It doesn't matter what it really is, what matters is I am demonstrating the risk involved, regardless of the acknowledgement of the loss of an initial investment. And if I may be so bold, stock traders do, in fact, do exactly what you propose. Short selling and market manipulation are not new concepts.

Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.

i'm sorry, did you have a point? other than stating the obvious that has nothing to do with eve i fail to see why you hit the post button.

also the chance of something NOT happening is defined by the chance of it happening, therefore it is defined by the chance of it happening.

Again, it is not a risk as there is no danger involved, as the ship is voluntarily forfeit in the decision to act.

What you call a risk is a gamble.

Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.

Shooting someone with the aim of just getting youself killed by concord is not suicide ganking.

So, instead of being trolled, I will try to refrain from replying to you until you post something worth replying to.

if a kill is not guaranteed then there is obviously risk.

stop posting such completely moronic statements.

I don't think

we know.

Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result

Booo. Try harder. Even I don't chop your sentences to shreds. Very unclassy.

It very much matters. If you are saying 2 things are synonymous, and you know they aren't... that's being disingenuous.

There is not any risk in actually buying stock. It's quite simple. You choose, you give money, you get the stock. That's a cost.

The risk, is if you want to invest in stock for the purpose of getting a return (short term OR long term) or you want to use stock as some sort of leveraging tool for a company... all those methods have inherent risks associated with them.

The act of purchasing the stock does not have risk.

I have 0 risk if I buy my dad Guinness stock as a gift because he is a big fan of Guinness. He isn't going to turn around and sell it, and I do not expect anything else. But to be semantic and technical I would be risking NOT getting a smile from him by choosing a poor present.

But that has nothing to do with buying the stock in the first place. I can still see it costs $X money, and I would still get a certificate for my purchase. I wouldn't be risking it at all since I bought it with the sole intention of not keeping it.

Even if I set fire to it or shredded it, the outcome would be I still bought it, and I ended up not having it anymore.

There's no chance or probability associated with it, only cost.

you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?

there wasn't much else in there to reply to, to be fair. i had to do something to pass the time until you posted something i could actually reply to.

you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?

That's a different ship in a completely different set of circumstances at that point.

I bet 100 M ISK you are a Flat-Earther as well. Arguing with the visible cosmos to the very bitter end.

You don't receive sarcasm or mockery very well. Parody is usually disengenuous by your standards, but most intelligent people will see it for what it is, a demonstration of how silly a particular argument really is.

Projected consequence of action is not risk. You know there is no way to avoid becoming a red flashy pod if you continue with your action, it's not a risk.

You might risk not making a profit, but that's something entirely different.

Buying stock is basically buying a very expensive piece of paper. If you chose to use it as toilet paper then I guess for you, it is a cost and your entire argument makes sense. But most people buy that piece of paper because of the actual value it represents, short or long term, and the value may very well go to zero like Enron or it may make a return, which is what everyone hopes for. For everyone except you buying stock involves risk, because most people buy it with the intent or hope to make a profit. Keep that in mind when you think of a suicide ganker putting together a catalyst.

the fact you can't avoid it is the exact reason why it's a risk.... if you could avoid it, then it wouldn't be a risk.

See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.

remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?

You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.

Oh, but we're talking about a very specific subset of people in this argument, by which the very definition of this subset guarantees a 100% chance that the tool in question is used as an investment. So we're not talking about people who buy stocks to wipe their bums with or give them to their dads as sentimental gifts, we're talking about people who buy them to make a profit (which is the vast majority of stockholders). While I am at it, almost every ship you purchase in some way was purchased with the intent to make a profit, being mining, transportation of goods, missioning, ratting, or suicide ganking.

Trying to argue like this is silly. It's like saying cars aren't used for transportation because not all people buy automobiles with the intent to drive them.

suicide ganking, not a risk if you don't shoot people.


well. ****. really? **** me, captain obvious is in the house tonight guys!

Hey I heard scrubs are attempting to kill miners

Which system should I be mining in

But you're talking about getting flagged, not suicide ganking. If you want to be captain obvious, you're going to have to reread your question.

Because that has nothing to do with getting blown up, only aggression mechanics.