lackattack, gettinhead, cheap conquerors & other bull & such

[BigBallinStalin]

lol i now think it is funny what some are saying.

ranching needs to be done to stay top because the people are doing it to catch the top spot... well you guys just think long and hard for a second if ranching was to become illegal then the people chasing the top spot won't be able to do it either.....

You have good intentions, eddie, but ranching is difficult to clearly define and even more difficult to enforce.

My main concern is similar to my concerns for the real world economy: people spout a seemingly good proposal, but they don't understand what it entails and usually are unwilling to attempt to foresee the unintended consequences.

[Agent 86]

dear Mr Lack,

I'd like to submit another analogy for you to consider before doing anything too drastic. Earlier I compared Ranching to the automobile industry. Now I'd like to take a minute and compare to. . .the retail industry:

For years Walmart never competed with "the big boys" of Sears, JC Penny and Kmart (the big 3). They started out building up strength in towns considered just too small for The Big 3. Then once they collected enough critical mass, they entered the major metropolitan areas and competed head on with the The Big 3. Eventually the Big 3 imploded -- beaten at the retail game by a new-start with an ear to THE CONSUMER. Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.

Similarities:
-complainers: either Big 3, or NeimanMarcus/Bloomingdales types that are out of touch with the consumer
-Walmart: GLG and opportunities for the consumer
-low prices: 4-5 point games -- instead of 20 pts
-metropolitan areas: quitting playing cooks, then cadets, then. . .

Again, the focus seems to be on the net result. While I disagree that RANCHING is a "cheap tactic", CC has far worse processes. Please look just as closely at:
-Clickable Maps -- that allow FASTER players to wipe out slower ones on FS, and dominate Battle Royalee, etc.
-teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players"
. . .those are just a few

There is a reason Caveat Emptor is a hallmark motto of capitalism. And I'm amazed that management seems to admit they are about to control situations they haven't even played in, based on input from The Money Changers.

Look for next analogy: British ships vs Spanish ships in The Spanish Armada

Lack, now GLG is telling you how to run things..Is he now the new site owner??

86

[Commander62890]

For the record, BBS: I enjoyed reading your counter-argument to my earlier post. I won't relinquish my position, because I don't believe newer players have much to gain from being systematically targeted by a handful of top players, and I don't see as much potential for harm if a change in rules comes gradually and thoughtfully. After all, this is CC... not the real world. There's no threat of endangering true freedoms.

Other than that... I defer to your expertise on the subject! I'm a moralist at heart; I leave the practical decision-making to others.
I just wanted to call attention to something that I thought was wrong, and that could possibly be changed for the better.

If, in fully assessing the situation, we come to the conclusion that any change would do more harm than good, I guess I'm okay with that. However, that won't change my gut feeling that there is something a little bit unsettling about some of the ways in which the top players systematically target the weak. If that is truly unavoidable, then I'll go along with it... I just won't be happy about it.

In the end, this is all a bit funny to me; I've never much cared about the scoring system. Several years ago, I happily came to terms with my understanding of the way in which the scoring system works; I understood that score had far less to do with skill, than it does game selection... and, even though I was way more involved in CC than I am now, I just didn't care. What's changed?

Is it GLG?

[lanyards]

Whatever rules made to stop bogrolling will be worked around by the players that focus on score. I agree that it is the scoring system that needs to be changed. If it were more skill-based, those with the real skill wouldn't have trouble catching up to and passing "cheap" players, and I think the amount of cheap players would decrease as they'd be able to achieve high scores with more ethical methods.

So I think the most efficient solution that would make everyone happy is to make some changes to the system. It may require some complex formulas or new concepts, but I had a simple idea that might be worth considering.

What about lowering the max amount of points that can be lost to like 40, and the least amount that can be won be like 10 (while seriously cracking down on those targeting lower ranks.) Maybe not these numbers, just the idea that these numbers could be changed possibly? Didn't think this through really just putting it out there.

Also maybe an option would be a system (optional maybe) when you are randomly paired with random players trying to play same map and similar settings, and only win 20 / lose 20. Or something like this.

The system just needs to be more forgiving for higher ranks, then they won't be driven to play so reserved.

