Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Proof positive that Britons are smarter than us Yanks

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 29, 2004 2:25:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 3:16:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Shawn wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh

Can we define intelligence as thus?

Disliking Microsoft.
Disliking Hagan Daaz.
Disliking the EU.

?
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 3:51:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

if anything, the article doesnt paint britons as smart, it quite frankly paints
them as not having any idea about a certain topic.believe in God? ugh, I
dunno,maybe not.
if this is your proof of their intelligence,then you have to try harder.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 10:38:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also suggests
that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in God. If you
believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.

It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:41:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh

I doubt if it's anything like half. It's probably more like 10%....
I very much doubt it was 75% in '68 either.
I'd take that article with a pinch of salt.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZsKdnYGBUf1qxk7cRVn-ig@accessus.net...
> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also suggests
> that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in God. If you
> believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>
> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
> that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>
>

I must say, I find it hard to take anyone seriously if they believe in god.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Why?

"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q2RAd.200$D97.95@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZsKdnYGBUf1qxk7cRVn-ig@accessus.net...
>> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also
>> suggests that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in God.
>> If you believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>>
>> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
>> that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>>
>> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>
>>
>
> I must say, I find it hard to take anyone seriously if they believe in
> god.
>
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:55:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh

... as if we needed proof :-)

Happy New Year
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:09:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xuudncYAj8sbnUncRVn-ug@accessus.net...
> Why?
>
> "didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Q2RAd.200$D97.95@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZsKdnYGBUf1qxk7cRVn-ig@accessus.net...
>>> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also
>>> suggests that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in
>>> God. If you believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>>>
>>> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in
>>> something that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>>>
>>> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I must say, I find it hard to take anyone seriously if they believe in
>> god.
>>
>
>

Don't you thin the whole thing is a tad far fetched? Creation? People still
believe in that, and they want to teach at schools. You can find some of
these people in GWB's cabinet....
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:11:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Don't you thin the whole thing is a tad far fetched? Creation? People still
believe in that, and they want to teach at schools. You can find some of
these people in GWB's cabinet.... >>>>>

uh, no MOST of this WHOLE world believes in a God of some sort. that means YOU
are the tiny tiny minority.
dont blame us because of your inability to sway anyone over to your unbelief.
if you think about it, science has failed on this topic.yet you want to blame
the people of the world for beliving in God.

we dont believe in a flat earth anymore,why? because science NAILED IT. science
on the creation subject just hasnt made the case. their point of view is right
up there with the religious,ie, it looks good,so just believe.problem is,
unbelief is selling,few are buying. crying about it and going to the
default,of" they are just ignorant" will not help you.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:51:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

I doubt an american would refer to fellow americans as yanks. its obviously a
brit playing the ole double agent routine where someone thinks an insult will
carry more weight if people think its delievered by someone who is close to the
topic.

in this case, pretending to be an american would seem more relavant than if it
came from the usual antiamerican brit flapping his ugly teeth.
December 31, 2004 7:15:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Just Me wrote:
> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also suggests
> that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in God. If you
> believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>
> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
> that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>
>
>
My post is more centered around the fact that the simple minded seem to
run to religion more and more when it suits them, like the masses of our
great country are currently doing in a time of crisis, whilst in the UK,
free thinking is making a comeback. I am a Yankee, and am also an
atheist. Not agnostic, not satanic, but atheist. I prefer free
thinker, but that escapes most of the populace of our country who would
rather fall into the norm and accept whatever outcome is dealt to them.
Belief, to them, would be that whatever happens, they will go to the
pearly gates, and live eternally at the feet of god, whoo hoo, what a
future.
December 31, 2004 7:17:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>
>
> .. as if we needed proof :-)
>
> Happy New Year
>
>
Right back at ya, Limey. :-P

Man, how I miss you all.

Here is to making more time to play with you all again, one of these days.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:47:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Known12 wrote:
> I doubt an american would refer to fellow americans as yanks. its obviously a
> brit playing the ole double agent routine where someone thinks an insult will
> carry more weight if people think its delievered by someone who is close to the
> topic.
>
> in this case, pretending to be an american would seem more relavant than if it
> came from the usual antiamerican brit flapping his ugly teeth.


As this guy single handily confirms most Britons stereotyped view of
Americans with his stupidity and his own misled and old fashioned view
of the entire population Britain suffering from bad dentistry. There's
electric lights, television and flushing toilets in Britain too you
know, in fact two out of those three were invented there.
Speaking of being “close to the topic” and I must apologise here too,
isn’t this newsgroup supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint and not
exceedingly dull theological discussions?
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 5:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041230171110.06731.00001840@mb-m24.aol.com...
> Don't you thin the whole thing is a tad far fetched? Creation? People
> still
> believe in that, and they want to teach at schools. You can find some of
> these people in GWB's cabinet.... >>>>>
>
> uh, no MOST of this WHOLE world believes in a God of some sort. that means
> YOU
> are the tiny tiny minority.

We were talking about the UK right?

> dont blame us because of your inability to sway anyone over to your
> unbelief.

I don't try to sway anyone, I simply state the fact that creation is bunk.

> if you think about it, science has failed on this topic.

Oh dear....

yet you want to blame
> the people of the world for beliving in God.
>
> we dont believe in a flat earth anymore,why? because science NAILED IT.
> science
> on the creation subject just hasnt made the case. their point of view is
> right
> up there with the religious,ie, it looks good,so just believe.problem is,
> unbelief is selling,few are buying. crying about it and going to the
> default,of" they are just ignorant" will not help you.

Religion won't help me, or anyone else on Earth.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 5:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041230185141.09790.00001720@mb-m20.aol.com...
>I doubt an american would refer to fellow americans as yanks. its obviously
>a
> brit playing the ole double agent routine where someone thinks an insult
> will
> carry more weight if people think its delievered by someone who is close
> to the
> topic.
>
> in this case, pretending to be an american would seem more relavant than
> if it
> came from the usual antiamerican brit flapping his ugly teeth.

Why do Yanks consider Yank an insult. You're Yanks, what's the problem?
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:44:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fdBd.95$RE.89@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

> I don't try to sway anyone, I simply state the fact that creation is bunk.

I respect your *opinion* but it is most certainly *not* a fact.



> Religion won't help me, or anyone else on Earth.

I agree. *Religion* is what Jesus was "putting down" during his time on
earth. He was a proponent of a personal relationship with God.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:57:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wn4Bd.46909$k25.45597@attbi_s53...
> Just Me wrote:
>> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also
>> suggests that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in God.
>> If you believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>>
>> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
>> that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>>
>> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>
>>
>>
> My post is more centered around the fact that the simple minded seem to
> run to religion more and more when it suits them, like the masses of our
> great country are currently doing in a time of crisis, whilst in the UK,

Ostensibly, you are a "scientist" requiring proof of a theory before
accepting the theory as fact (otherwise you leap into the faith realm which
you claim to disregard). Please provide some empirical evidence to support
your suggestion that "simple minded" people are the ones who believe in God.


> free thinking is making a comeback. I am a Yankee, and am also an
> atheist. Not agnostic, not satanic, but atheist. I prefer free thinker,
> but that escapes most of the populace of our country who would.

I too, am a free-thinker. I just happen to be free to think there is a God.
Belief in God and "free-thinking" are not mutually exclusive terms. I have
a good friend who is an agnostic. As he terms it: "I don't believe there is
a God, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know for sure." That is a
more logical position to take than the one you have chosen. Again, you are
saying unequivocably there is *no* God. I assume you must have proof for
this?

> rather fall into the norm and accept whatever outcome is dealt to them.
> Belief, to them, would be that whatever happens, they will go to the
> pearly gates, and live eternally at the feet of god, whoo hoo, what a
> future.

You could describe a marriage the same way: I will pledge the rest of my
life to place my spouses needs above my own - (Doesn't sound very
appealing - until you are in a relationship where both partners are
committed to that ideal.. Once you share that, the written description
never does it justice)

Lastly, if you are a *confident* athiest, why even make the post? I think
you are searching. I wish you luck...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041230171110.06731.00001840@mb-m24.aol.com...
> Don't you thin the whole thing is a tad far fetched? Creation? People
> still
> believe in that, and they want to teach at schools. You can find some of
> these people in GWB's cabinet.... >>>>>
>
> uh, no MOST of this WHOLE world believes in a God of some sort. that means
> YOU
> are the tiny tiny minority.
> dont blame us because of your inability to sway anyone over to your
> unbelief.
> if you think about it, science has failed on this topic.yet you want to
> blame
> the people of the world for beliving in God.
>
> we dont believe in a flat earth anymore,why? because science NAILED IT.
> science
> on the creation subject just hasnt made the case. their point of view is
> right
> up there with the religious,ie, it looks good,so just believe.problem is,
> unbelief is selling,few are buying. crying about it and going to the
> default,of" they are just ignorant" will not help you.

Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
imaginary friends.
Fortunately there are much fewer of them in the UK than in the USA.
Unfortunately our current PM like your current President appears to be one
of them - oh what a lovely Jihad
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:No4Bd.591594$wV.356913@attbi_s54...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
>> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>
>>
>> .. as if we needed proof :-)
>>
>> Happy New Year
>>
>>
> Right back at ya, Limey. :-P
>
> Man, how I miss you all.
>
> Here is to making more time to play with you all again, one of these days.

Shawn have you got VBS as well as OFP?
I'm not getting online for OFP much lately because of illness in the family
and work commitments but I try to make time to play VBS online whenever I
can.
Let me know if you got it or if you haven't try to get online for some OFP
at TJs

See ya
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:35:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

didgerman wrote:
> "Jvst Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZsKdnYGBUf1qxk7cRVn-ig@accessvs.net...
>
>>Yovr post svggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also svggests
>>that yov are part of "vs yanks" and therefore do believe in God. If yov
>>believe in God, then why do yov insvlt yovrself like that.
>>
>>It is sad that yov eqvate intelligence with belief/disbelief in something
>>that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>>
>>"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>
>>>http://tinyvrl.com/4kdbh
>>
>>
>
> I mvst say, I find it hard to take anyone seriovsly if they believe in god.
>
>

Thats fine, I find it hard to believe any sane person wovld like the
following;

football, a dreadfvlly dvll game where 22 people chase some poxy ball
arovnd the field, when they catch vp with it, they kick it away again.

Cars, they get yov from a to b .. great! thats what they're designed for
... yet some people go nvts over the bloody things

blood pvdding, yov expect ANY sane person to eat THAT?!

EU has created a peacefvl evrope .. erm, actvally I svspect the threat
of being invaded by the soviet vnion, and the presence of British and US
troops on the continent, svbseqvent military treaties and organisations
svch as NATO and continvally improving economic conditions for 50 years
may have had a lot more to do with the 50 year peace that western evrope
has known.

The gvn ban is working to prevent gvn crime, this is why since the gvn
ban has been in place gvn crime has risen, as has illegal gvn ownership,
as has deaths resvlting from crimes. This is why every two years the
police have a gvn amnesty , the first svch amnesty 40,000 firearms (and
legal replica's) were handed in, the 2nd, over 50,000. Yov expect me to
take anyone who believes banning gvns cvts gvn crime seriovsly when the
facts blatantly show that it doesnt?
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
imaginary friends.
Fortunately there are much fewer of them in the UK than in the USA.
Unfortunately our current PM like your current President appears to be one
of them - oh what a lovely Jihad>>>>

good,enjoy your life in your imaginary world.seeing as you are left defending
that all those things such as the reproductive system concept and
brain,millions of species of life,nature,planets compiled itself in the
beginning by..... nothing.

if proof of intelligence is NOT having a theory on what created, then you guy
are brilliant.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
news:cr650r$bo4$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
> imaginary friends.

I don't know any adults who need imaginary friends, but if I met any I would
try to help them. On the other hand, people who are absolutely certain of
the non-existence of God cannot prove he does not exist. Therefore, you do
exercise "faith" its just you have faith there is no God. I have faith
there is. At the very least, quit pretending to be intellectually superior
just because you happen to have faith in something I don't. (The *non*
existence of God)
January 3, 2005 6:45:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

>>My post is more centered around the fact that the simple minded seem to
>>run to religion more and more when it suits them, like the masses of our
>>great country are currently doing in a time of crisis, whilst in the UK,
>
>
> Ostensibly, you are a "scientist" requiring proof of a theory before
> accepting the theory as fact (otherwise you leap into the faith realm which
> you claim to disregard). Please provide some empirical evidence to support
> your suggestion that "simple minded" people are the ones who believe in God.
>

No, technically, I am an atheist. If I was requiring proof, then I
would be agnostic. I do not hold hope for a god or whatever to show me
the light. I don't believe. The simple minded are not the ones who
believe in god, they are the blind that put blind faith into a religion.

Also, tell me where in my statemet that I stated that the simple minded
needed god? I don't see that in my earlier statement. I think the
dividing line between god and religion is blurred by those who need a
god to feel better than the rest, ie: christians that tell someone that
they are going to go to hell if you don't accept "their" god.
>
>>free thinking is making a comeback. I am a Yankee, and am also an
>>atheist. Not agnostic, not satanic, but atheist. I prefer free thinker,
>>but that escapes most of the populace of our country who would.
>
>
> I too, am a free-thinker. I just happen to be free to think there is a God.
> Belief in God and "free-thinking" are not mutually exclusive terms. I have
> a good friend who is an agnostic. As he terms it: "I don't believe there is
> a God, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know for sure." That is a
> more logical position to take than the one you have chosen. Again, you are
> saying unequivocably there is *no* God. I assume you must have proof for
> this?

Your friend is also probably good at blowing off decisions that will
affect his life while using a clever excuse that will make him sound
intelligent, and educated, but still irresponsible.

You are trying to put yourself into a category by being a hypocrite.
Your statement is pointing me out to be arrogant, and even below, it
states it again that you are right, and have me all figured out. How
does that make you a free thinker? I personally like to listen to all
of ideas of religions, and soak up the historical values of each. I
like the morals of some, but have a realllllly hard time in believing in
a make believe character that just has always been there with all of
these awesome powers that likes to make a bunch of people suffer at his
whims.

Oh, and in case you ask how he makes people suffer, I suggest you turn
on the news and watch for a couple of hours. Don't care what source,
but should probably steer clear of the Fox network.
>
>>rather fall into the norm and accept whatever outcome is dealt to them.
>>Belief, to them, would be that whatever happens, they will go to the
>>pearly gates, and live eternally at the feet of god, whoo hoo, what a
>>future.
>
>
> You could describe a marriage the same way: I will pledge the rest of my
> life to place my spouses needs above my own - (Doesn't sound very
> appealing - until you are in a relationship where both partners are
> committed to that ideal.. Once you share that, the written description
> never does it justice)
>
> Lastly, if you are a *confident* athiest, why even make the post? I think
> you are searching. I wish you luck...
>
>
Are you putting words in my mouth now? I do pledge myself to the needs
of my wife, children, and freinds and neighbors, fellow troops, because
that is my lifestyle, and I do it willingly, and without the hope of
going to heaven and pleasing a god, but so that my children will grow up
and be good people, and give positively to the community. I do so
without ego, without selfishness, and without regret. Can you say that?
I don't need your approval, your god's, or anyone else's.

I think it funny that you contain all of the same religious better than
thou rhetoric that your neo christian beliefs have taught you.

You are a christian, and all others will fall from glory and burn in
hell, while you live in heaven at the feet of god. Well, here is to
hoping he washes in between his toes.
January 3, 2005 6:47:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:No4Bd.591594$wV.356913@attbi_s54...
>
>>Mort <TZW> wrote:
>>
>>>"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>>
>>>
>>>.. as if we needed proof :-)
>>>
>>>Happy New Year
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right back at ya, Limey. :-P
>>
>>Man, how I miss you all.
>>
>>Here is to making more time to play with you all again, one of these days.
>
>
> Shawn have you got VBS as well as OFP?
> I'm not getting online for OFP much lately because of illness in the family
> and work commitments but I try to make time to play VBS online whenever I
> can.
> Let me know if you got it or if you haven't try to get online for some OFP
> at TJs
>
> See ya
>
>
I don't have VBS, and guess I am out of the loop. I have been so busy
with the Air Force lately, and with TJ's server getting all of the
different addons each time I was going to join, I just kind of fell out
of the loop. I know, excuses excuses. Alright, the truth is, I have
been at church every day :-P
January 3, 2005 6:47:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:No4Bd.591594$wV.356913@attbi_s54...
>
>>Mort <TZW> wrote:
>>
>>>"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>>
>>>
>>>.. as if we needed proof :-)
>>>
>>>Happy New Year
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right back at ya, Limey. :-P
>>
>>Man, how I miss you all.
>>
>>Here is to making more time to play with you all again, one of these days.
>
>
> Shawn have you got VBS as well as OFP?
> I'm not getting online for OFP much lately because of illness in the family
> and work commitments but I try to make time to play VBS online whenever I
> can.
> Let me know if you got it or if you haven't try to get online for some OFP
> at TJs
>
> See ya
>
>
I don't have VBS, and guess I am out of the loop. I have been so busy
with the Air Force lately, and with TJ's server getting all of the
different addons each time I was going to join, I just kind of fell out
of the loop. I know, excuses excuses. Alright, the truth is, I have
been at church every day :-P
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101134014.06458.00001517@mb-m26.aol.com...

I should have known that you Shirley would be one of those inadequates who
feels the need for an imaginary friend :-)
It's not up to me and other likeminded people to prove that a god doesn't
exist it's up to you mugs who believe there is to try to prove it
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nbidnX3wA8hTokXcRVn-iA@accessus.net...
>
> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
> news:cr650r$bo4$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
>> imaginary friends.
>
> I don't know any adults who need imaginary friends, but if I met any I
> would try to help them. On the other hand, people who are absolutely
> certain of the non-existence of God cannot prove he does not exist.
> Therefore, you do exercise "faith" its just you have faith there is no
> God. I have faith there is. At the very least, quit pretending to be
> intellectually superior just because you happen to have faith in something
> I don't. (The *non* existence of God)
>

I take it you are Shirley's imaginary friend then :-)
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
news:af3Cd.66830$k25.65388@attbi_s53...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
> I know, excvses excvses. Alright, the trvth is, I have been at chvrch
> every day :-P

Drinking all the commvnion wine again?
:-)
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 1:12:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101134014.06458.00001517@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> good,enjoy your life in your imaginary world.seeing as you are left
> defending
> that all those things such as the reproductive system concept and
> brain,millions of species of life,nature,planets compiled itself in the
> beginning by..... nothing.

So you never heard of evolution in your imaginary world?
LOL
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 2:52:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CaWdnfMpedsxt0vcRVn-pg@accessus.net...
>
> "didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fdBd.95$RE.89@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
>> I don't try to sway anyone, I simply state the fact that creation is
>> bunk.
>
> I respect your *opinion* but it is most certainly *not* a fact.

Expalin the fossil record then. And Explain why the church was telling us
the world was flat and only 4000 years old.

>
>
>
>> Religion won't help me, or anyone else on Earth.
>
> I agree. *Religion* is what Jesus was "putting down" during his time on
> earth. He was a proponent of a personal relationship with God.
>
>

How can that be agreeing with me? That's nothing like what I said.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 2:55:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050101134014.06458.00001517@mb-m26.aol.com...
> Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
> imaginary friends.
> Fortunately there are much fewer of them in the UK than in the USA.
> Unfortunately our current PM like your current President appears to be one
> of them - oh what a lovely Jihad>>>>
>
> good,enjoy your life in your imaginary world.seeing as you are left
> defending
> that all those things such as the reproductive system concept and
> brain,millions of species of life,nature,planets compiled itself in the
> beginning by..... nothing.

You proceed from a false point of view: you're saying there was a beginning,
yet anyone can see that energy cannot be destroyed. What creation fails to
grasp is that there is no beginning.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:38:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rtCdnVqW469EsEvcRVn-gg@accessus.net...
>
> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Wn4Bd.46909$k25.45597@attbi_s53...
>> Just Me wrote:
>>> Your post suggests that disbelief in God = Intelligence. It also
>>> suggests that you are part of "us yanks" and therefore do believe in
>>> God. If you believe in God, then why do you insult yourself like that.
>>>
>>> It is sad that you equate intelligence with belief/disbelief in
>>> something that cannot be proven to exist or not exist...
>>>
>>> "Shawn" <amarakthe01@bodycomcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HXlAd.579914$wV.491256@attbi_s54...
>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/4kdbh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My post is more centered around the fact that the simple minded seem to
>> run to religion more and more when it suits them, like the masses of our
>> great country are currently doing in a time of crisis, whilst in the UK,
>
> Ostensibly, you are a "scientist" requiring proof of a theory before
> accepting the theory as fact (otherwise you leap into the faith realm
> which you claim to disregard). Please provide some empirical evidence to
> support your suggestion that "simple minded" people are the ones who
> believe in God.
>
>
>> free thinking is making a comeback. I am a Yankee, and am also an
>> atheist. Not agnostic, not satanic, but atheist. I prefer free thinker,
>> but that escapes most of the populace of our country who would.
>
> I too, am a free-thinker. I just happen to be free to think there is a
> God. Belief in God and "free-thinking" are not mutually exclusive terms.
> I have a good friend who is an agnostic. As he terms it: "I don't believe
> there is a God, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know for sure."
> That is a more logical position to take than the one you have chosen.
> Again, you are saying unequivocably there is *no* God. I assume you must
> have proof for this?

How about the laws of physics? Or any amount of fact that religion
disregards when challenged.

>
>> rather fall into the norm and accept whatever outcome is dealt to them.
>> Belief, to them, would be that whatever happens, they will go to the
>> pearly gates, and live eternally at the feet of god, whoo hoo, what a
>> future.
>
> You could describe a marriage the same way: I will pledge the rest of my
> life to place my spouses needs above my own - (Doesn't sound very
> appealing - until you are in a relationship where both partners are
> committed to that ideal.. Once you share that, the written description
> never does it justice)
>
> Lastly, if you are a *confident* athiest, why even make the post? I think
> you are searching. I wish you luck...
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:11:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41d6d16f$0$21323$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> The gun ban is working to prevent gun crime, this is why since the gun ban
> has been in place gun crime has risen, as has illegal gun ownership, as
> has deaths resulting from crimes. This is why every two years the police
> have a gun amnesty , the first such amnesty 40,000 firearms (and legal
> replica's) were handed in, the 2nd, over 50,000. You expect me to take
> anyone who believes banning guns cuts gun crime seriously when the facts
> blatantly show that it doesnt?

In an average year in the USA there are about 10,000 firearms homicides
In the UK in 2004 there were ~70 (down from 82 in 2003) according to govt.
stats
That suggests that, given the USA population is ~5x larger than the UK, that
in a given year someone in the US is ~29x more likely to be murdered with a
firearm than in the UK.

It should also be remembered that as firearms have NEVER been licensed for
use in self defence in the UK (with the exception of handguns for certain
people in NI) then the banning of certain forms of them couldnot be expected
to have an influence on gun crime either way as less than 1 in 1000 people
in the UK were legal handgun owners before the ban in 1997.
It just so happens that the UK (along with everywhere else) has seen an
increase in the illegal drug trade in recent years the notion that those 1
in 1000 people could have somehow deterred the illegal drug trade if their
sporting handguns had not been banned is fanciful to say the least.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:15:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
> "greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
> news:41d6d16f$0$21323$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>>The gun ban is working to prevent gun crime, this is why since the gun ban
>>has been in place gun crime has risen, as has illegal gun ownership, as
>>has deaths resulting from crimes. This is why every two years the police
>>have a gun amnesty , the first such amnesty 40,000 firearms (and legal
>>replica's) were handed in, the 2nd, over 50,000. You expect me to take
>>anyone who believes banning guns cuts gun crime seriously when the facts
>>blatantly show that it doesnt?
>
>
> In an average year in the USA there are about 10,000 firearms homicides
> In the UK in 2004 there were ~70 (down from 82 in 2003) according to govt.
> stats

Not relevant, I dont care if the US has had more house fires than the UK
per head of population, if the one goes up next me I'm worried.

You can't pass off the fact that the gun ban has failed to cut gun
crime, and that is all that is important, not comparing stats with a
foriegn nation that has a different set of problems, culture, ethos etc etc.

Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
the facts do not suggest this. As such, why should I take this person to
be a credible source? Same as the comment on being religious or not
religious having any meaning on intelligence (which was the point of my
rant to begin with, I know the gun ban is a lost cause in the UK as most
of the population hold a rather uninformed view on firearms .. guns evil
waaaaaah .. etc).

> That suggests that, given the USA population is ~5x larger than the UK, that
> in a given year someone in the US is ~29x more likely to be murdered with a
> firearm than in the UK.

Off topic, but obviously it's far more civilised to be murdered with
knife, by far the done thing old boy.

How many of these deaths are as the result of violent crime with intent,
in which case, some other method would be used, or an illegally owned
gun would be used anyway.

> It should also be remembered that as firearms have NEVER been licensed for
> use in self defence in the UK (with the exception of handguns for certain
> people in NI) then the banning of certain forms of them couldnot be expected
> to have an influence on gun crime either way as less than 1 in 1000 people
> in the UK were legal handgun owners before the ban in 1997.

From stats I've heard, shooting was the 2nd most popular participatory
(spelling) sport in the UK, after fishing. They accurate? dont know ..
Just saying what I've heard.

BTW, Bows, crossbows, rapiers, shotputs, discusses, javelins, all
weapons designed for one purpose originally (to kill), not for self
defence, also as far as I know not that many people are into, say
fencing or archery ..common perhaps? but not that common I guess these
will be banned next *sarcasm*.

> It just so happens that the UK (along with everywhere else) has seen an
> increase in the illegal drug trade in recent years the notion that those 1
> in 1000 people could have somehow deterred the illegal drug trade if their
> sporting handguns had not been banned is fanciful to say the least.

Never argued that gun ownership could deter a rise in drug trade crime.
I dont even argue that gun ownership will deter crime in general
(although many americans argue that it does). A handgun isn't the most
effective self defence weapon anyway (apparently a shotgun is).

Thats not my argument against the gun ban laws, my argument is very
simple, if it's not actively damaging someone's health, there is no
reason to ban it.

There is a stronger case for banning smoking in a public place than
there is for banning firearms. I could carry a concealed gun and sit
next to you in a confined area for 3 or 4 hours, no harm to you what so
ever.

I sit next to you and smoke for ten hours in a confined space, yes, your
health has been damaged (albeit not by much) as would your personal
comfort if you have problems in smokey areas (I do).

So, logically, ban smoking in public places and remove the ban on
handguns as there is no logical reason to ban such weapons anyway but
some to ban public smoking.

For the record, I am not religious, I have been an athiest since I can
remember, I find the concept of a god to be rather silly .. personal
belief.

Nor do I yet support a ban on smoking in public places, it's one of
those topics I havent yet been able to make up my mind, to trade of a
civil liberty (right to do to ones body as one chooses) against the
right for someone to not have to put up with an unhealthy atmosphere
caused by someone elses habit.

I also know that what ever I say, the gun ban will not be removed, it's
a sad fact of life that people like authoritarian societies.

What I am trying to argue is, just because you think something is stupid
(belief in god, being religious) is no call for you to call someone
else stupid, chances are that you yourself hold a belief that can be
construed by others to be stupid, and this is certainly true of society
as a whole.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 1:50:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41d9e067$0$21328$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
>> "greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
>> news:41d6d16f$0$21323$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>The gun ban is working to prevent gun crime, this is why since the gun
>>>ban has been in place gun crime has risen, as has illegal gun ownership,
>>>as has deaths resulting from crimes. This is why every two years the
>>>police have a gun amnesty , the first such amnesty 40,000 firearms (and
>>>legal replica's) were handed in, the 2nd, over 50,000. You expect me to
>>>take anyone who believes banning guns cuts gun crime seriously when the
>>>facts blatantly show that it doesnt?
>>
>>
>> In an average year in the USA there are about 10,000 firearms homicides
>> In the UK in 2004 there were ~70 (down from 82 in 2003) according to
>> govt. stats
>
> Not relevant, I dont care if the US has had more house fires than the UK
> per head of population, if the one goes up next me I'm worried.

But it is relevant at the societal level. The level of gun ownership in the
USA is fuelling a casualty rate comparable to a continuous low-level civil
war. I see no reason for us to emulate that in the UK.

>
> You can't pass off the fact that the gun ban has failed to cut gun crime,
> and that is all that is important, not comparing stats with a foriegn
> nation that has a different set of problems, culture, ethos etc etc.

Don't get me wrong here I'm an FAC holder in the UK. I regularly participate
in practical & highpower rifle shooting and practical shotgun/clay pigeon
shooting.
But the 1988 ban on self loading rifles and the 1997 ban on handguns were
not introduced as attempts to bring down firearms crime per se but in
response to spree shootings carried out by people who were FAC holders using
legally held firearms. I personally regret those bans as I would like to be
able to have more toys to play with on the range but I have to acknowledge
that the bans have so far been 100% successful in preventing spree shootings
by rogue FAC holders using legal firearms (which was their main aim).

>
> Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
> the facts do not suggest this.

That depends on the type of crime. IIRC correctly the term 'gun crime' in
the UK is used in the media etc to refer to what the govt records as
'firearms related incidents'. These are incidents in which police armed
response is called and include incidents where replicas are used or
suspected of being used, incidents in which no real or replica firearms or
used as well as a minority of incidents in which real firearms are
brandished or used. The police have in the past conflated all these together
under the umbrella term of gun crime (for empire building purposes?) but it
now seems to be backfiring on them as the hysteria about the apparently high
numbers is making them look incompetent!!!!!

As such, why should I take this person to
> be a credible source? Same as the comment on being religious or not
> religious having any meaning on intelligence (which was the point of my
> rant to begin with, I know the gun ban is a lost cause in the UK as most
> of the population hold a rather uninformed view on firearms .. guns evil
> waaaaaah .. etc).
>
>> That suggests that, given the USA population is ~5x larger than the UK,
>> that in a given year someone in the US is ~29x more likely to be murdered
>> with a firearm than in the UK.
>
> Off topic, but obviously it's far more civilised to be murdered with
> knife, by far the done thing old boy.

Even with all the guns that they supposedly have for self defence Americans
are still ~3x more likely to be murdered by any means than Britons in any
given year.

>
> How many of these deaths are as the result of violent crime with intent,
> in which case, some other method would be used, or an illegally owned gun
> would be used anyway.
>
>> It should also be remembered that as firearms have NEVER been licensed
>> for use in self defence in the UK (with the exception of handguns for
>> certain people in NI) then the banning of certain forms of them couldnot
>> be expected to have an influence on gun crime either way as less than 1
>> in 1000 people in the UK were legal handgun owners before the ban in
>> 1997.
>
> From stats I've heard, shooting was the 2nd most popular participatory
> (spelling) sport in the UK, after fishing. They accurate? dont know ..
> Just saying what I've heard.

Well there are still AFAIK about 500,000 SGC holders and about 120,000 FAC
holders in the UK so its still up there. My local newsagent stocks several
shooting magazines so there's obviously still a market. It's important to
remember that ~50,000 people lost their handguns in 1997 but it doesn't mean
they gave up shooting with other types of firearms.

>
> BTW, Bows, crossbows, rapiers, shotputs, discusses, javelins, all weapons
> designed for one purpose originally (to kill), not for self defence, also
> as far as I know not that many people are into, say fencing or archery
> ..common perhaps? but not that common I guess these will be banned next
> *sarcasm*.

Well I hope not :-) I think the British govt may have learn't its lesson
over the futility of that kind of thing with the total horlicks they made
over the banning of Brocock air pistols.

>
>> It just so happens that the UK (along with everywhere else) has seen an
>> increase in the illegal drug trade in recent years the notion that those
>> 1 in 1000 people could have somehow deterred the illegal drug trade if
>> their sporting handguns had not been banned is fanciful to say the least.
>
> Never argued that gun ownership could deter a rise in drug trade crime. I
> dont even argue that gun ownership will deter crime in general (although
> many americans argue that it does). A handgun isn't the most effective
> self defence weapon anyway (apparently a shotgun is).
>
> Thats not my argument against the gun ban laws, my argument is very
> simple, if it's not actively damaging someone's health, there is no reason
> to ban it.

But the problem is that a couple of nutters used legally held firearms to
severely damage the health of a lot of innocent people.

>
> There is a stronger case for banning smoking in a public place than there
> is for banning firearms. I could carry a concealed gun and sit next to you
> in a confined area for 3 or 4 hours, no harm to you what so ever.
>
> I sit next to you and smoke for ten hours in a confined space, yes, your
> health has been damaged (albeit not by much) as would your personal
> comfort if you have problems in smokey areas (I do).

Personally I don't smoke but I've never been bothered by people who do.

>
> So, logically, ban smoking in public places and remove the ban on handguns
> as there is no logical reason to ban such weapons anyway but some to ban
> public smoking.
>
> For the record, I am not religious, I have been an athiest since I can
> remember, I find the concept of a god to be rather silly .. personal
> belief.
>
> Nor do I yet support a ban on smoking in public places, it's one of those
> topics I havent yet been able to make up my mind, to trade of a civil
> liberty (right to do to ones body as one chooses) against the right for
> someone to not have to put up with an unhealthy atmosphere caused by
> someone elses habit.
>
> I also know that what ever I say, the gun ban will not be removed, it's a
> sad fact of life that people like authoritarian societies.
>
> What I am trying to argue is, just because you think something is stupid
> (belief in god, being religious) is no call for you to call someone else
> stupid, chances are that you yourself hold a belief that can be construed
> by others to be stupid, and this is certainly true of society as a whole.

But it's the stupidity of religious people that has caused more wars
throughout human history than anything else. I make no apologies for
regarding such people with contempt. If you don't like it - tough. I'm sure
I can learn to live with you disagreeing with me :-)
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 11:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

> But it is relevant at the societal level. The level of gun ownership
in the
> USA is fuelling a casualty rate comparable to a continuous low-level civil
> war. I see no reason for us to emulate that in the UK.

Is it? I dont believe guns cause crime, they're a tool. Which suggests
that if a gun isnt available (and, impossibly, one cannot be acquired by
illegal means) another tool would be used instead.

America has a problem with crime, not a problem with too many guns
around the place.

>
>>You can't pass off the fact that the gun ban has failed to cut gun crime,
>>and that is all that is important, not comparing stats with a foriegn
>>nation that has a different set of problems, culture, ethos etc etc.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong here I'm an FAC holder in the UK. I regularly participate
> in practical & highpower rifle shooting and practical shotgun/clay pigeon
> shooting.
> But the 1988 ban on self loading rifles and the 1997 ban on handguns were
> not introduced as attempts to bring down firearms crime per se but in
> response to spree shootings carried out by people who were FAC holders using
> legally held firearms. I personally regret those bans as I would like to be
> able to have more toys to play with on the range but I have to acknowledge
> that the bans have so far been 100% successful in preventing spree shootings
> by rogue FAC holders using legal firearms (which was their main aim).

Well we've had two major cases, the last one more victims died through
the use of a machete. IIRC the firearm used was a .22 handgun.

Hungerford bans were an over reaction, just ban taking weapons out of
clubs (most probably not as simple as I suggest, as clubs would have to
raise cash to pay for the increased security I guess).

Either way, gun ban hasnt stopped shooting sprees carried out by
criminals (the mostly prob over hyped 'yardie' shootings that were in
the news in the early 2000's, the teenagers shot in Birmingham, the
toddler shot in a car).

Also IIRC both individuals had had warning signs before, noted issues
with mental stability. Had the police been more stringent would they
have been given a gun licence?

Perhaps existing laws should have been tightened or enforced?

>
>>Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
>>the facts do not suggest this.
>
>
> That depends on the type of crime. IIRC correctly the term 'gun crime' in
> the UK is used in the media etc to refer to what the govt records as
> 'firearms related incidents'. These are incidents in which police armed
> response is called and include incidents where replicas are used or
> suspected of being used, incidents in which no real or replica firearms or
> used as well as a minority of incidents in which real firearms are
> brandished or used. The police have in the past conflated all these together
> under the umbrella term of gun crime (for empire building purposes?) but it
> now seems to be backfiring on them as the hysteria about the apparently high
> numbers is making them look incompetent!!!!!

True I should have been a little more honest and stated that a large
number of the "weapons" handed were actually fully legal replica's ...

However, we still have an issue with rising gun crime, and I dont give a
rats arse if the US's problem is worse, I dont live in the US, I live
here in the UK, maybe the wisps of smoke from the house next door to me
in Surrey (near bisley ironically enough) aren't as bad as the flames
roaring through a house in Washington DC .. but the smoke is still there.

> Even with all the guns that they supposedly have for self defence
Americans
> are still ~3x more likely to be murdered by any means than Britons in any
> given year.

Which is a symptom of other problems, not gun ownership

> Well there are still AFAIK about 500,000 SGC holders and about 120,000 FAC
> holders in the UK so its still up there. My local newsagent stocks several
> shooting magazines so there's obviously still a market. It's important to
> remember that ~50,000 people lost their handguns in 1997 but it doesn't mean
> they gave up shooting with other types of firearms.

Whilst it's only one example, the only people I've known who were
interested in shooting, did give up the sport after handguns were banned
(husband/wife couple).

> Well I hope not :-) I think the British govt may have learn't its lesson
> over the futility of that kind of thing with the total horlicks they made
> over the banning of Brocock air pistols.

Why? public are scared of firearms, they will be banned in the end,
logic doesnt enter into this, in the UK the anti-gun lobby is hysteria,
nothing else. Discussions with my work colleagues and friends over the
years pretty much confirms this, if you want a debate on gun control,
chances are you'll get a better more mature debate in a gun club than on
the streets.

> But the problem is that a couple of nutters used legally held firearms to
> severely damage the health of a lot of innocent people.

Lot more nutters kill people using other means, I mean, I could use the
same argument about Combat 18 and such groups that use football games as
an excuse to start trouble and get people killed or injured.

Lot more nutters on the road, indeed my life has been threatened more by
tosspots who refuse to indicate than armed individuals.

> Personally I don't smoke but I've never been bothered by people who do.

Unfortuantly I do, I can handle a normal pub for a few hours but clubs
tend to give me colds and sore throats for the next few days.

But thats a different argument.

> But it's the stupidity of religious people that has caused more wars
> throughout human history than anything else. I make no apologies for
> regarding such people with contempt. If you don't like it - tough. I'm sure
> I can learn to live with you disagreeing with me :-)

I disagree here as you can imagine, I dont see religion being any
different from politics at the end of the day, some people are prepared
to go to idiotic means to push their ideology on others. These people in
the past have been religious or political, Communism being a very good
example of this.

It's not religion as such, it's people who push their ideology to an
extreme, in ideologies (religious or secular) that do not have in built
controls to try and stop this, the issue is made worse (as in
Christianity and Islam, personally I see faith based religions as being
more dangerous than say conduct based religions).

Note, I'm very opinionated on religion and tend to hold strong anti
christian views (mostly due to the history of the ethnic group I come from).

But I do get tired of militant fundie athiests come out with inane
provocative statements in order to attack and insult others who happen
to be religious. I do not believe that being religious means you're
stupid (which at the end of the day, again .. is the reason for my
comments, not gun control .. which is merely another topic guarenteed to
wind me up ;) .
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:13:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Isn't this NG supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint? Religion quite
frankly bores the arse off me.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:30:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

You proceed from a false point of view: you're saying there was a beginning,
yet anyone can see that energy cannot be destroyed. What creation fails to
grasp is that there is no beginning. >>>>

I have no problem with that in the sense of talk about "a beginning" is not
accurate. at least in the view of a deity.but as far as we are concerned, I
believe there had to be essencially a pool table with the balls on it, and it
needed something to set the balls in motion so they could do what they were
supposed to do in relation to the game.
just as I believe a deity set in motion all that it took to say, set life on
earth.in that manner, there was a beginning for us, a point where life came to
earth, nature etc etc.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

TarnishUK wrote:
> Isn't this NG supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint? Religion quite
> frankly bores the arse off me.

Blame Shawn, he started it :) 

Religion, politics, all very similiar.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 2:48:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

greebo_Brat wrote:
> TarnishUK wrote:
>
>> Isn't this NG supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint? Religion
>> quite frankly bores the arse off me.
>
>
> Blame Shawn, he started it :) 
>
> Religion, politics, all very similiar.


:-) Slope those shoulders! Just remember "He's not the messiah! He's a
very naughty boy!"
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:01:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41db019c$0$21324$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > But it is relevant at the societal level. The level of gun ownership in
> the
>> USA is fuelling a casualty rate comparable to a continuous low-level
>> civil war. I see no reason for us to emulate that in the UK.
>
> Is it? I dont believe guns cause crime, they're a tool. Which suggests
> that if a gun isnt available (and, impossibly, one cannot be acquired by
> illegal means) another tool would be used instead.
>
> America has a problem with crime, not a problem with too many guns around
> the place.

Yes but its a lot easier to kill a large number of people quickly with guns
than with say a knife

>> Don't get me wrong here I'm an FAC holder in the UK. I regularly
>> participate in practical & highpower rifle shooting and practical
>> shotgun/clay pigeon shooting.
>> But the 1988 ban on self loading rifles and the 1997 ban on handguns were
>> not introduced as attempts to bring down firearms crime per se but in
>> response to spree shootings carried out by people who were FAC holders
>> using legally held firearms. I personally regret those bans as I would
>> like to be able to have more toys to play with on the range but I have to
>> acknowledge that the bans have so far been 100% successful in preventing
>> spree shootings by rogue FAC holders using legal firearms (which was
>> their main aim).
>
> Well we've had two major cases, the last one more victims died through the
> use of a machete. IIRC the firearm used was a .22 handgun.

Well I don't know what the machetes incident you mention was but in the
spree shootings at Hungerford I think a pump action shotgun/AK47 were used
and at Dunblane I think it was an automatic pistol (.45?) and a large
caliber revolver (.44?) not a .22

>
> Hungerford bans were an over reaction, just ban taking weapons out of
> clubs (most probably not as simple as I suggest, as clubs would have to
> raise cash to pay for the increased security I guess).

Probably an overreaction yes but the public/media reaction was both
overwhelming and understandable.

>
> Either way, gun ban hasnt stopped shooting sprees carried out by criminals
> (the mostly prob over hyped 'yardie' shootings that were in the news in
> the early 2000's, the teenagers shot in Birmingham, the toddler shot in a
> car).

No argument there but the intent was to stop spree shootings by rogue FAC
holders with legal weapons.

>
> Also IIRC both individuals had had warning signs before, noted issues with
> mental stability. Had the police been more stringent would they have been
> given a gun licence?
>
> Perhaps existing laws should have been tightened or enforced?

Quite possibly I've heard many conspiracy theories at gun clubs surrounding
what went on before and after the Dunblane shootings. In fact I've heard so
many I'm not sure what to believe about that any more :-)

>>
>>>Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
>>>the facts do not suggest this.
>>
I reckon its basically neutral irt mainstream 'gun crime' the main driver
for that would appear to be the international drug trade which affects all
nations irrespective of firearms laws.


>>
>> That depends on the type of crime. IIRC correctly the term 'gun crime' in
>> the UK is used in the media etc to refer to what the govt records as
>> 'firearms related incidents'. These are incidents in which police armed
>> response is called and include incidents where replicas are used or
>> suspected of being used, incidents in which no real or replica firearms
>> or used as well as a minority of incidents in which real firearms are
>> brandished or used. The police have in the past conflated all these
>> together under the umbrella term of gun crime (for empire building
>> purposes?) but it now seems to be backfiring on them as the hysteria
>> about the apparently high numbers is making them look incompetent!!!!!
>
> True I should have been a little more honest and stated that a large
> number of the "weapons" handed were actually fully legal replica's ...
>
> However, we still have an issue with rising gun crime, and I dont give a
> rats arse if the US's problem is worse, I dont live in the US, I live here
> in the UK,

But most of the apparent increase is people using replicas not real guns.
Most of the casualties from real guns are drug dealers shot by other drug
dealers in turf wars so who cares? I don't.

>
> Why? public are scared of firearms, they will be banned in the end, logic
> doesnt enter into this, in the UK the anti-gun lobby is hysteria, nothing
> else.

Possibly but I doubt it. The GCN organization (about 7 people I believe)
seems to have lost its influence in the upper echelons of the Labour Party
(Bob Marshall-Andrews is one of the dissenters and no longer in favour with
Tony Bliar).

>Discussions with my work colleagues and friends over the years pretty much
>confirms this, if you want a debate on gun control, chances are you'll get
>a better more mature debate in a gun club than on the streets.

I agree ignorance among the public is rife but I've also heard some pretty
boneheaded opinions in gun clubs too.

>
>> But it's the stupidity of religious people that has caused more wars
>> throughout human history than anything else. I make no apologies for
>> regarding such people with contempt. If you don't like it - tough. I'm
>> sure I can learn to live with you disagreeing with me :-)
>
> I disagree here as you can imagine, I dont see religion being any
> different from politics at the end of the day, some people are prepared to
> go to idiotic means to push their ideology on others. These people in the
> past have been religious or political, Communism being a very good example
> of this.

What you mean is that the brief secular communist interlude of warmongering
and slaughter now seems to be over and we're now back to good old primitive,
superstitious religiously inspired bigotry and mass murder :-)

> But I do get tired of militant fundie athiests come out with inane
> provocative statements in order to attack and insult others who happen to
> be religious. I do not believe that being religious means you're stupid

Well that's where we disagree. Adults who need imaginary friends are most
definitely stupid :-)
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"TarnishUK" <nospam@bogoff.com> wrote in message
news:cGDCd.3848$lH1.11@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Isn't this NG supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint? Religion quite
> frankly bores the arse off me.

Nature abhors a vacuum :-) so post summat about OFP to fill it

.... and blame Shawn he started the thread
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:17:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
>>America has a problem with crime, not a problem with too many guns around
>>the place.
>
>
> Yes but its a lot easier to kill a large number of people quickly with guns
> than with say a knife
>

Surely it's more important to tackle why the crime is happening (not
that that seems to be happening in the US, or anywhere else where the
politico's say similiar things) than to "control" firearms because
they're being abused?

>Well we've had two major cases, the last one more victims died through the
>>use of a machete. IIRC the firearm used was a .22 handgun.
>
>
> Well I don't know what the machetes incident you mention was but in the
> spree shootings at Hungerford I think a pump action shotgun/AK47 were used
> and at Dunblane I think it was an automatic pistol (.45?) and a large
> caliber revolver (.44?) not a .22

Hungerford was M1, pistol and an AK47, I read up about it yesterday
(depressing read to say the least, should have mandated that people
carry weapons, someone most prob would have shot him dead before long).

The other incidence was me being a twerp and not reading up on what
happened. One day I'll learn.

>
>>Hungerford bans were an over reaction, just ban taking weapons out of
>>clubs (most probably not as simple as I suggest, as clubs would have to
>>raise cash to pay for the increased security I guess).
>
>
> Probably an overreaction yes but the public/media reaction was both
> overwhelming and understandable.

And incorrect. Again, personal belief *shrug*.

>
>>Either way, gun ban hasnt stopped shooting sprees carried out by criminals
>>(the mostly prob over hyped 'yardie' shootings that were in the news in
>>the early 2000's, the teenagers shot in Birmingham, the toddler shot in a
>>car).
>
>
> No argument there but the intent was to stop spree shootings by rogue FAC
> holders with legal weapons.
>

I wonder which is more dangerous, shooting spree by an individual with a
FAC, or criminals. Who's killed more?

>>Also IIRC both individuals had had warning signs before, noted issues with
>>mental stability. Had the police been more stringent would they have been
>>given a gun licence?
>>
>>Perhaps existing laws should have been tightened or enforced?
>
>
> Quite possibly I've heard many conspiracy theories at gun clubs surrounding
> what went on before and after the Dunblane shootings. In fact I've heard so
> many I'm not sure what to believe about that any more :-)

Most conspiracies are bollocks to put it bluntly, either they suggest
the organisation the conspiracy is against is either incredibly
intelligent or incredibly stupid, usually both in the same argument.

Usually the more mundane boring and uncontraversial answer is nearer the
truth, hand guns and semi-auto's were banned due to a kneejerk reaction
and an attempt by politicians to garner a cheap vote.

>
>>>>Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
>>>>the facts do not suggest this.
>>>
> I reckon its basically neutral irt mainstream 'gun crime' the main driver
> for that would appear to be the international drug trade which affects all
> nations irrespective of firearms laws.

Nah usually I hear the following

1/ it's to dangerous
2/ why do you want a gun, what do you need one for?
3/ legalising guns would make them easier for criminals to get

1 - quite a lot of sports and every day activities are very dangerous to
others if abused, misused or done incorrectly.

2 - Why do you want to smoke? the list here is fairly long .. suffice to
say as in point 1 alot of things can be abused and can be dangerous.

3 - Has it really made it any harder?

>>However, we still have an issue with rising gun crime, and I dont give a
>>rats arse if the US's problem is worse, I dont live in the US, I live here
>>in the UK,
>
>
> But most of the apparent increase is people using replicas not real guns.
> Most of the casualties from real guns are drug dealers shot by other drug
> dealers in turf wars so who cares? I don't.

Well, I dont particulary care about the individuals involved but somehow
I doubt these drug dealers are, pardon the pun, crack shots, there's the
potential for bystanders to be hit.

>
>>Why? public are scared of firearms, they will be banned in the end, logic
>>doesnt enter into this, in the UK the anti-gun lobby is hysteria, nothing
>>else.
>
> Possibly but I doubt it. The GCN organization (about 7 people I believe)
> seems to have lost its influence in the upper echelons of the Labour Party
> (Bob Marshall-Andrews is one of the dissenters and no longer in favour with
> Tony Bliar).

I still hear calls to ban replica's, airsoft, air rifles, etc.

>>Discussions with my work colleagues and friends over the years pretty much
>>confirms this, if you want a debate on gun control, chances are you'll get
>>a better more mature debate in a gun club than on the streets.
>
> I agree ignorance among the public is rife but I've also heard some pretty
> boneheaded opinions in gun clubs too.

Never said you dont get fools in other walks of life ...

>>I disagree here as you can imagine, I dont see religion being any
>>different from politics at the end of the day, some people are prepared to
>>go to idiotic means to push their ideology on others. These people in the
>>past have been religious or political, Communism being a very good example
>>of this.
>
> What you mean is that the brief secular communist interlude of warmongering
> and slaughter now seems to be over and we're now back to good old primitive,
> superstitious religiously inspired bigotry and mass murder :-)

But that "brief secular communist interlude" (what interlude? Cuba,
China, North Korea still exist) showed all the same signs of religion.

This suggests it's not religion thats the problem, it's people's
intolerance and fanaticism about an ideology whether it be secular or
religious.

>>But I do get tired of militant fundie athiests come out with inane
>>provocative statements in order to attack and insult others who happen to
>>be religious. I do not believe that being religious means you're stupid
>
> Well that's where we disagree. Adults who need imaginary friends are most
> definitely stupid :-)
>

If g-d's a friend why do many of them describe others as "g-d fearing
christians" ... doesn't sound overly friendly to me.

Ok, prove that there was no g-d involved in starting off the big bang :) 

Anyway, an awful lot of academically intelligent individuals seem to
still be religious to some degree or not.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:20:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050104173010.21648.00002542@mb-m11.aol.com...
> You proceed from a false point of view: you're saying there was a
> beginning,
> yet anyone can see that energy cannot be destroyed. What creation fails to
> grasp is that there is no beginning. >>>>
>
> I have no problem with that in the sense of talk about "a beginning" is
> not
> accurate. at least in the view of a deity.but as far as we are concerned,
> I
> believe there had to be essencially a pool table with the balls on it, and
> it
> needed something to set the balls in motion so they could do what they
> were
> supposed to do in relation to the game.
> just as I believe a deity set in motion all that it took to say, set life
> on
> earth.in that manner, there was a beginning for us, a point where life
> came to
> earth, nature etc etc.

Then you're a crackpot, no two ways about it.
Have a nice life.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:32:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"TarnishUK" <nospam@bogoff.com> wrote in message
news:JXFCd.514$3V3.169@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> greebo_Brat wrote:
>> TarnishUK wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't this NG supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint? Religion quite
>>> frankly bores the arse off me.
>>
>>
>> Blame Shawn, he started it :) 
>>
>> Religion, politics, all very similiar.
>
>
> :-) Slope those shoulders! Just remember "He's not the messiah! He's a
> very naughty boy!"

Can't we just see him for a minute?
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:41:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dc3d80$0$21330$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
> Hungerford was M1, pistol and an AK47, I read up about it yesterday
> (depressing read to say the least, should have mandated that people carry
> weapons, someone most prob would have shot him dead before long).

That comment in brackets brings us nicely back to the OP's topic: Americans
are more stupid than, well, anybody else really...
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

didgerman wrote:
> "greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
> news:41dc3d80$0$21330$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>>Mort <TZW> wrote:
>>Hungerford was M1, pistol and an AK47, I read up about it yesterday
>>(depressing read to say the least, should have mandated that people carry
>>weapons, someone most prob would have shot him dead before long).
>
>
> That comment in brackets brings us nicely back to the OP's topic: Americans
> are more stupid than, well, anybody else really...

Sorry, I'm British, and the comment was rather tongue in cheek to see
what the reaction would be :) 
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 12:02:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dc53bd$0$21329$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> didgerman wrote:
>> "greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
>> news:41dc3d80$0$21330$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>Mort <TZW> wrote:
>>>Hungerford was M1, pistol and an AK47, I read up about it yesterday
>>>(depressing read to say the least, should have mandated that people carry
>>>weapons, someone most prob would have shot him dead before long).
>>
>>
>> That comment in brackets brings us nicely back to the OP's topic:
>> Americans are more stupid than, well, anybody else really...
>
> Sorry, I'm British, and the comment was rather tongue in cheek to see what
> the reaction would be :) 

My most sincere apologies...
Can you imagine the body count in the crossfire?

They say his mother only asked him to shoot up the town and get a loaf of
bread. I know, not PC.....
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 12:26:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

As this guy single handily confirms most Britons stereotyped view of
Americans with his stupidity and his own misled and old fashioned view
of the entire population Britain suffering from bad dentistry. There's
electric lights, television and flushing toilets in Britain too you
know, in fact two out of those three were invented there.
Speaking of being "close to the topic" and I must apologise here too,
isn't this newsgroup supposed to be about Operation Flashpoint and not
exceedingly dull theological discussions?


I just think my attempt at wry humour wasnt recieved that well.
!