If you are refering to my habbit of using punctuation and capitolization in posts, I just find posts with good grammar easy to read.
I don't type like this to appear smart...

If that is not what you are talking about, then you lost me.

I hope no one holds the fact I use yer instead of your or you're against me. Thats just from being brought up to speak redneckesse and yes. I do say yer in RL as well. Along with some other unusual words that'll try not to use on here because I'm sure they'll make me look like the poster child for special ed. Of course they don't look nearly as bad typed as how I actually pronounce them:p

12.

Thank god i'm not the youngest. Lol ;)

If you are refering to my habbit of using punctuation and capitolization in posts, I just find posts with good grammar easy to read.
I don't type like this to appear smart...

If that is not what you are talking about, then you lost me.
No, what I mean is, it's hard to measure someones Intelligence by looking at his grammar.
And, no, I did not aim towards the way you type. ;)

Ok, lol.

Disregard the above post by me. :)

Hmm, seems the Associates are a diverse bunch. What I'd like to know is what convinces 30+ year olds to join a pre-20's mostly group? I'm not a member of the Associates, but this is the only forum with regular posts. I'm 24 for the record, I didn't vote though, to try to keep the integrity of the poll...

-----------------
Of course after further evaluation, i answered my own question. The Associates seem to be the ONLY active and organized (somewhat) PA around. Kudos.

Originally posted by Bunchu
[B]What I'd like to know is what convinces 30+ year olds to join a pre-20's mostly group? B]

It's a no-brainer really. Because I'm in it! :D

LOL, you drunk again, Set? :D :D :D

*sings along to Stereo Total (Brezel Gцring has got wicked bra priveleges (http://www.ondarock.it/Stereototal.html))*)

"I love you, ONO
Diamond ring, CHA CHA
Holiday sun, OPQ
Planet earth presents you

Big money,
Big system,
Big fame,
Big brother

I need you, ONO
Silver fox, CHA CHA
Swimming pool, ZAP ZAP
Planet earth presents you

No no no no I don't need it!
Perfect system I am fallin'!"


Me, drunk? On a friday night? Well I'd never!

"nationale 7
il faut la prendre prиs de la garonne а sиtes
que l'on soit 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ou 7
c'est une route qui fait recette

pour tes vacances
qui traverse la bourgogne et le provence?
qui fait paris, un petit faubourg, valence
et la banlieue de saint-paul de vence?

le ciel d'йtй remplit mon ceur de sa luciditй
chasse les aigreurs et les hostilitйs
qui font le malheur en quantitй
tout excitй!!!"

(you've got to admire a band that uses scissors as an нnstrument)

(and after this, I think I've edited this post ten times. You people have no idea how much i edit my posts. I spend as much time editing as I spend writing the "#!% in the first place!)

Originally posted by Bunchu
Hmm, seems the Associates are a diverse bunch. What I'd like to know is what convinces 30+ year olds to join a pre-20's mostly group? I'm not a member of the Associates, but this is the only forum with regular posts. I'm 24 for the record, I didn't vote though, to try to keep the integrity of the poll...

-----------------
Of course after further evaluation, i answered my own question. The Associates seem to be the ONLY active and organized (somewhat) PA around. Kudos.

well its simple and its been said before i beleive it was altus thrawn who said that on the internet age doesnt matter so there you have it we dont really give a :swear: about age :D :thumbsup: well atleast i dont :p NO NO not the rake NOOOOO

Someone asked what prompted the 30+ crowd to join with people less than 20, etc. Well, since I'm almost to the 40 crowd, heh, I guess I'll reply.

Age doesn't really matter, having a like mindset on what makes a game fun is more important to me. I don't want to be with the powergamers, I'm more of an explorer than a powergamer. I don't want to be with the PvPer crowd, although I do enjoy a little PvP every now and then, not all the time. I don't want to be in the group that thinks that their way to roleplay is "THE" only way to roleplay. So far what I've seen from the people in this PA they like to have fun, which is what I'm after. It's a game, gets you out of the day to day grind, whether that's work or school, which allows you to slip into the persona of someone else, if you can't have fun, no sense in playing.

Anyway that's my take on the situation.

I'm 20, I'll be 21 November 24th. Woot!

I'll send you beer for your birthday. :)

Not, but it would be amusing...I wonder how many people get alchohal as gifts on their 21st birthday?

