Pukko

Hitler, who in popular opinion probably is the most 'evil' human being ever, seems like Einstein (populary viewed as smart ) compared to J W Bush. Risk is that they will both share the same part in history books though. BTW. Just a fun thing I came to think about regarding Einstein and a stupid bastard: The same actor that played Manuel in Faulty Towers, played Einstein in a ducumentary I saw once. He is really good in both roles

http://www.pukko.com I have not made a thing to it since I added the startpage 2 years ago..............

I guess could be reduced to the concept 'left wing', but I cold'nt care less about those concepts. The problems I see in society have never (or very rarely) been on any political agenda. Sometimes it seems like left or right would be something fundamental in the entire universe Its just one of thousands illusions to keeps us nice and content for **** sake.... Yesterday I actually went to null-vote (or what ever its called) in the Swedish elections. The only reason I went voting at all was that I wanted to make the election participation look better in the immigrant area where I live (some people throw dirt on them because of their low political interest). But I went to the wrong 'voting station' (It was the right one before), and therefore did not paricipate either. I am not sure which makes my point the clearest, null-voting or not voting at all; but I could'nt really care much less about it. My view is that the current form of representative democracy is long ago (well long as in a few decades anyway) obsolete, and we have to develop past that stage. By voting I only show my support for the system. The ultimate goal I can think of now is 'direct democracy', where everyone can vote on everything directly from the computer; but that will demand a entirely different human being than what is around today - maybe in 100 or 200 years its possible. In the meantime we have to look much closer at what 'representative democracy' really can be like. Look at the mid east thread somewhere around page 80-100 ,I think it was, for a discussion about it Btw. I null voted here to

I went to a short orientation course at my local University based on quantum theory but with focus on the limits of knowledge and the uncertainty principle.... I took the course just for fun, and I had hardly heared the word quantum before, and ofcourse even less what it stands for. Just as for most other people making first countact with quantum physics it turned parts of the world upside down. But there is one thing that plauges my brain and that I have not been able to figure out in various texts, so I thought some of you guys might know better 2 versions of my question: Â 1- is there any particles at all, or is everything just waves? Â 2- Is there any particles at all (particles with mass that themselves all move in waves), or is everything just probability-waves with a certain energy? An explanation of the question: As I have understood it, the scientists think that photons have no mass, and therefore cant be a particle. Now all bigger 'particles', like the proton, are made up of quarks and antiquarks. And its not until quite recently (if I recall right) someone could prove the existance of a quark at all since they always have to be part of a bigger particle. So as far as I know noone can tell wether there really is any real 'materia' or 'particles', or if everything is just waves. Do you know if there in quantum theory are any proof of 'real' subatomic particles (with mass "that you can take on"), or is it still open that everything can just be made up of waves, held together and combined by the "4 forces"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 12 2002,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Having military consultents seems to be bit of a trend with games these days. Soldier of Fortune has John Mullins, Delta Force:Black hawk Down is been developed wiht the help of Special Forces soldiers who were there etc. It is good, becuase then you know that what you are playing is at least partly authentic.<span id='postcolor'> based on that logic Americas Army would be 100% autenthic  Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 11 2002,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 11 2002,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, Avon to comment on that long post of yours. I never claimed that the clips were fake or old footage. They were not; but they were arranged. That doesn't mean that no Palestinians celebrated, but that actual CNN footage was arranged for money.<span id='postcolor'> No, they weren't arranged. They broke out spontaneiously in various PA cities and towns. There were clips from CNN, BBC and others. Please take my previous use of the word "gullable" as an understatement.<span id='postcolor'> These posts below by me can originally be found on page 58 of the mid east thread. It was not CNN in this case anyway, but AP and Reuter (Unfortionally the link is dead now, since they obviously have removed some old stuff at the SVT webbpage) : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A Swedish 'media criticism' TV program showed the following in september regarding the celebrating Palestinians: The celebrations by those Palestinians seen on 9/11 were taken the same day, but by a camera team asking (after driving around failing to find any celebrations) some palestinians in a bar and on the street to celebrate in front of the camera someting completely else than the WTC collapsing (I think what they said was related to USA in some way though). The woman in black seen celbreating waving her arms and making this 'indian shout' was interviewed in this program. She had no TV of her own, but when she saw in what context the pictures on her celebrating was used in media at some friends she felt sick, she said. She had no idea what had happened in the USA when the pictures was taken and was used by media in an awful way. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I found a realplayer clip of it at the program 'Mediemagasinet' homepage at the SVT webbsite. Its mostly in Swedish though: Click on modem or bredband (broadband) on the 'Historien om en bild' line, 3:rd from top in the right column The celebrating womans name is Fatma Hussein. She were selling vegetables when the reporters arrived. The news agencies were Reuter and AP standing shoulder to shoulder taking the pictures. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 11 2002,03:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There will be no carpet bombing of cities, little urban resistance and a poorly equiped and trained enemy. Deliberatly endangering your troops is a conscious act, and wrong. Accidental deaths are just that. There is a significant moral difference.<span id='postcolor'> I have to say thats one of the most extreme opinions I have heared for a long time. I will not flame you however, we all got our reasons for thinking this way or that. You are basically saying this: Deliberatly endangering your troops is wrong, deliberatly endangering civilians are right When you start a war you are always deliberatly endangering civilians, and extremely much more if you use bombs the way USA does. What you are talking about is not just 'accidental deaths', but is indeed an act of deliberatly risking civilians. I have went through military service myself, and in the extremely tragic event that I would have to serve in a war (and it would also have to be for a extremely good reason, or I would refuse - and take my time in jail), I would probably put a bullet in my own head if I found my self prioritating me and my dear friends over civilians. The one and only reason for soldiers to exist is to 'risk' (one becomes quite aware that that is the fact when going military) their own life for a good cause. If there is no cause good enough for that --------> there should be no war. Soldiers have in all history just been the 'ants' that perform the work of their masters, because its to dangerous for the masters themselves. In a time like this, when there is some nations with such a fucking sick culture that they want to participate in wars and deliberatly risk civilians, but not sodiers............ .......... .......... ..........then terrorists who take their own lives (and thereby quite deliberatly 'risk' it) together with the civilians cant be worse, can they?? In WWII there were even clear examples of terrorism performed by the *good* allies, both over Europe with massive bomings of cities to 'demoralize' the axis, and ofcourse the to this time worst act of terror ever - the bombing of civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

