The Gaming Den

mean_liar wrote: As for Venezuela... evidence always turns up with these things, but there's none here. Most states in Venezuela's neighborhood were pretty much hoping the coup succeeded - and so did the US. Material support for the opposition and hoping Chavez fails are different things. I'm pretty certain the US wanted him gone and were ready to accept a new government, but absent evidence I don't believe that they actually had any direct or indirect involvement in the coup. It's always possible that there were actors at the fringes - CIA elements are always a good guess. However, any support would've been a far cry from meaningful, a far sight from Nicaragua or Pinochet. Coups are made and broken by international support and domestic reaction, and in this case there was no international support for the plotters - they failed on their own merits. No US Marines showed up to "stabilize and protect the populace" or any other bullshit like that.

I'm curious, what kind of evidence do you think would turn up if the states did have a hand in the failed coup attempt? The American involvement could be something as simple as funneling money to the coup leaders, if it's just money out of a CIA account and some vague promises they could keep that buried for a long time.

Probably something akin to what was found with Iran-Contra:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-017.htm
http://www.ballistichelmet.org/school/free.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Co ... _in_the_US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

There was both public and classified evidence to go on that was being pursued by public and government entities, and essentially much more than justified foreigners getting pissy at the US for rooting for a legitimate government's illegitimate downfall.

mean_liar wrote:

mean_liar wrote:Z Mag is not a credible source, Frank. MAYBE Covert Action Quarterly. But Z is a rag that consistently reports only one side of the story. In some sense that's only one small counter to the biased drivel coming from the other side, but it's still a biased rag. But that's only an aside.

Did I read the link? Yes, I read the link. My bashing of Z was an aside.

But completely irrelevant, since as noted Z had pretty much no impact on the presentation of that letter. But none of that has anything to do with the fact that Right Wing Governors banding together and machinegunning crowds in an abortive uprising was public record. And for that matter, the uprising, and the fact that George Bush's state department embargoed the country in support of that uprising is In The BBC.

This is not an obscure story here. And lest we forget, Pat Robertson is an arm of US foreign policy and totally supplies right wing paramilitaries all over the world. And his open support for assassinating Chavez was so blatant that they made cartoons about it in major papers all over the US. You physically cannot have missed this shit.



Remember when Bush's press secretary announced that democracy had won in Venezuela because the coup had become the new government of the country on April 12th? That was before the coup could even be said to have seized the capital. The coup started on April 12th, and by April 14th, it had lost and Chavez was back in the capital building.

It is simply not credible to believe that the Bush administration was not involved in that coup. They had a statement praising the coup prepared before the coup took place. They had several scheduled meetings with President General for a day Pedro Carmona before the coup. They gave him millions of dollars. And their claim is that these were all material aids to help with the constitutional ouster of Chavez. Seriously, that's their cover story.

"Sure we talked to this guy repeatedly and gave him legal and military advice, and funds, and probably weapons, and had a pre-written statement praising him for his coup and recognizing his government as legitimate, and we let him use our media outlets during the coup, but we never actually told him to break the law. Gosh that guy is a loose cannon. That we praised as a victorious warrior for democracy while he was actually doing it."

Seriously, that's the Bush Administration's Explanation! That is not credible. No one believes that story, because you would have to be retarded to believe that there is any plausible deniability there.

-Username17

So when the world's lone superpower and one's largest trading partner is happy when armed militants rush through your capitol...

So food shipment are 'scarce' and there isn't enough produce in the supermarkets... Is Venezuela's money worthless outside the country? No?

Either you don't understand international trade, or you don't care. None of the large US news sources will report against their corporate masters. When was the last time you heard a news story about GE's superfund status or Exxon or Dole's private wars? Of course not.

-Crissa

So now Pat Robertson is the US government, and not just an asshole. And local, rich regional governors are incapable of independent violent action. Not only that, the date that Venezuelan television announced that Chavez had fired his cabinet and resigned was the 12th - which is what the US was responding to. And that "blackball" list comes out in mid-September every year due to a Nov 1 reporting requirement - the fact that Morales had supported native coca growth would NEVER have triggered its inclusion on the "they grow drugs" list if... well... I don't know. You present it as a response for the expulsion of the ambassadors but don't mention it also came immediately after the expulsion of the DEA.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/11 ... -bolivia11

Also, "our" outlets? Venezuelan TV was complicit in it - they didn't need the US. What are you talking about?

Your representation is that everything evil comes from America, and those decent, plucky South Americans would never contemplate doing anything mean or bad if it weren't for the US Industrial Murder Military Complex inciting them. It's absurdly reductionist.

...and it's STILL not on the same scale as Nicaragua or Pinochet. You might as well be Godwinning.

Crissa wrote:Either you don't understand international trade, or you don't care.

Crissa, you don't understand inflation. It's not a complex topic in discussions about purchasing power. I'm spending a lot of words here to call you an idiot on this issue because you need it spelled out.

You're ignorant of basic economics. I will not attempt to have a discussion on a topic with someone so terribly lacking in that topic's fundamental knowledge who is also stridently ignorant of that lack.

mean liar, I understand that you're clinically retarded, but try to keep up. Ari Fleischer had delivered a press release that the coup had won several hours before that actually happened. The Bush administration had decided on a response to the coup, and prepared a statement about it before the coup. Not after, before.

Which means the absolute minimum is that the Bush Administration knew about the coup ahead of time and supported it through inaction. But even that is laughable, because the opposition groups that formed the coup had been getting funding and assistance through The National Endowment for Democracy.

It is not credible that the United States government did not have an active role in the Venezuelan coup. Not "it's possible" or even "it's probable." There is simply no credible scenario where the US was not actively involved.

-Username17

Also: Inflation really does not mean the same things in all contexts. For example: Venezuela purchases goods and then resells them at low fixed prices to its own people. So the consumer price index is fixed, meaning that "inflation" is zero by that measure. But the foreign banks that control exchange rates are increasingly raising their fixed prices that they will sell other currencies for Venezuelan money. So by that measure, "inflation" is incredibly high.

So no, mean liar you not a light of simple reason on the subject of inflation. Inflation is complex, prices and wages are sticky, and the exchange rate of money to different goods, services, and foreign currencies does not move together.

-Username17

Chavez wrote:The rich are not human, they are animals in human form

Sounds like a good guy overall.

A press statement != Marines in the palace. Also, [Citation needed]. Equating a major power's expected contact with friendly opposition parties with fucking Pinochet or Baby Doc or any of that old school crap is just absolutely lazy bullshit on your part. Seriously? "Direct involvement"?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sounds like total shit coming from Cheney and Rumsfeld, but you seem to think it's fucking awesome if it somehow fits into your hatred of (insert non-Marxist here). You're a myopic shill that can't entertain the idea that maybe one empathic polemic isn't the whole story, despite how awesomely it dovetails with your ability to hate just about anything that doesn't have some communist excuse.

Did the US have some involvement? Sure, why not, for argument's sake. That's not bombing the Legislature, it's not a few thousand disappeared, it's not anything but (at worst!) typical bullshit neighborhood dickery from a regional power eager for a more-aligned ally. Did you not see the leaflets to Nicaraguans encouraging them to fucking firebomb govenment resources? How can you possibly think these things are on anything approaching the same scale as a few decades of death squads?

How can you possibly so bullshit stupid as to think that there's no native component to this larger than the US interest? You keep dodging that, and it's really annoying. You (though Crissa to a much larger extent) have this patronizing view of the world where it's all US puppetmasters stomping through the Garden of Delights, and it's so played out tiresome that the fact that you think Z-mag is just sooooo awesome is the sort of forehead slappingly obvious thing I should have guessed earlier. You're smart, Frank, but also fucking stupid.