Well.. over here, you can buy alcohol that is stronger than 3.5% on your 20th birthday, so the tradition is to go buy it yourself on your birthday! Oh, and I guess a lot of people get alcohol on their 21th birthday. At least I got. And most of my friends get it every birthday, so why should the 21th be any different? ;)

LOL weird countries you all come from :D
light alcohol like beer: 16 years old
Heavy liquer: 18 years old
Gambling: 21 years old

Well here in America, most people tend to frown on drunken teenage reveries... Something about how destructive we become... and those people who, for whatever reason, like to end up dead. :(
21 is not any different, Set. They do the same destructive, deadly things, only less people frown on it. ;) :p

Really, these "teenagers today, all drunken and shows no respect" is such a huge pile of... well... you know. Compare it to the fact that a hundred and fifty years ago, a lot of people still got their paychecks in liqour, not money (and we're talking about half a litre/day, or more), most of the huge famines that Europe suffered between the 1600's and the 1800's were so crippling because people made moonshine out of their entire harvest! The potatoe did not gain ground among farmers because it was efficient to grow and can survive low temperatures, it gained popularity in the 1800's because you get more gallons of booze out of an acre of potatoe fields than wheat or other grains. In comparison, todays youths are saints, really.

But then, in America, it's considered less destructive to own a gun than to drink alcohol, now that is something that I will never be able to understand! After all, while alcohol can have postitive sides, guns really can't do anything but kill. If I had to choose between being around a drunken person and an armed person, it's not hard to guess what I'd choose... :)

(but then, drinking american beer or whiskey must be described as destructive behaviour. It is undrinkable! Beer comes from Denmark or Germany (Guiness is an exception to the rule), and whiskey comes from England, Scotland or Ireland. Oh, and vodka comes from Russia. Simple as that! ;))

This said, it is good to have a careful approach to alcohol, it is, after all, a poison that numbs the brain. That is why it works, and that is also why it can be dangerous. This means that it is not wise to try it at a young age (first, your brain has a larger risk of taking damage, and you do have a larger risk of getting addicted), and it is not recommended to be drunk too often. If you are drunk several days a week for a long period, you can suffer permanent damage. Use caution, don't get drunk until you're 18, keep friends around, don't mix alcohol with 'real drugs', and you will find it a faithful companion. After all, nothing beats a cool vodka lemon on a hot summers day, or a chilled Harboe (http://home.swipnet.se/burk/beercans/nr4_2002/harboe_28.jpg) 2.8% beer after a football game.

EDIT:Oh, and I had to add this: the restriction of being 20 to buy alcohol is only at the "Systembolaget", the liqour store monopoly owned by the state. At bars, pubs etc, you have to be 18 to be served. You also have to be 18 to buy "Folkцl" in food stores, beer with an alcohol percentage of 2,2-3,5. 2,8% is the perfect compromise, and folkцl is the nostalgia beverage in Sweden, since it brings back memories for everyone of how days were before you could buy alcohol yourself, so you drank 12-15 folkцl just to feel anything. Ah, those were the days... *sniff* *sniff*

well there are actually some very good new zealand beers out there beleive it or not

Well. I did not mean to encite a... whatever you call that reply.;) (I have had a REAL loss of words lately, and it is driving me NUTS!)

What I was saying, Set, is that people become "dangerous," wild, care-free, and deadly behind the wheel of heavy machinery whether they are 21 or 13, and their thoughts are skewed.

"Hey, Cletus? Should I just jump off of this here barn roof with these chicken feathers and fly down to the market for some more Heinecken?"

I think moderation is completely healthy, but in America, teenagers drink more alchohol, to the point of stupidity, BECAUSE it is illegal to drink at all. Somehow it just becomes ten times more appealing to them when they are not allowed to do it. You teach kindergartners Set. Is this NOT the truth at all?

(That is not meant as: Do your kindergartners drink... It means do they misbehave?)

And I would fear a drunkard with a firearm over ANYBODY else. ;)

i fear postman.

Im 15 n a half today so i get to drive sucka ducks w/ my mom. And if Galaxies didnt help me get the chicks before, I am positive that my mom and my minivan will help.



