Smittay

I can make an accurate prediction for you: The graphs will start leveling out with a small negative slope, if participation continues the way it has been going. When the rest of the nations on either side jump into the fray, we will start to see a freefall. I do not understand why you just made that graph. You say it was made to "prove a point" but the graph is incredibly flawed, even by your own admission. You should have spent the time compiling numbers rather than making the graph as the trend line is based on nothing. Nobody is predicting graphs with such a negative slope except you.

Try this on for size, pumpkin.

On these graphs, could you include the numbers you have? I'm quite curious because you didn't limit your bounds or include minor ticks so it appears as if nothing has changed between the two data points you have (which makes a graph unnecessary, but you know that).

"Mr. Gambini? That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. [firm tone] Overruled." I appreciate your attempt at sarcasm. It was cute and reminded me of fond memories of childhood. For that, I thank you. I also wish to express my gratitude for you breaking down the methodology of which you came by the numbers for your more recent graphs. I found it insightful and it taught me techniques which I was unaware of in the field of gathering data from Planet Bob. However, that is not the whole story. On to the more pressing matter. As I have previous alleged and proven, you have used data which was taken from an unverifiable location, by an unreliable source, who could have been doing Brazilian economics for all we know. I wish to restate that I am appalled that you took the time to create graphs which were unsatisfactory, at best, from these statistics which were clearly shoddy. I also do not appreciate your tone, nor your choice of words when referring to the non-aggressive forces in this conflict, their leaders, or their passionate followers. There was no need to bring in such harsh attacks against these people who have done nothing more than defend their treaties and friends against such a horrible force such as the eQ, who so far have shown nothing but desperation and are grabbing at anything (mainly the numbers gathered by an inept fool) to make their claim that they have the edge in this conflict. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your attempt to be cheeky with me by calling me a scamp, when you have proven that you are nothing but a knave.

As you can see from this graph, the amount of graphs posted in this graphing thread has increased as the amount of accusations of skewed numbers has increased. I hypothesize that they have a direct correlation and that as more non-eQ members question the validity of Isotope's clearly skewed numbers, the more graphs he will post. I hope that the great masses of Planet Bob will see through this thinly veiled ruse. Let us see if the trend continues.

So you're confessing to using numbers that are questionable and/or skewed and that you are now passing them off as hard fact? I shudder to think of a Planet Bob filled with people like you, who try to use "statistics" to twist truth and present it in a way that the average prole would not be able to tell the difference between your lies and the truth that is available to the all of us. Why did you not get your own numbers? Why take the numbers of a nutter?

How dare you impugn my intelligence, oh master of silly graphs of questionable data. I'm just saying that your argument is flawed and that you cannot use improperly gathered data to convince an entire side of a war that they are winning when the fact is that it is too soon to tell. You just haven't been able to let go because you want your somewhat nicely drawn graphs to convince your proles that they have been following the orders of greater men, not lesser.

How does it feel to be proven wrong? I wouldn't know, I never have. The SDI will make the amount of nukes dwindle quickly, which then it comes down to the nukes you buy during the war and regular war punches. Maybe eQ should win. It seems non-eQ has been hoarding too much of the intelligence on Bob for themselves. Damn Ninety-nine percenters...

Hey cutie :ehm: It's easy to use nuclear weapons as an excuse for not being able to dominate despite superior numbers. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you're getting dished a similar amount of damage by a much smaller force.

There is at least 2 million total NS missing from the non-eQ forces data.

One word: SDI. I've seen people throw five or six nukes and still have the SDI hold up. The fact is that three nations coordinating against one opponent will do more damage than one nation trying to dish it all out. And as my old friend Shinnra pointed out, having people jump to micro alliances has skewed the numbers in favor for eQ. I'm merely pointing out that the methodology of these graphs is flawed and has given eQ a false sense of success.

Maths are hard. If both sides have an equal negative slope, that means they are both performing at the same rate. This in turn means that it takes one DH/CnG nation to do the damage that eQ does with three nations. And by having larger numbers, it should mean that eQ is able to throw more punches and thus dealing more damage, which they are not.

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1288250384' post='2495034'] GOONS, these are horrific terms for someone who's done no more than have the decency to stand up to you bullies time and time again. I cannot believe you would make him do 1500 tech deals nor can I believe that he would accept these terms. I hope he righteously throws them off as soon as GOONS becomes too preoccupied to deal with him. And do you think a paltry sum of aid will buy off the public outrage of the world court that is the OWF? [/quote] [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1288239605' post='2494889'] Terms are simple: 1500 tech [b]via[/b] deals[/quote] Reading: It's important! Apparently they weren't simple enough. And public outrage has mattered since...when?

[quote name='denkimon' timestamp='1285890242' post='2470340'] True enough. nobody knows what goes on- especially in your head. [/quote] That much was and still is apparent.

[quote name='DeadAnimal' timestamp='1285817400' post='2469189'] It makes us all look bad, and that was before you started letting ex-tR members join. [/quote] Aw, you still haven't gotten over us? It seems time really doesn't change a thing. [quote name='DeadAnimal' timestamp='1285817400' post='2469189'] Signed: Prime Minister - SkaPunk Minister of Foreign Affairs - Aspen Minister of Internal Affairs - Lord of Assassins Minister of Defense - DeadAnimal Minister of Finance - MVP2000 Minister of Recruiting - Silent Fury Minister of Subversive Activity - Mikhail K Vasilyev [/quote] Well this just seems to be a group of old friends, traitors, and saboteurs. [quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1285833926' post='2469557'] FnKa does tech-raid, and yet they still stood up to your tech raiding practices because it gave tech raiding a bad name. [/quote] Since when has tech raiding had a good name? There is no honor in tech raiding, nor honor in refraining from tech raiding. [quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1285849314' post='2469663'] P.S. FnKa are tough as hell, good luck to whoever has to fight these guys, lmao. [/quote] When they are properly supported with lower level nations or when they attack those who do not have supportive allies and the means to attack back. [quote name='Lex Quintus' timestamp='1285860413' post='2469774'] And FnKa letting ex-tR members join is different because... Anyway it's such a warm and cozy feeling to catch up again. I'd kill to see you. [/quote] Yeah, this reeks of vendetta. I'm glad we all got the chance to hang out again.