652 Forum Posts by "Boltrig"
At 4/16/07 11:25 PM, troubles1 wrote:
well it is a BAR, And as such it caters to adults and adults like to have a certain sense of freedom , and a cigarette with that shot of old grandad, now I am not saying that having a bar that is non-smoking is bad in-fact I think it MUST be up to the owner of each establishment to decide if they want a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar.
Difficult territory there. Im asthmatic, but a few of my drinking buddies smoke, so I couldnt go to a smoking bar without coughing my lungs up every half hour, and they wouldnt go to a bar that would make them completely vacate the premesis rather than just going to the door.
The setup we've got just now seems to work. The bar we go to, you just go to the door for a smoke, but the club afterwards has a kind of outdoor smoking platform thats shielded from the bad weather in winter (and most of the rest of the year in Scotland) and cool on the rare occasion that its hot.
I can respect a persons right to be in a environment without smoke I have two young kids when we eat out we always sit in non smoking.
I comend you on your respect for your childrens health. It shows you have a lot more consideration than most.
but at a bar is a different story, and if any person gets a attitude with me about my cig, it might end up with a Bud bottle upside their head.
So you smoke to relieve stress then =P
Just messin with you
At 4/16/07 07:10 PM, Vaebn wrote: I am against making not wearing a seatbelt illegal. But I am pro-banning public smoking.
This because, not wearing a seatbelt is going to harm only you.
Not so. Take the UK.
Here if you drive safely, then you should have no problem wearing a seatbelt; think about it, its going to do you more good than harm in the event of an accident.
If you object then it does hint at a more unsensible mindset. More likely to get into an accident. So you fuck yourself up more, and the NHS (which is already under enormous strain) has to take care of your sorry ass for longer, when that bed could be given to another patient. This in the long run cost more to the government and hence the taxpayer.
In the US, i guess just the part about occupying a hospital bed applies.
Its really in everyones interest to have seatbelts as a mandatory part of driving / travelling in a car.
At 4/16/07 09:02 AM, Korriken wrote: smoking in public buildings is already banned in louisiana, its also illegal to smoke in a car with young children (of course, that's kind of understandable)
I personally like the ban in restaurants. on the incredibly rare occasion i go get to eat out, my meal would often be spoiled by some chain smoker sitting nearby. My mom used to smoke heavily, and every time I smell it i get sick to my stomach. so.. Hurrah!
but banning smoking in bars? gimme a break.
Its been banned in Scotland for quite some time now. Its nice to go for a drink without coming home absolutely reeking of ciggie smoke.
Its a like 20ft walk to the door to have a cig at the door. Whats so hard about that?
At 4/16/07 05:50 AM, pt9-9 wrote: How was matter and energy created?
ROFLZORZ I STUMPED U
Such an unintellegent sentence in a post that had promise...
At 4/14/07 12:20 PM, Wills4545 wrote:
I don't think you quite understand...IF, we coud do this equation instntly, we could predict what would have happened if we HADN'T, so we were predicting the future, and in all probability, a lot of it will come true, but again, a lot of it is stuff like, will the earth keep spinning and will the sun keep shining etc. All of which is provable in oter ways. But what i was saying, was that whatever i do now can be known in the future, through memory of what happened and evidence of what happened. So therefore i can never change what happened. What happened, happened. So if i were to go back to the beginning of everything, i could say, in this point of time, this happened. period. Or at the end of the universe, i could say the same thing. I can hardly wrap my mind around it myself, and i'm sure i'm not doing Hawkings justice with my explination, but hopefully you can kind of understand?
I tihnk youre saying if you were to go back to like 1900 with a knowledge of all that was to come, you could predict it all? Thing is with that, your presence would change that. Things get said, people get shot and all the little changes add up = P
I used to live in England... Does that mean i have legally have sex at 16 too? Duel Citizenship rules!
Nah, Local rules apply.
Its easy to hate foamy. Not saying I do but I can see the flaws. He's a high pitched, pussier version of Maddox
At 4/14/07 11:25 AM, TheBlueNeck wrote: I am so tired of hearing this crap. This is a pissing contest so you can say "my country is better than yours"
Totally agree.
each country has its own advantages and disadvantages but it looks like no one can understand that.
I agree with you. Im trying to get other people *cough*cellardoor6*cough* to stop putting other countries down just because they are blinkered xenophobes.
Race Wars? I thought this was about countries being better than other countries. Lol
At 4/13/07 12:33 PM, JoS wrote:
You mean ads like this or this or this or this or this.
Fair play, but the guys were just watchin the chicks. They werent actively doing anything to make them come over and be stared at.
Thing is, people watching that would say "oh thats sexist" or "it objectifies women" but they wouldnt bat an eyelid at the diet coke or bueno ads.
Im sick of seeing ads like this and this on tv.
After so much complaining about equal rights they now want rules not to apply to them.
Take the second ad there, the bueno one. If that was 3 guys sittin in a bar or whatever, snacking on a mars and staring at a womans arse / tits, there would be a massive outcry and ofcom (the FCC in the US) would probably pull the advert.
And the diet coke ones just as bad. Imagine 3 guys meet up on their break and fuck with the buildings equipment, just so they can ogle a female mechanic. Again, outcry!
A bit rediculous, no?
Bravo, xineph. Bravo.
Excellently put, and a humerous diagram (with a point) to boot.
Theres too many things that religion doesnt explain though.
For example fossils. Why are there fossil remains of now extinct creatures found in rock?
And why do they get older the further down you go?
No religious story / fable / theory can explain this.
Theres a whole myriad of things like that though. So Im not bashing at religion here, just saying you need to tone down the "God did it all" vibe.
Chill!!
At 4/12/07 01:44 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Hagis is a sheeps stomach, that is stuffed (doesn't matter what you put in it)
I Just Lost My Appetite !
Its actually not that bad. Especially the stuff thats made with the same kind of lining as sausages, rather than an actual sheeps stomach.
Consider the fact that bugs are eaten and considered a tasty treat in a few places!
Mmmm, grasshopper!
At 4/10/07 10:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That's not true at all! I've NEVER, EVER, EVER been treated as bad in Canada or Australia as I was in the UK.
Yeah but thats you. Were Mother Theresa still alive, she'd be compelled to treat you horribly as well.
Not all Brits were assholes, but the vast majority of English are snooty, stuck up, and absurdly rude. I was amazed at how fucking racist English are and how they treat immigrants and foreigners.
Thats the English though. The xenophobic minority are much more vocal in England, and so you tend to see / hear them more.
Does the term "Paki" mean anything to you? Yeah?
Yes. Its what Brits who are a bit tactless call people of Asian or middle eastern appearance. Normally it is said with NO malice and is intended to be no more offensive than calling an American a Yank.
Well you treat people from Pakistan and anyone else who even remotely looks Middle-Eastern or Central Asian like total crap, I saw that on numerous occasions, and experienced it personally.
How can you use the term "you" when refering to an entire country. Your generalisations and hatred for anything thats not from the North American continent disgusts me.
Without shooting down the rest of your arguments, Ill just say Ive got you there. I live in Renfrewshire - right next to Glasgow.(Which you claim to have visited) So unless you walked through Ibrox in a Celtic football top, singing sectarian songs, youre a liar. The aforementioned scenario is the only likely way you will meet someone unfriendly in Glasgow.
And in response to your comments about Europeans treating outsiders like dirt, bullshit dear sir. Id treat you like dirt if I met you yes, but you seem to be the most arrogant prick ive ever heard. Your writings read like xenophobic trash at best, a pack of downright lies at worst.
Last week we were at a bar in town, and heard what sounded like Germans talking at the table next to us. One of our party (who had had a few too many) tried talking to them in English. When that yeilded no positive results, he continued to have a conversation in French, despite both parties only having high school knowledge of the language.
This is not the case at all in Canada or Australia. In fact, even though I have alot of differences with Canada, Canadians (especially suburban Canadians) are incredibly nice to Americans and I get along with Canadians very well. I've never, ever been bombarded with a nonsensical, psychotic racist barrage by a Canadian or an American, I experienced this multiple times in both the UK and mainland Europe.
Again, thats just you. I cannot name one other user on this BBS that has brought out such negativity in so many other users. You probably bring it out face to face as well, hence your negative experiences.
At 4/12/07 09:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
That has been illegal around here for years... I thought it was illegal everywhere except Scotland.
Cmon man, if youre going to use stereotypes at least use the right ones! Its tartan that the Scottish wear!
While we skulk about our glens, hunting haggis for the feast at our castle!
Another pointer to a fake
At 4/11/07 11:37 AM, JoS wrote:
This city is starting to get out of hand, banning first trans-fats, which is vital to our health.
Trans fats
Plural! The proper sentence would have been:
This city is starting to get out of hand, first banning trans-fats, which are vital to our health.
Even then thats a retarded statement!
Thanks for the replys. Ill have a go with some different settings. Much appreciated.
I had a search through previous topics, but none seemed to deal with this:
Which setings would you recommend for an optimum balance of performance and faithfullness to the original bitmap?
Thanks in advance as always!
At 4/10/07 05:21 PM, Wills4545 wrote: The biggest problem is that by completing this equation, you would have changed the outcome of everything, because the equation requires a static univrse.
So therefore the equation is moot since by the time you do it, its wrong. It tries to predict the future, but it predicts a future that didnt happen (since the universe changed) and so does not in fact predict the future.
Therefore we have no free will technically, but we feel we do. If i go up and put my fist through my wall, i think, who coulda predicted that? but 10 years in the future i could say, 10 years ago i... etc.
Thats looking back at what happened. You cant prove that we are all part of some massive preordained system by looking in a history book.
And most importantly, wait till ur 18 before having sex.
w00t. 16 in the UK!!
At 4/10/07 09:23 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:
Oh, and btw, if going for civilian targets is the 'pussies way out' then what does that make the Allies in WW2 who bombed German towns and destroyed houses and killed people? Are they pussies as well?
That was a formally declared war with both sides being made up of countries with standing armies. In WW2 the allies were attacking and eventually defeated Hitler, preventing him from continuing hid conquest of the world. If you can find a valid reason for terrorists attacking civilians, please tell me.
Islam has no standing army. Each radical cleric has a following of nutters prepared to give up their life in a very misguided attempt at changing the world.
Please dont make this into another thread where WW2 is dredged up
At 4/9/07 03:21 AM, Demosthenez wrote:
If they are so cowardly how come they blow themselves up and end thier lives? If they are so cowardly how come they freely give what the West is afraid to even talk about, the end of their lives?
And why would they be stupid enough to attack us head on? The terrorists hit the West right where we dont want to be hit, civilians. It is our weakness, our concern over innocent lives. That is not cowardly, that is rational and smart. A smart fighter attacks weaknesses, they dont play into their opponents strengths because of some false sense of bravado or chivalry.
I'll grant you its coldly calculated, but it is not brave. Yes they freely give up their lives, but this is not what the west wants.
No extremeist is going to give up their life without taking either nuerous civilians with them in a suicide bombing, or troops with them in a firefight situation. Therefore the death of an extremeist is not what the west wants. What would be much better would be for them to calm the hell down and argue with words, not bombs.
Coward in this sense is not so much the typical lacking courage or showing fear. Its the cowardice of attacking much weaker opponents. The extremeists problem is with western culture, so they try to blow a chunk out of it. They know, however that this will do nothing to help their cause.
September 11 - the first major terrorist attack. As a concequence, America goes into Afgahnistan and later Iraq.
So having seen that terror attacks do not do any favours for the credibility of their arguments, can you explain why on July 7th, more extremeists carried out further attacks on soft targets in London? Previous experience should have told them that terror attacks only strengthen a countries resolve, yet they attack more civilians.
At 4/9/07 11:14 AM, Gagsy wrote: I think they were just banned in America.
So anyone from America that has seen it - are the flashes still in?
At 4/9/07 07:38 AM, cjgreenwood wrote: it may seem to you as free will but you are still going to like when i post something on this then you reply just because you want to continue with the conversation
Yes, or he could choose to ignore your poorly phrased ramblings =P
Seriously though, full stops and sentences. Look into it
At 4/9/07 11:10 AM, Mechabloby wrote: What did they say? I like subliminal messaging!
I couldnt make them out properly, but I think it was flashing images of dead crewmembers =S
To those on NG that have seen the movie sunshine, what did you make of the subliminal style flashes midway through?
I thought they were made illegal in the 70s or 80s?
At 4/8/07 03:11 PM, Demosthenez wrote:At 4/8/07 01:12 PM, Boltrig wrote:The Muslim extremeists are the very definintion of cowardice.I challenge you to call someone who is so confident in their religion and their cause they will literally blow themselves up, as cowards. Knowing you will be dying beforehand and still going through with it, that is balls.
No its not. Youve said they are so massively confident in their ideology, thats why they go through with it. Martyrdom is glorious to them. As soon as that backpack detonates, they are transported to a land full of virgins.
(I dont want to point out that the appeal of a virgin is that of spreading the genes, pointless now you're dead)
They are so confident that they will be in paradise that they will blow themselves up. Once they identify themselves as an extremeist and agree to a suicide bombing, it can go two ways.
1)Do it, and be a "hero" to the other extremist cowards, confident in your belief that youll wake up in paradise
2)Wuss out and be forever scorned and most likely go to hell.
So to get back to the point, its not balls, its conviction in your beliefs to an insane degree. Key point - insane degree
No sane person can honestly think that a benevolent god wants you to kill all manner of men women and children for a piss poor reason.
<fix>Anything other than cowards</fix>
Sorry for the double post
At 4/8/07 12:30 PM, Gul-Dukat-DS9 wrote: Well, wars are won by the violent and by the strong. Muslim peopel are very brave, both in the battlefield and out of it. If Christianity doesn't become a brave race, it will simply disappear from Earth, and others will write its lifestyle. History is written by the victor. I salute the Christians who have taken a more brave perspective of things.
...*is dumbstruck*
1) Christianity is not a race, it is a religion.
2)You appear to be a wannabe Christian extremeist. Either do it or shut up about it.
3)Muslims are no more brave than anyone else. Most of them are regular people. And the extremeists you refer to are by NO means brave.
I dont think conducting attacks on soft targets is brave. Hijacking passenger jets and flying them into civilian towers? Blowing up London busses and tube trains? Real fucking brave.
The Muslim extremeists are the very definintion of cowardice. Once extremeists go on an all out attack against some heavily fortified position like the white house, where the CIA, Secret service, etc would take them down in seconds, then will I call them anything other than brave.
I'll most likely be calling them stupid, but still.
Maybe Im missing the point but all extremists are putting their own misguided interpretations onto religions.
Islam and Christianity (so far as Im aware) preach tolerance and understanding, so isnt someone killing "for their god" a bit self defeating.
Do what I say not what I do
