dutchdreams

Complete stranger: 'Dutch, do you like pillows?' 'Dutch, do you have a main?' - *points to sig*

Then I guess my original post put you on a train of thoughts I didn't intend. My reasoning is: The offensive nature of the ideology falls under freedom of speech/insult. However, the spreading of the Nazi-ideology threatens my way of life should it get enough ground to get elected into parliament. A party with an authoritarian agenda using the democratic system to replace that very same system (similar to what happened in Germany 1933). Hence it would also threaten other freedoms I enjoy under the democracy. This leads to me asking, should we limit the freedom of speech to combat those set out to destroy the democracy. Should we protect that democracy (and the whole package of liberties that go with it), by restricting one of its freedoms? My question wasn't so much to censor due to the offensive content of the message, but to censor due to the destructive nature of that message. Spreading of that message can very well lead to harming people. The list of countries I provided doesn't show that putting some censorship in place immediately leads to oversealous censorship in other areas: France, Holland, Austria (Germany?), Spain. On the other hand, it also shows that not putting censorship up, doesn't immediately lead to a rise of power of extreme parties: UK, USA. I'm inconclusive ;)

Seems quite a few countries apply a form of censorship to prevent the spreading of the ideology. As well as there are other countries that apply no restrictions at all.

There is no such thing as an innocent person. Anything that reduces the population of the human race is a good thing. Maybe I'm just being umm .. is vindictive the right word here? I hate humans! Humans killed my father, and raped my mother! You do realise that by following your own reasoning, you should now commit suicide, right ? Goodbye, you'll be missed. OT: It's a tricky situation. Total freedom of speech includes the freedom to insult. Despite arguments, the symbol is still insulting/threatening/hateful/offensive to and towards alot of people. Not to just jewish people, but to alot of members of the general populace: the silent majority if you will. No, I didn't lose family members during the war (though my grandfather got shot in the shoulder), but as a human being I can still find the Nazi-ideology that the symbol stands for utterly repulsive and offensive. The ideology, should it get widespread again, threatens my way of life, democracy and civil rights. The above mentioned also holds for communism for sure. Being the hypocrite myself, I cannot come up with a solid answer why I don't immediately have the same feeling triggered after seeing a hammer and sicle. The best I can some up with is, that the communist ideology uses equality for all as its basis, rather than superiority over others. Another reason might be the way the cold war ended, without bloodshed, a detente between east and west. A one sided view of the media ? No, I don't think so: stalin has been the subject of many tv-broadcasts, the attrocities he committed brought to light and always shared amongst the great villains of the 20th century. I guess what it boils down to is, how far can a democracy push values onto individuals in order to protect the democracy itself. In other words, how far should we be willing to limit freedom of speech, to keep that freedom of speech.

