Ruud van Nistelrooy

thanx mate, that';ll be an excellent one to use while i go through my never ending quest for amassing shedloads of small Nistelrooy pics (haven't found any yet like )

thanx mate, that';ll be an excellent one to use while i go through my never ending quest for amassing shedloads of small Nistelrooy pics (haven't found any yet like )

I like racing games where you have the freedom to drive around as you want, you don't have to follow a set track. One game i remember that i enjoyed A LOT was carmageddon 2 maybe not known for its greatness. I've never had either of the midtown madnesses so i don't know i played the single player demo, it was alright but it'd be better multiplayer....

I think communism was a good idea its just there seems to be a lot of corruption involved with it and as such it creates terrible stereotypes (Stalin, that chinese bloke etc...)

A Roman Legionnaire skin

goal de south african bloke!!!!!!

PC racing games are one of those things that i jst cannot get the hang of, and when i do, i suck ass My favorite racing game would have to be GTA 3 on the ps2 (sorry for doing a ps2 game). haven't tried it on PC yet though

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 12 2002,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 12 2002,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">England are, after all, the only team  in the 2002 world cup to beat Argentina since nigeria or swedan couldn't and Argentina were favorites<span id='postcolor'> And Sweden played a draw against a desperate Argentina.. And if I dont get it wrong, Sweden is the only one that made a goal during gameplay in group F .....oh wait Nigeria made a beautiful goal too.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's funny how people are conservative. And its very funny to see it this WC, where none of those things stand. Brazil - almost beaten by Turkey. I wouldn't put my money on Ronaldo. Italy - perhaps. They were pretty good against Croatia, and their team seems ok this year. Croatia - perhaps. Very good team. They played awful against Mexico though. Came in third last WC where they kicked the living crap out of several 'favourites' amongst them Germany and the Netherlands. England - no luck there chaps. Denmark will beat the crap out of you unless you really get your shit together. Sweden - hmm.. I really don't know. We seem to be playing crappy all the time but yet we also seem to come up on top. Denmark - nope. Won't happen. FIFA will sooner burn down the stadium then letting Denmark take away the prize Senegal - Don't know. They are really  a wild-card. Spain - Good so far, but they have yet to play against somebody serious.<span id='postcolor'> What about Portugal?? And Sweden continues to improve. I was very happy after the Nigeria match; it gave me great hope due to a number of things (poor defence is not a real problem for Sweden, only temporary) EDIT: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't mind if swedan/denmark (although obviously i'd love denamrk to lose against england ) won though, they have loads of good players and don't have girly haircuts <span id='postcolor'> But today our two most famous players (Patrik Andersson and Fredrik Ljungberg) were injured..<span id='postcolor'> Swedan also conceded a lot of goals.... Its true though that england lacks a good reliable attack, we could use someone like Nistelrooy or Raul. You can't deny though that the english attack was outstanding against argentina and it could've easily been more than 1-0 is it weren't for an excellent performance from the argie keeper cavallerro (however you spell it). It does seem however that england have a better defense than Swedan, with Rio Ferdinand tipped to be the next big super defender. Our Midfield seems good too, look at how it performed against the argies. It isn't like we've suffered our own injury problems though, we could probably do better with the help of gary neville, stephan gerrard, joe cole... Sol Campbell also scored an excellent header for england btw. Against sweden no less Plus Sweden only scored against england since our defensive error practically set up your man (i think it was alexandersson)

