New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#1 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-25 07:57:12

::EDIT:: As for women carrying pistols in their purses, to each their own. It's enough of a hassle, though, trying to get ANYTHING out of a purse in a split second -- even if purse is tidy with few items in it.

At least in this area it's not altogether uncommon for women to carry snubnose revolvers in jacket pockets. They have aluminum or titanium frames so they don't weigh much, and they can be fired from inside the pocket. I suspect thugs are getting a little uneasy about approaching women walking down dark streets with a hand in their pockets. Hard to tell if it's keys or a .38 special.

Unlike those fat guys with fanny packs we see sometimes. That just screams "gun" and is way too obvious.

#2 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-25 07:38:18

Well, just ask the policemen wether they prefer gun control or not.

Many of our police oppose gun control. I've gone shooting with a few of them, they recognize that it's a bad idea because the people that they have to worry about shooting at them won't be stopped by yet another law. Criminals are funny that way, always breaking the law.

My friends which went to USA reported me how harsh was the first contact with the US road police patrols and how schoked they were to be aimed with guns on simple car controls.
"Steady, keep your hands on the steering wheel..." and so on

Where did they go and what were they doing when they were stopped? I'm the first to agree that American police can be real pricks and are particularly anal about speeding compared to other nations, but never once have I had a cop approach me with a gun drawn during a traffic stop.  There's something that doesn't jive about the story, some piece of information that's missing.

But again, when police stop people here they can be divided into three types. Those without weapons, those legally carrying weapons, and those illegaly carrying weapons. Only the last group is a threat and the police generally act accordingly. If you have a legal weapon, they ask where it is, you show them, sometimes they ask you to unload it and set in on the roof while they run your driver's license. It's just not something law enforcement worries about, anyone legally carrying a gun isn't a threat to them.

You're talking about pretended saved lifes with guns, there are not statistics on deterred attacks; about raped girls, does a girl naturally have a gun in her bag ?

No, I'm not. There are statistics of crimes being prevented with privately owned firearms, though mostly at the state and local levels rather than nationwide studies. Sometimes the attacker is killed, but far more often merely brandishing the weapon ends the attack. There are also secondary statistics on crimes committed on victims who had neither the means to protect themselves nor the opportunity/time to call the police. No, I've talked to too many people who are alive and/or unviolated today solely because they had a weapon to brush them off as "pretend."

And yes, there are women here who have guns in their bags. There's no way to tell which ones just by looking, and that's kind of the point.

When we see US movies, we're amazed to see how easy it's to intrude a traditionnal US wooden house, and understand why it's safer and cheaper to buy a gun than to have passive house defenses.

I agree with you here, though don't put too much stock in our movies.  wink American housing is poorly built. But that's only half the problem, a weapon gives a person some means of protection outside the home as well. Cops can't be there all the time.

Now, you manage your country as you like and have Columbine type killings.

Such incidents are a tiny, statistically insignificant percentage of the total homicide rate. They get alot of press coverage because they're dramatic, but they're flukes. Making policy based on such flukes would be like saying trains are bad because Nazis used them. It's silly.

Spoons don't make people fat and guns don't kill people. It's the person, not the tool.

But there's something that needs to be pointed out here and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it. Guns are more available here than elsewhere, making it easier for crazy people to do crazy things even though they have to break the law by stealing the weapons.

But 50 years ago guns were much easier to get and we didn't have anywhere near the crime rate. We didn't have shooting rampages in schools. So how is it that guns are the problem now, but they weren't in 1950 when a 17 year old could walk into Sears and buy one with no paperwork? Or 1930 when that same 17 year old could buy a machine gun with no paperwork?

No, blaming an inanimate object for social ills is an admission that one doesn't know the real cause and has no idea how to address it. It's floundering and stalling. And in this case, it would only make it worse by disarming the victims and emboldening the criminals.

Incindentally, schools are considered "gun free zones." Weapons aren't allowed. All those defenseless people scurrying about in a panic. Is it a coincidence they are popular targets of shooting sprees? If guns were the problem, we'd expect these things to happen at, oh, gun shops maybe.

If gun control works for the French and Canadians, keep at it and good luck. But it wouldn't work here, it's failed miserably every time it's been tried. As our capitol illustrates.

