Ruud van Nistelrooy

I saw on discovery channel that the yanks have these missles that are as effective as tomahawks, but only cost about 30 grand per unit, and a fifth of the size and can be fired from all kind of these un manned spyplanes. and they hyave all the fancy targeting stuff as well. i thought they were mad but now obviously we're all screwed

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 24 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no but Ralph that is really tough you know. The 360 as I said I can only do it 5 out of 75 times. But that proposal of "coming down on ramp" is  very smart and I like it. Cause it makes things far more difficult and professional!  <span id='postcolor'> I would've thought coming down on a ramp was a neccessity anyway but i understand, i'm just as lazy as everyone else

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 24 2002,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didnt just somebody propose a ship-jump. I tried it but a 360 is nearly impossible (nearly but if someone wants to try  ) Damn, I should just manipulate an image so it looks I can jump over a Tomcat under a heli, spit into a fountain, do 4 350° sidewise and kiss a girl flying by on her motorcycle  <span id='postcolor'> Thats not what i meant but it'd still be pretty cool if you could do more stuff with the boat

I don't see why the world has to agree on such things, each country should introduce environment thingy's of its own and not what other people tell them too. USA as one of the big polluters of the world have to start cancelling all this ''we don't care'' stuff otherwise enjvironmentalists won't stop whinging at them and no dou8bt there are environmentalists whose whinging could actually do something productive

I'd be impressed if someone could jump an lst (on the water). unless thats been done before in which case i'm pretty impressed

I prefer to work alone or in a group, i hate commanding, the system is clumsy but them most other command systems are naff for me. I'd rather take orders or work incognito because theres less to worry about (and if the squad gets wiped out its not your fault)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 21 2002,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 20 2002,150)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Aug. 20 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/ontopic] animal tests are out of the question imho,just needless cruelty<span id='postcolor'> I don't support cruelty to animals, really, but what you are referring to often is not needless. Â Sometimes we actually test medication on them, and they don't enjoy that either. Â <span id='postcolor'> Enslaving another race to test our potions on just seems primative to me. As if it say "We're far too holy to undergo sacrifice ourselves, so we're going to make you do it. And in return, you get a nice painful death, happy in the knowledge that we're forcing you to help us."<span id='postcolor'> Ok, what about testing drugs that will be used to cure animals of their ailments? Does this not apply? Ultimatly these will help the animals a great deal, but we're still forcing them to take it. Its hardly enslaving either, it was well established by many people in this thread that animals are bred solely for this research. They aren't grabbing an elephant gun, shooting off some kneecaps in Africa and then taking them to their secret underground lairs, so it isn't enslaving the animal kingdom at all. To my knowledge, the majority of these tests are done on rabbits, mice, monkeys ...... We aren't replacing the eyes of every animal in the world with toilet pucks are we? Like i said these animals are bred to be tested on. Yes, that is immoral, but would you seriously prefer us to go out and take animals off the streets? There has been no mass extinction as a result of testing on animals, its likely, unless theres some illegal stuff going on, that animals are no longer taken from their natural habitats for testing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more thing, So far, everyone here who thinks we're the most intelligent species on the planet is backing it up with nothing more than the ability to speak and build things. Youre fogetting that we dont just get born with these abilities; We have to learn, as i said a while ago. I'll say it again: WE HAVE TO LEARN. Hows that for a fundamental of nature for you? Animals need to learn too. Or maybe they dont. Maybe the reason that we dont see them advancing to "our level" is because they're as far up the evolutionary ladder as they're going to get. When put in prespective, that puts them lightyears beyond us.<span id='postcolor'> So if animals have indeed evolved beyond humans and have reached their peak of evolution, then that makes us superior already, and means we'll be the dominant species for another few thousand years. I'm not saying humans are superior to animals because we can talk and build things, i'm saying it because its obvious. Just because we kill things (like a large number of animals do) doesn't mean we're inferior. Its not just medicine, its shedloads of things. Humans can adapt to any surroundings in the world, animals can't. You take a butterfly out of the amazon and dump it in a different rainforest it dies, humans can move throughpout the world easily without having to worry about whether the air is too salty or something. \In that way we're superior. We've used science to discover the origins of animals, what the world was like even before we existed. We have physics, Bio-technology, we've sent men into space, we can contact anyone in the world in a matter of seconds via the internet etc... etc... Shit, we could IMPROVE wildlife through Genetics. Maybe one day there will come a time when we don't need animals and plants to live, maybe there'll be atime when we repopulate the world with extinct species of animals (obviously not dinosaurs cos if hollywood has taught us anything its that dinosaurs do damage) I mean, if i could be arsed i could go through loads more reasons why humans are smarter and superior to animals, there are loads. Just saying ''well, some scientist says Dolphins are mor intelligent than us, so lets all fear the day the animal kingdom takes over'' isn't good enough, because at this moment, and probably until the aliens start nuking us, humans will be the superior race on this planet. And surely, if indeed the entire world is intent on killing things, surely it'll be difficult for animals to take us on anyway

