obfuscator

So if china puts a nuke on a ship to send to NK, but calls it an "aid ship" you'd condone doing nothing? I doubt it. I also know that would never happen, it's just a hypothetical example.

If this was the case firefox wouldn't work. Try on other computers, post a HJT log, reset your router(s) and modems, call your ISP.

GDKP? People bid on the items that drop. At the end the money earned from the drops is split evenly between all 25 raid members (after the raid leader takes a small % of total as a fee for organising it). Not seen any on my server, but would be awesome to get one. Is that only BOE's? Or everything? Because thank god we don't have any on my server, I'd never get gear lmao.

Amen. The world should learn from Canada :P. Ugh. I am disturbed people are thinking this way. Clearly, I am pro-life. I'd really been hoping for Harper to tackle the Abortion issue when he came into power, but it unfortunately never happened. I can only hope for the best in future debates and elections, but I've honestly no clue what will happen next. Alberta and Saskatchewan are very heavy Conservative supporters, winning virtually all the seats in the two provinces for years. The problem is Ontario is overly liberal and Quebec always goes to the Bloc. As much as I like Harper's stance on certain issues I'm wary of him getting a majority, I don't know exactly what he would do. Overall, I'm dissatisfied with all our parties at the moment. And regardless of being pro-life; I think suggestions that abortion should be completely unregulated are hypocritical. Everything, and I mean everything is regulated by the government in some form, why should abortion be the exception?

GDKP?

Dan got owned :P As much as I agree this doesn't much merit a topic, I've always felt "Same [cabbage], different game". Admittedly Laikrob's post made me reconsider that somewhat.

I don't believe the two are the same. But I do believe one is often used as a cover for the other. There's no way for me to read anyone's mind and know for sure what they are thinking. But when some of the rhetoric goes over the top, the balance of probabilities begins to tip. The reality to any objective observer is that both parties are right in many ways and wrong in many ways. This isn't a simple situation and there is no simple, easily-identified "bad guy". When an individual tries to boil down an event into something to entirely damn one side and portray the other as innocent victims, it is easy to tell that there's an agenda at work. It doesn't bloody well matter. They had no right to search the ships, period. "You'd be glad to give up your rights if you had nothing to hide" is the creed of tyrants and sheeple. Israel instigated this incident and is responsible for the outcome. I agree they had no right to search the ships. I've never denied that. However, even though I'd be damn upset that my rights were being violated it wouldn't tarnish my reputation by resorting to violence.

So why were the first five ships searched without incident? EDIT: Oh and Magekillr, I'm sure that when you have a gun and you're being beaten with a metal pipe that you won't use it. The problem with your post is that you imply Israel is the only party at fault here. Israel shouldn't have searched the ships in international waters. Israel shouldn't be confiscating anything other than weapons. The activists shouldn't have decided to attack the soldiers (because it was a very stupid idea more than anything). The palestinian government shouldn't be condoning the terrorist attacks that hit Israel regularly. No one is innocent here - I'm no fan of the reactions Israel has taken here but you do have to remember they are up against significant opposition.

If they had nothing to hide, which they claim, why would they object to being searched? Given the fact stun grenades were used by the "activists" I think it isn't that far fetched to claim weapons might have been on board. I agree with your claim about where it occurred, Israel had no right to check the ships while in international waters.

Oh, I think I've seen those somewhere before. Very interesting stuff. Kind of supports my point, it's too early to know what happened.

I lol'd. I really should read falador tavern more often.

Let's wait until the facts are known before jumping to conclusions. For instance, what should countries do about their respective members that (possibly) attacked Israeli soldiers with knives and guns?

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below. In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself. So you were against waging war against Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan? Were you against the Korean War? Were you against the Iraq War? A pacifist is against war under any circumstance, even in cases of self-defense. Do you still operate under the notion of being a pacifist? Only the naive in this world do. So you're not pro-life, as you've demonstrated in your last sentence; I also do not believe that you are a pacifist. I was against the Iraq war and Korean wars, yes. I was also against the Gulf war, the war in Vietnam, and a significant number of other wars. However, I suppose then I am not a true pacifist, for I see the wars against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as necessary evils. If there was any way at all to prevent what would have happened without going to war I would have supported that. As you correctly say, only the naive in this world operate under complete pacifism. But I am pro-life in all situations where saving life is remotely possible. You say I demonstrated that I'm not pro-life in my last sentence? Tell me, how is this? In a situation such as that there is no solution that does not result in death. If there was one I would support it. The definition of pro-life is supporting the continuation of life wherever possible. If it isn't possible, then being pro-life is not possible. However, it is possible to be pro-life in regards to abortion as killing fetus's is not strictly necessary.

Just like in real life, what you do doesn't go away. Admins keep posts as evidence. Let's say you decide to post pornography, they will ban you. However, they will keep the post as a reference, and as proof of the offence. It's just good forum management.

An edited post is still there, a deleted post is not. Why would you want to delete your 2.5k posts upon leaving this board, and why would the admins possibly want 2.5k posts to suddenly disappear?

Right now the policy is that no one has the ability to delete posts, not even moderators. If you're suggesting a significant change, it would be nice to provide some reasoning rather than making one sentence posts. And @Saru No one deletes posts on this board. It's bad moderation practice to delete anything. If users could delete their posts at will, they would delete them in an attempt to hide actions, disrupt threads and the like. It contributes to the overall flow of the board to limit that.

It seems to me you have eyes on changing tip.it's moderation policy. Therefore the onus is on you to provide reasoning for such.

No we shouldn't.

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below. In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself.

All very nice, especially like the second and fourth pictures :)

I've definitely done this.

Putricide is pretty easy once you know the fight, I did terribly my first few times but after that it was easy. Definitely an exciting fight though.

I apologize for not particularly wanting to spend half an hour writing an essay on the basics of football when there are a whole host of documents out there which explain it in simple terms, with diagrams, complex terms, without, etcetera. Be grateful I didn't post a lmgtfy.

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