OT: SPYWARE/TROJAN and Off Topic!

[johan osterman]

Just to clear things up.

Single player is not affected by this issue at all. Using the same code on different computers is not affected at all. There is no remote control trash your computer function hidden in the game, including one such would probably be illegal. Álso the game does not send several kb's of info, just a few bytes, we have no desire to bog down our less than impressive line with bloated data packages from anonymous dom 2 players.

[numskully]

Graeme Dice, why are you attacking Norfleet with Posts? to me, it makes sense that he is trying to figure this dilemma out.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by numskully:
Graeme Dice, why are you attacking Norfleet with Posts? to me, it makes sense that he is trying to figure this dilemma out.

I'm attacking him because he's not trying to figure out. He's already made up his mind that the world is out to get him.

[Inigo Montoya]

Norfleet,

I have found your Posts to be quite helpful in the past. You have demonstrated an excellent grasp of the game and I have appreciated your gaming wisdom.

I feel very sorry for you. Your existence must be lonely and filled with the constant perception of danger. I sense isolation, mistrust, and fear in your postings in this thread. It saddens me for your sake.

I may be a naive and trusting fool, but I have found Johan Osterman and Kristoffer O to be reliable sources of information in the past. I tend to trust folks who have proven themselves trustworthy in the past and distrust people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. That's my paradigm and it leads me to feel secure, happy, connected, and unafraid. Yes, occasionally I may be hurt when someone I trusted betrays me, but I survive... and I enjoy life. You may be safe and protected on your island of mistrust and persectory delusion, but at what cost? Your paradigm of "If they can hurt me, they will hurt me" stems from a sense that you are too fragile to bear the hurt.

Rather than having the ultimate defenses and being completely "safe," why not strive to be resilient enough that you would allow yourself to take reasonable risks? Allow yourself to be vulnerable if the benefits outweigh the risk. For example, I might find someone attractive and want to approach them, but I fear they might reject me. With your worldview, I never introduce myself. If I open myself to that person, I could get hurt or betrayed. Much better to stay where I am, safe and alone... I urge your to instead embrace life and take reasonable, calculated risks. You may get hurt, get your heart broken or even lose some privacy from time to time, but the rewards far outweigh risks.

I hope you can hear and understand the wisdom I try to give you.

With Great Respect,

Inigo

[numskully]

Graeme Dice: you should be a lawyer, you could disprove character quick

where were you when OJ was in trail?

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Hey! This would explain why he keeps kicking my furry arse when he hosts!

I don't host. I arrange hosting with a third party. I'm mildly concerned with the consequences of leaving a funny app running constantly where everyone knows about it. Somebody else's computer is much safer and more expendable.

Say - speaking of fortresses on top of another, what happens if a fortress is built in a province that turns out to contain a magic site fortress (River Fortress for example, or Firbolg Fortress)?

You keep your built fortress. The magic site fortress only appears if you did not have a previously existing fortress.

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya:
I tend to trust folks who have proven themselves trustworthy in the past and distrust people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

It is paradoxically the case that the untrustworthy are safer than those you feel are trustworthy. The untrustworthy have demonstrated their untrustworthiness to you already, whereas those who appear trustworthy may simply be attempting to gain your trust so as to better betray you in the future. Knowing the motivations behind somebody's allegiance is always better, of course, but I favor the devil I know over the devil I do not.

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya:
For example, I might find someone attractive and want to approach them, but I fear they might reject me.

I find that I'm usually the one doing the rejecting, being that I am a man of exacting standards, but I see the point. Nonetheless, you should always wear body armor.

Rather than having the ultimate defenses and being completely "safe," why not strive to be resilient enough that you would allow yourself to take reasonable risks? Allow yourself to be vulnerable if the benefits outweigh the risk.

An Arab proverb states, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel." I tried experimenting with that advice once. Just to be on the safe side, I wore body armor. It paid off in very nicely when he proceeded to shoot me in the back. As the saying goes, it is better to be perpetually suspicious than occasionally cheated.

[ April 08, 2004, 05:03: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Inigo Montoya]

[quote]Originally posted by Norfleet:

It is paradoxically the case that the untrustworthy are safer than those you feel are trustworthy. The untrustworthy have demonstrated their untrustworthiness to you already, whereas those who appear trustworthy may simply be attempting to gain your trust so as to better betray you in the future. Knowing the motivations behind somebody's allegiance is always better, of course, but I favor the devil I know over the devil I do not.

I disagree. Let's say I'm thinking of leaving my child with a babysitter for the night. You would select the pedophile with the known track record for being untrustworthy with children because you know his motivations are to molest your child. I, on the other hand, would select my mother. You are certainly right, my mother could have been waiting all these years pretending to love me, but secretly harbouring devious motivations. But when I weigh the risks, the individual who has proven himself to be untrustworthy is not as you put it, "safer." You can leave your child with the pedophile, but I don't see how you think you are safer doing so.