The Back Room

:laugh: I like the Nuke the moon article too. http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm[^] Later, JoeSox www.joeswammi.com Untitled[^] | GWB CP Profile[^]

Mike Mullikin wrote: However, if anyone insults the French or Germans or Australians they go into ultra-liberal, tree hugger mode and start crying racism and other such crap. Bullshit. What can you say about Australia? Sheep-shagging is the New Zealand national pasttime and our Prime Minister has his head buried in George W.'s arse. I won't cry if you have something derogatory and funny to say. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

Maybe that's the fundamental difference here: Turkey and the U.S. are both NATO countries - yet they bypass the NATO for one or other reason - you see this more "ok" than me. If the U.S. starts to solve military issues "on it's own rules" (which it definitely has the political and economical power right now), it weakens the alliance. Sure, the U.S. is free to do so, up to the point where it nullifies the alliance. it fits an irritating pattern of the U.S. not willing to play by the rules of global cooperation (ICC, U.N. being two other examples). France' gov is only the spearhead of an opinion that, maybe, a "NATO without US" would get along better. Personally I think they would, but seeing the U.S. "in" would be better for other reasons. I know that the current Baghdad regime has it's major contracts with french, russian and chinese petrol companies. However, until the sanctions are lifted, they're not worth much except for the OFF program (and the US don't see a problem buying Iraqui oil over europe..) And just because France is evil doesn't mean the U.S. should be, too. So many people long for eternity that don't know what to do on a rainy sunday afternoon. [sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen] If you look for evil in me you will find it whether it's there or not.

It's sort of useless to predict a nation's actions today based on things that happened decades ago. First, the face of the government is entirely different. Second, the changes globally since that time make for a very different playing field. Who knows, maybe the UN will play a role where it helps people become self sufficient rather than simply hand out food and medicine. (this last is based on perception, i don't know everything the UN really does) BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Yeah, some dickhead arsehole fecked things up when he used javascript to replace the CP ads Gator-style with a stupid hard core pr0n one, so Chris had no choice but to blacklist everything that could be used to do that again. Makes perfect sense from Chris' pov (I'd have done the same), but if I find out who that person was... :( He took it too far, surely that could count as defamation of the web site, and then couldn't some kind of action be taken (even if it is merely a formal gesture) to say: "no, don't do this". Still, at least my rating's still live on though you'll need to use your brain to work them out now. Oh wait, this is the SoapBox - I could have said what I *really* thought about him. :rolleyes: David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk h.a.s: 0.5.5

Brian Delahunty wrote: The thing with Gates though is that he has enough money to be free if he wants... He could say.. "f*** it all", sign all his part of MS over to Myself and Yourself [] and off he goes.... Nope, he can't. Microsoft has stocks, it has a board of directors, it has clauses and controls. BillyGs wealth is based on the company he created and which he is now a part of. The board of directors most likely have made him sign a deal where he gets X amount of stocks but that he has to stay with the company for 5 years or 10 years or whatever. If he says "sod it all" then there will be huge penalty clauses. He probably has, if he was smart, managed to get cash out of the company into his own name. But a lot of CEOs do not do that. A lot of us plebs do not realise just how tied into the company a CEO or CTO or any top level guy is in a firm. How their wealth is based on them staying and working in the company. Plus of course with a guy like him where he does not want to say sod it, a lot of his assets will be company based for tax benefits. So they are not really his and depend on him working for MS. Madonna is pretty much the same. She recently signed a 4 album deal for the next 5 or so years. She has to produce 4 albums in the next 5 years (and she cannot make 4 in one year and try and run.) She can't run, she can't say sod it. But yes she, a rarity, has been smart with her money apparently. Read an article where that $200mil was actually her own money, invested in houses and bonds and what not. All hers, not linked to companies or anything. So there, she has been smart and once the her album deal is through (she will be what, 60 by then? shame) she can be "free." But as you said her fame will never let her be free, not ever. Can't go anywhere without being recognised or hounded. These are both bad examples though as they both love what they do and both will work till they die. That is fine, that is their passion and it is what have made them rich. The thing with many rich people is that what starts out as a way to make money, becomes such an ingrained way of life that they cannot stop doing it, even if they hate it, they have to carry on. If they stop, they are lost, unable to do anything else to fill the time. They then wither away, or get back into business. That is not free either. I am sure there are free rich people. But then there are also free poor people.

I notice noone has voted on this message yet. Tempting, isn't it ? :rolleyes: The tigress is here :-D

Of course its selfish. The purpose of a government in its basic form is selfish isn't it? If my governments primary focus was not on my welfare, I'd have problems. Also, being selfish is very much human nature. And humans are making these decisions.;) BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

That is very interesting. Certainly explains a lot. So the security council members saying no to removing Saddam, and stalling, are doing it, in that they have a vested interest in Saddam staying in power, as well as getting sanctions removed. Very much a conflict of interest on France, Russia and China's part. Frankly this is a messy state of affairs. Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

I've been saying the same for years... :(( Mike Mullikin :beer: Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash. - Emo Phillips

David Wulff wrote: He wasn't drunk, we just wanted the pool table. Doh! Of course! Send my compliments to your friend. Great trick, I think I'll remember that next time when all pool tables are occupied. David Wulff wrote: you don't realise when you're inside, but if you leave and come back in after a few minutes you will have difficulty breathing for quite some time I know exactly what you mean. When I get home from my favorite pool house, I smell like someone who's been smoking constantly for the last 30 years. And I don't even touch fags! [Ponder on that one americans]. David Wulff wrote: Anyway, it's not like they went running off crying when he said it, they finished their game and then ran out crying walked out calmly. It could've been worse - they could've become catatonic. Then you'd never have gotten rid of them. -- Yeeeeehaaaaawwwwd!

