Jumbie

Yikes! Antaran Battlecruisers!

I see Mulan come down here to Blargh every now and again and let off steam about her edventures in the teaching world. But, she's in the wrong place. She needs to be getting a drink over at the bars...

We got a Boobies thread and a cock thread going. Aren't we an egalitarian board?

Well, I'm off ta shave...

free Dork Tower? Dammit, someone send me a care package!!! I'm stuck in the land behind god's back...

Ain't no such thing as friendly fire

I've never seen a live rock show....! Still, my university did have an old blues guitarist drop by for a lunchtime show once. He had an acoustic guitar and there were maybe 100 of us at the most in the audience at the GC Pit (lotsa people coming and going). This guy sang with a great deep emotion and took time between songs to tell us about Chicago blues and delta blues and what it was like for him growing up. His real art was storytelling, both in his music and his relationship with the audience. I had been interested in the Blues before that show from a history-of-rock point of view. After that, though, I couldn't get enough of the stuff.

"If you don't start acting the way I want, then how am I supposed to love you unconditionally?"

It just gives me a great bg case of the giggles to think that I've actually encountered real live people with the names Dick Johnson and Peter Willey. Also, Matthew Cockburn.

I am Baghdad, in the land of Iraq. Once, this was Mesopotamia, birthplace of Western Civilization. I have given the world art, music and fables. Babylon, Sumeria and Ur, my long dead sisters lie buried in the sand. Gilgamesh pursued eternal life here. Alexander pursued glory here. The British came after oily riches. Today, 'The Mustache' lords over my people with an iron fist. His enemies' silicon tipped spears seek him out with angry fire, but it is my people who feel the pain. In the desert, a Steel Wave rushes in to break my back. Tomorrow, a new master takes me (Gently, he claims) Tonight the youngest ones cry. History means nothing next to the oldest fears.

There's no accounting for taste...

Ahgh. We'll all be having FRENCH toast again soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/internat...20CND-EURO.html username: drunkennews password: pinky

I did say the French PEOPLE saw themselves as friends. The govt of France has other (cynical) reasons. Just as Many Americans support this war for other reasons than their leaders - who have been wanting this war since before sept 11th. (Esp Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) to show American superiority to the world. IC, the effort to try and restrain US power has never been a secret for France. Their foreign minister is especially thought to be pushing for a role for France in the world, which will give it greater leverage in Europe itself. With Europe becoming more integrated that's a definite issue for them.

Warcraft has some funny stuff. Especially if you click on the units over and over. Duke Nukem was corny, but funny too.

You know... Keeping this whole Freedom fries thing in mind: Turkey decided not to let US troops attack Iraq from their territory... Thanksgiving is gonna be a whole lot different this year :darwin: :kat: :stabbed: :mohawk:

Saddam Would not attack FRANCE! France is Saddam's best ally. And western business partner. But there's nothing to stop Saddam from attacking Arabia, Israel, Kuwait or even a US carrier group with nukes. WHY? Because in the past, America had promised to respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons of their own. That kept the Russians honest. But the US would never retaliate against the PEOPLE of Iraq for what their leader did. The US would end up looking like the monsters and alienate a lot of the world in a huge way. So Saddam can be fairly sure that a nuclear attack would not be met with a nuclear response.

Actually, The Russians planned to fight Hitler all along. They just entered into a peace treaty with Germany so that they could get time to build up their forces. The French are still in Alliance with the US. they never broke any agreement. NATO is a defensive alliance, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all. The US is attacking another country FIRST. So the Alliance doesn't enter into it. The French have no obligation to follow the US into a fight that the US goes looking for. The French people Genuinely believe that it's wrong to go to war so quickly. They aren't Saddam supporters. They're wrong, in my opinion, but France has a right to do that. I remember something the French President said - "Only your real friends tell you when you're wrong." The French see themselves as friends stopping America from doing sometihng it shouldn't do.

No, No, No NO. This is all wrong. France was wrong to oppose the UN resolution, especially if they did it out of selfish reasons. BUT we can't expect them to support the US just for WW2. First of all, the US didn't rescue France. Russia beat the Germans. THey killed 10 Germans for every 1 that the US got. And they lost 20 Million people doing it. So, if the French owe anyone anything it's the Russians. Second, France gained freedom from Germany so they have a right to excercise that freedom. And to think that France owes the US is like a jerk who takes a girl out for dinner and thinks that she owes him some pussy. France SHOULD have supported the US resolution, but not out of some imaginary gratitude. ================================ Something else: We all like to make fun of the French's military 'glory', but if the US had shared a border with Germany in 1940, they would have gone down just as quick. They had no proper tanks, no proper airplanes and would have stood no chance against the incredible German war machine (which was to the rest of the world then, what the US is now.)

