Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/24/08 10:02 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/24/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/24/08 09:28 PM, Grammer wrote: Fuck, you said battle network, what do you expect me to think?

I didn't expect YOU to think anything.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means I figured the people who would read what I posted would be people who understood what it was I referred to.

Obviously excluding you.

You know, you're the only person who can be joked with, then take offense to it and insult someone because the joke isn't accurate.

You're the only person who can get so angry about former debates that you stalk a user around perpetually for revenge, and start talking shit and discounts it as a "joke" when it backfires.

Oh sorry, I mentioned the ion cannon. Never mind that it's not out of the scope of imagination that if we can have a communications satellite in space, we could have a cannon, as well.

Ion cannons don't exist.

Satellites exist. Radio signals exist. Put a radio receiver in a satellite and you have a communications satellite, that exists.

Hell, you already made a link that said the US army was experimenting with lasers.

Lasers exist.

But now you want to denigrate my knowledge on a subject, over a joke, even though you've made unknowing comments on health care, gun control, and the constitution (turns out it can be changed).

Wow, you're such a liar it's hilarious.

You lost in the debates about healthcare: 1, 2, 3
Gun control: 1
The constitution: 1, (apparently you didn't know what the 1st Amendment was)

And now you lie, and suggest I said the constitution can't be changed. Never minding I never said that, but said that the constitution can't be changed to give preference to a religion, based on the 1st Amendment. Removing the 1st Amendment would be depriving people of their rights, and would be unconstitutional in and of itself, and is not equal to simply changing the constitution.

(btw, I take it back, you make me ashamed to be American)

I'm sad people like you even exist in the world.

How someone can be so wacked out of their mind that they stalk people they meet over the internet, it's flummoxing.

---

America has MOAB.

A Ballistic. Does that count?

---

At 1/24/08 10:28 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/24/08 10:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Obviously excluding you.

Well, sorry, but I like to read other people's posts from time to time.

Yes, it means I'm stalking you.

If you read my post history and follow me around from thread to thread and talk to me more than anyone else then yeah, that's stalking. Added on to you using several alts to PM me, and spam my youtube channel.

You're the only person who can get so angry about former debates

Says the man who re-posted the debate about how blacks and women are at a higher risk for aids

I'm not angry about it, I'm happy about it. Because it was just another textbook example of you getting conclusively proved wrong.

and start talking shit and discounts it as a "joke" when it backfires.

I referenced a fictional weapon, and you think I was fucking serious?

Kind of a contradiction of what you just said:

At 1/24/08 10:02 PM, Grammer wrote:

Oh sorry, I mentioned the ion cannon. Never mind that it's not out of the scope of imagination that if we can have a communications satellite in space, we could have a cannon, as well. Hell, you already made a link that said the US army was experimenting with lasers.

----

Holy shit.

Quite.

Oh sorry, I mentioned the ion cannon. Never mind that it's not out of the scope of imagination that if we can have a communications satellite in space, we could have a cannon, as well.

Ion cannons don't exist.

Holy shit, really?

Misplaced sarcasm, nice tactice there.

YOU brought up ion cannons. I criticized your comment. You defended your comment based on it supposedly not being so odd based on the existence of communications satellites and lasers.

I point out that unlike those things, ion cannons don't exist.

Now you're covering your tracks with sarcasm.

I wonder if me saying "scope of imagination" means anything.

Funny how your own logic you're using to act sarcastic and to save face contradicts the very logic you just used to defend your original comment.

Freakshow.

You know, if you hadn't told me, I never would've known.

More pathetic, hypocrtical sarcasm.

Hell, you already made a link that said the US army was experimenting with lasers.

Lasers exist.

I know. I reminded you what you posted.

Yeah, and I brought it up to show you how pathetic it is for you to bring up ion cannons, and justifying your ignorant comments based on the existence of lasers for military use.

So I pointed out that unlike ion cannons, lasers exist.

And now you're basically defeating your own argument by being sarcastic to a point you know shattered your own argument.

But now you want to denigrate my knowledge on a subject, over a joke, even though you've made unknowing comments on health care, gun control, and the constitution (turns out it can be changed).

Wow, you're such a liar it's hilarious.

OMFG YOU CALLED ME A LIAR YOU PIECE OF SHIT I HATE YOU

Are you that paranoid? When are you gonna leave NG?

When are you going to do what you said you'd do in your blog?

You lost in the debates about healthcare: 1, 2, 3

Even though I proved that we don't have the best health care ever

I proved that we have the best healthcare in measurable areas of treatment quality and success, in the areas that are the biggest risks to public health in the countries being compared.

as according to the World Health Organization, which is more credible than you.

You couldn't even account for what you linked to. The WHO never measured healthcare quality in actual treatments.

But it's okay, getting the last word means you're right.

Proving you wrong and proving myself right means I'm right.

Gun control: 1

Getting the last word makes you right.

When you parade your hilarious levels of ignorance about a topic in which you put weight behind your arugment, while myself (and others) provided a much more persuasive, knowledgeable argument to the contrary... it makes you wrong, and us right.

The constitution: 1, (apparently you didn't know what the 1st Amendment was)

Why do you link debates you lose in.

I don't.

Why do you lie compulsively?

Sorry to remind you, but the constitution can be changed, and the 1st Amendment is part of the constitution.

The 1st Amendment is a central right, gauranteed to Americans via the constitution. Changing the 1st Amendment is not equal to any change, taking away the separation of church and state in order to creates laws to prefer a religion is unconstitutional. In fact, simply taking away any of the bill of rights is unconstitutional.

The constitution can be changed, or added to. But removing the bill of rights would destroy the constitution.

Removing the 1st Amendment would be depriving people of their rights,

I know that, but what you can do, is different from what you should or would do.

Depriving people of their constitutional rights is unconstitutional.

I'm sad people like you even exist in the world.

When are you leaving NG? Honestly. No one likes you. At all.

First, that's not true. The people that don't like me don't bother me that they don't, especially when it's people like you who have reason to not like me, such as getting perpetually embarassed and proved wrong.

Secondly, nobody likes you really either. In fact, mods talk shit about you all the time as well. Kind of funny considering you said that mods don't like me, which I don't mind... but apparently you're under some illusion that you're well liked... which you're not, you're despised, and pitied, and regarded as a wack job.

How someone can be so wacked out of their mind that they stalk people they meet over the internet, it's flummoxing.

Right, I'm stalking you.

If you deny it, you're lying. You've used several alts to PM me, Wade confirmed it, and deleted those alts.

You sent me several comments on youtube, I blocked you. You made another youtube alias, made more comments...

That's absolutely psychotic. You're obsessed with me, and you simply cannot stop. You need mental therapy.

---

At 1/24/08 10:28 PM, Grammer wrote: but I gotta go to work

Odd, I figured you'd be a liability and that nobody would hire you.

Well, I guess some people hire people as charity cases, nevermind.

---

At 1/24/08 07:53 PM, PubicTears wrote:

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: The USA. No contest.

Nice list, but I said trained. I know they have LOTS of money and soldiers, but I said trained soldeirs.
Ok assume all nations have the same amount of troops.

I am told that for the number of soldiers they have, regardless the lack of experience, that Swiss troops are very well trained. I don't know where they would go though.

---

At 1/24/08 10:02 PM, Grammer wrote: Oh sorry, I mentioned the ion cannon. Never mind that it's not out of the scope of imagination that if we can have a communications satellite in space, we could have a cannon, as well. Hell, you already made a link that said the US army was experimenting with lasers.

i beleive that the U.N. has rules against arming satelites. I could be wrong.

---

At 1/24/08 10:39 PM, AznWarlord wrote: America has MOAB.

A Ballistic. Does that count?

The baddest conventional bomb made. The russians tried a fuel air bomb which looked like a mini-nuke but it failed repeatedly said reports.

---

At 1/24/08 11:26 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/24/08 10:28 PM, Grammer wrote: but I gotta go to work

Odd, I figured you'd be a liability and that nobody would hire you.

Well, I guess some people hire people as charity cases, nevermind.

Wow, you guys argue about everything. Why not just create one massive "Grammar vs. CellarDoor" thread and then just duel to the end?

---

At 1/24/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Meh, it's alright.

As I said, the US is doing almost all of the funding. The JSF program was created because NATO allies couldn't maintain parity with the US in technology, their domestic aircraft weren't advanced enough. So the JSF is designed to create commonality in air power to simplify NATO operations and make sure that the US doesn't have to carry everyone else's weight in NATO operations in the future.

I just imagined what British funding would've been.

"Here's 5 bucks, make it last"

lol

---

Obviously, Iceland's military is the best. They will defeat the United States with their 'invisible army' (Why are they in NATO?).

---

This whole argument is moot since the greatest army there ever was and indeed ever will be is now, sadly defunct.

Good night, sweet prince.

---

Cellardoor and Grammar shut up and stop your silly argument.

---

Something like that - ?
1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6.Germany
7.Israel

---

I would pick the Swiss just because of the uniforms, but I'm going to side with the US because because first they bring in the Marines to subdue the enemie then they bring in the Army as a massive amount of soldiers to swarm the enemie then the Airforce and the Navy attack from afar.

---

At 1/24/08 09:02 PM, PubicTears wrote: The majority of the views seem to have go to America. I would have to agree they have the best tech and alot of soliders at the disposal. Having said that who do you think has the best special forces and why. But then again it would also depend upon the scenario.
The British SAS and SBS are pretty amazing and also the US Navy SEALS.

In my opinion I reckon American Marines and better than the Royal Marines,
the Paras are better than the Rangers, The SAS and Delta Force are pretty much equal, because Delta Force training and selection process is based on the SAS.

Not sure about the Navy SEALS, but the SBS in my opinion are the toughest in the British Army so I'd have to go with them (and of course I'm biased :D)

---

In my opinion I reckon American Marines and better than the Royal Marines,
the Paras are better than the Rangers, The SAS and Delta Force are pretty much equal, because Delta Force training and selection process is based on the SAS.

Not sure about the Navy SEALS, but the SBS in my opinion are the toughest in the British Army so I'd have to go with them (and of course I'm biased :D)

Aren't we all biased anyway I agree with everything you said except for the SBS because I'm not to famillar with them, but you may be right. You don't mess with the Delta Force though.

---

I can take anyone on.

All I need is this, and a bottle of vodka.

---

The best overall military is without question the United States. The sheer force they can exert on an opponent is terrifying. The two Iraq wars (not occupations) were great examples of the well oiled American forces.
However specifically the more experienced and trained military in Russia may be my candidate for best military. Their technology has been on par with their American counterparts and are the most evenly matched in the air.

---

At 1/25/08 06:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/24/08 11:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If you read my post history and follow me around from thread to thread and talk to me more than anyone else then yeah, that's stalking.

Or maybe you just say a lot of stupid shit, and I want to debate you.

That's hilarious... you lose every debate you get in with me, run away after you get proved wrong, but then make several posts dedicated to me as an individual to cope with your lose.

You run away from the actual discussions, only to start talking shit at a later time... like right now.

You always say stupid shit, I would do that to anyone.

You always get proved wrong, by me... so you stalk me from thread to thread and stalk my youtube channel as well.

Added on to you using several alts to PM me, and spam my youtube channel.

Considering the abusive language you used against me, I have a right to respond.

Lol "respond"?

YOU first started sending me comments on youtube. I responded to you, eventually I blocked you, then you made a whole new youtube account to keep it going.

That's not counting the several NG alts you've used to PM me.

You're a psychotic internet stalker. It's actually a bit frightening how obsessive you are.

You're the only person who can get so angry about former debates

Says the man who re-posted the debate about how blacks and women are at a higher risk for aids

I'm not angry about it, I'm happy about it. Because it was just another textbook example of you getting conclusively proved wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/nyregi on/04aids.html

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/1667_11 484.shtml

Lol, those wouldn't even help your argument in the thread in which you got CONCLUSIVELY PROVED WRONG AND HUMILIATED.

I never said that aids wasn't high among blacks. What I did show, and prove... that you disputed, was that gays who engage in gay sex create a disproportionate risk in CANADA (which was the country we were discussing), that far outweighs that of blacks.

You got proved wrong, you used links that didn't validate your argument AT ALL, and you got completely humiliated given how much shit you were talking while you posted your irrelevant, inapplicable, and hilariously random links.

So you ran away... and now, you think that since there's been some time since you got proved wrong, you can try and downplay what happened and post links now that still don't even validate what you said.

