PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear weapons: Russia is going to innovate



kak
17-11-2004, 16:45
Good news for Russian People :mad:
i'm sure they will be happy to know that millions of dollars will be used for this.......... of course there is no other priority for Russia......


http://nouvelobs.reverso.net/url/obsResult.asp?directions=65544&template=Default&autotranslate=1&url=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/etranger/20041117.OBS1765.html

(sorry for the poor english it's an internet automatic translation)

DPG
17-11-2004, 16:46
Linky no worky mate!!

I agree with you though - I don't know what's more useless: spending that much money on these or on fireworks for all the public holidays...pensioners really can live on $100 a month...they collect bottles and sell cucumbers for fun you know!!

kak
17-11-2004, 16:47
tnx DPG, should work now.

vince
17-11-2004, 16:53
This really is what they need :rolleyes: :eek:

Did they forget about Mourmansk, the submarines.... :eek:

All these little details they cannot solve because they say they don't have money :mad:

This world is crazy:confused: :confused:

kak
17-11-2004, 16:56
I'm curious to here some reactions from russian people.....

vince
17-11-2004, 16:56
Sorry:( Link still doesn't work Kakrout

Cocheese
17-11-2004, 17:01
Here's a link to the story on Yahoo News:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_re_eu/russia_nuclear_weapons

kak
17-11-2004, 17:03
ok here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=2&u=/nm/20041117/wl_nm/security_putin_dc

Cocheese
17-11-2004, 17:17
A funny thing... the article quotes ITAR-TASS quoting Putin as saying "I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years..." The phrase I'm talking about is "put in service", as if they've designed a new airbag to be put in cars or something.

vince
17-11-2004, 17:19
You know, basically it's kids playing with toys :D

The only problem is that these toys are very very dangerous and very costly :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 17:24
Originally posted by kakrout
I'm curious to here some reactions from russian people..... here is some reaction for you. bloody hilarious! we kick a**! Like any other country we must be able to protect ourselves from any foreign agression. This will help for sure. spending on weapons not only drives up the economy by giving jobs to people, but is also a good means of diplomacy (often used by US for example) in any type of argument. good job Russia!

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 17:30
more here: http://top.rbc.ru/english/index.shtml?/news/english/2004/11/17/17171423_bod.shtml

crom
17-11-2004, 17:36
Quote; "He also said it was necessary to develop a system of social provision for the army and implement a mortgage program. Mr. Putin noted that RUR 2bn (about $70m) was earmarked for the program."

Hell, that ain't a lot to share around all the generals about 10 dachas

boscoe
17-11-2004, 17:42
Russia is all fur coat and no knickers!

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 17:44
knickers aren't helpful in under 30 C ;) unlike the fur coat

Random
17-11-2004, 17:46
Why can't he give them to the French ? I am sure they will find a home for them in the South Pacific somewhere ?

Pierre don't drop zat one !

Merde !!!

:p

boscoe
17-11-2004, 17:50
'weapons that other countries do not and will not have" - homing missiles?

boscoe
17-11-2004, 17:50
ray guns!...... it has to be ray guns!

boscoe
17-11-2004, 17:51
I do hope it's ray guns!

Filimon
17-11-2004, 17:53
Originally posted by boscoe
I do hope it's ray guns!

nopers. it's going to be long range flying pigs that can s.it enriched plutonium in great quantities :)

kak
17-11-2004, 18:30
Originally posted by preacher of hedonism
here is some reaction for you. bloody hilarious! we kick a**! Like any other country we must be able to protect ourselves from any foreign agression. This will help for sure. spending on weapons not only drives up the economy by giving jobs to people, but is also a good means of diplomacy (often used by US for example) in any type of argument. good job Russia!

Are you ironic? i hope so....
nuclear weapons for "defense" ?
just as a reminder if one day one country start to use nuclear weapons for "protection" it means that the planet will come to an end very soon :rolleyes:

tbill
17-11-2004, 18:39
KOROLYOV, RUSSIA--U.S. and Russian scientists are increasingly excited about the Mir space station project, which promises to reveal more than has ever been known about the scientific relationship between weightlessness and mortal terror.

