Rayman Pirate-Community

stan423321 wrote:

stan423321 wrote:(Wikipedia hints at "gas-propelled bullets")

Basically, it's not like I am super-interested in guns so I do not know terminology so well. I suppose that while your Magnum's bullet is propelled by a tiny explosion of powder, the "windgun" either pumps up air or breaks a cartridge of compressed carbon dioxide. Anyway, while it's certainly possible to cause major damage with it, it would be hard to do it by mistake, and it's rather supposed to shoot targets or - in serious cases - to slow down your opponent.

EDIT: Wikipedia's description of air gun seems to indeed describe this thing.

Air guns are used in Israel to disperse protesters. Man, have we gone off topic.

Do the "airarmed" forces shoot it upwards or into people? This has notably different moral connotations.

stan423321 wrote:Do the "airarmed" forces shoot it upwards or into people? This has notably different moral connotations.

It depends on the situation. If there's violence, they shoot at the legs, but only while the offender is attacking, not afterwards. Dumbest law I ever heard. If someone tries to stab someone else and he's still got a knife in his hand, the officer will not be able to shoot him or even hit him with a baton. Also, they use tear gas. I was once in a place where there was a rally and officers used tear gas. The leftovers made me feel horrible. It's not like onion or something, it makes your throat burn terribly.

Still it would be totally PRL/PRoP if they were allowed to shoot before attacking.

stan423321 wrote:Still it would be totally PRL/PRoP if they were allowed to shoot before attacking.

What's PRL/PRoP?

iambored2006 wrote:

stan423321 wrote:Still it would be totally PRL/PRoP if they were allowed to shoot before attacking.

What's PRL/PRoP?

It’s Stan. There are no answers – only questions.

stan423321 wrote:This particular time you are wrong... nah, you were joking.

"Still it would be totally People's Republic of Poland if they were allowed to shoot before attacking"...?

Yes, it would be actually even worse than in PRL.

stan423321 wrote:Yes, it would be actually even worse than in PRL.

What?

I wouldn't normally answer that post. However there is a chance of causing a portal style bug, which I can't ignore. Basically, I did not live in PRL, but I know too much people who are... cursed with it in some of two ways; it's relatively easy to understand what happened to Poland while it was in Soviet bloc, and basically people either show no innitiative or are scared all the time. This makes it simple to conclude that during 1945-1989 period we were basically in Policeland, and doing anything on your own was a bad idea. Seeing how annoying our government is now, I can't imagine how depressing it was for "leaders" (including, but not limited to, independent artists and company directors) not wishing to lose independence. Personal independence.

Large font shall be remove after frontpage investigation.

stan423321 wrote:I wouldn't normally answer that post. However there is a chance of causing a portal style bug, which I can't ignore. Basically, I did not live in PRL, but I know too much people who are... cursed with it in some of two ways; it's relatively easy to understand what happened to Poland while it was in Soviet bloc, and basically people either show no innitiative or are scared all the time. This makes it simple to conclude that during 1945-1989 period we were basically in Policeland, and doing anything on your own was a bad idea. Seeing how annoying our government is now, I can't imagine how depressing it was for "leaders" (including, but not limited to, independent artists and company directors) not wishing to lose independence. Personal independence.

Large font shall be remove after frontpage investigation.

Ah, I think I see now. You're hard to understand, bro. No offense, but this came to my mind when I wrote this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJOJBvTnPJ4

When you talk about communism etc. in non-communistic way it's usually very hard to be informative and obvious at the same time. There are some notable exceptions, such as Suvorov's theory on "why did communists try to take over the world" (to make it impossible to escape abroad). But usually, I make my posts assuming those interested in them have basic knowledge on what was happening in the Eastern bloc.

stan423321 wrote:When you talk about communism etc. in non-communistic way it's usually very hard to be informative and obvious at the same time. There are some notable exceptions, such as Suvorov's theory on "why did communists try to take over the world" (to make it impossible to escape abroad). But usually, I make my posts assuming those interested in them have basic knowledge on what was happening in the Eastern bloc.

Of course. The problem is your English, among other things. Again, I don't mean to be rude.

I find Stan's English rather interesting actually. His vocabulary consists of many large words that make him sound great at English, but when it comes to simpler words he's sometimes at a fault. Either way, I don't have trouble understanding him at all. I thought he was Canadian or Irish or something at first by the way he spoke.

RayFan9876 wrote:I find Stan's English rather interesting actually. His vocabulary consists of many large words that make him sound great at English, but when it comes to simpler words he's sometimes at a fault. Either way, I don't have trouble understanding him at all. I thought he was Canadian or Irish or something at first by the way he spoke.

Stan is a pro at English, I say. He should be my teacher maybe. I don't know hard words.

Rulez wrote:

RayFan9876 wrote:I find Stan's English rather interesting actually. His vocabulary consists of many large words that make him sound great at English, but when it comes to simpler words he's sometimes at a fault. Either way, I don't have trouble understanding him at all. I thought he was Canadian or Irish or something at first by the way he spoke.

Stan is a pro at English, I say. He should be my teacher maybe. I don't know hard words.

Haha, you know the opposite aspect of English when compared to Stan. You know all the simpler words, which makes you sound like a pro in a sense that you're just not a complicated (in relation to speaking) kind of guy.

Actually, you guys should take a look at Stan's last post in this thread. It's almost grammatically perfect.

Xenon wrote: It's almost grammatically perfect.

Haha, this sentence is funny and sounds mean, I know it isn't but it just feels so. It's either fean or munny.

And now, the replies to two months of idiotic comments:

Rsandee wrote:It's true, catholics hate gay people, they view it as ''mentally diseased''.

Bullshit. Spiral addressed this nonsense with verve.

Rsandee wrote:Why are most of you here atheists? It's like believing human lifes are worth ''nothing''.

Bullshit. Fortunately Xenon was here.

RayFan9876 wrote:Honestly I see atheism as possibly meaning two things: 1, not believing in a superior power, and 2, believing in scientific explanations.

Bullshit. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, end of story.

RayTunes wrote:Atheists believe in a big explosion that somehow created a bunch of planets in universe and animals simply changed form until they were human.

Double bullshit. The Big Bang was not an explosion, and because you're an atheist doesn't mean you believe in it. You can even believe in both God and the Big Bang.

Rsandee wrote:It's OUR fault Africa is in this state. (however, we can't help them, since they need to develop their countries on their own)

Nonsense.

RayFan9876 wrote:There's no evidence to prove he exists, but there's a lot of evidence that shows he probably doesn't exist.

Nonsense. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, period. If there's a “probably”, there's no evidence.

Rsandee wrote:I vaguely remember that there was no life possible on Earth before those 6000 years.

Bullshit again.

iambored2006 wrote:Again, I don't really want to get involved in a big argument in this topic [...] But what if he had died of AIDS?

Lotsa bullshit. You're the Rsandee of Judaism, proselytism it against Christianity, while both religions are arguably as good/bad as each other. As concerns the exactions committed by the latter, that's what happened to all powers in a position of strength, which hasn't been the case for the Jews for two millennia. That's just as low as the Christian deicide accusation against the “perfidious Jews”.