What a wackjob you are.

No, see, you don't prove me wrong. You've never proven me wrong.

Actually I do every single time, and you know it.

You're just such a psychotic freakshow, who has so little regard for the truth, that you deny what happened and instead try and get revenge for it through other means... such as stalking me from thread to thread, spamming me with PMs, youtube comments etc..

I smack you in the face with reality time and time again

AHAHAHAHA

Everyone knows blacks and women are at a higher risk for AIDs than white males. Everyone. Except you.

Everyone knows that in Canada, gay men who engage in gay sex create the largest risk for HIV/AIDS both absolutely and proportionately.

And Health Canada's policies regarding gay donors is what was being discussed. In the meantime you posted links about aids in Sub-Saharan Africa, lol.

Remember that time when you thought you found out who the VA Tech murderer was, but it was really just a picture of an Asian guy with guns? Then you argued with Elfer for about 3 pages until it was proven you were just making up shit?

Remember when you thought that everyone in Paltalk was against you, and you screamed like a little girl for several minutes and claimed that there was a vast conspiracy against you? Remember when you made blog posts about wanting to kill yourself?

Dwell on that.

---

At 1/26/08 02:28 PM, Transkar wrote: I want the mason to come in here because he thinks that air commandos are better trained than navy seals.

;
And its time someone spoke up for those Somalian warlords & their fighters.
They took on those American forces & the blackhawk helicopter unit & kicked their asses.
We have several of you guy's saying how stupendous the American forces are, can take out anyone any time... but me thinks you conveniently overlook what those people were capable of doing on their own turf.
They kicked some ass & no one has gone back yet, to try and make up for it.

we're staying away from there... we show them all our powerful toys... & how shiny they are... & they shot the shit out of them BAHHHHWWWWL ,killed our guy's WAHHHHINE No FAIR... Don't they realise how important we think we are !!!!!!

lol, Not only that on my way home from work today I seen not 1 but 2 SeaKing Helicopters flying at the same time... somethings up ,the whole Canadian military has been getting ready this week. (I heard a rumor our second tank is back up & running as well.)

stir the pot more.

---

USA for sure.
England couldn't beat us in the revolution, and we had to go save France's ass in WW2.

---

Well for your information we have bought 80 Leopard 2's and still retain our own variation of the Leopard 1. Dont begin to think that Canada isn't a military power until you read the facts boys. I believe it was your current administration that begged us to fight in Afghanistan and demanded immediate JTF2 deployments.

---

At 1/25/08 06:35 PM, Brick-top wrote: I can take anyone on.

All I need is this, and a bottle of vodka.

Spitfire!!

---

@Grammar & CellarDoor:

Maybe you guys should have a formal BBS debate, rather than just insulting each other and taking pot-shots in main threads. Idk, just a thought.

Set up a special thread, with some pre-set ground rules (taking turns, word limit), and then go at it.

In such a scenario it's must easier to come to a winner, although third party groups will always have differing opinions. Because of the limitations on format, its impossible to win by posting block after block of text and overwhelming your opponent with your tedious argument.

More formal argument threads are something I'd like to see more often on the bbs...

---

At 1/24/08 09:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The US is funding most of it, the Brits only give a little bit of money for research and development but they buy them for the same price the US does.

The US owes us for the Harrier. lol

---

The US of course..although we did help arm Israel, and they have one bad ass military now, but they are our homies!

---

Maybe if Grammar/CellarDoor formalized their debates there would be less room for insults and psychiatric diagnosis. Because as a third party, it's a little tiring to see arguments about military organizations interlaced with theories about psychological projection.

---

At 1/26/08 05:51 PM, tawc wrote: The US owes us for the Harrier. lol

The harrier is the worst plane ever, haha.

1

And closeup.

2 "here were a total of 52 aircraft lost or badly damaged in air accidents from 2000 to 2006."

"The Sea Harrier has the highest damage rate of all operational aircraft."

3 "At least we got to kiss him goodbye."

4

---

As I posted on the last page.
Somali Warlords & their militias kicked U.S. butt so badly they have never returned... that should count for something.
Please see previous post on the last page (I don't want to repost it... might upset those who are purposly ignoring it)