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are having to DO a lot, because we have already DONE a lot. Cleaning up our own messes is no reason to feel proud of ourselves.<span id='postcolor'> No its nothing to be proud of - but at least we are doing it. That was my point to try and stop all the whinging.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and...we...are, like i said<span id='postcolor'> But we're not, nothing's really changed. We tend to ignore these issues and brush them off as, to quote, "hippy pacifists being selfish".<span id='postcolor'> All i ever hear the non-depressed negative hippies talk about is how they go to africa every year to help zebras live or whatever, we're protecting endangered species and that, and in hundreds and hundreds of ways we're promoting biodiversity pretty much everywhere. I mean, i think the world is doing alot. I understand that the majority of hippies will only stop calling everyone in the world satan when everyone lives in mudhuts with Hippo's and using vegetarian crayons to color in our dung/wood walls, but i think we're doing a good job, watching all these documentires where the hippies all get together and talk about how they connected with a alligator or something that they got to shag off with another. We're also trying to prevent the Rainforests getting chopped down, exploring new, non-polluting means or transport, power and manufacturing....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, you can't turn back time and you can't affect the past, so how about people stop whining about what everyone's done in the past<span id='postcolor'> Because it affects people in the present. Here's a wee quote I read over at Salon.com a while back: ...by the time the earth manifests the full effects of this generation's environmental recklessness, we'll all be on death's doorstep, and the grandkids will be left holding the bag. We cant change what was done in the past, but we have to deal with it now.<span id='postcolor'> and...we...are, like i said

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because of humans, but at least we're trying to put right what we did before.<span id='postcolor'> You can't turn back the clock, we can make attempts to repair the damage that was done, but environmental changes are remarkably stubborn to reverse. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For any species, getting domesticated by man is the best insurance of success as a species and assured survival.<span id='postcolor'> Domestication is not an insurance policy for a species. Domestication, and all it entails can alter (over time) animals in such a way that they become hardly recognisable as the original species. OK so it's still 'A' species, but it's not the one originally brought in for domestication.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, you can't turn back time and you can't affect the past, so how about people stop whining about what everyone's done in the past

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only in medicine, but look at all the wildlife we're protecting and feeding. Just because we fight a lot doesn't mean we're all nasty pieces of shit. If we ever replaced the cities with fields and greenery, then i don't think we'd have progressed much at all, and besides, who'd want to replace it all, humans now need cities to live, and to take away employment, food, shelter etc... just for some hippie ideal is just pacifists being selfish and ignorant.<span id='postcolor'> Why exactly do you think all this wildlife needs protecting and feeding now?<span id='postcolor'> Because of humans, but at least we're trying to put right what we did before.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 20 2002,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this will be the new hot topic for the day. Now what some of you are getting wrong is the intellignece factor. I never said animals are SMARTER than humans, I just said they are smart. They are able to live in a cycle that does not require them to build any real structures, drive anything form of transport that pollutes, or develop a system of breeding for slaughter. How would you like it if you were born to be put onto a diner plate? If you have no other use than to be someones meal that they dont even require most of the time? I would say most meat eaters eat more meat than required. ANIMALS DONT HAVE HANDS LIKE US! How are they supposed to build cars and stuff? And why are you judging them by their ability to build polluting things? As for them not able to understand human languges, I think it is obvious that tamed animals have an understanding of certain words that are continously directed at them, and we dont even understand what animals are saying or communicating in. When was the last time you heard two cats meowing at each other and moving their tails and were able to tell exactly what they were saying? I find it sad that some of you here support the cruel slaughter of animals in factories and dont mind eating the meat that normally contains anti-biodicts. And that comment about if people dont eat meat the slaughtered meat is left to rot: remember this, if there is no demand, the indusrty has to cut down. iw ould not mind eating meat so much if it wasnt for the fact that even free range meat is breed to die. When they used to hunt their meat that was a lot better.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah the industry needs to get cut down resulting in mass unemployment - need for cheaper foodstuffs - companies profit margins fall - need for lower production costs - encouraging them to find other ways of producing food efficiently which will involve cruelty to animals (they could use Genetic Modification but veggies get pissed off about that as well even though its a potential solution to world hunger) - same problem - more whining - more unemployment - demands for everyone in the known universe to be veggie - lots of fighting - war - death - end of world You can't boycott the meat industry, not everyone in the universe wants to be a veggie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and how is a bomb that effects everything in a 200 mile radius more devastating than something that kills off everything on the planet. The fallout from that incident effected the entire world by starving everything. You get rid of sunlight, you get rid of plants, you get rid of animals. From what i've heard it wouldn't take long for such a volcano to erupt again, considering how complex volcano's can be you can't just say this volcano is inactive. If indeed that volcano did kill everything, then i'd probably fear it happening again 40 times more than a nuke going off. And theres scientists who have scientific 'proof' that something like that will happen again something in the next 10 years, along with a whole host of other massive natural disasters.<span id='postcolor'> Few things. One, you said earlier that this volcano affected "a large portion of land", not the entire world. Two, i HIGHLY question your source on this. And three, where are you trying to take this? Are you actually proposing that nature is a more destructive force than human kind? If i may remind you, nature replaces everything it destroys over time. I wish i could say the same for us.<span id='postcolor'> Well i meant the world The sources are various scientists who say this may be something that happened many many centuries ago or could've been what took out the dinosaurs if that asteroid didn't. The theory came up because from dig sites they found a very thick layer of ash and all that stuff and the same layer was found pretty much everywhere on earth. I dunno i9f its true, but the evidence i hear is pretty convincing What i'm saying is you can rip the shit out of humanity for being destructive but nature is destructive also. You talk as if humans are the sole reason for the destruction and death of the environment when nature itself can destroy everything just as easily with no warning. Humans may pollute (and anyway, may i ask why we are investing billions upon billions and organising world wide policies to reduce pollution if we all just want to stomp on daisies all day?) but the fact remains we've done a lot to help this world. Not only in medicine, but look at all the wildlife we're protecting and feeding. Just because we fight a lot doesn't mean we're all nasty pieces of shit. If we ever replaced the cities with fields and greenery, then i don't think we'd have progressed much at all, and besides, who'd want to replace it all, humans now need cities to live, and to take away employment, food, shelter etc... just for some hippie ideal is just pacifists being selfish and ignorant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think i read somewhere that a single volcano erupted, a huge area of land was destroyed, and ash completly bclogged up the sky, preventing sunlight getting in and therefore all plantlife and therefore wildlife died. Now, please tell me human weapons are more damaging to the environment than that.