Jesus is a huge part of the whole christian religion and the fact there is no evidence for god, who apparently despite being invisible, a state of mind, an all powerful magical entity or whatever, knocked up some chick who gave birth to what became known as the son of god. There are so many things you can say to disprove this theory that i won't even bother. Its a story created by some guy in order to add weight to the whole ''Christianity worships the one true god, come here every day and worship us and donate your life savings to us''. If indeed this did happen then why do all the middle easterns (remembering that it all apparently happened in the middle east) support different religions that say different things - ultimately to acheive the same goal (get people into church all the time in order to extort various services off them). What no religion explains convincingly (not that any of them say anything that is remotely convincing and beleivable) is how the universe was created. I mean, we have the whole ''This all powerful invisible bloke who lives in the clouds used his magic to create the universe and created man for company'' etc... but there is way too much scientific evidence that goes against all that bollox. Jesus was just the physical version of god. No doubt people would go up and ask ''if this god exists why can't we see him, why doesn't he talk'' etc... so, jesus was created to show everything that god in a way existed in a physical form - an attempt to maker the whole thing more believable. So this bloke who was born by a women who apparently was a virgin but got knocked up by this invisible, all powerful being, goes around claiming to be the son of god. So, everyone believes him - why, maybe they were more gullible back them, maybe he was a nice bloke who would actually touch lepers. Of course there are the miricles but there is no physical evidence that these ever happened. So, this guy goes around saying how great he is, and pisses off the romans who kill him. From all this there is a belief that jesus died for all of humanity (???) and so he truly is the son of god - result, people start going to these other guys, who claim to be messengers of god/friends of jesus, and they start worshipping them and dishing out the dosh to pay for their ivory back scratchers - they do this by inventing this place, heaven, which people have to follow these rules to get to. You don't follow the rules - fuck it, you're going to hell which is the worst place in the known universe (or in your mind, whatever you consider hell/heaven to be). In Fact, if you don't come and worship us, you'll go to hell, so you better dedicate your lives to our religion otherwise your fucked. So, people starts worshipping over a period of thousands of years. While thats going on theres about 4 other whole god incidents going on with their respective gods/prophets/miricles going on, all done by their gods/sons of gods... Result - War and Death as people go about saying god x is real and god y is a fake. During this people realise their is no real evidence for god and the whole concept is pretty stupid. Back to the wars - some not created by religion by still, the churches decide to capitalize on the situation by supporting various wars - reward - loot. With the introduction of Television religion becomes pretty much a profit seeking organisation - Church tries to become more hip by introducing smooth talking, witty and snazzily dressed people who blather on about god while relating it modern issues - development of brand image - more profit - smart religious folk become filthy rich. Notice how this whole idea of money and profit comes up constantly in the whole religion thing. Its like the pop industry - give the customer a set of aspirations, role models and rules (through promoting conformity and fashion) - brand images - profit. This is how i see it anyway. religion isn't really something i study that much so please forgive any historical inaccuracies or errors. Plus also forgive my spelling and the overall length of this post didn't think it would be that long

''England - no luck there chaps. Denmark will beat the crap out of you unless you really get your shit together.'' True, but god help Denmark if we do

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ June 11 2002,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually I wanted to chose Charlie Chaplin, but I thought: "hey everyone knows Albert Schweizer, but who knows Charlie Chaplin"? <span id='postcolor'> I've seen loads of Albert Schweizers in my travels over the net suprising numbers of them in my games fo DoD

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ June 12 2002,123)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 12 2002,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hopefully if england don't win Brazil will.<span id='postcolor'> Dont worry, Engand wont make it to the Quarter final <span id='postcolor'> They said France would win again and the Argies would dominate the group of death. They also said Senegal sucked ass and germany didn't have much goalscoring ability.... I think the tournament can produce more suprises and england winning may be one. If we can emulate our performance against argentina then we can by all means win the whole thing. England are, after all, the only team  in the 2002 world cup to beat Argentina since nigeria or swedan couldn't and Argentina were favorites I wouldn't mind if swedan/denmark (although obviously i'd love denamrk to lose against england ) won though, they have loads of good players and don't have girly haircuts  I think spain have an excellent team and whoever faces them will have their work cut out. Raul and Morientes are brilliant

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ June 11 2002,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Prune @ June 11 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This has turned into a 'Aren't films unrealistic' thread. I am afaid there is no use opposing the media tide. America won WWII single-handedly (including stealing the Enigma device) Â Everyone learns things from (mostly american) movies these days.<span id='postcolor'> U571 is fiction and explicitly states it. Â In what movie has the U.S won WW2 singlehandledly?<span id='postcolor'> Theres shedloads of them - films where all the terror and suffering and heroism is experianced only by the americans and the other alliance armies are ''Overrated''. They depict the second world war as if it was solely the Americans fighting the Germans, which is pretty arrogent considering the yanks missed a large portion of the fighting and didn't actually win the war for the allies, and weren't firebombed etc etc... The U-571 thing was sick, the families of the Brits who died on that mission complained and the producers told them to fuck off and wouldn't acknowledge that it was the British that died in that mission. cunts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 12 2002,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Plus they don't dive much, seem to be nice guys" What do you call Rivaldos 'OH MY GOD MY FACE IS ON FIRE' move?..... the worst 'dive'(sort of) of the tournament in some ways... (bringing the whole of football into disrepute)<span id='postcolor'> o yeah, good point bastard rivaldo that was criminal. When i think of Brazil i think of Ronaldo and he a great footballer in that he doesn't dive and is a nice guy (it seems), but good point about rivaldo, had forgotten about that

True, lets just say if Hitler had to fight on only one front (Russia or France/Britain) then they would've won. Hitlers idea when he invaded russia was to capture the caspian oil wells and basically scare russia into a ceasefire. After a few years he would invade again after exploiting the oil. I think that was it anyway, or it was at least an objective at one point. Hitler being a dumbass went for stalingrad instead.

The absolute favorites now are most definatly brazil. I'd like to see Brazil win cos they are world class yet aren't incredibly arrogent about it and don't have stupid ass girly haircuts (eg Italy and Argentina). Plus they don't dive much, seem to be nice guys and Roberto Carlos may be moving to Man Utd. Hopefully if england don't win Brazil will.

I'm still waiting for the whole england winning the world cup kind of thing

If Hitler didn't invade Russia, then they would've won the war. If The germans developed the alliance with russia, they would've done even better in the war taking over asia. Whats more america would probably make little or no difference, and they probably wouldn't even have joined the war realising they wouldn't have a chance against a russia/Germany alliance. I think Hitlers real mistake was invading russia and thats the only reason that germany lost the war, even if you did chuck a few yanks at him.

egads, penalty for the bastard argies scored from the rebound

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (grey @ June 11 2002,17:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">isnt the shilkas gun radar controlled ? therefore would there even be a gunsight for the gunner? Â i agree tho, i find shilka engaging infantry quite unrealstic. vehicles yes, lone infantryman no, unless all the other troops around the shilka were also firing at the target... visiblity wouldnt exactly be fantastic in that thing ruud: use third person view when driving a tank, its unrealistic but much easier<span id='postcolor'> In third person with tanks its hard to target stuff since often you can't vaoid targetting your own tank even though you aren't directly pointing on it

Is Germany vs Cameroon being shown on Sky Digital, all i've got is Ireland vs Saudi Arabia and its f ing boring (yawning)

Yeah, this is a great time for British sport, it was great seeing all the yanks react after all that stuff they said about Brits not surviving in America ''Where the real heavyweights are''.

That was pretty damm freaky maybe aliens are spying on us. Not only do they look pretty freaky, but apparently they are the perfect invasion weapon for aliens Anyone believe the end is near?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ June 11 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are so many gravitational and atmoshperic phenomena on earth, the "Aliens" explanation is very lazy indeed.<span id='postcolor'> They've been spotted in space following the various shuttles about as well, they all look the same pretty much

Neither do i, and on the occasions i do its a lot of fun trying to grab more ammo under fire, or as a black op having use a loud, noisy ak to defend yourself when your hk runs out I think grenadiers and mortars and Law soldiers etcx.. should be able to carry more a ammo though