What we have here may be one of those cultural differences that prevents a full understanding between the participants. Canada, France and the US are very different places. Things work differently, the people are different, social forces are different. For the time being and for whatever reasons, right now the most unsafe places to live in America are the very places with the strictest gun laws. And that is statistical fact.

#3 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-24 08:36:47

But gun control is non liberal and avoids lots of carnages. That's a fact.

I so didn't want to get into this debate but I just have to clarify something.

A gun is a thing. You can kill someone with it, but you can also save lives with it. This goes for Americans, Canadians, our French friends and everyone else. When someone comes after you with the intent of inflicting grievous injury what does everyone do?

Call people with guns and hope they show up in time. The difference is that in America, many times people don't have to wait and pray that help comes. They can take their defense into their own hands when imminent death faces them. It's not only a fundamental human right, it's a responsibility of citizens in some respect. Good, law abiding people with guns makes us all safer because it makes criminals think about the risks. They don't know who will fight back with lethal force. Legal guns save lives.

Criminals in the US can't just walk into the local gun shop and buy one, attempting to do so results in a long list of felonies that can get them sent to prison for most of their natural lives if prosecuted vigorously. We have background checks throught he FBI every time someone buys a gun. Some states (including my own) register handguns.

Guns used in crimes are almost invariably not in the registry and not acquired legally.

I'm not saying that France or Canada should start arming their citizens, run your countries however you see fit. But don't tell us how to run ours. I don't say this lightly, carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Even I didn't realize that fully until faced with the imminent prospect of being granted authority by my state government to do so for the purpose of protecting myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm. You can't flip off the guy that cuts you off in traffic anymore, you can't let combative drunk assholes draw you into a confrontation anymore. You have to turn the other cheek on the little things because when it really matters, you have the power to kill another person who is intent on inflicting irreperable harm on another.

It's not something to be taken lightly, but it's not something that should be dismissed outright either as barbarism. It's easy to point to incidents like the recent US school shootings and say "oh, think of the children, how can we allow people to have these horrible weapons?" Unfortunately no one ever implores that we think about the people killed in their own homes or the women raped because they were forbidden the means to protect themselves.

There are far more of the latter group than the former. I for one will not stand by idly and allow me and mine to be placed in such danger just because some politicians and their supporters are afraid of an inanimate object.

#4 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-19 05:52:25

So much horse excrement in this discussion I don't know where to start. . .

Let's cut through the bull and break this all down, shall we? First, the assertion that America is causing more terrorism by its actions. Sure, that's a valid point. In the same way that resisting any opponent causes a war. Now I know Iraq had no working relationship with Al Qaeda and probably not much of a WMD program. But those things aren't the issue and to pretend they are is willful ignorance. The only reason anyone gives a damn about the MidEast is oil. Oil is why we put up with their backwardness, oil is why they have the illusion of functioning modern societies. Without oil, the Middle East is Africa with fewer trees. Iraq is about oil. Not stealing it like the knee-jerk Bush-haters like to claim, but securing a foothold and maintainign some semblance of order in the region that produces it.

Some would call Iraq the exact opposite of order, but from a global standpoint of regional leverage over oil production, it's not so chaotic as it seems. Petrol and Euros and bombs, oh my. . .

On one point Tom is right, there is a conflict of civilizations here. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists waiting to happen, but there's a reason that the Muslim world so easily swings en masse against the West. Not just America, the West as a whole. Even the oh so accomodating France, as recent events illustrate.

We like to talk about multi-culturalism, self determination of peoples and other such feel-good rot, but it's all fantasy. Any nation, I don't care if it's the US, Britain, France, Iran, or North Korea has a sovereign right to keep out whomever they feel like. If a group of immigrants don't mesh with the host country's culture and values, it only makes sense for that country to not want them there.

But the US violated that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan!! Yes. That's why it's called an invasion. We didn't send 150,000 soldiers to "temporarily immigrate" into Iraq. Clear violation of sovereign rights.

Only it's playing out the other way too, but more subtlely. When people move into one country but retain stronger ties to their old culture than the new one they live in, they're foreign colonists. It doesn't matter if it's Arab Muslims in Britain, North African Muslims in France, Mexicans illegaly in the US or American oil workers in Saudi Arabia. To live in a place implies a certain acceptance and conformity to the local ways. Anything less is an invading element.

