Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/28/03 06:48 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: You're more than welcome to add the coveted ying yang to your sign, Panik.

And mysecondstar- the ying yang is the symbol of approval of the politics crew, given to all it's members. It's only given to someone known to make intelligent posts, respectful debates, and humourous accusations;).
It's so when you see a post with the ying yang, you know it's a respectable person making it.

I just want to add to that... to answer mysecondstar's question. I understand it, even though I'm not part of the crew. Obviously, the money sign is a symbol of greed (dark and evil), and the peace sign is a symbol of the opposite, well, not exactly the opposite, you can be a peaceful and greedy country, but peace is a symbol of light and good. Yeah, the members of the politics crew use it for intelligence posts, mostly in this forum.

At 3/28/03 02:32 AM, TheShrike wrote: Martha Stewart says:
"Ok, now you'll want a few power tools for this project. Preferablly a Jigsaw and a Sander.
Now, on a sheet of paper, design a nice Japanese-style throwing star.
Tape the cd to the paper, shiny side facing the paper.
Now you're ready to go to work!
I suggest using a vice grip to hold the cd in place while you saw. Now, as you cut along the pattern, you may want to tape the paper over the new edges to hold it in place.

When you're done with the pattern-cut, Use the sander to sharpen the edges, and voila! You now have turned your old AOL cds into leathal weapons to use against federal prosecutors! And that is a good thing"

Yeah, I was gonna say that, even before I read this page! Good I viewed this page before I posted. True, AOL cds are dangerous. And also there's a great supply of them, since they're being mass produced.

WTF? I double-posted? sry sry sry sry guys, don't get pissed. I just posted and found that there was an internal error (you know that message), and then pressed back and typed my message again, cuz I thought my message was not posted. Damn! I just killed my joke (not funny anymore), and probably ended up on a few people's enemy lists as stupid spammers. Noooooo!

At 3/27/03 06:26 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/27/03 05:48 PM, panik wrote: Damn I was right this is like brave heart haha

Fight fire with fire. Or in this case, fight sticks with sticks.

The US military is about to get medieval on Saddam's ass.

LoL... killing the old fashioned way...

Well, I guess they should've taken some baseball bats too, not to mention golf clubs (with golf balls), they may come in handy. While they're at it, golf carts (or mini go-carts) can also be useful for driving through narrow paths and chasing after the enemy. And, not to forget old and useless household junk people have to dispose of daily, such as free AOL cds, as projectiles to throw/launch.

Sorry if I went a little too far, I thought that this was a little interesting to suggest new weapons.

At 3/27/03 06:26 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/27/03 05:48 PM, panik wrote: Damn I was right this is like brave heart haha

Fight fire with fire. Or in this case, fight sticks with sticks.

The US military is about to get medieval on Saddam's ass.

LoL... Killing the old fashioned way sounds like fun, more original than using rifles.

If I wasn't so lazy, I may also suggest to them that they equip the troops with baseball bats. May come in handy in special situations. You never know. Golf clubs (and golf balls) can also be useful. And not to forget to mention golf carts (or mini go carts), they fit into really thin paths in urban combat. And of course, old and useless common household junk, such as AOL cds.

Sorry if I went too far, I just found this interesting.

At 3/27/03 02:13 AM, TheShrike wrote: Follow this link.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30774-2003Mar15.html)
Scroll down, no need to read it all.
The military has issued things like battle axes & battering rams for troops going into Baghdad.
Ironic, huh?

I'll quote it just in case people are too lazy to go to the link.

"Troops here have planned extensively for urban fighting even as they hope to avoid it. Some of the $30 million in supplementary special equipment purchased since December by the 101st, for example, has urban implications, if not the hint of a medieval siege: 162 battering rams, 486 grappling hooks, 81 folding assault ladders and 81 battle axes."

LOL OMG, ASSAULT LADDERS TOO!

"...$30 million in supplementary special equipment purchased since December..." Special equipment! OMG!!!!!!111 Obviously, no human cannot handle the high tech items!

Yeah, I noticed them too... in my opinion, they do look better than the older ones. Yellow seems to match the color of the links and the "Sign-In -or- Join NG!" buttons, also pretty new. Nice.

At 3/25/03 12:20 AM, shak3s wrote: It's too bad we had to read such banter from an uninformed wanker.

I was fortunate to meet many from the Canadian Forces during my time in the USAF. These men and women remain in my fond memories while we were all involved in sharing resources, working towards the same effort. I even had the opportunity to ride along on a flight to Canadian Air Station Alert. I can only speak highly of the canadians I know. If there ever was a Canadian problem it would be those in Quebec that pretend they can't speak English.

