Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I got a bit of a surprise yesterday - I looked at the Google map for where my htel in Tokyo is (oh yeah, I'm off to Japan in May...), and across the road was a bloody great big swastika.

Handy I looked it up, and it's the symbol for a Budhist temple - otherwise I'd be paranoid for the next three months about having to pass the Japanese Third Reich Recreation Society on my way to the Ghibli Museum, and that's just nutty.

At 2/22/09 11:46 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 2/22/09 09:18 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Woo hoo! I've got a threat of legal action from a no-talent, sue-happy fuckwit of an idiot who has no grounds to threaten legal action to begin with!

I guess I've finally joined the 21st Century, then?

Oh fun.

What's the suit?

Just out of curiosity.

I found this as a blog comment awaiting approval on my work Myspace the other day:

I have forwarded this to my agent 7/1/2009 who will be dealing with this directly in the next two months re the legalities of F5 brand and logos etc being used in any way and or mis-representation of me. Could you please send a suitable contact address

Kindest Regards
Talentless Moronic Headfuck

There's a slight issue here:
1.) I didn't mention her (or anyone else) by name in said blog, so misrepresentation is non-existent.
2.) I was 1/5 of F-5 Films, as was she.
3.) F-5 Films was wound up in May/June 2006.
4.) The logos never featured in said blog.

She's got a habit of this - she's literally holding tapes of a short made in 2004 hostage, and threatening legal action whenever the Producer or First AD of the shoot ask for them (despite the fact they have claim to them over her) or, more amusingly, she had a blog up threatening legal action against a hairdresser for doing a bad cut. Anyone with half a braincell would refuse to pay, and demand a better job be done, FFS!

Of course, she outdoes herself by asking for contact details: if you're going to threaten legal action, you should know where to send it to, not ask for it - for the simple reason I may well give her the address of Wrigley Field.

The fact is the company was wound up to get rid of her, as she was pissing off both the members of the company, numerous contacts and our friends, should've hit home by now, you'd think...

The problem with Nostradamus (other than it's all bollocks), is there are people who will bend themselves out of shape to make an interpetation of his laundry list, rather than look at what it says in front of them and admit he needed to get skid marks out of his boxers - for example, the way everyone was trying to say he predicted 9/11 - despite the fact there's no way to interpret any writings as such.

Besides, Mongol King? Mongolia doesn't have a king, and Mongolia shares a border with China as well as Russia, so shouldn't we be wary of Hu Jintao as well - or, if we are to be interpretive, couldn't that also include Kim Jong-Il? And then there's the issue of the Mongol Empire stretching from the far east of China, through Asia to Baghdad and Moscow.

Indeed, if you want to be literal, here is a map of the Mongol Empire at its height - so, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Poland and Hungary can also have been predicted as a threat to...well, whatever.

The Royal Airship Works are surely evil - the R101 was the Ford Pinto of zeppelins.

Yes, there is a slight degree of sarcasm there...

At 2/17/09 03:56 PM, super6nacho wrote:
Any second Putin will appoint himself Czar and take over the goverment to make communistic, what will happen to China could go in many ways:

Where is your evidence that Putin is even "communistic"?

Also, Putin is not Russian President these days, he's the Prime Minister - Dmitriy Medvedev has been Russian President since last May, and has two deputies. It's unlikely he could overthrow Medvedev and not have at least one of Zubkov and Shuvalov strike back with extreme prejudice.

They could

1.Join forces
2.Fight back
3.Surrender

Or, China could be an indepedent body - they have the armed forces and the hardware to repel any attempt at invasion, Russian or otherwise. Believe it or now, the Cold War has finished, and there isn't a Second World clique anymore. The main reason China are supportive of Kim Jong-Il in any fashion is to avoid a massive emigration into China along the border. China voted in support of sanctions against NK when they tested their nuclear device, as well as when they tested missiles.

Another thing that contributes to the cause of WWlll is that there is North Korea which has Nuclear Arms of Mass Destuction, a hatered for the US, and a huge army.