With all my heart I dedicate this tiny post to all those human beings who have died so far in actions related to 9/11. I can not however, and will probably never be able to, reduce my sympathies only to, or make any differance between, those who died in USA one year ago, and all those who have died, and continue dying, from retaliations. I specially would like to bring forward the later group, since only very few seems to care about them at all, even if their numbers probably are the greatest. Spend some time in favour of all those who have died at these sites: http://www.cursor.org/ http://www.9-11memorial.org/

Just a little OT remark... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And maybe we can all join like in Starship Troopers.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Sep. 10 2002,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I assume that sarcasm is best the way right now to describe the general motion of people waiting for the US to bash Iraq ............ I am still convinced that my "Starship Troopers Generation" comment adequate portrayed it!<span id='postcolor'> Maybe you are aware of this, and thereby this was your point. But I thought it would'nt hurt to make clear: A while ago I watched Staship troopers on DVD. Its not a serious movie in it self, but can clearly be, and have in large extent been, misunderstood. That movie is 100% sarcasm over western ideologies in general, and US policies in particular. Except for the movie, the DVD included more than one hour of comments from the makers of the film (a duch guy and a US I think), and those comments were not shy, probably makes many 'pro-US-policies' people break the disk in rage... We quitted listening to those comments after an hour or so I think, due to other things. But just not imagine that that movie is serious about its approach........

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Sep. 09 2002,14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Sep. 09 2002,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I bet they dont have a quantum physics thread on the Americas Army forum<span id='postcolor'>  I bet they don't.  I was just going to say to Pukko, do you think we are a bunch of physicists?  <span id='postcolor'> But bn, I thought you were that hairy guy on your avatar   Seriously, I thought that I could get some good answers here - in differance from the AA forum, there are actually some brains around here - and I got them too, didn't I? Thanks guys (now I have to get back to my primary studies though)..

Did anyone say US military hardware?? Â Â Â Â Where is my remote control - I have to reload it with some heavy duty batteries now </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The truth is always the first casualty of war.<span id='postcolor'> The truth is always the first casauly of modern western ideology Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 09 2002,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 09 2002,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wish they all shared my opinions. Osama did do that, but he killed innocent civilians on purpose, the U.S. did not.<span id='postcolor'> I grant you that it is worse killing civilians on purpose. The net effect is however still the same. Do you think the relatives of those killed care if their loved ones were killed on purpose or "accidentally" by falling bombs?<span id='postcolor'> If not to say that its more meaning in dying from something with a thought behind, than dying from ignorance - accidentally on purpose

Now I have filled my brain with stuff from the superstringtheory.com that Ex-Ronin posted to satisfy my urge for anwers, at least temporary.. After traveling through the dimensions of superstring theory (probalby without understanding anything) I went a little further in the spacetime dimensions back to the cosmological concept of the big bang. There it seems like everything is supposed to have been developed from radiation (photons I recon) that later forms quarks and gluons. So therefore I gather (since photons, quarks and gluons probably is massless, or? ) that its likely that all 'particles' is just cooled-down high-energy radiation. Ah, it doesn't really matters now... But if you would like to comment on my probably pathetic conclusion, I won't take any harm in knowing it... BTW denoir. My expression " 'destroying' the particle" was just a bad choise of words; I rather meant it was 'destroyed from further measuring', or indeed (if I had found the word) disturbed.. its probably very hard or impossible to miss that part when one hear about it - just felt a little stupid when I read your explanation, but your example with the stick and ball was excellent!

I've not started to look at the superstring concept yet, but i will at least browse through it tonight.. But I thought, after advocatexxx more philosophical post, that I would make my interests in quantum physics clear. Apart from general interest in these facshinating concepts, my interest is more on a philosophical level (the course I took last spring was indeed at the Theoretical Philosophy department). I primary study behavioural science, right now with the focus on Social Psycology. Since these kind of social sciencies always have to deal with what is a real objective 'world', and what is just subjective views/illusions (or the classical realism/idealism ontological questions) Quantum theory comes in here as very valuable contrast to common sence 'reality'. Indeed I have heard of some, probably psycological (since its so close to the individ), perspectives within the social sciencies that study humans from a, or at least with a big portion of, Quantum perspective - anyone heard of it? So the very reason I started this thread was to come gain insight in this particle question enough to know if it would be a outright lie to say (in the discussion of what is real): According to quantum theory nothing really exists in it self, everything is rather just waves of probability; that under the right circumstances form what we (humans) can interpret as real things/experiences It might sound like (and may be) a sick kink to seek to refer to such things in social sciencies, but I think its non the less a vital cotrast to the social reality we see around us. A good example in a ontologigal text and discussion I took part in was about how the eyes via ...... (what ever they are called in english) collect 'light beams' and translate them to pictures. This is indeed on a deeper level (or at least a contrasting reality than the ordinary common sense reality) than the kind of 'he said a bad thing, so he is evil' discussions. Therefore I think that, even just for myself, being aware of the 'as deep as one can get today' reality that quantum theory can give is really good. Not just to brag and 'eliminate' someone else in a discussion related to reality, but as a sound addition to the everyday, and scientific, conception of reality. And since quantum physics is all about really abstract concepts, being able to reduce it to a concrete, and preferably containing the extreme basics of 'reality' (as we know it today), scentense is real hard. Such a scentense dont have to make much real sense to the common human being, but its invaluable to provoke humble approach to just 'reality'...... Do any of you care to try one (since I recon mine above is of moderate value at best)?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Sep. 08 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I could be nasty and introduce the concept of Superstrings, which is a theory that states there are no waves or particles, but that what we conceive as waves and particles are just manifestations of multidimensional strings that span several dimensions, they just happen to look like particles and waves in our dimension <span style='font-family:monotype corsiva'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;line-height:100%'>That is a different way of saying that I am not sure</span></span> <span id='postcolor'> Ok, sounds like I'm in to look at the concept of superstrings then, Thanks Got any good links?

