still play it on ss52 when i have time but RL too busy at the moment, its
not bad but jave no idea how people can stay on so long it will takve over
your life if ya let it!
http://www.gogan.com/blog/
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Gary Denton wrote:
> I played it and burned out on it. Decide
I played it and burned out on it. Decided it was more a barbarian hack
and slash than I wanted. Starship Commander at least prevents your
planets from being taken over. Evony launched with massive Internet
advertising, with many of the images stolen.
On Sunday, October 24, 2010, Rceeberger wrote:
On 10/24/2010 4:06:59 PM, Lance A. Brown (la...@bearcircle.net) wrote:
> Rceeberger said the following on 10/22/2010 9:23 PM:
> >
> I've been here...I read the conversations and more or less keep up.
> > I just haven't had much worth adding recently.
> > Mostly I spend my online time playing Evony
Rceeberger said the following on 10/22/2010 9:23 PM:
> I've been here...I read the conversations and more or less keep up.
> I just havent had much worth adding recently.
> Mostly I spend my online time playing Evony, where I am the host of Bavaria,
> a top 10 alliance on SS51.
> We use Skype in B
Again, the problem of perspective:
That the bank factors in a rate that amounts to insurance (for the bank) is not
the same thing as the borrower's loan being insured. It is calculated based on
what might never be recovered from loans.
The borrower can consider his payments insured if he, separa
On 10/23/2010 9:41:08 AM, Damon Agretto (damon.agre...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I played Evony for a while, until other powers decided to farm the crap
> out of my cities, and my alliance disintegrated while I watched. That
> pretty much killed any enjoyment I had from the game...
>
The thing about Ev
I played Evony for a while, until other powers decided to farm the crap out
of my cities, and my alliance disintegrated while I watched. That pretty
much killed any enjoyment I had from the game...
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 10/22/2010 8:13:45 AM, Charlie Bell (cha
On 23/10/2010, at 12:23 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> Mostly I spend my online time playing Evony, where I am the host of Bavaria,
> a top 10 alliance on SS51.
> We use Skype in Bavaria so I can be found there pretty much every night under
> Xponent.
> Drop by and chat sometime if any of you get a sp
On 10/22/2010 8:13:45 AM, Charlie Bell (char...@culturelist.org) wrote:
> On 22/10/2010, at 1:41 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> >
> > One at a time please.
> >
> >
> >
> > Xponent
> > Insert GOATSE Here Maru
> > Rob
>
> LOL!!! Rob, I've missed you.
>
I've been here...I read the conversations and more o
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit
>>differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against
>>the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to
>>default.
>
> Well you can see thing
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams
> wrote:
>>
>> That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
>> wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
>> that suggested you would not strategical
>I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit
>differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against
>the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to
>default.
Well you can see things however you wish, that is your prerogative.
However, if yo
On 22/10/2010, at 1:41 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> One at a time please.
>
>
>
> Xponent
> Insert GOATSE Here Maru
> Rob
LOL!!! Rob, I've missed you.
Charlie.
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On 22/10/2010, at 9:07 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> And yes, by the way, we're having a tough time financially right now. I was
> laid off from LiveWorld a couple of years ago and I've been building up
> consulting and developing some new analytics tools, but it's hard. And we
> have a daug
On 22/10/2010, at 2:39 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> There is no question that lenders have violated the law in many ways -- look
> at the foreclosure mess right now. The reason they have panicked and stopped
> foreclosures is because they realized that they took illegal shortcuts.
Well, that an
Rob wrote:
>Insert GOATSE Here Maru
Every time I think I've completely excised the sight of that picture from my
mind forever, someone reminds me of it. Seriously, getting stealth linked to
that was one of the less pleasant shocks of my life.
Jim
JESUS, WHAT IS THAT?! Maru
___
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
>
> X is very good. My entire alliance agrees!
>
> >"I agree".
>
> I'm gratified
>
> > "Me too".
>
> Nice!