By reflexivity, I too think it is cool. :cool::-D -- Ihre ganze Unterseite sind gehören uns.

Kant wrote: My point of view : War is the last option. I think most do agree with that opinion. What is at issue is when do you decide all other options are gone. Kant wrote: But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. To what degree? My personal opinion of all of the info I have seen the most credible evidence to justify war has come from what I read in the report. I have heard more than one inspector comment that they will not find what Iraq wishes to hide from them and that Iraq is only complying with the process not the intent. So what I hear from the inspectors is why spend the time. Now the answer to that is of course have we really used all of the options available. Kant wrote: I agree they are cooperation only when the threat of war is at them. And they are only agreeing to the process not the spirit. This lead me to question is this just a game to continue doing what they want. Lets see how far we can be disobedient. Take the missiles, yes just a little beyond the limits but is that a big deal. I say it show a deliberate attempt to not obey and test how far can they away with it. Kant wrote: What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? On one hand nothing. On the other the "Allied Nations" can not keep their forces poised forever. Saddam appears to only be reacting to an imminent threat. Disarm it and see if the world has the resolve to come back. Kant wrote: Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. My number one frustration. IMO Legally the UN did approve in 1441. If France did not agree they should not have then. I wish I had a clear understanding of what and when France thinks action is justified. I do not. I can not accept an endless cycle of lets evaluate it again next month. I also agree doing it solo (or with just a few such as with the UK) would be a disaster. Kant wrote: If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Agree strongly. What I fear is the UN is close to being a shambles now. It needs to be a forum where each side can be very honest about what it feels (like it or not) and not so much as a diplomatic play ground. Until it is very clear what is important to each side you

Chris Austin wrote: True; but it the situation was exasperated by his stupid speach. And, why should we judge them evil for possessingthe same weapons we maintain? I have to jump in here and disagree. The issues (NK and Iraq) that we have today has existed for quite some time, it is just more visible now. Bush's speech did not create a crisis, it only shed light on an existing one. Would you prefer to not know there was a crisis and just wait for a major accident/terrorist strike/nuclear arms sale (what do you think NK is going to do with this techology?) Blaming these issues on Bush is short-sighted and not a very well thought our argument. NK did not magically develop nuke technology in the past 14 months. Anyone who believes Iraq is not hiding munitions, etc is closing their eyes and singing "Mary had a little lamb...".

Um... Clickety[^], sir. :-O David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

I don't altogether disagree with what was said, but the assumptions of the article are a bit flawed. A few notes: In fact, a more convincing case might be made that France and Germany actually represent the ''New Europe'' or even ''the coming world.'' Think about it. These two European powers have put five centuries of wars behind them, including two devastating world wars, to form a new union with shared currency and desires to forge a broad common foreign policy. Such a step is revolutionary among ancient nation-state rivals with quite different cultures. At the dawn of the world, people looked around and discovered people similar to them and people different from them. They tended to form alliances with the people most similar with them because they often had a common goal, whereas the people different from them worked against their common interest. During pre-history, the people who were different from them were the people in the next town. The people similar to them were people in their own town. As mobility and communication increased, they discovered that the people in the next town were actually quite similar to themselves when compared to the much larger array of people that they were coming in contact with. So, they formed alliances with the people in the next town against people in the next providence. This trend continued up until today, when people (like the French and Germans) find that they are much more similar to each other than say, the Germans/French are to the Chinese or Africans or Americans. It's hardly a "new" phenomena. It's the same old forces that have shaped alliances from the beginning of time. This European Union is a remarkable experiment -- the first time in history when states have been willing to give up real hunks of their own national sovereignty in order to join a new civilizational project. Not really something new. They are banding together to serve a common interest. If the rest of the world disappeared tomorrow, the EU would fall apart into several disjoint alliances - each defending their own common interests against the other. Now, this Pax Americana may have many positive as well as negative features, but its foundation based on monopolization of power rather than consent can hardly be described as the ''New World.'' Power, and not international law, is very much the basis of ''Old Power'' and the ''Old Order'' down through the ages. While this appeal to "international law" (which everyone will joyfully follow) is a bi

Chris Meech wrote: But in a couple of months, when the Stanley Cup playoffs start, my beloved Canadiens will begin a trek for another championship (I hope) You're first going to need to find a #1 goalie, as Theodore is down and out (as of late). Garon is really stepping up, which is good, but how long will it last? (Mtl should have got more from the Hackett trade). On the other hand, the Avs are starting to look like the team they are. I just hope it lasts long enough to get 16 wins in the Playoffs. :-D I prefer to wear gloves when using it, but that's merely a matter of personal hygiene [Roger Wright on VB] Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. [Rich Cook]

Michael Dunn wrote: "console window" != "DOS session". I can't remember HOW MANY people I have tried telling that a console window IS NOT a DOS application. I'll keep this message from you as proof! :) Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!

Funny how long jokes can stick around and evolve. I originally heard that joke about fifteen years ago. At that time, there were no names attached to the characters - just "the world's smartest man", "a priest", etc. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

Trollslayer wrote: If you look at how alcahol affects the brain, one of the centres affected first is related to judgement - particularly in terms of skill and reflex times. You fail to realise that not everyone is affected by alcohol the same way. Sure most peoples performance is adversly affected by alcohol but not everybody is affected. The assumptions are based on statisics chosen to present a one sided case and make no calculations for those of us who are in fact unaffected by this. Regardz Colin J Davies Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote: