I propose that we cut the pay of all politicians!
Computer Science Canada Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
| Author: | md [ Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Aziz @ 2007-08-10, 7:45 am wrote: And I think you should wholly ditch any ISP that tries to control what you do. Their job is to provide you the connection service and that's it (Internet Service Provider). Unfortunately that's not so easy. There are actually remarkably few ISPs. [rant] Were I ever elected (I can dream!) my first act would be to introduce some legislation to try and fix it. Step 1: group all communications carriers together. Cable company, phone company; both are in the business of providing a data connection (in the end... phones can be seen as very limited data conections). Step #2: Make it illegal for data carriers (from step #1) to block or limit data over their network. Even packet inspection should be banned. Traffic shaping so as to say prioritize VOIP over Bittorrent should definitely be allowed; however traffic cannot be blocked or slowed. Step #3: make corporate leaders personally responsible if step #2 is ignored. Punishable with jail time and huge fines. Incidentally... making people responsable again would do wonders to our society. I mean, politicians promise to do X and Y when elected; and then don't. Technically they are making a contract (vote me in and I will do X and Y), the populace upheld their side of the contract (by electing the person) so the politician should have to do as they said they would. The punishment for not doing so should be immediate loss of your Seat, banishment from public office forever, large fines, and potentially jail time (depending on what it is you said you'd do and didn't; startign a war when you said you wouldn't for instance). Politicians would then have to be very careful about what they say, and would be held accountable for what they do. As is no one from any of the major parties really needs to be honest as no one excpects them to do as they say anyways. Oh, businesses should also be prevented from making political contributions of any kind. They are already represented by their owners/employees. [/rant] |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:37 pm wrote: The punishment for not doing so should be immediate loss of your Seat, banishment from public office forever, large fines, and potentially jail time (depending on what it is you said you'd do and didn't; startign a war when you said you wouldn't for instance).
When, exactly, is this to immediately occur? |
|
| Author: | Skynet [ Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:37 pm wrote: Traffic shaping so as to say prioritize VOIP over Bittorrent should definitely be allowed; however traffic cannot be blocked or slowed.
Isn't this self-contradictory? If you prioritize one use over another, isn't it likely that you'll be increasing latency for the lower-priority use? |
|
| Author: | md [ Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Cervantes @ 2007-08-10, 8:54 pm wrote: md @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:37 pm wrote: The punishment for not doing so should be immediate loss of your Seat, banishment from public office forever, large fines, and potentially jail time (depending on what it is you said you'd do and didn't; startign a war when you said you wouldn't for instance).
When, exactly, is this to immediately occur? At the moment a judge rules on if you have broken the contract you made when elected. Just because I advocate harsh punishments does not mean they shouldn't be made from the court. If you think a politician has broke his campaign promises you should sue him like you would in any other contract dispute. However since the nature of the contract is different then most other contracts the punishments are likewise different. The reward to anyone who brings such a suit should be small; perhaps limited to court fees. skynet wrote: Isn't this self-contradictory? If you prioritize one use over another, isn't it likely that you'll be increasing latency for the lower-priority use?
Not at all, increased latency != blocked entirely. In real world traffic scenarios there isn't likely to be very much of an increase in latency at all. I suppose by slowed I mean actively drop packets of a particular type irregardless of network congestion. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:51 pm wrote: Cervantes @ 2007-08-10, 8:54 pm wrote: When, exactly, is this to immediately occur?
At the moment a judge rules on if you have broken the contract you made when elected. Just because I advocate harsh punishments does not mean they shouldn't be made from the court. If you think a politician has broke his campaign promises you should sue him like you would in any other contract dispute. However since the nature of the contract is different then most other contracts the punishments are likewise different. The reward to anyone who brings such a suit should be small; perhaps limited to court fees. You answered how. I asked when. Maybe you're answer to when was whenever the public sues him. But that's not feasible at all, because people who voted for that politician's opponents would be ready to sue them right away. Sure they wouldn't win, but then the politician would be spending all his/her time in court. If a politician says, "I promise to introduce a fix and properly maintain the streets of this city", but doesn't do anything about it for 3 months, has he broken his contract? What if it's eight months, or a year? It's all the same. |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
I completely agree with md, I think a politician's promise should be considered a contract - but much more than a mere verbal contract between two roomies over a fish bowl. These people get elected by the people over these promises and NEVER follow through on ALL of them. I think the core of the problem is: how do you punish the punisher? Anyone who dares to oppose a current regime risks everything. These days instead of a lynching the punishments are subtle; like the disappearance of contributions, demotion, humiliation, slander. . . How can one rule against their boss? The supreme court is appointed by the P.M. is it not? |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Cervantes @ 2007-08-11, 10:39 am wrote: You answered how. I asked when. Maybe you're answer to when was whenever the public sues him. But that's not feasible at all, because people who voted for that politician's opponents would be ready to sue them right away. Sure they wouldn't win, but then the politician would be spending all his/her time in court.
If a politician says, "I promise to introduce a fix and properly maintain the streets of this city", but doesn't do anything about it for 3 months, has he broken his contract? What if it's eight months, or a year? It's all the same. That's a good point. When there is no time limit on a promise then you really wouldn't be able to bring a case until the end of the politician's term. If you define someone's term in office to the be time between elections then you would only have to wait until the next election before a suit could be brought. A politician accused of breaking a promise should be prevented from running again until his name is clear, however in the case of upcoming elections a trial could easily and quickly be held: The promises are clear and the politician's actions are clear, a judgment should be fairly easy to come to. Appeals would be handled as they are in any other trail, though it might be necessary to allow a politician who won the first trail to run for re-election even if it is appealed. If the ruling is later overturned the election could then be ruled null and void. The thing is that anyone who makes a promise to "Fix the roads" isn't someone you want to elect. You want someone with a definite plan, i.e. "I will fix the roads as per Plan A, in time limit B; staggered as per Schedule C". Other key promises are promising to vote for or against something, or to bring or not to bring a certain piece of legislation. For instance, Harper said before he was elected that he would not change the tax rules relating to income trusts. Companies took him on his word and some turned themselves into income trusts, this cost lots of money but is offset by the lower taxes income trusts would have paid under the old rules. Harper then did the complete opposite and changed the tax rules, causing all those companies that turned themselves into income trusts to lose significant amounts of money. And what happened to Harper? Nothing. Theoretically he might lose the next election, but almost certainly he won't lose his seat; and he'll probably remain head of his party. Yes, those politicians are really accountable now. Certainly my proposal would be met with sharp criticism from most if not all currently elected politicians, and future ones would try (and probably find) ways around it if it were enacted. But I think you'd be hard pressed to say that it wouldn't improve the current political climate. Mazer: encrypted packets only encrypt the payload. Things like destination port and IP are still visible. If you receive many packets on a single port, some of which are unencrypted BT packets, it's not that much of a leap to assume that all packets to that port are BT packets. Then there is also the possibility of breaking encryption schemes, either breaking the encryption directly or how it's applied. Sometimes the entire packet isn't encrypted either, providing another avenue of attack. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
I propose that we cut the pay of all politicians! |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:39 pm wrote: Certainly my proposal would be met with sharp criticism from most if not all currently elected politicians, and future ones would try (and probably find) ways around it if it were enacted. But I think you'd be hard pressed to say that it wouldn't improve the current political climate. Not at all. It's actually very easy. Sure, it's distasteful when a politician breaks a promise, but don't you think politicians should have some room to maneuver? You can make a campaign promise at the time of the election, and then two years later the situation could have vastly changed and you now think it best to break that promise. Politicians don't do things to anger the public, you know. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
its like conscription during WW1, WW2, it was promised not to be involved but eventually became nesacarry to keep the war going... luckily both times the allies won beofre much conscripts fought |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Cervantes @ 2007-08-12, 9:20 pm wrote: md @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:39 pm wrote: Certainly my proposal would be met with sharp criticism from most if not all currently elected politicians, and future ones would try (and probably find) ways around it if it were enacted. But I think you'd be hard pressed to say that it wouldn't improve the current political climate. Not at all. It's actually very easy. Sure, it's distasteful when a politician breaks a promise, but don't you think politicians should have some room to maneuver? You can make a campaign promise at the time of the election, and then two years later the situation could have vastly changed and you now think it best to break that promise. Politicians don't do things to anger the public, you know. I don't elect people to think. I elect them to do as I want, and I do so by electing people based on what they promise to do. Of course if I elect someone and they do think, and consult their constituents, and then they break an election promise because there is a clear need to then a judge could take that into account. Really the only time that it's even close to reasonable to break a promise is in the event that the country will be destroyed if you don't. Conscription might have been the right thing, but the country certainly wouldn't have fallen apart without it. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md, you have some damn weird political ideas. You, uh, have to elect people to think. They don't make nearly enough election promises to cover everything that they need to deal with for their term in office. How do you think international trade would work if politicians didn't think? Say the leader of some nation asks our prime minister for some financial aid to build schools in his third world country. Our PM turns around and, not being allowed to think, responds that he didn't make a promise on this issue to the public during his campaign and hence cannot act on it. Yeah, great. You elect officials who you believe have similar morals and values as you do. You don't elect them to do exactly what you want them to do. Even if you think that's how you want the system to work, look at all the people who don't pay enough attention to politics--they would have even less idea who to vote for. They would probably vote for the person who's promises give real benefits in the short term, but unknown to the voter, will undoubtedly lead to economic and social decay in the long term. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Conscription in canada was deftaly not nessary during ww1 and ww2 in my option. In the end very few poeleop (realtively) who got conscripted even made it to a fighting postion. What it did do was start masive protests and realy realy piss off qubec. I don't think conscription should ever be an option, if your war is realy justic the peoleop will wiling fight it. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
rdrake @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:14 pm wrote: Elected officials are respected con men.
I'd like to disagree, but you didn't provide any supporting points for me to disagree with. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Cervantes @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:38 pm wrote: rdrake @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:14 pm wrote: Elected officials are respected con men.
I'd like to disagree, but you didn't provide any supporting points for me to disagree with.  |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Oh, I agree with Cervantes. +1 |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
u agree to disagree on nonexsiting points made by rdrake? |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Cervantes, perhaps I over simplified. I don't want my politicians to do anything other then I want them to. I should be dictator damnit! In reality thinking is good, breaking election promises is (almost always) bad; and corporations should in no way shape or form be allowed to interfere in politics. Oh, and politicians are definitely not respected by most people. Probably for good reason. Rogers is also my only decent choice of ISP. |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
I just turned 18, and I must say, I do not think I'm going to vote. My mom was very involved in politics, and had me into NDP for a while. But raising minimum wages etc etc is not going to help. It's only going to raise prices (I've seen it, McDonald's raised the BigMac when I worked there. A combo would be 6.08 w/ tax, and went up to 6.31 or something. I don't know what it is now). Cases of pop went up a buck, Tim Hortons just increased a load of their prices. It's just inflation. Anyways, any politician I've ever seen has made me mad. It infuriates me when I think about how they waste money . . . campaign dollars, massive amounts of pay, vacations, stupid things (like a space-defense satellite and military show-offs. more the US than us ). When you look at how much of that money could go to improve health care, poverty, creating jobs, it's really sad.
Then again, I don't know much about politics, so maybe I'm missing the intricacies of it? I just think if a PM really cares about the country and Canadians, he would cut his salary and spending down to what the average person makes. That extra money would help... especially if every politician does it. I probably should mention that if you haven't guessed by now, I'm fairly biased against any sort of politics. My 2 cents. Now ... gotta love Rogers ... |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
lmao i love how all this politics allways (somehow) manages to get back to Rogers |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gotta love Rogers |
Umm... you've just verified the prices are going up and said there's no need for the minimum wage to be raised. So you reckon wages don't need to keep up with inflation? P.S. I don't consider anything less than 10 dollars an hour worth my time. I wouldn't work at all if it wasn't that my job pays me 10 dollars an hour for doing what I would normally be doing anyway, like reading, programming, studying, and day dreaming. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
hes saying that because minimium wages are rising, the overall prices are too |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
It's a vicious cycle . . . Companies have to pay there employees more, and so they have to increase their prices Or vice versa. Is it that companies increase their prices, so they have to pay people more so they can afford to live. Either way, it's a cycle, like whether the chicken or the egg came first. And one that should be broken. Increasing wages doesn't stop. Then again, if it starts with wages staying the same, prices will rise (at least until they realise that they don't need to), and then are companies likely to bring them back down? Probably not. Then it leads to people bringing home paychecks in wheel barrows.... |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Yeah, but if the prices just went up, then so should the minimum wage. No one should have to work for less than 10 dollars an hour for God's sake. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
like in Germany in it's own great depression |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:00 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers | ||
Personally I don't think prices going up has anything to do with the minimum wage. I think it has more to do with the economy in general. So they raise minimum wages so people have a fighting chance against the increasing prices. I think the simplest way to explain why prices go up and don't remain steady is because the population is going up.
|
|||
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:03 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers | ||
or in turing
|
|||
| Author: | Geminias [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Also not necessarily population, but consumers. The consumers are going up and their is a finite amount of resources so prices have to go up, it's pure logic, really. |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gotta love Rogers |
But $$$ is all relative. Sure, everything is more expensive nowadays than it was 50 years ago. of course, everyone makes more. What if all money was cut in half? Of course, it would effect things on an international perspective, but our money would be worth a lot more ... at least I believe that's how it works. Anyways, there isn't a finite numbers of cows. More farmers = more cows = more beef for my BigMac! |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:12 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers | ||
its true that its purelogic but look at it this way
|
|||
| Author: | Cervantes [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Geminias, you say we're not good at timing and planning, referring to ECONOMIC PRODUCTION, but your reason for claiming this is because we're not good at timing and planning when it comes to MAKING BABIES. The fact is, none of this is fact. |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
You know who I'm annoyed with the most? The people in charge of money for the school boards. I'm not sure if they are politicians, but I see too much money miss management in my high school. We just bought new computers with 2gb ram. These computers were really expensive, I don't know why they bought them the, old ones were good (they could have at least installed Linux a lot of people found it too slow). Our school also got Lanschool this year (ugh). We bought our Paslcal compiler & editor (this thing really sucked, and you could get a better one for free). I have a feeling that these big companies are bribing officials to get contracts. Either that or they are reeeeeaaaaaaly incompetent. |
|
| Author: | md [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
/me notes that not voting has nothing to do with minimum wage; and only means that a smaller minority will control the fate of the country. If you want things to go how you want you have to get involved. |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
I know. But there's no party I'd choose. I haven't looked into it yet, which is why I said I don't think I'll be voting. I certainly will be doing research, but all candidates and parties in power I've seen I haven't liked. But that's for when the time comes. My Facebook political preference says "Conservative" because my girlfriend put it and tells me that that's what I am >_> I said whatever. |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Quote: Geminias, you say we're not good at timing and planning, referring to ECONOMIC PRODUCTION, but your reason for claiming this is because we're not good at timing and planning when it comes to MAKING BABIES. Yeah you got a completely valid point, population has nothing to do with economic production. It doesn't matter if there is hundred or a million mouths to feed, just produce a steady ten thousand meals a day cause it's totally independent of population. And food is just one example. |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
:0 hostile sarcasm! You forgot the rest of his post: Quote: The fact is, none of this is fact. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Geminias, your thinking is that as population goes up, supplies remain steady or go down. You support this by saying it takes time and planning to increase GDP, and we suck at planning because we make too many babies. This doesn't make logical sense. Our ability to plan ahead about having a baby has nothing to do with our ability to plan ahead about making a factory. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Unless, perhaps, you are referring to a baby factory. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Thank you. |
|
| Author: | Geminias [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Quote: Our ability to plan ahead about having a baby has nothing to do with our ability to plan ahead about making a factory. Correct. It seems you misunderstood what I said. I don't think it's necessary to use gigantic italicized bold text to convey meanings so I'll just try to reword it. We are bad at planning ahead for what we'll need in the future because of population fluctuations. Then I added as a joke: "because we like to screw." But it wasn't a complete joke because if we didn't like to screw so much we could easily regulate population. As an example of our poor preparation, about 50 years ago there was a baby boom, its generation is reaching senescence. Now the younger generations will have to support them while they sit on their pensions. This is unlikely to work well considering we are outnumbered in North America. Time will tell how bad it will be... |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
(notes the bold italicized text wasn't gigantic, then notes that I am an ass) I think I understand, though, (actually, I understood from the beginning). No, the fact that we have poor control over population (and thus consumption) doesn't affect how much control we have over for production, but I think what G is saying is that the two are sync'd. Meaning, population fluxes, but our production planning was inaccurate (not because because of poor planning, but because of the changing factors of population) I am, of course, full of wisedom. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
further back G said that no matte the population, 10 thousand meals would always be enough... although he was sarcastic it still brings a point being that the more people the more resources we will have because there are more people to find the resources whether its mining farming woodcutting... etc |
|
| Author: | md [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Gotta love Rogers |
momop @ 2007-08-17, 3:43 pm wrote: further back G said that no matte the population, 10 thousand meals would always be enough... although he was sarcastic it still brings a point being that the more people the more resources we will have because there are more people to find the resources whether its mining farming woodcutting... etc
Are you an idiot? Seriously... "the more people the more resources we will have because there are more people to find the resources whether its mining farming woodcutting"?! Lets say you have 100 acres of land available, of which 25 acres are forest. Show me how by adding people you can get more If you have more people you simply use those resources faster. Clearly more people IS THE WRONG FSCKING IDEA. Supermod edit: watch your language! |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
what i meant was basically say u have 100 acres of forest and 10 people... 10 people will get so much wood but say u had 50 people those 50 people will collect more resources than the 10 because there are more working... |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
md, take a look at the vast amount of unharvested resources Canada is home to. You're argument is valid if we lived in a box of 100 acres, but we don't. Geminias, I don't mean to be a dick about this, but I think it's less a case of me misunderstanding what you said and more a case of you saying something a bit different from what you meant. That said, I agree that population affects economics. However, you seem to have a very pessimistic attitude, in that you think new babies will grow up to either contribute nothing or replace others, making a bum out of them. The real question you want to ask is how the job creation rates compare with the rate of population increase. This pessimistic attitude is also seen in your view of the baby boomers. You seem to think bad stuff is going to happen. You also seem to subscribe to the thought that nothing has been done to take care of the situation. You say we're bad at planning because we have the baby boomers, but neglect the fact that we're planning to accommodate them. |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
We are using up resources faster than they can be replaced, isn't that true? And of course, we are always finding new ways of doing things. Though you could really tell this summer in the Windsor/Detroit area that the pollution and smog is really bad, and the humidity. Either way, there's no reason to get heated and call people idiots. I agree that resources are limited (and it doesn't matter how much people are there to harvest them, because they grow back usually at a rate independant of population) |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
It's a shame locking this won't help any... |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
lmao kinda got way off topic eh? |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Meh, off topic forum anyways. And it does all lead back to rogers. If some people didn't have crappy highspeed maybe the would just watch some free porn and amuse themselves rather than making babies.... Is that too graphic? This post may be deleted. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
lmfao hopefully not that was ****ing (not mod edited just dont wanna be ) hilarious  |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
What does resource management have to do with rogers? |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Alright, since there's no more discussion about Rogers going on methinks this should be locked. If anybody wishes to discuss politics we could start a new thread. Locked. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Gotta love Rogers |
Man, no! This topic is fine. If you want to maintain some linearity in topics, then the posts in here about politics should be split into another topic, instead of locking this one. So, I'll unlock this and split it for you. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
I had thought about splitting it but realized it would require work. I should have consulted you before, sensei . |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
rdrake proved the true master here. Not only did he exert authority while not doing much work in his first action, but in that same action of locking the thread did he prompt Cervantes to do the extra work that he did intend to do in the first place. Thus his wishes for deeds of malice were fulfilled with little effort required on his part. It's kind of politics, isn't it? I think everyone is pretty much politicsed out. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
Yeah, but he called me sensei so it's all coo. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
Now I lost the thread of this... thread... DAMN YOU RDRAKE! (and cervantes). |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
Cervantes @ Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:23 am wrote: Yeah, but he called me sensei so it's all coo.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS OUTRAGE? One cannot have TWO sensei! |
|
| Author: | Aziz [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
md @ Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:43 am wrote: Now I lost the thread of this... thread... DAMN YOU RDRAKE! (and cervantes).
WTF!? What about me!? Damn me as well! I played a crucial part in confusion. |
|
| Author: | Nick [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Politics (split from Rogers thread) |
i like confusion... BE CONFUSED... dam me so? [singing] yay dam me too dam me too [/singing] lol so back on to the big argument about babies and resources and politics? |
|