learn to fit your ship

well at least we know you haven't got a clue how ecm works.

no, i understand that regardless of how much sensor strength, there's always going to be a chance that your ship get jammed.

But your ships sensor strength compared to the ship's jamming strength, you can increase your resistance against jamming to be so high that the probability of "everyone" getting jammed is so low that it's more likely an asteroid slam into earth cutting out power.

but you admit that it's not a chance of 0, and therefore there is risk present?

good, glad you've finally admitted it.

It's so small of a risk that it's negligible.

but still large enough that you're wrong.

I disagree

you're welcome to, but >0 isn't 0, and therefore you're still wrong.

The risk is so miniscule it's negligible.

well you just admitted there's risk, so you know it's not risk free.

so we've managed to educate you, or you've stopped lying. either way, that's a positive.

Negligible risk, a risk so small you should not consider it as an influencing factor in how you make your decisions.

I welcome this opportunity to teach you how burn jita should properly be conducted.

a risk that still means you're wrong, and ganking isn't risk free.

i welcome this opportunity for you to stop while you're not quite as behind as you were when you were incorrectly spewing that ganking is risk free.

It's negligible enough to not let it be an influencing factor in how you make your decisions.

i see, instead of stopping you're just going to repeat irrelevant phrases.

It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.

I'll just leave this here.

changing the subject doesn't make you less wrong.
edit: actually, it might make you less wrong... but you're still wrong.

Nothing you've said negates the fact that you could plan your operations in a manner that ensure success(if the measure of success were the destruction of the ship instead of profiting in isk through it's destruction).

considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.

considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.

If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk. (well you could if your motivation wasn't profit, and instead the destruction of others ships)

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.

actually, the very fact that you can't ensure success as we've proven several times negates it.

No, because your "proof" rests in an absolute which is impossible, while my suggestions are based in reality.

Your demanding absolutes cripples your argument, because there are no absolutes, and since there are no absolutes, addressing them as a method of proof pertaining to reality is a fallacious demand because it's impossible.

By your logic, you should not be pressing the keys on your keyboard, or using your computer because it may get angry and attack you, zapping you with electricity and smashing you over your head with the keyboard and mouse. You demand absolute proof? Absolutely prove that your computer will not do that. You can't absolutely prove it, but you can, within the realm of reality, accept that the likely hood of it happening is so negligible, that you do not consider it as a determining factor regarding your choice to use it.

no, my proof is basic mathematics. which you seem to have an issue grasping.

also your absurd and ******** hypothetical doesn't follow my logic at all.