Proxy bypasser wont work!!!

[n00bl4r]

i have a proxy bypasser v1 and i cant get it to work. and i cant afford to by a higher version. and i cant do any other mission to get more money... whats goin on...?

[Montyphy]

You're either not using it correctly, not purhcased a HUD_ConnectionAnalysis, or trying to use it on a system which has a higher version.

Not all missions require you to have a Proxy_bypass or a Proxy_disable so just do a different mission. If no missions of this type appear on the mission board just increase the game speed until more appear.

Next time try posting this in 'Hints and Tips'.

Welcome to the Forums.



P.S I just love your complete lack of capital letters and the way you start a sentence with "and"

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I love how you totally failed to help him. . .

And there is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction.

Buying a level 1 bypasser is a huge waste of money. If you don't have money for the level 5, buy the level 5 proxy dissabler instead (it is slow, but it will work).

To use a bypasser, after you have connected to the server, open the HUD Connection Analyser. Then open the software menu and select the bypasser. The bypasser should now be following your mouse around. Now simply click on the corresponding icon (proxy icon for proxy bypasser, etc) on the HUD Connection Analyser and the bypasser should lock-on to the icon. If the light turns green you know it's working.

[Montyphy]

I could have quoted FrostShard which is practically what you wrote but considering he failed to fully describe his problem I believe my post covers the scope of what he asked and so to say I completely failed to help is a little unfair. For example, he failed to mention whether he had the HUD_ConnectionAnalysis which would render the Proxy_bypasser useless if he didn't, hence why he could have come to the problem of not being able to make it work.

And yes I'm aware that it is ok to start a sentence with a conjunction (in some situations) but his use is just an abuse of the English language. Also, I should point out that although it is often used in published literature it is generally frowned upon in English exams and lessons. In fact, it can be considered improper use of grammar thus marks could actually be deducted.

[Deepsmeg]

Don't use a preposition to end a sentence with!

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I could have quoted FrostShard which is practically what you wrote but considering he failed to fully describe his problem I believe my post covers the scope of what he asked and so to say I completely failed to help is a little unfair. For example, he failed to mention whether he had the HUD_ConnectionAnalysis which would render the Proxy_bypasser useless if he didn't, hence why he could have come to the problem of not being able to make it work.

And yes I'm aware that it is ok to start a sentence with a conjunction (in some situations) but his use is just an abuse of the English language. Also, I should point out that although it is often used in published literature it is generally frowned upon in English exams and lessons. In fact, it can be considered improper use of grammar thus marks could actually be deducted.

Uplink doesn't allow you to buy the bypassers without having the Connection Analyzer. . .

Only poor English teachers would deduct for using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. They should however caution that it can lead to a run-on feeling if not used wisely.

You are rather snippy and rude in most of your posts, so I am just responding in a similar manner to demonstrate how silly and unreasonable that sort of thing is.

[n00bl4r]

Yeah thanks for the help aye and remember this is the internet, home of sloppy text. Maybe you should try a few other things one of these days, a girl maybe? just a thought.

[AnthonyS]

Welcome to the Uplink forums, home of the grammar-nazis

[Montyphy]

Only poor English teachers would deduct for using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. They should however caution that it can lead to a run-on feeling if not used wisely.

Ah, so now it's considered poor teaching for an English teacher to deduct marks because a student displays a lack of understanding of punctuation, grammar and structure? Do I even need to point out that (in English schools, that is, schools in England) they are required by the marking schemes of exam boards to deduct marks for such lack of ability and understanding?

You are rather snippy and rude in most of your posts, so I am just responding in a similar manner to demonstrate how silly and unreasonable that sort of thing is.

The difference between my posts towards new members and your posts towards me is that I generally criticize someone using poor English out of laziness and try to help (albeit, in a snippy and rude manner) whereas you generally try to belittle me by accusing me of being silly or stupid while pointing out flaws within my statements.

Don't use a preposition to end a sentence with!

I think that rule is slightly less enforced, but even so, there are occassions when it is clearly wrong, unnecessary and/or makes your point a little incoherent.

Yeah thanks for the help aye and remember this is the internet, home of sloppy text.

It is also the home of porngraphy but that doesn't mean I should post pictures of my naked arse everywhere I go online.

Maybe you should try a few other things one of these days, a girl maybe? just a thought.

How mature of you, to try undermine someone via accusations regarding their social life when you know nothing about them.

Welcome to the Uplink forums, home of the grammar-nazis

Godwin's Law

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Ah, so now it's considered poor teaching for an English teacher to deduct marks because a student displays a lack of understanding of punctuation, grammar and structure? Do I even need to point out that (in English schools, that is, schools in England) they are required by the marking schemes of exam boards to deduct marks for such lack of ability and understanding?

But this is not lack of understanding, nor is in improper grammar. Like I have said there is nothing wrong with using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence.

The difference between my posts towards new members and your posts towards me is that I generally criticize someone using poor English out of laziness and try to help (albeit, in a snippy and rude manner) whereas you generally try to belittle me by accusing me of being silly or stupid while pointing out flaws within my statements.

You have no way of knowing that the mistakes you correct are products of laziness. In any event the issue is the same; there are polite ways to correct grammar or posting errors/laziness. You however constantly use extremely offensive and abusive methods. I would just hope that you could tone it down a little.

[Montyphy]

But this is not lack of understanding, nor is in improper grammar. Like I have said there is nothing wrong with using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence.

Just because you said there's nothing wrong with it doesn't automatically make that the case. Ofcourse, there does exist some situations when it is "allowed" but look up the definition of 'conjunction' (I don't mean that literally as I'm sure you already know) and it will state something along the lines of, "part of speech used to join words, phrases or clauses". Thus, in accordance with this definition, if you don't use it to join two (or possibly more) words or phrases to form one, you have used it incorrectly, and in doing so, you risk demonstrating to an examiner a lack of understanding.

Now, you may think otherwise, for whatever reasons you feel justify your case, but if you do feel so strongly that I'm wrong in believing it's not always correct to use a conjunction to start a sentence then perhaps you should take it up with a few experts of the English language, as I am in no way skilled enough to go into deep decussion about such a topic.

You have no way of knowing that the mistakes you correct are products of laziness.

When a person fails to use capital letters, fails to use simple punctuation correctly (if at all), or abbrieviates words into 'txt langauge' it's pretty obvious to distinguish the difference betweeen someone who attempted to write coherently, someone who does not natively write/speak the language and someone who is just being lazy. Basically, it doesn't require a degree in Linguistics to be able to make such assumptions.

You however constantly use extremely offensive and abusive methods.

To say my methods are extremely offensive and abusive is a tad of an exaggeration, don't you think? Especially compared to your method of name calling.

I would just hope that you could tone it down a little.

Whatever happened to the American thinking of freedom of expression?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Now, you may think otherwise, for whatever reasons you feel justify your case, but if you do feel so strongly that I'm wrong in believing it's not always correct to use a conjunction to start a sentence then perhaps you should take it up with a few experts of the English language, as I am in no way skilled enough to go into deep decussion about such a topic.

Support for my argument.

Most authoritative accounts are only availible as books so I can't directly cite them, but this link has some references at the bottom that you can check on if you want.

When a person fails to use capital letters, fails to use simple punctuation correctly (if at all), or abbrieviates words into 'txt langauge' it's pretty obvious to distinguish the difference betweeen someone who attempted to write coherently, someone who does not natively write/speak the language and someone who is just being lazy. Basically, it doesn't require a degree in Linguistics to be able to make such assumptions.

Yes, but you don't confine your outbursts to those groups. I have seen you berate people whose native language is obviously not English, for example.

To say my methods are extremely offensive and abusive is a tad of an exaggeration, don't you think? Especially compared to your method of name calling.

Name calling? I don't believe I have engaged in any name calling. I have pointed out that many times your posts are as silly and stupid as the posts they were written to attack, but that is not name calling. In any event you seemed to concede that point yourself.

Whatever happened to the American thinking of freedom of expression?

I don't see what this has to with freedom of expression. It is not as if anyone is forcing you to be nicer. In any event even in America verbal abuse is illegal. The principle being that while a person is free to say what they want, this freedom doesn’t give them the right to infringe upon other people's freedoms though abusing them.

[ruhoward]

welcome to the debate forum.

[Montyphy]

Support for my argument.

Google can easily be used to churn out websites for either side of the argument. The sites not in favour of using conjunctions to start sentences pointing out it's a breach of the rule and that it goes against the definition of a conjunction while those in favour point out it's an outdated rule or that it allows text to be less formal. I guess it's down to personally judgement which side you choose and I see you are firmly in favour.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with being a little formal and I prefer not to use words out of context. Although that doesn't mean I'm completely against it. The quote, "Use conjunctions at the start of sentences judiciously." (www.writing911.com) nicely phrases how I feel. Although to be more exact, 'judge whether it is really necessary to do so, otherwise try rephrase your statement'.

Most authoritative accounts are only availible as books so I can't directly cite them, but this link has some references at the bottom that you can check on if you want.

There may be many references on the bottom of the page but only one of them seems to mention conjuctions, "Woe is I" by Patricia T. O'Connor. Is Patricia T. O'Connor considered a realiable source for authoritative accounts regarding this topic? If so, why?

Yes, but you don't confine your outbursts to those groups. I have seen you berate people whose native language is obviously not English, for example.

The only examples I can find that come close to matching your statement are this and this but they can hardly be considered berate because I did not scold them at length or high degree. Perhaps you know of better examples.

Name calling? I don't believe I have engaged in any name calling. I have pointed out that many times your posts are as silly and stupid as the posts they were written to attack, but that is not name calling.

Do you fail to recall yourself having wrote, "So again you are just being stupid."? In my opinion that is a direct "attack" towards me and not my post.

In any event you seemed to concede that point yourself.

Conceding to the point does not affect the validity of the claim.

I don't see what this has to with freedom of expression. It is not as if anyone is forcing you to be nicer. In any event even in America verbal abuse is illegal. The principle being that while a person is free to say what they want, this freedom doesn’t give them the right to infringe upon other people's freedoms though abusing them.

Since when has being blunt, sarcastic, or straight to the point been classified as verbal abuse? At the risk of being repetitive, I will point out you're name calling is the real verbal abuse.

For the record, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and not an "extremely offensive and abusive" method to "attack" someone. I mention this as it seems the sacasm in my first post to this thread seems to be one of the things that sparked this argument.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Google can easily be used to churn out websites for either side of the argument. The sites not in favour of using conjunctions to start sentences pointing out it's a breach of the rule and that it goes against the definition of a conjunction while those in favour point out it's an outdated rule or that it allows text to be less formal. I guess it's down to personally judgement which side you choose and I see you are firmly in favour.

I actually did a Google search and didn't happen across a single site that forbids using a conjuction to start a sentence. Also the whole definition thing is a bit stupid. Especially given that the Oxford English Dictionary (the authority on the English language) gives this as the grammatic definition of conjunction:

6. Gram. One of the Parts of Speech; an uninflected word used to connect clauses or sentences, or to co-ordinate words in the same clause.

The use of a conjuction at the beginning of a sentence in no way conflicts with that definition.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with being a little formal and I prefer not to use words out of context.

Heh, how can you use a word out of context? Context is based on how a word is used, not the other way around.

There may be many references on the bottom of the page but only one of them seems to mention conjuctions, "Woe is I" by Patricia T. O'Connor. Is Patricia T. O'Connor considered a realiable source for authoritative accounts regarding this topic? If so, why?

The author is an editor at the New York Times Book Review and an authority on modern English grammar.

Do you fail to recall yourself having wrote, "So again you are just being stupid."? In my opinion that is a direct "attack" towards me and not my post.

I don't see how that is name calling. I was simply saying your actions were stupid. I didn't call you stupid nor did I call you a name. Yes, I have openly and directly criticized your actions, but I feel that is entirely proper in this situation. I find it rather odd that you feel entitled to attack others yet don't feel you should be subject to similar actions.

Conceding to the point does not affect the validity of the claim.

LOL, I should say it does.

Since when has being blunt, sarcastic, or straight to the point been classified as verbal abuse? At the risk of being repetitive, I will point out you're name calling is the real verbal abuse.

I did not mean to say you were guilty of verbal abuse (in the legal sense anyway). I was simply stating that even in America the right to free speech is qualified.

For the record, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and not an "extremely offensive and abusive" method to "attack" someone. I mention this as it seems the sacasm in my first post to this thread seems to be one of the things that sparked this argument.

Very little of your comments are sarcastic. . . I had simply noticed a trend and felt it needed to be commented on.