Oligo

From (the big bad) CNN: "Mallard allegedly told police she had been drinking and using the drug Ecstasy the night Biggs was hit." So she didn't booze and shoot E for the whole three days, I guess. By the way, E is not 'acid', LSD is called 'acid'. Man she must have had some nice hangover: "Ahh. Shit. Man my head hurts. What the fuck did I do last night...? Luckily didn't drag any bloke here from the bar... Wait a sec. I DID drag a bloke here in the windshield of my car. Oh fuck!"

It funny how almost everybody in this forum react to events like this with so much emotion. I'd understand if the dead man was your friend or a relative, but I doubt it so why do you all care so much? I mean, why come up with these elaborate ways of killing her? She made a pointless killing, the cops got her, case closed. Doesn't much rock our world. Shit like this happens all the time. Besides, if you want to make her suffer, you should just stick her into slammer for a long time. No point in lowering yourself down to her level by going for that eye for an eye crap.

I think this redefines the word 'pointless'. Why the fuck did she kill this guy like that? I mean, it's pretty pointless when somebody kills random people on the street for no reason, but she managed to up the ante on that by thinking: "Oops. I hit some dupe with my car. Mebbe I'll kill him. Yeah, I will." Same story on CNN.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then you are a hypocrite,Where are all the human right groups at now ? Where are they bitching about his death ? They can only bitch when america does something ? Which just proves my point,If america does something  It's wrong,if someone else does something It's ok.<span id='postcolor'> How do you suppose the human right groups should bitch about the SEAL issue? Call the cell phones of the Al Qaeda in the middle of the fighting and say: "You bad Al Qaeda you. You are evil, since you executed this wounded SEAL"? Nobody is bitching, since U.S. armed forces will kill those Al Qaeda dupes who wasted the SEAL pretty soonish, if they didn't already, so there isn't really much point in bitching. They'll have what's coming. But the human rights groups bitch to U.S. because U.S. is going to be on this planet tomorrow also, so that's why they have to try to point to U.S. the error of their ways to make them better (as if). Simple really. U.S. matters, promptly dead "terrorists" don't.

Makes you wonder. As most skyscrapers, WTC was made of steel reinforced concrete. And those two planes just plowed straight through. And when a same kind of plane hits the Pentagon, just a bit of damage... What kind of walls does that place have? Do they have chobham lining inside the walls or what? I wouldn't be surprised...

Yeah and considering that those two boeings that hit the WTC went straight through the concrete towers and the explosion mushroomed from the other side... How the hell did this boeing only manage to collapse the ground floor of one ring in a narrow spot without charring the lawn outside?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,06:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it mildly amusing that just because I go out and make a statement where I say: "if you treat someone one way you better expect to get the same treatment back", people get upset. This is one of the basic principles of our society for gods sake. And just because I say it I am anti american and whatever. Yeah, great. You guys have really got your act together.<span id='postcolor'> You know, whichever faction it was that shot the SEAL, probably would have shot him whether there had been the Guantamo incident or not. There has been enough unilateral shitting on foreigners from the U.S. to incite that kind of behaviour long before the "unlawful combatant" hassle. But I must admit I am 100% with you when you point out: "Maybe they just classified the SEAL as an unlawful combatant and shot him." I wish I was the first to say that, but you beat me to it.

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 06 2002,124)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't know.But i do think bin laden did this.<span id='postcolor'> This doesn't exclude U.S. or israeli (of who the fuck ever) involvement. You know, bin Laden was trained by CIA, so mebbe he is still working for them? I mean, it's not that the intelligence agencies are volunteering info to the average citizen. Bin Laden himself doesn't even have to know who it is who he is working for, it's easy to fix it like that.

Since it is always interesting to learn from history and considering that Blackhawk Down is based on true events, we can learn from the aforementioned movie: If you're going to be an evil warlord, invest some time to training your troops. Let's have a totally theoretical discussion: After sitting through the two plus hours of the movie, the thought left on the top of my mind was the impression that those skinnys always shot with full auto without aiming. Thus they rarely hit anything. Also, they seemed to ignore any cover and just stood there exposed. Now if you'd take those skinnys away and replace them with a company of finnish jaegers (or any other recruits) fresh from ten weeks of proper military training, the U.S. soldiers would have been slaughtered in a half an hour or less. The reason for this is simple: The tactical situation of the yanks was horrible. They were there down on the street attacking and the skinnys could use the whole 3D structure of the city for a defence in depth. So if each one of those skinnys actually would use proper cover and shot aimed single shots from their AKs... slaughter. From my experience in the finnish army (a conscription army) I can say that you can teach very basic soldiering to most people in ten weeks. These green troops can win against professional soldiers, if given sufficient tactical advantage (like the skinnys were given in BHD). So really people, if you're ever going to be a warlord or other leader of an armed faction, invest some time into training your troops. The gun is a beautiful invention, because its use can be taught to people very quickly (unlike let's say the bow). So take the time to teach it. Then your enemy will not screw you up so easily.

What can I say: Check it out yourself.

Yeah, but think about the stupidity of those skinnys. They have a civil war between a bunch of warlords. They probably fought an endless number of clashes against each other and spent a zillion dollars on buying weapons. But if a single one of them just bothered to train his troops to use the weapons... that warlord could have taken the whole pile of ruin of a country in a sweep. Such waste...

Yeah. I played it at work and the whole lab laughed like never before. Jeez...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 05 2002,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">actually pot is the oldest for of "recreational drug" in the US.. long before beer or smokes. the indians would smoke pot.. in fact back then pot saved LOTS of lives. before a big war the 2 leaders would make one last attempt at a non-violent answer to their grievences.. they would sit around the fire in one of ther huts or teepee's and smoke the "peace pipe" which was a highly ornate pipe that they would smoke marajuana, Â and a few other choice "herbs" in.. and as anyone who has been stoned knows.. you get mellow. and these 2 chiefs would manage to "chill" and come to terms and the war would be averted... Â of course that wasnt ALWAYS the case.. but lots of time the soothing lethargy of pot saved many indian lives.. Â i know it may sound far fetched.. but its true..<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, man, but you got to remember that your forefathers killed a bunch of the indians and shut the rest into the reservations in order to finish them off. So your culture is not the indian culture. For your culture (which is a spin-off of the european culture) the weed is a pretty new thing, whereas booze is not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 05 2002,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the only reason pot is illegal is because the gov cant make any money off of it (tax) because it can be homegrown very easy.. so if it was legal nobody would buy the overtaxed goverment pot.. they would grow their own.. of course the gov could outlaw that but look how well that works.. <span id='postcolor'> I think pot is not legal because of tradition. Booze goes so much way back in the western culture that nobody can remember the origins. Also, it has been pointed out that booze made civilization possible, since wine doesn't spoil like water does (that's why Jesus turned water to wine and not vice versa). It's hard to ban something that has always been there, although it has been tried. Now pot, it's a very recent addition. It just doesn't have the consumer base (yet) to force a change of legislation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeaDEye1809 @ Mar. 04 2002,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what the f*ck are you talking about you f*ck im 16 and im training for the seals i havent went on 48 hours cus im not a dumbass i prepare everything else if you have to prepare your self by staying up 48 your a pussy. when or if you go into ba or whatever the hell that is its going to be hard cus its not just being strong you have to have mental strength also thats what you should be worried about not how long you can stay awake<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, shit, not to sound like your english teacher, but your thoughts are a little too convoluted to follow, because of the total lack of the magic , and . characters. Which by the way applies to a lot of people in this forum. (Mebbe I'm getting old since I whine like this? )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 04 2002,12:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They did in america in like the 1930s ? Lots of mobsters got rich for selling beer in those days when it was ban.<span id='postcolor'> Although I don't much like the old U.S. of A, I still haven't managed to become ignorant of their history. So yes, I knew that they banned it and yes I know what is caused. It might come as a surprise to you, but they actually banned booze in Finland also. The effects were predictable: smuggling and so on. The funniest part was that when they lifted the ban, the consumption of booze clearly declined. Illegal is always more interesting, it seems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 04 2002,11:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus you waste your money on all those drugs,which you really don't need.POT is still bad for you,you can say it's propaganda ,but i would probably believe the people who is saying the soo called propaganda other than some pothead.<span id='postcolor'> Man, nobody was saying pot is not dangerous. But so is booze, yet it is legal. What's the point of having two drugs of equal effect and danger of which one is legal and the other is not? Ban booze or legalize pot. All the same to me, although it would be funny to see them try to ban booze.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Mar. 04 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is the biggest load of shit I have ever heard. Kids do drugs because they think its cool.. because their friends do it, or because they want to escape from what they perceive to be shitty lives.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe you failed to read the post. I wasn't trying to make up reasons for why kids use drugs. I just pointed out that if you call cannabis a bad fucking evil drug, even when it is not any worse than alcohol, somebody might draw the conclusion that any drug the society calls bad fucking evil is not any worse than alcohol. Kids are dumb sometimes like that. And in reality heroin, LSD, coke, speed, extacy etc. are much fucking worse than alchohol or weed. They are bad, because they feel so damn good (much better than booze or weed or cigs) making you want them so much more and fuck you up in the same time. Like extacy for example, it's unbelievable how cool it is to down that stuff. No wonder people consume it so much. But for any intelligent being, instant gratification as simple as taking a pill is a grave danger, since it robs you of all your motivation to do anything. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only way to truly stop people using drugs is to have harsher penalties for using, dealing, supplying or funding drugs. Ie. Death. On the spot execution upon conviction, no appeals.<span id='postcolor'> What are you? You can never stop the crave for drugs. If you pressure people with too harsh laws, they'll cause so much unrest your precious society goes to hell. Maybe you should return to real world.

Quoting a reference: "Beta-carotene is the pigment that gives carrots, sweet potatoes, and other yellow vegetables their characteristic coloring. This conjugated polyene also serves as a precursor that can be enzymatically converted into vitamin A in most animals and man. Although vitamin A is not present in any plants, the carotene precursor can be found in carrots, pumpkins, spinach, squash, watermelon, asparagus, broccoli, and cantaloupe. Liver is also a very good source for beta-carotene. Vitamin A (retinol) is an essential component for vision and it promotes bone growth, tooth development, and helps maintain healthy skin, hair, and mucous membranes. Deficiencies of vitamin A result in a number of maladys including night blindness, dry skin, poor bone growth, weak tooth enamel, and weight loss." So carrots don't have vitamin A. It's just that your body converts beta carotene to vitamin A, regardless of how much you need. So too much beta carotene = A vitamin poisoning. There.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Mar. 04 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always knew that vegies were evil   They are a gateway food to ....ummm .....other food?  <span id='postcolor'> You really don't want me to describe the disgusting effects of beta carotene poisoning (=eat too many carrots)... It's not a nice sight and I'm not even kidding.

Two rules to be remembered: 1. Too much of anything is bad for you. Too much alcohol will screw you up, too many cigs will do it, too much weed and you'll go down. Even if you eat too many carrots or apples, you'll get negative effects on your health. 2. Alcohol is a drug, tobacco is a drug, caffeine is a drug, apirin is a drug... Just because they are not illegal, does not make them good for you. Why do people take drugs? Mostly because it makes them feel good (this is also the reason people crave sex). Yet, this good feeling comes with a price, which is the negative effects that particular drug has on you. The simple route drug=good feeling is what generates the psychological addiction. Why not take the drug again just now and feel good? That's what everyone that ever takes any drug will have to answer at some time or then just end up shooting the chemical all the time. Some drugs even cause physical addiction. I'd stay away from those, because they connect feeling bad to not taking the drug in addition to the feeling good taking the drug. Even harder to keep it under control. Weed is a gateway drug to some (probably young) people, because it is banned and called an 'evil drug'. So this simple youngster takes the evil drug cannabis and notes that it has not much more effect than booze. Reasoning emerges: "These evil drugs are really not that bad. Maybe I'll try some heroin..." If weed was not banned, maybe impressionable people would not classify it with the truly badass drugs in their minds. So why not screw your life up with excessive consumption of drugs (note I'm talking about excessive use) since you get so much feel good? Everybody has to answer this themselves.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasagi were fission bombs whereas most powerful modern day nukes are fusion bombs. Boths types of nukes are still nukes. Fission bombs are based on chain reactions, which break up heavy element nuclei, like fissible uranium or plutonium. Fusion bombs are based on chain reactions, which fuse light element nuclei, like hydrogen isotopes. Because of laws of nature, fusing small nuclei or breaking up big nuclei yields a huge amount of energy. Fusions, however, is even more powerful and harder to initiate. Thats why you often need a fission bomb booster charge to start fusion chain reaction. So A-bomb (atomic bomb) means all types of nukes, but H-bomb (hydrogen bomb) means just the fusion ones. Ironically fusion bombs give less hazardous fallout, but more pure bang for the buck. Anyway, the use of nukes should never be even discussed, as long as we are all sitting on this one planet with the fragile ecosystem keeping us alive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 01 2002,01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its like me throwing a rocke up in the air and saying if it hits the ground.. you lose.. Â there is no way.. you could hit ti all you want but if it hits the groun ANYWHERE you lose...<span id='postcolor'> And what if that rock is a nuke? I don't think it much matters where a nuke lands, because it packs enough punch to take out a big enough area. So if a nuke hits let's say anywhere in California, I'd think it would be a bad thing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as for the MDS not working.. well here is video of the latest test... http://www.redstone.army.mil/pub_affairs/PAC-3DT-8video.asf <span id='postcolor'> Is this the test where the target missiles are broadcasting their coordinates to the kill vehicles?

I just bought and watched Apocalypse Now - Redux DVD on my home theatre. Man I was totally glued to the sofa for the whole three plus hours. The whole movie is a totally enthrilling trip to insanity, from the beginning scene of cross-fades and Doors playing in the background to the fractured ending of feverish mirages. As far as war movies go, they can't get much better than this. As a contrast, I watched Saving Private Ryan right after Apocalypse Now - Redux. But I only managed to tackle the first hour, before I became sickened by the constant flag waving. So I stopped and was left in thought. Why did I think the first movie was so cool and the second one so sucky? I made the conclusion that I personally probably appreciate movies which picture war as pointless insanity as opposed to a patriotic glory ride. In Apocalypse Now the enemy is pictured as humans whereas in Saving Private Ryan the enemy is pictured as evil nazi zombies who should all be killed. Maybe the yanks need to lose a war in order to produce good war movies for a while?

Just remembered that the yanks actually DID make one good war movie recently: Three Kings. That one is really good. Especially the opening scene is just ourageous. "Are we still shooting people?"