If you read my post and comprehended it, you would actually see I said the opposite. They did not run counter to Hitler, Hitler said deliberetely ambiguously to gget rid of the Jews. His men did that. Do I agree with how they did that? No. I'm a Socialist (the left-wing variety), why would I agree with a policy of mass murder? But I'm not going to critise his leadership just because his actions don't fit with my morals. I find that attitude to be arrogant and ignorant. Your post says: You claim Hitler makes a promise not to build them, yet his henchman does the opposite. A strong leader in a dictatorship would kick out any subordinate disagreeing with the policy the leader sets forth on such a big issue, don't you agree? Specially if the actions of that subordinate would make the leader look like a fool to others. So yes, I comprehended your post: you painted a picture of an incompetent leader not having the power to keep his subordinate in check. Or that of a leader not caring enough to keep track of what his subordinate does. Which scenario fits good leadership best ? Neither in my book. Do you comprehend my comments a little better now? That as a leader, he kept Himmler in office after Himmler built deathcamps, despite what Hitler had promised to his economists (hence Himmler rebelling against what Hitler envisioned)? Also, that as a leader of course he must've been fully aware of what went on in those camps. That he had absolute power to stop the radicalistic views of Himmler and allow jews to emigrate. Yet, he did nothing to stop Himmler and even facilitated the eradication. The great dictator with absolute power, can't sign a decree to let all jews emigrate - it obviously was not an issue to Hitler what happened with the jews. Why did he have this agenda/goals? It's safe to say it was to make the Germans prosper. When his reign ended, his population wasn't better of than when he rose to power. Country in ruins, young men dead, hunger and starvation immediately after the war ended not only for the Germans, but for other countries as well, a young generation filled with visions of hate and visions of superiority over others (Hitlerjugend). He lifted the economy at the expense of a whole generation in shatters and the surviving population left with a collective guilty complex spanning decades. A visionairy leader he is, feeding upon and taking from the population he tries to flourish by sucking out the youth. A good leader also looks ahead and tries to foresee what reactions his own action may cause. Anschluss of Austria and the following annexation of Sudetenland of course wasn't good enough to establish Germany as a force to be reckoned with. Both actions were condoned by the allies. He could've consolidated, but didn't. He broke the 1938 Munich agreement in which Germany (Hitler) promised no further territorial claims in exchange for Sudetenland. 1939 Hitler claimed the remainder of Czechoslovakia for Lebensraum: it showed he wasn't a trustworthy leader. His action allied Poland and France, UK joining in later. A good leader establishes trust in foreign policies. He lead Germany into war, while he already had achieved alot of what you mentioned. He had built up Germany's military, legislation in place that made Jews flee the country and/or greatly abandoned their civil rights, was building labour/concentration camps (no, no extermination camps till 1942) from 1933 onwards, had shown the German organisational talent to the world with the 1936 olympics, giving the Germans national pride and gave the economy a boost by rebuilding an army. It still wasn't enough, Poland had to be added with the aide of Russia in the Ribbentrop-agreement. After overrunning Holland/Belgium and France, instead of consolidating, he turns on his powerful ally Russia. Against the advice of his generals and disregarding Napoleon's debacle. A frontline in Africa where arguably his best strategist Rommel resided. A good leader also knows when to stop and doesn't stretch himself too thin. Also Poland, Belgium, Holland, every country he invaded jews were removed from every day life. He overshot his goal appearently. He couldn't keep to his own country. Did he lie to his own people with propaganda and manipulations about jewish conspiracies? For sure a strong and capable leader wouldn't have to lie against the people he so much cherishes? Disregarding the long-term consequences to achieve short-term goals. Not exactly great leadership material I agree. Flaming ? I'd have to say you made some condescending remarks in your discussions in this thread, some based on things that weren't even said or claimed. If you take any comments I've given as flaming, so be it. It wasn't my intention though. However, if after all these posts you think my only argument of him being a bad leader is that he killed millions of Jews then you may want to read them again. Especially the very first line in which I say, when megalomaniacs rise to power, *people* (i.e. not just 'millions of jews') suffer and pay for it with their lives. Other points basically come down to what I said in my very first post, that he's a: -sad invading countries for Lebensraum, wreaking havoc on a whole generation across Europe, couldn't keep his henchmen in check, not seeing long-term consequences to achieve short-term results, preying on his own population to get short-term results, -lying turning his back on Russia, looked for a scapegoat as a means to an end, breaking the Munich agreement, the forced suicide of Rommel and the following cover-up, -manipulative Filling the minds of people with propaganda and creating a reign of terror, Hess, Goering, Rohm, strategic blunders then hiding behind the supposed inadequacy of other people, -megalomaniac German race superiority, glorification of German's history, an almost cult-like glorification of his person, his preposterous plans to rebuild Berlin into a capitol that fits the Third Reich, how long was his reich supposed to last again (?) These were all leadership decisions/visions. It sure fits the description of 'a brutal psychopath' to me. Your statement on ethics being irrelevant in a dictatorship may hold for in-state affairs, since the dictator has the power to set the ethics. This leader however, decided to operate on an international stage where these ethics are very relevant. Poorest leadership decision he made if you ask me. Let's just agree that I look at other qualities to define a good leader than you. I strongly disagree with your point of view however, that ethics are not part of what makes a good leader.