:fett: :fett: :fett: :fett:
''Put that in your pipe and smoke it''

Yeah, I'm sure driving a minivan with your mom riding shotgun will def. help. :thumbsup:

Set, the only reason why we are able to have guns is because of our Constitution. Yes, there are some people who are trying to ammend the Constitution so we don't have guns. Because they feel it isn't relevant. And for the most part it isn't. We dont' really need local militia's anymore, so I guess we don't need guns. But for me, personally, it's all about the principle of it all and not the actuallity of having it. Hell, if I want to buy a gun, the government shouldn't stop me from buying it. As well, if I want my wife (don't have one yet) to get an abortion, I don't feel the government should say I can't. You'll always have opposite sides with the abortion issue as well as the gun issue. And I can't stand the people who blame violent video games for the actions their children take part in. Yes, they got the guns from some store/guy (Columbine kids), but where the hell were the parents? I mean, wtf, it's your own damn fault for not paying attention to your kid. Ya know? They blame vid. games for this when the parents aren't doing jack to prevent it let alone talk to their kid to find out what's up. As well, the way teens and little kids treat each other brought it upon themselves. There's always going to be groups picking on other groups, so the video game is a bunch of horse sh*t- just a scape goat for a bigger problem that no one wants to point their finger at 'cause it'll cause the person to be uncomfortable.

I don't think underage drinking would be a problem in the states if they just legalized drinking at the age of 18 or possibly 16. But it was like that back in the 60's or 70's but they raised the age requirement to 21 because there were more younger age car accidents. It almost seems that it was a direct relationship between the age of the driver and alcohol. And he's right, more underage drinking occurs because it's the forbidden fruit. Sure if tomorrow in America we lowered the drinking age to 16 there would be a few years of just absolute drinking problems- like drunk driving etc. But after a while it wouldn't be the forbidden fruit and there would be less problems. Also, our laws over here pertaining to drunk driving are way too loose. We just need to be more firm on them to prohibit it from happening. Hell, in Ireland a kid can have a beer if their hand can slap the bar- haha, but everyone knows beer was invented so the Irish wouldnt' conquer the world! Lol- I'm not irish but I always love saying that! Anways, there's my two american cents (rougly $5 canadien- lol just messing with you canadiens ;) ).

Btw- Set, I'm not arguing I'm just presenting more facts as well as some insight from my point of view. I do respect your opinion. :)

Don't forget to rep. belgium- hoegarten (spelling) is some pretty good stuff!!

Well, if you compare sweden and the US, there are a few good reasons why teenage accidents are way, WAY less common here:

A) less drugs. Though the use of drugs are increasing here, teenagers and drugs are always a bad mix.

B) you have to be 18 to get a driving license, 16 to testdrive with someone (who, in turn, has to have had a licence for 5 years, 3 years without any marks). And a driving license is a hundred times as hard to get. Ok, exaggeration, but a driver simply has to reach a higher standard.

C) 18 to drink in bars, and an age-old slavic drinking culture.

D) only hunters with a hunter license has guns. Mind you, in rural areas guns are common, but for some reasons, non-americans are simple less viable to shoot themself, their friends, or strangers. This, evidentially, has nothing to do with the ratio of guns (after all, Canada has more guns per person than the US).

What it comes down to is that teenagers being drunk rarely leads to accidents, rape, death, misery (apart from the eventual hangover) and permanent injuries if the teenagers follow the...

Setsuko Guide to Eliminate Problems With Drunk Teenagers

1) Don't get access to a car. Here, you'll have to be 18 to drive, and the group of people who leads the statistics of accidents without competition are male drivers age 18-21 (and this is when they are sober!). I can only imagine how much worse it would be if males age 16-18 were allowed to drive

2) Don't get access to a gun. I'd fear the day I find a gun when I'm drunk. It's just plain stupid.

3) Don't get drunk at a remote, isolated place. Go to a pub/bar or other place where adults are present, and where there are always people around. The most dangerous (and stupid) parties to visit are parties in the woods, at the beach etc. It's just tempting fate. Some people gets aggressive when they're drunk, that's why being at a place with 7' bouncers is a good idea if you are not sure you can handle such a situation yourself.

4) Don't drink moonshine. Proper liqour almost never kill you, no matter how tiny you are and no matter how much you drink (because your puking reflexes kicks in and you'll eventually pass out before the alcohol can numb your medulla oblongata (which stops your heart pumping and your lungs breathing) or the brain stem (which makes you technically braindead). However, moonshine has a risk of including metanol, which can make you blind if you are lucky, and dead if you are less lucky.

5) Be taught how to handle alcohol by parents or other relatives at holidays where it is safe misscalculate without hurting yourself or being preyed upon by less kindly spirited persons (this is called a 'drinking culture', and exists in most european countries. Alcohol as an addition to life, not something reserved to drunks and trailer trash)

6) Don't mix alcohol with drugs. Your "let's fly away and get some Heineken" example never happens when people just drink beer. I should know, I've been around people drinking beer. A lot of beer, and a lot of times. The only superpowers alcohol makes you believe you have are social superpowers, and the worst they'll give you is a slap in the face from the opposite sex. Plus, most kinds of drugs has a higher risk of hurting you, temporally or permanently if they are complimented with alcohol. Because your liver is out of order, and the drugs can work unhindered. It's a bad deck to play with.

7) Don't go to clubs with bad DJs. Because it can lead to permanent brain trauma.

Seriously, if you follow these simple rules, you'll likely never see anything worse than someone who breaks a hand or passes out.

If there will ever be a decrease in teenage accidents connected with alcohol in the US, these points will have to be adressed.

EDIT: oh, and by the way, amids a forest of the worst beer available, a single really good beer has emerged from China. I only remember the look of the label, not the name. So I doubt I'll ever find it again.. :('

EDIT2: another factor is that when you are so drunk that you still can drive legally in the US, you can be sent to jail in Sweden. This really helps in keeping our trafic accidents low, and while drunken drivers are still way too common here, less people has to die.

EDIT3: And while drinking has little effect on a short term basis, alcoholism is not as nice. Keep clean and white a month now and then, and never get drunk 'because you use to', and you should be able to avoid this.

EDIT4: And while drugs like LSD and XTC effects how you think, alchohol mostly restrics your ability to think in new dimensions. This makes alcohol and studies a bad combo. Celebrate after the exams, not before. ;)

EDIT5: Oh, an my points doesn't apply to people who are pregnant, clinically depressed, has some latent psychosis, epileptic tendencies or heart problems. Then stay the hell away from that bottle!

Dang Set, you are so intelligent! I am a college student and I'm learning quite a bit from your posts!!!! :)

Also, I totally agree with all your points. I noticed you didnt' say much about gun control but I will say one more thing and then I won't say anything unless i feel the need to.

Typically, when a tyrannical regime/dicator comes to power, personal liberties (freedom of worship, expression, speech, press- basically the bill of rights [ of the U.S.A.]) are the first which are infringed upon. As you know the Bill of Rights are actually the first ten ammendments of the U.S. Constitution. The second Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms. Which, like i said earlier, was due to the necesity of the local militias. The ability to control personal property is a big thing. Basically, the founding fathers of the United States, had two fears: 1) They feared a strong central government- so they created the Articles of Confederation. Which they perposely created to be weak, however it didn't suite it so they met again and revised the basis of our government. Point 2) They agreed that one man shouldn't hold all the power- so we created separate branches of government with each branch having the power to "veto" propositions and what not that the other proposes. In effect, we created a balance of power so that one portion of the government is not as strong as the other. (all in theory mind you).

And, when the new consititution was being written (primarily by James Madison) they recognized that the Kings of Europe (britain mainly) were infringing on the natural rights of people. They agreed that there should be a document written down to protect these basic natural rights. I believe Britain also had something like this, however I don't recall when it was formed or it's name.

Yes, it is more common for a person who has a gun to shoot a family member- sadly so, but I still stand on the fact that if I feel the need to purchase a firearm, it's comforting to know that I can just drive to the local Wal-Mart and buy a rifle, or hand-gun. I could find a sub-machine gun if I really wanted to. Also, if my country ever gets invaded, i'll be the first one at the above mentioned Wal-Mart buying rifles and ammunition! :)

I hope that I didn't repeat myself too much, and that everything I said was quite useful and relevant. Set, I really enjoy your imput, you have so much to say and a lot of knowledge about pretty much anything. I also think that when you post, you post it in a way that is not talking down to someone and your are very factual. If you could site some of your sources that'd be helpful. I don't question you at all, but it'd be nice to see where you are getting some of your information from. :thumbsup:

.......Runs into topic.......

BEER!
:thmbup1:

......Runs out of topic again.........

PS:
Have fun, but don't drink too much, you should know your limits.

PPS: Don't drive if u had alcohol, even if it was just 1 beer, period!

My sources... well, firstly, I have this uncanny ability to remember things I read. And I read. A lot. Another factor is that I don't like the feeling of not knowing about something. And this pretty much goes for most subjects, so I have a pretty broad base of knowledge. And when everything else fails, I'll Google (www.google.com) my way to wisdom! :D

Seriously, here in Sweden, we have a long history of making everything that is decided by officials... well... official! Affairs of secrecy that would be everyday business in other countries (including the US) could remove prime ministers from power (for instance, the IB affair). So, most things that has to do with the government is there to find, if you search well enough. Just a bit of basic journalistic work. If I want to know the statistics of Grand Theft Auto in Lambohov in 2001, it's just a click (http://www.linkoping.se/libra/statistik/polisstat/brottsstat_jan_maj2002.asp#Lambohov) away. You just have to learn a few tricks of the trade. ;)

On alcohol, crime rates and such, the police here has some very informative websites. In swedish, off course. But then, to compare them with US numbers, I simply took a short stroll over to your Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ac.htm)(a) bureau I didn't know existed!), it's all out there for your enjoyment. Then, compare the numbers with swedish statistics, and divide them with the amount of inhabitants, and you get a comparative number. See my point? Some people are so convinced in their ideas that everything that has to do with the government is secret, so they don't look for it at all. That is a cardinal mistake. And if you'd want even more indepth reports, they exist. After a while, you'll surprise yourself with your ability to find virtually anything on the net in less then 10 minutes. I sure do surprise myself! (Though, remember to keep looking, because having one site saying something is far from evidence. Be critical of your sources: does the person saying something have a motive for saying it? Look for multiple sources!)

My advise is to read as much as possible. Because not only do you learn things, more importantly you begin to remember where you find things when you encounter a problem. Everything is out there. You just have to look at the right place.

EDIT: and "on democracy and constitution": well, Sweden has no constitution, we have reformed both our government and our laws to make them up to date (the last government reform was as late as 1974). So let's compare: The US voting attendance for the 2002 congress was at 39%, and for the 2000 presidency 51%, while the swedish voting attendence (http://www.riksdagen.se/arbetar/siffror/deltagan.htm) has been over 80 or even 90%('73-'82) since the 1960's. In this meaning, the 1921 election in Sweden was more democratic than the 2000 presidency election in the US. Which country has the healthiest democracy, a democracy influenced by the people? (democracy: from the greek words 'demos', people, and 'kratein', rule)?

A constitution is indeed nothing holy that automatically secures democracy. An up-to-date democratic system with more than two parties and without representative votes, however, seems to me to be a tad more efficient when I look at these numbers. What it comes down to is that something is really, really wrong when less than 50% even bothers to vote. It is a clear sign that something is majorly screwed, and needs immediate repairs (after all, Gore got half a million more votes than Bush. Bush got elected. To me, that is not "in the spirit of democracy" or "the majority rule"!). It also makes me wonder how the USA can claim to be democracy's champion in the world, as Bush claims right now. Oh, but then he's backed up by a congress that 20-25% of the population voted for. Now that's democracy! ;)

My point is: the founding fathers lived in the 1700's. They had slaves themselves, and didn't mind poor people and women not being able to vote. Believing that these people had the absolute insight into what would make a never-ending democracy is well.. not realistic. Now and then, we need a good patch, or simply to put 'Democracy' on the shelf and go buy 'Democracy II: the 2000's edition', that supports both modern day living situations and a GeForce 3 card. Oh, and soon, the 'gold' edition will be released, with the first female or non-caucasian president! Perhaps already in 2594! :p

And while we look at these incredible flaws in the constitution, why should this same constitution be reasonable when it comes to (lack of) gun control? Myself, I'm damn happy to live in a country where I can't just get a gun in three days just because I feel like it. Why? Because then the sick bastard that might eventually shoot myself, my family or my friends can't either! Simple as that! If that is not enough of a reason, then I don't know what is a reason! :) Our strict gun control makes me able to live a life without fear of people being armed. I wish everyone could experience that.

EDIT: and yes, I try as much as I can to argue with people's beliefs, political ideas and 'evidence'. But not with the people themselves. Because that serves no function, neither for me or themselves. I like a good argument, with well phrased posts, but I do not like flaming.

*remembers back to his first time drunk* :rolleyes:

Yeah, that was fun, until about 12 o'clock. Then I had to go to bed. :D But I had a loooong stop in the bathroom first. :D :D :D

Yes, that is true. Times were different in 1796 than they are now in 2003. Yes, it is a sad sight to see that only 51% of the voters showed up at polls to cast their ballot. What infiriates me is that the other 49% are the ones who complain about what goes on. My p.o.v. is why the hell do you care if you didn't even bother to vote. Go the hell back to whatever you were doing because you didn't vote. It's rediculous. As for the majority of votes going to Gore but him losing- that's all about the electoral college really. And that goes back to the founding of the Constitution. Mainly the Hamiltonians (yeah, i don't have a source, just my notes and notes on the lectures in my early U.S. history class from this semester) feared that the uneducated populus wouldn't make the 'right' choice for presidency. Instead, the devised that each person's vote would count towards an electoral vote for either candidate. So, basically, we don't vote directly for a president, just that the states electoral votes go for that president.

I wish there'd be more political participation in the U.S. It's a shame that we don't have as much voter turn out as we do now.

Little quote for you: "In democracy man exploits man, in socialism the opisite is true" ;)

Also, another thing, the U.S. isn't democratic, we really are a Republic, if you ask me. Which according to my "random house college dictionary" is 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. a stat in which the head of the gov. is an elected or nominated president, and not a monarch.

Democracy- 1. gov. by the people; a form of gov. in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government. 3. political or social equality; democratic spirit. 4. the common people with respect to their political power.

So, actually the U.S. ins't purely democratic nor republic.

to set...i like to get my guns quickly :)

I agree to a hundred percent with you that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. After all, that is my main gripe with the Republicans claiming the USA to be a torch of democracy in a dark, despotic world! ;)

And yes, I know how your representative votes works, and I agree, they are mostly there to prevent the majority claiming power. And more importantly, they make sure that votes in different states are not worth the same, and that is out of control. That is why I think that a major overhaul is the only way to guide that country to any other future than a despotism. After all, when people see that not even being in the majority helps when it comes to elect presidents, why the hell should they vote? When you can only choose between two parties, who agrees on so many levels, what difference does your vote make? These are the major faults, you don't get as rigid a dogma ruling the country if you have 5,6 or even 8 parties in the government, because then, unsatisfied citizens can turn to another party. Only then can people start to vote for parties they agree with. After all, if I lived in the US, I would neither like to vote for the Republicans nor the Democrats, and if I voted on one of the almost nonexisting candidates that belongs to neither party, my vote would account for nothing. In this situation, what democratic choise do I have? None!

Ok, I'm not going to rant for two hours again, since I need sleep tonight. Basically, yes, it is not a privelage, but a responsibility to vote if you live in a democratic system. But then, the voters should also have alternatives. Their votes should make a difference. And really, in this sense, it matters little if you lived in Soviet and had one party to choose between, or if you live in the US and have two cloned parties to choose between. Neither version is a working democracy. The day the voters actually make a difference on the government with their votes, and they can vote for a party that resembles their own ideas and virtues, you too can have a voting attendence that is above the par for African anarchic states.

Mind you, we also had a two-party system. We grew out of that idea in the 1890's. So has as good as all other democracies. It is time to mimic the cool guys on the block. Really, then you could have election campaigns that were about politics, not funds and TV ads. :p After all, you guys were quick to allow women to vote (http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm) (1921), why stop there? With a bit of effort, american politics could be interesting, there are a lot of grassroot interest groups and movements, just give them a way to vent their ideas in the congress and the senate without having to sell out to the republicans or the democrats. I'll bet you there would only be winners! (if you disregard the 50+ white rich males, but they have had their fun! ;)) After all, with a living political scene, your reporters would have something else than scandals to report, go for it!

(then there's that little footnote in the UN charter that any country who enforces the death penalty can not be regarded a democracy, but that is an entirely different discussion)

Quote by Set: "(then there's that little footnote in the UN charter that any country who enforces the death penalty can not be regarded a democracy, but that is an entirely different discussion)"

The last I heard, the US does not enforce the death penalty. Individual states do. ;)

Am I wrong? I very well may be, so tell me.

And what sovereign country does Arkansas belong to, Sunshine? The USA? Yes. Thereby, the USA enforces the death penalty, though the fact that not all states in the US supports it gives it the technical label 'retentionist enforcement' . The states are not sovereign countries, and thereby, it is the federal government that is responsible. If Punjab started fire nukes, India would still be responsible. Until the last single state (if this ever happens, my money's on Texas) stops, the USA is still considered to breach one of the foundations of humanitary rights. Sad, but true. This is, however, not as dire as the fact that it is only the US and Somalia who hasn't signed the Children's Convention. You know, the one that says that it is wrong to hit, refuse basic education, execute, force to work or deny medical treatment to children. I mean, come on?! What's up with that?

Sorry if this turns out to another US bash. Seriously, it's not the inhabitants I don't like. It's just that I'm in a sore mood, and then I attack things that I find utterly silly, stupid or dangerous. And then the US government is as easy a target as a bloated 50pound duck filled with morphine sitting in the middle of an empty pond. When you have a 12gauge shotgun and a large box of cartridges. Sorry if you have to take some of the heat, it's not my meaning.

25 here

16 :-)

Set, it's just pointless trying to "argue" with you. You are just too damn prepared for anything [we] throw your way. You are uber when it comes to persuasive/argumentive writing/posts. Can I buy you a drink?

*goes to the bar, orders two corellia ale*

Trying to dup her with alcohol are we? :D

Clever. ;) :p

Well, I'm not a member of the =A= yet, but I gotta get to know you guys.

I'm 16 now, but will be 17 on June 8

Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
Trying to dup her with alcohol are we? :D

Clever. ;) :p

Why shouldn't he? It works! :D

*nods in a matter-of-fact fashion* Of course it works! Did I mention I'm loaded with credits? ;) :p

13 here December the 9th :)

I'm new here, so none of you will care much about what I have to say......but, I have been looking for a PA for a while now. Not just any PA, one that has a good philosophy and leadership. I'm 35 years old, which is probably why something on this board just rubbed me the wrong way. I was totally interested in joining until I saw some of the posts by Gaaldor or whoever, saying to bow down to him, and calling himself a God????? Give me f'ing break. I will admit I don't know him at all, but I also don't want to get to know him now. Just wanted you to know that type of Cockyness will drive many prospective members away. I guarantee you that you are not a God and don't deserve to have anybody bow down to you. Oh, well, back to the Beta...

Good Luck in the Game Associates.

BAHHHHH, he was actually joking and I think somebody else is being cocky...back to MY beta(s) so beat it punk!

... I'm sure he is being sarcastic or making a joke out of his leadership. It doesn't bother me, and if I get in, I will most likely suck up bow down to him. He is, after all, The Leader (good old Simpsons.... would you call me a freak if I collected beans that looked like you? :D) as well as some other people.

You're only 13 Reaper? wow...

And that was exactly why I said that "I am new here" and "I dont' know him" before I said what had bothered me. If he is really like that I wouldn't be interested, if it's all in fun, then that is something different. Sorry about the Beta brag. I was feeling threatened I guess. lol Had to throw around the only thing I got over most people.

lol.. well you could have asked him about it first of all :D ;)

but ok.. nah its just gaalgoth...
he is the founder, but to be a bit honest.,... i do a lot of the work :D (this is gonna hurt someone :p :))

he is just being... well.. funny :D

You're only 13 Reaper? wow...

Hey, I'm 13!

man.. with all these kids I'm starting to feel old.... but not as old as you Wraith :p :D







that probaby decreased my chances of getting in considerably :D

For being the Leader, Gaalgoth has not poked his head in here for what? A month now?

It could not be that long, could it?:confused: Where is he???

You haven't seen him because 1) He might be in Beta 2) he might have some RL things taking up a lot of his time 3) He's lying face down in a pool of his own blood. Personally, I don't think #3 has happened. ;)

Touching up on Phreaks post: The leader is good the leader is great, I surrender my will as of this date!

Well what if he was in Beta, had some real life things to do, and was killed for his position in the Associates?

Just who IS our leader now??? How do we know it is not some imposter?:confused: