Page 373 – Key Publishing

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 5,581 through 5,595 (of 6,424 total)

← 1 2 3 … 372 373 374 … 427 428 429 →

Author

Posts
July 12, 2003 at 1:47 pm in reply to: japan #1982766

Arthur
Participant

It’s not just women who don’t always want children… i wouldn’t bother my offspring with half my genes either. I’d rather adopt (provided, yadayada, blahblah, etcetera). Anyway, i think stimulating people to have children doesn’t really work: no matter how large the benefits (child support, tax benefits), properly raising a child will cost a lot more.

Of course there will always be antisocial elements who disagree. A quote i overheard from a Dutch lowlife in the town i used to live in: “Oh, i see i’m going to get cut on my state support. Better get pregnant again!” – take note that of her six children, five are currently going to ‘special schools’ and don’t seem to be heading to a bright future anyway…

Which somewhere is kind of stupid: if you want to adopt a child, you would have to undergo enormous procedures and checks in order to prove you can be a worthy parent. On the other hand, if i would be an absolute lowlife nobody can prevent me from making a baby (provided i’ve got a suitably lowlife womb to plant my seed in, of course) just to abuse it the moment when it’s born. I know simply too much of those cases (both directly as through a few secondary channels) to just dismiss them as isolated tragedies.

July 12, 2003 at 12:29 pm in reply to: General Discussion #410758

Arthur
Participant

Only women have children? Gee, i thought guys had something to do with it as well. I am fully aware that a man’s biological obligation doesn’t go much beyond impregnating, but socially i think it’s pretty standard that the impregnating male stays involved with the child. Call me oldfashioned if you like.

But Geforce, you are definately following the example set by the Great Benign Leader Ceaucescu. In the Romania of the 1980s, there were indeed tax benefits for people with many children. And other unpleasantnesses.

The lowering birth rate in Europe is being compensated by immigration just fine, by the way. Which is all the better if you ask me, because at least for the next few generations this will avoid Malthusian problems in already overpopulated areas, both in Europe as in the countries where the immigrants come from. In the long run however, Malthusian problems can only be avoided by limited natural growth of populations. But for that the whole growth-focused capitalist-style economy the world currently applies has to undergo some serious modifications…

July 12, 2003 at 12:29 pm in reply to: japan #1982778

Arthur
Participant

Only women have children? Gee, i thought guys had something to do with it as well. I am fully aware that a man’s biological obligation doesn’t go much beyond impregnating, but socially i think it’s pretty standard that the impregnating male stays involved with the child. Call me oldfashioned if you like.

But Geforce, you are definately following the example set by the Great Benign Leader Ceaucescu. In the Romania of the 1980s, there were indeed tax benefits for people with many children. And other unpleasantnesses.

The lowering birth rate in Europe is being compensated by immigration just fine, by the way. Which is all the better if you ask me, because at least for the next few generations this will avoid Malthusian problems in already overpopulated areas, both in Europe as in the countries where the immigrants come from. In the long run however, Malthusian problems can only be avoided by limited natural growth of populations. But for that the whole growth-focused capitalist-style economy the world currently applies has to undergo some serious modifications…

July 11, 2003 at 11:22 pm in reply to: General Discussion #410830

Arthur
Participant

Bluffing empty handed not a good gambler make…

July 11, 2003 at 11:22 pm in reply to: What about Tibet? #1982835

Arthur
Participant

Bluffing empty handed not a good gambler make…

July 11, 2003 at 11:18 pm in reply to: The GROB 115D2 – can you help!!! #402806

Arthur
Participant

It’s an aerobatics-rated light side-by-side trainer and light-fun-to-fly thingie. Composite structure, fixed landing gear, and either an 160hp or an 180hp Lycoming engine. It’s somewhat in the same class as the Bulldog and the Firefly, but it looks a bit sleeker. The Royal Navy should have a few (though contractor-operated, no military serials on those) for pilot screening as Chipmunk replacements. The pic should be one of them – which is indeed specifically the D2 variant.

Grob is quite an interesting aircraft builder, by the way. Initially a glider-only factory, they have also began designing composite light aircraft and an extremely interesting recon/survey platform, the Egrett, which actually looks like a strange mixture between a U-2 and a turboprop-Skyraider.

July 11, 2003 at 5:40 pm in reply to: General Discussion #410976

Arthur
Participant

At least that Spears doll offered some visual compensation. I’m afraid our US Agent here won’t…

Just out of curiosity, USAg: do you fit in the state of Rhode Island?

July 11, 2003 at 5:40 pm in reply to: What Music Do You Hate? #1982957

Arthur
Participant

At least that Spears doll offered some visual compensation. I’m afraid our US Agent here won’t…

Just out of curiosity, USAg: do you fit in the state of Rhode Island?

July 10, 2003 at 5:46 pm in reply to: General Discussion #411238

Arthur
Participant

I hate:
most RnB (except some Fugees/Lauryn Hill stuff, and i do like Macy Gray)
most rap (though some old school is fun)
most country (the exception here being bluegrass, Johnny Cash and dodgy country/rockabilly stuff like Mojo Nixon or Reverend Horton Heat)
Corny classical music (Chaikovsky, Saint-Saens, Vivaldi)
Most of the cheap poppy-stuff, but sometimes it’s that awful (the Cheeky Girls!) that it gets entertaining again for a while.
German Heimatmusik or the local Limburgian (the province i live in here in the Netherlands) variant thereof.
Italian/Spanish/Latino romantic crap, except for the outrageously bombastical stuff (Umberto Tossi).
Nu-metal (no exceptions i can think of)
Rage against the machine
1970s-style rock with perpetual solos (sorry Kabir – party on Wayne!)
But, i can survive a few seconds of any of the above. If you really, really, really want to spoil my day, put on a tape/CD of the following. Homicidality is one of the more positive emotions i experience when i hear…
New-age humming Tibetan monks accompanied by whistling wales and didgeridoos together with Amazonian raindrops and synthesized pseudo-traditional African drums.
AAAAAARGGGH!!!!!

July 10, 2003 at 5:46 pm in reply to: What Music Do You Hate? #1983180

Arthur

Participant

I hate:

most RnB (except some Fugees/Lauryn Hill stuff, and i do like Macy Gray)

most rap (though some old school is fun)

most country (the exception here being bluegrass, Johnny Cash and dodgy country/rockabilly stuff like Mojo Nixon or Reverend Horton Heat)

Corny classical music (Chaikovsky, Saint-Saens, Vivaldi)

Most of the cheap poppy-stuff, but sometimes it’s that awful (the Cheeky Girls!) that it gets entertaining again for a while.

German Heimatmusik or the local Limburgian (the province i live in here in the Netherlands) variant thereof.

Italian/Spanish/Latino romantic crap, except for the outrageously bombastical stuff (Umberto Tossi).

Nu-metal (no exceptions i can think of)

Rage against the machine

1970s-style rock with perpetual solos (sorry Kabir – party on Wayne!)

But, i can survive a few seconds of any of the above. If you really, really, really want to spoil my day, put on a tape/CD of the following. Homicidality is one of the more positive emotions i experience when i hear…

New-age humming Tibetan monks accompanied by whistling wales and didgeridoos together with Amazonian raindrops and synthesized pseudo-traditional African drums.
AAAAAARGGGH!!!!!

July 5, 2003 at 1:35 pm in reply to: General Discussion #412278

Arthur

Participant

Tenthije,

According to the Geneva Convention, there is no such thing as an ‘unlawful combattant.’ One is either a combattant, or one is not. But this is probably the one thing Rumsfeld refuses to see in black-and-white. I’m not sure about the exact status of the Guantanamo Bay base, but i recall it’s on a perpetual lease by the US so i would guess US law does apply to the area – and even if it isn’t civil law, i’m sure a Marine stealing a toothbrush at the Gitmo PX will be tried by an American court martial!

Zelhem? Daar heb ik nog wel eens in een vakantiebungalow gezeten!

July 5, 2003 at 1:35 pm in reply to: Guantanamo Bay #1983788

Arthur

Participant

Tenthije,

Zelhem? Daar heb ik nog wel eens in een vakantiebungalow gezeten!

July 5, 2003 at 11:36 am in reply to: General Discussion #412286

Arthur

Participant

In Russian:
Privyet!
or
Zdravstvuy (or, more polite, Zdravstvuyte).

And, in wondefully difficult Dutch,
Hallo.

July 5, 2003 at 11:36 am in reply to: Hello (in a foreign language!!) #1983795

Arthur

Participant

In Russian:
Privyet!
or
Zdravstvuy (or, more polite, Zdravstvuyte).

And, in wondefully difficult Dutch,
Hallo.

July 5, 2003 at 11:33 am in reply to: General Discussion #412292

Arthur

Participant

Actually, according to the Geneva Convention the Gitmo Guys are POW’s.

Here is Article 2 out of the ‘Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Part 1’:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

So according to the Convention, Afghanistan is a war, and (if you look at the rest of the treaty, it’s fairly easy reading for a piece of diplomacy) by definition the Gitmo Guys are POW’s. As a matter of fact, i don’t see a reason why the US can’t accept them as POW’s since the convention does give enough ground to try them individually for terrorism and such. The only thing gained by denying them the status of POW is that no third party (which would be the Red Cross) can visit the detainees, but that’s basically it. I’m afraid the non-POW status has more to do with demonising the enemy than anything else, really.

But just imagine, in a few years… that annoying POW/MIA organisation can set up an office in Kabul as well. And maybe we’ll see Chuck Norris move out and liberate a few forgotten Gitmo Guys in Missing in Action XVII?

Edit: forgot the link to the Convention: http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Viewing 15 posts - 5,581 through 5,595 (of 6,424 total)

← 1 2 3 … 372 373 374 … 427 428 429 →