Racist comments directed to me

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

But, they don't care. Too busy counting their money.

GET OUT!You need to stop thinking that Bytro count their money 24/7. That's what accountants are for

@AnonymeggABC1234

You are really so silly.

Do you really think it will make a difference when you suck-up to the people destroying the game?

Sorry, but the virtual world of COW is not Egypt or some other corrupt country, where sucking-up to the bossess yields you anything.

It is clear that independent thinking and free speech are not things you are used too. You from Egypt much?

Besides it is pure logic for anyone looking at the developments:

- The advent of v1.5 and then v2.0 = dumbification updates, trying to get simpler minded players who will spend more.

- WB introduction = attempt to get people to spend more

- Resource down-grade = attempt to get people to spend more

In short, Bytro - possibly ordered by dying Stillfront - is squeezing the game for mo'money.

That can mean 3 things only;

1. the game is on the way out, going to get killed

2. the current responsible management is going for short term profits at the expense of continuity and quality

3. a combination of the 2 above

It is just super-sad to see a once great game being degraded so much by a company that produced the game with the initial intention to provide the best strategy game ever and nothing else but that. (Is that why 1 of the founders left the company maybe?)

And mind you, they succeeded at producing the best online strategy game!

And they maintained that for a long time.

And then ... something changed.

I feel Scottish (the oppressed player) ... angry and sad that our woman (COW) is getting raped by the English tax collector (Bytro/Stillfront).

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

some accounts at poll has lesser than 200 messages at forum and noone knows them

did they give money to you to add them to poll ??

Are you talking about ME!?How dare you!

The poll was made by Tafytta... So why would anyone be addressing you? Only because you are from a very corrupt country?

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

some accounts at poll has lesser than 200 messages at forum and noone knows them

did they give money to you to add them to poll ??

Are you talking about ME!?How dare you!

The poll was made by Tafytta... So why would anyone be addressing you? Only because you are from a very corrupt country?

You asked (whether Undaunted was talking about you ref. money given and poll, while you had nothing to do with it, making yourself suspect....if you catch my drift?).

why am i being dragged ito this? also tbf you did provoke him...

what country did he say is corrupt? that comment "Only because you are from a very corrupt country?" is not appropriate regardless of what country he is from.

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

why am i being dragged ito this? also tbf you did provoke him...

what country did he say is corrupt? that comment "Only because you are from a very corrupt country?" is not appropriate regardless of what country he is from.

1. Poll was yours

2. Anonymeg asked whether he was being asked about possible money given (= corruption)

Truth be spoken: Egypt is a very corrupt country, as is for instance Romania or Central African Republic or Hungary. These are just a few examples. There is an official list from the United Nations, ranking countries on a scale of curruption even.

Noteworthy about that UN-list: when it was made under the supervision of a Nigerian, Cameroun featured very high on the list.

However, when the list was made under supervision of a Camerounian...Nigeria featured in the top.

Speaking of corruption bwahahahaha!!!

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

@vonlettowvorbeck keeps saying I don't know what freedom of speech is because I come from an authoritarian country. I'll quote some of his comments below

It would be nice if we didn't have issues like this on the forum.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

@vonlettowvorbeck keeps saying I don't know what freedom of speech is because I come from an authoritarian country. I'll quote some of his comments below

Pls also learn the definition of 'racism' (which, btw, is a scientifical impossibility).

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

@vonlettowvorbeck keeps saying I don't know what freedom of speech is because I come from an authoritarian country. I'll quote some of his comments below

Pls also learn the definition of 'racism' (which, btw, is a scientifical impossibility).

Now you're calling me stupid

Don't blame me for feeling stupid pls.

General Sherman wrote:

It would be nice if we didn't have issues like this on the forum.

@AnonymeggABC1234

Actually I should report your thread, but instead I will use it for education, for I am all against repression and, instead, in favour of lifting up the masses by fighting ignorance (and corruption, even when just spawning from ignorance)

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Actually I should report your thread, but instead I will use it for education, for I am all against repression and, instead, in favour of lifting up the masses by fighting ignorance (and corruption, even when just spawning from ignorance)

Which one?

General Sherman wrote:

Which one?

Oh, I see now.

For clarity, this is what he's been up to:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

For clarity, this is what he's been up to:

War is a situation where:

a. People who DO NOT know each other are ordered to kill each other,

b. by people who DO know each other, but do not kill each other.

Very interesting also to see that both parties are very influenceable with propaganda.

My take on the whole thing:

Bad guys being the Axis powers and the good guys the Allied powers.

The 'good guys' being just marginally less bad than the 'bad guys', especially when counting the Soviets with the good guys.

Ultimately, though, the British and Russians are the cause of it all.

Short version with plenty of ommissions:

Being supportive of the French in the Moroccan Crises (multiple) out of fear of their trade routes, the British literally caused the alliance between the German Empire and the Austrian-Hungarian one. Thus the British are at the very origin of WW1.

The Russians allegedly coming to the aid of Serbia (wanting to annex it also or at least bring it under their influence) mobilized before WW1, despite desperate pleas from Kaiser Wilhelm to not do so, because this would cause the Germans to mobilize too. And once both would be mobilized, war was very likely to break out.

