Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 07:37:18 am

Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 07:37:18 am
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts&cid=519&ncid=716

Quail and Tremble Homophobics! For the Gays are on their way to equal rights, just like the Blacks, The American Indians and all other 'non-normals' that have had to fight people like you for them!

You see, this is what people don'r understand, in places like America and the UK, we have quiet coups, where we just start refusing to do what our leader wants in such as way as he can do nothing about it ;)

:D
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: SadisticSid on May 15, 2004, 07:50:30 am
Can we clear up something here? This is not about 'equal rights'. Everyone has the right to marry, providing you marry a woman if you're a man and vice versa. This is a new right to marry people of the same sex.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 07:55:03 am
I don't agree, it IS about the right for two people who are in love to make a symbolic union of that love.

To say homosexuality and homosexual love is somehow something 'different' from 'normal' love is a lie.

So, what is Marraige about in the Eyes of the Church and the People then? Is it a celebration of Love or of Heterosexuality?

It IS about equal rights! EXACTLY that.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: IceFire on May 15, 2004, 08:03:14 am
On the flipside there are plenty of men and women who are "life partners" and never marry these days too...times be a changing.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 08:09:00 am
I agree with you there, I'm perfectly happy with a 'commonlaw' marriage (If 2 people live together for more than 7 years they are considered married under common law in the UK).

But I am glad that the courts are aware of their duty, not only to the withdrawn conservative elements of America, but to ALL American people. Whether people like it or not, the courts just risked unpopularity with the Senate to buy you all back a little piece of the freedom your country was based on.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 08:11:34 am
I stand by my '....AIDS is the cure' biggotry.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 08:24:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Can we clear up something here? This is not about 'equal rights'. Everyone has the right to marry, providing you marry a woman if you're a man and vice versa. This is a new right to marry people of the same sex.


Thats just using petty semantics "prove" your arguement. I call bull****. It is, as always, the intent of the word, not the literal dictionary meaning. This is just the latest crap that certain conservatives have cooked up in an ever more desperate bid to get some sort of legitimacy for their case.

Seriously, 50 years from now, people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed the same way that people who supported segregation are today.

What happened to the conservative ideal of small government? Or is that only when it suits your needs?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 08:28:39 am
Just because it's contributing the downfall of society doesn't make it right.

We can be very proud of ourselves for letting blacks and women vote, for not beating our kids, for not killing criminals, for sending rapists to therapy rather than prison, for helping paedophiles recover rather than lynching them.......

Tollerance is only a good thing up to the point where it starts becoming detrimental to mankind.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: IceFire on May 15, 2004, 08:33:55 am
Flipside: Oh its not my country...we had this whole gay marriage thing start up months before the Americans did.  Some areas legalized it and the Americans heard about it and copied us...wait till we pass the new drug possession laws :D

Dare I trudge down the slippery slope but how is this detrimental to mankind?  Unless you're talking about procreation/population stuff...
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 08:36:51 am
In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 08:44:14 am
And since when were you an admin?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flaser on May 15, 2004, 08:59:23 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.


Some of the great generals in history were gay - so were scientists philosophers, poets ect. ect.

I'm not one to support homosexuality, but you better lay off you daily dose of Maddox an0n or you'll blind yourself with that selfrightsous attitude.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 09:00:53 am
anon: the world did not get this "good" because of white, male, Christians waging bloody war and conquering the peoples of far away lands, as you would like me to believe. It got this "good" despite that.

Intolerance to race, religion, sex, age, gender, nationality or anythng along those line is detremental to the welfare of mankind. Most people can live quite peacefully with gays and Blacks and athiests, and if certain people find that threatening, tough ****.

In the end, lasting peace can not be had at the end of sword or the barrel of a gun. People have to want it, and they're not going to want it if they are oppressed.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Singh on May 15, 2004, 09:05:01 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.


This is strangely right (on a very, very basic scale) and yet so strangely wrong....it just scares me O_o
*hides from an0n
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 09:09:32 am
It a pretty safe bet than anyone who advocates oppression has never been oppressed himself. This is a human constant, way back through history.

Thats why certain people can get all preachy about this or that, cause they've never been on the other end of the stick.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: SadisticSid on May 15, 2004, 09:20:51 am
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
I don't agree, it IS about the right for two people who are in love to make a symbolic union of that love.

To say homosexuality and homosexual love is somehow something 'different' from 'normal' love is a lie.

So, what is Marraige about in the Eyes of the Church and the People then? Is it a celebration of Love or of Heterosexuality?

It IS about equal rights! EXACTLY that.


Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats just using petty semantics "prove" your arguement. I call bull****. It is, as always, the intent of the word, not the literal dictionary meaning. This is just the latest crap that certain conservatives have cooked up in an ever more desperate bid to get some sort of legitimacy for their case.

Seriously, 50 years from now, people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed the same way that people who supported segregation are today.

What happened to the conservative ideal of small government? Or is that only when it suits your needs?


Huh? I am not against gay marriage, but I see it as a non-issue. We have civil unions over here, for instance, and the US is heading in that direction too. But the gay rights wing won't stop at that until they can call it marriage, despite a completely equal measure of rights and privileges that both afford.

