6underground

Loving your BAT's spa!!

Can someone help me find this: http://kamurai.itspy.com/bbs/lev-bbs.cgi?bid=simedit=log5&skin=skin/config/=/bbs/skin/config/&style=1&page=1&ppid=1079351997672736#1079707054424961 The link appears to be dead? If someone has it could they please PM me?

Comrade, New Rhodesian intelligence has been scouring your region for nukes.. WE KNOW YOU HAVE THEM, our silos are primed! j/k wonderful photos, i especially love the railway pics with the run down trains.

Magnificent area for IASA.

SkiGeek, The "Americans saved the day" is the tone of which his statement was made, you just quoted him saying: Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?quote> How can that be interpreted in any other way than arrogance? Or the sentiment of "Americans saved the day" which was echoed later? This is exactly the quote i was talking about, whether he was clear about that before he said that, is irrelevant, because he lost his patience and resorted to arrogance AFTER. How is that not observable? In fact, it just supports my opinion that when pushed some Americans will resort to arrogance if they feel their back is pushed against the wall. In which case, that occurred exactly. Actually, I did have high hopes that it could be a useful discussion. But several people made posts (you were one of them, btw) that made it necessary to close it.quote> I didn't comment all the way through the discussion, I made one or two posts that addressed Duke's arrogant comment of "kicking your ass in two wars". I then countered that with the fact that the U.S.A couldn't even take Vietnam, never mind "kicking ass in two world wars". A comment which is MORE than justifiable and objective. Actually, there is, when people make blanket statements.quote> Perhaps, is not an indefinite statement, is it. So how can it be refered to as a blanket statment. Let me give you an example: 1) Perhaps there are two apples in the basket 2) There are two apples in the basket. One is a definitive statement, the other is not. Do you see the fallacy in your accusation now? There is also no need to be snide or imagine that people have motives that do not actually exist.quote> I really think the term "pot-kettle-black" comes to mind here. Just because you have some form of authority on these boards as a moderator does not make you immune to the less encouraged human emotions. So let's not take some self-righteous high round. When there isn't right now. As for motives, that's entirely an interpretive perspective, one that shouldn't be dismissed on the drop of anyone's hat. I've already stated that I'm done with the thread, because of the comment he made about ass kicking Britain in two world wars. I've done what I needed to do. Now, if that's not to your liking and wish instead to provoke the issue, whereby you can ban me for some alleged "snideness", I'm afraid I wont be playing that game. It's old hat now.

What, exactly, is so interesting? quote> It's interesting for the following reasoning: 1) That Duke backpeddled his initial outburst that "Americans saved the day", to a more factually accurate "Allied win in Europe" 2) Generally threads that go off on tangents on Simtropolis and result in heated emotions, simply end. The fact that this issue is brought up from the final pages of a LOCKED thread seems to indicate to me, that those with the mod power know-how, were not happy how the thread ended and instead seek to have some damage control. I think it has to do more with maturity and education. Let's not make sweeping statements about the "age, race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation" of other members. (to quote from the rules.)quote> You will also note that I used the word perhaps, which is categorically not a statement making generalisations, but indicative that PERHAPS that is the case. i.e I made no such claim that Americans resort to arrogance on a lack of patience or the losing end of a debate, again I said perhaps. There's no need for semantics. The very presence of this thread simply indicates that we are tired of having the same discussion over and over. and anyone who can't have a civil conversation in this thread will find themselves with a short vacation.quote> I've said all I wanted to say by quoting Duke's highly arrogant comment in the other thread, and exposing it for the world to see, before he plays the diplomatic card.

I find it interesting that in a heated conversation Duke, who is an American says: "We kicked your arse in two world wars" to a Briton. But in a nice and "civilised" thread, the whole thing is white washed and he's adopted a more diplomatic tone. INTERESTING, ISN'T IT? Perhaps it's indicative of most Americans, that when all things are nice and dandy "it was a allied effort", when it's heated "The Americans saved the day". The very presence of this thread, and the thread that was locked just proved the back peddling, something I find remarkable. Ultimately, insightful.

Absolutely GORGEOUS pictures Pip, I love that monument roundabout with the Victorian lights, will DEFINITELY need to find what prop pack they're from, delightful!

Sigh, there always has to be one American who ruins our common interests with utter tripe such as "we kicked your arse in two wars" - Duke. It's really disappointing to see yet another American tarnish their nation's image to their so called "allies", because of their sheer arrogance. No wonder world-wide opinion of Americans is at an all time low. FYI, Your "noble" America Duke, was the LAST nation to get involved in the war. After MILLIONS of lives were lost. All that time, your nation got rich from arms deals with "allied" states, while millions on the European continent fought off fascism with their blood. The ONLY reason the U.S became involved in the war, truly, was because the U.S administration did not want to see most of Europe under the thumb of a Communist Russia. It was in the interests of the U.S.A to ensure that it's sovereignty and longevity as a superpower to push Russian influence as far back into Asia as possible. In addition, by the time you had entered the war the Germans were practically crippled from other European nations and the onset of the Russian advance. So please, don't play the "Americans saved the day" crap. You couldn't even take Vietnam which is tiny.

Today is bonfire night in the United Kingdom, which consists of bonfires, fireworks, drinks and good times. To celebrate the fact that Parliament was not blown up by "Guy Fawkes". What are fellow Brits upto tonight?

I think all of these are reasonable. I'd hazard to add: 6: You may not kill an animal unless you are threatened with starvation. To the list. It's all about weighing up the benefits to mankind and the suffering animals have to bare.

Bonfire Night is the U.K comparitive of "4th July" for Americans. It's a nationwide celebration, celebrating the fact that in 1605 a foiled plot to blow up the entire government in the houses of parliament AND the king of the United Kingdom, by rogue catholic conspirators. One of these (whom was the one who planted and was to set off the gunpowder underneath parliament), Guy Fawkes, was caught red handed on November 5th 1605, under the houses of parliament with the barrels of disguised gunpowder.

Well done America, Obama is the man!

Do I sound like I'm kidding? I'm completely serious here.quote> Your post was so eyebrow raising, i was compelled to ask to be honest. Morality and legality are two separate things. As I said, I will agree with you completely that it is immoral to abuse animals - but that does not mean it has to be or should be illegal.quote> Well of course they're different things, but you CANNOT have one without the other. That was the point I was raising. If it's so immoral to abuse animals, why did you just say that watching kittens burn to death is amusing? Sorry for the offence, but you sound like a psycho. Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the first post of it becoming a law. Specifically mentioned were "guidelines" and "advice" Scientifically, no animal has anywhere near the degree of "sentience" that humans have. quote> So therefore you admit that in order for you to respect an animal's right to life (i.e not being burned to death for entertainment) requires them to be sentient? Is that right? Please don't make this an issue about livestock being killed humanely as possibly and quickly, we're actually talking about TORTURING animals for entertainment, so don't even attempt to steer it toward that tangient Duke, because I'm not interested in that. I can tell you for a fact that's not the case. No, I wouldn't enjoy it if it was me on fire, but it's not me on fire, so it doesn't bother me.quote> One word: MYOPIC. You understand that it would be terrible to burn to death for someones amusement, yet you brush your hand off of it, because it isn't happening to you. You seem rather selfish to be honest, solely concerned with your own perceptions that ultimately mean that empathy is all but silenced. To be honest, the idea of kittens on fire actually seems quite amusing. Yeah.... That's deeply worrying. I'd honestly seek some councilling or something. Because enjoying kittens being burned to death is most certainly a sign of mental instability. There's this little theorem of mine that "the entertainment value of seeing something set on fire, blown up, or other wise maimed is directly proportional to its cuteness." Kittens are about as cute as things get. I wouldn't go and do it myself, but if I was watching someone set kittens on fire, I would not be glaring in disgust but rather laughing my ass off.quote> uh huh..... *raises eyebrow* Does that make me sick and twisted? Perhaps. But I dare you to find a person who's never taken pleasure in the suffering of others. We're nasty creatures like that.quote> There's a difference between jest/mocking and watching an animal burn to death. That's a rather fundamental difference, is that you'd be taken enjoyment from an animals torture, agony and ultimate death. Sick, much? There is a distinct difference, though. Seeing kittens blow up may be easily amusing, but seeing innocent people blow up is not. That is horrible, I won't argue there. Thing is, a human life has a value to it that the life of a lesser creature does not.quote> Again, ethics. It pains me to see a fellow human needlessly killed. It does not pain me to see an animal killed.quote> I see, so if i ran over your family dog in the car on accident, you'd feel absolutely no feelings what so ever? Or how about, the kid next door stabs your dog to death for "fun"? Would you also feel absouletly nothing? Honestly, I find some people's apparent inability to draw these sort of distinctions between humans and other animals to be troubling.quote> No one is attempting to give animals every single right a human being has, however animals do DESERVE respect, as they have every right to life as we do. They should only die to feed human beings, or where their own species is threatened and never for the enjoyment of our species.

Governments do multitask you know.

Wow. That's insane. Personally, I think the idea of animals having any "rights" under the law is silly. Yes, it is morally wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I don't think it ought to be a crime. If setting kittens on fire in your backyard is your idea of fun, go nuts. I see no reason why you shouldn't have the right to do that. At the same time, if you're keeping an animal as a pet, it is of course expected that you have some degree of love for the thing and are taking care of it. But going so far as to have the governement step in and tell people the proper way to do that is too much. That's just sickening nanny statism.quote> Are you for real?! It is only our species that makes up morality, virtue, ethics and values. It is also only our species that makes up jealousy, racism, distrust, vengeance and hatred. We consistently judge ourselves based within complex social structures and cultures, we also maim, kill and hurt one another EVERY SINGLE DAY. It is rich therefore for you to advocate that we have "no reason" to be applying any kind of morality on any species, when we've been doing so for our own for thousands of years. Is it because you percieve them to be non-sentient that is the issue? Because they have the inability to communicate with you in English that is the problem? That their species is so unlike yours that they are undeserving of any right to life? Justice? or Ethical place in Human morality? Perhaps when you see a bunch of defenceless kittens screaming in pain (which they will do), it'll dawn on you that many animals are very much capable of feeling pain. Hopefully, somewhere in that dark recess of your mind, something called EMPATHY will click into place and you will picture yourself on fire, screaming helplessly as your body goes into shock and eventual death. All for the entertainment for others. It is morally reprehensible, and I'm rather sure those who do that, are what psychologists call "worrying cases" as those individuals exhibit all the hallmarks of a disturbed mind who can become very serious criminal offenders. You may be offended by this supposed "nanny state" legislation, however civil rights are not without RESPONSIBILITY.

1440x990. I love widescreen monitors now. I cant ever see myself going back to the standard resolutions. They're awfully crap.

gorgeous view of the valley and the train passing over it!

Happy Birthday NASA!

liking the european look, chris!

Gogeous Carmine, I'm loving the use of custom lotting!

Welcome back Fox, I know we haven't talked in a while, for reasons we both know. But that was a long long time ago. It's good to see your high quality CJ back.