1:st I'm sorry Ex-ronin if I made it sound as if I dont appreciate your answer which indeed was correct to the my badly formulated question (but its not always easy to ask about these things) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 08 2002,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> To take your case for example. If you would try to "freeze" a particle so that you got its position in the room zeroed down then you would have no clue of the mass and velocity of the particle (ie momentum). There are two ways of looking at the wave proporty. One is that it is matter-waves, which means that the particle is "smudged" over the space that the wave occupies. The other view is through probability density waves. There the wave represent the probability density of the apperance of the particle. This two views are actually the same equation-wise. The frist one comes from de Broglie and the second one from Schrödinger.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: You either know the position of a particle, but not its momentum, or you know its momentum but not its speed <span id='postcolor'> Yep, I know about that too (I'm sorry for not taking the time to find the correct concepts and 'primciple titles' for where I really stand), but I reserve myself for not understanding it ; the fact that one cannot measure both position and momentum, without 'destroying' the particle. I have browsed some more on the webb (and at least temporary remembered some concepts again), and I found on the page you linked to Ex-ronin that the electron and even photon is really considered a particle, and the conclusion: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"we shall demonstrate that energy in the form of packets gives rise to our interpretation of particles, which cause some very interesting phenomena. Given the right circumstances, usually that they are moving, all particles can be considered to be waves. But, also that certain waves can be considered as particles."<span id='postcolor'> But this particle-wave duality do not say that there really exists any particles in themselves, do it. Rather the other way; that, like the last part in the citation above, "certain waves can be considered as particles"..... And therefore back to my basic question: Is there any any evidence of a 'physical', finite, concrete, particle that exists in it self, but that just moves in waves? Or is everything just 'empty' waves (it really is nothing more than just a wave pattern/movement) that gain energy and the appearence of paticles due to very high velocity and various other forces? Or do this (also taken from Ex-ronins link) really prove that the electron really is a finite, concrete 'physical' particle in it self (even if it could be observed without velocity and wave motion) "that one could 'take on' ": </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The electron is clearly a particle as the experiments of J J Thomson show. He calculated that there was a clear e/m ratio and that the charge on any electron is 1.6E-19 Coulombs"<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure if I have been able to express myself clearly this time either, but basically: Does anything (subatomic 'particles' decayed to its smallest 'parts' ) really exists in it self according to quatum theory, or is everything just empty waves that might just appear (sometimes very temporary) as concrete finite particles under the right circunstances? Thanks alot guys for making the effort to even understand what I'm asking, and giving your best answers possible to my badly formulated questions

Yeah I know about that experiment (that there is a interference pattern corresponding to that of waves on the target) and the concept particle-wave duality, even if i might not have understood them correctly... But this dont answer the question I thought of and probably failed to make clear so here is another one: If one could freeze a real basic 'particle' (like photon or quark or even the electron (I read somewhere that it has no apparent internal structure) ) so that it has no velocity and is just static/fixed to one position in the universe (which I think is regarded as impossible), would there still be a particle there? Or even this question: Does anything really exists in i self, or is everything in the long run nothing but waves (that might appear as particles)?

This is me at my last attempts in a photo booth (scanned some pics when I was to renew my drivers licence last year). Could make it smaller indeed, its about 350 kb and 3500 pixels high, but naaah... http://w1.315.telia.com/~u31505828/Foto/Photo2.jpg

I just browsed through your latest dicussions with Sam Samson, and found this on a link he posted on the previous page: What Denmark can teach America about dealing with Muslims.... Now there has been some political comments and discussions between Danish and Swedish politicians about integration questions since the Swedish politicians dont argee with recent Danish immigration policies. So I'm a little infomed about the Danish approach. There is without any question a problem with integration of immigrants in most "western" societies and I will not comment further with my opinions about it here. But the way this article is written just makes me sick. It really sounds like old nazi propaganda against jews; here is the proof about the "muslims problem" Abstract from the link page: "For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs --- until one day they found that they did. The truly wise are folks who learn from other people's mistakes." (btw. this is my first post in this thread since 50 pages back. I'll see if I take the time to browse through them later.. but is there in your opinion some particulary interesting discussions I have missed there? thanks )

g) The discovery of Quantum physics (theory, mechanics....) Most certainly the most advanced science of 20:th century (of which I personally probably understand less then even Einstein ), that went through all 100 years. It have only started indeed, but might be of crucial importance in the future. Just look at how if might affect us computer nerds: Piss off bit, welcome Qbit! (yes I am just a confused Quantum amateur.... )

