|
Username: Reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Is Cameron planning to attack ISIS, or just using that as a pretext to attack the Syrian government? And even if the plan is to attack ISIS, is bombing the Middle East even more going to help? I'm not saying force won't be needed to handle IS, but doing that without dealing with why it came to be in the first place is counterproductive. Bombing them and letting Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others continue to fund extremists, will make it likely some other group comes up after ISIS. And not rebuilding neighboring societies and their economies ensures there is always a pool of people desperate enough to join them as soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Multipliers: (center to extreme)
---------------------------------------------------
0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 1 1 1 10
---------------------------------------------------
Max amount playable: 10
--
Odds: 98.329%
Max win: 100.00 BTC
Name: ?
Bitcoin Address: 1JnXF6nVSaYJSuTKbAXnvwGtkApxqf7Dez
|
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Let's not underestimate IS. Defeating it will require sending troops to Syria. Many soldiers, and I'm still waiting for that. The whole world is waiting. Will France be the first to send troops on the ground. Obama and Putin both said they don't want to do that, I'm afraid they will soon have no other choice.
Yes, it always does require boots on the ground. The goal would be to exterminate the ISIS virus, and many innocent people would be killed in that work. Then it seems to require an occupying nation or nations to stay for decades, to keep a reasonable peace. Haven't we done something like that already? Or is the plan to create a worse monster than IS? I don't think there can be a reasonable peace while the societies and economies in the region don't recover from all the devastation they suffered. And while several countries actively support IS. Yes, troops on the ground will be needed to secure any progress that is made, but I doubt they will be the solution to anything by themselves. |
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
After the last successful Promotion of Halley BTC here i'm here with a New Trick to get some BTC daily for free without much effort (Right Now i'm also unaware about the amount i or we will Get)
Just post I'm in to get the PM from me.
If you usually claims bitcoins from faucets then don't forget to mention it here (Planning to make a big happy family) This sounds good. I would like to know what it's about too. PM me. |
|
|
|
still looking for members.
Yup sorry to see your rates are not competitive so make it attractive and get members for this campaign. There are a total of 10 spots, 9 empty at the moment. Maybe he could reduce the number of spots and increase rates that way. 5 spots at double the current rate, for example, would certainly get many to want to join. By the way OP, you should update this: $0.10 per post paid in the equivalent value in BTC, currently 0.0008 BTC / Post.
|
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
^ you're right, but it's too late now. That is, unless he wants to start it all over, and no one in the thread complains about it. Not that the spammers would care anyway, but the rest of the posters.
|
|
|
|
What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.
I think it would be just as bad, even worse than banning them since a neg trusted account will appear to people as their business either scamming or just being really bad. I don't think most people even look at what the feedback is about, just that they have neg trust. That could be the case, but a trust rating is easier to change than a ban. And it could come from someone from the community instead of the forum administration, forcing them to engage with people here. And I hope users who trust a business do it after looking at the trust ratings. |
|
|
|
|
What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
^ That doesn't matter. If you didn't post frequently since you registered, you didn't get the activity. I think you need to post once every two weeks minimum to be able to get the activity later. It's not just about having 120 posts, but when you made them.
|
|
|
|
|
^ PM it to no one. Encrypt it first, and then post that in the thread. That way you don't need to trust that person won't cheat. And no one needs to trust you won't cheat.
like the poster below says, you could still cheat this way.
|
|
|
|
|
username: reyhiesa
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