<span id='postcolor'> Gladly. The biggest hydrogen bomb ever detonated (To my knowledge) knicknamed Bravo was set off in the pacific ocean. It was hundreds of times more powerful than the nukes that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallout hit islands more than 200 miles away from ground zero infecting native islanders (Not to mention every wild animal in that 200 mile radius that didnt get vaporized) with acute radiation poisoning. It was also responsible for the death of a Japanese fisherman on a ship called The Lucky Dragon. Keeping in mind that this was meant to be nothing more than a test, and was never "meant" to hurt anything. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, i'm pretty sure if any animals had the intelligence to understand the benefits of medicine, education and  and such things that humans have brought to this world (remembering theres other things apart from nukes). Not everyone is a depressed maniac pacifist, i'm perfectly happy in my life. Personally i enjoy all the evils humanity has produced such as Computers, TV, winter sports and football. I can explain them being so happy without such things by saying that they have no clue that Cars and Medicine and everything else exists. They see a plane and they'll think its a bird or something, we feed them pills they'll think its dinner. They may be intelligent but they'd never understand such things, if they did i'm prettyy sure they'd be much like us. Remeber that humans used to be like animals, and as they developed they got into killing etc..up to today. What makes you think dolphins would be any different? O yeah, because they're stupid and will never develop things like we have, which defeats a large part of your argument completly.<span id='postcolor'> Once again, they have no use for such things due their "uncanny" ability to co-exist with nature just fine the way it is. Something that we, the supposedly more advanced race, still has yet to experience.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, and how is a bomb that effects everything in a 200 mile radius more devastating than something that kills off everything on the planet. The fallout from that incident effected the entire world by starving everything. You get rid of sunlight, you get rid of plants, you get rid of animals. From what i've heard it wouldn't take long for such a volcano to erupt again, considering how complex volcano's can be you can't just say this volcano is inactive. If indeed that volcano did kill everything, then i'd probably fear it happening again 40 times more than a nuke going off. And theres scientists who have scientific 'proof' that something like that will happen again something in the next 10 years, along with a whole host of other massive natural disasters. plus, how many times do we hear how volcano's erupt with the force of 200 odd nagasaki bombs? Humans have an uncanny ability to exist with nature, do we forget all these tribal people - they amaze us with their harmony with nature. Or indeed, that we once used to live in nature. Its just a large majority have moved on like has been said. We have no requirement for Mass transit, medicine, Tv or whatever things in this world that are evil, but we choose to use them, because for the most part they benefit us. Nukes and Tanks and Guns etc... are all neccessary to defend ourselves or indeed attack other people - Its not like animals don't have assets for this - they develop from evolution because in the animal world things get killed a lot - In our case, we used our intelligence and skills to improve these assets, and now, we can defend our ''herd'' from predators.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,10:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 200200)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have no control over volcano's, we have control over nukes - which is more dangerous?<span id='postcolor'> Decades pass before a volcano erupts on average. Nukes were detonated almost every week once. And thats not including hydrogen bombs, or thermonuclear weapons. They were tested with similar frequency, and did a hell of a lot more dammage to the envionment than a nuke. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,010)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if they are in some way smarter than us they probably won't be able to use that intelligence to rival us in any way.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, they'll never sink to our level. They simply must not desire such things. How else do you explain them being perfectly happy doing what they're doing?<span id='postcolor'> Like i said, who cares? That was ages ago and so far they haven't destroyed the entire world, maybe a 20 mile stretch of desert was completly devastated and lost a couple of rattlesnakes and cactus (shock, horror). We still have control over them. I think i read somewhere that a single volcano erupted, a huge area of land was destroyed, and ash completly bclogged up the sky, preventing sunlight getting in and therefore all plantlife and therefore wildlife died. Now, please tell me human weapons are more damaging to the environment than that. Well, i'm pretty sure if any animals had the intelligence to understand the benefits of medicine, education and and such things that humans have brought to this world (remembering theres other things apart from nukes). Not everyone is a depressed maniac pacifist, i'm perfectly happy in my life. Personally i enjoy all the evils humanity has produced such as Computers, TV, winter sports and football. I can explain them being so happy without such things by saying that they have no clue that Cars and Medicine and everything else exists. They see a plane and they'll think its a bird or something, we feed them pills they'll think its dinner. They may be intelligent but they'd never understand such things, if they did i'm prettyy sure they'd be much like us. Remeber that humans used to be like animals, and as they developed they got into killing etc..up to today. What makes you think dolphins would be any different? O yeah, because they're stupid and will never develop things like we have, which defeats a large part of your argument completly.

Who cares? People say animals slaughtering each other is an involutary action of nature but they still kill each other. Nukes are old news anyway, yeah, we have them and we are under threat from them, but who cares? Last time i checked we're decreasing all our arsenals (i mean, of course say we aren't because everyone is so evil and everyone loves nukes all you like, but what the fuck do we klnow what they're doing?). Volcano's do as much damage as nukes, possibly more. Obviously theres the explosion and the ash clouds are kind of like the nature equivelent of the nuclear fallout. We have no control over volcano's, we have control over nukes - which is more dangerous? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its been scientifically proven that dolphins and whales are the two smartest species on the planet. <span id='postcolor'> Scientifically proven or not i'll believe all this ''animals are smarter than us'' when they do something more than follow ships around and do some clever tricks in the water, or in the whales case just be pretty big but do hardly anything remotly worthwhile. Â I mean, humans can do more impressive tricks than dolphins pretty much anywhere on earth, can follow subs around, and they can also be very large and very lazy. Even if they are in some way smarter than us they probably won't be able to use that intelligence to rival us in any way. Its ''Proven'' that women are better drivers than men, but if you know whats what its pretty obvious why that is proven and that ultimatly men are better drivers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They may be speaking English soon but i doubt they'll ever build skyscrapers, computers, machines, cars, satellites etc...<span id='postcolor'> Right. They'll never fuck up the planet as bad as we have. Because, unlike us, they are advanced enough to co-exist with nature just fine the way it is. We, on the other hand, have had to invent everything we possibly could in order to live a "Normal life".<span id='postcolor'> lol, please. Volcano's will do the same amount of damage to the evironment as a nuke, same way that forest fires will do the same as we're doing (and believe it or not trying desperatly to stop - thats everyone, not just pacifists) to the rainforest. The biggest threat to this world is not Nuclear war, last time i checked the world is most likely to end from natural causes that we have absolutly no control over (such as being hit by asteroids - and let me ask - who on this earth will have the best chance of preventing that happening? eh? Not the animals for certain). And war? Animals war too, its just when humans war its much more impressive and on a larger scale because we're more intelligent than animals (believe it or not). I mean, of course, its only instinct in animnals to kill so they can justifiably go around and kill anything, i think its instinct in humans too it's just dumbed down over the years (we are after all animals too). Why do you need to blame all the worlds problems on the humans anyway? Nature itself can potentially be 500times more devastating. Disease kills animals like it does humans, and i'm fairly sure disease has been the biggest killer in the world, did humans create disease? no. In fact, who is curing all the diseases right about now? the giraffes? no, its the humans (curing the animal and human diseases because we're all so nice. Please don't forget that most cures developed for animals were in fact developed by us and not the monkeys)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh is that it? We're more importaint because we can do things like rule eachother and develope the ability to talk? Its not like we're born with these things; we have to learn just like anything else would have to learn. Scientists have tought gorillas to use sign language. Its not impossible that an animal could speak english. Anyone who says different is afraid. <span id='postcolor'> Yes it is. Humans are more important than animals. Its useless using the arguement that animals are as intelligent as humans because its blatantly obvious they are not. They may be speaking English soon but i doubt they'll ever build skyscrapers, computers, machines, cars, satellites etc... The government/language thing i put in because thats what most activists seem to want for animals I mean, if indeed the human race has spawned shedloads of people who go about trying to save the animals by being veggies or just whining, then surely the human race isn't all that bad.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 20 2002,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Im so glad I dont take any medical drugs....... And I use nice deoderants not animal tested And we must this question, ehrn was the last time a fluffy bunny dropped a nuclear bomb? When was the last time they ran a coal powerplant smogging the skies? Humans are the worst thing to happen to this world. We have not helped them with all our technolagy. If we didnt drive cars, then there would be no need to stitch them up with our technolagy when they got ran over. That guy in the Matrix is right, us humans are a plague. We have destroyed much of the world, and we will keep on going until there is nothing left to destroy. They kill other animals, but they do nothing as close to the Genocide done by humans. What is our excuse? Animals are dumb? I would completely disagree with that claim. Animals have hearing and site well above us. they show intelligence. We cant do things they do, so why should we expect them to do things we can do? And never forget, animals are the Space Pioneers! remember Luki the Soviet dog. We slughter animals and breed them in a cruel world to die, but if it is done to a human, it is a major crime. In case you are wondering, yes I am a vegeterian. I refuse to support the cruel and evil meat corporations who say the way they treat animals in kind and consideret! In New Zealand I once wtached an interview were some fat rich snob was saying that pigs put in to little pens were they cant even move is confortable for them! I think that the only species that deserve suffering from humans are humans. If I could chsoe one species to be eliminated for the good of the world, it would be us humans, the scum of the planet. Thank you for listning for my dark little rave. You may noe call me crazy, critisice me, and call animals dumb. You may say that God said it was ok to kill animals, do what you like, but I stand on my own judgment.<span id='postcolor'> I think it all comes down to vegetarians and oacifists thinking they're better than everyone else. Of course, the rest of the world are evil baby eaters but anyone who complains about it is alright. Killing is human nature just as it is animal nature, its probably better to stop complaining about it. I mean, if people go around thinking everyone in the world should have nail varnish sprayed into their eyes just because of war and a-bombs, then how does that make pacifists better than everyone else? Its easily to say everyone in the world sucks ass and deserves to die like most activists do, but like i said, if it was you or someone you loved who needed their drugs to be animal tested, i'm pretty sure you'd take that option pretty sharpish. If you won't eat meat it just means more animals will die messily but instead of being put to use will just rot in a warehouse. They will still die in shitty conditions. I can't understand why people would stop eating meat to protect the animals when it just means more will be wasted

