EVE Search - AAA, D2, Goons, TCF and IAC Gangbang ISS

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

AAA, D2, Goons, TCF and IAC Gangbang ISS

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Manas The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:18:00 - [301] Originally by: n sx Sadly for your shareholders, your leadership's poor management cost them dearly :( .... and this continued ignorance of their concerns and the fact that you're all harping on that losing stations 'won't hurt ISS' is just like a slap in the face for the people that REALLY own them. This is surreal. TGRAD info here
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:22:00 - [302] Originally by: n sx Sadly for your shareholders, your leadership's poor management cost them dearly :( .... and this continued ignorance of their concerns and the fact that you're all harping on that losing stations 'won't hurt ISS' is just like a slap in the face for the people that REALLY own them. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The shareholders of Marginis have been negatively affected by a war of aggression by IAC. I'm somewhat biased, I admit, but I don't count it a failure of _management_ when a next door neighbour decides to start a fight. I'm also a shareholder of Marginis, and I'm not pleased with the turn of events. They're events I've on several occasions tried to prevent or divert, but ... well obviously that's not turned out so well.
Shirei Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:31:00 - [303] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: n sx Sadly for your shareholders, your leadership's poor management cost them dearly :( .... and this continued ignorance of their concerns and the fact that you're all harping on that losing stations 'won't hurt ISS' is just like a slap in the face for the people that REALLY own them. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The shareholders of Marginis have been negatively affected by a war of aggression by IAC. I'm somewhat biased, I admit, but I don't count it a failure of _management_ when a next door neighbour decides to start a fight. I'm also a shareholder of Marginis, and I'm not pleased with the turn of events. They're events I've on several occasions tried to prevent or divert, but ... well obviously that's not turned out so well. It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems...
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:36:00 - [304] Originally by: Shirei Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: n sx Sadly for your shareholders, your leadership's poor management cost them dearly :( .... and this continued ignorance of their concerns and the fact that you're all harping on that losing stations 'won't hurt ISS' is just like a slap in the face for the people that REALLY own them. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The shareholders of Marginis have been negatively affected by a war of aggression by IAC. I'm somewhat biased, I admit, but I don't count it a failure of _management_ when a next door neighbour decides to start a fight. I'm also a shareholder of Marginis, and I'm not pleased with the turn of events. They're events I've on several occasions tried to prevent or divert, but ... well obviously that's not turned out so well. It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems... Actually, it was ISS management who asked IAC to set the scope of the conflict. E.g. whether it would include POSes or not. Now, given that they said 'it might include POSes' what would you consider the responsible action at that point?
Crozon Crozon Corp	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:43:00 - [305] Originally by: Shirei It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems... They really should make it a requirement for people who want to post on this forum, to READ this forum. FACT: IAC did not rule out pos warfare when asked point blank by the Count. Stating things like "we'll see who ends up with the stations". He asked this noting that it would determine the nature of the conflict. If IAC just wanted some pew-pew, they should have just said so and that's all it would have been; no calling in of mercs and no taking of stations. BTW. chat dialogs relating to this were posted by IAC, look it up! FACT: Responding to this threat to their shareholder's outposts, ISS called everything they could to defend said shareholders interests. FACT: ISS have no interest in IAC space or stations, they responded to a credible threat to shareholder interests. Seriously, I think too many people hit their heads on Veldspar asteroids when trying to aim their mining lasers at them!