Also, yes, inflation is complex. It's also causing producers to sell below cost and basically be subsidized by the government, and is going to end when Chavez decides they're so broke he has to forego debt payment or people stop giving Venezuela money since it's clearly a losing investment. I'm sure you can guess what'll happen then.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49952

mean liar wrote:How can you possibly so bullshit stupid as to think that there's no native component to this larger than the US interest?

Who the fuck said this? Who ever even implied that? This is a bullshit straw man from your own fantasy world. Pedro Carmona is a Venezuelan. He is not from the United States. He was the leader of the coup. He was a real person made out of actual meat and grown from sperm and egg. He had a mother and a father. And I at no point suggested otherwise.

The point is and was that when he gets money from the NED, he was getting money from the Bush Administration, because that's what the NED does. And when Ari Fleischer has a prepared statement in support of the coup before the coup is more than an hour old, that's not credible. Hell, here's his own rather bizarre defense of his statements four days after:

Ari Fleischer wrote:Rewind your tape and check the precise time and sequence of events. The briefing that I gave took place first in the morning at approximately 10:00 a.m., and the second briefing was approximately at 12:30 p.m. The dissolution that you just referred to did not take place until later Friday afternoon. It could not possibly be addressed in my briefing because it hadn't taken place yet.

You got that? They had congratulated the coup on their victory several hours before they had actually done so! That means that they were involved in the planning stages of that coup. It does not mean that Pedro Carmona was not a Venezuelan or that he was a secret lizard person. It means that Bush Administration officials collaborated on that project. And of course, clear evidence of extensive connections was reported in the Guardian within 9 days of the events.

Seriously, were you under a fucking rock? Everyone knows that the Bush Administration helped sponsor that coup. Everyone. Your bullshit strawmen about how apparently other people are claiming that demonstrably Venezuelan members of the coup were secretly not really Venezuelans is just that: bullshit. But your inability to see the completely fucking blatantly obvious as regards the United States aiding in the attempted overthrow of lawfully elected governments in South America is genuinely laughable. It's not even charming ignorance, it's just stupid.

-Username17

mean liar wrote:Also, yes, inflation is complex. It's also causing producers to sell below cost and basically be subsidized by the government, and is going to end when Chavez decides they're so broke he has to forego debt payment or people stop giving Venezuela money since it's clearly a losing investment. I'm sure you can guess what'll happen then.

This particular brand of bullshit needs to be called out.

It's called a subsidy, and governments do them. All the time. The government takes some of its revenue and pays it to producers so that they will give their goods and services to consumers at reduced rates. Sometimes the reduced rates are seriously "zero dollars" as in the case of 100% subsidies that are given by many countries for health care.

You can argue that Venezuela is overly reliant on their oil revenues to maintain their budget, but flipping out because somehow subsidizing goods in their market is violating laws of economics is a peculiar form of tunnel vision. Governments support and depress prices by spending from government coffers to do so. That's one of the things that they do.

Venezuela has a lot of problems. But "Oh noes! Food subsidies!" is not one of them.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:For example: Venezuela purchases goods and then resells them at low fixed prices to its own people.

...Which is supposed to mean that they can pay their own farmers and for food overseas. The last two years, shipping companies have refused to send the same amount of food, even though the same amount of oil is going out.

Basically, the 'inflation' is strangely one-sided. Generally when you find it costly to buy imports, at the same time you find that your exports sell like hotcakes and you get to rake in the dough, which really offsets the difficulty in buying imports.

For some reason, only one part of that is happening to Venezuela...

-Crissa

Subsidies are fine to a point, Frank, but when you get multiple years of 20% inflation combined with hoarding, shortages, and falling exports, you're obviously starting to run into a problem.