Then there is the issue of use of this right. Take any realistic cross-section of gays and the percentage of them who would marry is very small indeed, owing to the nature of gay relationships being short-term in the majority of cases. I'm not denying the existence of long-term couples; I hope I'm part of one myself some day. But look at reality instead of this false belief that the only difference between straights and gays is who they take to bed with them.

And if gay marriage is allowed, what about polygamy as well? I don't even condemn that - it doesn't hurt anyone, after all - but how tiny a percentage of people would realistically make use of it? Like I said, a non-issue
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 09:27:20 am
Sid does make an interesting point in a roundabout way. I've always been fine with the idea of gay marriage but if you're allowing that but what do you do about anyone who wants an officially sanctified polygomous relationship?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 09:47:30 am
Well, in a Utopian society, as long as everyone involved said Yes, that wouldn't be a problem.

However, this is not a Utopina society, jelousy and mistrust would follow on as automatically for that as it would for Gays and did for many other persecuted groups over the years. Also, the very real risk of STDs IS present in polygomous relationships, to a far far greater degree than people percieve for Gays.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: HotSnoJ on May 15, 2004, 10:01:06 am
Oh crap they're at it again.


/me parks Lucifer above thread.
/me fires the beams.


DIE THREAD, DIE!!!! :mad:
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 10:02:45 am
Uncomfortable HotSnoJ? ;)
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: HotSnoJ on May 15, 2004, 10:14:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Uncomfortable HotSnoJ? ;)
No, I want it to DIE!!!


/me sees thread is still twitching.
/me fires another volley at it.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: jdjtcagle on May 15, 2004, 10:16:56 am
Uhhh... (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fetchfido/games/donkey/donkey.htm) *runs away*:nervous:
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 10:24:13 am
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Also, the very real risk of STDs IS present in polygomous relationships, to a far far greater degree than people percieve for Gays.


Not really. Why is a man with two wives more likely to catch an STD than a man with one wife?

The significant variable here is how likely anyone in the relationship is to cheat/How promiscuous they were before marriage. Not how many wives the guy has.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rampage on May 15, 2004, 10:34:11 am
You liberal atheists...

You're right, homosexuals are on their way to get their "rights" in Massachusetts, but Mass with its Ted Kennedy (The man with TWO seats in Senate.) and John Kerry will lose the support of other states.

Personally I'm a strong states-rights conservative.  If states want their own thing, let them have it.  If they want to go to hell, let them go to hell.  The federal government has no right to "redefine" marriage because it's already defined by God in Genesis where a man will be with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  It's already specified.

I wouldn't be surprised if polygamy and beastiality becomes legal in the hands of liberals pretty soon.  And since this board is a liberal board (with all you Europeans), I wouldn't be surprised if you guys support it too.

I'm a Christian and a staunch conservative (pro-family) by my own right, and you're a liberal by your own right.  Let's keep it at that.

Oh, also, I am also anti Clinton gun-ban.  I abhor it.

Cheers,

Rampage
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: jdjtcagle on May 15, 2004, 10:39:27 am
Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 10:40:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
anon: the world did not get this "good" because of white, male, Christians waging bloody war and conquering the peoples of far away lands, as you would like me to believe. It got this "good" despite that.

Intolerance to race, religion, sex, age, gender, nationality or anythng along those line is detremental to the welfare of mankind. Most people can live quite peacefully with gays and Blacks and athiests, and if certain people find that threatening, tough ****.
I bet you're one of those people who goes around spouting nonsense like "Violence never solved anything".
Quote
In the end, lasting peace can not be had at the end of sword or the barrel of a gun. People have to want it, and they're not going to want it if they are oppressed.
Who the **** said anything about peace? If you've got them under armed guard, they don't need to want peace. They'll take whatever the **** you tell them to take.

Peace never solved anything. The only thing in all the universe that keeps mankind going is the "I'm right and I'm going to prove you're wrong" mentality.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rampage on May 15, 2004, 10:41:08 am
Quote
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??


Homosexuality - Yes
Liberalism - No (maybe yes)
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 10:42:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Ok,  I want an answer from somebody...
IS IT GENETIC??
It doesn't matter.

If it's genetic, then the kids get it.

If it's environmental, then the kids get it.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: jdjtcagle on May 15, 2004, 10:51:13 am
I got what you were saying in that one big post Rampage.
Man and Wife becomes one flesh, but then how if he's a Homo??
Gay Man and Wife becomes friends and learns to love her, or something??
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 10:51:34 am
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma


Not really. Why is a man with two wives more likely to catch an STD than a man with one wife?

The significant variable here is how likely anyone in the relationship is to cheat/How promiscuous they were before marriage. Not how many wives the guy has.


Because the kind of Polygomy you quote is not true polygamy, true polygamy is not just where a man can have several wives, a Woman might have several husbands. And some of those men may have other wives. So faithfulness never really becomes an issue.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 11:03:28 am
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Because the kind of Polygomy you quote is not true polygamy, true polygamy is not just where a man can have several wives, a Woman might have several husbands. And some of those men may have other wives. So faithfulness never really becomes an issue.


It's still polgamy. The old muslim or mormon system of having several wives is still polygamy.

I'll agree with you that when both partners in the marriage have multiple spouses that there is an increased danger but that kind of situation is even rarer than the kind I was talking about (which is rare enough as it is).

Besides simply saying that you can't marry someone if both parties are already married stamps that danger out.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 11:18:24 am
Exactly, I do agree that Polygomous marraiges wouldn't work in the way I stated (edited from badly worded previous statement), but An0n is right in a strange way.

We have the power of choice, so if we choose to act like frightened barbarians, worshipping our Thunder Gods and hating another herd because they are not part of our herd then yes, we may as well nuke ourselves out of existence right now. Prejudice and Fear DO have a place in our genetic makeup, they are vital survival tools, but we need to choose to use it when we need to, and not make it our first, only and above all favourite option.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 11:47:11 am
No, what we need to do is decide what harms the advancement of mankind and annihilate it.

You may ***** and moan about homosexuality having little effect on birth rates, but it's still having an effect.

Same with AIDS. If we killed everyone with it, it'd be gone. No more AIDS, ever. But no, preventing billions of people from contracting it in the future isn't worth the lives of a few hundred thousand people who're too stupid to use a condom.

Anyone who catches AIDS from having unprotected sex deserves to die. The universe has said so, and to contradict it would not only be blasphemy but also a denial of simple logic.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 11:53:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
You may ***** and moan about homosexuality having little effect on birth rates, but it's still having an effect.


You make that sound like a bad thing. There are too many human beings anyway. Reducing birth rates is a good thing. It has a positive effect on mankind.

As for the rest. Typical an0n stupidity.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Flipside on May 15, 2004, 11:53:44 am
Or possibly the challenge set to us by the universe in the case of Aids and HIV is to find a cure? We always learn fastest when we are surfing the razor blade of survival.

Mankind is an anology of life itself, we have evolved and adapted to fill every diversity we can. That, in my opinion is the key to survival, not the ruthless culling of anything that doesn't fit into the 'mold' as it were, but the facing of challenges, both to our science and to our beliefs. Much advancement to mankind has been made by people who were incidentally Gay as well.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 11:58:23 am
While I am, on occassion, willing to admit that I have been misinformed, I have a certain dislike for having my opinions refered to as 'stupidity' by someone who couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a subscription to Finding Your Ass Weekly.

It's people like you who make the world a ****-hole. *****ing about how killing is wrong and tollerance is good with abso-****ing-loutely no understanding of realism.

Most of the time, killing people is a very effective method of achieving your goals. It's been used as such for thousands of years. So unless you're telling me that people like Caesar, Churchill and Sun Tzu are morons, then you should probably just shut the hell up.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Singh on May 15, 2004, 12:10:51 pm
Well, they were in a way.
At least, Ceaser was, the other 2 were quite brilliant (but with some flaws - for churchill at least, not sure about Sun Tzu).

Tolerance is good - it gives your enemies an illusion that you like them, allowing you to backstab em later :)

Killing IS wrong. Yet it is necessary in some cases - what determines these cases is entirely upto the person with the gun. Be carefull what you wish for an0n, you may just get it.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 12:13:41 pm
Tollerance is only good while you're working towards changing your 'enemy' or while there's a bigger threat that you need to work against.

But the enemy of my enemy is NEVER my friend.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Black Wolf on May 15, 2004, 12:14:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rampage
Personally I'm a strong states-rights conservative.  If states want their own thing, let them have it.  If they want to go to hell, let them go to hell.  The federal government has no right to "redefine" marriage because it's already defined by God in Genesis where a man will be with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  It's already specified.


There's something eating at me about this whole post... damn, what is it... I know it's there...something about the government being... wait no, don't tell me... uhhh, ... oh, it's on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah...****ing Secular? Genesis and all the other bull**** in any religious book should have nothing to do with government. It was one of the founding principles of your friggen country, and you ignore it because, up until recently, it didn;t mean much. Well, if they ****ed up the whole right to bear arms bull**** (which you obviously support with your "anti gun ban" stance... in a country with probabbly the worst gun crime problem in the western world) they seem to have been able to hit the nail on the head with this one. So respect it. Twit.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 12:19:36 pm
America has second worst gun-crime rate in the world......second to Iraq.

The rough figures were:
UK - 100 deaths a year.
Germany - 200 deaths a year.
America - 12,000 deaths a year.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Nico on May 15, 2004, 12:24:07 pm
I don't care if they can marry, I don't give a damn. I'm just against them being allowed to adopt children ( that's the big thing in France too, right now, gay rights ). I don't give a damn about them, their rights to having a child or anything. But I care about the right of children of having a sane, stable environment where to grow.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 12:40:16 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
While I am, on occassion, willing to admit that I have been misinformed, I have a certain dislike for having my opinions refered to as 'stupidity' by someone who couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a subscription to Finding Your Ass Weekly.

It's people like you who make the world a ****-hole. *****ing about how killing is wrong and tollerance is good with abso-****ing-loutely no understanding of realism.

Most of the time, killing people is a very effective method of achieving your goals. It's been used as such for thousands of years. So unless you're telling me that people like Caesar, Churchill and Sun Tzu are morons, then you should probably just shut the hell up.


When you're prepared to live under the rules you spew out with every post then I'll listen to you. As it is every time someone finds a flaw in your logic you simply state that they don't apply to you because your meglomania makes you believe that you are a special case.

You ***** to me about realism yet actually seem to believe your delusions about taking over the world. :lol:

An0n. Your opinions mean absolutely nothing to me at all. I only even bothered to respond to your post because you accidently strayed into something I found interesting.  The rest of the time I treat your trolling like what it is.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 12:45:31 pm
They're only delusions if they're unrealistic.

It's perfectly realistic to believe I could make millions and run for government. Maybe not in America, where you need the backing of the shadow government, but in the UK a few million pounds and knowing how to manipulate the populous is all you really need.

Gimme a few years then I'll have MI5 drag your ass out of bed at 3am, beat the goddamn **** out of you and drop you off infront of me so I can laugh and kick you before I kill your family and deport you to Somalia.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 12:52:08 pm
More likely that you'll try this **** in public one day and they'll cart you off to join all the other people who think they're Napoleon. :lol:
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: jdjtcagle on May 15, 2004, 12:52:36 pm
Die, thread DIE!!!
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 01:05:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
More likely that you'll try this **** in public one day and they'll cart you off to join all the other people who think they're Napoleon. :lol:
One word: Greenpeace.

Now try and tell me crazy people can't control the world.

And if you're thinking about 'informing' me Greenpeace are a legitimate organization, I really will have you deported.

They're run by uninformed, unwashed, morally, ethically and mentally bankrupt, anti-social, university drop-outs yet they've crippled entire industries with their terrorism.

And the morons...err..Mormons. They were started by a guy who gave no proof of divine guidance, no holy relics, no nutritional food and basically nothing except a bunch of whacked-out ideas yet they've managed to destroy whatever semblance of sense America had managed to amass.

Hell, even Christianity. A sub-standard carpenter does a few tricks that Penn and Teller wouldn't sully themselves by performing and all of a sudden he's the biggest martyr to have ever existed, the son of God and his insane ramblings are the foundation for entire civilizations and the cause of just about every major war in history.

The world is shaped by people smart enough or crazy enough to use the all-encompassing stupidity of a crowd against false enemies.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 02:01:19 pm
I didn't say crazy people couldn't take over the world. I said you couldn't :lol:

As for Greenpeace I've hated them a lot longer than you have most likely :)
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 02:08:46 pm
I've hated Greenpeace since I can remember, but for different reasons than you. I think they should either shut the **** up or go all-out and be proper terrorists.

See, this is what I mean about killing people. If Greenpeace went around torpedoing whaling ships, d'you think they'd be more and less effective?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 15, 2004, 03:01:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
I've hated Greenpeace since I can remember, but for different reasons than you. I think they should either shut the **** up or go all-out and be proper terrorists.


That's half of my opinion. I just think they should shut the f**k up :D

Quote
Originally posted by an0n
See, this is what I mean about killing people. If Greenpeace went around torpedoing whaling ships, d'you think they'd be more and less effective?


They might manage to stop or slow down commercial whaling for a while but they'd have a harder time once the Japanese and Norwegians started shooting at them.

On top of that they'd lose a large portion of their general support and they'd lose any chance of getting anywhere on their other goals. What are they going to do about promoting organic farming? Capture farms at night and plant organic crops :lol:
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 03:05:17 pm
No, burn non-organic farms to the ****ing ground.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 05:21:41 pm
Quote
Originally posted by anon
blabla.


Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
It a pretty safe bet than anyone who advocates oppression has never been oppressed himself. This is a human constant, way back through history.

Thats why certain people can get all preachy about this or that, cause they've never been on the other end of the stick.


You sure a big man behind a computer. You sound like you could take on God tommorow and still have time left over to enlighten half the world's population and kill the other half. But, you know, its all bull****. Like if I told you that my secret ninja spies are on their way to assassinate Ronald McDonald because he wouldn't bow to my demands for a lifetime supply of Cheeseburgers.

Now, lets get a few things clear.

1) Every despotic organization in the history of the world has fallen. Every single one.

2) Especially in this day and age, the lifespan of despotic organizations is getting shorter and shorter.

3) Peace (and all it entails) is the only sustainable option open to mankind. Sustainable=good. Not only that, it is also the most beneficiary to the greatest amount of people. There is simply nothing to be gained through war, oppression and strife that can not be achieved through peace (and all it entails).

4) How many people do you think you could persuade to drink your little [l]MING[/l] ANON THE MERCILESS Koolaid. Maybe some pre-schoolers, if they're especially daft.

5) The greatest minds in human history, by and large, have all been, and I'm going to simply and misrepresent here quite a bit for lack of a better word, "men of peace". That is, dedicated to the ideals of peace (and all it entails.)

I'm probably missing something, but that would seem to be the basic jist of it.

As for Greenpeace, though I'm only familiar with a few of their actions (Brent Spar and some others), they seem to have thier hearts in the right place. No one (animals included) should have to suffer because some CEO wants to line his pockets. Sure, there arew certain resources which must be extracted from the Earth, and certain waste which must be sent back, but this is currently way, way more than it has to be, cause its more convenient.

Read up on Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpets, the world's largest carpet manufacturer. He has some very interesting things to say.

I'm going to paraphrase him, cause I can't remember the exact wording. This is about as close as I can remember.