Hello again chaps! - Have managed to stay away from writing in the forum since June (and dont write too much anyway, but when I do write I have to follow up the thread), since it so easily takes too much time reading and following the forums for me, and the posts I write often take too much time to write too (like this one, chasing pics for an hour with no good results). But thought I could share a little chopper uses I have experienced or know of Some things we made at a chopper company at Trondheim airport (Norway) where I worked '96 (the only place I have worked at with both chopper maintinance and operations): - One of the primary, or even the primary, uses was reindeer chasing/collecting for the "Samer" (native people in nothern scandinavia). Simply chasing hordes of reindeers (running freely over big areas) over the moutains to the "Samer" who collects them and perform regular "reindeer maintenance" - One of the more odd things were salmon inventory in the nearby sport-fishing stream/small river. Some guy simply counting all salmons he can see (and probably location). - Building mobile phone masts (quite a precision job for the pilot). Aligning segments over the bolts of lower segments so that a "phone company guy" can "nut them" - All kinds of lift jobs one can think of, within the weight limits ofcourse. Like transporting things to remote places (one do can get massive electrostatic shocks if not careful when hooking things to the "sling"). Beyond ordinary lifting "stuff" I could mention transporting concrete from the truck mixer to the concreting location in special remote controled concrete containers, and liming lakes and forests in similar procedure. One odd thing I participated in was the lifting of a snowscoter that had been stuck in a forest during the previous winter (remeber the guy seemed to do it primary for his son to get to fly a little chopper; it was probaly too expensive to be really worth it). Other things I know of: Transporting cattle - Quite common to transport for example cows by letting them hang under the chopper in a piece of fabric around their stomach (could not find a bloody pic on the net, even if I have seen several pics of it, quite fun looking) Clearing (and inspecting) "line streets" (word? ) from hanging trees with a long saw:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 19 2002,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say we would be better of without USA......<span id='postcolor'> So from that can I take it that you are advocating the destruction of the country, and with it countless lives? Because thats what it would take to be "without the USA". By extension I assume you are advocating the means necessary to achieve that goal as well...whatever they may be.<span id='postcolor'> SHIT! It seems like I made a crucial mistake by splitting up that sentence.. Here is mu original sentence: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">......But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen; I would say we would be better of without USA...... <span id='postcolor'> It should be like: But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen - THEN I would say we would be better of without USA As I said eariler; I have nothing paricular against USA in it self, and before what followed after 9/11 I was merely irritated over primary US influence in my every day life - like you seem to partly acknowledge yourself in your last posts... But after from 9/11 and forward I really fear what USA is very likely about to 'start'. We already see many politicians taking USA:s war on terrorism as a reason/example/excuse to either start or continue much harder to fight whomever they call terrorists. What will follow after an expanded war on terrorism is something very negative for everyone in the long run for sure, or at least very likely. The long term effects of a war on terrorism can only be destructive. USA will probably be forced to do it alone some wars ahead - and will it will only serve to ruin all US international relations. The war on terrorism has no long term creative/constructive potential that I can see, only short term populistic/confused bullshit. We must primary, or only, focus on international relations (with everyone) at this time I'm sure (a very crucial time in the globalisation process), war may do many things, but thats about the last thing it does - a vaugly (globally) justified war can do nothing but ruin international relations. I fear that USA will find more and more international scrape goats in the coming decades, because the USA might not be very willing to change enough to develop beyond the collapsing western ideologies (as I wrote about on the previons pages). The war on terrorism in its extension can therefore probably be seen historically as a desperate attempt for USA to survive after passing its historic high point. Lets just hope that I'm wrong, and that this will not develop into the greatest global conflict ever...

IsthatyouJohnWayne, Ok, it does not matter which empire was/is the most influental really. But I recon USA has during the last 50 years been very influental; and it might be a valid argument that people is the most pissed of at things that happen during their own life time (might be war, every day personal experiences (even US media domination) or what ever). And if it happens over and over again, performed by the same (roughly connected with at least) nation - then together with modern communications/IT/media USA is probably the by far single most hated nation globally presently, or ever... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pukko, when the U.S "goes", it will NOT become a better world...<span id='postcolor'> If thats the case then we shoud make all efforts to avoid USA suffering from internal and and external 'threats'. But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen; I would say we would be better of without USA......

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 18 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The idea that 'the world hates the USA' is ludicrous as i have said all along. Just as it would be ludicrous to say 'the world hates the British empire' during the 19th century<span id='postcolor'> Do you really think that it is possible to compare global opinion in the 19th century with the 21st? USA have probaly much bigger global influence (economically, military, cultural and media) now than the Brittish empire ever have had, and now most people in the world know roughly (something at least, but of course not necessary 'the truth' ) about every step the USA takes internationally

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 18 2002,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those damn Germans, they always get far in the World Cup even playing their ugly Football - GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrr rGRGRGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr <span id='postcolor'> Well, is English football always so beautiful? Â And I have to say that I kind of admire the South Koreans. There are 3 situations that I have before my eyes: 1. Their free kick 'variant' when the guy kicked the ball along the ground UNDER the jumping wall - very very close a classic goal... 2. I think it was during extra time that one Korean made a perfect bicycle kick, unfortionally straight at the keeper.. 3. The situation when 3 Korean players was standing unmarked in a row of about 3 meters just in front of the Italian goal; one guy headed the ball at the ground just in front of the keeper unfortionally.. And Coco looked very smurfy, especially when he just came back on late in the second half - then he had this real smurf crest too