>
> > "Count me in".
>
> Okie Dokie
>
> >"+1".
>
> One at a time please.
I'm SOL (Snorting Out Loud, one click down from LOL). Possibly
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
> wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
> that suggested you would not strategically default.
I'm curious "strategically defaulting" moral i
> So, you think that violations of TiLA and RESPA are properly described as
> "incompetence?"
I cannot answer that without a lot more details which are probably
impractical for you to provide to me.
> Meanwhile, today, I'm taking a break from running an orbital floor sander
> that I'm using to re
On 10/20/2010 1:52:45 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett
> wrote:
>
> > Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
>
> It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
> majority of the
You did a poor job of quoting there, Dan. It would be helpful if you
could just quote the directly relevant parts.
> If I am paying for insurance for the lender in case I don't pay it back, why
> is it immoral to accept the penalty for not paying it back, knowing that I
> prepaid insurance for the
Nick wrote
>"Some of the causes of the depression that Posner cites are...the housing
^^
bubble...
I hope my pointing to causes worked out. I won't argue the point, I agree
with it. But, he's saying the housing bubble is a cause of the problem, not
an effect. Which I think,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>
> >I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
> >regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
>
> First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation. That's sucks.
>
Thanks for saying so.
Nick wrote:
>I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
>regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation. That's sucks.
But, I'm curious as to how the deregulation caused the real estate bubble.
Now one cou
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> To me, it sounds like they are incompetent (although in their defense,
> all of the loan securitizations have made the situation complicated).
> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump thro
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)
On Thu, O
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
>> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
>
> John, do you believe in negotiation/ old
On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining?
There is always the option to walk away from
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> They lied to by saying they had no choice because the loan
> owner would not allow them to make the modification, admitted that another
> division of their own company owns it, then tried to tell us that they could
> not disclose who owns it.'
Nick,
Your clarification makes things sound quite different to me. I'll agree
that being off by 2% on a payment due to a misunderstanding is not
reasonable grounds for breaking a deal especially if they fouled up
substantially. If all you are asking is for an interest rate that matches
the prese
Some clarifications. The problems I had with our lender regarding the loan
modification had nothing to do with whether or not they were willing to make
one. It was the way they behaved as we qualified for it and then the way
that they screwed it up so that we have to re-qualify all over again. Th
John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Hi. I'm with Keith on this. A mortgage is not an
absolute promise to pay back the loan. Rather, the
deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments,
the lender can take back the property.
I'm not sure why you
Dan Minette wrote:
>
> But having said that, it is true that the occasional flair up of
> posts here and on Culture have usually coincided with someone
> bringing in a non-norm opinion, and numerous people on the list
> arguing with that one personor that argument spurring side
> discussion
John Williams wrote:
>
>> Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
>
> It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
> majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of
> the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discus
John Williams wrote:
>
> Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous.
> An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone,
> even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility
> that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay ba
Dan Minette wrote:
>
> In hindsight, the housing bubble is obvious.
>
It was obvious to _me_, back in the 1990s, when I read
that the average american had debts that were of the
magnitude of 3x their actual possessions. I think I
saw that in this list (I certainly said that in
the brazilian lists)
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
> Other than implying that Brad censors his blog of disagreement and
> Nick is dishonest, you mean?
Brad called me a troll and tried to incite people to censor me, which
is not polite. I replied to that insult rather politely, in that I
asked
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> Hi. I'm with Keith on this. A mortgage is not an
> absolute promise to pay back the loan. Rather, the
> deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments,
> the lender can take back the property.
I'm not sure why you imply that I disa
On 21/10/2010, at 8:08 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>> You can leave the troll. It's taken only a few posts for me to realise that
>> John has zero interest in engaging with any point, just repeating his own
>> point over and over, and then
John Williams wrote:
...
Please explain why nobody but borrowers should have responsibility for a
market failure, which seems to be what you are implying.
No, you seem to be assuming that borrowers were losers, and the only
losers, in the housing bubble.