Add to this that numerous Muslims, both laymen and leaders in some Western countries have openly stated that they have no intention of assimilating and the problem becomes quite clear. No nation is obligated to tolerate foreign invaders. If the Iraqi's have the right to forcefully expel American troops (and I'd argue they do) then the people of other states have the same right to forcefully expel any invasive element in their lands.

Unfortunately very few Muslims speak out to condemn the rhetoric and actions of this minority element within their population. That makes it very easy to blanket them all.

But there's another factor here to consider. It isn't about fairness and we aren't all simply going to stay in our own countries and be happy. Humans don't work that way. Human societies, like everything else in the world, adhere to the simple rule that for anything to live, something else must die. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I'm partial to Western civilization, the Anglo-American variety preferably. I have no desire to lay waste to anyone, but if it comes down to us or them. . . I have no qualms about make sure it's them that go the way of the dinosaur.

Are we using the best strategy to bring out a favorable outcome for ourselves at the moment? No, clearly not. Too many blunders have been made, too many shots have been called. Cowboys don't win chess tournaments, to use DonPanic's analogy.

But make no mistake, we're not the only player at the board and the opponent is using our own blindness and delusions against us. Hostile elements are seeping into Western states that are so terrified of being labeled "racist" that they won't even discuss whether there's a problem. Well, I don't care if someone wants to call me racist, even if I do reject the label.

I hate on a case by case basis.

When a foreign population moves in, doesn't speak the language, holds values at odds with the host nation's and cluster together into enclave communities while (actively or passively) undermining the sovereignty of the state in which they reside. . . That's a problem, I don't care what country we're talking about.

Bringing us to a comment by Stormrage:

If they were to lose support of USA. Islamists like Bin Laden would take over. Guess what would happen?

Israel would be over run. USA would lose their so called control in the middle east and the world would be a happy place. At least for me

That is the sort of thing one of those hostile, invasive elements would say. Don't be surprised when your fellow residents of Britain backlash against such sentiments because I assure you, for them it would most certainly not be a happy place if the MidEast fell entirely into the thrall of Islamic nutjobs, sparking all-out war with Israel and massive disruptions to the entire world economy.

And even though you'd come to realize that it isn't such a happy place, your fellow Britons won't be so forgiving of those who cheered it on.

#5 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-05 05:58:23

So the cards on the table declare that western powers once again draw lines in the sand and tell people they are such and such a group? Yes, that seems to be working...

No, merely that we stop agonizing over everything that might people not like us when they already don't like us. We don't have to run around pummelling them into the dirt at every chance, but we don't have to bend over backwards to be friendly either.

The important thing to remember is that "self determination" as applied to nations. . . is an illusion. If it is in our vital interest to exert a certain degree of force and the recipient of that force can't stop it. . . Well, so history flows.

And the crude must flow as well.

Our interests lie in the resources in that area. Stability is required, and we have to pay a price for it. That's *the* card on the table. All of this that we are going through is simply a higher ante, so to speak.

Indeed, the ante is now for dominance of the planet and the future direction of human civilization. The "West as the center of the world" paradigm that has stood for centuries is in danger of toppling and not just because of a few Arabs that blow themselves up. The foundation needs shoring up and one way or another a society can only become or remain dominant at someone else's expense.

As for stability, in the Middle East it's illusory. Artificial economies in nations run by at-best unpopular and often hated autocrats separated by artificial borders is not stability. It's tension waiting to snap.

#6 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-04 12:03:08

Infants and the mentaly damaged are the ones who like to make blanket statements to construct an understanding of what is going on just so they can turn off the rest of their brain and not think it through any further.

What is going on is the exploitation of the ignorant and the poor.

lol

Clark makes a good point albeit it not entirely by design, blaming any of this on a single religion in its entirety is grossly oversimplifying the matter with a blanket statement.

But then reducing it to economics is no better. Reality is more complex than that.

It just so happens the Middle East is not only overwhelmingly Islamic, a religion that does contain plentiful impetus to wage war in its name, but is also full of oil rich countries run by corrupt autocrats. Most of the people are poor, but it isn't simply because they're exploited by outside powers via their own governments. Middle Eastern nations for the most part have never developed functioning economies, everything is based on oil. It's as though one of us had a beer tree in our yard, the only source around, and we could just sell people cases all day with no effort beyond picking them. No real skills, no need for them. Just load it up and collect the money. It's almost like being on welfare but with the illusion of self-sufficiency. It destroys the capacity to do anything else.