Quote

This period whic we are in now, is reminiscent of the early attempts by man to fly. Man builds a contraption, which he assumes will enable him to fly. He goes off a very high cliff, and he's flapping his wings and turning his gears, and he is sure that he is flying. But he is not flying, he is in freefall. The air rushing up around him and his assuredness that his machine is capable of flight, they make it seem as if he really is doing it; flying. But he is in freefall, becuase the machine can't fly. It was not designed to fly, so natuarally it can't do it. And though the ground is rushing up to meet the man, it is still a long way off. Some people, they can see the ground beneath us better than others, and they are trying to warn humanity. But everyone else still thinks we are flying.


This is reffering to the first Industrial Revolution and the unsustainable nature of our current economic/production system.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 05:36:20 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
You sure a big man behind a computer. You sound like you could take on God tommorow and still have time left over to enlighten half the world's population and kill the other half. But, you know, its all bull****. Like if I told you that my secret ninja spies are on their way to assassinate Ronald McDonald because he wouldn't bow to my demands for a lifetime supply of Cheeseburgers.
Says you, who'd probably cry and run away if you ever met me IRL.
Quote
1) Every despotic organization in the history of the world has fallen. Every single one.
So has every non-despotic organization.
Quote
2) Especially in this day and age, the lifespan of despotic organizations is getting shorter and shorter.
That's a reflection on the advancement of weaponry, not on the will of the people. It now takes a smaller number of malcontents to inflict a larger amount of damage.
Quote
3) Peace (and all it entails) is the only sustainable option open to mankind. Sustainable=good. Not only that, it is also the most beneficiary to the greatest amount of people. There is simply nothing to be gained through war, oppression and strife that can not be achieved through peace (and all it entails).
That's so stupid I'm not even going to bother.
Quote
4) How many people do you think you could persuade to drink your little [l]MING[/l] ANON THE MERCILESS Koolaid. Maybe some pre-schoolers, if they're especially daft.
I don't even see what you're trying to get at with this point, other than to make some vague comment about preschoolers.
Quote
5) The greatest minds in human history, by and large, have all been, and I'm going to simply and misrepresent here quite a bit for lack of a better word, "men of peace". That is, dedicated to the ideals of peace (and all it entails.)
Uh, no. The people who weren't men of peace died. And those who survived are demonized by morons like you who oppose their beliefs to the point where they're no longer considered great.
Quote
As for Greenpeace, though I'm only familiar with a few of their actions (Brent Spar and some others), they seem to have thier hearts in the right place. No one (animals included) should have to suffer because some CEO wants to line his pockets. Sure, there arew certain resources which must be extracted from the Earth, and certain waste which must be sent back, but this is currently way, way more than it has to be, cause its more convenient.
Greenpeace ****ed up a deal for GM crops that could've saved millions of lives in the third world by telling them the crops would make them sterile.

There's a few HUNDRED MILLION people dead just so a few dozen middle-class, suburban ****heads can feel like they've done something with their worthless lives.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: HotSnoJ on May 15, 2004, 05:59:14 pm
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I (for the most part) agree with an0n on those points.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 06:03:54 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Says you, who'd probably cry and run away if you ever met me IRL.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*gets out ruler*

Just give me a sec, its kind of cold in here right now.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n

So has every non-despotic organization.


True, but but for entirely different reason. Of course, nothing last forever and one day the universe will implode, but at present non-oppressive organizations stand a far better chance at surviving for longer periods of time. Or actually, I should say maybe not right right now, but it is unavoidably (and quickly) moving in that direction.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n

That's a reflection on the advancement of weaponry, not on the will of the people. It now takes a smaller number of malcontents to inflict a larger amount of damage.


I'm not talking about armed resistance. If anything the disparity between the methods available to the weak and to the strong has increased. Not much guerillas can do against bombs and missles and  srmat bullets.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n

That's so stupid I'm not even going to bother.


Suit yourself. Thats really the core of my point, but you can do as you like.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n
I don't even see what you're trying to get at with this point, other than to make some vague comment about preschoolers.


The point I am trying to make, is that you stand about as much chance of getting a single other person to sign on to your point of view as I  have of sprouting a third arm and making a succesful career for myself in an acclaimed freakshow.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. The people who weren't men of peace died. And those who survived are demonized by morons like you who oppose their beliefs to the point where they're no longer considered great.


I was reffering mostly to philospohers and their like. Just cause Hitler conquered half of Europe, does not make him "one of the greatest minds in human history". People who do great things and people who think great things are very different categories.

Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Greenpeace ****ed up a deal for GM crops that could've saved millions of lives in the third world by telling them the crops would make them sterile.

There's a few HUNDRED MILLION people dead just so a few dozen middle-class, suburban ****heads can feel like they've done something with their worthless lives.


Wow, who's demonizing now. As I've said before, I don't know enough about GM foods to speak inteligently (oh the irony, I can't spell for ****) on the subject, and niether I'm guessing can you. Probably just read a headline that said "Greenpeace sabotages GM foods deal, millions die". There are a ton of pros/cons in GM foods which must be considered, and this goes far beyond the nice, pre-packaged bullet points you see in most media sources.

A blow to your ego I'm sure, but I am not willing to take the word of an uninformed stanger from over the Net on something as complex as this. I would need to read some serious literature before I pass judgement. Which I don't object to, and will probably do it at some point.

Becuase, as great as they are, I very much doubt that Penn and Teller can be considered legitimate sources of information on GM foods or anything scientific in nature for that matter. They're badass magicians and performers (I saw a few eps of them travelling the world and learning the magic tricks of different cultures - it was awesome), but agricultural experts they ain't.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Langy on May 15, 2004, 06:04:24 pm
I forget.... what was this thread about? Gays getting the right to marry, or an0n's theories on mankind's nature?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 06:13:49 pm
I should point out, that power is a means and not an end. So the question then, is to what end?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 06:17:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*gets out ruler*

Just give me a sec, its kind of cold in here right now.
Eh?
Quote
True, but but for entirely different reason. Of course, nothing last forever and one day the universe will implode, but at present non-oppressive organizations stand a far better chance at surviving for longer periods of time.
All governments fall to a superior military force sooner or later. It just so happens that ones which advocate violence fall faster because...well, there's more violence involved in their basic principles. Thus, the weaker cultures are destroyed quicker, which is a plus to mankind.
Quote
I'm not talking about armed resistance. If anything the disparity between the methods available to the weak and to the strong has increased. Not much guerillas can do against bombs and missles and  srmat bullets.
Eeee-rah-K
Quote
Suit yourself. Thats really the core of my point, but you can do as you like.
You really are dumb, aren't you. I know fine well that's the core of your argument, that it's your entire perspective on the matter and that it's completely and utterly stupid.

You condense your stupidity into one simple burst, so I responded in kind.
Quote
The point I am trying to make, is that you stand about as much chance of getting a single other person to sign on to your point of view as I have of sprouting a third arm and making a succesful career for myself in an acclaimed freakshow.
I don't want anyone to 'sign on'. I want them to understand that there are other ways of thinking about things and to use that revelation when considering things in the future.
Quote
I was reffering mostly to philospohers and their like. Just cause Hitler conquered half of Europe, does not make him "one of the greatest minds in human history". People who do great things and people who think great things are very different categories.
I'm sorry, when did Nietzsche found a perfect society? I must've missed that.
Quote
Wow, who's demonizing now. As I've said before, I don't know enough about GM foods to speak inteligently (oh the irony, I can't spell for ****) on the subject, and niether I'm guessing can you. Probably just read a headline that said "Greenpeace sabotages GM foods deal, millions die". There are a ton of pros/cons in GM foods which must be considered, and this goes far beyond the nice, pre-packaged bullet points you see in most media sources.
No, it doesn't.

GM food is safe, profitable and beneficial. But you get morons who want to 'weight the issues' and 'conduct more studies' trying to stonewall the issue because they don't know **** about it and get spooked by Greenpeace running around saying T3h Ev1l Scyunti5sts are breeding monkeys with 5 asses.
Quote
A blow to your ego I'm sure, but I am not willing to take the word of an uninformed stanger from over the Net on something as complex as this. I would need to read some serious literature before I pass judgement. Which I don't object to, and will probably do it at some point.
No, you'll read a report by someone far more intelligent and well-informed than you, decide you don't like what they're saying and mark it off in your mind as the ramblings of a naughty, nasty man.
Quote
Becuase, as great as they are, I very much doubt that Penn and Teller can be considered legitimate sources of information on GM foods or anything scientific in nature for that matter. They're badass magicians and performers (I saw a few eps of them travelling the world and learning the magic tricks of different cultures - it was awesome), but agricultural experts they ain't.
Two words: Series Researchers.

Penn and Teller don't go crawling through reports on crop-yields, but the researchers on the show do. They scour through thousands of pages of official documents, newspaper articles and discarded Post-Its to make sure Penn and Teller aren't talking out their asses.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 06:18:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
I should point out, that power is a means and not an end. So the question then, is to what end?
Power is an end as much as 'improve the healthcare system' is.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 06:29:07 pm
Not true. Improve the healthcare system is one higher than power, becuase it serves someone's interst, while power can not serve anyone's interests except by improving the health care system or buying a hooker or something of the sort. In the end, nothing is an end becuase there is always a "why".

Oh well. This could go on for a long time. I'll just say that, assuming that your world view and my world view are equally implementable (which is really giving you the benefit of the doubt), I simply prefer mine. I believe in peace, justice and all the crap, and so do a hell of a lot of other people. This is becuase the alternative would serve to help few and harm many, and most people in the world consider themselves to be among the weak.


Just to get the point across, one last time

Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
It a pretty safe bet than anyone who advocates oppression has never been oppressed himself. This is a human constant, way back through history.

Thats why certain people can get all preachy about this or that, cause they've never been on the other end of the stick.


An armchair politician, if thats not a double-positive already, is what you are. I am a firm believer that those who make policy should be exposed equally to its effects as anyone else. Trust me, a few years of hunger, war, imprisonment and dictatorship would turn you right around.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 06:34:30 pm
Pff. That's only applicable if you believe in all that equality bull**** to begin with.

If someone came up to you and said "Here's all the power in the world" you'd oppress people with it. It's only because you know you'll never have power that you preach tollerance.

Kinda like a little kid cowering in the corner screaming "Can't we all just be friends?!?!"
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 06:39:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
It's only because you know you'll never have power that you preach tollerance.
 


Exactly. And guess what, you won't either. Probably no one here will, nor will anyone you know or anyone they know. I know that I am among the weak, so I fight to protect the rights of the weak. Unless you've got something solid to go on, believing that you will be powerful while all the other sheep cower in fear is just dillusional.

I can understand how someone powerful would subscribe to your values, after all it serves their self interest. But not ordinary people, I just don't get why. Its working against your best interests.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 15, 2004, 07:00:42 pm
What exactly do you think powerful people are before they become powerful? Non-entities floating through the void, waiting to manifest?

Hell no. They're ordinary people like me who realise that preaching the exact same message you're preaching, but tacking "...under my guidance" to the end of it, is the way to power.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Bobboau on May 15, 2004, 07:13:24 pm
if it's right it's right, weather it'll be something you like or not,
you sound like the theists who say "why do you beleive in evolution when it means you'r not going to go to heaven?" when you make statments like that. I have been a keen follower of GM foods for years, there is nothing about GM simply becase it is GM that would make it unsafe, each GM product is difrent (so it is ignorant to say GM food is bad) but each one is tested heavaly, Green Peace is playing polotics with peoples lives.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 15, 2004, 08:17:20 pm
Oh well, its just a different vision, so that can't really be argued.

bob: The logical question then would be, to what ends? Why is Green Peace playing politics, and what does it hope to accomplish. Who will profit from their influence? Again, they must have a concrete agenda which they consider worthy of pursuing, so that would be the first step in understanding them.

also, heavily tested by whom? The biotech companies themselves? The FDA (or similar agency), and if so are they under any sort of pressure to produce favourable results. Does it do its own research, or rely on the observations given to them by the biotech corps? I think the BST milk additive is a pretty good example of what happens when you have a huge apparatus in place, put their by a biotech firm (Monsanto in this case), in order to accomplish a specific goal and science be damned. The fact that the Canadian and British governments (I don't know about other nations, but I would assume they gave a similar verdict), have banned it, while the American government didn't is a testament to the power of the almight lobby group.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: mikhael on May 15, 2004, 11:20:40 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid

Huh? I am not against gay marriage, but I see it as a non-issue. We have civil unions over here, for instance, and the US is heading in that direction too. But the gay rights wing won't stop at that until they can call it marriage, despite a completely equal measure of rights and privileges that both afford.


Where do you live? Here in the US, gay people do NOT have equal rights (or responsibilities) under civil unions as they do under marriage. Cursory examination of inheritence, tax, adoption, custody, and privacy laws shows glaring discrepancies.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: redsniper on May 16, 2004, 12:13:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I (for the most part) agree with an0n on those points.

beneath his shell of swearing, alcoholism, and "badness" an0n's a pretty bright person. He knows what he's talking about usually and is fairly open minded (about technology and such).

Anyway while we're talking about this kind of stuff, let's not forget PETA, which borders on terrorism and goes around scaring people with mutilated animals and such.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Singh on May 16, 2004, 02:38:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Pff. That's only applicable if you believe in all that equality bull**** to begin with.

If someone came up to you and said "Here's all the power in the world" you'd oppress people with it. It's only because you know you'll never have power that you preach tollerance.

Kinda like a little kid cowering in the corner screaming "Can't we all just be friends?!?!"


And why cant we all just be friends? In the end, being enemies all the time and trying to enforce only a single way of thinking
(you seem to be mentioning that, and then suger-coating it by calling it a different way of thinking....but then, i think you've mentioned yourself somewhat of a terrorist so i guess it doesnt matter much :P) onto a population which has ~infinite ways of thinking. As much as you are right in the sense that the human civilization will survive, I must ask; why only survive?

Isn't that why we evolved the way we have in the first place? To rise above mere survival? We created the great arts, the fine structures and the monuments that have signified humanity's progress, most of which came about because different thinking was encouraged rather than stifled. And even then, the renassaince came from it being stifled, which means that an organization with 100% effectiveness in holding a viewpoint will never exist.

But then of course, all this was 60+ years ago.........humanity pretty much became dead when capitalism was pushed as the 'heaven', when in reality it was just as bad as communism, so in a way, I actually agree with you about modern times........
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 03:02:13 am
Everything in human history is derived from conflict.

All art and music are are expressions of the conflict created to ensure the reason it started and its progression are remembered even after the people who created the piece are long dead.

And I'm not saying peace doesn't have its place, I'm saying preaching total peace is absolutely ****ing stupid. And I'm also saying it's right for people to die and civilizations to fall.

The proper progression is: Barbarians fight in anarchy to determine genetic superior. Remaining babarians fight to determine tactical and strategic superiority. Peace-time where the ideologies of the barbarians are expanded and explored to create a civilization. War with another civilization puts that ideology to the test: Whichever civilization falls has the majority of their ideas discarded except for the truly exceptional concepts which are integrated into the conquering power.

Peace is the garden, war is the weed-killer.

And I'm not just talking on a national scope but even in things like chatting up women. You adapt and improve or you fall by the wayside.

To oppress people is to enhance that conflict to the point where people who are superior to you overthrow you.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 03:10:43 am
And as for GM plants/animals: The UK only banned it because we knew if we didn't there'd be morons without the proper containment procedures breeding fish with legs and plants whose spores could decimate entire fields in a matter of days.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: karajorma on May 16, 2004, 06:33:43 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
And as for GM plants/animals: The UK only banned it because we knew if we didn't there'd be morons without the proper containment procedures breeding fish with legs and plants whose spores could decimate entire fields in a matter of days.


