ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:30 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:52 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Labrat wrote:
As for intelligent design, I am half-sold on polytheism. As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.
:wink:


*hauls out a full range of charcoals and starts playing on a rock wall, then shrugs, gives up, and hands the charcoals to Poe*

^-^'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:54 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
No riots? Cities still intact? No rampant partisan murders? No martial law? America, I am disappointed in you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 77%!!!
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Cpt. Supermarket wrote:
RMG wrote:
Intelligent Design is just the colorful clown suit Creationism wears.


<3
<3 @ RMG

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:08 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:06 am
Posts: 91
Location: Dixie, USA
Wark wrote:
zrook wrote:
In the end these people make themselves their own god, and they become intolerant of others' beliefs. Usually they say because they have had others' beliefs forced on them, but truth is, they just can't stand someone disagreeing with them.

It's always interesting how people bash religion, denigrating the followers and believing that they are much superior, yet all of the leaders of the world, past and present, have a deep faith.

R-


Which is to say, since I have no coherant belief structure, I'm automatically intolerant no matter what anyone says?

Intolerance happens, no matter which side your on. You either have your hardcore athiests, or your fundamentalist Christians. Either way, I don't like to have my beliefs belittled, and try not to belittle the beliefs of others.

As far as the leader issue goes... a lot of people like to think that their leaders were sent by God. Hell, the early leaders even said they were put there because that's exactly what God wanted. Even with elections, people want to think that the leader is somehow holier than everyone else. It doesn't matter what happens, the leader has faith, and that's all that matters.


Wark, didn't mean to offend you. If I did, please forgive me.
I work in a high tech young happening company, where any hint of coservativism or scent of faith is ridiculised and struck down.
Since I'm very conservative and have developed a strong faith, I get depressed when any attempt to discuss these things gets overwhelmed by the shouts of those who will always consider people with a different point of view, inferior to them.
Anyways I was talking about religions in general, not any particular brand of Christianity, but is true that most of the great figures of history believed that there was something greater than themselves. Some didn't though.. *thinks of Napoleon*
If Christians (generic term applied to anyone who bases his faith on at least part of the old + new testament) would know what their Holy Books says (emphasis in purpose), then they would also know that God, as a general rule, ordains the basest of men to be leaders.. which most would agree after this last election :P
'neways, was just tired of always being in the minority.. sorry.

Oh, ya'll know what's my only problem with scientists? that most scientists become "priests" of Science (capital S, since it becomes their own religion) and behave exactly like those whom they despise, even among themselves. Look, for example, at cold fusion: when it came out and was shortly after debunked, it became synonim with "junk science", and even if now there are tons of repeatible experiments, tons of evidence, tons of theories and studies.. but mainstream physicists refuse to even look at it, refuse to read, refuse to look outside.. they've became dogmatic.

Usagihunter101: On the cigs/fags thing, a similar thing happened recently here where I live: brit came to the bar and asked if it was "ok to smoke a fag" in there. The look on the face of the bartender and people around him were a complete puzzlement until his friend explained the differences in idioms.. the bartender later told me he wasn't sure how to answer to that: "no, you're not allowed to smoke in the bar".. "no you're not allowed to burn homosexuals in the bar".. "no, you're not allowed to kill homosexuals in the bar".. quite hilarious.

R-

_________________
"You promise not to tell anybody right?"
"Yeah... yeah... yeah... promise."
"Get in the fucking car."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:24 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 115
Location: South of Denver
Emy wrote:
Rupe wrote:
Whee, more chance of getting shipped off to the desert for me. Dammit.

I wonder about that. If enlistment/re-enlistment goes up, each of us has a lower chance of being sent, let alone being send more than once. Besides, Clinton sent US troops to: Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Macedonia, Albania, and Haiti. (I may even have forgotten some) Didn't stop deployments to Kuwait, and drew down the millitary while Optempo constantly increased. Bush has raised recruiting goals, pay and bonuses/incentives (IDP was $150 in '99, now $225)

he also raised Family Seperation Allowance from $100 to $250, now if he can only improve the commercials on AFN.

Right now I am working on my 2nd year in the desert, though it is in Riyadh KSA. Though this place is different then Iraq, no b33r or b00bs here, at least legaly. I have herd that one can get a case of smirnoff ice for only 1000 SAR($333) downtown.

