Checkpoint

You're such a wuss, Ros.

I hardly find it surprising that the NHL lacks a sense of humour when it comes to anything that mocks them or their officials.

Yeh, he was in Norwich for a spell. They're funny speakers in Norwich, or so I'm told. Steve is funny too!

About tiny text; where is Steve? I'd love to hear the story behind his name.

I wouldn't mind having Iginla, but I'm not so sure he's worth $7m. At that price he should be a more dominating factor on the Flames.

Al-Surreptishus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why thank you! ) *not dying anymore*

Now you got me dying to hear your Muslim name.

The name Checkpoint was just a quickly scrambled name for an alt account to get a hidden message through from my modded account (I was naughty, but Fio knows about it :ph34r: ). It was essentially intended as a suggestion to the posters at OE to check the point of the account and its (at least then) lone post. Simple as that. Of course you could also, looking back on it, literally refer to it as a checkpoint of sorts, what with starting over under a new name and all.

Yes, don't make me go up there and burn it down 'cause... I'm no pyromaniac and thusly not suited for such extravagant actions!

You've been here almost a year and the posts of the regulars here still scare you? <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I've been here about a year and a half, and YES, the posts of many regulars scare me on a daily basis.

Some of the posts in this thread scare me.

Or straw yule goats...

Even Conklin wasn't that bad with the Oilers. He was 2.8GAA and .890 Save%. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those are poor stats for a starter and he was .880 last season (as was Markkanen).

No, that's more like Ty Conklin stats.

The Kalmar Union and its aftermath lasted for about 150 years and I tell you it wasn't a happy marriage. Swedes and Danes took any chance they got to claw each other's eyes out after that.

Plus Legace wasn't really that good to begin with.

Denmark was almost conquered by Sweden in the 1650s. The idea was to raze Copenhagen and secure Swedish control of the

As a side note that isn't entirely irrelevant to the context at hand, I'd like to point out that at least northern Latin America was subject to vast epidemics caused by diseases such as smallpox, measles and typhoid. These diseases were completely new to the area and the natives weren't as resistant as the Europeans. This along with the introduction of gunpowder and Spanish/Portuguese determination to "Europeanize" America - and the inevitable friction that caused - I think about 90% of the native population in the area was wiped out. They were replaced with African slave labour.

We're all almost like twins!

Miles Davis - Sketches of Spain Interestingly, I don't find Sketches particularly appealing. I think Miles' trumpet is squealing a bit too high and whiny most of the time. Of course some jazz demagogue is bound to come around and tell me how ignorant I am, but meh...

Wowzers, Allan, you have teh same birthday as teh me!

Yeah, and it's very promising that every time he has an off game or two, he seems to bounce back very quickly. He appears very strong mentally.

The term "Prussia" was still used to designate the political region of that time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Germany lost the war, not Prussia. I'm not too up-to-date on how the Germans name(d) their regions, but the territory of Prussia varied quite a bit and mostly grew larger. Prussia included regions such as Brandenburg, K

Not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly do not understand what that means. There weren't any such thing as "Yanks" when the wholesale slaughter of natives on the portion of the continent now known as the USA (and Canada as well, for that matter) began. That slaughter was instigated by the French and the Brits, primarily, and continued on for a couple of centuries before there was such a thing as an "American." And the Spanish managed to wipe out two of the grandest civilizations of its time, the Aztecs and the Mayans, then conquered a slab of land nearly the size of the USA in total. That's a fairly large scale, I'd say. So what point, exactly, is the one you consider to be valid, while ignoring the identical atrocities which led to the establishment of both our neighbors to the north and to the south? Discussions like this one always leave me perplexed, because they seem to be a perversion of the past in an attempt to perpetrate bigotries of the present. Besides which, it makes no freaking sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can understand that you're perplexed, because you obviously haven't grasped a word of what I was saying. In chronological order: 1. The use of terms like "Yanks" is slightly beside the point which, ironically, is one of my points. 2. You do, however, realise that "Yanks" of today are the decendants of those naughty-nasty Limeys and Frenchies, right? 3. I ALREADY SAID THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU BRING UP THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE AGAIN, G'FZAAAAH...? 4. I'm calm. 5. The point that is valid is the one suggesting that "no, there aren't all that many comparable examples where 'the original inhabitants of [any country] all are either long-gone or find themselves sharing with the descendants of conquerors' and if that shatters your world I weep for you." I don't really weep for you. 6. I wasn't making a point of today's North Americans being responsible for the demographic persecution of Native Americans hundreds of years ago, but rather the point of your inherently flawed grasp of historic events on a wider demographic level. 7. I'm just agitated. Really agitated.

*looks at location* So what's your excuse? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nah, he was just standing there...