Doug caught aimbotting on speaknow. Discuss.

[foq]

I'm going to lose a lot of faith in you all if this is the general mindset of the quake community.

Faith? NO! PLEASE! I'll be devistated. Please, stick with Foqerism. I am only testing you.

[Canadian*Sniper]

Let me translate what I said into a language you'll understand:

it wil be super gayz if most peoplez in teh quakeonez just believez whatz they readz without demanding any kind of evidencez. Stopz B-ing so ignorantz and growz a sack peoplez.

[omix2]

You people are retarded if it takes one cheater 10 forum posts to convince you all that he wasn't cheating in this demo in which it has been universally established that he was, indeed, caught botting.

So it's my understanding that in quake 1, you can cheat, and the server admins will just let you back, even if you get caught in the act doing it.

Expect me to be a lot better in the coming weeks as I seek out and experiment with different wall hacks and aimbots. Apparently it doesn't matter anymore. If you won't ban him for cheating, then I shouldn't be banned either.

Anyways no, I'm not serious about that, but if you let him onto your servers you're fucking retarded. At least dread has the balls not to be suckered by his pussy QQing antics.

[spooker]

Faith? NO! PLEASE! I'll be devistated. Please, stick with Foqerism. I am only testing you.

lLoLLllllLL... i stick with foqerism, dont worry. ahhahhhah

[Doug`]

To omi

There has never been any cheating going on from this end kiddo. All people say is "you cheat, there's a demo", what the hell is in this demo that shows that I cheat? Explain that. The fact that 90% of my shots didn't hit? The shaft that doesn't lock on? The fact that I sprayed nails in water and hit someone? Seriously, explain what in that demo shows that i cheat. I dont want a stupid reply that doesn't answer this question, dont bother if you lack in reading comprehension. Simply explain. I can't wait to hear what people come up with about this. My bet is that nobody can give an honest fact that supports these alligations and most will write something that is totally off topic because they just don't have the proof.

GL
Doug

[Rampage]

Lock this thread.

[Stung]

Baker: yeah, that's basically what I was citing. It's in Bruce Wexler's Brain and Culture if anyone's curious.

In any event, I'll be seeking out richmark and/or neil's pak-o-hakz if it is the case that Doug's allowed to cheat.

[Stung]

Haha mithril, enjoyable post if only ignorant of the fact that foquer was the one correcting grammar and I continued the joke. Try following chronological sequences appropriately.

Also: nice projection identification on saying I'm insecure. Any secure man need not jump dick first into a dispute not involving him.

In any event, I'm done replying to morons. This means YOU! That is, unless you are Baker, Omi, or anyone else who can make logical transitions between thoughts. And yes, I expect the insecure to jump all over my nuts in replying to this, seeing as the insecure takes "You" (nonspecific) to mean (specific), in the same way mithril takes a post that has nothing to do with him personally.

"What is grand is necessarily obscure to weak men. That which can be made explicit to the idiot is not worth my care." – William Blake

[Doug`]

pathetic

Apparently stung you fall into foquer's category, "the people that have no proof and just follow everyone else's lead". Pathetic. I still haven't seen anyone answering my question from my last post, wounder why....

It's not that i'm allowed to cheat, it's that I don't cheat. Pay attention, TY

[foq]

Haha mithril, enjoyable post if only ignorant of the fact that foquer was the one correcting grammar and I continued the joke. Try following chronological sequences appropriately.

Also: nice projection identification on saying I'm insecure. Any secure man need not jump dick first into a dispute not involving him.

In any event, I'm done replying to morons. This means YOU! That is, unless you are Baker, Omi, or anyone else who can make logical transitions between thoughts. And yes, I expect the insecure to jump all over my nuts in replying to this, seeing as the insecure takes "You" (nonspecific) to mean (specific), in the same way mithril takes a post that has nothing to do with him personally.

"What is grand is necessarily obscure to weak men. That which can be made explicit to the idiot is not worth my care." � William Blake

BUT I'M NOT A MORON!! TAKE IT BACK, TAKE IT BACK!!

[QuadRaptor]

21 pages. Geez.

[Stung]

Haha foq

[spooker]

intelligence might have gone up a minuscule amount (?), but attention span has definitely gone down. When i went to church last christmas, the preacher said the average attention span used to be 15 minutes and now it is 2 minutes. i haven't researched that but i believe it. we have TVs everywhere now, even in the car, the airport lounge, and our pockets, so we require everything to stimulate us as much as a TV does. if it doesn't, we're incapable of paying attention. i think this dramatic drop in attention span more than counteracts the possible minuscule increase in IQ, because attention span is a sign of overall psychological health and moral strength

[Stung]

There are far more factors to it than that, and as is the case, individuals with the genetic predisposition to ADHD actually have shown a higher upside in overall intelligence. For them, one could think of it as a hyperfiltration system. In any event there are no doubt certain subtypes of ADD/ADHD that have different causal contributions, such as reduced gray matter and cortical folds, dopamine transporter differences, and a general dopamine deficiency.

It's unfair to say it implies moral strength because the moral contributing factors of the brain include not just the (dl)PFC, but also the ACC, insular cortex, and emotional areas of the brain.

from 1918 to 1989, IQs have risen on average .32 points per year, adding up to approximately 22 points. This is according to Stanford-Binet and Weschler statistical analyses. There's a huge difference between 5 iq points, more or less 22, as it pertains to higher functioning intellectuals.

Your environmental considerations are probably valid, as I too see it as an adaptation to environmental changes on some level.

Edit: I would like to say that the moral strength statement is on some level valid, as a utilitarian perspective is largely utilized by the quasi-objective dlPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)

[Baker]

There are far more factors to it than that, and as is the case, individuals with the genetic predisposition to ADHD actually have shown a higher upside in overall intelligence.

Slam Dunk!

I haven't read any studies on it, but assure you that it is largely caused by boredom and constant thinking.