SeVeR

In the words of Holly: This is mutiny Mr Nose! I'll see you swing from the highest yard arm in !@#$%^&*an docking port for this days work.

yea they've definately blocked p2p downloading. I think gaming is restricted to within the university network in most cases, but ss/ctm seems to be an exception... at least with most zones.

It's been like this since i came back to university in january. It would be really strange for a university firewall to discriminate against certain zones and not others on the same server. I'm sure the university has network blocks against internet gaming, like for Counterstrike, but i can play most ss zones... which is why it's strange. Maybe it is a zone problem that has to be fixed at that end.

I can get into DSB and a bunch of other zones fine, but 17th parallel (and Mystik Kingdom aswell) comes up red and unplayable. I removed the zone, re-downloaded and added it again, only to get the same problem. When i download the zone lists i can see the zone has people in it, and it appears to be working fine, then when i go back to the main screen it shows up as 0 people for a few seconds before turning red again. I don't know if being on a campus network could be the cause, but that wouldn't explain why i can play dsb and other zones. Any suggestions?

Perniiiiiii! I'll play some ss next month, and i'm still on msn sometimes. Your hawt danish accent still makes me hard in seconds. UM!

yea i'd go with business, media or journalism. Ever thought of being a music journalist? It'd bring in a little money, and it'd be in the area you love. But yea, only do music if you want to be in an orchestra, they might value the qualification. If you're in a band then just learn it yourself, being unique is more important.

The only humane thing to do in that situation is to turn it into a hand-puppet and entertain the children.

/continues pointlessly debating. So, whats up? The sky. Cool, is it still blue? Yea, except for the clouds. I like clouds. Me too, they make funny shapes. Nah mate, they all look like sheep. Sheep? Are you !@#$%^&*ing Welsh? No... !@#$%^&* you, and your mother. You keep my mommy out of this! I'm gonna !@#$%^&* slap you then. OMGzor, get off me you gay. ok ok, i'm sorry you're so insecure with your sexuality. yeah, i'm actually gay. waaat... oh my god, thats weird. hahah, looks like i'm not the only one who's insecure. so, did you see that chick shoot a ping pong ball out of her !@#$%^&*? yea, i was in the audience, it hit me in the face and i swallowed it. holy !@#$%^&*, really? gullible !@#$%^&*. hey, ever played continuum? nope, what is it? it's a bunch of horny chicks having lesbian sex with your mum. OMG gtfo noob, u suxor with yo fking hax.

We'll get two nominees, and they'll be whoever the plutocracy decides we should vote for. My guess is it'll be Clinton vs Guiliani, and i wouldn't dream of voting for either of them.

We're not all Atticus Finch.

Sacrilege! Oh and on Rice, no !@#$%^&*ing way, she's part of the Bush Administration, so she's part of the utter failure.

Yea, how can anyone want to go to Iraq? How can anyone think they need to go to Iraq?

What makes you think blacks are a minority? They're American aren't they? They're Christian aren't they? So what are you thinking... that their black skin makes them shoot people? That's racist if you ask me. It doesn't take a genius to determine the real reason. Poverty is a factor in murder rate. Blacks are on average poorer than whites, and thus have a large percentage of the murders. If whites were the poorer race then they'd be no different. So you can't blame blacks because 1. They're not a minority, they're Christian Americans with many generations of relatives who've lived in the USA. And 2. They're taking up the poorest section of society, and every country has a poor section of society responsible for more murders, not just the USA.

Holy !@#$%^&*, no it isn't!. Where did you get that information from Aileron, because it's completely wrong. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita The US murder rate is exactly three times higher than the UK's. The firearm homicide rate is 27 times higher in the US. Ban yourself from these forums right now.

Yea, if you're English you only have to worry about friendly fire. The SAS pwns everyone . NBV, yes, if the majority of people in a country wanted to ban abortion i would go with it, even though i disagree. Democracy is more important. And yes, the same with all those other examples. Just don't expect a democratic decision, which includes women, to take away womens rights. I think i'm being quite considerate when i say "if Americans want guns, they can have them". Just don't !@#$%^&* with democracy by trying to use this "right" to oppress the majority. Still going with absolutes to justify your arguments? Fine, i'll just keep agreeing. Of course a lack of guns won't stop murder. That's not the point though is it. I hear this stupid argument more times than i care for. I always shoot it down with the basic knowledge that cars are used thousands, possibly even millions, of times more often than guns; so of course there will be more deaths. If you go by total deaths then you ignore any useful bit of information about an object. For instance, by your analogy, a test plane that has been flown 10 times and crashed 5 times, resulting in the deaths of 5 pilots is less dangerous than a ham sandwich or a bumble-bee, because those have killed more people. My point is obvious, you have to take usage into account and if you do, you end up seeing straight through the !@#$%^&*ing stupid arguments that most pro-gunners use. Exactly.

What Astro said. Those steps are all well and good, and surely you notice (based on all you've written) that gun-control is one small part of what a dictator will do. But just because a dictator would do it, that still doesn't make it wrong. Dictators restrict freedoms, agree? So what do you think laws do in our every day life? We have hundreds of laws that restrict our freedoms for the good of society. A dictator might make some more restrictive laws, but who is to say which ones are wrong. For instance, in England we have banned guns and everyone seems happy with that; it's obviously not damaging our country or taking away our democracy in a way that any other law does. In fact the restriction of guns should be the publics decision! That's true democracy. When you think about it, a right that is impervious to change is more a sign of a dictatorship than anything. If the majority of the country swings over to the anti-gun side then what happens? Are you about to deny the majority in true dictatorship f!@#$%^&*ion, in order to maintain this "right"?

The army has a right and a necessity to ban guns, agreed. BTW i'm not saying civilians should be restricted from owning guns. All i'm saying is it's ridiculous to intepret a ban on guns as the onset of Naziism just because it's something Hitler did. Hitler had the support of the people. He didn't need to ban guns to succeed. For example, what do you think all those people who smashed the windows of Jewish businesses would have done with guns? Alternately if the Jews were armed they might have defended themselves better. It works both ways as both the German majority and the Jewish minority would have been armed. Hitler introduced other things like the Hitler Youth, reminiscent of boy-scouts, and that's not exactly a Nazi idea. Hitler banned many things aswell, things that civilisations have banned for centuries. You can't just say that banning or doing something is wrong just because Hitler did it. I could use the same "evil-link" to say that murderers use guns and therefore guns are bad and should be banned. You're guilty of the same jump in logic as those you criticise.

Well if Hitler did it, it has to be wrong.....

Do pokemon masters do drugs? Thats gotta be some pretty !@#$%^&*ed up !@#$%^&*. I can see the pokemon parties now, all wearing furry pikachu suits and "poking" eachother . The laundry bill would be a nightmare.... and the nightmares would be graphic . Then Tex would stand up and the flashing japanese lights would illuminate his super drug-induced pokemon attack run on the neighbours cat, and all !@#$%^&* would break lose. Finally the police would break down the door and find a them all masturbating to a cartoon about a Japanese school girl who got her tennis racquet lodged in her !@#$%^&* while running away from a furious tentacled monster that enjoys tentacle !@#$%^&*ing japanese school girls until they shove tennis racquets in all their orifices to stop being tentacle !@#$%^&*ed...

Well Americans are known for being completely ignorant of anything outside their own borders. That's why all the questions were on geography and international politics and cultures. I bet it wouldn't have been that hard to find those people, so i agree with Sama.

Blatently written by an American. Russia won the war, beat the germans first, entered germany first, killed the most germans etc etc.

Yea, thats the patriotic bs they tell you to believe. America was just another farming community, built on the hard work of its people (not a piece of paper) until it started to benefit from the influx of immigrants. It benefitted further from being uncommitted in the world wars. America just sat back, selling weapons and food in massive quan!@#$%^&*ies until they had hoarded enough wealth to put in a decisive blow against the side they liked least. They crippled the economy of Britain after one of the wars, i can't remember which one, and made their way to the top. America didn't need a bill of rights to do this, all they needed was the hard work and intelligence of it's people, together with a little cold-hearted back-stabbing. What America calls rights, other countries call laws, and we exist just the same under our laws that you do under your rights. If the gangs benefit from stolen weapons, then i don't really see your point. But if they're being supplied by drug-barons wanting to protect their investments with imported guns, then maybe you're right. I'm guessing it's a bit of both. I don't really see how stopping at least some of them is a bad idea. Lol, if you don't like it, you can GEEEETTTT out! Ahh South Park - fond memories. I find most of the laws that have been upgraded to rights to be the things that every western country holds dear. There's nothing special about America, we can all speak freely and worship whatever we want aswell. The problem comes when one of these so called rights is not universally accepted. It becomes an enemy of democracy and an excuse for oppression. You don't seem to understand. I'm talking about legally bought guns that get stolen and sold on the black market. They're dirt cheap and plentiful. And i don't know why you're using the VT kid as an example, he had the money to go down the totally legal and legitimate route and did!

It depends on your customer base. If you're a drug dealer and you get a few people coming to you for pot, then its up to you to decide whether its profitable to sell them the pot. If you're making a shed-load selling cocaine then why waste your next shipment on a cheaper drug? There are some dealers who have many customers wanting pot, and therefore get that drug imported. Secondly, you should know that dealers have a hold on certain business oppurtunities, and are hostile to those who try to muscle in on their business. Therefore you get alot of minor dealers opting out of the coke game, for the pot game. Thirdly, weed is quite often grown in the US and doesn't need to be imported, cutting costs. "something that as in our founding bill of rights", you say that as if it means something. Yes it would be a much more profitable enterprise. But money won't magic itself into the pockets of street muggers, thiefs and the lowly s!@#$%^&* type of criminal that we're most likely to meet in a dark alley. There will be more criminals willing to fork out the money (they would have spent a fraction of the price when they were legal anyway), but at the same time there'll be more cut off from guns by the hiking of prices.

You're right, a centralized government run agency should be set up as the only legal source of guns in order to make sure background-checks are performed correctly. The VA shooter was known to the authorities and would have been stopped from buying a gun legally. I can't imagine this `loner' having the slightest idea, or the social skills, to buy a gun illegally through criminal connections. The problem is state borders are nothing like country borders. There are no police checks or border crossings, just a sign-post. Most Americans probably don't even know which states have a ban on guns. You can't control guns in just one state. Maybe banning guns country-wide would be a bad idea. First i would try to encourage conceal carry (by making it legal in all states), as this really is a deterrent and a good defense against criminals. If guns are legal, then allow people to use them is what i say. I would also remove the gun-shops and all private dealerships, in favour of a centralized government agency. The agency could in effect employ all the previous gun-shop owners, but would take over the more sensitive areas of the business such as supply, and background checks. NBV: And you could probably make 30g's from the same weight in cocaine, so why import guns? And LOSA is right to say that the demand is not guaranteed, you have to find buyers, and it's extremely risky as guns are used in crimes, drugs are not.

If he ran it would be the biggest story ever, but the news corporations still wouldn't broadcast it.