Recent posts by Iggyshark on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

partially independent

> SNP majority government
> Still part of the UK
I lol’d. Point being Ulster has a high gun ownership rate (22 per 100 people in 2006) and is part of the UK. Also of note, there was exactly one firearm homicide in 2006 there.

Who won the Revolutionary War?

The Continental Army regulars.

“At the beginning of 1776, Washington’s army had 20,000 men, with two-thirds enlisted in the Continental Army and the other third in the various state militias. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to travel far from home and thus were unavailable for extended operations, and lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience.”

Who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion?

Drafted conscripts.

“The federalized militia force of 12,950 men was a large army by American standards of the time: the army that had been with Washington during the Revolutionary War had often been smaller. Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks. Draft evasion was widespread, and conscription efforts resulted in protests and riots, even in eastern areas. Three counties in eastern Virginia were the scenes of armed draft resistance. In Maryland, Governor Thomas Sim Lee sent 800 men to quash an antidraft riot in Hagerstown; about 150 people were arrested.”

Who fought the Civil War?

The poor.

“Of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their personal services conscripted. North and South, the draft laws were highly unpopular. An estimated 120,000 men evaded conscription in the North, many of them fleeing to Canada, and another 280,000 Northern soldiers deserted during the war, along with at least 100,000 Southerners, or about 10% all together. However, desertion was a very common event in the 19th century; in the peacetime Army about 15% of the soldiers deserted every year. In the South, many men deserted temporarily to take care of their families, then returned to their units. In the North, “bounty jumpers” enlisted to get the generous bonus, deserted, then went back to a second recruiting station under a different name to sign up again for a second bonus; 141 were caught and executed."

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Originally posted by BaconFromHell:

We don’t have guns here in the UK… instead of shooting people we stab them.

Ulster… only part of the UK when it’s convenient for the english

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Aw, that’s so cute.

I’ve already pointed out some time before the Netherlands has relatively less violent crime (yes, that’s relatively, not absolutely) than the US, so the point about “having sense to protect yourself” is slightly moot. Other than that, I pointed out we’re not a dictatorship even though we don’t have to guns to supposedly protect ourselves against an oppressive government.

Fact: US Gun ownership is at an 18 year high
Fact: US Violent crime is at a 38 year low

Are these facts related? Possibly, possibly not. But to imply increased gun ownership in America leads to increased violent crime is blatantly false.


One indication that gun ownership is related to lowered violent crime in America is that right before the decrease that can be seen in the late 90s many states enacted castle and stand your ground laws, as can be seen with Florida’s homicide rate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Good sweet eris the bad science in here is atrocious. You’re about to get an education from a forensic firearms expert.

First, some images so you can see what I’m talking about.

First thing you should notice: The word bullet only applies to the projectile portion of a cartridge. The rest of the cartridge is comprised of the casing that houses the bullet in it’s neck, the gunpowder inside of the casing that provides the force that gives the bullet it’s force, and the primer that ignites the gunpowder.

For your reference, I will be numbering the ways a specific gun leaves identifying marks through the firing process.
Applying Locard’s exchange principle, when a gun is fired the firing pin comes through the bolt face and strikes the primer (1). Every firing pin leaves a unique toolmark on the head of the casing. After the primer ignites and sets off the gunpowder, the bullet leaves the casing and enters the barrel. Nearly all (excluding shotguns) modern weapons are rifled, these lands and grooves leave unique striations at both the class and individual levels (2). The size of the bullet combined with the number of marks and degree of twist allow for make and model identification. Another bullet fired through the same barrel is required for individual identification however. As for the forensic countermeasure of filing the barrel? Sure, that’ll change things. It’ll also be really obvious what you did. Back to the firing process, next the casing is pulled back by the extractor (3) and pushed out of the firearm by the ejector (4).

Never mind the fingerprints that are going to be all over the gun and the casings from loading the magazine. And as for filing off the serial number, I can tell you that doesn’t work either. Long story short: If the gun is recovered/seized, they’re going to know.

On another note, while some groups have advocated laws requiring all firearms sold be test-fired and registered in such a system, success has been mixed. In 2005, a Maryland State Police report recommended a law requiring all handguns sold in the state be registered in their IBIS (integrated ballistic identification system) be repealed, as at the cost of $2.5 million the system had not produced “any meaningful hits”. By 2008, the New York COBIS system, which costs $4 million per year, had not produced any hits leading to prosecutions in 7 years of operation. This type of system has been hugely successful, however, when used to track guns, bullets, and casings used by and found on criminals like in the ATF’s NIBIN system. This should be about all you need to know about the relationship between gun crime and gun ownership.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Mm, I’ll take your word for it. I’m no expert on social gaming. But I would think you did not explain exclusive enough initially – you have now, and I see it is acceptable, although not what I prefer. The requirements were unclear.

I did not think I could convince you that it was right for you, but at least you understand why I formed this alliance now. I am glad.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Alliance Theory

I see. I hope more democratic and anarchist minded alliances are formed in the future.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

How is it in essence a social game? It is, imo, in essence a war game. Alliances are purely set up through the forums; the game itself only has friend, truce, message and help options. It doesn’t really promote socializing much.

Social gaming commonly refers to playing games as a way of social interaction, as opposed to playing games in solitude, like some card games (solitaire) and the single-player mode of many video games. It may refer to social network games, which are a type of online game that is played through social networks, and typically features multiplayer and asynchronous gameplay mechanics. Social games also commonly include a community aspect of requiring friends to advance, virtual currency, and a lack of victory condition.

All of which described Backyard Monsters.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Alliance Theory

The rank structure is thus:

Supreme Duck — Overall executive Minister of foreign affairs — Handles all inter-alliance matters Secretary of proceedings — Handles all internal conflict Planner of gatherings and events — Handles all alliance events Prospectus Master — Handles all prospective members except the final decision to confer full membership

Any decision that does not fall under the specific leadership council is mine to make, with advisement from the council. Membership to the council as well as full membership admittance is by membership consensus.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by TheFacelessOne:

We don’t need to quote when it is just a chat between two people, now do we?

You are correct.

And this is the point I was originally making: a social alliance?

Is the concept so hard? This is in essence, a social game. Why should all alliances be based on military requirements?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

Your first alliance thread had unreasonable requirements and was trollbait. Thus it got hated on. The second one as well. The third one has all three last ones. (What is “exclusive”?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive

I know what exclusive means as a word… don’t be so literal. I meant, how do you know if someone is exclusive, define that person as exclusive?

It is a question of character. It is no different than any other establishment’s requirements.

So basically, you must like them.

As I said before. You choose your friends, your associates everyday. You would not choose to admit those of objectionable character or poor social standing.

Poor social standing, that depends. I don’t really care if someone of poor social standing wants to join if they’re mature, know grammar and don’t troll. Objectionable character, how do you judge? This alliance comes down to this: If I like you, you’re in.

Not so at all. Yes, it is my choice as Supreme Duck to admit prospects, but it is the Prospectus Master’s job to guide them through the prospective period and full membership is decided by neither, but by member consensus.

Then it’s even worse… You must like them in order for them to get a probationary period, and then the members must like them to get them officially admitted.

I am confused as to why you think people that are not enjoyable to be around or liked by the members of the alliance should be admitted to a social alliance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Alliance Theory

What would you define the Socialite Alliance as? I retain the power to admit prospective members, but they can be terminated by either the Prospectus Master or may be denied full membership only by member consensus.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

Your first alliance thread had unreasonable requirements and was trollbait. Thus it got hated on. The second one as well. The third one has all three last ones. (What is “exclusive”?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive

I know what exclusive means as a word… don’t be so literal. I meant, how do you know if someone is exclusive, define that person as exclusive?

It is a question of character. It is no different than any other establishment’s requirements.

So basically, you must like them.

As I said before. You choose your friends, your associates everyday. You would not choose to admit those of objectionable character or poor social standing.

Poor social standing, that depends. I don’t really care if someone of poor social standing wants to join if they’re mature, know grammar and don’t troll. Objectionable character, how do you judge? This alliance comes down to this: If I like you, you’re in.

Not so at all. Yes, it is my choice as Supreme Duck to admit prospects, but it is the Prospectus Master’s job to guide them through the prospective period and full membership is decided by neither, but by member consensus.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

Your first alliance thread had unreasonable requirements and was trollbait. Thus it got hated on. The second one as well. The third one has all three last ones. (What is “exclusive”?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive

I know what exclusive means as a word… don’t be so literal. I meant, how do you know if someone is exclusive, define that person as exclusive?

It is a question of character. It is no different than any other establishment’s requirements.

So basically, you must like them.

As I said before. You choose your friends, your associates everyday. You would not choose to admit those of objectionable character or poor social standing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

Your first alliance thread had unreasonable requirements and was trollbait. Thus it got hated on. The second one as well. The third one has all three last ones. (What is “exclusive”?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive

I know what exclusive means as a word… don’t be so literal. I meant, how do you know if someone is exclusive, define that person as exclusive?

It is a question of character. It is no different than any other establishment’s requirements.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

Your first alliance thread had unreasonable requirements and was trollbait. Thus it got hated on. The second one as well. The third one has all three last ones. (What is “exclusive”?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by lars838:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

People here don’t object to alliances, they object to bad grammar, unreasonable requirements, trollbait, triple alliance re-posting, etcetera.

Would I have had to repost my alliance if it was not spammed by haters?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by TheFacelessOne:
Originally posted by UnknownGuardian:

:( Do we have to target each and every new alliance that gets started? You are just limiting the fun in the future when you take out a fully formed alliance or some other strategic attack plans and what not.

Don’t worry, UG. Most of us (by most I mean approximately 98%) are too high level to even think about getting him. Except from my LoaS Sub-Faction and zys’s alt as well as my alt.

Which would be so much more relevant if I wasn’t purchasing DP. But I welcome you to try, as I always say, haters gonna hate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by zys123:

iggy, that I don’t care about, those are not haters of your alliance, just random trolls

All haters are haters, regardless of alliance affiliation.

Sure…but you seemed to address your statement towards us, not the random haters.

Er… no. After a particularly inappropriate post I said I’d like to remind everyone of the conduct guidelines. Various people have since interpreted that I was objecting to their “dechlorination” of my alliance. Which in fact, I readily support. Chlorine is a very hazardous substance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by zys123:

iggy, that I don’t care about, those are not haters of your alliance, just random trolls

All haters are haters, regardless of alliance affiliation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by cro_cop:

I have to go, have a nice evening all, good night.

Thanks for your civility! Have a good evening.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to remind all the haters of the conduct guidelines

Sure, declaring war on you and telling that you will be broke if you buy dp for a month is against the rules…totally…. >.>

No, but the inappropriate langauge clearly is.

And where would that be? I see no inappropiate language here >.>

Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to remind all the haters of the conduct guidelines

Sure, declaring war on you and telling that you will be broke if you buy dp for a month is against the rules…totally…. >.>

No, but the inappropriate langauge clearly is.

And where would that be? I see no inappropiate language here >.>

That would be this post, which has since been removed. http://www.kongregate.com/forums/81-backyard-monsters/topics/225639-socialite-alliance?page=1#posts-4850352

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I’d like to remind all the haters of the conduct guidelines

Sure, declaring war on you and telling that you will be broke if you buy dp for a month is against the rules…totally…. >.>

No, but the inappropriate langauge and the spamming clearly is. Especially after UG reminded everyone in the second post about not spamming this alliance’s thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

I’d like to remind all the haters of the conduct guidelines

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by zys123:
Originally posted by Iggyshark:
Originally posted by zys123:

Iggy is level 30, ,my alt should have no problem destroying him :)

Have fun with that. DP

I don’t care about dp, it will run out eventually, also, destroying you once is enough to shatter the honor of this alliance ;)

Not if I keep buying it, no.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Backyard Monsters / Socialite alliance

Originally posted by cro_cop:

Lol, again? Iggy, why dont You just join some alliance?

I find they aren’t exclusive enough.