Conservapedia

A forum for discussing world news, ideas, concepts and possibly controversial topics including religion and politics. WARNING: may contain strong opinions or strong language. This does not mean anything goes though!
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
Adamo
Italodance spammer
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Adamo »

Duckman wrote:
Adamo by your posts I think the politics at poland are probaly same than at Czech. That's because here centarls are NOT liberals, some even call us conservative.
Duckman, so-called "central" politicians in Poland (people which I call "centrals" for simplification) are NOT REALLY between left and right wing. They are liberals, so they can`t be easily classified that way. They can be called "conservative liberals": economically they are liberals, but culturally they are moderate conservatives.
Thus, sometimes you can call them right-wings, sometimes left-wings. That`s why people sometimes call it The Center, because sometimes they have leftists - sometimes conservative - sometimes moderate - and sometimes liberal thoughts.

There are three political movements in western democracy: left wing, right wing and liberals (sometimes called centre).
I vote liberals.

Duckman, here are my thoughts about the political movements in Europe:

:arrow: The problem with the left wing is that they don`t believe in a free economy and market so much as liberals do. Besides, some of them would like to change the society in a "swedish way", which I wouldn`t like to be. Some of them not also want to separate the state and religion (which I support), but also actively wants to construct the society among their own wievs (for example some leftists feminists in Scandinavia says that they want to destroy the old family concept because it doesn`t fit to the modern times).
I don`t think everything they say is wrong. For example they forced a prohibition of beating children, they gave a vote rights for womens, or deleted law rules that prohibited homosexual relations (private life is not a business of a state). That`s good, but that`s enough. I think sometimes they`re going too far; I don`t want the whole Europe to look like now Sweden does.

:arrow: The problem with right wing politicians is that most of them are idiots, blockheads and usually populists. Just take a look at nationalists from British National Party, they can`t even speak english properly. Or National Front in France - most of so-called "nationalists" are people who doesn`t have idea about a modern world and science. They don`t have an idea about economy. People like them are simply inefficient. They doesn`t believe in free market too, they would like to nationalize most of the economy! They are just angry for the world that it changes, and for the reality that it doesn`t fit into their views. I wouldn`t give them my vote, just like I woudn`t give my money to the bank administrated by ignorants.

Luckily, these radical movements I just described are minorities even in their own parties. Most of the politicians has really moderate thoughts, even if they have radical opinions for the public. That`s why I vote liberals. They`re moderate, they propose realistic solutions, they`re cultural, educated, moderate and predictable people. Moderately conservative liberals. As PO in Poland and FDP in Germany.
According to the Wikipedia, the finnish equivalent of leftists would be Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue, right wing would be Kansallinen Kokoomus and (moderate) liberals would be Suomen Keskusta (they call themselves "Center Party"). If I was finnish, I would vote the Center Party.

Jan wrote:
in Poland the political scene is nowadays rather deformed in this sense. In last elections (2007), two major right-wing parties got almost 3/4 of votes (conservative Prawo i Sprawiedliwość 32 % and rather liberal Platforma Obywatelska 42 %). The left-wing part of the spectrum is negligible.
Jan, PO is considered as a right-wing party, but I would call it moderate conservative liberals. A phrase "right-wing" associates to me with chauvinism ;)
Spoiler
(\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/)
Spoiler
(@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@)
Spoiler
(>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<)
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Jan »

Adamo wrote:A phrase "right-wing" associates to me with chauvinism ;)
Why? Is "right wing" something vulgar for you? Are British Tories or German Christian Democrats chauvinists?
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Adamo
Italodance spammer
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Adamo »

No, I was thinking about far-right, like NPD in Germany, BNP in UK or Freedom Party in Austria. Besides, German Christian Democrats are rather central than right wing.
Spoiler
(\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/)
Spoiler
(@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@)
Spoiler
(>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<)
User avatar
linflas
My other avatar is gay
Posts: 2445
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: Lille, France
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by linflas »

I vote watermelons : green outside, red inside :D
"The only way out is another way in." Try Sukumvit's Labyrinth II
User avatar
Rasmus
Ee Master
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 1:44 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Rasmus »

There are another thread around here explaining that we should take this discussion somewhere else, because it can offend some people, and I agree!

This is why..

I am not in to politics, but I have gotten a general view on how disscutions about politics can be twisted into everbodys advantage even if it's an interesting subject.

But I am not very fond of when a person arguees for his case using personal opinions and no facts by only taking some scentences here and there and then calling them idiots.

