Anatomy of a Fail

You do have a hard time engaging your brain, don't you?
*All* businesses exist for profit. That's what they exist for. Even non-profit businesses exist for profit. They may not keep the money for themselves but they exist to make money for other things. Perhaps you'd like to give us an example of a business that doesn't exist for profit? Dickhead!

You do have an excellent ability to miss the point. Why don't you engage your brain before you write? You do have a brain, don't you?

Oh, and btw, this "idiot" who doesn't have any business sense, somehow managed to stumble into making a load of RL money from SL - liveable salary level. And your qualification for business sense is?

We've got you surrounded, Phil! Come out with your paws up!

Variations on a theme.



"Even non-profit businesses exist for profit." Do you even read what you type before you hit "submit"?

Word of the day for you: "anathema".

"Dickhead!" -- wow, did you hurt yourself coming up with that one? Sounds like you strained something there...



Apparently, however much I have is astronomically larger than yours.



Oh, I've lived well off of SL, but it's still mostly a hobby. Being semi-retired from a long-standing, fruitful IT consultancy business kinda allows time for such things, you see. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I sleep well at night knowing that my customers were well-served by an honest, upstanding business owner who ALWAYS had their best interests at heart, and NEVER used underhanded, dishonest means to obtain OR service them.

Any idiot can con people out of their money, even make themselves look legitimate for a little while, but the slime eventually oozes out from its container. It always does.

Ah, but you tried to make out that the system differentiated beyween human and bot avatars, which was a lie.

You see? You just can't stop yourself lying, can you? You're a despicable character.

I'm not. I don't want such liars and cheats as yourself benefiting from anything I do.

If giving you more credit than you deserve is a lie, then I guess I will have to change that.



*yawn*



No worries. I would rather use my own work, anyway, which is FAR superior to anything you CAN make, so no great loss there.

Clutching at straws are you? lol And lying yet again, as well.

For the information, I have never abused the said "something" - used, yes, but not abused. Of course you'll come back with a load of invented ways in which my use of bots was in fact an abuse, but they'll just br the same tired old lies.

lol. You did have me surrounded for a while - while I was listening to football you all ganged up on me. But I'm working my out now, so my surrender isn't imminent

Just a large club called "THE TRUTH" that I am beating your ass with.

Funny that LL now calls it what it always was, and is now dealing with it, so you are now not using them anymore. If they weren't abuse, why don't you go challenge LL over it?

See? Just more proof of your bullshit, since if you were "against it", as you claim, you wouldn't argue with the fact that it was ABUSE.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good scam, eh, Phil? As long as there is profit to be made, you're good with it!

Mainland sim - US$195 /month
Private island - US$295/month
Differerence in monthly cost - US$100 - or about 66 Pounds Sterling

Difference in abilities :
No mainland sim neighbours with griefey builds and ARing you if you limit the avatar slots in the sim.
No restriction on the number of bots run other than system limitations.
Ability to be permanently at #1 of Places search.
...if just being on page.1 accounts for 25% of sales, think of what being in place.1 would mean for sales. Your display ad will always be filling the search window when results are returned.

Business sense = pay US$100 extra per month.


Unless of course, the budget won't rise to that, and you have no confidence of increasing sales by at least that much.
Some people spend more than that in a week on beer and crisps.


"Business sense" - Hah!

Alright, I'll rephrase it since you are being obtuse. Even so-called non-profit businesses exist for profit. I see that you can't come up with one that doesn't actually exist for profit, and I did ask you. Oh well, another of your lies exposed.

I know. It's very apparent in your posts. (that was about your ability to miss the point, btw )

We have something in common then, except that I totally stopped working (retired) when I'd made enough money to see me through my life. You only managed to semi-retire - aaw - better luck next time

Something else we have in common then. Of course you wouldn't know that as you've no idea how I serve my customers. And I suppose we have to take your word as to how you treat yours.

I'm sure they can, and perhaps it does, but I wouldn't know. I do know about the slime that frequents this forum though, such as you and Sling, but that's different.

"Get good links" implies there are bad links, which implies that there are links you shouldn't try to get. Hence "get good links" is not the same as "get links". You said that it was confusing that they said "get links", and I was pointing out that that's not what they're really saying. I never said "don't get links for ranking purposes". If this doesn't clarify things, then please clarify the original point you were making about Google's position.


What matters depends on the context. What the search engine company says or enforces doesn't matter at all in this debate, because that's not what other people are complaining about. You're trying to shift the grounds of the discussion to a context that supports your position.

Instead of shifting the argument or debating the semantics of "gaming", just accept that people aren't using "gaming" the same way, and address what they do mean. If you wish to rephrase things to describe your understanding of their intent, fine. But there's no point in rehashing that "gaming" means one thing to you and something else to others.


Which supposition would that be?

That's odd. I don't feel like I'm being hit. Maybe it's because you aren't doing that at all - you're not even trying to speak the truth. You're just trying to shit-stir. There is a big difference, y'know

Jack said a number of things that weren't true to fit in with those ultra-anti-bots. E.g. "it's not fair" lol. In other words, he used their language for their benefit. Why would I want to challenge LL over it. I actually wrote a notecard to Jack about it, in favour of getting rid of traffic bots, before the second blog. Why would I want to challenge it?

I only argue about the word "abuse" because it's used in a false way. People imagine things about bots and conclude from their imaginations that it's abuse. You're like that.

Lies again. You can't help it, I know. It's in your nature to lie when the truth can't get you what you want. I understand.

Business sense - yes

I chose not to go to the full sim level until not long ago. I was at the half sim level and never needed to move up to a full sim - I still don't need a full sim even though I pay for one now. There is a reason why I chose to go to a full sim not long ago, but it's not your business. However, I will say that, at half a sim level, I was doing extremely well and had no need to increase my tier from $125 + VAT to $295 + VAT (a bigger jump than you thought), especially when it would have meant starting from scratch in the All search - something that there was no need for me to do. My business sense decided to stay where I am so that sales etc. weren't interupted. I call that good business sense, but you are free to disagree.

Another of your lies exposed, Sling. Got any more?

I'm not going to dig back into the entire subthread between the two of you to try to make sense of it.

Suffice it to say that usually libel requires that the statement be believable. This particular quote from Sling is so clearly an ad hominem attack being disguised by allegations, that it's unworthy of notice. I read it (twice, since it was quoting me), found nothing worthwhile, and moved on.

Yes, but "get good links" still means to get links. It doesn't mean to get any links you can regardless of what they are where they come from, but it does mean to get links. Google does suggest increasing the IBLs so the rankings improve.

But people here do use the word "gaming" as an accusation of wrongdoing - they intend it like that. I use the word "influencing" the rankings quite a bit, which is different. "gaming" is intended as an accusation and I respond to it as such - if I respond at all.

I've forgotten lol.

You call repeating what you said "rephrasing"? Well, yeah, I expect you do.

Why do I need to come up with one? It's a priori that NOT-FOR-EFFING-PROFIT businesses DO NOT EXIST FOR PROFIT. What's the point in making profits THAT YOU CANNOT KEEP OR DO ANYTHING WITH? You do know what happens when you make a profit and are a non-profit, right? YOU CAN LOSE YOUR NON-PROFIT STATUS. ALL "net revenue" profits that a non-profit business makes HAVE to be spent in performance of its mission. No individual or group can benefit from ANY of it, outside of the mission of the business. If it becomes excessive, the business can LOSE its non-profit status.

Truth. Facts. Veracity. Just can't touch this, can ya, Phil?



The only point I am missing is the one on top of your head. Oh wait, I nailed that one, too.



I'm sorry for you that you hate your work so much that you fully retired from it. No, the reason I am SEMI-retired is by CHOICE. I still LOVE doing what I do and helping my customers. I'll likely be doing it until I am found cold and still. It's called PASSION, Phil. Something I know is a foreign concept to you.



No, we have nothing in common there, as I can see how you treat yours from the mere fact that you're willing to lie and cheat to get them. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the "customer experience", as far as I am concerned. I don't lie or cheat to get my customers; I don't scam them, and they are always satisfied with my work. I suppose you will now say "well, I do the same thing", except for the first part. But, hey, I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad, right?



The only slime on me and Sling should be intimately familiar, since it only comes from dealing with you.

I've spoken more truth in one sentence than you've said in multiple posts over multiple threads. Why would anyone believe a cheater? Defend all you want, Phil. Everyone here can see you for what you really are. Do keep up appearances, eh?



Jack doesn't say anything which sides with the opinions of any extreme viewpoint. His policies and proclamations are about as vanilla neutral as they can get. Of course, what he says actually goes through the PR filters at LL anyway, so it is probably neutered even more than what he REALLY wrote, but he still doesn't kowtow to any particular group.

Why would you want to challenge it? Well, that's what you've been doing all along, Phil. It's a "failure", remember?



It's never been used in anything but an accurate way. Gaming traffic with bots has always been abusive. Since you're one of the ones who has cheated the system, I guess no one can ever expect you to be truthful about it, though. Such is borne out every time you post, too.



There are no lies here, Phil; only the truth and your pathetic attempt to justify being a cheat.

You couldn't spot the difference??? Wow! Are you blind to the words "so-called"? oh well...

Because they don't exist - that's why. The so-called non-profit businesses (though they are usually called organisation rather than business, I think) exist to make money so they can provide for others. they exist to make profits so that they can provide for others. Get it?

I just did.

As you wish. I can't say that I enjoyed my work so much that I couldn't stop doing it - I didn't. Very few people are that fortunate, so you are lucky. Personally, I stopped working because I'd made enough so that I didn't need to work any more and there was no reason to carry on.

Maybe you don't lie to and cheat your customers (that's something that we have in common if it's true of you), but you do lie to and cheat other people, such as readers in this forum. You've been doing since you joined this thread, including the quote here, and it's plain for all to see.

hehe. My friend *YOU* two are slime. Of course it's familiar to you. You only came into this thread to lie about other people, just like the slime you are. You can't help it - it's your nature. I understand.

That's not always true.

