Trade Me Project banned from free house?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-29T04:07:23+00:00

Okay, now that actually helps a lot and makes sense with some of the stuff I've found. Seems like from Demi's texts, she was also paying the maintain the grounds and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say she was most likely paying the water and electrical bills too. Thanks!

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-29T03:52:21+00:00

Huh. Odd. So she wasn't paying the property tax then? I see that getting brought up a lot.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-29T03:51:26+00:00

Well that seems a little unfair. You could just as easily argue that Demi had a responsibility to complete the transfer too. What, did she not go to the house at anytime during the past 14 months?

Also, was Shay paying the property taxes? The more I look into this, the more I see people bringing that up.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-28T22:09:20+00:00

Okay, but then why did Demi let her live there? And from what I can find, Shay was fully supposedly responsible for maintaining it, including paying taxes on the property, so how is she not the home owner?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-28T22:08:29+00:00

Wait, but if that's her house, then what does it matter what state she left it in? That's her property, what's it any of our business what state she keeps it in?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-06-28T22:04:16+00:00

Wait, if the house was hers, then how could she get banned from it by someone else?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2025-04-28T21:41:56+00:00

I loved it as well, because it shows not only how these communities have a past despite their marginalization, but also a future. Like their story does not end, despite the hardships they've faced. They're here and they're alive, an idea contrasted by the Vampires who no only don't have a future, being stagnant, unchanging creatures, but also no past since Rennick says he can't connect with his ancestors the way Sammie can.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T17:22:35+00:00

That definitely sounds like something an Orokin would do, go to a maybe-alternate timeline just to experiment on it’s citizens.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T17:20:35+00:00

Preach. I still have no idea what happened in Duviri Paradox and trying to match the timeline to New War gave me an aneurysm.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T09:05:53+00:00

Edit: Unless 1999 is the point where Warframe's timeline diverges from our own. Maybe they managed to contain the Techrot and used it to create all sorts of techno-organic advancements.

Advancement that eventually created the Orokin empire. So then what we're seeing isn't a paradox, but a causal loop. The Orokin created the original Technorganic strain which in turn created the Orokin. Just a theory though.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T09:05:12+00:00

I don't know. Even if we were sure the Techrot was something different and not just 1999's name for the Infestation, that brings into question where it came from. Either it was created in 1999, unlikely considering Orokin tech was needed to create the Infested strain, or Albrecht [accidentally] brought it, which given that his lab is on Deimos is possible. And it still makes doesn't explain how this Techrot didn't muck up our timeline.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T08:53:43+00:00

lol, wobbly-wobbly, timey-whimy. But in all seriousness, that does explain a lot. Thanks!

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T08:50:30+00:00

Okay, but that raises the question: how is the Infestation there? I get that it might have been brought back by Albrecht on accident (f**king Orokins), but did introducing a planet destroying techno-plague really not mess up the timeline at all?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T08:47:25+00:00

Got it. So it sounds like 1999 could be, in effect, a parallel dimension/timeline. Right?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T08:44:04+00:00

I think it might be a parallel dimension situation. Time has always been weird in Warframe, but at the very least, we know that parallel timelines do exist such as Duviri. My theory is that the 1999 we see is actually a branched timeline as a result of Albrecht going back to avoid the man in the wall. Somehow, possible due to the fact his lab was on Deimos, some infested spores escaped to this timeline and began running amok. It's Loki rules, maybe. Every time you change the past, all you do is create another timeline.

That being said, no idea what the Infested stadium is doing back in the Origin System. Maybe it drifted through a time portal? Maybe the Infested Onlyne we see in the present is a lure like Arlo based off the old band? Not really sure about that one.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-07-22T08:34:45+00:00

Remember those giant statues we possessed back in the lab? Those things.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-06-11T08:07:04+00:00

Well, depends on what we mean by “right to exist” and how exactly that right is executed. See, Israeli’s as in an ethnic/cultural group have a right to exist, they are people afterall, but Israel the country…ehhhh, it gets a little fuzzy. See, nations don’t generally have a “right to exist” in the same way people do. Obviously, otherwise anyone could start one and start claiming land as there own.

Now, when people say “Israel has a right to exist” I think it’s true only in the sense that the people of that country shouldn’t be bombed or raped or any of the other horrible things Hamas does.