woops

I'm all for animal testing. Quite frankly i'd rather have mitzy the cat from the LA gutters die painfully than a human being. Or course, i look at my own pets and i don't for the life of me want to see them get kidnapped and tested on, but i realise it has to be done on animals like them. Activists only complain about animal testing (and pretty much everything else) because its fashionable, i'm pretty sure if they developed a disease they wouldn't at all mind using drugs tested on animals. If you asked anyone - ok, you're gonna die very painfully and horribly over about 3 months, you won't be able to breath and eventually you'll suffocate as the mush that was your lungs clogs up your windpipe, then your brain will explode, unless of course you take this pill that was tested on a stray cat in Pakistan - i'm very sure they'll take it in an instant Fact remains humans are more important to save than animals. Critisize the human race all you want but if it came down to saving 10 or so stray dogs or preventing 100 million odd people from dying of a disease any sane person would surely let the testing go ahead, and if they wouldn't simply because they think animals have rights and we should let them build their own cities and create their own governments etc... then imho they're mental Its unofrtunate that animals are suffering, but it has to be done, and it would probably be less sad if activists would stop whining about it all the time.

Its probably better than having to change your name to suzie or something, i think its pretty good to have an individual name, although Turok sounds like a particularily large and tough Pokemon. Maybe if they wanted me to change my name to Duke, Master Chief or Guybrush i'd consider it, but only for a larger sum of money and 3 x-boxes (and no damm turok games) A good one from opf res would be Tomas Wanka

I would say either: Warhammer: Dark Omen - maybe an odd choice, but i've completed this at least 6 times (and enjoyed each time) and i generally loved it (i even considered getting into Warhammer but i couldn't grow the facial hair so there was no point) Shogun: Total War - Same Again, I just keep coming back to it, i got it on its release date and i still play it occasionally today. Its a great game. Obviously it shares links with Dark Omen and the concepts are great. Championship manager - I've never completed this (you can't do it really ) but since i first got this about 3 years ago i've played it constantly, sometimes i have done nothing else. 5 days ago i started a game with Roma and created an amazing team, 4 days into that i started a Fulham side that is now getting constant attention, now i'm pondering whether to manage Barcelona, Atalanta or Watford. You can have your Metal Gear Solids, no game in the world will affect me the way CM has. After lo0ng sessions i visualise press meetings, interviews, and yes, i even talk about my teams as if i was on Jimmy Hills Sunday Supplement. Sad i know, but its amazing a game that looks like a spreadsheet can activate your imagination in such a wierd way. Metal Gear Solid - The Graphics are fantastic, i've had this since it was released however and i haven't been arsed completing it, as soon as Solid's bit is up and you turn into the blonde hairdresser type guy i just get the feeling like i don't want to play it anymore. In school my Roommate completed it and i watched some of it, and like i said, the Graphics are great. Half-Life - The game that revolutionized the fps, and brought the world the pleasures of counterstrike (i love it and no amount of flaming can change that) and Day of defeat. I don't need to explain why it kicks ass. My Top Three Games of all time are: 1. Champ Manager 2. Operation Flashpoint 3. Shogun: Total war