Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have to say this is a good idea in a utopian society where everyone would comply, but then a utopia would have no need for guns.

Since guns exist in the public domain, it is going to be incredibly hard to get rid of them.

Scenario:
Criminals have guns.
You cannot force Cops to face off against criminals with inferior weaponry.
Citezenship cry double stanards because the police have guns.
Return to square 1

At 3/12/07 10:32 PM, Texsk8er56 wrote:

At 3/1/07 09:59 PM, packow wrote: It's obviously the fault of video games and those horrible black men in the media.

what do black people have to do with it?

Wkik:Irony

Look at Socratic Irony especially

For Fuck Sake.

Not content with forcing religious adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt from them, despite it being against the reigion of the agency, Gay rights organisations are now introducing gay relationships to children as young as four

Source

"It is being argued that the books, one of which is a fairytale featuring a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love and marrying a man, are necessary to make homosexuality seem normal to children."

I am disgusted by this PC culture gone fucking mad. Homosexuality seem normal to children? What the fuck happened to teaching reading and writing. A four year old cannot comprehend the underlying issues behind homosexual relationships, and so are being warped from a young age.

My reasoning is this:
Most children will come from a Male/Female relationship background, and so will accept that as the norm. Having come from that background, they will probably not have been specifically told that, this is an acceptable setup.
By teaching kids (age 4 for gods sake) that having two daddies or 2 mummies is acceptable will make them think "well im being told that this is a normal setup, and ive not been told specifically that mum/dad setup is normal, therefore it isnt.
This also leads to awkward questions that shouldnt be raised by kids that young.

Where do babies come from
Mummies tummy.
...Then where did Josh in the story come from, He's got two dads.

Sorry guys, figured it out.

The uni's computers have flashplayer disabled in IE

Hey all, can any of you offer a probable cause for an embedded banner not displaying in IE but showing in firefox?

Im stumped.

the site is www.boltrig.co.uk

Thanks in advance

At 3/12/07 03:10 AM, MortalWound wrote:

Hey, to be truthful, I find it fantastic.

I think you may just have painted a massive bullseye on yourself. Prepare for the insults!

Ah.. anyways, i did a little test recently on this subject. On a few "adult oriented" sites, I created a poll, because they have poll buttons, asking the members of each community if it should be legal. None of these sites contained lolicon. In 3 of the 4 sites, about 75% of the people who polled, about 30-50 people per poll, said it should be legal. They said it was freedom of speech/expresion, just pictures, and it was a form of art.

Thing is, youre on an adult oriented site. Youre talking to people who are predisposed to the p0rn

I don't care to mention the last site because of the 45 people who voted, 3 said it sould be legal (it was a religious site). They barked on about how it was a sin against God and that people who even thought about it would burn in hell.

Thats going from one extreme to the other. You need to find some middle ground and create a poll for your arguments to have validity

Let us know how that goes.

At 3/11/07 09:42 PM, Stuff4u2kno wrote: http://www.lithcorp.net/scaryrealm/Archive/St uff4u2kno/index.htm

Hooray for archives!

Im liking how every button bar yours just loops. in the flash section

Lol

The fucking computer is cheating!

True. Rainbow 6 : LV on realistic mode cheats. Sniper shotguns feature.

Give me a bean, you magic fuck!

Insult generator. Take any two word phrase, replace second word with fuck. IE origin of the above: A request for a jellybean of the brand "magic beans" becomes magic fuck lol

At 3/11/07 09:32 PM, Reyals wrote:

At 3/9/07 11:16 PM, Bus-Driver wrote: Where would mankind be without freewebs.com?

A better place.

Lol. True. Free web acess to 14 year olds with an agenda, but no spellchecker is a terrible thing =P

And? I fail to see your point. =P

Nice thread. I jumped in at the deep end. About a month ago we started a Uni newspaper full of completely made up stories, just for humours sake.

Here it is here

I think Ill update it when I release this week's edition. I need to make it more like my new personal site.

Also, Let me know via NG PM / email if you come up with any stories for the Gazette. Doesnt matter that youre not even on the same continent!

At 3/11/07 04:50 PM, badazz5001 wrote:

At 3/11/07 01:28 PM, xtremedevil wrote: this topic is quite stupid it is censored becuse parents dont want their children to grow up tol be hores or perverts obvious

Then why did you post on it.

He's 13 an frightened by secks! And by the spellchecker.

At 3/11/07 01:57 PM, xtremedevil wrote: boltrig i also wanted to say i partially agree with u even thou it wasnt exactly all of americas fault america had no choice with sadam hussain we infact also knew that G. W. Bush ony wanted to get saddam becuse of his father who also wanted to get saddam but didnt have the chance so thats what happened to saddam also please dont put the rest of the united states with that bastard george w bush expecially since u probably dont know if the people had to much of a choice and rest assure bush wont be elected again after this shit he pulled.

The full stop was invented roughly at the same time as the language was. Look into it man.
That said ;

i know not all of America wanted the war, I didnt say they did. Im just making a point to the people on here solely blaming the UK for the false intel on Iraq.

And GW probably wont be re elected more because of the fact that he's served his two terms. I cant ever see that bullshit with the patriot act ever happening either.

At 3/11/07 01:04 AM, TheSovereign wrote: It's just glorified pedophilia.

Glorified implies that its being hailed as someting absolutely fantastic, but as you can see from this topic, its nothing of the sort ; its still looked down upon.

At 3/10/07 11:46 AM, Asteraith wrote: I looked up some actual lolicon stuff, and I have to say it's pretty damn disgusting. On one hand, I feel that since it is art it isn't technically hurting anyone, but you have to look at this in context. Most of the lolicon art is very much perverse, and from what I can tell often involves forced sex and looks of pain from the "models". The group of men who would find this sort of work arrousing most likely have some very mental issues associated with sex.

100% Agreement with this statement

By leaving this sort of art-work legally available, it helps to blur the line between reality and fantasy, just as actual photographic pedophile porn would.

Contested. If a person had crossed the line and aquired actual CP images, there is no blurring of the line involved. I know what youre trying to put forward, that lolicon porn helps to satiaite the gnawing fact that CP is wrong, but the second part makes no sense. Actual CP has no line between reality and fantasy. The person downloading the actual CP wmust be well aware of what he/she is seeing.

:It affirms in the viewers mind that such impulses are okay, and even if on a subtle level, makes that individual more likely to act on those desires

Take the reverse. A pedophile with issues pertaining to the molestation of kids. If the potential offender is satiated by the fictional CP, it makes them less likely to act on those desires.

It's a difficult issue to touch legally, because it is still artwork. Unlike photographic or video pornography, no act is being committed which can be determined to breaking laws. I firmly believe that art should not be governed by law, because who knows what that would lead to. If you ban a certain form of art for sexual inpropriaty, how long will it be until you can't show killings in movies, or write erotic scenes in books?

Well said. Censorship is always a touchy issue, but especially so around VERY delacate issues like this.

I don't think lolicon is exactley making the world a safer place, but I also don't think that banning it will do more good than harm.

That remains to be seen...

At 3/9/07 05:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/9/07 10:57 AM, Boltrig wrote:

Yeah, like after 9/11 you neede any encouragement from us to go rampaging into Afgahnistan

Haha, I love you hypocrites.

Heh, it was your intelligence and YOU went along for the ride! Hahaha

"The U.S. may have decided long before 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. On September 18, 2001 Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, said "senior U.S. officials" told him in mid-July 2001 that U.S. military action against Afghanistan would be commenced by the middle of October 2001." (Source)

Get your facts right.

"The United States and the UK, along with many intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003." (Source)

Theres an AND in there.

Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. (same source)

At 3/9/07 11:42 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/9/07 04:03 PM, Boltrig wrote: One fourth. From a country that had not had its manufacturing centres decimated by bombers. And from a country with a much more massive manufacturing capability.

The Whermacht never targeted manufacturing centers like the US and UK did.

The major populatiom centres were bombed indiscriminately. Thats where the factories are. Who works in factories? people! Who gets killed when towns and cities were bombed? People.

At 3/9/07 04:33 PM, Imperator wrote:

Your quote. One fourth. How is a force at 3/4 full recorded capacity completely ineffective. Fuck sake.

Think about how expansive 1/4 is. Take ANY test, 75% is a LOW grade.

No it isnt. Oxford University. One of the most respected Universities in the UK.
Have a look at the maths department marking sceme here

"a First Class performance (on that paper) is indicated by a mark of 70 to 100; "

75% puts you in the highest section of the pass components.

If anything in my life dropped by 25%, I'd be hard pressed. If 25% of my money suddenly disappeared, I'd be dead in the water.

Then you are living beyond your means!

Christ, in WWII battles with 10% casualties were considered HIGH. Think about how devastating 25% would be.

Not disputed. 25% casualties would be devastating both to morale and fighting effectiveness, but it is not the same as the 25% not being there in the first place.

One out of every 4 planes in your arsenal were US made. One out of every 4 bullets you fired were US made. One out of every 4 bombs you dropped were US made. One out of every 4 meals you ate were US made.

Stop twisting the fucking facts. 3 out of 4 planes were UK made. 3 out of 4 bullets fired were UK made. 3 out of 4 bombs dropped were UK made. Last point is contested. Field rations maybe but not meals for the general populace. And 3 out of 4 meals were still UK produced!

Yeah, 25% is completely insignificant.......

I dint say it was but Im going to now out of principal.

Stop making the facts appear twisted to suit you.

I don't have to. The facts speak for themselves. 25% of your fighting effectiveness was due ENTIRELY to the US. If you don't think that's a significant portion, you're obviously content with everything else that's only 75% done......

No, Im fucking content with the fact that despite the fact that we are a small island nation, getting bombed to hell on a regular basis, we managed to provide 75% of our armed forces strength.

Present them as they are.

I presented them VERBATIM.

Then added your slant. I doubt you wiki source said the UK was completely ineffective at 75% capacity.