"By stranding our scientists on a dilapidated space station with faulty wiring, loose hardware, and malfunctioning air systems," NASA head Daniel Goldin said, "we have created extremely favorable conditions for learning about spaceborne panic."

The two Russians and one American on board the station are reportedly terrified beyond lucidity.




New russian space station (http://www.planetmike.com/jokes/misc/mir_space_station_experiments.shtml)

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 18:42
Originally posted by kakrout
Are you ironic? i hope so....
nuclear weapons for "defense" ?
just as a reminder if one day one country start to use nuclear weapons for "protection" it means that the planet will come to an end very soon :rolleyes: I obvioulsy not ironic. this means no one will attack us. if he will, he'll die

boscoe
17-11-2004, 18:47
nah - they'll just bribe someone not to retaliate...

DJ Biscuit
17-11-2004, 18:50
PMSL

The question is begged:

Why would any country want to invade Russia? And gain what?

:D :p

boscoe
17-11-2004, 18:51
ray guns! - wouldn't you like a ray gun!

Filimon
17-11-2004, 18:52
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
PMSL

The question is begged:

Why would any country want to invade Russia? And gain what?

:D :p

No more than they would if they invaded America :)

boscoe
17-11-2004, 18:54
hmmm kinda hard to argue THAT!

DJ Biscuit
17-11-2004, 18:55
No, if they invaded America they would get retaliation if they invaded Russia they would get sweet FA. :p :D

Filimon
17-11-2004, 19:21
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
No, if they invaded America they would get retaliation if they invaded Russia they would get sweet FA. :p :D

you'd be surpised, mate. If there was a gloves down war - I would go back home and remind myself that I am a lieutenant of the Russian navy :)

Don't say "hop"... :)

BRASCO
17-11-2004, 19:59
restructuring of the russian army is good, because those young guys are suffering: if they dont get sent to chechnya, their building 'dachas' for their commanders somewhere outside moscow...

however, nuclear missiles for defense? how does that work? can someone name me a country who is 'officially terrorist'? oh i get it, its intended for chechnya, caucasus, and those other pesky disobedinet C.I.S. countries who JUST wont accept russia as God. the nerve!

Filimon
17-11-2004, 20:09
Originally posted by BRASCO
restructuring of the russian army is good, because those young guys are suffering: if they dont get sent to chechnya, their building 'dachas' for their commanders somewhere outside moscow...

however, nuclear missiles for defense? how does that work? can someone name me a country who is 'officially terrorist'? oh i get it, its intended for chechnya, caucasus, and those other pesky disobedinet C.I.S. countries who JUST wont accept russia as God. the nerve!

Am I totally out of it or did some president name a few countries members of "Axis of Terror" (or "evil", was it?) last year?

BRASCO
17-11-2004, 20:14
he never said or implied he was going to nuke them...
nor did he say anything about a developing nuke-arms, or pre-emptive attacks... when you add the 2 up, you KIND of get the picture; pre-emptive-nuke-attacks...
a nuke is the worlds numero uno enemy, its worse than any war imaginable... come on, you know this better than me

DJ Biscuit
17-11-2004, 20:25
Originally posted by Filimon
you'd be surpised, mate. If there was a gloves down war - I would go back home and remind myself that I am a lieutenant of the Russian navy :)

Don't say "hop"... :)

You read the news do you? Get much time back in the old country?

Gloves down? The army can't afford gloves. LOL

Filimon
17-11-2004, 20:29
Originally posted by BRASCO
he never said or implied he was going to nuke them...
nor did he say anything about a developing nuke-arms, or pre-emptive attacks... when you add the 2 up, you KIND of get the picture; pre-emptive-nuke-attacks...
a nuke is the worlds numero uno enemy, its worse than any war imaginable... come on, you know this better than me

Please-please-please tell me you are joking! The whole palaver in Iraq at the moment is built on the premise of a "pre-emptive strike". Using your logic - he ACTUALLY authorised and carried out a pre-emptive strike and since his country has nukes, where is the guarantee there will be no pre-emptive nuke strikes?

