that even a year ago only 5% of the russian citizens thought that USA is a friend of Russia, AFAIK it's the lowest number so far since the collapse of USSR and more likely than not it dropped once again in this year (looking how things are going on between USA and Russian Federation). So, Putin policy is softer than a public opinion as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 8, 2007 3:49:51 GMT -5
Good Idea, thats some sound thinking. You tell me why we should put missles in an environment so incredibly unsecure. One good reason... So they can be stolen by terrorists and used against Ameirca. Then USA will claim the right to retalliate against all terrorists with a nuclear weapons, and that's a big list of countries. For example, even Iraq was claimed to support terrorists before USA invasion. Also, neocons in USA will become even more powerful than they're now if terrorists will steal a nuke and use it on USA territory. So, IMHO there is a good reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 8, 2007 3:33:47 GMT -5
BTW, I love Condoleezza Rice. Rice president in 08! Plz tell me it can happen. Anther crazy militarist? Well, at least she'll be smarter than Bush. But the problem is that all these USA militarist are not crazy enough, they're half-assed militarists. If they only were like "We don't like Iraq, let's launch some Tridents!" That's what i call militarists. Militarists who send another 15000 fresh meat in Iraq so to continue fighting a lost war just suck. Well, I'm not going to subscribe to read the whole article but don't see what the big deal is. Maybe you could copy/paste the whole article. In the attention grabber line, what she said is true. Other than that USSR doesn't exist and she failed to notice it so far. Talking about 80's-style thinking. Btw, i don't have a subscription as well, it was translated to russian on www.inosmi.ru (it's a russian news site that translates foreign articles about a Russian Federation). A missile defense as we could get operational at this time would only have a chance of knocking down a few missiles from Iran or North Korea. Or better yet those countries would be inclined not to even fire them if they prefered, due to the probability of nuke being shot down. Well, Iran doesn't have a long-range ICBMs that can reach USA. And even if they'll have it in the future, they have no need to launch it over existing missile defene. North Korea? Well, i doubt it. It's much easier to launch it over Japan. While NK is crazy i don't think NK is crazy enough to launch nukes in the direction of China (so they'll fly over that USA missile defence later on their path). But not too worry, thegreatsatan and all you good American citizens. In time, with improved laser and/or microwave technology, we will be able fry all of mother Russia before they even think properly and get that finger on the button. On second thought, better save that little dandy for China. That's why i think the best counter to that is to launch everything now while all this "Soviet strategic deterrent" (c) Condoleezza Rice is still operational. Imagine all the fun Though the fun will last 30 minutes at most while missiles are still en route.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 27, 2007 7:55:41 GMT -5
Condoleezza Rice was on sparkling form yesterday, calling on Russia to drop any 1980s-style cold war thinking. The US secretary of state's concern was understandable, as the Kremlin has been sabre-rattling with gusto over US plans to install missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. But maybe her wording was a little off, since she denounced as "ludicrous" the idea that missile defence could "threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent". linkMorale of the story: when you teach others to abandon old mindset, don't forget to do it first ;D Well, from their actions it's obvious that Bush administration is living in another dimenstion that is not linked to the real world, but it's funny anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 12, 2007 6:22:50 GMT -5
If America companies get lucrative contracts and control of some of the resources to develop, along the way, all the better. That equals extra tax revenue to fiance the ongoing campaign. If it were up to me, the defense spending of the United States would be probably 50% of the governments budget. Haha. Stereotypes are so strong. Then it definately should be called "attack spending" instead of "defence spending".
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 12, 2007 4:46:17 GMT -5
Our founding fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and perhaps with good reason. Now, the United States of America is basically run by two political parties, who have become two extremes. For me, they look about the same. Is there any easy to read article that explains the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Oct 15, 2006 15:59:05 GMT -5
None of these weapons can be rocketed cross atlantic or pacific yet. But This blows no doubt about it. Hahahahaha Just smuggle some nukes in. Much cheaper than ICBMs anyway. Probably thousands times cheaper than several bribes, even if you'll count only production cost (not including research cost). Of course, North Korea doesn't need it but others may do it.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 29, 2006 9:05:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Dec 8, 2006 5:05:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Nov 23, 2006 5:16:33 GMT -5
Funny. I agree with the ideal of people that resort to personal attacks usually have nothing to back their statements with or lack the mental power to investigate an issue. However, you close with the same attack you decry... unless you are refferring to MMV's win loss record ;D ROFLMAO I closed a discussion with that post civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=ota&action=display&thread=1158837413&page=2#1164177967 Obviously, my next post wasn't a discussion. I didn't discuss anything there. I only said that i won a discussion because my opponent had nothing else to say. If you're interested what is a personal attack, read here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack
|
|