Shirei Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:43:00 - [306] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Shirei Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: n sx Sadly for your shareholders, your leadership's poor management cost them dearly :( .... and this continued ignorance of their concerns and the fact that you're all harping on that losing stations 'won't hurt ISS' is just like a slap in the face for the people that REALLY own them. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The shareholders of Marginis have been negatively affected by a war of aggression by IAC. I'm somewhat biased, I admit, but I don't count it a failure of _management_ when a next door neighbour decides to start a fight. I'm also a shareholder of Marginis, and I'm not pleased with the turn of events. They're events I've on several occasions tried to prevent or divert, but ... well obviously that's not turned out so well. It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems... Actually, it was ISS management who asked IAC to set the scope of the conflict. E.g. whether it would include POSes or not. Now, given that they said 'it might include POSes' what would you consider the responsible action at that point? So by escalating the conflict they turned the 'might' into a 'certainly will'. The responsible action would be first trying to get some accurate intel, if IAC were actually preparing for or planning a POS a assault rather than headlong storming into one - apparently without being prepared for fighting one seriously. For all we know that 'maybe' from IAC could just have been IAC's leadership holding their options open depending how events unfold without actually having any particularly concrete plans.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 00:57:00 - [307] Edited by: James Lyrus on 10/01/2007 00:54:06 Originally by: Shirei Actually, it was ISS management who asked IAC to set the scope of the conflict. E.g. whether it would include POSes or not. Now, given that they said 'it might include POSes' what would you consider the responsible action at that point? So by escalating the conflict they turned the 'might' into a 'certainly will'. The responsible action would be first trying to get some accurate intel, if IAC were actually preparing for or planning a POS a assault rather than headlong storming into one - apparently without being prepared for fighting one seriously. For all we know that 'maybe' from IAC could just have been IAC's leadership holding their options open depending how events unfold without actually having any particularly concrete plans. You're entirely correct, 'maybe' they didn't intend it to turn into the scale of conflict it did. Then again, 'maybe' it was just hecause there were plans and intentions, but if it didn't work out that way, it'd provide a convenient backpedal. Or are you suggesting that we should be aware of the capital ships that could quite easily be parked in jump range somehow before they undock to make their strike. 'maybe' the inital assault was what cased the dreadnought assault to be delayed until after christmas, which in theory gave time to talk. I know for sure, that within 2 hours of the announcement, 200 pilots were attacking ISS. I know for sure that there was a report of 'possible hostile action' from a friend in another organisation a few days before. I expected at the time, and now know for certain that IAC had agents within ISS. I mean, who starts a war without a good idea of what they're facing? Not exactly nice, but ... well that's the way EVE goes. Hindsight's pretty good, but second guessing 'might have beens' is often fruitless.
Crozon Crozon Corp	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:08:00 - [308] Originally by: Shirei So by escalating the conflict they turned the 'might' into a 'certainly will'. The responsible action would be first trying to get some accurate intel, if IAC were actually preparing for or planning a POS a assault rather than headlong storming into one - apparently without being prepared for fighting one seriously. For all we know that 'maybe' from IAC could just have been IAC's leadership holding their options open depending how events unfold without actually having any particularly concrete plans. Seriously, Veldspar gravel on your head? I work at a hospital, I can have that looked at... Would it really have been wise for ISS to wait until IAC attacked their stations? Take a few minutes and go back a couple of pages on this forum. I'm quoting from memory but the chat went along the lines of: IAC: we want to fight ISS: on a serious note does this mean pos warfare? IAC: maybe IAC had been planning this for weeks (minimum) while still being blue to ISS, ISS had days to respond once IAC had declared their intentions. Who knows what IAC had planned. With the information they had at hand, it seemed that ISS outposts were at risk. ISS don't have sleeper agents, corp spies, vent/ts spies, kb sabatuers, pos offliners or corp hanger stealers in their employment (unlike most of their enemies). The only intel they had at the time was that IAC were now hostile and hadn't ruled out pos warfare when asked directly whether that would happen. The only way ISS would have gained intel indicating IAC's true intention (contrary to what their diplomats have stated, if their true intention was merely some pew-pew) would be to have an agent within their ranks, which I don't believe ISS would stoop to.
Crozon Crozon Corp	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:11:00 - [309] PS. I will be starting a new thread tomorrow detailing the morally doubious (but still legal by CCP) tactics used against ISS in this conflict. This will be more for a matter of discussion rather than flaming as it is still "fair" by CCP's definition.
Dr Slaughter ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:18:00 - [310] Originally by: Crozon Originally by: Shirei It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems... They really should make it a requirement for people who want to post on this forum, to READ this forum. FACT: IAC did not rule out pos warfare when asked point blank by the Count. Stating things like "we'll see who ends up with the stations". He asked this noting that it would determine the nature of the conflict. If IAC just wanted some pew-pew, they should have just said so and that's all it would have been; no calling in of mercs and no taking of stations. BTW. chat dialogs relating to this were posted by IAC, look it up! FACT: Responding to this threat to their shareholder's outposts, ISS called everything they could to defend said shareholders interests. FACT: ISS have no interest in IAC space or stations, they responded to a credible threat to shareholder interests. Seriously, I think too many people hit their heads on Veldspar asteroids when trying to aim their mining lasers at them! and... whilst ISS can lose control of the physical assets (outposts) the asset can't be destroyed so, should ISS ever recover lost outposts, the share holders would likely see a return of dividend payments. Potentially long term view I know....