WW1 then caused WW2, the 'armistice' of 1918 being predicted (I think it was) by Marechal Foch merely to be a pause in the fighting of 20 years. And how accurate his prediction was.

Atrocities on all sides were horrible in WW2.

No need to elaborate on the Nazies and Soviets, but do not forget the Japanese (not just Nangking), the British (not just Dresden) and the Americans (A-bombs)...

But in that thread you mentioned, Komrade, both parties apparently try to defend one side or another in one way or another. Ridiculous.

The only possibly acceptable forms of war are:

- a defensive war, like Ukraine is fighting vs a would-be oppressor.

- a civil war against an oppressive government

All the rest is bull crap. There are no 'good guys' in war. That is all nothing but propaganda.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

For clarity, this is what he's been up to:

Yes, that was an interesting discussion. Both parties more or less justifying war and horrible deeds, whereas:

War is a situation where:

a. People who DO NOT know each other are ordered to kill each other,

b. by people who DO know each other, but do not kill each other.

Very interesting also to see that both parties are very influenceable with propaganda.

My take on the whole thing:

Bad guys being the Axis powers and the good guys the Allied powers.

The 'good guys' being just marginally less bad than the 'bad guys', especially when counting the Soviets with the good guys.

Ultimately, though, the British and Russians are the cause of it all.

Short version with plenty of ommissions:

Being supportive of the French in the Moroccan Crises (multiple) out of fear of their trade routes, the British literally caused the alliance between the German Empire and the Austrian-Hungarian one. Thus the British are at the very origin of WW1.

The Russians allegedly coming to the aid of Serbia (wanting to annex it also or at least bring it under their influence) mobilized before WW1, despite desperate pleas from Kaiser Wilhelm to not do so, because this would cause the Germans to mobilize too. And once both would be mobilized, war was very likely to break out.

WW1 then caused WW2, the 'armistice' of 1918 being predicted (I think it was) by Marechal Foch merely to be a pause in the fighting of 20 years. And how accurate his prediction was.

Atrocities on all sides were horrible in WW2.

No need to elaborate on the Nazies and Soviets, but do not forget the Japanese (not just Nangking), the British (not just Dresden) and the Americans (A-bombs)...

But in that thread you mentioned, Komrade, both parties apparently try to defend one side or another in one way or another. Ridiculous.

The only possibly acceptable forms of war are:

- a defensive war, like Ukraine is fighting vs a would-be oppressor.

- a civil war against an oppressive government

All the rest is bull crap. There are no 'good guys' in war. That is all nothing but propaganda.

What is the definition of 'good' then? Is it the vigilante fighters staging resistance against an oppressive government? Is it the nation that defends their allies if they get attacked?

Ultimately, it really comes down to the outcome of the war.

The partizans of Yugoslavia? Heroes. The Palestinian resistance fighters? Not so much.

Also, it seems that many people on this forum have been buying into American propaganda surrounding the Eastern front in WW2. It was the Germans who slaughtered millions of Soviet citizens, not the other way around.

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

Also, it seems that many people on this forum have been buying into American propaganda surrounding the Eastern front in WW2. It was the Germans who slaughtered millions of Soviet citizens, not the other way around.

And do you think the Ukrainians - currently the good guys, but not so much in WW2 - are not committing war crimes at all?

Do I understand the Ukrainians, Palestinians ánd Israelies in the current conflicts? Yes, I do. Do I condone it? NO!

With the Ukrainians I am as much clear as unclear. How much is propaganda? How much is truth? Who and what was behind it all? How much is about geopolitics and thus power & money? Time may tell.

Indoctrinated/Dumb/Influenced Palestinians fight ofc for their freedom and revenge for fallen family members, but they are mainly (and unknowingly) fighting for the billions of their leaders (bc Hamas is a billion $$$ industry, but .... only if there is conflict with Isreal). That is why they committed the atrocities on the 7th of Oct.: it was merely to keep the conflict going and prevent a peace between Saudies and Israelies. It is about money & power; always!

Israel wants to understandibly put a final end to Hamas (btw made powerful by the Mossad to annoy the PLO!) and commits unspeakable atrocities in the process. And how did they miss the preps for the 7th Oct.?? is this another LIHOP case? whatever, it is all about control, thus about power and thus money; always!

Probably we will never find out how much bull crap was behind it all.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

why am i being dragged ito this? also tbf you did provoke him...

what country did he say is corrupt? that comment "Only because you are from a very corrupt country?" is not appropriate regardless of what country he is from.

Nobody dragging you into anything. Just facts being stated:1. Poll was yours

2. Anonymeg asked whether he was being asked about possible money given (= corruption)

Truth be spoken: Egypt is a very corrupt country, as is for instance Romania or Central African Republic or Hungary. These are just a few examples. There is an official list from the United Nations, ranking countries on a scale of curruption even.

Noteworthy about that UN-list: when it was made under the supervision of a Nigerian, Cameroun featured very high on the list.

However, when the list was made under supervision of a Camerounian...Nigeria featured in the top.

Speaking of corruption bwahahahaha!!!