Why is it Russia always get the stick when it tries to do absolutely the same thing as the States? Please don't start the "we won the Cold War" bullpile - it's just so dated

DPG
17-11-2004, 20:29
DJB: Yes they can - what do you think they use as blankets!! LOL!

Filimon
17-11-2004, 20:29
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
You read the news do you? Get much time back in the old country?

Gloves down? The army can't afford gloves. LOL

Neither can UK army by the looks of it!

Braders
17-11-2004, 20:40
Originally posted by Filimon
Neither can UK army by the looks of it!

Slightly off topic...

I heard an interesting statistic the other day the US spends 20 times as much on defense as China, Germany, France and the UK combined! (could be 4 different countries they said the 4 countries with the largest GDP's after America)

BRASCO
17-11-2004, 20:57
Originally posted by Filimon
Please-please-please tell me you are joking! The whole palaver in Iraq at the moment is built on the premise of a "pre-emptive strike". Using your logic - he ACTUALLY authorised and carried out a pre-emptive strike and since his country has nukes, where is the guarantee there will be no pre-emptive nuke strikes?

Why is it Russia always get the stick when it tries to do absolutely the same thing as the States? Please don't start the "we won the Cold War" bullpile - it's just so dated

yeah, but not pre-emptive NUKE strike. If russia is talking about nuclear arms development, it can be one of 2 things; either it seriously is developing nuke-arms, which is bad, or it is trying to scare, which is also bad, because why would you want to send the west into a frenzy about nuclear arms? (we all know nukes are aimed at the west, europe/america)

And, before comparing russia to america, consider this;

america has no territorial problems while russia does; believe it or not russia will split even further in the next couple of years.

america has good/ok relations with it's neighbours, unlike russia, who (politically) DESPISES the ... baltics, caucasus and central asia, and the feeling is mutual.

america is a stable country, official-wise and army-wise, while in russia some 'general' might start a 3rd world war, involving nukes... and please don't tell me its far-fetched, because there were/are numerous instances when russia almost went to war with the west over some idiot... the highest ranking idiot was Krushchev, who took off his shoe at a un meeting and slamed it on his table numerous times yelling "we will show you how we play!" and are you forgetting the Pristina-airport incident? in yugoslavia? when drunk-yeltsin send in troops to that airport while nato didn't know about it? 3rd world war errupted right there because there were shots fired. luckily it was stopped.

i can go on and on, but im tired, have too much to do, and these are my opinions based on some 'facts' which might or might not be true, not trying to offend you, but you are NOT responsible for the stupid shlt russia does. an individual russian is not responsible for things the 'russian federation' does. but when you do say something, someone will argue, its always like that.

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 22:25
"when drunk-yeltsin send in troops to that airport while nato didn't know about it?" hello, it was a military operation. nato should not have known about it! if it knew, yeltsin should have dismissed the generals... the operation was hilarious. i felt proud of russia when heard about it

BRASCO
17-11-2004, 22:44
now why would russia want military operations in serbia? nato went in there to stop ethnic-cleansing that serbs were doing to bosnians/muslims. why did russia go there? because nato did? monkey see, monkey do? oh i get it, it was "to defend their slavic orthodox brothers from those damned catholics and the cursed muslims." by the way, do you know that serbians actually HATE russians? because serbs didn't want to fight a long war, while russians + cossacks were instigating shootouts and guerilla warfare, which prompted even more nato bombing.

oh yeah, those generals you admire, trained basayed, gilayev, baraev, maskhadov and a whole lot of other chechen fighters in abkhazia in 1990-92. and now their (successfully) fighting against you... hmmmm, i wonder why? maybe its because you taught them all your nifty little military secrets...


you shouldn't be proud of other countrymen's deaths.

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 22:59
oh come on, don't generalise. saying that serbs hate russians is like saying all muslims are terrorists, i.e. b***cks. your evidence stands no proof.
our generals did a lot of crap, but they also won the war...

preacher of hedonism
17-11-2004, 23:01
it's all geopilitcs in the end. nato shouldn't mess where russian interests lie, and we should protect them. nato did not venture upon kicking out 200 paras from pristina although it had 2000-strong british division against them. hehe

BRASCO
18-11-2004, 00:32
Originally posted by preacher of hedonism
oh come on, don't generalise. saying that serbs hate russians is like saying all muslims are terrorists, i.e. bollocks. your evidence stands no proof.
our generals did a lot of crap, but they also won the war...

they hate russians (government), for the same reasons that chechens hate russians, lithuanians do too, so do latvians, estonians, ukrainians, czechs, slovaks, poles, bulgarians, afghans, pakistanis, romanians, hungarians, moldavians, should i go on? the only ones who don't hate russians are Cubans and thats because they are VERY far away from you.

and 'your' generals won the war? pardon? so russia is supporting serbia, serbian yugoslavia falls apart into slovenia, croatia, bosnia-herzegovinia, FYROM, and now kosovo wants to leave. i dont really think thats winning anything. and look here! every 1 has gone on with their lives: slovenia is in the EU and NATO, croatia will soon be, bosnia will be fixed up soon, so will FYROM, while serbia will keep losing land to albanians. serbia=lost the war, so therefore russia=lost the war.

"it's all geopilitcs in the end. nato shouldn't mess where russian interests lie, and we should protect them."

riiiiiighttttt. you see, with a policy like that you get; Afghanistan, which russia lost... unification of Germany & loss of GDR, which russia lost... fall apart of East-European-Socialist-Bloc, which russia lost... fall apart of U.S.S.R., which russia lost... 1st + 2nd chechen wars, which russia hasn't really won 'yet',... Iraq war, russia lost, .... expansion of Nato including 3 post soviet states, russia lost, now theres battle for Ukraine, at russia's footsteps, which it will lose, again... because ukrainians dont want russian-appointed presidents...

oh yeah, and before protecting anything and/or anyone, ask them if they want to be protected, or want anything to do with you as a matter of fact, because, you might just get a swift kick up your but, ie. afghanistan, east-europe, yugoslavia, abkhazia, chechnya, iraq... also soon to come, trans-dniester, south osetia, abkhazia, nagorno-karabakh, a tatarstan conflict, another caucasian conflict (im guessing dagestan) and the steadily falling (ruski) population of russia. it looks very grim.

"nato did not venture upon kicking out 200 paras from pristina although it had 2000-strong british division against them. hehe"

yeah and? those hard-boys had to leave peacefully a little while later; they didn't stay there for long. it was a provocation by russia which nato didn't fall for. brains + muscle = success.

Filimon
18-11-2004, 01:53
Originally posted by BRASCO
they hate russians (government), for the same reasons that chechens hate russians, lithuanians do too, so do latvians, estonians, ukrainians, czechs, slovaks, poles, bulgarians, afghans, pakistanis, romanians, hungarians, moldavians, should i go on? the only ones who don't hate russians are Cubans and thats because they are VERY far away from you.

and 'your' generals won the war? pardon? so russia is supporting serbia, serbian yugoslavia falls apart into slovenia, croatia, bosnia-herzegovinia, FYROM, and now kosovo wants to leave. i dont really think thats winning anything. and look here! every 1 has gone on with their lives: slovenia is in the EU and NATO, croatia will soon be, bosnia will be fixed up soon, so will FYROM, while serbia will keep losing land to albanians. serbia=lost the war, so therefore russia=lost the war.

"it's all geopilitcs in the end. nato shouldn't mess where russian interests lie, and we should protect them."

riiiiiighttttt. you see, with a policy like that you get; Afghanistan, which russia lost... unification of Germany & loss of GDR, which russia lost... fall apart of East-European-Socialist-Bloc, which russia lost... fall apart of U.S.S.R., which russia lost... 1st + 2nd chechen wars, which russia hasn't really won 'yet',... Iraq war, russia lost, .... expansion of Nato including 3 post soviet states, russia lost, now theres battle for Ukraine, at russia's footsteps, which it will lose, again... because ukrainians dont want russian-appointed presidents...

oh yeah, and before protecting anything and/or anyone, ask them if they want to be protected, or want anything to do with you as a matter of fact, because, you might just get a swift kick up your but, ie. afghanistan, east-europe, yugoslavia, abkhazia, chechnya, iraq... also soon to come, trans-dniester, south osetia, abkhazia, nagorno-karabakh, a tatarstan conflict, another caucasian conflict (im guessing dagestan) and the steadily falling (ruski) population of russia. it looks very grim.

"nato did not venture upon kicking out 200 paras from pristina although it had 2000-strong british division against them. hehe"

yeah and? those hard-boys had to leave peacefully a little while later; they didn't stay there for long. it was a provocation by russia which nato didn't fall for. brains + muscle = success.

Now mate you are getting some seriously prejudicial **** in here!

Before you want to liberate Iraq ask it if it wants to be liberated. Name one country that does not hate America - all of Africa, all of Asia, most of Europe, most of South America. The whole continents are disgusted with your country's behaviour, even those who are dependent on you!
America trained Bin Laden, traded weapons with Hussein, covers up the deeds by Saudis... the scale is as different from Russia as US budget from the Russinan one.

Grenada, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, Camodja, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Somali..., shall I go on?

Russia BUILT Iraq, you moron! There were engineers there building roads, factories, power stattions before your lot walked right in and levelled the bleeding place.

Krushchev? Why don't you remind us about Ivan the Terrible while you at it! He executed a whole bunch of people too. What's USSR of Kruschev's era has got to do with today's Russia?

Don't you dare trying to belittle my country by taking a high ground, because your beloved state is as much in blood and sh.t as you allege Russia is.

I am a bit emotional right now, but I have never seen such a scathing attack on the whole people without as much as an acknowledgement that some of it is subjective!

Pardon my French. I am really, truly sickened!

J.D.
18-11-2004, 05:45
Excellent debate tactic, Filimon. Someone says something negative about Russia - just say the US is bad (too).

Your tactics would make Bill Clinton proud.

Random
18-11-2004, 09:54
So no ray guns then ?? :mad:

85StonePolarBear
18-11-2004, 09:57
Originally posted by Random
So no ray guns then ?? :mad:

Didn't Ray Gun pass away of Alzheimers earlier this year?

Random
18-11-2004, 10:01
Originally posted by boscoe
I do hope it's ray guns!

Toboscoe seemed awful keen on them earlier in the thread :p

boscoe
18-11-2004, 10:45
Originally posted by Random
So no ray guns then ?? :mad:

Thank you Random for getting us back on thread! However I think it’s clear by the way that this thread has been hijacked that there is a sinister conspiracy to divert us from the truth… Russia is indeed developing rayguns! The form and power of these weapons of mass distraction should be discussed but should not distract from the primary consideration… what noise will they make!?!
We all know that you have your standard ‘zzzzzzz’ harmonic but from my sources within the Kremlin I hear that a more radical “wawawawawawa” duel tone is being muted!

The world waits with baited breath!

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 10:49
I'm more partial to the single burst 'dzhoo dzhoo' ones myself.

boscoe
18-11-2004, 10:53
I hear where you are coming from, but have you any idea the power needed to get a byflux capacitor to regulate to the intensity needed! – pure science fiction my friend!

vince
18-11-2004, 10:57
Thanks guys, this thread started to look like war :D

I also think rayguns are the future of this country's military history :p

Then they will train jedis instead of Spetnaz :p

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 10:59
Originally posted by boscoe
I hear where you are coming from, but have you any idea the power needed to get a byflux capacitor to regulate to the intensity needed! – pure science fiction my friend!