The Saudis are not happy about the re-election, most were wanting an euro-pushover type. Bush scares them.

_________________
Alibey of Colorado
Retired from the Army, got a job, now I need a raise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:52 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
The Baron wrote:
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Look, He quoted me!!!


Okay, here's intelligent design. "We can't explain this given our present knowledge. Therefore, God did it!"


What the fuck are you talking about. Learn the theory before you spout shit. Unless, of course, you listened to those two dumbasses Pen and Teller. The theory goes "The random chances of evolution are so small that a higher force MUST have guided it." It very reasonable when you look at the random chance variables. Cause the idea of us spawning from nothing is pretty much nil. The only reason it isn't impossible is due to the seed theory. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mathematical chances reached 1 in a googleplex.

Quote:
Absence of evidence for current evolutionary theory? Believe it or not, it's not evidence of God.

HOLY CRAP, SCIENTISTS CAN BE WRONG BUT CAN STILL EVENTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS SCIENTIFICALLY AND ACCURATELY WITHOUT RELYING ON THINGS THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LIKE FAITH!

GASP!

... um, read my post, dumbass.. but upon second look, I see that a small edit can make it much clearer, but still.

Chaos Edited wrote:
It could be as simple as saying "Holes in the evolution theory seems to give credence to the Creationist theory, but it is a losing battle."


I think I said that while it cannot be disproved right now, every day brings it closer to it's doom.

Quote:
And here we go.

Everything in the Bible is bunk. It's a story, made up thousands of years ago, just like every other religious work ever written. There's absolutely no factual proof of things in the Bible. Nephilim? Nuhuh. 900 year old humans? Nuhuh. Giant flood that wiped out the entire human race except for eight people? Nope. Are there elements of the Bible story that parallel actual scientific processes? Sure. Is that true of plenty of other myths? Yup.


Fuck you Baron. I get pissed with people that pretty much are sumed up by:

OMG!!! RELIGION!!!!! KILLKILLKILLKILL11!!11!! FRAGFRAGFRAGFRAG!!11!! OMG!!!111!1!1oneoneoneonoenoenone

me wrote:
Now I admit, pretty much everything in Genesis should be considered Mythology,


Shut the fuck up, or bring me some actual proof against.

Now for the rest of you people. I'm only saying that while people still believe in the theory, it should be taught, truthfully and objectively, so that people can make informed choices on what they want to believe

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:03 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
/me blows whistle.

Time out, kids. Let's get this on into the Debate club.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:14 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 5:29 am
Posts: 96
Location: London, England
Agreed. Do we start a new thread or does a moderator move it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:22 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
leopardmessiah wrote:
Agreed. Do we start a new thread or does a moderator move it?


God waves his hand and the thread moves. Its that simple, really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
zrook wrote:
Oh, ya'll know what's my only problem with scientists? that most scientists become "priests" of Science (capital S, since it becomes their own religion) and behave exactly like those whom they despise, even among themselves. Look, for example, at cold fusion: when it came out and was shortly after debunked, it became synonim with "junk science", and even if now there are tons of repeatible experiments, tons of evidence, tons of theories and studies.. but mainstream physicists refuse to even look at it, refuse to read, refuse to look outside.. they've became dogmatic.

The physicists in the original cold fusion experiments never offered a convincing explanation for results which were not consistently repeatable. ... Of course you're going to start ignoring people who sound like gibbering idiots. There's a difference between having an open mind and a hole in your head.

That said, what's your basis for this? If there's so much favorable, well documented evidence, it'll stand up to the peer review process. If you publish it, they will come. Scientists in general are conservative, yes. That's part of their job, not to propagate unsupported beliefs. But you can't label them dogmatic. If you can explain to a scientist why their model of the universe is wrong, or where it's assumptions don't hold and then propose an alternate model that works better, they'll accept the new idea.

On the other hand, if you <i>can't</i> justify your opinion, you're going to be mostly ignored unless your results are very, very, convincing.

Also, a fair bit of work <i>is</i> being done in related, better understood, fields. For example, with <a href="http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/sonolum/">sonoluminescence</a>.

