Checkpoint

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...

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As Meta pointed out, plenty of folks to blame. The Spainards managed to wipe out several civilizations in Central America and Mexico, and plop their own genetic profile in its stead. The Porteguese took care of those pesky natives in and around much of South America. The French wiped out most of the natives in Florida and what is now Central-Western USA, along with a healthy dollop of what is now Canada before the blood-thirsty Brits landed and began to wipe out those tribes along the east coast. Of course the Brits were behind France, Spain and Portugal in the North-South American native-slaughtering business because they were stretched a bit thin, having to liberate an entire continent (Australia) from those naughty aboriginal folks, not to mention the effort it took for them to claim one of the most populated countries in Asia (India) as its own. This all happened long before there was any population known as "American", because it was long before there was even a country known as America or the USA. So tell me again, why is North America... specifically the territory now known as the USA... being singled out for criticism and contempt here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't really have anything to add. Note that I never spoke a word of Englishmen or any American people. I reiterate: What happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples. I'm essentially talking about both North and South America, and the people ending up on the wrong end of said demographic change were the natives. I really can't think of anything similar in the history of mankind; the only thing that would come close would be the forced immigration of Africans turned slaves, but that merely served to drain an already badly underpolutaed area further without any intent of keeping the territory for colonizing purposes. Sure, one shouldn't specifically "pick on North America," but the truth of the matter is that the point at hand is very much valid when it comes to the white man versus the natives in the New World on a larger scale than "the Yanks weren't as bad as some other people around the world."

The secret about Swedes is the alcohol. We sit around saying squat, but as soon as we get some booze into our bodies there's a total change of scenery, all part of a devious master plan of epic proportions! :ph34r:

Because what happened in America happened on a systematically much larger scale with the objective of conquering a vast area through organized means, leading to demographic change of a nature not entirely comparable to a whole lot of other historical examples.

What if two people come there to burn it at the same time? Like, "Hey, I was here first!", and the other one goes "Like hell you were" etc. Then they would finally embrace each other in some brotherly burning, only to realise they've drenched the thing in some sort of anti-burning stuff that's immune to anything short of the very fires of Hell. Or Mt Doom.

Really?

Er... WTF?

That's just a fluke if you only did it once.