What got me at the time: everyone wrung their hands in worry at NK having a nuclear weapon...which they'd already set off, taking their arsenal to 0. Besides, they have Russia and China on two fronts, so acting out might not be the best idea they could have.

And if the war does break out what will happen to Japan?

All Japan need is for their Maritime Self-Defense Force and Air Self-Defense Force to perform - Japan has one advantage many nations do not - they're an island, so have two large natural defences: teh South China Sea, and the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, you're not thinking laterally - who will ally with who? For all you know, East Asia might not be an arena of war, with China, NK, Japan and Russia joining forces to declare was on Zimbabwe.

Eruope

Okay well russia will just crush through Europe

Not if they're allied with the rest of Europe against somewhere else.

Middle East

Isreal, Palestines, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghansitan will all bitch and complain about goverment and religous rights

Or Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria all think "Fuck it", and waste Israel in a combined effort. That took a lot less time than anyone could've predicted.

Or Iran could do what they were going to do ten years ago, and smash the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan, just to show the US how it's done.

So any other ideas?

New Zealand will have the least to do of all English-speaking countries, whilst South America and West Africa are safe because nobody wants to invade, as no equation can make it seem like a good idea.

Also do you think WWlll will be a nuclear war?

No, everyone will be too busy trying not to use the word that it ends in mutally-assured non-destruction. Either that or somebody in Karachi sends a joke e-mail that gets lost in translation, and Tehran decide to test out their WMD nobody but George W Bush said they have, which confuses everyone because nobody thought Iran would ever attack Pakistan, let alone nuke it. This move, after a couple of weeks of thinking, makes them an ally of India and Israel, so therefore they're now the good guys.

Take your pick from these 14.

Philip Morris, Monsanto, Nestle, Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola all seem to feature prominently in these discussions.

"As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.' 'It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran."

There's two issues here:

Firstly, the US's relationship with Iran is hardly a healthy one, due in part to the Bush administration's heavy-handed approach that regularly undermined any negotiations that Iran was in with the EU3 (France, Germany, UK) in a matter of seconds (as documented in Iran and the West on the BBC).

Secondly, I can't be the only person who gets this mental image?

Woo hoo! I've got a threat of legal action from a no-talent, sue-happy fuckwit of an idiot who has no grounds to threaten legal action to begin with!

I guess I've finally joined the 21st Century, then?

One thing about this supposed "liberal media bias" that always confuses me - where is this liberal media people are talking about?

Take the UK: The majority of all British papers are on the Right (The Guardian and The Independent the only ones on the Left - The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Mirror, The Star and all the freesheets are on varying points of the Right), Sky News is the UK wing of Fox News, whilst on terrestrial Channel 4 news is on the Left, Five News is a subsidiary of Sky News, BBC News toes the ruling party line (so has been on the Right for 30 years), and ITN follows suit.

At 2/8/09 12:19 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/8/09 11:08 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Yeah, Chelsea tractors are common. Rav 4 drivers are the worst hit, as they seem to mistake roads and driveways for "all terrain."

;;;;
I meant the vehicles on the street. My brother & I both own 4x4 drive trucks. Actually most of the pick ups you see around here are 4x4's. My car (a pontiac Wave) is front wheel drive & with studded tires it is impressive how well it tracks in up to 10 to 12 cms of snow & the studs allow for traction even on pure ice survaces.

As I said, the majority of them are as all terrain as a stick of chewing gum - if you have a Land/Ranger Rover, it'll probably do the job. If you have a Rav 4, you should be thankful the zombie apocalypse hasn't broken out.

What this weather has proved most is the New Beetle (if it's "new" anymore) is a pile of shite, as I saw three of them abandoned next to each other on Tuesday.

You don't see many VW 'Bugs' on the roads here in winter. Same with the Mini's you see them when the roads are clear, but they're not good in the thick of it.

People don't then to have one car for clear days, one day for snow days over here. Maybe in the wilds of Scotland (where it reached -18 last night in some parts of The Highlands), but mor eoften than not it's just the same vehicle.