Woe to us if that beer tree ever dies.

Add to that, Arabic culture is very macho. The man is king and they teach themselves that theirs is the greatest society in the world, favored by Allah above all. And yet they look around and what do they see? In every sphere of endeavor they are surpassed by both the West and the East.  "At least we're not Africa" could be the motto for the whole region. Quite a kick in the gonads ain't it?

Now, take a big dose of constant humiliation at having not accomplished anything of note for the better part of 800 years, add a dysfunctional oil economy that must import almost everything, mix in some religious fervor and the orgasmic thrill of impending matrydom and there we are, recipe for crazy jihad fun.

We can't simply convince them that Islam is a religion of peace. We can't just "educate" them and expect that the problem will go away. We can't pretend that if only they weren't so poor they'd mellow out, alot of terrorists tend to come from middle class, educated backgrounds rather than the poor ignorant masses. There's more than poverty and ignorance at work here.

Previous eras have models that could be followed for remaking that society of course, none of them 100% successful. the Japan "crush them until they give up against overwhelming force then occupy the crap out of them" method isn't going to fly these days, not without much more provocation.

"Kill everyone" is just so crude and leaves a sour taste. And the cleanup is obscene.

Leaving "go live there" as an outside chance for success. Colonial-Lite if you will, enough close contact to start molding the culture as well as improving education and economic prospects.

Hey, I don't print the cards, I just call the hand as it hits the table.

#7 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism - Just like Star Trek » 2006-09-27 08:58:41

There are obvious disadvantages to a multistate Earth, why would I want a multistate Mars?

The state is a rapidly eroding concept. It is not 100% certain that states will be the entities that develop Mars and it is certain that whoever does develop Mars will not hold the establishment of an independent planetary governmet as desireable.

National interests will want a piece, corporate interests their own zones of control, Martian interest will quickly grow and diverge as people live there. . . the best we can hope for is a basic level of standardization. Common medium of exchange, common standards for communication and travel, some commonality of equipment. If we try to establish a government-free zone of sorts governments will spontaneously form and probably not of a desirable sort. Too much government will only hinder efforts to develop the planet, hurt economic growth and annoy people.

Government does a handful of things well. Directing roadbuilding, raising armies, minting money. Everything else they tend to ruin as soon as their hands touch it. Bearing that in mind, what is needed is a government wide in reach but narrow in focus. Government that does what government does well and nothing else. The best of both arguments put forth here.

Or we could just let 'em fight it out. Be old fashioned about it.  wink

#8 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism - Just like Star Trek » 2006-09-26 06:01:53

As a libertarian, I believe that people have a right to act as they wish, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

With you there.

Government isn't reason or right, it is simply force, plain and simple. Every government policy is ultimately enforced at the barrel of a gun. Socialism is necessarily a coercive system unless it is based on a voluntary commune set up.

Yep, well said.

I would not be opposed to a government that safeguarded against crimes of force and fraud, and provided defense, although frankly without major governments, war would be far less likely than here on Earth.

No true. Such thinking is rooted in the relatively modern assumption that nation-states are the only entities that wage wars. Wars can be (and historically have been) waged by families, tribes, business interests, churches and other non-state entities. Such warfare is already making a comeback, see Hezbollah, al Qaeda et al. In military circles it's referred to as Fourth Generation Warfare.

War is a given, it's a function of human presence anywhere.

Moving on to the Roman comparison, that makes some good points. Some government is good, otherwise we're left with that "perfect state of nature" in which the strong prey upon the weak with no recourse for anyone. In the case of Mars it would be beneficial to have some government, some coherent rules for how colonies conduct their business and relate to each other, standards for communication, transport and such. But a government can be large in scope but small in footprint. That's what we need, a government that covers Mars as well as it's relations with Earth but without interfering in the day to day business of people's lives like nearly every functioning government on this planet currently does.

Government is good when it minds government's business. When it meddles in the business of the citizenry it is at best a burden and at worst a tyranny.

#9 Re: Not So Free Chat » Has Multiculturalism Failed ? » 2006-09-18 11:11:34

A multicultural nation is an impossibility, what we have is a multicultural state. A single government does not make a nation, cultural bonds do.

