Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

320 Excellent

About Ju87s

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

936 profile views
  1. Vulgarities

    That's completely different. That's a group of people chasing a man down to beat him to death. If a group of people with baseball bats approach you to beat you to death (funny how you keep mentioning klansmen, but in all the actual examples from real life you've found to post, it's the opposite race attacking the other), that's not fighting words.
  2. Nah, just 27.5, but I think it's still worth the points.
  3. Vulgarities

    if they move past fighting words into threats, then yeah you can defend yourself. But merely having insults thrown at you doesn't legally absolve you from resorting to violence. You're talking out of your [edited]right now, anyway. When was the last time you personally heard of any of the people you listed, killing somebody? You've been watching too many silly movies.
  4. Vulgarities

    No, you really didn't comprehend what I said. The poster I quoted brought up the topic of "fighting words." However, the hypothetical situation he used as an example was actually an example of a threat. Fightings words and true threats are both illegal speech, but they are not the same thing. You can legally defend yourself if your life is threatened in the moment and you can reasonably think you're at risk. "Fight words" is just somebody talking crapand bring provocative. You can't legally assault or kill somebody for that.
  5. Vulgarities

    No, that's not at all what I said. Not my fault reading comprehension isn't your thing.
  6. Vulgarities

    That would fall under the category of a "true threat." You do not have the right to kill somebody because they used fighting words. You do not have the right to assault somebody because they used fighting words. The only thing the fighting words doctrine does is outlaw language that would "provoke a reasonable person towards violence."
  7. Yes, I do. He posted what was listed as his violations in WG's email to him. Could there be more that he chose not to post? Yes, but I don't he did. I've made threads complaining about the chat ban system here before and have been accused by numerous people that i was leaving things out. I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt. There's no reason to come on here and lie about it.
  8. You really think what he said here is worthy of being permanently banned from chat?
  9. I don't think I've ever seen any threads or posts made claiming skill for winning streaks.
  10. By saying T4 is protected, he was talking about the tier spread.
  11. No, it's protected across the board. T4 ships will only go against T5 ships at the highest. They will never be facing off against T6 ships.
  12. Gascogne, I don't know anything about. I really don't think for the tech tree ships, that it's worth focusing so much on the secondaries. From T8 and up, they are sturdy ships, but I personally wouldn't be taking them in to brawl at close range enough for any of that to be worth it.
  13. If you want a fire-starter build, then play cruisers, or at least British BB. But hey, if you're going to be an HE flinging French BB anyway, sure why not flush 3 captain points down the toilet by bringing your fire chance from 36% to a whopping 38%?
  14. You're not penning any plating on cruisers in the T8+ range with 100mm guns, with or without IFHE, with the exception of British cruisers. Taking IFHE is a huge waste of 4 points on a BB, especially if it's for 100mm secondaries.
  15. Sure, but when you take a skill on all of your captains without reading it, and doing this over and over again without noticing that it wasn't increasing your torpedo range... well..