Adamo, you seems to be well read on politics but I have some remarks on what you say about Sweden:
Adamo wrote:
Some of them not also want to separate the state and religion (which I support), but also actively wants to construct the society among their own wievs (for example some leftists feminists in Scandinavia says that they want to destroy the old family concept because it doesn`t fit to the modern times).
As you may know, the Swedish are the most ateist people in the world. Here it is a very low rate of people beliving in God at all. The church is more like a nice building some people visit at christmas to keep the traditions. The state and the religion are already seperated, and there is no chance that they will ever unite again. So there is no need to take some peoples view on the "state / church matter and say that it is what the whole Swedish community think.

And I don't know what you mean with "destroy the old family concept", that sounds bad, but what does it mean? It's really not okey to use a sentence like that without explaining what you mean with it..

The only thing that the feminists want's that man and woman should be viewed and treated as equals. Ofcourse, sometimes they go to far by suggesting taxes for being a man, because we cost the socity more than women does. The leftists feminists in Sweden have about 2 - 3 % voters, and I am sure that every country in the world have somebody that thinks in that direction too, but that doesn't give me the right to say that everybody thinks in that direction.
Adamo wrote:
I don`t want the whole Europe to look like now Sweden does
But I should add that we are one of least rasict countries in the world and that we have the most equal view between the genders, and that there is nothing wrong with that a hope!
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Conservapedia

Post by beowuuf »

the mods moved the discussion to the right place to carry it on. keep going unless you are going to get flame-y, but then that would apply to anything in any forum :D
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Jan »

Adamo wrote:I don`t want the whole Europe to look like now Sweden does.
Actually, I WOULD LIKE the Czech Republic to look like Sweden! Sweden is one of the most developed and democtratic countries in the World, with low levels of corruption and high quality of governance! It should be an example for us! I wish the Czech politics, society and economy worked like Swedish ones!
Rasmus wrote:As you may know, the Swedish are the most ateist people in the world.
This is arguable and subjective, but normally, China and the Czech Republic are presented as the most atheist countries (in the Czech Republic, only ca 25 % of people state that they believe in God). But, OK, you can do anything with statistics, lol. :wink:
linflas wrote:I vote watermelons : green outside, red inside :D
Hey, me too! :mrgreen:
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Rasmus
Ee Master
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 1:44 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Rasmus »

Jan wrote:
This is arguable and subjective, but normally, China and the Czech Republic are presented as the most atheist countries (in the Czech Republic, only ca 25 % of people state that they believe in God). But, OK, you can do anything with statistics, lol.
Sorry Jan, I meant to write "one of the most". I know that there are other countries ;)
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Jan »

Rasmus wrote:Sorry Jan, I meant to write "one of the most".
LOL, no problem, I knew it, I knew it. :)

Oh, let's forget politics, and talk about something more interesting, more funny and more important. The whole politics is for children. :wink:
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
linflas
My other avatar is gay
Posts: 2445
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: Lille, France
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by linflas »

Ok, politics suck, i stongly agree with Jan (especially since we have Sarkozy as president) ...
More funny and more important ? maybe we can go back to the original topic : our Earth is aged 6000 years old !
"The only way out is another way in." Try Sukumvit's Labyrinth II
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Age of the earth? Who cares? I appreciate the arguments from both sides,
whether or not there are 'freaks' who destroy the concept of logic on both sides of that fence.

After hearing hours of arguments, listening to lecture on both sides of the fence,
and even having somewhat of an opinion of my own??? (I know how SHOCKED some of you might be to hear that :lol: )

I figure I'm a long way from being even 1,000 years old (although I'm feeling pretty old and tired at the moment).
So much of what people call 'evidence' is first of all opinion, then a 'searching' to make things support that opinion.

Most books have things we can appreciate, while most also have things we shake our heads in doubt over.

I never took DUCKMAN to be saying he absolutely agreed with everything in the Conservapedia.
He seemed to be a little reluctant to absolutely accept everything from what he considered overly liberal media sources.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, DUCKMAN) (Oops. Wrong guy. Corrected. :oops: Sorry Bit.)

Oh dear me, I hope I haven't tromped on any Holy Cows on this one. :wink:
Last edited by MasterWuuf on Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Wuuf's big brother"
User avatar
Rasmus
Ee Master
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 1:44 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Rasmus »

MasterWuuf wrote: So much of what people call 'evidence' is first of all opinion, then a 'searching' to make things support that opinion.
You are right MasterWuuf! The only thing that differs true science from forcing the truth is that some people can except when they are wrong, and when some can't.

