You talk and act childish, you want to get responses?

Really?

Even those countries use Roberts Rules of Order for meetings and such, with a few exceptions.

I would have told him "Shut the Fuck Up, You Idiot!" or maybe "Suck some CNN cock." No, ignore that last one that's you that do that....

Don`t forget vodka, comrade.

BTW, I wonder why there are so many Russian developers in different projects` development teams.

Even if what you are claiming were true, this still doesn't make it a false flag. Learn how to use words, then debate. Also, once again, source the image you are claiming is doctored. Not an article the image might be in, the URL to the image itself.

Bitcoin is a prepper's tool...

No one wants to deal with your trolling is the more likely explanation. It's totally up to you to make your threads interesting and engaging. Most often you just post a link and expect something to happen.

Sometimes I wonderwhy I bother. The Ivory Tower should be the most interesting board here, and it should have a wide range of decent topics containing discussion with some of the more able members.  It seems that I am the only one who wants that.

I've said my piece, so now I will leave it for you guys to use it or lose it.

I stopped reading the serious discussion board because of the low value posting by some of the juniors.

A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag

"false-flag
Noun

(plural false flags)

    (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire.
    (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party."

So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk.


Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored.

I think collective education is still very valuable, but the wrong things are being taught in the wrong ways. Kids should learn how to manage money, how to take calculated risks, and how to make smart investments so they aren't forced to become modern slaves.

Use proportional relationships to solve multistep ratio and percent problems. Examples: simple interest, tax, markups and markdowns, gratuities and commissions, fees, percent increase and decrease, percent error.

Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it.

"That’s not altered, that’s sped up," said Conway of the video, "They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s a first down or a touchdown. I have to disagree with, I think, the overwrought description of this video being doctored."


Conway's statement is mind-boggling on a couple of counts. For one, speeding something up almost certainly falls under the definition of altering it. And sports analysts don’t usually speed up the action to get a clearer look at it—slowing things down tends to offer a more detailed look.

The idea of the Ivory Tower was to take threads away from the spam infested boards, and to generate higher quality discussions. Suggesting that topics are posted on the bounty hunting boards is counter to the concept of the IT board.

4 of the first five threads were started by me, -

One cent crypto coins - I'm interested in starting a small speculation club for fun, and wanted to try some of the undervalued cryptos.

Will Russia create a new European Union? - OK that's a political one, and could be a cospiracy theory candidate.

The Hublot Bitcoin watch has sold out. - Bitcoin collectables and memorabilia are interesting to many members here.

Will liquidation chop bots kill amateur trading in Bitcoin? A possible discussion topic for day traders in Bitcoin

I think there is a reasonable mix there, and it is probably unfair to tar with with a tin foil hat for all my threads.

Not in the case of the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warm Period. Not in the case of many other natural phenomena. Guess you are just wrong on that.

It's a good job that the US doesn't do any hacking or spying, and that they don't interfere inthe politics of any other countries.

Well of course it doesn't does it? Microsoft is a deep state globalist organisation, and is therefore above the US, which is manipulated by the unicorns like Obama and Clinton.

We won't even start on the Fed.

the villification of Russia

Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

2004—Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(1), struck out “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.

1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).