Consequently multiculturalism is at its core doomed. Immigration isn't the problem, racial composition isn't the problem. Lack of assimilation is the problem. We've become so fixated on "diversity" that we are undermining the cultural cohesion that made our nation a place capable of taking in people from all corners of the world in the first place. If we get to the point where we have no common culture and common language, it's over.

So yes, multiculturalism has failed. It could do nothing but fail. However that isn't to say we need to close the borders and start deporting anyone with brown skin or something other than English as a first language. We can take in everyone as long as they want to be Americans, not something else living in America.

Otherwise they're not immigrants, they're foreign colonists.

#10 Re: Meta New Mars » Spammer » 2006-07-26 06:26:17

TOM111??? Can someone get rid of him and all his posts asap?

Posts are wiped. Two in every section. Josh, please ban this wanker before I hunt him down and hang him with his own entrails. . .

#11 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-13 08:22:38

What does Mexico have to with Mars? The short answer is next to nothing.

I have no problem with Mexicans, if someone wants to abandon the country they've known to become an American I'm glad to have 'em here.

But not not everyone that comes in wants to become an American. Immigrants and colonists aren't the same thing.

Further, not everyone crossing the border is a poor Mexican worker looking for a better life. Drug smugglers, violent criminals and all sorts of dangerous undesireables come in. We can't secure the border at present and however one may want to cloud the issue with allegations of racism, that's a real problem.

See, this is a complex issue with many facets. People that say "we should close the border and end all immigration" are ignorant extremists, just as people that decry every effort to control who comes in as bigotry are equally ignorant and extreme. Now we can debate all day about whether we're better off leaving it alone, working harder to assimilate illegals, learning Spanish ouselves, putting up a wall or annexing the whole country to save them the Northward journey but in the end there are real issues in play that can't be dismissed as racism.

In this case RIZ's comments indicate some degree of anti-Mexican prejudice. Clark's comments carry an ignorant bigotry all their own. Neither of you are making much sense.

#13 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 10:11:40

Just for the record, there's no such thing as an "unwinnable war" and George W. Bush is no John Kennedy.

Of course John Kennedy was no John Kennedy either, the man's legend is grossly overdone.

The current "Vision for Space Exploration" is just that, a vision. Not quite a plan but more than a musing. A policy shift. It is my hope that it won't result in a flags and footprints mission with no follow-up. If going to Mars big takes longer than we'd like, so be it. A base in twenty years is better than a mere landing in five, from my perspective.

But knowing government, they'll screw it up. If only there were some overwhelming profit motive. . .

In the meantime, I have no real objection to continuing the old American tradition of annexing Mexican land.   big_smile

And don't worry about clark, now's about the time he'll verbally brutalize you a bit and argue you to a standstill. It's kind of an unofficial New Mars hazing.   lol

#14 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 05:57:52

Welcome RIZ4ROCKET.


I remember CLEARLY (as I was reading his lips too) George Bush Part 2 said that we were going to go to Mars, and that we were going to do it within a decade.

He said we were going, but never to my knowledge nor in any of the records available to me was the "within a decade" timeframe either stated or implied. From day one the "Vision" has entailed a Lunar detour followed by Mars missions sometime in the 2020-2030 range.

To that end, the program is going forward. Hardware is being designed, red tape being unfurled, and NASA is undergoing a much needed and long overdue shift back to being destination-driven. It's a mess and will be for awhile, but it is progress.

#15 Re: Meta New Mars » Spammer » 2006-01-10 06:00:55

Just as a reference, I check in here at least once every weekday morning and generally 3 out of five days I'll find and delete 2 or 3 spam posts. It's not really a flood that warrants closing up non-registered posting, but it does require that an eye be kept on it to stop a huge pileup.

#16 Re: Not So Free Chat » Crime & civic responsibility » 2006-01-03 13:19:02

It probably a lack of materialistic worship. Stuff just isn't worth protecting to that level. Its definitely not worth an altercation where both parties could get seriously wounded.

But it's not just about "stuff," it's about principle and the cumulative affect of letting things slide. If people don't fight burglars, what's to stop them from burgling? Police? Laughable, you call the police after the crime and tell them some guy in a mask stole your stereo? He'll be back.