DHB FooFighter FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:23:00 - [311] Originally by: Crozon PS. I will be starting a new thread tomorrow detailing the morally doubious (but still legal by CCP) tactics used against ISS in this conflict. This will be more for a matter of discussion rather than flaming as it is still "fair" by CCP's definition. Morality has no place in war. Those who think otherwise are naive. Especially if they think ISS didn't have spies of there own. -------------------------------------------- {2007.01.07 15:49:20 Notify Pretax Metron has initiated self-destruct of their Chimera}
DHB FooFighter FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:24:00 - [312] Originally by: Dr Slaughter Originally by: Crozon Originally by: Shirei It was ISS's management who decided to escalate the conflict into a POS/station war, which has backfired badly on them now it seems... They really should make it a requirement for people who want to post on this forum, to READ this forum. FACT: IAC did not rule out pos warfare when asked point blank by the Count. Stating things like "we'll see who ends up with the stations". He asked this noting that it would determine the nature of the conflict. If IAC just wanted some pew-pew, they should have just said so and that's all it would have been; no calling in of mercs and no taking of stations. BTW. chat dialogs relating to this were posted by IAC, look it up! FACT: Responding to this threat to their shareholder's outposts, ISS called everything they could to defend said shareholders interests. FACT: ISS have no interest in IAC space or stations, they responded to a credible threat to shareholder interests. Seriously, I think too many people hit their heads on Veldspar asteroids when trying to aim their mining lasers at them! and... whilst ISS can lose control of the physical assets (outposts) the asset can't be destroyed so, should ISS ever recover lost outposts, the share holders would likely see a return of dividend payments. Potentially long term view I know.... That's something I personally would love to see CCP implement into EvE. The ability to blow up player built outposts. Stands to reason that if we can put them up, we can sure as hell tear them down. Otherwise space might get a bit crowded. -------------------------------------------- {2007.01.07 15:49:20 Notify Pretax Metron has initiated self-destruct of their Chimera}
Shirei Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:26:00 - [313] Originally by: Crozon Seriously, Veldspar gravel on your head? I work at a hospital, I can have that looked at... Would it really have been wise for ISS to wait until IAC attacked their stations? Take a few minutes and go back a couple of pages on this forum. I'm quoting from memory but the chat went along the lines of: IAC: we want to fight ISS: on a serious note does this mean pos warfare? IAC: maybe IAC had been planning this for weeks (minimum) while still being blue to ISS, ISS had days to respond once IAC had declared their intentions. Who knows what IAC had planned. With the information they had at hand, it seemed that ISS outposts were at risk. ISS don't have sleeper agents, corp spies, vent/ts spies, kb sabatuers, pos offliners or corp hanger stealers in their employment (unlike most of their enemies). The only intel they had at the time was that IAC were now hostile and hadn't ruled out pos warfare when asked directly whether that would happen. The only way ISS would have gained intel indicating IAC's true intention (contrary to what their diplomats have stated, if their true intention was merely some pew-pew) would be to have an agent within their ranks, which I don't believe ISS would stoop to. If you think personally having an alt/spy in another alliance is the only way of getting intel, you are mistaken. People talk and any kind of larger scale mobilisation will typically create rumours you will be able to pick up, if you ask around your friends/allies a bit. In any case, it was this act of aggression and escalation by ISS based on a 'maybe' that made ISS lose a lot of goodwill with others who had previously still given them the benefit of the doubt regarding their neutrality. By allying themselves with several highly political entities against another on an offensive campaign, that was thrown into the wind, which is a very dangerous proposition for an entity whose continued presence in 0.0 largely depends on the goodwill of its neighbours.
