Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EchizenR

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: fueldump bomb won't work?
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:11:44 pm »
Where do you find the bomb?

Linux / Unable to select units
« on: April 03, 2011, 06:25:30 pm »
I'm on my first story line mission. After the battlescape loaded, I was only able to select one of my units, the one that was slightly outside my aircraft. I couldn't select the other soldiers at all, even though I tried selecting higher and lower elevation levels. Is this a bug?

Offtopic / President-elect promised change, picking insiders
« on: November 22, 2008, 11:45:23 am »
President-elect promised change, picking insiders

Offtopic / Re: Million Fax on Washington
« on: November 14, 2008, 02:54:21 am »
They'd rather believe a lie that confirmed their beliefs than accept an inconvenient truth.

Of course, what else would you expect from a proud species such as homosapiens?

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 09, 2008, 03:28:18 am »
By the way, I admit I "hijacked" this topic but my first post here was on topic as far as it concerns the president-elect Obama. I simply said that he is just like the previous presidents before him with regard to corporate credentials. But people started bashing me for having dissenting opinions before even checking the validity of my statements or the evidence offered.

@ Trashman
So regarding my stand on Obama (on-topic here), and the evidence offered, it is assumed that it is all lies or "half-truths" even before anyone looks at them? If people are uncomfortable with the word "conspiracy", I won't use it. Let's just call it oligarchical collectivism, as Orwell did.

"A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same."

If you took a look at my evidence, which has also been reported by the mainstream media, then you'll realise that Obama is no different than any corporate-bought president. By the way, as a sidenote, I can't believe how all of you ignored Operation Northwoods given it being (blatantly) in the historical record and not needing any so-called leap of faith.

@ Darkpriest
Glad you mentioned the North American Union (SPP signed without congressional approval, which is being implemented by stealth and eroding the sovereignty of the US. If you've heard about the NAU, and look at other sovereignty-eroding institutions like the EU, the AU and the coming Asian Union, doesn't this signal a move away from national sovereignty to supranational sovereignty that concentrates power in a small group of elites? Lord Acton remarked that "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Regardless whether a black man has become the president of the United States, (white) people still regard coloured as different and thus, subconsciously, still engage in discriminatory behaviour, whether significant or trivial. I couldn't help noticing you were from the Netherlands. I'm sure Geert Wilders would be a good example of this, not that I necessarily disagree with him. But people tend to alienate people that are different, or hold different beliefs from them. Moreover, if blacks become (hypothetically) more out-spoken against white because of this, it may provoke even more racial strife.

@ Duke
I made a mistake with the solar panel as you pointed out. I apologise. Looking beyond that, is this reason to disregard everything else I posted? Let's say I don't say anything and just give you a news article that shows the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007 by Judicial Watch of whom Obama (again, on-topic) is one of, including Hillary Clinton.

If everyone likes to defend their worldview so much, and rejects all challenging views, then please come to your own conclusion. Not that I'm a pessimistic $%#@, but I'm reiterating my stand (see above) on an Obama presidency which so many have erroneously (in my opinion) think represents "change" and are in irrational raptures.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 08, 2008, 01:04:19 pm »
To elaborate...first, you don't really see it. Energy and food will never be free. Becaue behind every loaf of bread, every watt of energy is human labor. And even if you somehow manage to secure that, for example via robots, and robots doing that is sound of far future, more and more things will become basic needs. Shelter, heating, soft bed, some point you will always need human work. So you will need some rules, and who makes rules? Government. And you will need also some way of enforcing these rules. If you had not, lots of people would do nothing. You will always have people doing art, R&D and other interesting things, but you will have nobody to do uninteresting, but nescessary work. And it can't work that way...

You overestimate power of our current technology...and also you underestimate the need of "driving force" for humans.

But energy and food is in abundance today by virtue of technology, like I pointed out in my previous posts. Without money, there will be a revolution in consciousness so much as that it'll be almost impossible to imagine such a system. I know most people may say that humans will lose their motivation. When the profit-driven motive disappears, I'm sure humans will find another incentive. Perhaps exploring the oceans or outer space? Regulation and laws would have be approached differently since without money, most of our social ills disappear. The regulation of the system could very well be done by supercomputers.

True, this system needs to worked out in more detail but given that the Singularity is approaching, it is vital that people are aware of this potential change.

Please visit , this IS the change we need.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 08, 2008, 12:29:57 pm »
Some years ago, Europe started widely supporting biofuels. It looked nice-renewable alternative for fossil fuels until we find better source of power. It wnt on for a year or two, and you could see biogas almost at every gas station. was revealed that by planting, harvesting and processing crops for biofuel you use up more fuel than you gain from it, and also they burn less effectively, resulting in increased pollution. FAIL. That is what you get from rushing the untested technology. Atually lots of "ecolological" tech ends this way.

I don't deny there were and are scenarios how to start war. But it doesn'ŧ meant it has been or will be carried out. It's like you would be walking down the street, look at nice girl, and get arrested (or at least accused) for raping.
Your "alternative" as you describe was actually tested. The experiment is now known as Soviet russia. Yes, what you describe IS communism, it's the estabilishment Marx and Engels wrote about. You know, that needs some unreal conditions to be fulfilled before it is implemented. The most impotant you noted. Profit motivation. And here is the problem. We had it before we invented the money. Our ancestors had it before they crawled out of the sea. It is one of driving forces for all living beings, the self-preservation. Money is just one form of its expression. It is highly unlikely that we will EVER be completely free of it, and totally impossible that it is going to happen in a next millenium...

Yeah, and the UN condemned biofuels as a "crime against humanity" because it was causing most of the rise in food prices.

Well, I guess there WERE WMDs in Iraq and those plans for an Afghanistan invasion weren't sitting on the president's desk before 9/11.

I thought I qualified myself when I introduced my "alternative" presented in . No doubt it will sound like communism, I guess I need to elaborate. Under communism, there is still a ruling elite functioning in a monetary system and the elite use a command economy to control the country. In this technological age, we could wipe out scarcity and abolish money because when everyone has been satisfied (when there is an abundance of energy and food), the desire to preserve oneself by exploiting others is gone. You could well say that it is true communism, in an age without money. At the same time, because everyone is well  off (not a phoney goal like under communism with technology), there is no need for government. It will be truly a society that is geared towards human progress not profits. All made possible by technology. But money is such an age-old institution (that is made obsolete by technology) that people cannot consider a world without it.

Idealistic, but we have the capability and it'll surely be a more humane world than the present.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 08, 2008, 11:46:06 am »
Yeah I agree, the racial double standards against America will diminish significantly.

By the way, I admit I "hijacked" this topic but my first post here was on topic as far as it concerns the president-elect Obama. I simply said that he is just like the previous presidents before him with regard to corporate credentials. But people started bashing me for having dissenting opinions before even checking the validity of my statements or the evidence offered.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 08, 2008, 04:28:57 am »
The 100% efficient solar panel I was talking about was unveiled only recently, and it was by a research team, if I mentioned anything about commercial production, my mistake, I apologise.

New solar cell material achieves almost 100% efficiency, could solve world-wide energy problems

Of course I could be wrong about the '283' issues I brought up. And hope that someone could disprove them and correct me instead of implying that I'm mentally unsound and by extension everything I bring up is fraudulent. I'm still waiting for anyone to disprove the existence of the Bilderberg Group, the Building 7 collapse on 9/11, the corporate connections that I pointed out Obama has (to prove that whoever is elected has already been prepicked for us- can any of you move away from his nice-sounding rhetoric?). I'm not trying to impose my worldview on anyone. I guess what I'm trying to do is to get people to look at information which they've automatically shut their minds off to. You may say that 9/11 was not an inside job. Fine, but surely there is something to the scores of eye-witnesses' and fire-fighters' accounts of multiple explosions on the ground level right? 

@Juni Ori
Well, if the Republic is out-of-date, I suppose fascism should be fine with you. Corporatism as Mussolini said. Liberties that are inherent to Man are not valid today I suppose. "We hold it to be self-evident that all Man are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Thats all crap with you I guess.

Whether it was stupid to declassify it or not, the point is that it HAS BEEN declassified. Can you DENY ITS EXISTENCE? Heck, the government even released plans for the deployment of US troops on US soil under the FOIA just recently. And we're talking about events more than 40 years ago. If all of you cannot accept what I'm talking about, at least go look at the Northwoods Documents, which you will find out I'm not making up because it is there. Detailed clearly, as I've pointed out, is that the US Government, in that case, actually considered carrying out terror attacks on their citizens to further a geopolitical aim (Afghanistan?), fortunately Kennedy didn't carry it out.

In fact, Seymour Hersh exposed a similar proposal from one of Cheney's meeting,

"There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up."

Interview with Hersh:

There is nothing conspiratorial about it. Its just dirty politics, which nobody here wants to admit. Governments do carry out terrorist attacks. Been that way since Hitler burned his own Reichstage down, to Operation Gladio in W.Europe during the Cold War- where the US Government trained squads to bomb civilian targets and blame it on the communists, to 9/11.

I agree that in the case of Myanmar and N.Korea, the governments are to blame, as far as I know. But the suffering in Africa? Corporations. A case in point, the Congolese crisis which the media has portrayed as a tribal conflict. In actuality, the Rwanda and Uganda-funded militias are proxies of corporations (about 100 of them, according to the UN) which are used to rape the Congo of its timber, gold, diamonds and coltan (of which the Congo is the world's primary supplier of this "grey gold" found in all mobile phones).

U.S./U.K. Allies Grab Congo Riches and Millions Die

About the geothermal energy that can fuel Humanity, at least you admit that there is lots of it (4,000 years worth according to MIT), when it comes down to energy which could raise the standard of living of billions and alleviate suffering, shouldn't the first thought be :"Can we do this?", instead of "Do we have the money to do this?"? That is what happens when you place profit above the human concern. Well, if you think its too idealistic, fine... thats how inhumane the world is. But think about the possibilities that open up as soon as unlimited energy is harnessed.

Yes, GM is complicated, and could in fact give rise to whatever-resistant crops and so on... But consider that farmers are charged exorbitant prices for seeds and insecticide, a problem which GMO should have solved, its simply a policy of economic warfare. As I pointed out, GM companies charge farmers 1000% higher prices for GM seeds than traditional seeds do, and causes profound human suffering in the name of making money.

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

Yes, I admit that I'm not qualified to talk about the scientific aspects of GM, but it seems to me that GM companies are using GM technology to wipe out small farmers and monopolise the food industry, which they already have done. Destroying the crop's ability to produce viable seeds for the following season with "terminator" technology is just a corporate scheme to keep the farmer dependent on the corporations for more seeds and continue making money for them. Why the need for such an unnatural use of science then?

It may or may not be good that GM genes spread into the wild. Not going into the ecological aspects here, not qualified again, but... since companies like Monsato hold the patents on their GM genes, when it spreads into a field where a farmer was not planting GM seeds, and the farmer ends up with some GM crop, Monsato sues the farmer into bankruptcy for infringing on copyrights. Many a farmer's livelihood have been destroyed this way.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a Luddite and am for technology. But my issue is with the inhumane people controlling the technology. You say that energy companies should use groundbreaking technology to get more profits instead of suppressing it. But as soon as the patent is utilised, the pandora's box is opened and the possibility of a monopoly disappears because the information has been released. Why are we still using fossil fuel-powered cars when there has been air-powered ones for more than 100 years and also water-powered cars?

I attack the establishment because I know there can be a better alternative, which I would be glad if you would examine. Yes, I need to experience the world because unlike any of you, I'm have not got off my chair my whole life... I want to bring your attention to the monetary system. Money is used to regulate scarcity. Because paper is scarce, limited, it has a price which money represents. Likewise, energy, water etc. But air isn't charged because there is an abundant supply of it. But today, with an abundance of energy (geothermal) and an abundance of food, wouldn't it be better to abolish money? With money and the PROFIT MOTIVE, which drives exploitation and social neurosis, gone, the impetus to use our advanced technology will only be for the betterment of society, not to make profits. The human concern is placed first, whereas today, profits are placed first. While all of us can claim a relatively comfortable life than people in the Third World, the other half of the world is suffering. Being a social institution since a technology-less age, money is obsolete when we can use technology to give us abundance. I know this sounds crazy and radical (even communist, but under communism, there is still money, so the suffering continues), but that is the alternative which would give us a substantially better society where money isn't used to enslave anymore.

If anyone is interested, information on this movement can be found at:

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 07, 2008, 05:00:23 pm »
...if the government is controlling me while I go take care of these other things, spying on me, reporting my activities to aliens, whatever, I don't care - What the hell.  Somewhere, at some point, one has to put their foot down and say "enough is enough!"  Well, that's what I'm doing here.

Before I go, as my last note here, I'll say that if you were to apply that wild imagination and creativity of yours in the right way along with your long-winded thoughts, I'd imagine you could very well write a good book or two, and perhaps make something out of it.

I don't know what you're ostracising whatever I've posted, because I have not asserted anything about governments "controlling" people or "aliens" spying on people. I'm talking about the growing governmental powers that are bordering, in some cases, becoming tyrannical. Which is very real in the world. Since when did the Founding Fathers intended for the Executive Branch to usurp the checks and balance system for a system where the president can freely pass Executive Orders and write them into law?

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I've presented a primary historical document, the Northwood Documents and yet, you still think I'm a paranoid nut. Its in the history books.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 07, 2008, 04:33:58 pm »
Very amusing analogy. I don't profess to hold the "one truth faith", in fact you'll probably agree that no one does. And I don't agree with the missionary label because if there is any chance that I am wrong, and there is evidence for it, I will not religiously hold on to a belief that has been proven wrong. But, as Jefferson said:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to accidental opinion of the day but a Series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."

(And that is why I presented evidence that an Obama presidency would not change anything because he is also a corporate insider, evident from his support for a trillion dollar gift to Wall Street banks- which I elaborated in my first few posts.)

Whatever evidence I've presented "proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery". If you don't agree, there MUST be a reason. Is it possible for anyone to act without rational reasoning? You probably say that you don't have a reason for rejecting whatever I've presented because it might have stirred up some emotional response to the perception of a conspiracy, and having been conditioned to reject that, you do. I'm guessing here, so don't get offended.

If such evidence is useless, pray tell me how would you come to a conclusion about objective reality?

Sorry for putting you on the spot, but in glancing at just some of what you post, I see a lot of jumping to wild conclusions left and right, very questionable conclusions that in most cases could be defeated by common sense, but there are just so many of them that it isn't worth the substantial amount of time it would take to show evidence that most of these concepts don't really "hold water."

I have to agree with Winter:

Honestly EchizenR, if someone were in front of me telling me everything you've posted here, I can picture such a person as a wild-eyed, downright frantic individual running in circles screaming "Help!  Help!  Mass government conspiracies in action!  We're all slaves!  We're all going to be controlled and suffer a fate worse than death!  Aaaaaahhhhh!!! (pant) (pant) (pant)"

Adding to the problem is the sheer volume of all of your ideas, bombarding the rest of us with them, as if to intimidate or induce a panic.

Do governments lie? Yes.  Do politicians lie? Yes.  Do they cover things up and manipulate things?  Yes.  All of them do.  Do they do it to the extent that you imply, taking it that far?  I doubt it, I have to say no when it comes to that.

Really? Please enlighten me. I would really like be able to connect with people on these issues so could you tell me one issue that you think is highly illogical and labels me as a raving lunatic?

I have never tried to scare-monger and if I have, I apologised. My aim was to get people to realise that reality is not as it seems. I know I can get long-minded at times, because there is so much to say. That image that you described is quite funny though it is ironic that you used such an imagery because (think about it) if most people rejects controversial and challenging ideas, then aren't they slaves? Except in the intellectual sense? In fact, I think its impossible for someone like me to run around screaming like you pictured. Probably, you got the idea from TV and thus, could explain your perception of such people. Another irony would be that when you realise that your mind has been controlled by conditioning, you dont panic, but become able to react in a calmer way. Suppose you know that a government will carry out a terror attack. When the terror attack hits, instead of being caught up in the wave of fear that is designed to sweep the country, and perhaps be used to pass, say, the PATRIOT Act, you know who is to be blamed and will avoid being emotionally exploited.

On 9/11, could anyone tell me how WTC building 7 collapsed just like the two Twin Towers, in controlled demolition style? Even though it wasn't hit by a plane and had only 2 isolated pockets of fire? Is not this proof of some, if not entire, government complicity?

By presenting the "dark-side" of the world, I don't intend to frighten. Knowledge is power, and if you know, you can do something to change it. Like I pointed out in a previous post, corporations have exploited Humanity to an absurd degree. But if no one (or at least most people) is aware of it, then there cannot be any correction to society.

When you say that you don't think governments "take it that far", what do you mean? Do you mean you THINK they will never kill their own citizens in a terror attack? Well, lets just use 9/11 as an example, as usual. Historically, there is a precedent for this kind of inhumane treatment by governments. In 1963, the Joint Chiefs of Staffs drew up Operation Northwoods which spelled out a terror attacks conducted by the government to be blamed on Cuba and justify an invasion of the communist island (sound familiar)? Let me quote some stuff from the declassified documents which you can easily get on the public domain.

"...have considered...a request...for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba."

"...based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the [US] in the position of suffering justifiable grievances."

"Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the [US]."

"A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base...blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires...burn aircraft on air base...lob mortar shells from outside of base into base...sabotage ship in harbour...sink ship near habour entrance..."

"...blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters... We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington..."

Need I quote more, although there IS more...There is no need to fear, or panic. Simply being aware of this is enough to open your mind to more information which will enable one to realise what is happening. And yes, that's what I do. Using the information I have, I come to a conclusion about the world. What is wrong with that?

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 07, 2008, 03:09:15 pm »
Well there must be a reason why you reject such views, whether because you might be afraid to come to terms with certain things, or afraid to be proven wrong, or some other reason. Or is it that everything I've presented is fraudulent?

Anyway, since you've admitted that you didn't read 2 of my longer posts for various reasons, you don't know what I presented, but still probably reject it as inaccurate or [insert derogatory adjective] information. Doesnt it seem like you're illogically closing your mind off to information that you FEEL is fraudulent and the result of paranoia before even looking at it?

I don't understand what is against considering "conspiracy theories". You don't know everything, and neither do I. That's why people shouldn't close their minds to new information. Have you ever asked yourself why you don't take conspiracy theories seriously? Is it because you KNOW it to be false, or are you conditioned to think that away? On 9/11, you're right, that a government cannot deceive its citizen "on that scale" as evident from the many 9/11 truth movements. In fact, a majority of Americans question the official version. Look at Building 7, no plane crash, but 8 hours later, it collapses just like the Twin Towers, in controlled demolition fashion.

By the way, I perfectly appreciate you taking the time to respond, and yes, not banning me for such heretical views.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 07, 2008, 01:20:19 pm »
Didn't read the rest. I just want to say that what you call crimestop and a refusal to be proven wrong, I call common sense. Conspiracy theories aren't facts. On the off-topic board you've constantly attacked everything remotely related to government, commerce or other forms of establishment, as well as made a case for aliens zooming around on Earth. And you really believe in it too. It's paranoid. The fact that you can quote all those sources is testament to it. I get the impression that you spend a large part of your free time looking for "proof" that justifies your beliefs, which is fine, but you'll excuse me for not joining you in it. if something is labelled as a "conspiracy theory" or even feels like one, you automatically switch off?

Its not called paranoia. Paranoia is when the belief is beyond logic or facts. Can you really disregard the sources for my "beliefs"? "Conspiracy theory aren't facts." Precisely, the official account of the 9/11 attacks is a big conspiracy theory: 19 arab Muslim hijackers directed by Bin Laden took over 4 airplanes and crashed 3 of them. The 9/11 truth movement just tries to put forward an alternative explaination that is better backed by the evidence than the official theory. But for some reason, they seem to be ridiculed by people. In fact, the FBI doesn't regard the 9/11 attacks as being committed by Bin Laden because there isn't enough proof. Whatever "proof" you claimed "justifies [my] beliefs" is actually the inverse. Doesnt the things you perceive (assuming this is the so-called "proof") shape one's belief? I don't go out of the way to find proof that backs my beliefs, as people learn new things, they change their perceptions. Aren't you just dismissing people because their beliefs challenge yours or because you think you know it all?

Do you really think that one can come up with a particular worldview first, then go on the net to find substantiating information? You might, but I don't. There was a time when I believed that governments work for the best interests of their people and that there was no such things as conspiracies. But as I learned, I changed my worldview as a response to new information.

By the way, about the alien issue, it seems I earned your scorn by bringing in faith. You can bash Christianity for all you want, whatever I said about aliens, it was not due to any particularly strong belief of mine, but rather an attempt to relate to the topic. I admit I know almost nothing about the alien phenomena and do not read into the issue.

And what is wrong with attacking the establishment? If its mere assertions, then you got a case. But as it is, I've pointed out the deliberate suffering caused by these institutions which can be easily verified. I don't think that "they're coming to get me". I believe that these inhumane actions are being perpetrated because not enough people are aware of it and so, I'm merely trying to inform people. It is due to sheer reticence that tyranny is being pushed onto the American people. Do you call the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 or the FISA Amendment Act sheer conspiratorial ravings? This is not an extreme belief that is immovable. As I said, if there's anything to refute it, I'll gladly take a look because I'm willing to learn. As in systems in Nature, Human beings are Emergent, they change over time. Are you one of those people who hold a fixed view of the world their whole life? I don't think so.

Offtopic / Re: Obama Wins Election
« on: November 07, 2008, 11:55:31 am »
EchizenR, the reason why people don't want to hear what you have to say has nothing to do with the content of your statements, but the way you make them. If you want to know why: it's because the tone of your posts makes you look like a complete and utter whackjob.


May I know what about my tone makes me look like "a complete and utter whackjob"? And why? Even if I sound like one, does it mean that everything I present is fraudulent? Has it come down to this? That people will only believe something if it has the "spin" that Fox News can put on a news story? Not offended, just want to know where my 'mistake' is in. If you doubt the validity of my previous posts, I'll gladly furnish you with the sources.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7