Been suckling at greenpeaces teat again? :)

They banned in the UK cause they listened to the idiotic general public who in turn had been conned by listening to the idiotic enviromentalists.

There are no fish with legs.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 06:50:02 am
If they hadn't restricted everything, there would be.

While I'm perfectly happy to accept the decisions of people like the FDA and their equivelant organizations, I'm not so stupid as to think there wouldn't be people making dogs that moo just to prove they could.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Singh on May 16, 2004, 06:54:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Everything in human history is derived from conflict.

All art and music are are expressions of the conflict created to ensure the reason it started and its progression are remembered even after the people who created the piece are long dead.

And I'm not saying peace doesn't have its place, I'm saying preaching total peace is absolutely ****ing stupid. And I'm also saying it's right for people to die and civilizations to fall.

The proper progression is: Barbarians fight in anarchy to determine genetic superior. Remaining babarians fight to determine tactical and strategic superiority. Peace-time where the ideologies of the barbarians are expanded and explored to create a civilization. War with another civilization puts that ideology to the test: Whichever civilization falls has the majority of their ideas discarded except for the truly exceptional concepts which are integrated into the conquering power.

Peace is the garden, war is the weed-killer.

And I'm not just talking on a national scope but even in things like chatting up women. You adapt and improve or you fall by the wayside.

To oppress people is to enhance that conflict to the point where people who are superior to you overthrow you.


Hmm....so if you were to oppress people and then if they overthrew and killed you, you would ahve absolutely no objection, especially when they appeared and actually were superior?
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 06:57:25 am
If they'd earned it.

Not that I'd give them the chance.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 07:05:06 am
Evolution through conflict...

Someone's been listening to the Shadows too much, not that I disagree or anything. :D
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 16, 2004, 11:19:05 am
How very Machivellian. You can't just lump all conflict or all peace (internal, external, societal, environmental, economic, cultural etc) into two categories, and have to choose between them. Some conflict is good, as it serves to advance humanity. But some conflict is pointless, and serves no purpose at all. I believe this latter kind is the majority. I can eat meat and still stive for peace, justice yadayada. I don't have to take it to the absolute extreme.

There is little that can be accomplished through competition than not be accomplished through cooperation.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 12:12:24 pm
All conflicts serve a purpose... if there was no purpose there would not be a conflict.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Rictor on May 16, 2004, 12:22:25 pm
Sure, they serve a purpose, but how often is it a desirable or useful one? If I kill 10 people, just to see if I can, then their death has served a purpose, but not one worth the cost.

I refuse to accept that brutality, greed, exploitation etc are what consitutes a "strong" person - one who is fit to survive in the Survival of the Fittest scenario - while the opposite traits are what make a person weak. That would mean that those who are destined to survive are, bar none, complete assholes, by definition. I don't dispute that in the end, the strong survive, I just don't accept that the characteristics which ensure strenght have to be the above mentioned ones.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 12:26:03 pm
If you kill 10 people that's not a war... it's murder, there is a diference.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 01:53:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Sure, they serve a purpose, but how often is it a desirable or useful one? If I kill 10 people, just to see if I can, then their death has served a purpose, but not one worth the cost.
But it's still served a purpose. It's shown everyone that you have the power to kill people without any apparent consequence, which means by killing 10 people you've negated the need to actively oppress everyone.
Quote
I refuse to accept that brutality, greed, exploitation etc are what consitutes a "strong" person - one who is fit to survive in the Survival of the Fittest scenario - while the opposite traits are what make a person weak. That would mean that those who are destined to survive are, bar none, complete assholes, by definition.
By YOUR definition.
Quote
I don't dispute that in the end, the strong survive, I just don't accept that the characteristics which ensure strenght have to be the above mentioned ones.
If I can lift 10 elephants, I'm strong. If I can lift 100,000 elephants, I'm stronger to such a degree that lifting 10 elephants is so easy that I'd barely notice doing it.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 01:55:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If you kill 10 people that's not a war... it's murder, there is a diference.
That's a common misconception.

Killing soldiers is still murder but it's more of a case people getting what they deserve. They gambled their own skill as a soldier against the enemy and lost, so it's seen as acceptable. But it's still just one guy killing another, which is murder.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 02:01:48 pm
Of course killing soldiers is a murder, but it's a murder that happens because... of a war!! If one soldier gets killed you don't say he was war'ed, or got a war. He was killed. In the example Rictor discribed it was simply murder, which was not involved in a war.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 02:13:52 pm
A formal declaration doth not a war make.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 03:00:04 pm
No, but two people fighting each other don't make a war neither.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 03:03:16 pm
It all depends on where you're willing to draw the line.

As an example: Me and Rictor were having a war of words. If I were to hunt him down and start bombing his ****, I'd be waging war against him. If he responded in kind, we'd be at war with each other.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 03:05:50 pm
Quote
From Wikipedia
War is conflict involving the use of arms and physical force between nations, countries, or other large-scale armed groups.


That's what I meant. :doubt:
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: an0n on May 16, 2004, 03:38:21 pm
Well that's just wrong.
Title: hahahahahaha!
Post by: Ghostavo on May 16, 2004, 03:46:14 pm
Not for the rest of the world apparently. :p