But often in my travels back & forth from the city, you see a lot of 4x4 SUV's flipped over & in the ditchesbecause the drivers go to fast for the conditions. Just because you can safely travel on roads that are sheets of ice, covered in deep snow...doesn't mean you can still go 110 kms per hour.
But every year you see them in the ditches flipped over in the meridians etc.

As traffic ground to a halt due to the only passable bits of road being dictated by the grooves in the snow made by the driver in front of you, nobody tried bombing it down the roads. Although, a week later, the roads finally cleared - because of heavy rainfall on Sunday night and continuing today, rather than the roads being cleared - and some pavements are still lethal by this point.

It's about time the American police got back into the shooting-innocent-people habit: the British, Italian and Greek police have been getting all their press of late.

At 2/8/09 12:40 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Okay, the "engine backfire" theory is mildly plausible. But I imagine (I've never been shot) that when the bullet goes in, the injured person would feel...I don't know...pain?

Mildly plausible in Loony Toons, maybe.

You would think one of the cops would have checked themselves for bullet holes and/or blood on the car or their clothing, or an entry wound, though...

At 2/7/09 10:02 AM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 2/7/09 09:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Iceland have already one-upped a black President - with a lesbian Prime Minister.

Yeah, but does Iceland have a history of oppressing gays and treating them as second-class, non-human citizens as recently as 50 years ago?

As recently as 25 years ago, according to this.

At 2/7/09 09:55 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/7/09 09:34 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, when the heaviest snowfall in nearly 20 years hit the UK on Sunday night and into Monday, the roads were up to a foot deep, and many have yet to be cleared almost a week later,

;;;;;;
We had a foot of snow the other night...in about a 10-12 hour period. Main roads didn't shut down.
Mess was cleared up by lunchtime the next morning, we've had freezing rain twice since then, getting hit again last night & expecting snow this afternoon & this evening.... then above freezing & rain on Sunday...then freezing & snow possible on Monday.
That's pretty normal for this time of year...and we're better prepared than you are.
But it really doesn't make it any better a place to live in these types of conditions.

The difference being the money usually spent on salting the roads ahead of forecasted snowfall hasn't been siphoned off to fund an Olympic games nobody wants. Didn't people learn from Hurricane Katrina - siphon off funding, and you soon find why you were spending so much on it when you get bit on the ass?

So D2K, what do you think of getting hit with some real winter weather?

When I find some summer weather to compare it to, as for the past two years autumn has started in June, I'll let you know.

Anyone in Government or Media "yelling" about the 'Global Warming' catastrophic problem lately ?

No, mainly the media are kicking the government in the nuts for siphoning off funding to pay for the Olympics - of course, they're missing the bigger picture that the British Olympics Comission are guilty of fraud, as the proposed budget for staging the games was spent two years ago - and we've got three years to come. So, nobody go within ten feet of the sea or a mountain, because doubtless the RNLI and Mountain Rescue will have their budgets shovelled up next.

Oh yeah... Are 4x4 or all wheel drive vehicles common in the UK ?

Yeah, Chelsea tractors are common. Rav 4 drivers are the worst hit, as they seem to mistake roads and driveways for "all terrain."

What this weather has proved most is the New Beetle (if it's "new" anymore) is a pile of shite, as I saw three of them abandoned next to each other on Tuesday.

We've found a new way to hate 2012 - the money usually spent salting and gritting the roads in case of heavy snow and ice has been diverted to paying to paying for the Olympics.

So, when the heaviest snowfall in nearly 20 years hit the UK on Sunday night and into Monday, the roads were up to a foot deep, and many have yet to be cleared almost a week later, with several placed becoming cut off as a result.

Iceland have already one-upped a black President - with a lesbian Prime Minister.

At 1/28/09 10:49 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/28/09 10:40 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: The BBC are remaining spineless, but now Sky have joined them in thinking it's not worth their time to air the Gaza Appeal ad - their competitors, meanwhile, are.

;;;;;;
Actually, the BBC have refused to back appeals in the past (how convienient of you to leave that portion of the story out )

Darfur, Congo - I believe I mentioned those.