And I'll repeat, dutchdreams: And he didn't. If you study the organisation of the NSDAP in any sort of detail you'd realise Hitler was *not* the person that orchestrated any of his policies. Hitler's role, despite all the propaganda, was to basically set a vision of what should be done, and then leave others to achieve that vision. This actually helps to explain why the Final Solution was thought of. Hitler asked for a 'solution to finally end the Jewish problem'. Himmler and Georing (who BTW wasn't in Hitler's good books after an affair) took this opportunity to radicalise the Nazis' views on how they should take action against (what they perceived as) the 'Jewish Problem'. Hitler at no point calls for extermination camps to be built. In fact, on the contrary, he actually promised his economists that no such thing would happen. Get this into your head now - Himmler came up with the Holocaust, *not* Hitler; and the SS carried it out, *not* Hitler. And who carried the end responsibility and had the power to stop it ? Whose signature decided the fate of all those killed ? Who had the power to allocate the funds to the Endlosing? Who put those henchmen in power in the first place ? Who had the power to kick out Goering, Himmler and Goebbles? Who gave carte blanche to Himmler ? The great leader himself. A leader decision to put those men in power, a leader decision to facilitate the Endlosing. Ah yes, a great leader. By the way, I didn't claim he came up with the Endlosing, so try and get that out of your head that I'm somehow claiming that. So basically you're saying, the henchmen went against the will of the leader. Hitler had no input in it ? His subordinates are actually doing the opposite of what the leader wants after he promised no destruction camps and he takes no actions to replace those rebellious subordinates ? That's the tell-tale sign of a lousy leader in my book. Strange argument really... since that would entail going back on what he personally stood for (strong, autocratic leadership). Going back on such values would actually make him a weaker leader, not a stronger one merely because he fits into your ethical world. Was he the right man for the job? How could I possibly comment? All political opponents were killed within the first year of his Chancellorship - that's something we'll never know the answer to. I do however know one thing - the democratic government that existed prior to the regime wasn't ever going to solve Germany's problems. Now, can you please lay this argument to rest? This isn't about whether Hitler was an ethical person, it's about whether he was a good leader. That's the question I was asked, and it's the question I've answered. Whether or not Hitler's views make him suitable to be a leader in the first place, which is the argument you seem to following, is a different question - but it's not the one that's being asked by the author of this thread. Someones ethical values are the *core* and subject to public scrutany to anyone holding a public function. Shall we elect Ted Bundy as the next president of the USA ? He has great charisma so I've heard. The point I was making in the quote is: if he is the great speaker, with great charisma that so many credit him for (if I'm not mistaken, most his speeches were written by Goebbles), he should have had no problem rallying the German population towards rebuilding through less destructive ways. Not by focussing hatred on a part of a population (scapegoat), but by rallying them towards a common goal.

Eugenics isn't anything that rare in western world actually. Just use google to find out that even our democractic goddess USA has been doing some of that stuff. Second, even after WW2 they kept doing some researches with living human beings, mainly blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study What other countries do, relates to Hitler's character exactly how ? It makes his own actions less evil ? It makes him less a worse leader how ? The particular research you mentioned wasn't disclosed till 1972. He had no way of knowing about it, so he allowed Mengele's research to go on without ever hearing of the syfilis research. The topic is about Hitler being a good or bad leader, not about a competition who's the most evil. Hm, a headline that occured only in a paper deemed in the wikipedia article as a 'tabloid'. Their 'war' consisted of calling on an economic ban against Germany. It was a response to the German parliament passing the enabling act. An act which made an openly anti-semetic warmonger the acting head of state/dictator. Mein Kampf was written already in 1924, this course of action from the Jews has no relevance to him *starting* to hate jews. He did that years before already. Jews, as an organisation or nation weren't involved in the Versailles treaty. If anything, the boycott gave him a stick to beat the jews with. A reason to start the propaganda machine to unite the Germans against an easily identified neighborhood enemy. He was nothing compared to the war criminals who bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with Nukes or the ones who made Dresden into a fire hell. In my eyes those were a lot worse than what Hitler did to UK civilians for example. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed after he killed himself, so acts committed by others make his less evil ? Once again, I thought the topic was about Hitler being good/bad leader, not if he were the lesser evil compared to others. He had Alfred Speer looking into nuclear bombs/research during the war himself. Yes, he was a real saint. Dresden, yes pitty for such a beautiful city to be destroyed. Same goes for Rotterdam, which city center was completely bombed to bits till the only building left standing was a church. The economic center of a neutral country blown apart. The Rotterdam bombing was the reason the UK decided to steer away from the 1938 Amsterdam draft convention for the protection of civilian populations (strategic bombing to minimise civillian casualties). Something Hitler never adhered to and rather deployed terror bombing from day one. Hitler was the agressor, others responded.

If he was such a good leader, he would have had no problem pulling Germany out of the mess in a different, more ethical way, right ? Don't tell me you think he was the right man for the right job. Say what ? Since I was the last one to refer to it, I quoted what I actually said. Now compare what you made of that statement. In his book he explains the need for 'Lebensraum' , 'drang nach Osten' and spreads anti-semetic views, superiority of the German race and attacks the Versailles treaty. Seems to me he sure knew what he wanted: a scapegoat. He probably didn't specifically mention the eradication of the jews, but as is, it's already a hateful legacy.

When megalomaniacs rise to power, the people suffer and pay for it....with their lives. He abused and singled out one part of the population as a scapegoat pre-war to favor the rest of the population. He tried to exterminate them like vermin during the war, authorized horrific experiments on these people, authorized breeding programs for the true race in Germany and Norway, indoctrinated the German youth and filled them with hate (Hitlerjugend). All this to quench his thirst for glory and power, to further the grandeur of the true race. Disgusting. A great military genius ? A disappointed corporal from WWI who decided to open up a front in Russia against the advice of his generals. One who carelessly sacrificed the lives of thousands of his own soldiers to further the glory of the 'race' and the 'Reich' in the aftermath of Stalingrad. Ordering his soldiers to fight to the death instead of surrender, even though it was obvious it was a lost cause. A man who had no problem carpet bombing cities to rubble to aide his Blitzkrieg (Rotterdam, Warsaw, Stalingrad). The thousands of civilian casualties it caused were insignificant to him. Something his Luftwaffe had demonstrated already in 1937, in the Spanish civil war (Guernica). A complete and total disrespect for human life or human suffering, *nobody* can qualify as good leader after that. A sad, lying and manipulative master of puppets, who left his hateful legacy in a book he wrote in prison after his failed putsch in Munich. There's nothing good about the man. He even sucked at painting. Not even did he or any of his close henchmen fit the physique of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtrue raceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

Yep, I got tired of it as well. Instead of me replying with a 'thank you' , I give them a smiley ;). I haven't had anyone say 'np' to that hehe.

Funny to see how the cuddle-factor of an animal both in real life and apparently in runescape determines the outrage of some people. In the years I've been playing this game, I haven't seen anyone rant about the treatment of frogs in Runescape (thank God). We stuff bellows into their mouths and pump them full of gas to twice their size while they're still alive. We tie a string and rock to them to turn them into balloons. After you mutilate their organs, you can set them free again, instead of giving a mercy kill. They act as live bait for some birds. We remove their legs of their carcasses to make potions out of them. This has been going on for as long as chompy birds first flew in RS, yet I don't remember anyone ever having a problem with it (who in his right mind would ?). However, when a cuddly animal such as a flea-infested stray dog is given a treatment not even remotely close to maltreatment, the whole RSOF is filled with people crying havoc about supposed animal abuse. *funny*

We have legalised soft-drugs, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, abortion, prostitution (there's even a union for prostitutes) and gambling in state-owned casinos, but not (aided) suicide. Debate has been going on about aided suicide. This would be for people, who after extensive psychological treatment and healthcare (over a time span of years) still cherish a death wish and would do anything within their powers to fulfill that wish if left untreated. We are talking people age 25+ here. Or elder people, who are perfectly physically healthy, but have had enough of their life of desolation, anguish, sorrow. People who have basically lived their lives, have had enough of their mental distress and want to move on. To stop these people from having to kill themselves in an undignified way, aided suicide has been discussed. The regulation on this wouldn't be much different from euthanasia. On a case by case base it has to be decided that all treatment options are exhausted and that further treatment would not improve the patient's wellbeing. A formal request would have to be made, approved by a physician and another (or two) independent physician. The whole process later on would then be reviewed by a board of peers, to see the doctors were indeed justified to aid in the death of the patient. Not following protocol would lead to legal prosecution of those doctors. This has been the debate, no steps on legislation have been taken though. Nor do I forsee any legislation on it in the near future either (fundamental Christians in government at the moment). The legal and ethical implications are enormous of course. The only incident I can think of, that is close to what Viktor posted is two or three teenage girls, who committed suicide (or tried, I don't remember if they succeeded) after being spurred on by their peers. Apparantly, these girls had been chatting about suicide on MSN/yahoo, in certain chat rooms specifically aimed at that subject. They discussed the implications and deemed it 'cool'. So a few of them actually tried it, driven by chat friends peer-pressure and teen angst. In short: anyone claiming there are state-wide plans on killing off mentally ill people over here is full of bovine manure.

*sits back with a bag of popcorn to watch the first 'Range is overpowered'-rants to pop up*

I got reported for bug abuse. According to the girl who reported me, it's impossible to be 126 combat with 98 pray. Other than that, just the usual threats: 'talk to me or I report you' and/or 'give me 100 billion zillion for free or I report you'.

Had never thought of doing that, thanks :oops: me no understandie??? :wall: :wall: When you put the pouches on the 5th row of your backpack and right-click on them, the option to 'empty' will be highlighted without you having to move your mouse up and down. It saves a bit of time, it adds up if you have to do it a zillion times to get to a reasonable rc-level. So it will look like this:

A tip to all the people who put their pouches on the first row of inventory: put them on the 5th row instead (3d row from below). This allows a quicker emptying of your pouches when runecrafting. My setup: spottier cape, mith pickaxe, boots of lightness, glory ammy and a duel ring for back up in case I forget to swap a fresh ammy. Four pouches in inventory and ecto phial. I carry 53 ess per trip.

I'm a jack of all trades, so my total level is ranked highest at around 300. Highest skill I ranked, was crafting a few months back at around 350.

erm... C is the speed of light in a vacuum, a universal constant. rounded off, it's 3E^8, or 300,000,000. And he feels like expressing this constant of 300,000,000 m/s in 300,000*3600 km/h. There's nothing wrong with expressing a constant in derived non-base SI-units. As long as one doesn't use the derived constant in the equation itself. Which is probably the point he was trying to make: if you don't know the background of the equation, one might be tempted to use the constant in the wrong units. Doing so results in horribly wrong answers. The same would hold for his equation, where if you don't know what's what, one would go wrong. [guess] If I'm not mistaken, there's some sort of nation-wide contest going on overhere amongst highschools on magic squares. I'm guessing the money comes from this equation having to do something with that. [/guess] Here's a link to see what the hoopla is all about, I can show some more links, but this is the only one I could find in English: Dutchnews on the most magical 12x12 magic square found in 5,000 years.

I was born a few months before Tricky [bleep]y resigned from office and said 'au revoir' to the world.

*Points to sig* Spiderman can beat any Teenage Mutant Power Dragonball Pokezoid Ninja Ranger any time any day ;) I never got much involved in either rangers or turtles. If I have to choose, then I'll go for the turtles.

A parking ticket and a speeding ticket for 10 mph. Some criminal I am ;)

troisỉ̮̬̉me. (French) It's abbreviated to 3e. So I'm thinking it's like junior year... (Not sure.) I think like douzỉ̮̬̉me is year 1 and premier is year 12. (It seems backward; 12 (douze) and premier (1st). '3e class of highschool' is a literal translation of how we (the Dutch) denote the various years in highschool. 3e = abbreviation of 'derde' = third. Class = 'klas' = grade. So he made a minor mistake by using a literal translation of the Dutch word 'klas'. We have quite a different schooling system compared to the USA. We spend 6 years in elementary school. At age 12 we go to high school, which takes a maximum of another 6 years (the maximum depends on the difficulty level of education). We don't distinguish between 'middle school/junior high' and high school. In our schooling system we start counting again from first grade at the start of highschool. So, at age 12, we are in first grade of highschool (7th grade in USA) and so on till we graduate in 6th grade (12th grade/senior in USA). He's in the third grade of our high school system, which is equivalent to an American high school freshman (9th grade) - age 14/15. Class dismissed !

You forgot to factor in the base mage-xp you get for casting an attack spell. Which is, pretty much impossible to factor in hehe.

Would i be correct in saying you used about 3million mage xp worth of attack spells and the rest alching? (930k/1.33) * 4 = 2.8 mill mage damage xp. The rest of the mage xp comes from alching/casting the attack spell/ enchanting / tellying.

Att: 16,147,317 xp Def: 14,413,474 xp Str: 14,332,420 xp Ranged: 13,056,613 xp Magic: 14,350,188 xp Hitpoints: 20,196,753 For magic I used alot of alching, never used a cannon for range though: Damage dealt: 14,487,442 Calculated hitpoints: 19,268,298. Actual hitpoints: 20,196,753. Hitpoints difference of +928,455 xp that I got of using attack spells. Yep, I hate pest control ;)