At 3/9/07 03:03 PM, Imperator wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

"Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States were not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union."

"Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships."

One fourth. From a country that had not had its manufacturing centres decimated by bombers. And from a country with a much more massive manufacturing capability.

"Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance."

Keywords. Supplement. Assistance. Not "the British were fucked without lend lease! Without it they would have bee standing around twiddling their thumbs for lack of equipment."

"Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[3] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical."

Relation to the Soviet effort. Not relevant to the British argument.

"Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941."

Hitler targeted the US for offering aid. So? That does not back up your argument that the UK was a useless fighting force without your lend lease equipment.

Wiki alone speaks to the fact that Lend-Lease pretty much enabled you to fight. Rather than saying you didn't have the ability to fight, I'll say that without Lend-Lease, British ability to conduct WWII was almost entirely ineffective.

WARNING: The above statement may contain BS.

Is that from this thread or the other retarded one? I can't even keep these moronic arguments straight anymore......

I know. What with all the crap your contributing, it gets hard to find the truth doesnt it. Stop making the facts appear twisted to suit you. Present them as they are. Your slant on them is not required. People will make up their own minds as to wether the early allied forces did nothing without the lend lease equipment.

Apologies for the double post, but I had to undo some of the damage.

Goddamit again IN RELATION TO SIZE. You really just highlight the parts that suit you dont you.

"The lend lease accounted for one fourth..."

Your quote. One fourth. How is a force at 3/4 full recorded capacity completely ineffective. Fuck sake.

This thread has degenerated from a topic about arrogant Americans into proof of said statement. I came into this topic with an open mind, but Im being dragged round to the topic starters way of thinking.

And as for your production stats post, the US is only way out in front in machine guns and trucks.
In relation to country size, the UK holds its own quite well in those stats.

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Now theres a war on, its slightly difficult to just wander into occupied territory and lend a helping hand. The defenders have the advantage.
Yes theres a difference between declaring war and fighting it but WE GOT TO FIGHTING THE NEXT FUCKING DAY.

It took you 2 years! The UK doesnt have a "couldve done it without you" mentality, were just sick of YOUR "we did it all" mentality.

I can see the flaw.

Most people are so greedy that they WOULD rather see the stuff go to waste than someone else get it for free.

Also the reasoning goes, say you sell a pig for $100 in the US, but you only sell half your herd, why should someone else get it for nothing. The buyers get pissed and you loose trade.

People only want to APPEAR charitable

At 3/9/07 11:12 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote: Up yours Imperator !(Source)

America never signed a treaty proclaiming they will defend Poland if they are attacked. Guess who did.

We declared war 2 days after the invasion, and began boming runs the day after. Not bad for 6 days from treaty signing. I can see how that was neglected.

And also the point im making is that the Americans LOVE to play up their role in WWII, but the declared neutrality untill pearl was raped. By this point the war was 2 years old. Dont wail at me about the embargoes and sanctions imposed. Little more than a slap on the wrist.

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

You would think the blatant invasion of Poland, the occpation of Czechaslovakia and Austria, disregard for sanctions imposed on them, Nazi units stationed on the French border, and nationalistic rhetoric would raise some eyebrows. . .

The invasion provoked war, Austria was in alliance with Germany, and France declared war at the same time as Britain.

ZING fucking nothing my friend.

No, you got ZINGed.

I reiterate. ZING fucking nothing

At 3/9/07 11:16 AM, kidray76 wrote:

At 3/9/07 10:55 AM, Boltrig wrote: Is there any way to find out how many visitors have gone in/out between newgrounds without trawling through the fan net rankings table?

I don't think so, but I may be wrong. There is a way to see who last deposited here: http://www.newgrounds.com/users_last.html

Not really sure if there is an official, released table that shows what your asking.

Nah, thats experience points. If you click on the network link just above the collections tab theres a similar table.

Im sure I caught a glimpse of a message telling me that my site had brought in/out x amount of visitors, I just cant find it again.

At 3/9/07 09:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote:

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

Under false premise YOU gave us.

Yeah, like after 9/11 you neede any encouragement from us to go rampaging into Afgahnistan

Is there any way to find out how many visitors have gone in/out between newgrounds without trawling through the fan net rankings table?

At 3/9/07 08:15 AM, fastbow wrote:

Why? We see these guys every day, The towlheads are more interesting. They take better photos....

My my. How forward thinking a name.

It all starts with name calling...

At 3/8/07 06:58 PM, Imperator wrote:

Let me lay down somewhat of an ace here. If you like bigging up the US's role in WWII, explain why you didnt jump into the fray in september 1939?

Explain why Britain and France didn't either,

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality

Up yours Imperator !(Source)

They huffed and puffed, then went home and waited for Hitler to shove his boot up their asses.

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

Luckily the US provided band-aids........and then brought a bigger boot to shove up Hitler's ass.......

Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.

So no you did not. You WAITED till Hitles tried something before you jumped in.

ZING!

ZING fucking nothing my friend.