They in the past & right now are claiming by broadcasting an appeal just for Gaza ,they believe that it will show that they are not an impartial news organization.

How can you show you are impartial by broadcasting one side of the story throughout the initial conflict, that of the Israelis? You can't be imparitial when broadcasting one voice, and ignoring another.

No matter what you ,I or anyone else may think about that...they have a right to attempt to maintain impartiality , & those who say that they have braodcast appeals before...an appeal for people who have been affected by a natural disaster is different than a conflict zone.

Darfur, Congo, Kampochea - all war zones.

The BBC are remaining spineless, but now Sky have joined them in thinking it's not worth their time to air the Gaza Appeal ad - their competitors, meanwhile, are.

Now, Sky almost have an excuse for this as they are a global channel which is aired in, among other places, Israel. And if Doonie is truly representitive of even 1% of Israelis, this means they will forever be deemed a pro-Arab network that supports terrorists and is biased against the plight of Israel. Or, if you want to look at it another way, word came from on high at News Corp they should drop it, as they'd get a pile of complaints via the US, which would lead to Fox News being deemed a pro-Arab etc. etc...
(However, Sky own a 17.9% share of ITV, whilst Five News is produced by Sky News - Five are broadcasting the appeal, and should it air after Five News the ridiculousness of the situation is apparent)

The BBC, though, are coming up with any number of excuses, usually "imparitality" or "free from government interference."

Which is pure crap - it's not as if the BBC was remotely impartial or balanced in their reporting of the conflict. And, no, not because they were pro-Arab as some people have claimed on this board (sorry, did I say "claimed"? I meant LIED) - Gaza did not have a voice in any report on the BBC, whilst both the Israeli Defence Minister and Foreign Minister were featured on every broadcast and bulletin, the BBC always toed the Israeli line no matter how falsified their version of events were, and for that matter the BBC never even went into Gaza, and deposited their reporters on the Gaza/Israel border - or, to be more blunt, they reported on events in Gaza from Israeli soil, and never went near anything they were reporting.

The BBC have no problem broadcasting appeals for the Congo or Darfur, whilst 20 years ago kids show Blue Peter ran an appeal for Kampochea without any talk of "politics", "impartiality" or "Government interference."

Have ITV, Channel 4 or Five destabilised the Middle East since airing the appeal on Monday night? Did any of their viewers complain that it was a political move, or were they smart enough to relaise there's a clear demarcation between politics and an humanitarian appeal?

When the head of the Charity Comission, David Hind, states that the appeal will receive considerably less money due to the BBC snub, it's also worth questioning whether this decision was conscious from the outset, rather than the BBC being stubborn and refusing to budge.

I remember the more innocent times when it was known as The War Against Terror - until it swiftly became known as TWAT...

Archbishop joins criticism of BBC refusal to screen Gaza appeal
Corporation receives 11,000 complaints and 50 MPs plan to back motion calling on BBC to change its mind over aid film
Caroline Davies, Vanessa Thorpe and Gaby Hinsliff
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 January 2009 16.10 GMT

The Archbishop of Canterbury today added to criticism of the BBC over its refusal to broadcast a charity appeal for aid to Gaza.

He spoke as it emerged the BBC had received some 11,000 complaints and more than 50 MPs planned to back a parliamentary motion urging the corporation to reverse its decision not to broadcast tomorrow's appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).

The early day motion to be tabled tomorrow by Labour's Richard Burden has received the support of 51 MPs from across the Commons; ministers and some senior BBC staff have also called for the BBC to change its mind. The corporation today admitted it had received "approximately" 1,000 telephone complaints about the decision and a further 10,000 by email.

Meanwhile, adding his voice to the calls for a U-turn while speaking after a church service in Cambridge, the Right Rev Rowan Williams said: "My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal."

But despite the increasing pressure, a BBC spokesman today said the situation remained unchanged.

Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, has been left isolated as ITV and Channel 4 agreed to air the plea for aid.

The BBC has decided that broadcasting the appeal might be seen as evidence of bias on a highly sensitive political issue.

The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said it was right that broadcasters made their own decisions, adding that the BBC faced a difficult choice because of the way it is funded.

The communities secretary, Hazel Blears, said she hoped the BBC would "urgently review its decision", and the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, said the corporation had made the "wrong decision".

Yesterday, the Archbishop of York, the John Sentamu, accused the broadcaster of "taking sides" and said: "This is not a row about impartiality, but rather about humanity.

"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention," he added.

"They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms, but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief.

"By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality."

Thompson received backing from the BBC Trust's chairman, Sir Michael Lyons. He said he was "concerned" about the tone of some politicians' comments on the issue, which he said came close to "undue interference" in the BBC's editorial independence.

The BBC's unrepentant stance has stirred up rebellion in the ranks of it own reporters and editors. One senior BBC news presenter told the Observer: "I've been talking to colleagues, and everyone here is absolutely seething about this.

"The notion that the decision to ban the appeal will seem impartial to the public at large is quite absurd.

"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger, made worse by the fact that, contractually, we are unable to speak out."

Jon Snow, the journalist who presents Channel 4 news, said the BBC should have been prepared to accept the judgment of the aid experts of the DEC.

"It is a ludicrous decision," he said. "That is what public service broadcasting is for. I think it was a decision founded on complete ignorance and I am absolutely amazed they have stuck to it."

Snow said he suspected a BBC bureaucrat had "panicked" and urged Thompson to put the situation right.

Martin Bell, the former BBC foreign correspondent, said the corporation should admit it had made a mistake and claimed "a culture of timidity had crept" in.

"I am completely appalled," he said. "It is a grave humanitarian crisis and the people who are suffering are children. They have been caught out on this question of balance."

But Greg Dyke, Thompson's predecessor as director general, said the issue had put the BBC in a "no win situation".

"Outside of Iraq, the single biggest issue that caused complaints was the coverage of Israel," he added. "I can understand why the BBC has taken this decision, because on a subject as sensitive as the Middle East it is absolutely essential that the audience cannot see any evidence at all of a bias."

The BBC also faces demands for an explanation from within the -Commons international development select committee.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, said: "We believe that they should allow the broadcast to proceed so that the British public, who have proved themselves so generous during recent emergencies in the Congo and Burma, can make their own judgment on the validity of the appeal."

The satellite broadcaster Sky said it was "considering" broadcasting the appeal.

A BBC spokesman said: "We do accept that people are strongly guided in their view on this by the humanitarian emergency.

"We are highlighting the situation in Gaza in every news bulletin, and that is one of the reasons the issue is so high on the agenda."

This cowardly decision betrays the values the corporation stands for
Tim Llewellyn
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009

On Tuesday, speaking from a pulpit in Westminster Abbey, the director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, paid tribute to one of the corporation's greatest journalists and broadcasters, Charles Wheeler, who died last summer at the age of 85.

Thompson spoke in reverential terms of Wheeler: his independence; his dislike of authority, any authority; his relentless search for the truth, in postwar Germany, in the United States of the 1960s and 1970s, LBJ, Vietnam, Nixon; in India, Kuwait, Kurdistan. Thompson was right. Wheeler was a giant among BBC journalists, rightly hailed as one of the best of his generation.

But even as Thompson spoke, the corporation was traducing every tradition that Wheeler, and many of us who still work for the BBC, have tried to live by. The corporation's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, had refused to allow it to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza. She said that one reason was that "the BBC's impartiality was in danger of being damaged". Could the BBC be sure, she added, that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?

How is the BBC's impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Is Thomson more fussed about some imaginary "war on terror" that even the new White House is shying away from than she is about upholding the free speech and freedom of action of the corporation?

This pusillanimous obeisance to some imagined governmental threat has aroused unprecedented anger across the BBC. Reporters and correspondents still on the staff, and who will not name themselves, are beside themselves with rage against a corporation that is traducing the very ideals it is supposed to uphold, and for which the director-general seemed to speak in Westminster Abbey.