Chaos_Descending wrote:
The theory goes "The random chances of evolution are so small that a higher force MUST have guided it." It very reasonable when you look at the random chance variables. Cause the idea of us spawning from nothing is pretty much nil. The only reason it isn't impossible is due to the seed theory. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mathematical chances reached 1 in a googleplex.

Really, I'd be amazed if there were a single fully justifiable position on the probability of the evolution of life. It's just too complex a system to reduce to one set of odds. Also, according to some theorists (who's odds I also distrust), the odds of life evolving on any given planet are quite high. (In galactic terms)

Chaos_Descending wrote:
Quote:
It could be as simple as saying "Holes in the evolution theory seems to give credence to the Creationist theory, but it is a losing battle."

I think I said that while it cannot be disproved right now, every day brings it closer to it's doom.

Creationism cannot be disproven. Ever.

First, it deals with events which cannot be observed (possibly events outside of causality), secondly, it is an ill-conditioned inverse problem, (Of all the possible ways this universe could have been formed, which one was it?) and third the problem is formulated as a negative.

Evolutionists are honest enough to admit that evolution is a theory, because it faces (some of) the same problems.

The difference between the two is that there is evidence for one and not the other. That's science.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:05 pm 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
Weren't most of the world leaders that thought they were 'chosen by god' conquerors and total dicks? personally, i'd be more proud saying "i'm a good leader because of these points" rather than "god said so, peasants!"

but that's just me. i also don't want to be a world leader.

I think this argument can be simplified down to one sentance.

"whatever their beliefs, a person that believes their truth is the only truth is a Jerk."

but of course, that's just what i think anyways, *knowing wink*

so be it whether you think all religions should drop their holy texts and stard blindly believing the earth is round, or that all those godless heathes need to start praying or they've got a warm eternity coming up, if you don't make room for the possibility that someone else's belief system may be just as good and rewarding a way of life as yours, you are an intolerant jerk.

Fortunately, i think we only have the baron left here who's like that, but no-one listens to him anyway, so that's cool. *kisses barreh*

Everyone knows science isn't the new religion anyway, Media is the new religion. (yes, i am being facetious.)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
C_D wrote:
The theory goes "The random chances of evolution are so small that a higher force MUST have guided it."

Unless, of course, you except the (not unreasonable) idea that with millions of stars in the gallaxy, and at least dozens of galaxies, there are enough planets capable of supporting some kind of life, and enough different ways for something to be alive, that an merely improbable evolution of intelligent life was bound to happen on at least one of them. It is religion that tells us that humanity and Earth are unique, when it's not unreasonable to assume that there is another, biologically dissimilar intelligent species on another planet, (as close as another star in this galactic arm, or as distant as galaxies whose light won't reach earth for millions of years) with virtually the same notions of uniqueness and superiority that we have.

Basically, the larger the size you postulate for the universe, the less credence intelligent design holds. If earth was the only planet, the solar system was unique, and the rest of the visible univers was just a background painted on the inside of a metaphorical "crystal sphere", intelligent design would seem much more likely, given the ridiculously small probibility set.

The belief in a 'creator' of some kind or other, increases as you reach the limits of knowledge. That is to say, when you start asking "What are quarks made of?" or "where did the universe come from?" But given that those same limits used to lie at "What is dust made of" and "Where did the world come from?" one might postulate that those limits of human knowledge will continue to expand. Maybe intelligent life will never discover the final answer to the "one size bigger/one size smaller" questions, or maybe someone will develop a "Theory of Everything" that tests out within our lifetimes.

This is why arguing religion is pointless. Religion exists to answer the unanswerable questions and explain the that which defies explanation.

As for education:
C_D wrote:
Now for the rest of you people. I'm only saying that while people still believe in the theory, it should be taught, truthfully and objectively, so that people can make informed choices on what they want to believe.

What people choose to believe is a matter of opinion. Opinion is not science. Scools are not (or at least should not be) in the business of teaching opinions.

C_D wrote:
while people still believe in the theory, it should be taught, truthfully and objectively
(some) People still believe in the innate superiority of white, anglo-saxon males. (some) People still believe the earth is flat. (some) People believe that the patterns of the stars at the moment of birth have a meaningful effect on people's lives and destinies. Where do you place the limits on what needs to be taugh "truthfully and objectively" and what is considered foolish superstition?

Is there a minimum number of people that have to believe something for it to qualify? Does the belief have to be held for a minimum ammount of time? Does it merely have to be impossible to disprove 100%?

It is an observed fact that life evolves. It is a matter of historical record that humanity has changed both physically and mentally in the course of human history. It is a widely accepted scientific theory, supported by numerous scientific studies that, life has evolved on this planet over the course hundreds of millions of years.

If it makes people feel better to believe, for whatever reason, that this is all one huge hoax played by an omnipotent entity which pre-dates the universe, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to believe that. But it doesn't belong on a science curiculum.

edit: affect =/= effect

_________________
Image


Last edited by Emy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Chaos_Descending wrote:
The Baron wrote:
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Look, He quoted me!!!


Okay, here's intelligent design. "We can't explain this given our present knowledge. Therefore, God did it!"


What the fuck are you talking about. Learn the theory before you spout shit. Unless, of course, you listened to those two dumbasses Pen and Teller. The theory goes "The random chances of evolution are so small that a higher force MUST have guided it." It very reasonable when you look at the random chance variables. Cause the idea of us spawning from nothing is pretty much nil. The only reason it isn't impossible is due to the seed theory. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mathematical chances reached 1 in a googleplex.

Since it's improbable, a supernatural force that you can't prove or disprove did it? Uh, no. What are the chances of any bizarre incident? Pretty damn low. But it happened, didn't it? Plenty of things are improbable. Even astronomically so. But this doesn't mean "If A isn't likely to happen, B must have made it happen!"

Also, the random chance of evolution? A lot higher than you'd think. Get an Earth-like planet, with similar amounts of water and such, and give it enough time after the formation of those initial microbes, and assuming that there's some basis in macroevolution, you'll eventually get much higher orders of life. And it certainly seems like proponents of intelligent design assume that Homo sapien is the greatest possible lifeform out there; if this is the case, the Universe is doomed.

Moving on, what evidence is there of the Christian god? A 2000 year old book, compiled from third-hand sources, that told you that a dead man vanished and then reappeared to those who believed he was God in the first place but no one else (or if it were to anyone else, these works didn't tell you)? As some sort of scientific proof, that's really shoddy evidence. You can believe whatever you want, fine, but as soon as you're dealing with science, you must have evidence to support what you claim to be true.

Quote:
Quote:
Absence of evidence for current evolutionary theory? Believe it or not, it's not evidence of God.

HOLY CRAP, SCIENTISTS CAN BE WRONG BUT CAN STILL EVENTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS SCIENTIFICALLY AND ACCURATELY WITHOUT RELYING ON THINGS THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LIKE FAITH!

GASP!

... um, read my post, dumbass.. but upon second look, I see that a small edit can make it much clearer, but still.

Chaos Edited wrote:
It could be as simple as saying "Holes in the evolution theory seems to give credence to the Creationist theory, but it is a losing battle."


I think I said that while it cannot be disproved right now, every day brings it closer to it's doom.

You can't EVER disprove creationism. Or intelligent design. Intelligent design by its very nature relies on a force whose existence can never be proven or disproven scientifically. Creationism is the same, justmore blatantly. The more fossils and evidence for whatever evolutionary theory proves to be correct they find, the more Creationists will say "Well, God just made the world to look old!" or something silly like that.

Quote:
Now for the rest of you people. I'm only saying that while people still believe in the theory, it should be taught, truthfully and objectively, so that people can make informed choices on what they want to believe

The problem is that it's a matter of belief. It relies on faith. You can't mix faith and science. You just *can't*. They are contradictory by their very nature. If you have to support your idea using faith in something that cannot be proven or disproven, your idea shouldn't be taught in schools as an explanation for a scientific process. There is a wave of fundamentalism sweeping the US, and giving credence to it as something more than religious is unfathomable. Teach it in schools? "Hey, I believe that I'm God and made the world 20,000 years ago, and these six other people do too. It should be taught in schools!" Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Thinman wrote:
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Quote:
It could be as simple as saying "Holes in the evolution theory seems to give credence to the Creationist theory, but it is a losing battle."

I think I said that while it cannot be disproved right now, every day brings it closer to it's doom.

Creationism cannot be disproven. Ever.

First, it deals with events which cannot be observed (possibly events outside of causality), secondly, it is an ill-conditioned inverse problem, (Of all the possible ways this universe could have been formed, which one was it?) and third the problem is formulated as a negative.

Evolutionists are honest enough to admit that evolution is a theory, because it faces (some of) the same problems.

The difference between the two is that there is evidence for one and not the other. That's science.


My chemistry teacher once said something that I've taken to heart, because of a lab I once turned in. All science is theory and supporting evidence. Religion is what defines "proof."

Something like that. Just meaning that we all have our own ideas on how the world works. But science can never prove that our world actually exists the way we think it does ("How do we prove that we exist?" "Are we dreaming?" "Is God really controlling and creating?" etc.). All we have are ideas and theories. Expirementation and analysis help us figure out constant/consistant patterns amongst our world. They only find supporting evidence to theories. Religion tells us what we should believe the world to be and how things work.

Often, I see religion as a coping skill to dealing with life that a society has created. But that's my own personal opinion, and I won't get into that.

So what Creationism supporting evidence is there?
(I once read some college notes put together on this. A lot of it was biased, but some of it was pretty intriguing. Although, hearing that Darwin was a Carribean witch who did everything to spite Christians and Christianity was pretty funny. Darkie knows what I'm talking about, because this was written and posted by an old friend of hers.)

And how much more supporting evidence is there for evolution?

I mean, simply comparing the two, and you'll get an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution. Chaos, as it is - Creationism and Intelligent Design is taught and debated on in American colleges. People get the education that they seek eventually. But teaching it as a science when all I've seen is complete faith-based preaching and desperation to young children is ridiculous. If you're going to teach it to younger children - teach it under "social studies." I'm sticking with that arguement.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Kali_Ava wrote:
But teaching it as a science when all I've seen is complete faith-based preaching and desperation to young children is ridiculous. If you're going to teach it to younger children - teach it under "social studies." I'm sticking with that arguement.

And if it's that important to parents that their children be taught about creationism, they can take them to church or Sunday School. Where religion belongs.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Emy wrote:
Kali_Ava wrote:
But teaching it as a science when all I've seen is complete faith-based preaching and desperation to young children is ridiculous. If you're going to teach it to younger children - teach it under "social studies." I'm sticking with that arguement.

And if it's that important to parents that their children be taught about creationism, they can take them to church or Sunday School. Where religion belongs.


Here here.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: Not a hellish, Onionian future...
Emy wrote:
Scools are not (or at least should not be) in the business of teaching opinions.


*Ahem*
Been to one lately?

_________________
actor_au wrote:
Labrat's friends can't run away, as they are only the skins of the people he's drowned in his own semen, carefully stitched together and stuffed with cooking chocolate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:54 pm 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
do not confuse typing with grammar.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:16 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Alibey wrote:
Emy wrote:
Rupe wrote:
Whee, more chance of getting shipped off to the desert for me. Dammit.

I wonder about that. If enlistment/re-enlistment goes up, each of us has a lower chance of being sent, let alone being send more than once. Besides, Clinton sent US troops to: Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Macedonia, Albania, and Haiti. (I may even have forgotten some) Didn't stop deployments to Kuwait, and drew down the millitary while Optempo constantly increased. Bush has raised recruiting goals, pay and bonuses/incentives (IDP was $150 in '99, now $225)

he also raised Family Seperation Allowance from $100 to $250, now if he can only improve the commercials on AFN.

Right now I am working on my 2nd year in the desert, though it is in Riyadh KSA. Though this place is different then Iraq, no b33r or b00bs here, at least legaly. I have herd that one can get a case of smirnoff ice for only 1000 SAR($333) downtown.

The Saudis are not happy about the re-election, most were wanting an euro-pushover type. Bush scares them.


Wait, what the shit? Another servicemember on the boards? Rank/organization/MOS/time in service?

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:27 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 115
Location: South of Denver
Rupert The Guerilla Rat wrote:

Wait, what the shit? Another servicemember on the boards? Rank/organization/MOS/time in service?


ok, I think that I got the Quote tags working this time.

SSG / US Army / USMTM Riyadh KSA / 2 years reserve and 19 active. probably one of the oldest on this board.

_________________
Alibey of Colorado
Retired from the Army, got a job, now I need a raise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group