Hehehe you've been to Alert? Damn, must be so fuckin freezing there - Most northern point in Canada. If you went in the winter, oh man, you must've suffered. Even down in southern Canada in Toronto, this winter, it was so cold, OMG.

At 3/25/03 03:16 AM, mysecondstar wrote: you do know these munnitions are able to hit a target within one meter of its exact target and at such a trajectory to avoid accidents like that. do they happen? apparently yes. once. out of, gah, how many thousands? not only that but these munnitions could also prevent "splash" damage or damaged caused by a huge explosion. it could go from room to room in its precision. dozens of missles have been launched at the Presidential compound which is 1 1/2 miles long yet it still stands. just makes you think a little.

Ok, I guess I was talking about the wrong type of weapon. Never mind - Yeah, the great things technology nowadays brings us. And the variety of new ways you can die, too.

At 3/24/03 10:25 PM, Mr_Y wrote:

At 3/24/03 08:39 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I understand your reasoning, but I can't say I agree. I don't think using ANY human being, friend or foe, as a human shield is acceptable warfare tactics.

I do understand why you'd say that, tho. So, really, it's just differences in ideals.

Yeah, I guess I'd probably use it too if I was that desparate... I guess that you're right... but if I was thinking that many of you may have problems with people using your own allies as shields... I do it in paintball all the time- lol that's how I get a lot of my kills.

It's a low way of fighting, but like my friend says, "If it's stupid, but works, it's not stupid".

O no lol sry I read it wrong, since I was reading your post... "I don't think using ANY..." Oh sry... LoL... wrong response... ok... here's a new one...

Well, I understand that you feel sorry for the people. I don't think using allies is a good idea, that's the most desparate way you can ever go. Yeah, it's low, I only do it in paintball... :D and that doesn't do anything to anyone, since paintball bullets, unless if they hit bare skin, go away after a really short time, they don't kill.

Using enemies, on the other hand, like Sam Fisher, is a good way to play mind games with your enemy. If you're enemy's that bad as to killing their own teammates to get a desparate attempt to kill you, that's their problem. It's like running a tank over your own soldier just to get across a bridge.

At 3/24/03 08:55 AM, TheShrike wrote: War is hell, man.
But if they use Iraqis as sheilds, it just makes them look all the more desparate and incapable.

Yeah, like I said, that's a pretty low way to go for soldiers to betray their allies like that - just proves them to be really desparate. Well, but in many cases there's a guy that doesn't know what he's doing and stands in front of another guy to take a bullet by mistake. Being forced to be a human shield is worse, since you don't have a choice , but the outcome is the same, right? You've just saved some pussy you hardly even know's live, with your own.

Bulletproof riot cop shields like the ones in Crisis Zone are good, but they don't help much when there's an RPG heading toward you or a grenade with no pin tossed right next to you, but neither do humans.

At 3/24/03 08:39 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I understand your reasoning, but I can't say I agree. I don't think using ANY human being, friend or foe, as a human shield is acceptable warfare tactics.

I do understand why you'd say that, tho. So, really, it's just differences in ideals.

Yeah, I guess I'd probably use it too if I was that desparate... I guess that you're right... but if I was thinking that many of you may have problems with people using your own allies as shields... I do it in paintball all the time- lol that's how I get a lot of my kills.

It's a low way of fighting, but like my friend says, "If it's stupid, but works, it's not stupid".

At 3/24/03 12:27 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah, unless you have Russian GPS Jamming systems.

Yeah, and also if you use GPS guided missiles there should also be a numerous number of civilian casualties, if it's in the middle of a city and not deep inside a military compound. But, I guess air strikes result in the same thing. There are just some things you can't prevent.

At 3/24/03 04:41 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: They've also started using women and children as human shields.

I'm getting angrier by the day.

That reminds me of what they did in Somalia in "Black Hawk Down" - I don't think they showed it in the movie - I remember women and children shooting guns in the movie, but I don't remember them being used as human shields. But, on CNN, I think when they were showing a documentary of it ("CNN Presents"), I heard that that's what they did.

Using the enemy as human shields is ok (I think you can do that in Splinter Cell), since you can stop them from firing and killing thier friend, but using your own people is not reasonable, especially when they're civilians, since chances are that your enemy's not going to stop, since the people used are not one of them, so those civilians have are not given much of a chance to decide between survival and death, especially when the people who are using them are madly firing toward their enemy to piss them off.

