# Utari's Puppies (Formerly Off-Topic Thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Intergalactic Summit\ **Created:** [June 21, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128 "2017-06-21T18:18:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 66
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 11:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1328 "2018-06-06T23:34:36Z")
Disassembled diamond. Uh. Do you mean carbon? Not even of the nanotube-y variety? ---
**Author:** ![Diana\_Kim](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/diana_kim/32/382972_2.png) [@Diana\_Kim](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Diana_Kim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 3:54am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1329 "2018-06-07T03:54:36Z")
> [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > Disassembled diamond. > > Uh. > > Do you mean carbon? Not even of the nanotube-y variety? Ahaha, you never were in school, Priano? Speaking in easy terms, carbon in diamond in sp3 hybridization, while in nanotube it is sp2 - just like in graphene, which can be rolled in them, or in graphite. Well, the hybridization or orbitals is just a mathematical abstraction and it’s more likely molecular orbitals are formed separately without any hybrids - just based on their symmetry, but lets not get into too deep details, if the effect can be explained already by shallower approach. But the fact remains, in the diamond carbon looks more like one you can find in the methane gas. Or, more “diamondy” - in neopentane with full tetrahedral symmetry. In nanotubes carbon is one you can find in ethylene - or in benzene, which represent this famous carbon 6-ring you can find in graphite, fullerenes and nanotubes. These are pretty much primitive things that even soldier like me knows. Comparing diamond with nanotubes is like comparing milk to a tree trunk, because they have same elements. I am slowly clapping to you, Makoto. I can understand, however, your desire to sound “smart” or “scientific” by using words like “nanotubes”, but that makes you in fact sound more ignorant than scientific. ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 4:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1330 "2018-06-07T04:46:35Z")
Woosh went the joke. ---
**Author:** ![Diana\_Kim](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/diana_kim/32/382972_2.png) [@Diana\_Kim](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Diana_Kim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 7:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1331 "2018-06-07T07:14:23Z")
Woosh went the “nanotubes” ---
**Author:** ![Kybernetes\_Moros](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kybernetes_moros/32/62364_2.png) [@Kybernetes\_Moros](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kybernetes_Moros)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1332 "2018-06-07T08:16:36Z")
You may think “oh, it wasn’t even nanotubes, it was just a bunch of soot”, but just because soot’s a bit _cheaper_ doesn’t make the gift any less worthwhile! ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 8:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1333 "2018-06-07T08:41:52Z")
“It’s the thought that counts!” Ah, gift culture. ---
**Author:** ![Diana\_Kim](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/diana_kim/32/382972_2.png) [@Diana\_Kim](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Diana_Kim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1334 "2018-06-07T17:53:31Z")
> [@To all Caldari sympathizers - a musing](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-all-caldari-sympathizers-a-musing/75703/139): > > This line of thinking is very limited and myopic, Diana. Imagine you are a group that doesn’t have a ‘main attack’ planned. You’re a small group, a few thousand at best. You don’t have the wherewithal to challenge any significant military force directly. There is no way you can take and hold a strategic objective, no way you can prosecute a conventional war without being utterly annhilated, and quickly. So you take to asymmetric warfare. There are ways to prosecute an asymmetric war without ve… > [@To all Caldari sympathizers - a musing](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-all-caldari-sympathizers-a-musing/75703/139): > > This line of thinking is very limited and myopic, Diana. Imagine you are a group that doesn’t _have_ a ‘main attack’ planned. You’re a small group, a few thousand at best. You don’t have the wherewithal to challenge any significant military force directly. There is no way you can take and hold a strategic objective, no way you can prosecute a conventional war without being utterly annhilated, and quickly. So you take to asymmetric warfare. > > There are ways to prosecute an asymmetric war without verging into terrorism: And that line of thinking is just ignorant and annoying. First of all, asymmetrical warfare is a completely different topic from terrorism. The goal of assymetric