But regardless, it is a simple concept.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
> You can leave the troll. It's taken only a few posts for me to realise that
> John has zero interest in engaging with any point, just repeating his own
> point over and over, and then using _ad hominem_ like he's doing in response
> to Br
On 21/10/2010, at 5:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote:
> Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please?
>
> Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not because
> there has been an outbreak of cheating and
Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John Williams gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
> > It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the va
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> I think that is only part of it. I think that the general trend away from
> email lists to twitter is a strong factor. For example, the Culture list is
> a lot quieter than it was 6 years ago, even though the mix of folks hasn't
> changed
>> Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
>It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
>majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of
>the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that go
>"X is good."
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of
the same opinions. You do not get m
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote:
> Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please?
>
> Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not
> because there has been an outbreak of cheating and dishonesty on the part of
> America's borrowers, but beca
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, John Williams wrote:
>
> Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous. An
> honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone, even a
> loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility that they
> would not be able to ho
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote:
> Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please?
What gave you the idea that this email list is like your blog, where
you can censor anyone who does not agree with you, Brad?
___
http://b
Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please?
Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not because
there has been an outbreak of cheating and dishonesty on the part of
America's borrowers, but because the unemployment rate is not its normal 5%
but is instead 10
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> It was not an easy decision to seek a loan modification. But the
> ethics of it are not as black-and-white as you say.
It absolutely is that simple. A honest, responsible person does not make
an agreement and then refuse to honor it. An hone
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Is that true for people who borrow from loan sharks? Does the lender's
> behavior matter not?
An honorable person would not borrow from anyone, loan shark or
otherwise, and then attempt to renege on the pay back agreement. It is
really not a
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> But regardless, it is a simple concept. Honor, honesty, integrity,
> whatever you want to call it. If a person agrees to something
> voluntarily, then they should keep their word.
> I'm pretty sure you voluntarily agreed to borrow money an
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
> In hindsight, the housing bubble is obvious. Heck, at the time, I knew
> there was a housing bubble, and if you look at Brin-l archives, you will
> see
> that I wrote it.
>
It was clear that values were high. That was always clear to me.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I didn't say it was someone else's fault. I'm a taxpayer, too. I am also
> responsible for the bad policies.
So, if it is not someone else's fault, why do you think someone else
should pay for money that you borrowed? It sounds like you are
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Nick Arnett
> wrote:
> > The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial
> > industry so much that it became impossible for the average taxpayer to be
> > able to know the actual value of
>The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial
industry so much that it became impossible
>for the average taxpayer to be able to know the actual value of a house.
We got the government we deserved
>and the price of it. None of which really has anything to do directly wit
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial
> industry so much that it became impossible for the average taxpayer to be
> able to know the actual value of a house. We got the government we deserved
> and the price of i
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:49 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Nick Arnett
> wrote:
>
> > I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but
> I'll
> > just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice
> Department
> > by the House Calif
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but I'll
> just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice Department
> by the House California Caucus.
If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > they give the average starting salary for an EE in the US as 59,646, but
> in
> > the SF area it is about 74,700. So, that is about a 25% premium. At
> > simplyhired.com they state
Don't get me wrong.
I like Austin a lot.
But if--after her last summer's trip to Austin and dinner at the Salt
Lick--I were to propose to my wife that we move from Berkeley to Austin so
that we could double the size of our house and live fifteen minutes closer
to the center... well, I don't want
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> they give the average starting salary for an EE in the US as 59,646, but in
> the SF area it is about 74,700. So, that is about a 25% premium. At
> simplyhired.com they state that the average EE salary in the SF area is
> $87k/year. That's
Well, I decided to answer my own question. At
www1.salary.com
they give the average starting salary for an EE in the US as 59,646, but in
the SF area it is about 74,700. So, that is about a 25% premium. At
simplyhired.com they state that the average EE salary in the SF area is
$87k/year. Tha
64 matches
Mail list logo
