Anatomy of a Fail

In the case of traffic bots, it IS "black and white". VERY much so.

That's actually very similar to a rhetorical argument I made to Jack about microparcel landcutting; that, just because it wasn't against the rules, I should go ahead and start a microparcel extortion business, buying and chopping up checkerboards all over the place, and encouraging others to do the same. The fact of the matter was that lots of people were jumping on the gravy train at that time. Lots of new faces and noob tactics all around that we documented.

That there was no law against it does NOT mean that there was a law specifically allowing it. In absence of authority, one does have to use one's own judgment as to whether something is right or wrong, but that simple fact doesn't mean that any judgment is correct. People can and do often make some pretty lousy choices. In the case of microparcels, it was systematically destroying property values, neighborhoods, and ruining a lot of people's "SL experience". Hence, it is now severely curtailed and regulated, because we finally got LL on board with the damage it was causing. The traffic bot situation is no different in that regard.

However, the fact that there is now a law against it doesn't mean that the previous choices by certain individuals to engage in those practices "right", by any stretch of the imagination. Some things are simply and obviously wrong, and should be avoided by all, regardless of whether the law recognizes it yet or not. With the failure of statutory law to curb it, it rests upon the shoulders of the community to outlaw it via common law practices, which invariably start out as vocal dissent, boycotts, and the like.

The same thing is true in the vast majority of fraud cases. Just because there isn't a specific law against a particular type of fraud at a particular time doesn't mean that it is morally or ethically OK to commit it.

And your judgement as to what is inherently wrong is the correct one, huh? >>LMAO<<

Btw, was it you who argued with me a long time ago about the properties of a particle that it's possible to know?

Well, I can turn the same argument around on you, so what have you really gained here? I have an idea... NOTHING!

You keep saying that I am not worth arguing with, yet you do, every time. Thus, you must believe that there is great value in my words with all the time and energy you spend disputing and rebutting them.

As for being "stupid", I think your post record speaks well to the substance of that metric.

Well, that is, until you redefine "stupid" to be something like "only if people were meant to see and respond to it while monitoring the forums" or some such garbage.

Bad PR is better than "No PR".....ask LL. Every time SL appears in the media particularly on TV, it's usually regarding it's negative aspects......no doubt the following days has 100's maybe even a 1000 new sign-ups due to the curiousity factor.

Personal ethics don't normally go hand in hand with successful profitable RL businesses......if you dig deep enough, you'll find practices that compromise your own personal ethics.

In the case of traffic bots, apparently so!



No, I am the one whom you low-browed trying to redefine "report" and "monitoring" to justify your idiotic tinfoil-hat-ism. It was only a few days ago, Phil; do keep up!

Yes, I am sometimes stupid for entertaining your arguments, but that's not in question.

I don't see any value in your words. I thought my last post pointed that out, but it must have gone over your head.

Sure, it happens, but that is called corruption. That doesn't mean they are supposed to operate that way by definition or intent.

As you say, a lot of that behaviour does eventually get exposed, and the guilty can and do go to prison over it.

Like I have said before, some things are just wrong; those that play with fire get burned. Probably not all, but some do, and I have ZERO sympathy for them.

Stupid SHOULD hurt.

Ah. That was you was it. Stopped smarting yet? It must have come as a bit of a shock when you realised that there are more than 2 reasons to produce lists, after you'd invested such a lot of your credibility into there being only 2

I think the superset of that statement is most definitely not in question.



Then why keep responding? Oh yeah; you gotta stop me "spreading (my) lies!!". If they are lies, then you must do everything you can to stop me! OH NOES!

XD

Stopped smarting? YOU TELL ME!

I've not seen as much bogrolling with words since Clinton redefined "is".

What a galoot.

Let me put it this way. Intellectually, I definitely look down on you. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if you never did grasp that there are more than 2 reasons to produce a list LOL.

Because I'm not quite ready to go to bed yet, and you write such stupid stuff that I'm enjoying belittling you. But don't worry, I'm going to bed very soon now

LMAO! You really didn't grasp it, did you? ROFLMFAO!!!

That's not me; that's my big toe.

Intellectually, you don't even rate as a fart in a hurricane to me, pal.



Yes, mummy will be downstairs shortly to tuck you in.

I know. You're much too dumb to recognise superior intellects. They all sound like mumbo-jumbo to you. I understand though, so try not to let it bother you too much. AH! Of course, it can't bother you can it - because you're too dumb to realise it - silly me

No, I don't bother to grasp idiocy in all its myriad forms. Lots better things to do with brain cells. For example, allow you more airtime to demonstrate the paucity of your wit.

Not entirely correct....capital equipment normally gets depreciated over its lifetime of usefulness for the purposes of operating your business. e.d typically Computer Hardware might be 3 years, Furniture 5 years, Company cars 3-4 yrs etc etc.

The capital element sits in the Balance Sheet under Fixed Assets which is part of Current Assets.(It will be the Net Book Value i.e Cost less cummulative Deprn charges) The yearly depreciation charge is treated as a business expense and charged to the Profit & Loss a/c.

Very rarely would you buy a Fixed asset (e.g Equipment) and expense that item by depreciating it fully in year 1......and even if you tried, the Inland Revenue (or IRS) might kick it back as an allowable business expense because the effect would be to try to reduce Corporation tax liability before even discuss what it does to the Capital allowances calculation. The IR or IRS doesn't take to kindly to such accounting practices.

Should you conduct your own business in this manner ....one would have to raise eyebrows regarding avoidance of your tax liabilities. For some so steeped in ethics/principles etc it might be regarded as unethical.

I recognize them just fine; I just don't recognize them where they don't exist and, pally, let me tell ya, they all packed up and left your locale long, long ago.

Hmm... I suppose you're right - for you. Your small number of brain cells would need to take things bit by bit in order to gain understanding. Maybe you should have a look at the thread at some later time, when your brain cells have rested up a bit. They could even be up to the task of grasping it. You never know

See what I mean about not grasping things that are obvious to most other people? You probably don't, being so dumb. No matter.

And with that, I'm off to bed. I'll leave you to have the last word. I know you can't resist it

I'm well aware of how capital equipment is handled in terms of accounting, and that's not what I am talking about.

The point is that when you compute the basis for profit, money for capital equipment comes OUT of that basis, and is not considered as part of the profits of the company.

It doesn't take two brain cells to rub together to grasp anything you've had to say here, which makes sense, considering the source.



Considering the best you can muster is variations on a theme, and actually haven't had a single original thought or point the whole time, I don't think I'm the one with trouble "grasping" anything, but I'll let you muse on that for tomorrow. It should fill your day with endless joy finding another of the 12 ways to put "dumb", "grasping", and "stupid" together.

Truly, you have a dizzying vocabulary.



Of course! Would you think any more of me otherwise?

as a matter of course...many nonprofits do what i mentioned above with no accusations of corruption, no prosecution and no penalties. it is a part of doing biz in their world. the only thing that tends to change that is if the distribution of gifts and trips is discovered by an outside group who makes it public...but often all of this is kinda built in the mode of operation of a large successful non profit.

in fact...many non profits actually reward large donors with huge contracts etc so they actually give the donated money back in many cases. there is so much that is done that the public is not aware of in these huge machines....and most of it is perfectly legal and not dishonest. given the actual expense cost of some of the largest fundraisers, the actual net profit for the cause is usually very small...and many of the preferred vendors for these fundraisers are on the board, etc. making real profits from the activities of the non profit.

my point is that realistically non profits are often very much about profitting in one form or another.

it was a trade off....LL loved those over inflated login rates as it provided them useful (but misleading) PR to the outside world.

I understand what you are saying, but that:

1) Doesn't mean that all (or even most) non-profits are corrupt
2) Doesn't mean that undiscovered corruption is good or proper.

For some NPOs, they may very much be about profit, when they aren't legally allowed to be, but that doesn't change the fact that NPOs are not about profit in general, nor especially in principle.

Some businesses are about stealing from people (ie, "fraud". That doesn't mean that all businesses are about stealing from people, nor that ones which have yet to be caught make it "OK".

In the US, computers are most commonly depreciated over 5 years.


Actually, the IRS permits some amount of capital equipment to be deducted entirely in the year it's purchased and placed in service, under some common circumstances. It's called the Section 179 deduction.

Funds and surpluses (restricted or unrestricted) are not retained earnings. Non-profits have surpluses or deficits. The difference in terminology is deliberate.