This is what one former BBC World Service current affairs producer wrote to his colleagues yesterday: "... I am rarely moved to comment on aspects of the BBC I can no longer influence. But I confess I am deeply saddened and confused - and frankly pleased to be distanced from such decisions - after listening to Caroline Thomson's obfuscating defence on Today of the refusal to broadcast the joint charity appeal on behalf of the suffering in Gaza. The question of partiality is a red herring. It is for the general public to respond to a humanitarian disaster as they choose."

Having dealt with different news managers at the BBC over the past 30 years or so, I can safely say that the modern BBC has become a body of lions led by donkeys. Reporters of the calibre of Jeremy Bowen, David Lloyn, Lyse Doucet, experts in their field and brave people all, will be appalled by the directions they are being given. Edward Stourton and the Today programme rightly produced Tony Benn yesterday morning because they knew he would articulate what their bosses have failed to: reason and humanity.

The big question that remains is this: what are the suits scared of? Why do BBC managers try to second-guess our government and even outreach it in grovelling to the United States and Israel?

BBC journalists, extant and retired, not the "usual suspects", not disaffected radicals and high-octane lefties, are incandescent with rage over this extraordinary piece of institutional cowardice.

The episode makes a travesty of the institution's posturing in Westminster Abbey last week, and discredits the honest reporters the BBC still has on its books and in the field.

%u2022 Tim Llewellyn is a former BBC Middle East correspondent

At 1/25/09 12:08 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/25/09 11:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Next up, getting from Toronto to Flint, then the geneneral direction of Grayling...

You're going to Grayling? God, why?

seriously, there is NOTHING there.

I'll tell my ladyfriend you said that.

Also: flights from Toronto to Detroit are relatively cheap (I think)... otherwise, just take the train to Detroit, then a Bus north to Flint/whereveritisyou'regoing. Then again, you could pay the WAY more extortionate price of a local flight from Detroit to Flint, Traverse City, or Saginaw... then renting a car.

Looks like Greyhound is the way forward on that one - $40 for a 2/3 hour ride, or $25 for a six hour train journey. Files under "Duh."

At 1/24/09 01:52 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:34 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I do. And, rather than attempt to engage you in a discussion that involves common sense and intellect, I'll just speed read your babble and come to a simple conclusion: you're a moron.

How, how could you say you like this guy? He's a total partisan hack.

Because he managed two very important things: to have a point, and to be damn funny with it.

Mark Thomas could learn that: he's either not funny in his delivery when he tries to be, or he has jumps in logic that go against what you've seen with your own eyes - especially his documentary on Coca Cola exploiting the Third World, which undermined itself when it did this (long before he started overreaching and saying Coke and Pepsi taste the same - they just don't: Pepsi has a more syrrupy flavour, end of discussion).

At 1/24/09 07:03 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:43 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, if anyone can construct me a zeppelin, now's the time to mention it.

;;;;;;;
What about Air Canada. They fly to London.
From Halifax International to London England is $374.00 Canadian plus whatever taxes/airport fees are. According to New Wave travel...its the same price from Toronto as well. That was for a flight leaving Jan31 & retruning FEb.7....I didn't know your info so I just made that up. That's who I buy tickets from...but Air Canada must have a reservation system in Heathrow, if they fly there.

I found one on Air Transat for £410 (or £420 on Expedia - where's the extra £10 for the same flight come from?!?), and it's £378 on their site.

Meanwhile, I did go a quite impressive shade of purple at British Airways' offering, so to quote a bulletin on Myspace:
Ah, the joys of looking for the cheapest airfare - or, as it should be, the least extortionate.

If it isn't a cartel of the United, Continental and Delta airlines dictating no fare shall be less than £650 (but preferably £750) despite dumping you in Newark/O'Hare/Atlanta/Orlando halfway through your flight as the notion of direct flights is alien to them, you can rely on British Airways to have you considering a combination of walking and swimming to your destination.

For example, this is the price breakdown of a return flight to Toronto, with both legs direct:
London-Toronto: £170
Toronto-London: £1149
Total: £1319

What the hell do they have on the return flight in order to justify the pornographic mark-up? Blackjack and hookers?!?