This is how good science is created:
To prove something they first comes up with an hypothesis (that can be anything).
Hypothesis:
The earth is flat!

Then put up some consequences if the hypothesis is false.
Consequences if false:
1) It would be diffrent daytimehours all around the Earth!
2) There are no people in Japan, because everybody has fallen of the Earth!
3) If the Earth instead is round, then the shadow cast on the moon from the Earth must be spherical!

Investigation:
1) There are diffrent daytime hours all over the earth. (falsified)
2) There are people still standing in Japan. (falsification failed)
3) The shadowcast on the moon are spherical. (falsified)

If it gets falsified with MESSUREABLE methods even ONCE, then the hypothesis have to be thrown away or modified until being falsified again. The more falsification the hypothesis can survive, the stronger it gets, until it gets upgraded to a theory. And if you can't create any falsifications methods, then it will never be proven. (A example here is string theory, alot of mathematic that can prove it right, but no messureable method to prove it wrong, therefore it isn't excepted as a theory.)

That's the thing about science, they never say that something is COMPLETLY true, they say that it seems to be true. And that's why they call things that seems completly obvious for us like gravity, only a theory.
To say that something is completly true, you must have FAITH that this thing is true everywhere, even beneath our visible universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetic ... tive_model
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Rasmus: Thanks for the information on the hypothetico-deductive method.

It looks like a name for what a lot of people do in the first place.
They come up with a hypothetical answer to a question, then look for evidence to prove or disprove that answer.
It can be a logical and useful way to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Sadly, bias has also surely influenced many of the theories brought to us, over the years,
so it's still only as good as the integrity of those seeking the information.
"Wuuf's big brother"
User avatar
Bit
Arch Master
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:53 am
Location: Nuts trees

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Bit »

I never took Bit to be saying he absolutely agreed with everything in the Conservapedia.
He seemed to be a little reluctant to absolutely accept everything from what he considered overly liberal media sources.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, Bit)
Huh?
I never ever clicked this site. All that what was written about it here gave me enough reason to mock about and point to the flying spaghetti monster.

Why is there gravity on one side only on a flat earth? 8)
Last edited by Bit on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Sophia »

MasterWuuf wrote:Age of the earth? Who cares? I appreciate the arguments from both sides, whether or not there are 'freaks' who destroy the concept of logic on both sides of that fence.
Well, geologists, for one. :wink:

Seriously, though, any sort of political/controversial/whateveral issue is going to have people on both sides of it who are out of touch with reality. Logic is out the window for these sorts of people, and it's not even worth trying to make a coherent argument, but I think it's kind of a cop-out to say "who cares" about an issue and just sweep it under the rug simply because a few people don't make any sense. It takes the issue entirely out of consideration simply because of the presence of people who are unable or unwilling to consider it logically. Looking closely at the raving lunatics on each side gives one myopia to the bigger issue-- and I think what is really the most relevant with the "age of the earth" debate, as well as a lot of the other attacks on science by the religious establishment that are all too common (at least in the US) these days; and that is, the fundamental inequality of the positions. If you just say "there are crazy people on both sides," then that makes it easy to assume that both positions are more-or-less equally credible, and each just happened to have been tainted by negative influences. It completely glosses over the vastly greater amount of support (using falsifiable, repeatable scientific methods) for the old-earth side, compared to the complete lack thereof for the young-earth faction. It's this kind of omission that also, to me, starts to destroy the concept of logic.
User avatar
Bit
Arch Master
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:53 am
Location: Nuts trees

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Bit »

Wise words. And a bunch of pseudo-logic people tries to keep logic away from simple carbon-units for that they are cheap working machines which guarantee their luxury and they are also halfways safe - and the one-eyed is the king of the blinds too. Today we got a neo-feudalism coming up.
And to add this to my opinion: I'd say there's nothing wrong with communism that got free people, no red silly slogans and reasonable responsible planning leaders. Competition just sucks resources and there are lots of losers which then want revenge.
Last edited by Bit on Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Sophia said:
but I think it's kind of a cop-out to say "who cares" about an issue and just sweep it under the rug simply because a few people don't make any sense.

I don't think it's a cop out to say 'who cares' on this subject.
I have listened to hours of lectures and debates on the subject.
I have a strong opinion on the subject.
I wasn't there at the start, whether it was 6,000 years or billions of years, depending on the opinion of a person.