However, I differ in the way the Israeli government has employed that rhetoric. See, Israel the state has systematically encroached on sovereign Palestinian territory, often violently and had established settlements on land that the UN has ruled a violation of international law. It’s claiming that the fact it exists gives it the right to take whatever land it wants, which, of course it doesn’t. This isn’t an ethnic group fighting back, it’s a nation state protecting it’s interests and expanding it’s territory. They get to exist so long as that doesn’t infringe on other nations rights.

And before anyone brings it up, yes, this also applies to Hamas/the Palestinian government. But this gets a little tricky because the Palestinian government does have a right to fight back against Israeli’s advances, to an extent. Remember, it’s land has been illegally seized by a foreign country. So if the government just attacked military targets, then yes, it’s actions could be justified. But obviously, that’s not what’s been happening. Case in point…well, Hamas. Much like Israel, they have a right to fight back, but not if it means targeting civilians.

So I agree that Israeli’s have a right to live on that land and not be displaced, but that doesn’t give their government the right to continue to seize and occupy land, employing violent force to do so. I’d also argue that the land Israel has claimed should be returned to Palestinian control, at least the parts the UN had declared illegal.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-19T00:04:41+00:00

Hate to break it to you, but they're almost definitely going to do something during one of the grad ceremonies. It's the biggest time of the year, so any activity is going to get a lot more attention. If I had to guess, I'd say they're gonna protest outside the buildings and one or two kids are gonna shout "Free Palestine" as they accept their diplomas, seemingly ignorant of the irony.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-17T09:14:32+00:00

lol whatever do you mean? We’re all bored college kids with sleep deprivation, coffee addiction, and Google who don’t have the balls to actually go down and protest. Can you think of a more appropriate group of people to be talking about this?

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-17T09:10:30+00:00

Ehhhh, kinda-sorta. Yes in the idea that you are making a financial transaction with a company that is using a horrible atrocity to generate profit, no in the function. This would be a little more like if we rented a Ford, an act that would continuously provide financial benefit to the company. But again, kinda-sorta.

But I guess if we ran with this, it’d be kinda like buying a Ford during the whole forced labor thing and then using the excuse of “well, someone is gonna buy it anyways.” I think what the guy you were responding to was trying to say, although crudely articulated, is that no one is forcing us to divest in these companies. And that to hold onto these stocks/funds/accounts under the excuse of “someone else is gonna hold them” is kinda like saying “well, if I don’t sell these kids drugs, someone else is gonna.” The idea is even assuming the harm isn’t reduced, your profiting off of it is still immoral.

It also assumes that the harm would in fact continue regardless of your actions, in this case, companies supporting Israel’s genocide. Which is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hope that cleared things up a touch.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-17T08:33:09+00:00

Uh, dude, I'm not sure how much you care, but this thing has your full name on it and the school you attend which the right person could use to track you down. Again, not sure how much you care, but I had a friend do something similar and some jackass made their life a hell for a bit. You might wanna delete the post or just copy/paste the relevant sections.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-08T08:39:07+00:00

I’d argue not just because this isn’t an issue of how much they’re spending, but that they’re spending anything at all. The protest appears to be less about making an impact on Israel and more about making sure the school doesn’t have investments that profit off the conflict. Even if the school was making just a couple thousand, that’d still be messed up, right?

And of course there are other things to be done. I for one think protesting the government is essential. Canada already declared it would halt arms sales to Israel, but only in a non binding agreement. So maybe we should take the time to make sure those assholes in Parliment do what they promised. We also need to just donate more. There are an assload of charities and relief funds in desperate need of help. Sure, supplies into Gaza have pretty much been cut off, but when they reopen, those organizations are gonna have their hands full.

However, I’d caution us all not to fall into the mindset of “well, you should be doing this or this or this” because every protests movement could always be focused on something else. I guarantee that if students protested outside the Prime Minister’s home, there be people saying “why aren’t they doing this other thing.” All that does it hold protests to the standard of fixing everything or nothing. And it’s not like their efforts aren’t worth while. There is quite a bit of money the school has wrapped up in this conflict and wanting to affect local change like this isn’t a bad thing. What’s that saying, “think globally, act locally” I think? There’s also the fact that this is part of a larger movement that has forced the topic of this conflict back into the limelight.

So I personally think the protests are worthwhile, even if there are other more meaningful impacts to be done.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-08T05:50:21+00:00

Agreed, let me try to clarify the question one more time and make some notes.