It's official, mugging is now legal in Britain - it's called booking a flight...

Next up, getting from Toronto to Flint, then the geneneral direction of Grayling...

At 1/24/09 01:46 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: All that money, and they fucked it up...

Ironically it was the Supreme Court justice that Bush appointed who did it...

Not a bad day out for the following groups:
1.) Conspiracy Theorists: Bush is obviously trying to make Obama look like an ass.
2.) Con Law Types: If Obama passed any law between his inauguration and being sworn in properly, does that make them unlawful? Cue a 47 page discussion.
3.) West Wing Fans: "For 90 minutes, there was a coup d'etat in this country." (episode 2:18, 17 People)

All that money, and they fucked it up...

A simple, rhetorical question for everyone: how fucking difficult can it be to fly direct to Toronto?!?

It seems the majority of fares from London (not in Iran last time I checked, in case Doobie is reading this...) to Toronto involve at least one stop, and are extortionate as hell - which is in no part due to one of two price-fixing cartels: British Airways and Air France, or the mass of United, Continental, American and Delta.

BA and Air France are the ultimate piss-take by charging over £1,100 and losing a day's worth of your trip bouncing around various airports, although United expecting you to change at Newark and O'Hare is just as bad, and seems more like they want you to miss your connection.

So, if anyone can construct me a zeppelin, now's the time to mention it.

At 1/22/09 02:59 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: Seriously, fuck this guy. I know this is rather old news, because Bill Hicks got to this about 14 years ago; but honestly, who likes this arrogant cunt? I mean, he's either has some great trolling abilities or he's a fucking idiot.

I do. And, rather than attempt to engage you in a discussion that involves common sense and intellect, I'll just speed read your babble and come to a simple conclusion: you're a moron.

At 1/18/09 12:26 PM, zoolrule wrote:

At 1/18/09 12:06 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 1/18/09 11:58 AM, zoolrule wrote:

At 1/18/09 11:51 AM, Grammer wrote: I don't think it's far fetched to say Israel is a terrorist organization at this point.

It's a fanatic immoral pretending claim.
It shocks me how the Pro-Arabic propaganda twisted the world.

Funny, since about September 12th 2001 I haven't seen much in the way of Pro-Arabic propaganda anywhere...

You watch the BBC don't you? the propaganda is everywhere, you can't see it because you support it. But it's everywhere, and it's powerful. The fact that people with no real connection to the conflict can refer to Israel as a "terrorist" when it's obviously the more moral and decent side of the whole conflict proves it.

The BBC? Propaganda? Oh please, they only show the version of events that come from the mouth of the Israelis, so it's hardly going to be pro-Arab propeganda when they don't even have a freaking voice!

There's no criticism of the Israelis when they blow up another UN structure, be it school or refugee camp, there's no shredding the tissue of lies about them being fired at from the structure, and there's no counterpoint.

The BBC always toes the line, and in this case the line is pro-Israel.

At 1/18/09 12:17 PM, Doonie wrote:

At 1/18/09 12:04 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 1/18/09 11:54 AM, Doonie wrote:

At 1/18/09 11:40 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: If Israel wants peace, better tell them to change their foreign minister, minister for defence, and whoever the hell is writing their dictionaries.

It's called democracy.
If Israel wants peace it should destroy the war hungry terror organization, and make Gaza part of the Palestinians authority again. Oh wait.

Hamas were democratically elected, so it is not called "democracy" for Israel to try and blow lumps out of them. And how did Hamas get elected? In response to the Israelis repeatedly trying to shut them down ahead of the last Palestinian elections. If you call that "democracy", there's something wrong with you - but, as we already suspect that, it's hardly news to us.

No they didn't. They got a majority in the Parliament. And Israel did nothing against it, until in 2007 they made a terrorist take over on Gaza, that's when the Blockade started (Backed by the united nations).
Oh, and that little thing of existing for the desturction of Israel (Which you probably support) bothered a little bit as well.

So they weren't, say, threatening to block voting in East Jerusalem? Oh, wait, they did. Next you'll be saying Israel didn't shut down Hamas on election day. No, wait, they did that too.

Hamas were democratically elected in early 2006 as a majority, and if they staged a "terrorist takeover", why are Fatah, Independent Palestine, The Alternative, Martyr Abu Ali Mustapha (aka the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), Third way and independents all representedon the Palestinian Legislative Council?

Oh, by the way, "Arabs(Yes you) want death and war."? You want to verify the theory that I'm Arabic with anyone first? Because, if you did, you'll realise that you just made a remarkably fucking stupid remark - toss it onto the pile with the rest of 'em.

And where the hell did you read that I am an Arab? I want a link, NOW.
Trust me, I think I know which ethnicity and religion I am, and there's three words that describe your theory right now: EPID MOTHERFUCKING FAIL.

I never read that you are AN ARAB.
I just looked in your posts once and i saw you linked to some arab site or something so i assuemed, OK SO I WAS WRONG. Doesn't even matter anyway let's not be racist.

Let's get back to the point in hand:
"I remember reading something that showed you are an Arab. And you are aren't you?"

Which one are you being with that comment: racist or ignorant?

Excuses? You mean, REASONS. IT'S CALLED REASONS. Terrorist.

You have yet to give a reason for the Israelis repeatedly shooting at journalists and the UN, despite them being clearly marked as anything but rival military units. Just reminding you.

I give you the reasons, Hamas are using them to launch rockets and to attack.
Now let's make it different.

HWat, even this time?

I want you to give me reasons for Israeli "repeatedly" shooting journalists and the UN, i can tell you it's the thing Israel tries to avoid the MOST, it's the thing we are scared of the MOST.
You just have to be head to wall stupid to actually believe Israel targets civilians and journalists.

Actually, I am so much smarter than you it's painful. I don't call you an ethnicity that you are not, then make up some bullshit to try and back it up that doesn't exist when I'm called up on it because, goddamn, I'm right whilst you're anything but.

You are not, you are stupid. Your English might be better, but you are stupid.
I could do the same "I don't call people in insulting and provoking names AHM ZIONAZI AHM, then make up bullshit that doesn't even exist. ETEGFECETC
That whole paragraph, was just ridiculous again. Stop being annoying there's no way you are 28.

Aren't you the guy who called me a "disgusting fucker" for noting the similarities between how certain parts of Gaza are now to a concentration camp (and I bet you made the schoolboy error of not knowing the difference between a concentration camp, which have been in usesince the 1830s, with an extermination camp) ? Aren't you the guy who said "Only Palestinians don't want peace, and never did. They want us dead. And you support it. So fuck off"? Or how about "there's no way you're 28"?

If you want to be a hypocrite, Doonie, do it on someone else's time. I spend enough time being incredulous with just how ignorant you are as it is.

Your the one supporting war - you've done it repeatedly in this topic, you unbelievable dolt!

Why the fuck haven't you been banned yet?

I am supporting peace, and long term peace. Not just 2 months cease fire that will result in Hamas arming and making more innocent Palestinian deaths.
I look at reality, operations and deaths are sometimes inevitable. Supporting Israelis is supporting peace, and "Boycotting" Israel is just straight supporting of more war and deaths.

No it isn't, it is protesting that Israel will use excessive force in Palestine if a mosquito lands within ten feet of their remarkably itchy trigger finger. They have done, do so, and will continue to do so as they have a free pass to do as they like.

Can you picture, for the sake of argument, Iran constantly attacking a regionciting their elected leadership, and the world looking the toher way until they had to acknowledge they were being excessive? Can you imagine the UN and journalists being shot, bombed and killed with no excuse available other than because they wnated to? Because I can't - and neither can anyone else with a clue.

At 1/18/09 11:58 AM, zoolrule wrote:

At 1/18/09 11:51 AM, Grammer wrote: I don't think it's far fetched to say Israel is a terrorist organization at this point.

It's a fanatic immoral pretending claim.
It shocks me how the Pro-Arabic propaganda twisted the world.

Funny, since about September 12th 2001 I haven't seen much in the way of Pro-Arabic propaganda anywhere...