I'm absolutely interested in information.
I just don't understand the constant 'pointing of the finger' and assessment of ones brain capacity,
when others disagree on subjects which, of necessity, must be argued through theories.

The oldest person I've ever heard about, at least at this point, was 969 years old. Some would scoff at 'that' resource, as well. :(
Compared to the age of a 'young' earth, or a truly 'old' earth, that guy is a veritable youngster.

I must say that some of the movies that seek to explain the earth, its works, as well as its age, are spectacular.
Still, much is left to the imagination, for us 'young' earthlings. :wink:
"Wuuf's big brother"
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Sophia »

MasterWuuf wrote:I wasn't there at the start, whether it was 6,000 years or billions of years, depending on the opinion of a person.
Saying "I wasn't there" and leaving it at that is a cop-out, too, isn't it? Doing that pretty much invalidates any study of history, archeology, paleontology, or anything else about where we come from and where we're going as a race/culture/species/whatever. I wasn't there either, and about the only thing I know is that I don't know anything for sure, but it's nice to be able to look at the evidence and the conjectures and be able to come to some kind of conclusion rather than just shrugging my shoulders. It's nice, in the absence of knowing, to at least be able to make some kind of educated guess, at least to me. In addition, while I do agree that the actual age of the earth may not be the most pressing issue in our daily lives, the ramifications of the debate may be more immediate and important.
MasterWuuf wrote:I just don't understand the constant 'pointing of the finger' and assessment of ones brain capacity, when others disagree on subjects which, of necessity, must be argued through theories.
There's no point in turning anything into personal attacks; you're right about that. All that does is shut down discussion, because when people are insulted, they're not going to listen to logic or reason. I think simply enumerating the evidence and presenting the logic works better. Unfortunately, both sides tend to engage in questioning of intelligence and "finger pointing." This isn't good. On the other hand, only one side has actually put forth any falsifiable hypotheses that have not (yet) been falsified. When only one side is making logical arguments, it makes a debate difficult.
MasterWuuf wrote:The oldest person I've ever heard about, at least at this point, was 969 years old. Some would scoff at 'that' resource, as well. :(
While "scoff" might be a bit strong, I know I'd tend to want some corroborating evidence for such a thing, given that it doesn't really match up with what we (think we) know about human lifespans.
User avatar
Bit
Arch Master
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:53 am
Location: Nuts trees

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Bit »

969 - Don't know if I want to live 900 years from soup only.
(Isn't that a nice way of argueing?)
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Bit wrote:969 - Don't know if I want to live 900 years from soup only.
(Isn't that a nice way of argueing?)
The soup would surely need some serious vegetables and meat in it.

Perhaps some of that Willie Wonka 'special' gum?
Er, only if he somehow fixed the 'dessert' problem.
"Wuuf's big brother"
Duckman
Adept
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:39 am
Location: Finland

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Duckman »

Wow, this theard boomed!

Jan said: This is arguable and subjective, but normally, China and the Czech Republic are presented as the most atheist countries (in the Czech Republic, only ca 25 % of people state that they believe in God). But, OK, you can do anything with statistics, lol.

Wow, Czechs in general are less believing than even we are! And I trought Finland or Sweden cannot be considered a christian country anymore!

You asked where do I get an idea EU makes farming harder? Well, everyone here says so. If you start building a new barn or buy and chop down a forest for new farming lands, you are considered almost mad. There are even people who say that Finland's rural life and farming and domestication has little or no future at all! Madness! (trough such extremites are usually those what I called "urban idiots"). EU supports farming, yes, but apparently it concerates too much on southern countries which can grow more crop beacuse of their climate. In global terms this is a good idea but Finland is still Finland. If we rely our food production to foreign countries without being able to produce enough ourselves, what will we do if a war for some reason comes? We would do wrong for all those soldiers who fought, injured or died for our country 70 years ago, if we take such a risk. So, the better we (or any country which cannot get all the food from sea) keep our countryside alive, the better.

And where did I get the idea EU will collapse?
Honestly, I have not researched that thing much myself, but a retired politican who has same ideas in about all subjects as I do said he's sure about that it will. But if it somehow remains intact, we will very likely -not now, but years later- leave it ourselves. Reason is that EU, as union, tries to make it's member countries as close to an one, united country as possible. So it means that at some point it will very likely demand us to completely give something we are dependant of, farming for example, or even our independence, to it's control. And unless finns are the most total losers there exist, I'ts clear we will rather leave the whole union than give away what our people once fought for.