For example, a local store owner might oppose a local zoning law that limits the sorts of signs that can be used. He might even go so far as to petition for changing it, trying to get the public to see things his way.

But if a competitor posts a sign in violation of the law, it's perfectly reasonable for that store owner to file a complaint to get the zoning law enforced.

Likewise, a business might oppose a tax break, but would accept it in order to stay on a level playing field with competitors.

Oh, I think everyone here can see alright, but they see something different to what you imagine

You're fooling yourself. Jack said things to fit with the loudest people. I gave you one example but feel free to believe what you want.

What? You're crazy lol. make some semblance of sense and we can discuss it. In the meantime, I have been in favour of doing away with traffic bots and camping for a very long time. There is no reason for me to challenge LL's decision and every reason for me to go along with it, even though they have gone about it in the wrong way.

I've never cheated anything or anyone in SL. You're making it up. Or, rather, you're lying through your teeth.

To your way of thinking perhaps, but you are just a minority - one of a small number of people who choose to bend the truth, and outright lie, for their own ends.

The addition of those terms doesn't alter the meaning of what you said or advance your argument any further. Hence, repeating what you said. A "non-profit" is so-called because that is what it is. It wasn't a coined euphemism for something else.



Maybe you have problems with the word "profit". Regardless, they are called "non-profit" for a reason. They cannot do with net revenues the same things that a "for-profit" business takes for granted, and thus have DIFFERENT motivations than "profit". In a "for-profit" company, net revenues benefit the company and its employees/owners/investors. In a "non-profit" company, any net revenues can ONLY benefit the mission and, if excessive, can cause the non-profit status to be revoked. Hence, it is not considered "profit", since it never can be applied towards the things to which profits are normally applied. As such, non-profit companies are NOT focused on or motivated by net revenues, since no one AT those companies can benefit from them. They are focused on their beneficiaries, their "customers", so-to-speak, and their mission.



FAIL.



I've never said I couldn't stop doing it; I said I LOVE it and enjoy doing it. There's a HUGE difference between "couldn't stop" and "want to continue". Anyway, best of luck to you in your "retirement"; I hear the expensive "homes" can be quite nice.



I've yet to lie or cheat anyone here, including you, Phil. Too bad you can't return the favor.



"hehe" You're looking in the mirror, Phil. Something you need to do more often. Might help you from making such an idiot of yourself in public once in a while.

You can dress it up any way you like but so-called non-profit businesses/organisations exist to make profits, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. It doesn't matter what the profits are used for - they are still profits.

WRONG.

But you do. You're posts in this dialogue contain plenty of lies that are intended to cheat readers here into thinking that some things are true that are not true. You write them yourself, so you should know about them.

I take it you don't have a morrir then or I'm sure you'd follow your own advise and with the result you suggest

That's the reason why I used the word "most".



Yes, but the thing I am saying has to do with when that same store owner claims to be for the law, but still posts signs in violation of it, and claims that it isn't "abuse".



Of course, but what's the point in doing so when one is also guilty of the same violation? It is the old glass house -- throwing stones situation all over again.

Like I said, people who are *really* against something don't go out of their way to abuse that something, precisely because it completely debases their stance on it.



You're arguing a completely different point than what I was making, and a completely different situation than someone claiming to oppose bots, but still using them anyway.

If they do, they're being awwwwful quiet about it.



The "loudest people" wanted adfarmers and extortionists banned from SL, day one. Jack HARDLY said ANYthing to "fit in" with that. Your example proves that fact, too. If he wanted to "fit in" with the "loudest people" over bots, the blog would have sounded a LOT more harsh than it did.

Again, don't let facts get in the way of a stupid argument, eh, Phil?



Yeah, so you claim. Sorry, I just don't see the veracity in your claims. It's just not "doing it" for me.

Sure, there's every reason for you to go along with it, since you'll likely get suspended if you don't. Criminals always are the bestest of Citizens when the cops come a-calling.



Oh, of course not, Phil. Your history is on record for all to see for posterity. You gamed traffic through the abuse of bots, cheating the system. Yes, I know, I know. You don't consider it cheating. We get it. Doesn't CHANGE THE EFFING FACT THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

No lies. No need for lies. Just the facts, Phil. Spin away.



For such a small number of people, you sure seem to think we're highly important to spend all this time and energy defending the indefensible.

Then you don't understand the word "profits".

Tell me, then, Phil, why does THE LAW ITSELF call them "non-profit"? Surely, THE LAW ITSELF isn't wrong, is it? What's the point of calling them "non-profit" if they existed to make profits? Is it, perhaps, because YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

"Ding ding, I think we have a winner here, Bob!"



More FAIL.



They aren't lies when they are the truth. They can't cheat readers when they are the truth. Yes, I write the truth myself, and I know about it. You should learn it someday. Would help with that image problem you seem to have.



I don't have a "morrir", WETF that is. I follow my own advice all the time. I advise others to be honest businessmen; to not lie, cheat, or steal in any aspect of doing business. I follow that advice. What is YOUR excuse? You can't even follow your own statements. You claim you have been for doing away with traffic bots "for a very long time", yet you (ab)used them for a long time anyway. A prime example of not following one's own words.