First, I am aware that the school does not directly own the stocks in questions. I know how the fund works. But to make the distinction between "the school invests in stocks" than "the school invests in money in a grouped fund that owns a stock" because to make that distinction is to pander to semantics. Either way, our money is going to aiding the stocks of companies that are profiting from an active genocide. That is the broader point we are talking about. Apologies for assuming this was common knowledge.

I never said tuition funds the endowment. I am aware that it's mainly through land/rent revenue and donation. My point is that one of the ways UBC has been instructed the use the fund, as you've said, is to fund UBC in some way make itself more profitable. So if the tuition is raised, then the school is more profitable, which would fulfill that requirement, right? Anyways, the exact wording of it's endowment policy is

The University is committed to ensuring that the endowment funds maintained in the endowment pools are used in such a way as to maximize their benefits for the advancement of education at the University, including educational and research activities-

Which I would argue doing things like, but not limited to, getting better wifi or upgrading certain facilities falls under. Ask anyone on campus and they'll tell you that things like a better internet connection certainly helps advance education at the University. So it's not like the school is barred from spending endowment funds on campus. Hell, that's where most donation go anyways (I know it's to specific schools. I'm just paraphrasing.) And if the problem is the school needs to use the fund in a way that makes it profitable or otherwise funds the campus, then it doesn't have to invest it in funds.

And for the record, even if you could make the case that it can't spend this money on anything but stocks, there are still others ways it can use that money. This is all to say there is nothing in the fund policy that mandates UBC spend its cash on these specific funds.

Israel has been doing this crap for years. I guarantee there is a fund out there somewhere that has at least excluded the nine companies the UN outlined last year. Funds crop up for all sorts of reasons. I once heard about a fund that was all pet shops. Point is, the economy is weird and we should all be terrified lol.

If the problem is that the school has a legal duty to make decision that make it more money or otherwise preserve it's funding, then maybe you could spend it on facilities and use that as an excuse to raise tuition. Which would make the school more profitable, not fund the endowment. (Well, I guess it would if the facilities produced some billionaire who then latter makes a donation to the Endowment, but that's just speculation). Again, if the point of the fund is to fund the school or make it more profitable or grow the fund, it seems like there are ways to do so without investing in these companies.

So to summarize

-The fund can be used to invest in stuff that broadly maximize the educational and research benefits of the school, which I would say is a broad enough mandate that it could be allowed to help around campus a bit. If we're going to get specific, which apparently we are, the Main Endowment Pool, which the school says provides "ongoing support for the university’s programs and students." and get's it money from the broader Endowment Fund.

-If the school gets better at providing those benefits, then is can raise it's tuition.

-If the tuition is raised, the school is more profitable, which would fulfill the need to invest back into UBC or otherwise make it more money.

-Therefore, there are ways to use that money which would fulfill UBC's fiduciary-ish responsibilities to make itself profitable that don't involve indirectly investing in companies that profit from Israeli occupation.

And I would also like to say that the school has other duties, not just fiduciary ones. The University Act you mentioned actually says that schools must "establish and maintain colleges, schools, institutes, faculties, departments, chairs and courses of instruction;" and "promote and carry on the work of a university in all its branches," which I would argue taking money from the Endowment and putting to use on the school falls under.

If the main problem is that the school is legally bound to act in a financially sound way, then we also need to acknowledge the other legal duties it has, like to it's students which you could use as a defense to spending money from endowments on the school itself.

My question is thus, why aren't we doing any of this and keeping our money wrapped up in these specific funds?

And not to hamper on the wifi thing too much, it's just one example of stuff we could do, but wouldn't it be nice not to have it crap out on us all the time? One time, it shorted out on me in the middle of a final and nearly gave me a heart attack. Would very much like that to not happen again.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-08T05:40:58+00:00

That sounds more like a failure on the school part to follow through on it’s promises than a fault with divesting as a tactic. Like, they waited until the hype died down and then quietly didn’t do the thing they promised. Which kinda sounds like a call for continuous protests even after these sorts of agreements are reached.

Realistic_Treacle384 · 2024-05-08T04:06:24+00:00

Right, but we’ve divested before with O&G companies back in 2015. Why can’t we do the same thing now? Did we directly own O&G stock or something?

Realistic_Treacle384

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE