Stalins Organ
-
Posts
1,972 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Stalins Organ
-
-
Never mind.....
-
Isn't there some sort of forum rule against posting links without providing some op-ed of your own?? :/
-
Alas this didn't work for me - even with Jason's readable version.
I did these prior to running DiF (for the first time in quite a long time!) and the first thing that happened was a big list of error messages in system.xml.....& then it still couldn't find the server.
Runs ok in local
-
For you, Fritz, the bar is over!
Well that's no use - you need to put "there" after over, and also to point in the general direction so they know where to go....
-
Sadly, being rational is not a prerequisite for being personable, gifted, powerful, intelligent, persuasive or any number of other positive attributes.
-
I don’t want to spend the whole time debating Panzer variants. Also, because I am an Aussie rather than a Kiwi, I strive to play the ball and not the man,
Yep - you strive really hard to ensure the man can't possibly play the ball.
hugs and XXX's
Mike, the kiwi
-
You say you find the article outrageous. Well good for you! Serously, good for you. I like people with opinions, even differing, contrary to many others. Then tell us in a well reasoned and rational manner why you think that is.
I did - I said there are numerous sources on the existance of mohammed - did you miss that bit?
Don't just post an ignorant one-liner saying "this is an outrage by someone uninmportant". Maybe that kind of argumentation has served you well in the past, but it doesn't impress me the leastI would be more impressed with you not being impressed if you showed signs of reading my whole post and not just the bits you want to be unimpressed with.
-
so Howard - yuo after enlightenment, or jsut trolling for an argument.
Did you read the article? It postulates that Mohemmed never existed. I think that's fairly outrageous. my opinion of course....am I allowed to have an opinion or must I come to the same conclusions as someone else jsut because they have been published?
Unimportant scholars who provide have ideas worthy of discussion usually become important scholars - this guy is still unimportant.....and I still think his idea outrageous.
anything can expose us to the new - this certainly does - I'd never heard of theories that Mohamed never existed. I still think it is outrageous - there is ample evidence of his existance.
But all that is new is not important, and vice versa. this is both new and unimportant IMO. And outrageous - did I mention outrageous?
Maybe I have nothing to contribute - except of course that you think I have or you would not have replied.
Did you have something constructive to add - apart from hypothetical questions and derailing the topic with personal attacks which you decry me for launching on JK?
what do you actually think of the article?
I would have thought that if you disagree with my conclusions (that it is outrageous and unimportant) that you would then have made some effort to actually discuss it.......??
So go on then - make some effort to tell me why I am wrong - I'm all sure we await your wisdom.:cool:
-
I fully expected quite a discussion on what I figured would be a very hot topic.
you got it wrong again.
Instead, all I see are the equivalents of raspberries and jeers.how you expected anything else is beyond me. You post a fairly outrageous thesis by an unimportant scholar & think that everyone will consider it important................sigh.......well it isn't.
It's not going to change anything...it's not relevant to anything......what's the point?:confused:
If you paste it up on a wall in Riyadh or Teheran...that would cause some localised change.......but only to you!! :eek:
-
I thought neo-con NWO was all about invading other countries?
only when it's us doing it for no good reason.
When someone else does it for no good reason then it's not neo-con NWO - it's just old school misery and mayhem.
-
DT,
The Australians I would say would fight on the Americans' side, but maybe they might go Kiwi on us.
so they'll be there then - since this scenario is about an actual invasion of another country, and not a load of bull to shore up the neo-con new world order.
:cool: -
Dunno - whilst the a/c are amazingly expensive, they also set a bar for anyone to achieve if they ever want to be "competitive" in the air - F-22's will be outnumbered by F-35's.....but anyone seeking to engage F-35's will have to bear in mind that they are likely to come up against F22's too.
And while Air Superiority might be of marginal use vs Taliban & Al Qaeda, it does mean the US doesn't have to worry much about anyone with a bit more substance than either of those.
I don't think it is as useless or pointless as everyone seems to be making out
-
-
Knowing that your unit/army is set up to fight to the front and then having to fight to some other direction (flank, rear) has always been a problem - I dont' know the psych behind it, but I presume it has to do with girding your loins, plucking up the courage, etc to do one thing......and then finding that you have to do somethign else - suddenly all that courage is misdirected & can be replaced by confusion as to what's happening, fear that you're trapped, etc.
IIRC/AFAIK CM doesn't reward enfilading fire (other than it allows attacking the weaker side armour of vehicles) because MG's have no beaten zones. although I think there may be a moral penalty for it?
-
Calibre hasn't changed much because there's no reason to change it much - something between 5-8mm will give you everything you want and/or need in a rifle bullet with today's technology.
The reasons for specific calibres (eg why 5.56mm instead of 5.5mm, or 7.62mm instead of 7.5mm) are usually to do with evolution from arcane measurement systems from the 1900's, and in truth bullets are no more difficult to produce in one calibre vs any other.
-
Yep - the beaten zone and enfilading fire.
full-sized rifle ammo as used by MGs in WW1 has a pretty flat trajectory out to 600m or more.
Consider a target of an infantry company advancing in open order - if you place your MG directly ahead of it each burst can only be aimed at one man, and will not hit anyone else if it misses - then you have to reaim teh gun at het next man.
If you place you MG out to one flank then each bullet can travel along the company line - from the nearest man to the furthest, at less than head height. If it misses teh first man it might hit the 2nd or 3rd or 100th.
As the company advances you stil have to re-aim - but each time you fire you get multiple men in the volume swept by the bullets, and inflict a great deal more casualties for a given amount of ammo.
[Crappy ASCI art alert]
Enfilade fire:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (where each "." = a target soldier and > is the MG)
Direct fire:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
^
-
It doesn't creep me out.
What do I win?
-
Yes they will have all the same requirements for flight - as do RC model aircraft!
But not needing all the instrumentation and systems for a pilot will make the combat UAV a lot smaller than the F22 - being lighter the wings need to generate less lift, the undecarriage needs to absorb less force at impact (you would call it landing
), etc. - so your unmanned-F-22 UAV will use more gas, and/or have a shorter range and/or carry less payload, have a larger turning radius, climb slower and be easier to hit. -
Way too many religous figures are male semites who spend a month fasting in the desert (& probably getting high on cactus juice) then come back to civilisation with revelations as they go through withdrawl for it to be a coincidence.
-
Isn't the F35 going to replace a lot of F-16 and A-10 squadrons, with a planned purchase of 2400? (natch' not nearly that many WILL be bought tho...)
-
Wait - I thought health and pensions funded by employers was way better than having it sorted by the govt?
Only right up until the bit where the Govt needs to buy it all to stop it collapsing in a screaming heap as proper capitalist system would have happen.
after that point Govt funding is fine.
You can't have it both ways - have the companies 'pay' for it 'cos you don't wanna pay the taxes, then let the coys renege whenever it becomes inconvienient - surely?why not?:cool:
Yes it's all a bit of black irony.
-
That's the Marxist spin. The real truth is the people running off with riches and destroying these three companies are the regular union workers with their job pools, 90% layoff pay, and $105,000 severance packages. The destruction of these wealth creating corporate entities is directly attributable to their inability to downsize their workforce in a weak economy and thereby cut costs and capacity to remain in the black. This is what happens when unionized labor sucks a corporation dry to the bone. It's silly to point to the CEO's corporate jets, when the cost must be dwarfed by pension and healthcare liabilities owed to the union labor force.
All of which were agreed to by the corporation and tolerated by general US society for decades, along with the products the whole system supported - to blame the unions alone is bollocks.
-
Who says corporates can't have a sense of humour?!
-
For the non-automotive inclined, that would be Ford, General motors and Chrysler?
3 million jobs they reckon (over all associated industries).....but I'd expect at least part of them to be absorbed by expansion of other automotive manufacturing in the USA - albeit not as well paid/feather-bedded, and cetainly not all of them.
Again how socialist ....(as in Govt bailing out failed businesses....) is the US prepared to be???
:cool:
German Islamic scholar exposes critical defect in Islam standard model
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Gee.....in 7 years exactly one person has been warned?
Sounds like your protestations of how evil we all are somewhat exagerated!!
Of course it's been pointed out to you by various people how they think you have breached the forum rules too.....and yet here you still are.....probably because no-one wants to actually officially complain - there's too much entertainment value in your posts.
In fact there is more moderation now than there ever has been - the Peng thread is restricted to a single thread, no politicial discussions, etc.
Intellectual discussion is fine. Occasionally even you show signs of indulging in it...... just occasionally....and only signs.
HowardB showed no signs of wanting to engage in intellectual discussion that I recognised - he just wanted to attack someone other than you. He challenged me to say why I thought the subject matter was outrageous - and I repeated what I had already posted (and which he presumably had not read) - and he's not bothered posting since....... that's not what I call intellectual discussion!