warfare is to inflict highest damage with lowest resources. You attack targets with maximal value but minimal defense. You disrupt communication lines, logistics, take targets of opportunity to weaken your enemy. You’d know that if you’ve graduated SWA. But nooo… And terror? Just going again some civvies, blowing up something completely unimportant like shopping malls, theaters and other useless for military advancement stuff. There is a saying that terrorism is poor man’s war. But even with being poor you can remain professional and do significant damage to the enemy instead of just causing annoyance. Consider one of our infamous figures in here. “Im gonna kill a million of minmatar slaves to hurt minmatars!” Yes, he did kill, they started crying, wriggling like worms, yelling at him, making names. But did he hurt TLF? ■■■■ no. He hurt only himself, because it was HIS ships and HIS slaves. This is another example - now of religious terrorism. The guy just wasted money to kill people without even minimal advancement. Killing just one TLF rifter might not cause such emotional impact, but it would deal way more significant blow against TLF than him killing even ten millions of his slaves. > [@To all Caldari sympathizers - a musing](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-all-caldari-sympathizers-a-musing/75703/139): > > restrict your target list to valid military targets, make your actions, and affiliations known at the initiation of hostilities, and (and this is important **and** required) make a legitimate effort to remove civilians and non-combatants from danger, and minimize the collateral damage inflicted upon them. Ancestors choke, are you ■■■■■■■ serious? Make your actions known? Make effort to “remove civilians?” Are you kidding me? Are you what, some sort of gallentean, who makes such “rules” just to violate them? “Required”? Required by WHOM exactly? You can relocate your own civilians from under attack if you know the enemy will strike in there. But if you’re planning an attack against enemy? Well, if you will come to them to “make a legitimate effort to remove civilians”, I’ll just laugh my pants off and wave goodbye to your assembled strike force. > [@To all Caldari sympathizers - a musing](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-all-caldari-sympathizers-a-musing/75703/139): > > The classic example is an armed party boards a civilian transport. Asking everyone to remain calm, they tell the passengers they are member of an insurgent milita, giving the name of the militia. They then explain that there are members of the armed forces of the oppressor nation they are at war with on the transport, and ask those members to identify themselves and surrender to ensure no legitimate civilians are harmed. These steps are _required_ in order to engage in legitimate, ‘legal’, asymmetric warfare that does not involve war crimes. > > Failure to take these minimal actions—identifying the attacking party by means of announcement, uniform, or other livery (like your ident transponder that says you’re part of CalMil), and making an effort to avoid civilian loss of life—is considered indicative of a desire to sow fear among the civilian populace, and the attack is considered terrorism, and a war crime. Well, now THAT was myoptic. Sweet Maker, that sounds like you’re some sort of cop or security officer. Why would you need to board that transport in the first place? I’ll give you counter-example - but with exact reason. Imagine you have a FDU command center on a planet, and they settled in a bunker deep below the surface, so you can’t glass these rats out from the orbit. What can you do - is to send the assault team. But storming high defended bunker would bring too many casualties, and you decide to test them with faint attacks. Meanwhile, you’ve got intel that they’re running low on ammunition and sending in a whole iteron of goodies to support FDU in there. Would you board that? Honesly, I wouldn’t. I don’t need cheap and low quality federal ammunition, it’s just terrible and can’t be compared with first grade Caldari products. Besides, that civilian transport can be stuffed with armed FDU soldiers who will cause heavy casaulties to your boarding squad. I wouldn’t board that. I’d just stuff it with red hot missiles until it pops. Would it be legal? Dubious, might be legal, might be not, in majority - depending on the local authority, plus other factors, that aren’t really interesting to discuss in here. Would it be terrorism? Definitely not - because it was done not to instill fear or other crap, but for direct military purpose, which was to prevent sieged enemy from getting supplies and reinforcements. > [@To all Caldari sympathizers - a musing](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-all-caldari-sympathizers-a-musing/75703/139): > > And that’s true whether the attack is shooting soldiers on a transport, or detonating an AM charge that annihilates a Navy space station. The scale of the attack has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the action. Way to bamboozle and derail the conversation. What do you want to discuss exactly, choose precisely, the legitimacy of action, or whether the action was terrorism or not? Or you just want to rant at everything at once? ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1335 "2018-06-07T18:46:05Z")
> [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > And terror? Just going again some civvies, blowing up something completely unimportant like shopping malls, theaters and other useless for military advancement stuff. Again, no. If you attack military targets with no concern for collateral damage, with the intent to demonstrate to the civilian populace that nothing and no-where is safe, that even their military cannot protect themselves from you, then you are seeking to sow terror and mistrust in their civil institutions among the populace. That is still terrorism. And if you didn’t learn that at the SWA, then maybe you should go attend remedial classes, because having spoken with a number of graduates, I’m _quite_ sure they tried to teach it to you. > [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > Required by WHOM exactly? Youil, among other treaties. There are limits to what is allowed in warfare, Diana. And that, too, was taught to you at SWA. Perhaps you should have paid more attention. > [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > Meanwhile, you’ve got intel that they’re running low on ammunition and sending in a whole iteron of goodies to support FDU in there. Would you board that? > > Honesly, I wouldn’t. I don’t need cheap and low quality federal ammunition, it’s just terrible and can’t be compared with first grade Caldari products. Besides, that civilian transport can be stuffed with armed FDU soldiers who will cause heavy casaulties to your boarding squad. I wouldn’t board that. I’d just stuff it with red hot missiles until it pops. If your intelligence indicates the Iteron is hauling freight, and flying under a civilian registry, then legally the first obligation is to warn the ship off and have it turn away. If it fails to do so, destroy it. If, however, the ship is carrying _civilians_—passengers, mind you, not the crew—who are not aware of the cargo, then yes, there is a legal obligation to at least attempt to board and take control of the ship, rather than destroying it. If you don’t, you are committing a war crime, of the exact same nature as say, driving a _Nyx_ into a station, albeit on a smaller scale. > [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > What do you want to discuss exactly, choose precisely, the legitimacy of action, or whether the action was terrorism or not? These are not separate questions. The legitimacy of any combat action is part dependent on whether or not the action is terrorism. If it is terrorism, it is illegitimate, and a war crime. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrel\_Toov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tyrel_toov/32/387953_2.png) [@Tyrel\_Toov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tyrel_Toov)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1336 "2018-06-07T22:59:47Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Youil, among other treaties. There are limits to what is allowed in warfare, Diana. Pft, breaking treaties signed by the Gallente and Minmatar is obviously not a criminal offense to Kimmy. ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1337 "2018-06-08T02:00:19Z")
All of this talk ignores the point: the _CEP itself_ affirmed that the Templis Dragonaur are a terrorist organization, which is to say an organization that has performed terrorist acts. Terrorism is, by the very definition of the thing, criminal. Ergo, the Templis Dragonaur are criminals. While some may disagree with this, it’s not for any one pilot to decide. Those suspected of Templis Dragonaur links should be reported to an appropriate authority, so that authority may decide what the law requires. ---
**Author:** ![Claudia\_Osyn](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/claudia_osyn/32/387939_2.png) [@Claudia\_Osyn](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Claudia_Osyn)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 5:06am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1338 "2018-06-08T05:06:19Z")
> [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > Those suspected of Templis Dragonaur links should be reported to an appropriate authority, so that authority may decide what the law requires. Would reporting Kimmy do any good though? ---
**Author:** ![Makoto\_Priano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makoto_priano/32/383919_2.png) [@Makoto\_Priano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makoto_Priano)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 5:36am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1339 "2018-06-08T05:36:53Z")
As an independent capsuleer, we really can’t do anything about that. My comment is specifically in relation to her refusal to relay information on known Templis Dragonaur previously among her crew. ---
**Author:** ![Ria\_Nieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ria_nieyli/32/447728_2.png) [@Ria\_Nieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ria_Nieyli)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 6:56am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1340 "2018-06-08T06:56:59Z")
Mind, CALSF didn’t exactly so anything either when Captain Adams raised an issue with a certain someone. ---
**Author:** ![Diana\_Kim](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/diana_kim/32/382972_2.png) [@Diana\_Kim](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Diana_Kim)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 8:54am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1341 "2018-06-08T08:54:00Z")
> [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > All of this talk ignores the point: the _CEP itself_ affirmed that the Templis Dragonaur are a terrorist organization, which is to say an organization that has performed terrorist acts. Hello, hello, anyone here? Am I talking with broken record again? I’ve countered that your assertion several times, and you just keep repeating it like some sort of machine, who can’t think. > [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > Terrorism is, by the very definition of the thing, criminal. No. > [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > Ergo, the Templis Dragonaur are criminals. Maybe, some of them. But calling them all criminals is just straightforward trolling. Same as calling all minmatars criminals, despite they indeed have highest percentage of criminality, it doesn’t mean they all are criminals. > [@Makoto\_Priano](#): > > While some may disagree with this, it’s not for any one pilot to decide. Those suspected of Templis Dragonaur links should be reported to an appropriate authority, so that authority may decide what the law requires. Criminality of a person is decided in the court of law (or military tribunal), not by declaration of any entity or Makoto’s yelling on forum. Also, being Templis Dragonaur won’t put any law charges against you just for the fact of being. You can’t even sue someone for terrorism. You can sue however for the murder attempt or for murder with the intent of unlawful terrorism. You may try to sue a certain Dragonaur for involvement in Kyonoke crisis, as this malpractice led to uncountable deaths. But you’d need to have strong evidences of their links - and of course, not to the Dragonaurs, but to the incident itself. Trying a person for suspicion in having Dragonaur links instead is just straightforward stupidity of unspeakable levels. ---
**Author:** ![Diana\_Kim](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/diana_kim/32/382972_2.png) [@Diana\_Kim](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Diana_Kim)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 9:06am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1342 "2018-06-08T09:06:36Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Again, no. If you attack military targets with no concern for collateral damage, with the intent to demonstrate to the civilian populace that nothing and no-where is safe, that even their military cannot protect themselves from you, then you are seeking to sow terror and mistrust in their civil institutions among the populace. That is still terrorism. And if you didn’t learn that at the SWA, then maybe you should go attend remedial classes, because having spoken with a number of graduates, I’m _quite_ sure they tried to teach it to you. You are mixing two different principles into one. First: yes, as you said, that if you want to “demonstrate smth” to civilian populace, yes, this is terrorism. Second: if you attack a military target, but simply neglect civilians and collateral damage - that’s not terrorism. Your knowledge is lacking. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Youil, among other treaties. There are limits to what is allowed in warfare, Diana. And that, too, was taught to you at SWA. Perhaps you should have paid more attention. I was one of the top students in SWA, and I am here not to be taught by some barely educated goon how to conduct warfare. Looks more like you’ve just made stuff up. Bring exact paragraph that states it so, otherwise stop bothering me with your delusions and ignorance. > [@Arrendis](#): > > If your intelligence indicates the Iteron is hauling freight, and flying under a civilian registry, then legally the first obligation is to warn the ship off and have it turn away. If it fails to do so, destroy it. > > If, however, the ship is carrying _civilians_ —passengers, mind you, not the crew—who are not aware of the cargo, then yes, there is a legal obligation to at least attempt to board and take control of the ship, rather than destroying it. If you don’t, you are committing a war crime, of the exact same nature as say, driving a _Nyx_ into a station, albeit on a smaller scale. Ehh, I don’t think it has any further meaning of discussing military strategy with person, who equates a freighter doing supply run into warzone for sieged enemy and a civilian station, holding an economical conference. > [@Arrendis](#): > > These are not separate questions. The legitimacy of any combat action is part dependent on whether or not the action is terrorism. If it is terrorism, it is illegitimate, and a war crime. No, for Maker’s sake. Terror is just an intention for the action. Crime is the action itself or attempt to commit it, provided it breaks known regulations. If you’re gonna trial people for terrorism, you’re a freaking monster, who is worse than Nauplius, just like Black Eagles, who are trying to control people’s thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1343 "2018-06-08T14:31:39Z")
> [@Ria\_Nieyli](#): > > Mind, CALSF didn’t exactly so anything either when Captain Adams raised an issue with a certain someone. You mean this CALSF? > [@](#): > > Templis CALSF was formerly known as **Templis Dragonaors**. I think we can guess why. Nevermind, Diana, since you’re obviously a willing _participant_ in a terrorist organization, I’ll not waste time with you anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Charles\_Cambridge\_Schmidt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/charles_cambridge_schmidt/32/372217_2.png) [@Charles\_Cambridge\_Schmidt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Charles_Cambridge_Schmidt)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 11:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1344 "2018-06-08T23:14:36Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > I’ll not waste time with you anymore. 10 ISK on you replying to another one of her posts within a day. EDIT for emphasis: A _day._ ---
**Author:** ![Kalaratiri](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kalaratiri/32/477189_2.png) [@Kalaratiri](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kalaratiri)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1345 "2018-06-08T23:40:48Z")
> [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > Criminality of a person is decided in the court of law (or military tribunal), not by declaration of any entity Got it. I’ll pass it down the line, the Cartel can commit any acts we like and as long as nobody catches us for long enough to put us on trial, it’s technically not a crime! > [@Diana\_Kim](#): > > **not by declaration of any entity** And it doesn’t matter if anyone says it is a crime, because unless they get us in court, it doesn’t count! ---
**Author:** ![Loai\_Qerl](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/loai_qerl/32/303712_2.png) [@Loai\_Qerl](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Loai_Qerl)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1346 "2018-06-08T23:48:57Z")
@Charles_Cambridge_Schmidt I love you! 😃 Also, because this is the thread where you can talk about anything and I can’t think of a single better place to do that, do you know how frustrating it is that Circadian Seekers have all left to to prod baby capsuleers and the nonaggressive probe caste we deal with now are Autokytherithinge Lancers? DO YOU FETCHING WELL KNOW? I will tell you. I will tell you why. Chief among the reasons for my disappointment in this fresh nomenclature is that THEY DON’T LANCE ANYTHING. They do not. They noodle about and they sense things and then they rot off to collate data or get little chin-scratches. No one knows. They don’t lance, that’s the important thing, but they certainly seem to be SEEKING, and so. It is a stupid change and CONCORD was stupid to make it. There. I said it. Also, the reason no one knows what they do is because no one cares. I used to care! I did! When they were still Seekers, I would go out in my pod, which had a bit of chalk taped to a pipe stuck on it, and they didn’t even care when I came up and made marks on them and kept track of them as they looked around and came and went. I know a lot about what Circadian Seekers do! They are cute! They have habits! Some of them even have patterns of behavior that look individual! But no. Now they are bothering baby rabbit pilots, where I can’t even find them, and all I have to look at now are these stupid LANCERS. Lancers are boring. They are full-automated and they don’t do anything strange. Now you know. Even with chalk on they are stupid and boring and I hate them. You can hate them too. ---
**Author:** ![Ria\_Nieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ria_nieyli/32/447728_2.png) [@Ria\_Nieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ria_Nieyli)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2018, 1:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128/1347 "2018-06-09T01:16:51Z")
Precisely that one. It only gets worse once you realise that they have enough say within the CMC to pull stunts like that. Essentially the entire fighting body is compromised. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128.md?page=65) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/utaris-puppies-formerly-off-topic-thread/5128.md?page=67)