No, I do not believe no L4 mission runners , whom at one time ran them, have not moved to run null anoms.
You are quite right about L4 locations. Let me ammend my poorly worded post:
Is it your belief that there are no/few PVE alts who, at one time, ran HS L4 missions that now run null anoms?
I already answered that.
Since you were making edits (during your free edit term) while I was replying, I thought I would give the benefit of the doubt. Since you have now restated what you wrote…
You still have not answered the question I asked.
You do not beleive the following:
“There are no L4 mission runners, whom at one time ran L4s, who are not running null anoms.”
Which is equivalent to -
You do not beleive the following:
“All L4 mission runners, who used to run L4s, are running anoms”
But I never asked if you beleived “All L4 mission runners are running anoms”.
I asked if you beleive that “NO L4 mission runners are running anoms.”
OR
If you beleive that “FEW L4 mission runners are running anoms.”
Its almost like you took all that time to avoid answering my question… 
Wtf is this.
You are the one that has been badgering on about a question that I already answered.
You have not, and did not ask that, anywhere.
You have not, and did not ask that anywhere.
You asked:
“Is it your belief that there are no/few PVE alts who, at one time, ran HS L4 missions that now run null anoms?”
To which I answered, in correct syntax, that:
“No, I do not believe no L4 mission runners , whom at one time ran them, have not moved to run null anoms.”
Your back-pedalling ■■■■■■■■ is not going to fly.
It is no equivalent. You asked if he believed something, he stated he does not.
What he said is same as
“I believe there may be pve alt who at one time ran HS L4 and went to NS”
The parts in quotation marks are logical equivalents.
They are not.
More precisely, you changed the wording of what you said before, so it has different meaning.
You:
“is it your belief that there are no/few PVE alts who, at one time, ran L4 mission that now run null anoms?”
HE :
You :
He does not believe NO former L4 runner did go to NS.
you make him say he does not believe ALL former L4 runner did go to HS.
This is just completely different things.
1 Like
You added a negation to the part about null anoms. That changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Perhaps you meant to say " It is not my belief that there are no/few PVE alts, who at one time, ran HS L4 missions that now run null anoms"
But that is not what you actually said.
Additionally, with the exception of shorthanding the “PVE alts who, at one time, ran HS L4 missions”, how my original statement and the individual break outs you are hurf-blurfing about are semantically different?
Is it your belief that there are no PVE alts…now run null anoms
vs
Do you beleive that NO L4 mission runners…now run null anoms.
The following statements are logical equivalents
“There does not exist an X such that X does not A”
“All X’s do A”
Adding a modifier such as “I beleive” does not change anything:
I Beleive the statement “There does not exist an X such that X does not A”
I beleive the statement “All X’s do A”
That’s because your sentence was poorly worded. He just used the same meaning with a correct wording.
edit :
My bad, you are right. with “not” in the anoms part it is different. It actually depends on the language (in some language double not is a yes, in other it’s a not)
Let’s be clear : adding something like “or few” removes a lot of precision to your sentence and makes the additional precision you gave on the other points futile and a loss of time.
It’s a bad idea if in case more high-sec pilots will move for ninja 0.0-ratting.
To run solo any type of null-sec site a decent ‘rainbow’ ship is required of type BC or higher. They are very slow. Null-sec sites requires decent time to complete. In a close NPC 0.0 region you’ll be trolled by Combat Probes all the time. There will be created special pirate corporations to accomplish this purpose like hi-sec suicide ganking. The SOV space is too far away with too many gate camps and without any station to dock at. It’s too boring to fly there and back every day, week. Specific WHs can be used, but they are rare and hard to find.
It’s much better idea to ninja run WH sites C2 or C3, which can be performed solo in most cruiser class ships.
Anyway, the best idea is to make Low-Sec more profitable, as a DEV somehow promised to us. To lure there players from Hi-Sec and Null-Sec. No bubbles, both groups will have to travel minimal paths, local NPC stations, minimal risks to see an alliance cyno on your grid and etc.
LOL
Maybe I misunderstood your intentions but…
The 0.0 has the biggest SHOVEL to collect ore, the 0.0 has the biggest SHOVEL to print ISK and now you offering to implement the biggest SHOVEL to farm LP CONCORD points. Not to buy CONCORD stuff from high-sec players, but to FARM it and fit it to entire constructed fleets
2 Likes
You havent really been playing the game, have you? I cant think of any other reason for someone to ask such a dumb question.
While “few” is an ambiguous term, it actually serves an important purpose.
In predicate and symbolic logics, there are two formal quantifiers which allow us to represent 3 ‘conversational’ quantifiers. The conversational quantifiers are NONE, SOME, and ALL.
NONE and ALL are self-explanatory. SOME just means more than NONE & less then ALL.
By wording the question the way I did, it puts a limit on the scope. Specifically, it excludes the ALL quantifier. Meaning I did NOT want to know if he beleivied the statement “ALL PVE alts who, at one time, ran HS L4 missions now run anoms.”…which is the question he chose to answer regardless.
Thus why I said he still has not answered the question.
EDIT: Since I am growing bored: Salvos threw up a smokescreen of negations to cover the fact that he does not want to answer the question I put to him. If he answers that NONE converted he looks silly (its not a reasonable statement given other evidence). IF he says SOME, then his intemperate statements earlier in the thread (assuming he does not change them) are false. In fact he will have been agreeing with the things I have said, but was not bright enough to know it. Assuming, that is, that he has been sincere…which I kind of doubt 
ANyway, I think I am done 
The question was poorly worded because you added negations which was not needed.
It is equivalent to “Do you believe no former HS runner now run HS anom”, but with double the words.
This question is a rethorical one, because of course it’s possible that at least one former HS runner went NS. So of course the answer is no. He answered your questions with the only answer you were EXPECTING : no, to satisfy your need for obvious answers.
What was your point exactly ?
lol. My question had no negations outside of those needed to make a correctly formed quantifier.
Equivalents:
Do you beleive the statment: “There does not exist an X, such that X ran HS L4 missions and now runs null anoms” — NONE track
Do you beleive the statement: “There exists and X, such that X ran HS L4 missions and now runs anoms” — SOME track
I reworded it for you with half the words.
Your sentence lacks a verb.
To the point ?
Salvos said the reduction in NPC kills shown by dotlan is not a proof that people moved from HS to NS.
You answer with a rethorical question about the possibility for a HS farmer to go NS. What is it supposed to mean ?
(please note I do not agree with salvo, especially when he says all content from HS is taken . I saw ice belts remain untouched for hours, probed combat signature virgin from any explorer)
I never said it was proof either.
lolwut?
These two things suggest that you may lack the capacity to read in english. Its cool. No judgment. But I am now done.
here you did :
Still this does not bring your point.
With regards to
Being a non-native english speaker, I don’t know what “NONE track” and “SOME track” means. Since you have two paragraph with no logical relation between the two, and typos in said paragraphs, I assume you forgot to add the relation (with a verb) between the two.
I replied using the syntax of your query, as is appropriate for an accurate answer.
It reads as a double-negative because of the contrived format of your question.
It is not my belief.
I do not believe that.
Have you further questions?