Now you catch him in the act and give him a good whoopin' then suddenly we have a level of deterence. Contrary to popular misconception police don't prevent crimes, they show up after crimes and more often than not they never catch the guy. It's up to citizens like you and me to deter crime by making it harder. Raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation for the criminal.

Going to another level, say you stand by as some goon robs your house because "stuff isn't worth risking injury." You've advertised that you won't lift a finger, you will be robbed again. Does an increase in criminals breaking into your home increase or decrease your chances of being attacked?

To advocate non-action against criminals is an irrational and immoral position. It breeds crime and through that endangers everyone.

#17 Re: Not So Free Chat » Crime & civic responsibility » 2006-01-02 12:33:30

What exactly is the hangup about using force against intruders intent on stealing your property? I really don't get it. I'm not advocating that anyone start shooting first at every wandering vagrant that crosses their lawn, but if someone breaks into my home and proceeds to plunder my property I'm going to have no mixed feelings about employing whatever force is required. Most likely it would just involve a few swift whacks with a bokken but still, sometimes a little violence is a good thing. Too much hesitation in the use of force merely encourages criminal behavior.

I would encourage everyone to beat the hell out of any thieving intruders in their home. Even if the burglar gives up, still kick his butt a little.  big_smile

#18 Re: Meta New Mars » Spammer » 2005-12-27 10:19:33

I see I'm a moderator

Welcome to the Skull and Bones gang Rxke! Now you can dispense dictatorial decrees and indiscriminate censorship with us!  big_smile

#19 Re: Not So Free Chat » What I Hate About The United States » 2005-12-26 14:04:44

Merry Christmas, you sad bunch of Traitors.

lol

Somehow being called a traitor to this silly Space Commonwealth idea always brings a smile to my face.

"predetermined value of 20 billion billion," it's funny every time.

#20 Re: Meta New Mars » Have your say on the return to the Moon » 2005-12-26 13:42:14

Why are divorces so expensive? Because they're worth it.  lol

But the Moon isn't. It's not good colonization real estate. Research, mining, bases, testing. But not cities.

#21 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Rights or Duties » 2005-12-22 14:07:57

Or maybe they did. Can communism be rendered as a general fulfilling of ones duties to society? Does your right to ignore the poor trump you duty to help them?

Does one's perceived duty to help the poor trump their duty to use the communal resources effectively? Is determining that a given poor individual is poor because of their own willful actions and denying help a responsible act of allocating resources or merely a selfish exercise of freedom?

But then I usually render communism as a big hole full of dead people. <shrug>

#22 Re: Not So Free Chat » What I Hate About The United States » 2005-12-22 10:21:38

I couldn't agree more.

Further, a nation that does "big things" will always have a certain attitude and way of conducting itself that could be interpreted as arrogance. So many Americans are terrified of being perceived as arrogant for reasons that elude me.

Well, I have some theories but none of them flattering.

Let's get off our collective butts and strive for greatness again people. Whining of the meek be damned.

#23 Re: Other space advocacy organizations » International Space Agency?!? Yes? No? Maybe? » 2005-12-16 08:51:42

You're a man. All four of you are men... well, the one person doing all the typing on four accounts is a man.

How do I know?

You reveal yourself through grammatical structure, syntax, and word choice.

That, and all the accounts are posted to from the same IP address.   wink
The CIA told me.

Sad really.

#24 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2005-12-16 08:47:04

::What's a Christmas tree without tinsel and pretty silver and gold decorations?
Can't really call it a Christmas tree, now can you?

I call it firewood.   :twisted:

#25 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Vision & Dreams! -MEET- Power & Greed! » 2005-12-16 06:33:49

Whoa! There now guy. You forget who you are talking to. I'm with the CIA/NASA and the Skull and Bones club remember? I got mad ninja skills, that and I pack a goverment issued peice. Besides Rick, we already clipped you with one car, do you REALLY want to get hit with another? Thats the way you are heading my friend...

<Bangs hand on table in laughter> Haha!

Seriously, as funny as this whole ISA thing has been I think it might be time to start reigning in the crazies, snipping some of the more deranged alternate identities and imposing a bit of order and, I don't know, intellectually respectable basic reasoning. Trollfest '05 is wearing thin.

All the members of Skull and Bones as well as the CIA director, Dick Cheney, our evil NASA liason and Hitler's ghost will be getting the memo.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB