I'm not deviating anything, i'm not even joining that 'discussion' because i couldn't care less about being a belgian and such.

I just wanted to point out that your reaction seemed like

"hey i'm pregnant"
"you know, the kid might still die before it's born"

which is an answer that really makes someone seem like an ass. But we probably have some miscommunication here.

I find it funny I say Psycho and you believe I am speaking to you. As for Psychology I actually was a psychology / law dual major in college. Oh and I'm still a student.

As for J - hey man - screw what he says - everyone is happy for you! Hell if I had address I would be sending gifts! I am not one to raise a child as I am honestly way to selfish, but that does not mean I am not still a chick who loves to shop for little tiny shoes! Hell I even coo and all of that. *Hides now as it is showing totally not my normal outward personality*

Yeah, certainly. In a moment I thought exactly the opposite: in the case something goes not as it should (which I don't wish to anybody) a congratulation I'd say might sound cynical and even, might be used as "that one put bad luck on me". And I don't want to go there. It's the way I think all the time: "I have it when I get it on my hands." But yeah, it certainly might sound silly observed from the other point. Don't listen to the Shiny. She's a student of "psychology / law" that doesn't seem to have studied something on different mentalities and cultures, and misunderstandings that may occur.


But of course: I got used to get stuff o` sort from you. And, tbh, the only power that might make you answer with a word instead with an argument is exactly the burst that I made. No other such consistence around there. Either that, or you are casting random comments (in which case I have excuse for getting confused).


See what I mean? Such disgrace to somebody who should have enough deduction power (`ey, a student of psychology / law) to put an incorrect thesis down and tear it into smallest pieces. Bravo! I'd fail an exam if I said that even for a most obvious stupidity I've ever heard. Again: Bravo! Show more off.

By the way what the heck is that faculty / university where one can study psychology and law on the same college. Here in Europe you are either studying psychology or law. Or you are student of more than one faculty / (college?).

lol

To be honest, im totally lost. The G-Factor went up a notch in this thread and thats when i stopped reading. Twas mere humble banter on my side.

Too tired to give things my full attention when i get home

Anyway, lets all be happy and drink to obamas victory! I will probably have a jog today and then go to the gym, then have a good glass of beer / wine, then hit the haystack.

Clinton, Bush, Obama... that's a winning combination:
* A Hitler (dodeca... (nevermind) corollary - yeah, a totally invalid comparison from my side)
* the Chimp, and
* Eh ... we'll see what the third one brings. Will it be Iran or Russia attacked or maybe both. I don't bet on Russia as long as it can turn USA into black powder.. that might change in 5-8 years, thou, be the laser shield ready. Still who knows what 'soviets' may have in stock by then either.

Yeah, Iran and Russia is quite a hot topic. But somehow Africa is in need of a general stomping right now (Zim, Congo, etc.). The reason why we havent done so far is probably because there's not much resource gain potentially.

I really know too little about politics nowadays.

*sigh*

I was referring to Godwin's law and Dodds Corollary. To rephrase, Godwin just said that all discussions will eventually end up referring to Nazis and Hitler, if it's allowed to continue long enough. Dodds Corollary is an addition to Godwin's law that says that if Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned in a discussion, the person who mentions him/them automatically loses. I did provide a wikipedia reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

and the sr version of wikipedia which I'm assuming mean Serbian. The entry is much shorter, though, so being unable to read the language I have no idea what it contains.

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0% ... 0%BE%D0%BD

I find several things about your arguments quite hilarious, actually. You're obviously very impressed with your own intelligence, yet your arguments aren't based on any logic or facts. In fact, many of them are ultra-nationalistic and discriminatory. You know what other force in history was ultra-nationalist and discriminated against gays? Also jews, gypsies, and many others. Why yes, the Nazis. You're emulating them quite well at the moment.

So I'm not going to bother arguing with you, because all your arguments are based in heated, illogical rhetoric and hate. You seem to be very, very angry with basically everyone for no apparent reason. Right or wrong, there's no use in using logic against the illogical.

Headline: "Whatever you do, the triumph will be mine."

From what I've read in this topic, you are actually quite self-assured of your own intelligence and power of judgment, which makes you believe you are able to trash-can lots of historical facts connected with each other into a meaningful composition by a single post that doesn't even touch the topic itself. When that fails, you call it "based in heated, illogical rhetoric and hate". Go on, for that's probably the only way for you to leave the conversation without having your ego scratched, which is apparently your primary concern all the time.

Btw, that's what late American presidents do all the time. Spawning 'peace' around the world, by destroying cultures and lands that are older than their own nation itself. They allow theirseves to change the geo-political maps of the world and shall anybody resist they call it "based in heated, illogical rhetoric and hate", and "ultra-nationalistic". (I couldn't resist the opportunity to draw a parallel. It is amazing and marvelous to see it happen here)

Now call this either full of hatred but it is a goddamn truth and the parallel drawn so damn exists.

Again, the conclusion:
* You can't point any sentence filled out with hatred towards a nation (ultra-nationalistic comment falls off)
* You can't provide any historical fact that contradict to the ones I used.
Otherwise you'd probably have done that. It is not hard nor "fighting the illogical with logical". It is just writing few sentences.

p.s.
You just did as expected. See this. What's next, ban? Go on, demonstrate your 'power'. You can also choose to face or ignore my thesis. Whatever you do, the triumph will be mine. Hereby I also request deletion of my only two posts from the CK articles.

@ Wikipedia stuff
1. Wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference. If an article is good, it will reference books or trusted internet resources. That are the references.

2. Note that I didn't ask you to give me link to the Serbian version of an article. As an sysop and bot programmer/owner of the Wikipedia, I can find it on my own. I asked you if you can use any other language in communication. We don't have 'equal weapons' in a discussion if one of us uses mother tongue and the other not.

Jeez man, are you trying to be as annoying as possible? If i want to let you know what Ohm's Law means i might as well link you to some wiki. And yes, i know you know what Ohm's Law mean. It's just an example.

And Satis calling you an ultranationalist might be based on more than just this topic. I do believe that you're very nationalistic, i'll probably have to look up the exact meaning of ultranationalistic to see if i would classify you as that. But you're always very anti (US for example) or pro, no grey areas for you it seems.

Are you always this disrespectful? I refer to the Wikipedia guidelines. The one called "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" in particular. I guess it isn't the guideline what you dislike, but myself, eh? Telling me I was trying to be annoying for mentioning it is but an ad hominem. Sat is doing it most of the time too.

There's nothing bad about nationalism / patriotism. The real problem I see is that while I have history and deeds to talk about and to be proud of it, you don't. That's the main difference, and you dislike it. Thus you want to discourage using of that facts by classifying them as 'filled out with hatred', 'illogical', 'dedeca... corollary'.

I won't repeat myself on how many cultures and countries USA destroyed and how it got resources for that actions. You like them? You got more than half o` the world that doesn't. I don't feel need to repeat the 'role' of Belgium in WW1 and WW2.

lol. Yeah, me and J don't have any history or things to be proud about re: Belgium. We just don't really care about it, that's all. If I wanted I could dig up quite a few heroic feats in the history of our country, as with any country (except for the French ). It's not really a measure of anything imho.

Well, I guess we could roll back to the start (for the digressions I made seem to quite distract you - which I can't blame a man for).

- derf gave up from gayness implications
- Rinox can still be ok with gay parades in Belgium (as I said, I couldn't care less), but to snap on me when I say they are a threat for the culture and children is out. At least for my children and my culture, which differed much more than some other that were 'neutral' about oppressing the worldwide villainy.

Ok, I'm closing the topic. This has gotten out of hand. I try not to be a bastard when it comes to running this place, but it seems I have no real choice.

There will be no tolerance for discrimination based on

1. Race
2. Religion
3. Sexual Preference
4. Country of Birth / Country of Origin / Country of Citizenship

Intelligent discussions are one thing, baseless generalizations are another.