At 3/24/03 03:16 AM, gfoxcook wrote:

At 3/24/03 12:16 AM, Mr_Y wrote:

At 3/23/03 11:29 PM, gfoxcook wrote: Precision is usually good. But in this case, I think it disguises small movies. When you see
13.4
sitting in the size spot, it somehow looks like a "bigger" number than it used to look when it used to say
13
For one thing, the way the . shows up in that font is really tiny. But eh, whatever. Judging movies on size isn't the most reliable method.

I think making the digit for the tenths of a Kb a smaller font would look better, if it's easy to do, so the units in Kb show up and stand out above the tenths, but the tenths still stay there, for precision.

Now there's a quality idea. Make it hundredths in that case. Kinda the small font, like when you see 100.oo dollars, with the two little oo's for the amount of cents in superscript with a line under 'em.

Thanks for the compliment. I also think that making the units bold and leaving the tenths (and hundredths, as you've suggested) as regular characters also works - any way that makes the units stand out more than the numbers right of the decimal point should work.

At 3/23/03 11:29 PM, gfoxcook wrote: Precision is usually good. But in this case, I think it disguises small movies. When you see

13.4

sitting in the size spot, it somehow looks like a "bigger" number than it used to look when it used to say

13

For one thing, the way the . shows up in that font is really tiny. But eh, whatever. Judging movies on size isn't the most reliable method.

I think making the digit for the tenths of a Kb a smaller font would look better, if it's easy to do, so the units in Kb show up and stand out above the tenths, but the tenths still stay there, for precision.

At 3/23/03 11:35 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You guys say the same stuff all the time...and it's never worth reading...time to go.

l8r, nice debating with you. Just want to let you know that I wasn't dead serious about this thing, I just didn't like your opinion about Canada.

At 3/23/03 11:44 PM, daRiCa wrote: wow, nemesisz doesn't hav a comeback! way 2 go mr_y! oh and seriously, if u think this stuff isn't worth reading, why do u continuously read and respond to these posts? if u don't think our opinion's valid, then why do u try and stuff yours down our throats? its freedom of speech, and i totally respect anything u have to say and i think u should say it loud and clear. but that also means that we can say something too.

Yeah, the freedom of speech. Gotta love it, whether you're in the United States or Canada. :D

At 3/23/03 11:26 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Apparently none of you saw the report of the HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY the forces captured a few hours ago, which the UN inspectors knew NOTHING ABOUT.

War was the only option.

I guess you're right there. War was the only option to get the chemical weapons from Saddam - who would know what Saddam would do with those weapons if he was allowed to keep them? Even without that factory, the States knew that he had the weapons, since the U.S. (way back, when you guys were against Iran) decided to help them and give them those weapons, I think - not sure, but even if that's not true, everyone knew he had them since the gulf war, and he did not give proof of them getting disarmed.

So, there's weapons there, and I do not think the U.S. made a wrong decision by sending the big guns in, but I still support Canada's decision to remain neutral, since Canada was not the #1 target on Saddam's enemy list. I guess not making enemies is a pretty good choice too - since if they're against us, they don't hate us nearly as enough as they hate the States. You're in a different country, so I would expect your country to have different feelings about Saddam's weapons - you have a better reason to attack Iraq than us.

When was the last time someone wanted to start anything with us? I've heard that many Americans traveling to the Middle East carry a Canadian flag to be on the safe side and speak American English, which is pretty close to Canadian English, without (trying to) fake a British accent. In movies, I'm sure almost anyone would (I would) wish it would go into the firefights, and explosions fast, with less talk, but when it involves civilian lives, I'm not sure about that, and neither is Canada. We have the right to our opinion, as long as it doesn't offend another country.

The U.S. can go ahead in their strike, noone's halting them yet. People are hating your country and your people, but that's totally something else that's not related enough for me to talk about, since in Canada, we don't hate you (well, most of us don't), we just disagree with you.

I'm sure that if they start going too far and doing too much damage to the world, Bush would no longer be a president, or another country (or countries) might take action - and I don't think Canada will be on the list of the countries attacking you first. We're not that strong, but we do have the power to support any strong country, or countries, that goes against you - but even with that, I don't think we'll be doing that, even if the chances are on those countries' side.

We should be the least of the States' worries. We may be weaker, but even if we became the deciding vote for either taking you down or letting you be, we're the last country to ever turn against you (of course, unless if you start attacking us, which I doubt will ever happen without us doing anything to you guys).

So, in conclusion, don't make a big deal saying "OMG Canada doesn't agree with us for once, those bitches - what do they think they are." - remember, we're just disagreeing with you (for once), with many of the other countries that are doing the same. Making fun of Canadians just for fun of it is fine, I put up with that, we do that to your guys up here too, not really trying to offend, but picking on us for just disagreeing, calling us terrorists for that, and blaming us for 9-11 is just totally wrong. We've done nothing against you guys (I repeated that for probably the 100th time).

At 3/23/03 10:36 PM, Ruination wrote: It takes alot more fortitude and intelligence to try and solve something in a civil manner, rather than just shooting and asking questions later. Canada is a country beloved by every country and peoples of the world. When was the last time you saw or ever heard of someone burning a Canadian flag? At least when I travel, I don't have to lie about my nationality so as not to get shot in the forehead.

Yeah, that's true. When was the last time someone wanted to start anything with us? I've heard that many Americans traveling to the Middle East carry a Canadian flag to be on the safe side and speak American English, which is pretty close to Canadian English, without (trying to) fake a British accent. In the movies, I'm sure almost anyone would (I would) wish it would play into the firefights and explosions fast, with less talk, but when it involves civilian lives, I'm not sure about that, and neither is Canada. We have the right to our opinion, as long as it doesn't offend another country.

At 3/23/03 10:04 PM, DIGITAL_GHOST wrote: With this new system we can figure out the true size of "B".

Hahaha... I never thought of that! Yeah, the flash the CC cherishes. This can also be used for all those other movies shown as 0 bits (I'm wondering why some of them didn't get blammed, for odd reasons, because many of them are just blank shit).

At 3/23/03 09:43 PM, liljim wrote: If this "new" method is confusing people, we can change back to just Kb rather than floating point figures - what does everyone think?

I think displaying it in tenths of Kbs is a pretty good idea, it's not that bad... I can get used to that, liljim. Ie's ok if it's just in Kb, if everyone wants it that way because everyone's used to that, sure, I can live with that, but tenths of Kbs is good too. I don't think it's necessary to go further to hundredths, if you're planning to (I don't think you guys are).

At 3/23/03 09:58 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Your respect is the least of my worries. The USA is threatened, and all canada can do is say "lets put in some inspectors, eh?"

The Canadian "eh" joke... lol... yeah, joking around is fine, since I don't want to get to serious into this...

...but don't you think that the people of Iraq are threatened? Saddam is a crazy maniac, I wouldn't care if he was captured, or killed, in any of these two ways, Iraq benefits, but what about the civilians you will kill, and the pawns you lose in the process, already counting from now? What about the low-ranked soldiers in Iraq, who may be forced into war against their will, and not given the option of surrendering, since they would probably be terminated in friendly fire once they try?

Sure, we can understand why you're threatened after 9-11, and we help you (without getting our country's name credited), but we're not going with you on the war with Iraq. Note that we're not going trying to stop you from blowing up Iraq, we're just not helping you. There's a big difference there. Is Ottawa or Toronto getting nuked? No! We're lucky not to have someone like you controlling the United States.

At 3/23/03 09:42 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Note how Canada has not mattered in Continental, let alone Global politics since the 1800's.

Stop defending your country, everyone knows Canada is just USA Lite.

Man, I wasn't defending my country because it's mine, I'm defending it because I don't agree what you said. Note I said nothing offending about your country. I'm saying that I don't agree with what you're saying here. No, I'm not pointlessly arguing, note that I'm not using any simple denials to facts without backing them up - that kind of stuff doesn't belong in the politics forum.

I have an older American cousin in a small town near Boston, MA. I'm sure that he'll agree with me on this one, and many of his friends, since I got to know them.

And no, we're not exactly USA lite, we just supported you on many things (excluding this war on Iraq), to keep the alliance - you've been helping us too by protecting our country. That's mostly only for geographical reasons. Otherwise, we're just another developed country.

At 3/23/03 12:50 PM, TheShrike wrote: Actually, the US and Canada are about as close as two allies can be.

And of course we'd protect Canada, and they should expect it. It is, afterall, in our best interests to keep unfriendly forces out of our back yard. Just because Canada didn't go marching down the warpath doesn't mean Canada is anti-american. Just because they don't screen as thoroughly for terrorists at the borders doesn't mean they're anti-american. Mr Y is right. It isn't Canada's responsibility to screen those who want to leave Canada for the US. That's our responsibility.

Damn... I didn't leave myself any room for a Canadian joke...

Yeah, exactly. "And of course we'd protect Canada" - I'd take it from that that you're American. See? A smart American who's with me on this. Canada and the United States are kind of like bro's, we didn't fight for such a long time, after we established our countries.

NEMESISZ, I had respect for you and all in NG BBS, but what you've started in this topic was pretty stupid. Dude, you gotta put more thought into your opinions.

At 3/23/03 09:25 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Canada: Weak, Pathetic, Useless

Idiots like this who waste people's time by talking bullshit and not even knowing what you're talking about: idiotic, pathetic, useless. And, maybe weak - knowledge is power, man. Do some more thinking before you post here. That last sentence there in this post isn't a diss, it's a suggestion.

At 3/23/03 12:44 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Look, 9/11 is the fault of Canada's indifference to anything outside their own borders, and anyone who disputes that is a fool.

Canada sucks, they're a meaningless scarecrow state, case closed.

So being a peace country sucks? Not starting any wars, and not having half as many enemies as the United States sucks? BTW how are we gonna keep terrorists out of your country? Terrorists come in as anyone... omg so you're gonna be a racist bitch at the border, and say "you're a fuckin arab, go home", to every person who crosses? Those terrorists come to your country armed with nothing, so we can't use anything against them. We can't check people's documents, which is all they have. If we do, they would use E-mail, or fax. It wasn't our border's fault, it was your airport security's fault if it was anyone's, but which airport would check for those utility knives before knowing what happened on 9/11? Stop posting bullshit here. It's the first time something like that happened, there's noone bo blame. Again, I'm not calling your country stupid, but I'm saying that what you're saying is.

At 3/23/03 12:41 PM, daRiCa wrote: so because canada refuses to get involved in a war, that makes them terrorists? look how many ppl in the u.s. are protesting! look how many are anti-war! look how many ppl post here that want the war to end! so does canada! personally i think that supporting the u.s. is only gonna make the war last longer. canada has helped them in the past - canada and the u.s. are very close. Chretien said that canada is going to help the u.s. with supporting the iraki people after the war, which i think is amazing. i do think that it should be a country's choice whether or not they want to get involved in the war, since it has nothing to do with any other country except the u.s. and irak. canada already said they are going to help in their own way, so its not like were shutting away from the u.s. completely. i definately do not think you should call them terrorists.

So true.
1. Opposing war does not make people terrorists, in any way.
2. The United States' people are protesting. Not only opposing, but protesting, and that means not only simply not liking the war, but it means strongly opposing the war. If you only had simple thoughts against the war you would just talk to your friends about it, not go into the trouble of all that.
3. If opposing war means being terrorists, you're country's full of them. Many of your friends may be "terrorists" (note quotes) as well.
4. U.S. is already way more powerful, why do they need help against Iraq?
5. We're supporting the people of those countries after the war, and that's, I guess, cleaning all the mess made by the war.
6. We stuck up for you in many times, and we don't even get our names mentioned in the list of "thank you"s from your country.
7. Your country's not stupid, the idea of any country that opposes a war that your country starts is stupid.

THANK YOU daRiCa.

At 3/23/03 11:51 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Canada is really free about saying they are anti-american and don't support bush, and all that, but the USA is still the first person they'll come to if they're ever attacked. Canada expects the USA protect it, meanwhile, it does nothing in return. Who's the real terrorist?

Well, we help you guys most of the time, and stick up for you. This is, I think one of the few times we didn't. We have been allies for about a century, I think. Don't get us wrong, my country has not been anti-american, we just sometimes do not totally agree with your thoughts. We're the opposite of terrorists, if you ask me - we're a peace country - we never start wars, and I guess the U.N. will help us, if we get attacked, and not only the U.S. In the situation with Iraq, you guys did not get attacked lately by them, so that's one of the reasons we did not help you.

At 3/23/03 12:07 PM, Regis_Cartoons wrote:

At 3/23/03 12:05 PM, Mr_Y wrote: Yeah, I noticed that yesturday (Or today, I forgot), and I was wondering why Tom or Wade didn't put anything over the front page to announce it - Well, I guess it's because this is a pretty minor change. I was gonna make a topic on this too, but I got lazy, so I waited for this topic.

I also knew that somebody will post this, but I wasn't so lazy :)

Yeah, I've always been too lazy to post topics on this site. Since I started posting on NG BBS, I only got to post 2 topics. That's it, 2 topics, both on the general froum. Neither of them was pointless, but neither attracted much attention either. Both died fast, one at 2 pages, and the other at one page with hardly any replies. Ah well, I didn't care anyway. I almost always prefered to post in other people's topics.