I'd say that his socialist policies have been a large success, but Crissa hits on some of its problems: it's only costly for imports because the government is buying them. It's not costly to the people due to price controls. That's good, but those same controls meant that until the recent currency devaluation, exports haven't been rising - the currency's been over-valued and therefore export prices have been very non-competitive. It's not indefinitely sustainable to run a pegged exchange rate with high inflation.


...


Regarding the "strawman", I think we're talking past each other. I made the assertion that the US isn't monkeying around in South America the way they used to and that the majority of the violence is just echoes of native tension. You especially asserted that indeed, things were the same. The point of my emphasizing local origins of the violence is to underline that the lack of US presence does not necessarily mean an end to the way things were in South America regarding violent political oppression, it only means a lack of US presence (especially in regards to scale of involvement).

Now, you can take innuendo and assumption and say that the US orchestrated the coup in Venezuela. But you're masquerading that as facts and evidence, and it's not there. Every major involvement has evidence simply due to the volume of people involved - even the CIA snatching suspected terrorists off the street in Italy or running secret prisons garnered major press, and that's supposed to be something they're good at. I simply don't buy that between the State Department and the military they'd be able to provide actual non-moral assistance without there being anything substantial to it.

I mean, there was a time when Honduras would've gone down a lot differently than it did. There was a time when Chavez would've been killed before even running. My referencing the home-grown nature of it all was an attempt to address the main question: how can you assert that US involvement is still as it was?

This discussion reminds me of this:

Hidden Agenda
http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/game.php?id=506

An awesome little old-school game.

mean liar wrote:Regarding the "strawman", I think we're talking past each other. I made the assertion that the US isn't monkeying around in South America the way they used to and that the majority of the violence is just echoes of native tension. You especially asserted that indeed, things were the same. The point of my emphasizing local origins of the violence is to underline that the lack of US presence does not necessarily mean an end to the way things were in South America regarding violent political oppression, it only means a lack of US presence (especially in regards to scale of involvement).

And that is exactly where you're completely full of shit. Pinochet was a native Chilean. The Pat Robertson Brigade was composed of native Hondurans. Pepe San Ramon was a native Cuban. The United States hasn't invaded and installed literally one of their own anywhere since Dole conquered Hawaii. The role of the US has always been to provide aid to one side or another in the form of economic sanctions against their opponents, monetary assistance, propaganda, weapon shipments, and in a few cases - the deployment of (generally small amounts of) troops.

In 2004, during the coup in Haiti, the democratically elected president was escorted by American soldiers onto an American military plane and flown out of the country while the Haitian Gérard Latortue was installed as Prime Minister after being flown into the country by an American plane and escorted to the capital by American troops. The United States army is listed as a belligerent in that war i fucking Wikipedia.

So seriously, what's different? If you go to the Big Board of US military intervention in Latin America the recent history seems pretty clear: Republican administrations do a lot more of it. But I don't see a clean break between George W Bush failing to get Chavez removed in 2002 and succeeding in deposing Aristide in 2004 vs. his father kidnapping Noriega. Indeed, the kidnapping of Aristide was almost exactly the same as the kidnapping of Noriega.

I don't see a clean break between what the National Endowment for Democracy was doing in the 1980s (funneling money to right wing causes, some of whom were engaging in political violence) and what they are doing now (funneling money to right wing causes, some of whom engage in political violence).

The only change I see is that Obama hasn't actually sent troops to destabilize any Latin American countries - yet. But we still have our Cuba blockade, and Obama extended Bush's suspension of Bolivia's membership in the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. Things can really only be said to be better or even different if Obama actually goes through with diplomatic normalization with Cuba or goes his entire term without kidnapping any Latin American leaders.

-Username17

CIA presence training troops, organizing pro-US militias, that sort of thing: that's stopped. I didn't read deeply into the 2001 Haiti coup, though that may be a fertile ground for that kind of thing. My reading of Haiti in 2004 puts the sequence of events like this:

0. In 2000, Aristide is elected in an with strange bullshit going on in the election. Some reports have it at 10% turnout, others with the primary irregularities being in the senatorial elections. The opposition (all of them) backed out of the election. He proceeds to act like a dick, but that sort of goes with the territory when everyone acts like a dick.

1. In 2003, Canada, France and the US agree that Aristide has to go. This roughly coincides with Haiti's demand for France to pay reparations.

2. Late 2003, the opposition parties in Haiti throw in together and demand concessions from Aristide. CARICOM, the OAS and the other usual suspects all mediate and Aristide agrees to reforms. They don't happen.

3. Coup goes down in 2004. In a country where the military had been disbanded for 10 years the combatants are basically armed gangs similar to Iraq's situation - they'd generally all been engaged in organized crime and patronage to some extent or another for years and there's no ability for a coordinated government response.

4. US military plane and a handful of troops escort Aristide to Africa. Aristide claims he was kidnapped, but my reading of the situation sounds like they told him if he didn't leave with them the revolutionaries would kill him. He calls that kidnapping; there's no real way to tell what the truth is. It's entirely possible that the US showed up, abducted Aristide at gunpoint and then kidnapped him, but there's a few questions about that: why didn't Aristide's bodyguards attempt to stop the attacking Americans Noriega-style if they weren't invited (the official US position)? How would such an operation actually go down without the requisite shootout at the Presidential Palace? The UN supports the follow-up troops and UN force.

There's no real way to know the truth of the matter, but the idea of a planeload of Americans flying into a revolution unannounced and risking a full-on firefight with presidential bodyguards defending their sitting head-of-state from kidnapping - going down without a shot fired, totally clean, just seems implausible. I can't imagine a scenario in which the US would order an operation like that.

...

Obama has waived any penalty to Bolivia despite their presence on the list, btw.

Aristide's guards were evacuated separately by the US armed forces.

Kim Ives wrote:Well, the “Washington Post” report is good in the respect that it makes clear there was a quid pro quo playing for a signature on a supposed resignation letter. It really minimizes the U.S. role. What President Aristide explained to us the was that the U.S. pressure really began 12 hours earlier. For half a day, he was locked in a battle with pressure, phone calls, and diplomats and military that had surrounded his home. They had come in and, as has been reported, the Steel Foundation, which was the unit—the company which has provided his close security, was essentially dismissed by the U.S. Armed Forces, their former employers. They were taken by helicopter to the airport while Aristide was told that if he did not resign and cede power, he would be left defenseless and would be killed.

-Username17

Actually, no. There are allegations that Steele Foundation reinforcements were held up by the US, and that the bodyguards then told the President that without additional support they couldn't expect to protect the President. However, the Steele Foundation denies that categorically.

Aristide was forced from office on penalty of death and pissed about it. I imagine most presidents would be. But that still doesn't make it kidnapping, and it still doesn't make it equivalent to what used to go down in that neighborhood.

What would the situation be like if he could actually trust his police force? Or had a loyal military? Hard to say. But Aristide's version of events is Aristide's, and he's the only person in total support of it.

Democracy Now wrote:AMY GOODMAN: Does the Steele Foundation work hand-in-hand with the US military in a case like this, with US soldiers coming in?

KENNETH KURTZ: No, not at all. In this case we work for the government of Haiti. We took direction directly - and only from - the president.

AMY GOODMAN: Was the president concerned that the military - or that his security forces - would be leaving? Did the Steele Foundation ever tell the president that you would be leaving him, if he did not leave?

KENNETH KURTZ: No, no, of course not. We’ve been in Haiti since 1998, and we’ve been through one attempted coup d’etat - in December 17th a couple of years ago. We’ve been through some very, very serious situations. The people that worked in Haiti, protecting the president, were 100% dedicated to President Aristide and insuring that we fulfilled our mission and our focus, which was to insure his safety as well as the safety of his family.

...

AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at a piece in the Miami Herald, that says, "The Bush Administration blocked a last minute attempt by President Aristide to bolster his bodyguards - mostly former US Special Forces members - fearing he wanted them to organize and lead a counterattack against the rebels... US Officials also forced a small group of extra bodyguards from the Steele Foundation to delay their flight from the United States to Haiti from Sunday to a later day - too late to help Aristide, said the sources, who are close to Aristide." Is that true?

KENNETH KURTZ: No. No. It's not.

AMY GOODMAN: Did those reinforcements come?

KENNETH KURTZ: I cannot comment.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel President Aristide's life was in danger when he left?

KENNETH KURTZ: I think that the security situation in the country was very serious, and I think that if international assistance would have arrived, it would have certainly stabilized the situation."

http://www.sandline.com/hotlinks/Democr ... E99AA.html

In light of that last comment you can make hay that the UN instead chose to support the revolutionaries, but that's a Security Council decision, not US hegemony. That they made the decision in 24 hours is a little surprising to me, but I have no real idea how long their average response time is in such cases.

Reading a little more interviews, the picture starts to come together a little more (link below - a great article, lots of sourcing).

It looks to me more like the US laid it out cold and Aristide thought they would kill him if he said 'no', and so he felt it was all fait accompli. He calls it a kidnapping because he could have held on with US support, but that basically he lacked the ability to defend himself (due to his own admitted decision to leave the Presidential Palace for his estate) or to organize an effective defense of the country (due to a lack of military or effective loyal police force). I gather the US pressured him to leave rather than to call for a public uprising, but that he was eventually hustled out of the country (unceremoniously) of his own volition but not in the manner in which he wanted to go.

Haiti analysis? wrote: http://haitianalysis.com/2007/12/7/did- ... p-in-haiti

(quoting Aristide)

The 28th of February, at night, suddenly, American military personnel who were already all over Port-au-Prince descended on my house in Tabarre to tell me first that all the American security agents who have contracts with the Haitian government only have two options. Either they leave immediately to go to the United States, or they fight to die. Secondly, they told me the remaining 25 of the American security agents hired by the Haitian government who were to come in on the 29th of February as reinforcements were under interdiction, prevented from coming. Thirdly, they told me the foreigners and Haitian terrorists alike, loaded with heavy weapons, were already in position to open fire on Port-au-Prince. And right then, the Americans precisely stated that they will kill thousands of people and it will be a bloodbath. That the attack is ready to start, and when the first bullet is fired nothing will stop them and nothing will make them wait until they take over, therefore the mission is to take me dead or alive.

At that time I told the Americans that my first preoccupation was to save the lives of those thousands of people tonight. As far as my own life is concerned, whether I am alive or whether I am dead, that is not what’s important. As much as I was trying to use diplomacy, the more the pressure was being intensified for the Americans to start the attack. In spite of that, I took the risk of slowing down the death machine to verify the degree of danger, the degree of bluff or the degree of intimidation.

It was more serious than a bluff. The National Palace was surrounded by white men armed up to their teeth. The Tabarre area ― the residence ― was surrounded by foreigners armed to their teeth. The airport of Port-au-Prince was already under the control of these men. After a last evaluation I made during a meeting with the person in charge of Haitian security in Port-au-Prince, and the person in charge of American security, the truth was clear. There was going to be a bloodbath because we were already under an illegal foreign occupation which was ready to drop bodies on the ground, to spill blood, and then kidnap me dead or alive.

That meeting took place at 3 a.m. Faced with this tragedy, I decided to ask, “What guarantee do I have that there will not be a bloodbath if I decided to leave?”

In reality, all this diplomatic gymnastics did not mean anything because these military men responsible for the kidnapping operation had already assumed the success of their mission. What was said was done. This diplomacy, plus the forced signing of the letter of resignation, was not able to cover the face of the kidnapping.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/16793.html

Lone Wolf Development says using the name of Army Builder in a fashion not connected to its software is in violation of its trademark even though the name is generic and used long before they ever created it. They went after Privateer Press and attacked their forums with a threat of legal action if PP didn't change all occurrences in their forums within 72 hours.

The funny thing is the Army Builder software takes and shares copyright information for games such as Warmachine form Privater Press, GW's Warhammer games, and many others without permission. They even link directly to the copyright infringing files containing pirated material on their website (www.wolflair.com) and the Army Builder program will has a built in function for the sole purpose of retrieving these copyright infringing files and putting them into this army building software.

I think it is about as funny as WotC trying to sue Palladium over The Primal Order. They didn't but its about the only thing I can relate to....

Who the hell infringes on about 10 companies IP with not one but 3 programs, and then goes to one of those companies websites and demand they stop using that companies trademark incorrectly...with threats of DMCA action.

I get why Ema's was shut down over the 4th character sheets cause she gave parts of the rules that are copyright away in them. This is also the ground WotC stands on not allowing any other legal char builder for D&D to be sold.

But isn't giving part of the information to people for free exactly the same thing LWD is doing with Army Builder, Hero Lab, and Card Vault just like Ema's was with the character sheet, so shouldn't it fall under the same rules and have to follow copyright laws and respect the copyright of those companies?

Here is what happened in humour form...(so you don't have to read all the other forums online about it, mainly ENWorld where LWD made extra sure to address people about it even though ENWorld has little to do with minis games.)

PP: Hey some company (Lone Wolf Development)made a program and put our stuff in it without permission and is giving away parts of our game...???? So they are violating our copyrights!
Netizen: I made a free one for the iPhone called iBodger.
PP: hmmmm....
LWD: We need PP to stop allowing people to use our trademark in an infringing manner and educate them about our product so they do not use it's mark in an way to generalize its name to become synonymous with all types of programs that do the same thing such as happened to things like the Yo-Yo.
PP: Its them! The copyright infringers! They sent us a cease and desist? ...

PP post to there forums..."from now on due to recent events we will no longer be allowed to allow people to use the term army builder so it will be changed by the system automatically to our own free army building software for the iPhone called iBodger"

LWD: PP is so mean


ENWorld: Look at these people that steal copyright trying to threatened legal action against one of the companies it infringes! (long discussion insues)
LWD: Hi saw this here and thought I would come speak on our behalf.
ENWorld: trashes LWD
Morrus@ENWorld: LWD can do what it wants but cannot force forums to do anything about this or spend time or money to do so.
LWD: Morrus if it is used in a way we don't like, we would have to send something similar to you.
Morrus: Go ahead and try, it won't get you anywhere. Learn something about legal matters and your own rights. Fuck you!
LWD: I read what I sent to PP and I fucked up writing it cause I don't know what I was talking about so before I open my dumb mouth again I am running everything through my lawyer to check it.
ENWorld: LWD just got served!
ENWorld: Thanks for admitting you fucked up here, now maybe you should apologize to PP, and every other forum you are spreading you BS on and your company might make it past Valentine's day with a few customers left, and maybe the people whose copyright you steal won't nail your tattooed ass to the wall!

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article ... w/19346679

Just when I think the woman is honestly about as thick as a plank...

I find out something indicating she's just manipulative.

Other interesting bit:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/this- ... /19344145/

It sounds plausible, from what I remember about cells and how things enter cells.

Science for the win.

Maxus wrote:Other interesting bit:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/this- ... /19344145/

It sounds plausible, from what I remember about cells and how things enter cells.

Science for the win.

Unfortunately, even cancers that are associated with the RAS switch only demonstrate high RAS activity in about one cancer patient in three.

Th sad fact is that "cancer" is not one disease or even one symptom, it's a range of problems that collectively involve cellular proliferation that is bad. Daily Finance is trying to play it up as having found a silver bullet that kills "cancer" but really all they are doing is finding a trick that, if it works, has a good chance of sending certain specific types of cancer into remission.

-Username17