Sophia it does NOT invaliside study of history, trough I agree with paleothlogy and major part of astrology. That's because most things about history we are aware of have happened AC. For example, englander's (correct me if I'm wrong), start of your modern government was somewhere about 900 AC when William the conqueror invaded England from what now are called scots.

Only major countries which have always belonged to their native population (I think, may again be wrong) and which have never completely changed government because of invasion or rebellion since beginning of our year count are Japan and Sweden.
I don't post anymore for reasons real-life.
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Jan »

I've just decided not to talk about politics and similar things here, at least for some time. It could turn into an argument or even a row, and I don't want this, because this forum is, as we agreed, a very peaceful and polite place. :)
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Adamo
Italodance spammer
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Adamo »

I agree that each country should be food self-sufficient, but
If we rely our food production to foreign countries without being able to produce enough ourselves, what will we do if a war for some reason comes?
war?? I though you signed a peace treaties in 1945?
Spoiler
(\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/)
Spoiler
(@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@)
Spoiler
(>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<)
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Jan wrote:I've just decided not to talk about politics and similar things here, at least for some time. It could turn into an argument or even a row, and I don't want this, because this forum is, as we agreed, a very peaceful and polite place. :)
Similar things? We have a college Football team in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (LSU).
Some of the folks around this section of ground would 'go to war' if someone argued against that team. :lol:

Yeah, but then they'd invite you in for a meal. Love these people. Cajuns IS Cool 8)
"Wuuf's big brother"
User avatar
Bit
Arch Master
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:53 am
Location: Nuts trees

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Bit »

Absolutely sure that they won't beg you to put an apple into your mouth? :P
User avatar
T0Mi
Expert
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: schland

Re: Conservapedia

Post by T0Mi »

I'd take anything into any body orifice for a mysterical disappearance of this thread. Even apples. Or Sülze.

*mouth wide shut*
Duckman
Adept
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:39 am
Location: Finland

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Duckman »

Adamo: That was with Sovient union, but now it's Russia. And it's off the point anyway. I don't think we will be warring anytime soon, but history has proven that a country which calls itself indepent must ALWAYS be ready for the worst. Russia is a bear as it has always been and will be forever (I don't mean russians themselves with this, I mean that while it has occasionally been peaceful for decades, sooner or later their leadership has always been given to someone with less peaceful opinions.)

Sorry if I offended someone personally. Like Jan has said I'm not always 100% aware what my speechs mean. I did not mean to offend anyone.
I don't post anymore for reasons real-life.
User avatar
Adamo
Italodance spammer
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:59 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Adamo »

Yeah, I have the same thoughts about Russia; even if it`s peacefull now, it doesn`t mean it will be forever. I love Russians (ordinary people), just as much as I don`t like their country (empire).

In december I watched "Winter War" movie from 1989. Congratulations that you defended your independence!
Spoiler
(\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/) (\__/)
Spoiler
(@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@) (@.@)
Spoiler
(>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<) (>s<)
User avatar
MasterWuuf
Arch Master
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana

Re: Conservapedia

Post by MasterWuuf »

Duckman wrote:Adamo: That was with Sovient union, but now it's Russia. And it's off the point anyway. I don't think we will be warring anytime soon, but history has proven that a country which calls itself indepent must ALWAYS be ready for the worst. Russia is a bear as it has always been and will be forever (I don't mean russians themselves with this, I mean that while it has occasionally been peaceful for decades, sooner or later their leadership has always been given to someone with less peaceful opinions.)

Sorry if I offended someone personally. Like Jan has said I'm not always 100% aware what my speechs mean. I did not mean to offend anyone.
You never offended me. I'm still searching Ebay for a Conservadictionary. :P

I'm still ignorant of the following reference...
Extra-hard specialfins are slower but still the quickest...
Is there a game in which these 'fins' can be accessed? :?:
"Wuuf's big brother"
Duckman
Adept
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:39 am
Location: Finland

Re: Conservapedia

Post by Duckman »

Quickest two. Monofins are faster but they aren't "two".

I mean that they're slower than elven boots but still about the best pair of fins in means of speed that are avaible.

Professional underwater games players consider them a very good opinion I think.

But this is off-topic.
I don't post anymore for reasons real-life.
Post Reply