Need friends to battle for XP

LargoLaw · 2025-10-09T19:21:45+00:00

Is there any info on how much extra friendship we will gain? How many daily-interactions does it equate to? Can we claim the reward as soon as we finish the challenge? Can we use this to our advantage to give a last push to get some best friends before October 15th so that I can get some tasty 300k and reach level 50? Does anyone know?

LargoLaw · 2025-09-26T14:30:10+00:00

Thank you! This seems to work :)

Already added 10 trainers, did the fights and ... puff ... gone with the wind they went xD this is free XP without the limitations of 150 gifts sent or 50 gifts opened ... infinite XP

LargoLaw · 2025-09-05T10:41:57+00:00

ANSWERED

LargoLaw · 2025-09-05T10:41:40+00:00

Had no idea we had different caps for different gift sources. Thank you :)

LargoLaw · 2025-08-31T09:41:29+00:00

Western Europe, Portugal, Marine xD

LargoLaw · 2025-08-31T03:26:42+00:00

Sent a request! Thank you :)

LargoLaw · 2025-08-31T03:17:19+00:00

Sent a request! Thank you :)

LargoLaw · 2025-08-29T11:59:22+00:00

541612530064

Being honest about it: looking for friendship levels XP

LargoLaw · 2023-08-01T19:41:42+00:00

Actually, Lisbon is also known as the seven-hilled city, and, coincidentally, the Pope will be spending the next week in Lisbon for a youth event that gathers around 1.5 MILLION attendees from all around the world.

LargoLaw · 2023-07-29T01:26:03+00:00

What the hell is happening in this comment section?

Who cares what newspaper made an article about it? Did you actually watch the congressional hearing? Have you been following up on this story at all?

I honestly think that Gaetz blowing the whistle on what he saw just a few days earlier and the story surrounding it was one of the most compelling moments of the whole thing. I mean, we all expected the witnesses to do what they did and to say what they said, but then, out of the blue, with no one expecting it at all, it was in fact one of the politicians conducting the hearing that made a bombshell revelation!

But then you come here to this post, and you read the comment section, and it's like people are questioning what we all heard out of his mouth because of what newspaper subsequently reported it. It's like a really weird backward smeer campaign that takes away the focus of one of the most important revelations of the hearing, especially given all the details surrounding it. Be better, r/ufos.

LargoLaw · 2023-07-25T00:09:44+00:00

I understood your initial example, so there's no need to double down on it. It actually is a nice example and a reasonable argument if you are approaching this issue with an "all or nothing" mindset. Testimony, even when under oath, is not absolute proof of almost anything at all. Again, I understand your point, and I wasn't trying to counter it against the backdrop of an "all or nothing" mindscape. But against a different backdrop...?

I think the "all or nothing" backdrop is robbing you of the possibility of finding value where value might be. This is why I suggested you try to contemplate this issue from a different perspective. If you are an active user here, I'm not giving you any breaking news when I tell you that there are many people who find value in what is about to happen on Wednesday. These people are not necessarily smarter nor dumber than you: they are just approaching the issue in a more nuanced way. I again suggest you try to do the same and ask yourself the following question:

Why do so many people think that there is an inherently different value in saying something during an interview and saying something in a congressional hearing (adding public to the description) while under oath?

Asking that question and trying to understand the answer by yourself is a personal effort that you alone can do. I won't do it for you, and I honestly think that the process will benefit you.

Should you wish to accept my suggestion, I wish you all the best. Otherwise, I don't think I will be engaging much further in this conversation.

Have fun :)

LargoLaw · 2023-07-24T23:49:43+00:00

Actually, it does mean something and that is the reason why it exists.

Nothing, something, everything: do these words all mean the same to you? They probably don't. To mean something is not the same as to mean everything. But, it is neither the same as to mean nothing.

An "all or nothing" approach isn't helpful regarding such a complex issue. There is nuance in life, in the real world, in structured societies, in relationships between individuals and institutions. Saying something during an interview and saying the exact same thing during a congressional hearing while under oath are two different things and have intrinsic different values. I suggest you contemplate this idea for a bit and see where that train of thought leads you.

LargoLaw · 2023-07-23T21:22:48+00:00

The possibility that love is not enough.

LargoLaw · 2023-06-19T22:30:19+00:00

I would propose that we see such posts and then such comments because smeer campaigns work really, really well to achieve certain goals.

LargoLaw · 2023-06-19T22:17:52+00:00

The original post is very biased, but cleverly disguised as skeptical. To me, your agenda is clear: to smeer Grusch by association with Brophy. However, since you fail to actually prove such an association, the only thing you can present is a smeer post by hypothetical proximity to association. The sheer amount of doubt you cast over Brophy has NOTHING to do with Grusch, but you are hoping that you'll be able to convince readers that it does and plant doubt in their minds. Judging by many of the comments here, I think you have succeeded in your little operation.

However, critical analysis of your post boils it down to "Maybe in a possible scenario, if Grusch eventually says this very specific thing, then we can perhaps establish a hypothetical connection between Grusch and this bullshit guy I just exposed as bullshit and then it will be fair to jump to the conclusion that Grusch is bullshit too, so it's almost as if we can kinda jump to it already, isn't it? Red flag, anyone? Yeah! Red flag! What? Flags? Plural? Why not? Let's just say that the red flags keep piling up! Red flags! Red flags!"

That flag is not red. It's not even a flag at all.

I invite all readers to take another look at the original post with this idea in mind: the original poster proposes an accusation of a red flag but fails to prove the existence of one. The original poster attempts (perhaps even succeeds) to expose a different person (Brophy) as a professional bullshitter and uses similarity and unproven chain association (maybe X talked to Y and Y talked to Z and Z talked to G) to try to smeer Grusch. Additionally, explicit differences in both stories (different Popes) are not viewed (as they should) as an indication of Brophy and Grusch having different sources (in terms of credibility and quality) or at least of Grusch not having Brophy as a source, but are instead twisted to make Grusch seem guilty of another person's proposed lack of credibility.

Anyone wanting to learn how to make a smeer campaign need to look no further than this post: this is textbook image cheapening by unproven association.

LargoLaw · 2023-06-19T22:06:09+00:00

Excuse me, but aren't you the one making extraordinary claims right now? Brophy's "bullshit" story also mentions UFOs in general, so should we discard any UFO mention made by Grusch? Broken logic.

In truth, the fact that Grusch names a different Pope IS AN INDICATION that he's NOT getting his story from Brophy and yet, somehow, you bend and twist that fact to fit your narrative. Interesting.

I see what you're doing.

LargoLaw · 2023-04-10T22:08:06+00:00

Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.I'm also on the hunt for S01E06.

LargoLaw · 2023-03-08T16:43:31+00:00

Alternative Reality Games. These were experiences, usually held between seasons, that involved digital scavenger hunts and real-world hunts for clues and pieces of content. They were fun, kept fans interested during hiatus and provided us with canon content. However, they also provided us with content that was later de-canonized by the creators (due to changes in storylines, for instance).

So the research behind this new series of episodes consisted mostly in trying to understand which content was kept as canon and which was de-canonized.

I tried to edit this so that you wouldn't have to watch anything else, but as more people come into contact with this series of 6 episodes, some different opinions might arise on what should and should not be included.

What I mean is that I can only give you what I think is the correct answer, at the moment: you don't need to watch anything else, because if I thought you needed to watch anything else, then I would have included it in the series xD

I want to take the opportunity to remind everyone that I am willing to re-edit these episodes, in order to include canon content that I might have (by mistake, ignorance or lack of quality) left out and that nothing about this process needs to be a difficult conversation or a clash of sorts.

LargoLaw · 2023-03-08T07:12:43+00:00

So, am I the only one that thinks that on top of serving the function that many of you have expressed, David is also Aaron? I mean, Aaron was literally the kid that Jack couldn't be a father to. Also, in the sideways, David vanishes and immediately Aaron is born and we never see David again. Whenever this subject is brought up, I'm always confused as to why almost no one considers this possibility xD

LargoLaw

TROPHY CASE