*Gack* *cough* *retch* *uggh* "EEwww" *spit* "Goddamn" What's in this shit? Ammonium Carbonate - 156g ! Who the hell makes cold medicine from AMMONIA? -------2 hours later-------- Man, that stuff really worked. My head's all clear. "Still have to pay me a million dollars to take more of it though."

Girls with ANIMALS want to sell me a refinanced mortgage and Herbal Solutions Inc think I need a 'larger, stronger cock!" Opening my email inbox is such an adventure these days...

So, I was watching the Ruiz/ Jones Jr. Fight the other night and I thought to myself: That guy is a great strategist and he's got incredible skills. (Jones, Not Ruiz, for the clueless :-)). I so often hear people (OK, I mean women, though there are many guys) talk about how boxing is not a sport. "It's just two guys beating each other up so that other men can feel masculine." Every so often someone will die in the ring and there's a great cry all over for a ban on boxing. Doctors will get up and talk about how boxing is the only sport where the object is to cause a head injury (a concussion) to the opponent. The opponents of boxing generally fall into 2 camps: 1- The "It;s not really a sport and it's too brutal. No one should be allowed to risk their wellbeing that way" crowd and 2 - the "It's another example of males being indoctrinated into seeing violence as the preferable way to deal with their emotions." feminazi/ family values dumbasses. First off to the ones who think it's not a sport. *I*'ve never even tried on boxing gloves. But I can tell when something takes talent, skill, strategy, preparation and above all, Heart. But lets talk about fatality. That sometimes happens in sports. NASCAR, F1 and jetboat racers know that all to well. An average of 4 people a year die skydiving (more than boxing). Can anyone honestly say that accidental death is a reason to disqualify boxing from being a sport. 8 people a year die in their bathtubs! Boxers are all in it because they like it. They're looking for a test. No one, not even the dumbest fighter, gets into a ring defenceless. Do people get hurt? Yes. Is it brutal? On occasion. But the added dimension of violence cannot take away from the fact that this is basically a contest of ability. It can stand up as a sport under any definition of sport created. IN fact, the concept of sport that we know today evolved from military and hunting training exercises handed down through the ages. YOu think the Javelin has a pointy end just so that it'll stick in the ground better? What about the arrows used in archery? Those not directly involved in teaching skills, contribute to the fitness needed for the activity, like sprinting, hurdling and weightlifting. The second group however opposes boxing for exactly these reasons. They're the ones that blame boxing (and football and tractor pulls and GI JOE) for causing men to act violently. Remember a few years ago when everyone felt guilty about watching the Superbowl because recent statistics had shown that women got battered more on Superbowl Sunday? Guess what. That was a lie! an urban legend that some reporter mentioned and got misinterpreted. Same with boxing. Boxing does not CAUSE violence in it's audience. It does not ENCOURAGE or PROMOTE it as a problem solving method. In fact, I'd reckon that the sport of boxing keeps violence outside of mainstream society. Many supporters of boxing defend it with the assertation that it teaches self defense, survival instinct and love of achievement. These arguments fail with detractors because they think that mankind has no need for violence. "Sure, back in the stone age, when we had to fight it out with mastodons, it was a good idea to know how to wield a club, but we're CIVILIZED now... We've fought our way to the top of the food chain and we don't need to hit each other." This argument usually insinuates that violence is somehow alien to nature. That humans' tendency to fight is a human failing that the animals don't have. Bullshit. YOu think lions are vegetarians? (actually I'd ahve to start a whole other thread if I go off on the anti-meat jerks. Not the pro veggie group mind you...) Take the most placid animal you can think of: A deer? They fight each other all the time. Over mating rights and leadership roles and territory. I think that the urge to fight is a key survival tool for all species. Those who think boxing is wrong for being violent are deluded about the nature of life.

Damn... Now I remember why I stopped taking NyQuil. Too late though... :sleepy:

Lemme ask you all something? Does George W. represent your exact views on everything? naturally that means that we can't blame the french for their leaders' attemp to prove that France is still relevant to the world. We should not antagonize the French either. They might decide dto kick our asses and they have a strong military history: So the French still aren't on board with us spanking Iraq. Oh boo hoo. Let's take a look at the mighty French military prowess, shall we? Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her. War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux. The Dutch War - Tied War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power. War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since. American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting." French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French. The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer. The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night. World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline. World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song. War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu. Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux. War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France surrenders?" ============================== I don't know where that piece came from, but it's author is definitely a brilliant historan.

Streets if Rage 2! I even have some of the music on my HD. R-type kicked ass too...

Why did the 'most users online' recorder reset itself yesterday?