Kadriel Disciples Of Chuck Norris	Posted - 2007.01.10 01:58:00 - [314] Originally by: n sx Edited by: n sx on 10/01/2007 00:05:20 Originally by: Chin LoPan Go ahead and laugh. At least we are attempting something very unique, difficult to do in this game, and different than almost any other corp or alliance. Go ahead and enjoy your perma bubblecamps, NBSI policy, and PvP orientation. I'm am sure at the end of the day you can say that you did something that nobody else has been able to do in EVE. Well, IAC doesn't operate an NBSI policy and we promote free space like you. We do however police it (best we can) and aren't afraid to call out our enemies. For the general 0.0 EVE pilot, IAC controlled stations make no difference whatsoever. And there ya go, thats my point. The thought of ISS Police keeping people safe in their space is still very hard to type.. again... from laughing. Chin, lemme break this down for ya - barney style - riff raff = people that prevent others from enjoying 0.0 in your space.
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.01.10 03:10:00 - [315] "That's something I personally would love to see CCP implement into EvE. The ability to blow up player built outposts. Stands to reason that if we can put them up, we can sure as hell tear them down." There's much longer queue of these who would like to kill than these who would like to build. Give the former what they want and the latter pretty much cease to bother. Or in other words, how many motherships and titans do you think were built if they were impossible to move and couldn't be logged off?
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 03:18:00 - [316] Originally by: James Lyrus I know for sure, that within 2 hours of the announcement, 200 pilots were attacking ISS. I guarantee it wasn't over 100 Probly quite a bit less in fact. http://eve.klaki.net/
DHB FooFighter FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 03:21:00 - [317] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Originally by: James Lyrus I know for sure, that within 2 hours of the announcement, 200 pilots were attacking ISS. I guarantee it wasn't over 100 Probly quite a bit less in fact. It's well documented that we entered system with 35-40 frigs, intys, and AF's. We got pasted by your BS gang after some crazy fun fights, then we got into BS's and destroyed your gang. IAC has never had 200 in a gang, that would require alliance participation :P -------------------------------------------- {2007.01.07 15:49:20 Notify Pretax Metron has initiated self-destruct of their Chimera}
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 03:26:00 - [318] I wasn't on that op We had over 130 in gang the other day when we put KDF in reinforced. That's most I've seen in an IAC gang so far envy AAA and TCF's participation levels http://eve.klaki.net/
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 08:21:00 - [319] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk envy AAA and TCF's participation levels Well, that's one I can agree on :).
DHB FooFighter FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 08:23:00 - [320] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk envy AAA and TCF's participation levels Well, that's one I can agree on :). TBH, i think they are all machines who don't sleep. -------------------------------------------- {2007.01.07 15:49:20 Notify Pretax Metron has initiated self-destruct of their Chimera}
Admentus Cor'vion Black Avatar Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.01.10 08:24:00 - [321] I think the iraqui information minister purposely said all that crap due to pre-emptive knowledge that he'd be an internet icon. But then again, tin foil hattery. _______________________________________________ Black Avatar - One of the oldest corps in Eve. "The end and the beginning."
Omeega Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.01.10 08:31:00 - [322] Originally by: DHB FooFighter Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk envy AAA and TCF's participation levels Well, that's one I can agree on :). TBH, i think they are all machines who don't sleep. aw CMON! we are humans! technolisa > stfu omee, eat a dck* ok we are not humans i guess. Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
Seiver D'amross Subach-Tech FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.10 12:32:00 - [323] and this started over what? rex loseing his impock??? or IAC just wanting to attack the blue guys ______________________________________________________ I shal stand tall and shake the heavens with my power
DeckardIRL Gallente Bravehearts Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.10 12:44:00 - [324] Originally by: DeckardIRL This war started over 6 months ago when ISS NAP'd CDC (who were enemies to both ISS and IAC at the time) and CDC were able to attack IAC from Marginnis. That was when IAC was not long in Catch and trying to get established having just deployed the Distillery. ISS then changed their charter so this couldn't happen again. But now this latest conflict. ISS then bungled it again by bringing in MC and thinking they would get a quick win. IAC held firm and totally turned it around. Count T made 2 public statements which Tyrrax rebuffed. The Count played politics the whole way instead of addressing IAC directly. ISS are now in trouble. However, remember IAC are not a conquering alliance and its now D2 and LV that are the real threat to ISS and with that its bye bye ISS- unless they can afford to employ BoB and that cost not even ISS can pay. Deck _____________________________________________ Watchin' the Game.... Havin' a Bud.... I shoot better on Bud..... Eve Info- All you need to know
Toman Torax Dark Blade Incorporated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.10 15:59:00 - [325] Originally by: Seiver D'amross and this started over what? rex loseing his impock??? or IAC just wanting to attack the blue guys December just called... it wants all of its threads back (combat) Your Inferno Torpedo hits Taisu Magdesh, doing 604.5 damage.
Archa Caldari United Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.10 18:15:00 - [326] I am really bazzled by the negative response to ISS leadership and ISS their actions. I have been a large shareholder of ISS stations from the moment they were build. And all those shares are probably worthless now. That doesn't make me want to blame ISS leadership? On the contrary, ISS went out with a bang! When their was a threat they used their own money to hire mercs to deal with the problem. They have done everything in their power to protect the starbases. They have done alot to try to keep the space safe for visitors and in making the stations profitable. They have turned a very small alliance into a huge alliance who at one time owned the most outposts ingame. They were the first alliance who set up such a major public investment and they actually did open up 0 sec for non-alliance members. Ofcourse someone might have run the alliance differently. Ofcourse someone might have made a different decision. But while running such a large operation in very hostile territory it is very hard to keep everyone as your friend. The only way ISS could work would be as long as everybody recognised ISS for the public service that they are. Every major alliance in this game could have destroyed ISS whenever they wanted. ISS has never been the biggest military power in the game, and they weren't supposed to be. I personally find it cowardly of IAC to lure out hostile activities from ISS and trying to justify their destruction of something beautiful in EVE. I find it cowardish of the GOONS and D2 for supporting and assisting in these actions. And I think it is a shame that no major alliance is standing up to assist ISS agains the obviously overwhelming number of forces. As always, it pays being evil. But my respect and thanks go out to all the ISS members and leaders for the 18 months of creating a public 0 sec space. and making the shares worth the investment. 1 and a half year in 0 sec space. There are not many alliances that can say that they accomplished that. Archa out.
Manus Ghostface Caldari Oberon Incorporated Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.01.10 18:16:00 - [327] Originally by: Seiver D'amross and this started over what? rex loseing his impock??? or IAC just wanting to attack the blue guys Butterfly effect for the win. That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick. - Lycurgus
Kung Zao	Posted - 2007.01.10 22:17:00 - [328] Originally by: Archa I am really bazzled by the negative response to ISS leadership and ISS their actions. I have been a large shareholder of ISS stations from the moment they were build. And all those shares are probably worthless now. That doesn't make me want to blame ISS leadership? On the contrary, ISS went out with a bang! When their was a threat they used their own money to hire mercs to deal with the problem. They have done everything in their power to protect the starbases. They have done alot to try to keep the space safe for visitors and in making the stations profitable. They have turned a very small alliance into a huge alliance who at one time owned the most outposts ingame. They were the first alliance who set up such a major public investment and they actually did open up 0 sec for non-alliance members. Ofcourse someone might have run the alliance differently. Ofcourse someone might have made a different decision. But while running such a large operation in very hostile territory it is very hard to keep everyone as your friend. The only way ISS could work would be as long as everybody recognised ISS for the public service that they are. Every major alliance in this game could have destroyed ISS whenever they wanted. ISS has never been the biggest military power in the game, and they weren't supposed to be. I personally find it cowardly of IAC to lure out hostile activities from ISS and trying to justify their destruction of something beautiful in EVE. I find it cowardish of the GOONS and D2 for supporting and assisting in these actions. And I think it is a shame that no major alliance is standing up to assist ISS agains the obviously overwhelming number of forces. As always, it pays being evil. But my respect and thanks go out to all the ISS members and leaders for the 18 months of creating a public 0 sec space. and making the shares worth the investment. 1 and a half year in 0 sec space. There are not many alliances that can say that they accomplished that. Archa out. QFT...good going to all the gangbangers...truly, your bravery inspires the rest of us...
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.10 22:25:00 - [329] Originally by: Archa I have been a large shareholder of ISS stations from the moment they were build. And all those shares are probably worthless now. Thanks for your kind words, however ISS are not dead and your shares are not worthless. We're still discussing things internally but there will be a shareholder meeting to discuss things. The announcement of time and date is still pending, though it SHOULD be posted some time tonight or tomorrow. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Ather Ialeas Amarr Karjala Inc. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.01.10 22:39:00 - [330] Sorry to interrupt your arguing but any word on what's going to happen to Calico? You know, the private LV sponsored ISS-managed outpost in C3-something in a nice set of deadend systems in Western Tenerifis.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.