[eddie2]

well did i ever complain about what blitz was doing no i did not. i will admit he was not bogrolling ranching etc....

what blitz and even ljex were doing is opposite of what glg does... I think this is where the main problem is with people who think glg's tactic is ok. lets look at the 2 styles and explinations of it..

ljex blitzaholic
ok these 2 were making games and inviting lower ranks on there side higher ranks would not join these, but i see a valid point that they were actually teaching lower ranks how to play the game and earning points for it(from what i remember glg was trying to say at one point he was a soc teacher when soc teachers don't join the games or have them on same team. and they put a alert out to all members of the group that he was not.). even though others feel it was unfair, i do not...(plz don't bring up i finally brought blitz down as that was for another reason) this is the style other members have taken on and if i am correct these 2 do not like glg's game style.

generallee
He makes private games invites only low ranks just off the ? rank who have never played games on the maps he picks because they are just of the n/r list so were not allowed to play it... he takes points from them and says he is teaching them the map.(see previous cases where he states this.) through doing this unlike ljex and blitz he is taking points from lower ranks who have no experiance of maps.

so yes i am against the ranching etc because it is total opposite of what other conqurers have done (ps plz he has had 4 reports for his game style 3 of which were before he was top of scoreboard.) So lets put a stop to this obvious abuse of new players.

[Evolution299]

Well GLG had it sort of right when he said it was like the automobile industry. But he is more like a used car salesmen.

And by used car salesmen, I mean carnival worker(carney). Think of what a carney does to hustle you out of your money while you are playing a game. Now think of GLG. See the comparision.

When my rating was dropping I used to get invites from him to his "games" almost weekly. Never accepted any of them, but i guess thats fair though because I invited him to 3 or 4 games and he never accepted either.

[Bones2484]

Whatever rules made to stop bogrolling will be worked around by the players that focus on score. I agree that it is the scoring system that needs to be changed. If it were more skill-based, those with the real skill wouldn't have trouble catching up to and passing "cheap" players, and I think the amount of cheap players would decrease as they'd be able to achieve high scores with more ethical methods.

So I think the most efficient solution that would make everyone happy is to make some changes to the system. It may require some complex formulas or new concepts, but I had a simple idea that might be worth considering.

What about lowering the max amount of points that can be lost to like 40, and the least amount that can be won be like 10 (while seriously cracking down on those targeting lower ranks.) Maybe not these numbers, just the idea that these numbers could be changed possibly? Didn't think this through really just putting it out there.

Also maybe an option would be a system (optional maybe) when you are randomly paired with random players trying to play same map and similar settings, and only win 20 / lose 20. Or something like this.

The system just needs to be more forgiving for higher ranks, then they won't be driven to play so reserved.

None of your suggestions would stop farming/ranching/bogrolling at all. In fact, it would only make it more beneficial, easier to do, and the top scores would become even more artificially inflated.

The system does not need to be "more forgiving", but it does need to be more "skill-based" as you state. There have been many possible suggestions in the appropriate forum, maybe one of them will stick.

[eddie2]

lets post glg response before i am banned.

eddie2,

not liking what I do is one thing, flaming/baiting is another -- but LIEING continuously is WRONG and needs to stop, and maybe be banned. your lies/exaggerations/misrepresentations include:
1) I NEVER said I was a SoC teacher. never -- totally made up.
2) "just off ? rank" - wrong; very FEW of my opponents are 6-50 games completed. BAD assumption
3) says he is teaching them the map: yes, i USED to offer that, and still do when they want/ask or deserve it. but I haven't claimed that in over a year. Now they do get EXPOSED to it, but TEACHING and EXPOSURE TO are vastly different things.

Global Mods,
disagreement is one thing. Stalking and lieing is another. In the real world it's called Slander/libel. Please arrange for it to stop. Please add the other 2 to the Flame mark I put on his comment (only noted the 1 of 3 issues)
response..

eddie2,

not liking what I do is one thing, flaming/baiting is another -- but LIEING continuously is WRONG and needs to stop, and maybe be banned. your lies/exaggerations/misrepresentations include:
1) I NEVER said I was a SoC teacher. never -- totally made up.
2) "just off ? rank" - wrong; very FEW of my opponents are 6-50 games completed. BAD assumption
3) says he is teaching them the map: yes, i USED to offer that, and still do when they want/ask or deserve it. but I haven't claimed that in over a year. Now they do get EXPOSED to it, but TEACHING and EXPOSURE TO are vastly different things.

Global Mods,
disagreement is one thing. Stalking and lieing is another. In the real world it's called Slander/libel. Please arrange for it to stop. Please add the other 2 to the Flame mark I put on his comment (only noted the 1 of 3 issues)


* * *
. . .from what i remember glg was trying to say at one point he was a soc teacher. . .

generallee
He makes private games invites only low ranks just off the ? rank who have never played games on the maps he picks because they are just of the n/r list so were not allowed to play it... he takes points from them and says he is teaching them the map.(see previous cases where he states this.) through doing this unlike ljex and blitz he is taking points from lower ranks who have no experiance of maps.
* * *

part 3 of your quote makes what i said valid glg

says he is teaching them the map: yes, i USED to offer that, and still do when they want/ask or deserve it. but I haven't claimed that in over a year

.

teachers of the game are soc and they do not gain points for there free service.. what i said is what i have seen over the years on cc, that post was not a bait or flame towards anyone it was what i have seen happening and what i have seen posted.. many don't understand but i respond on posts i read not fiction. also why have you invited greekdog into this and not clapper or rdsrds2020 because they no the score and my post was facts not fiction... at the end of it carry on with your bait flame posts and get away with it.. also plz dont pm me you told several mods that you wanted no contact but continue this pm carp towards me.

plz note i asked him to leave my pm box alone

eddie2,

1) NOT ALL teachers of the game are SoC, most are not. Educators IN SoC are TEACHERS. Huge difference.
2)it's lieing because "I NEVER said I was a SoC teacher".
3) my posts are MUCH LESS flaming and not flaming; you haven't seen me really flame yet. My posts are normally defensive, while yours are proactive/"started it"
4) I cc'd tgd/AD because AD is in charge, tgd is handling other GLG F/B/T issues and Clapper/rds seem biased/not impartial when I talk to them. Clapper admitted she could be biased and rds admitted he made rash Lock on my Old School thread.
5) BS, I did NOT say I wanted no contact. I said you need to be fairer, funnier and less nasty and fewer lies. Hmmm, Nag told me you didn't want me live-PM you. . are they lieing to both of us?
6) so by only arguing this one point, I assume you admit the other 2 were lies/huge exaggerations that impugne(?) my rep?

the point being, i've asked SEVERAL tims, but you don't listen. be less nasty and more logical, kk?

I recommend you type 50 times: "I will quit lieing/slandering GLG and behave like a nice ????"

* * *
part 3 of your quote makes what i said valid glg
says he is teaching them the map: yes, i USED to offer that, and still do when they want/ask or deserve it. but I haven't claimed that in over a year
.
teachers of the game are soc and they do not gain points for there free service.. what i said is what i have seen over the years on cc, that post was not a bait or flame towards anyone it was what i have seen happening and what i have seen posted.. many don't understand but i respond on posts i read not fiction. also why have you invited greekdog into this and not clapper or rdsrds2020 because they no the score and my post was facts not fiction... at the end of it carry on with your bait flame posts and get away with it.. also plz dont pm me you told several mods that you wanted no contact but continue this pm carp towards me.

eddie2

Posts: 2990
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:56 am
Location: jersey channel islands
* * *

* * *
. . .from what i remember glg was trying to say at one point he was a soc teacher. . .

generallee
He makes private games invites only low ranks just off the ? rank who have never played games on the maps he picks because they are just of the n/r list so were not allowed to play it... he takes points from them and says he is teaching them the map.(see previous cases where he states this.) through doing this unlike ljex and blitz he is taking points from lower ranks who have no experiance of maps.
* * *

[eddie2]

so plz last time stop sending me pm's or private chat rooms full of crap.

edit enjoy i will now be baned because i told him to go fluck himself in live chat

[BigBallinStalin]

[army of nobunaga]

anythread that says "lackattack" I substitute for "him who only cares about 30 bucks a year"


he is very Snape in many ways


or like the honey badger,,,,,,,, the mother fucker just dont care if money is coming in. (in motherfucker i meant hitler noone on this site, thanx)

[army of nobunaga]

btw demonfork fork fork me for president... i do not support many folk.

[WILLIAMS5232]

well, i've been following this from the get-go.

i've quit posting because it really seems to make no sense to do so. but after all this i think i'll make another post.

glgh won't stop because i think;
1/ he really enjoys winning at whatever cost. kind of like a whale enjoys plankton ( glgh+city mogul = whale/ ranks above "cadet" and ranks below lt with few to no games on city mogul = plankton )
2/ no one will force him to stop doing what he is doing. ( as easy as it sounds )
3/ there is no shame in his game
4/ he really enjoys being the most popular username on CC, not to mention the username with the highest score

pretty much i don't care what path he chose to get to conq. that goal is just not high on my list of things to do, so it's really the least of my concern. but in my opinion no matter how much anyone tries to justify that this is "kosher", i'll never be convinced. it's just a paper title in my eyes. and i'm sure it's the same in most other's. so no biggie right. it's just a game.

so far, the best solution i've seen is the split leaderboard. that would pretty much solve everthing. i mean, who really cares about being the top 1v1 player right. it would also make a broader spectrum of fun. i would think that the scoreboard could be for'
1v1
2v2
3v3
4v4
3 player games
4 player games
5 player games
6 player games
7 player games
8 player games
overall

this would be great. the average score would be the overall and true conquerer. this would also give more people a better sense of where they stand in thier own favorite game types.

i don't see how this is not a bigger topic at this point. this kind of reinvigorates CC in my opinion. please start working on this now.

so, for the record, i don't really expect anything to be done. this is just me venting after a long period of silence about the subject.

[thegreekdog]

I've been under the impression (and it's just an impression) for quite a while that most high ranked players are specialists in a particular game type or map and, in order to accumulate a large number of points, play against less experienced players (not new recruits). I have been both recruited to play such games or have played such games of my own accord. Many times, these games consist of team games where one team is an established veteran, officer-only team, and the other team is a ragbag mixture.

Now, obviously I don't have statistics... all I can see are the "waiting for players" games and my own experiences. But, I'm a big supporter of people understanding BBS's "unintended consequences" discussion as it seems quite relevant in this instance.

[army of nobunaga]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...


but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.



edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

[greenoaks]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...


but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.



edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

why don't you tell us what you really think

[jefjef]

[codeblue1018]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...


but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.



edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

Total turd!

[oVo]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...

but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.

edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

You're talking out your ass and are off topic.

#4) he really enjoys being the most popular username on CC

Popular username to who? Seems embarrassingly juvenile to anyone but pre-teens to me.
or did I miss the sarcasm of your post?

[Crazyirishman]

Why is everyone here such a bunch o pussies? huh. You no what imma gonna do? im goin to bitch about lack takin ma money and then get busted as a multi then buy back my premium and then bitch about lack some mo money that damn pussy canadean. You understand me now you collection of cowardly wimps? go f*ck your own pussies up and down the street. At least im honest and not afraid to say what I feel.

[Fruitcake]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...


but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.



edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

I haven't renewed my premium for two years now due to poor service. what's your excuse for continuing to be so strong in words but so weak in action?

[Johnny Rockets]

dear Mr Lack,

I'd like to submit another analogy for you to consider before doing anything too drastic. Earlier I compared Ranching to the automobile industry. Now I'd like to take a minute and compare to. . .the retail industry:

For years Walmart never competed with "the big boys" of Sears, JC Penny and Kmart (the big 3). They started out building up strength in towns considered just too small for The Big 3. Then once they collected enough critical mass, they entered the major metropolitan areas and competed head on with the The Big 3. Eventually the Big 3 imploded -- beaten at the retail game by a new-start with an ear to THE CONSUMER. Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.

Similarities:
-complainers: either Big 3, or NeimanMarcus/Bloomingdales types that are out of touch with the consumer
-Walmart: GLG and opportunities for the consumer
-low prices: 4-5 point games -- instead of 20 pts
-metropolitan areas: quitting playing cooks, then cadets, then. . .

Again, the focus seems to be on the net result. While I disagree that RANCHING is a "cheap tactic", CC has far worse processes. Please look just as closely at:
-Clickable Maps -- that allow FASTER players to wipe out slower ones on FS, and dominate Battle Royalee, etc.
-teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players"
. . .those are just a few

Lets take a breather, boys and girls. Too much flaming and bitching.

GLG: Thanks for the Walmart analogy: Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.
Walmart also exploited the American consumer and it's economy by providing cheap off shore goods, paying shitty wages and controlling markets with it's obscene purchasing power while ruining every mom and pop store and scores of small local manufacturers, thus creating a reliance on off shore goods and in the end helping to destroy the American economy.

So if you are Walmart, the site is the American Economy, and we are the consumers, then you and your methods aren't very good for us at all are they? Thank you for putting it together so quaintly.

When you compare the unfair method of Ranching with clickable maps and teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players.....

Well this is where you fall off the tracks. I don't like clickable maps, but when both players use them, then at least the playing field is level. Skilled teams work together to learn from each other and grow their playing skills, and develop teamwork skills. This is a learned and earned skill set and the victories obtained are honorable because they had to WORK for them.
RANCHING IS JUST EXPLOITING INEXPERIENCED OR UNSKILLED MEMBERS. Thanks not working for it, and that's not honorable. The fact that you cannot conceive this makes me very sad for your son, or your father, depending on who you are today.

Johnny Rockets

[oVo]

The WalMart analogy is marginal. They've upped their quality a lot and still not reached the standards of Sears or JC Penny. Their selective parallel business --Sam's Club-- is also part of the equation and the undoing of small family businesses by their bulbous bulk purchase power is an unfortunate side effect. Amazon is now easily a factor as well and there may just be some sort of comparison to who's affected by bulk harvesting for rank here. It certainly establishes a perception of quantity over quality for the most part.

The experience and acquired skills employed in 1v1 games is certainly comparable to what a well oiled team accomplishes by setting up games with their preferred settings. In the public arena taking on all challengers* may not generate fair competition, but isn't unreasonable. Creating private games and inviting low ranks --perceived as easy marks-- to join will always be skeptically viewed as cheap.

* also gives less experienced players the oportunity to see how the game is played.

[Evolution299]

lackattack = lol customer satisfaction. ... lol wait till some sunnofabitch on a diff site cuts into his canadian redneck Riviera profit margin... then A and his band of idiots will lead a charge of change to meet customer complaints...

but really the fault is ours... we pay this mother fucker for complacency.

edit and before you little tripe motherfucker suspend for another week... "A" means alfred and " that "mother fucker" mean my father in law and he is.

so f*ck off wimps

You're talking out your ass and are off topic.

#4) he really enjoys being the most popular username on CC

Popular username to who? Seems embarrassingly juvenile to anyone but pre-teens to me.
or did I miss the sarcasm of your post?

Has anyone filed a complaint over his username? It is kind of offensive. Not to me, but maybe to some.

[BigBallinStalin]

dear Mr Lack,

I'd like to submit another analogy for you to consider before doing anything too drastic. Earlier I compared Ranching to the automobile industry. Now I'd like to take a minute and compare to. . .the retail industry:

For years Walmart never competed with "the big boys" of Sears, JC Penny and Kmart (the big 3). They started out building up strength in towns considered just too small for The Big 3. Then once they collected enough critical mass, they entered the major metropolitan areas and competed head on with the The Big 3. Eventually the Big 3 imploded -- beaten at the retail game by a new-start with an ear to THE CONSUMER. Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.

Similarities:
-complainers: either Big 3, or NeimanMarcus/Bloomingdales types that are out of touch with the consumer
-Walmart: GLG and opportunities for the consumer
-low prices: 4-5 point games -- instead of 20 pts
-metropolitan areas: quitting playing cooks, then cadets, then. . .

Again, the focus seems to be on the net result. While I disagree that RANCHING is a "cheap tactic", CC has far worse processes. Please look just as closely at:
-Clickable Maps -- that allow FASTER players to wipe out slower ones on FS, and dominate Battle Royalee, etc.
-teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players"
. . .those are just a few

Lets take a breather, boys and girls. Too much flaming and bitching.

GLG: Thanks for the Walmart analogy: Walmart gave people convenient stores, 24 hour service and low prices -- that helped keep US inflation low for decades.
Walmart also exploited the American consumer and it's economy by providing cheap off shore goods, paying shitty wages and controlling markets with it's obscene purchasing power while ruining every mom and pop store and scores of small local manufacturers, thus creating a reliance on off shore goods and in the end helping to destroy the American economy.

So if you are Walmart, the site is the American Economy, and we are the consumers, then you and your methods aren't very good for us at all are they? Thank you for putting it together so quaintly.

When you compare the unfair method of Ranching with clickable maps and teams of 3v3/4v4 that use their experience/communication/teamwork to beat "unsuspecting newer players.....

Well this is where you fall off the tracks. I don't like clickable maps, but when both players use them, then at least the playing field is level. Skilled teams work together to learn from each other and grow their playing skills, and develop teamwork skills. This is a learned and earned skill set and the victories obtained are honorable because they had to WORK for them.
RANCHING IS JUST EXPLOITING INEXPERIENCED OR UNSKILLED MEMBERS. Thanks not working for it, and that's not honorable. The fact that you cannot conceive this makes me very sad for your son, or your father, depending on who you are today.

Johnny Rockets

No, it doesn't. See:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=165947&start=15#p3624224



Here are articles about Wal-Mart:

Carden, Art and Charles Courtemanche. 2009. Walmart, Leisure, and Culture. Contemporary Economic Policy 27(4):450-461.

show

Carden, Art, Charles Courtemanche, and Jeremy Meiners. 2009. Does Wal-Mart Reduce Social Capital? Public Choice 138:109-136.
(i.e. Does Wal-Mart destroy communities?)

show

Walmart also exploited the American consumer and it's economy by providing cheap off shore goods, paying shitty wages and controlling markets with it's obscene purchasing power while ruining every mom and pop store and scores of small local manufacturers, thus creating a reliance on off shore goods and in the end helping to destroy the American economy.

Wal-Mart signals to local stores which areas to setup shop and which products to specialize in (i.e. products which Wal-Mart can't or doesn't provide).

Tyler Cowen's Creative Destruction is a good read.



Also, Wal-Mart doesn't discriminate against its customers--unlike many small-town cafes and stores in the South.