No, haven't you heard ? They're now gonna use particle decompression-ionizididers. Amazing what a little bit of Peanutbutter can do when subjected to electron streams.

Random
18-11-2004, 11:07
Will they have a stun facility ? or is that a phaser ???

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 11:12
Originally posted by Random
Will they have a stun facility ? or is that a phaser ???

No 'stun' setting, but apparently the Russian army is being trained to do the Vulcan Death Grip.

J.D.
18-11-2004, 11:17
really Boscoe, you're dating yourself. Byflux[sic] capacitors have been out of date for years. QuadFlux are standard now and there are rumors of reversible hexflux underdevelopment.

They are even working on a ray gun that will not have any sound effect at all. It will be totally silent. But only in outer space.

Yes fact is stranger than fiction.

BRASCO
18-11-2004, 11:57
"Now mate you are getting some seriously prejudicial **** in here!" - now i have stated repeatedly its about the government, not the people.

"Before you want to liberate Iraq ask it if it wants to be liberated."
-i never said this war was for a good cause, my arguement is strictly about who wins, who loses. once again, iraq=russia's ally. if iraq loses, russia=loses, just like that serbia-equation.

"Name one country that does not hate America - all of Africa, all of Asia, most of Europe, most of South America. The whole continents are disgusted with your country's behaviour, even those who are dependent on you!" - not disgusted, angry. continents were disgusted when you guys were attempting ethnic-cleansings in various states of east-europe and the caucasus. and i forgot to mention, thoses JANJAWEEDS in SUDAN, are sponsored by russians, through arabs. "kill those negri!" hmm kind of sounds like moscow-attitude doesn't it?

"America trained Bin Laden, traded weapons with Hussein, covers up the deeds by Saudis... the scale is as different from Russia as US budget from the Russinan one." - once again, taliban/bin laden were trained to fight russians/soviets, and that was lost too. Hussein was to oppose Iran (russians) and he kept them out. and in the end, these fellas didn't suit america so they got rid of them...

"Grenada, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, Camodja, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Somali..., shall I go on?" yep, but NO country in EUROPE. and what about vietnam + korea? vietnam's socialism is in decline, korea is split in two, and the north will get it soon. afghanista=won. iraq=won. kuwait=won threefold. somali stays in the civil war. cambodja=no comment.

"Russia BUILT Iraq, you moron! There were engineers there building roads, factories, power stattions before your lot walked right in and levelled the bleeding place."-yeah you forgot to mention building rockets, to shoot at kurds, israel, iranians. the level of technological sophistication. dont you go around calling people morons, when you don't know who they are.

"Krushchev? Why don't you remind us about Ivan the Terrible while you at it! He executed a whole bunch of people too. What's USSR of Kruschev's era has got to do with today's Russia?" - you just shot yourself in the foot there, you stated that from Ivan Grozny to Krushev to Yeltsin, there hasn't been a competent leader.

"Don't you dare trying to belittle my country by taking a high ground, because your beloved state is as much in blood and sh.t as you allege Russia is."- yep, but america is living a good life, didnt try to subjugate europe, and people aren't trying to run away from their country like russians in russia.

"I am a bit emotional right now, but I have never seen such a scathing attack on the whole people without as much as an acknowledgement that some of it is subjective!" - oh my knowledge is subjective? wait for my post about territorial conflicts in Europe, where Russia, a single country, is responsible for 70% of them.

"Pardon my French. I am really, truly sickened!" - drink a glass of gas-water, friend.

p.s. im am not american.

vince
18-11-2004, 12:01
So we will really never know how they buid those rayguns and what technology they have, other countries don't :(

Filimon
18-11-2004, 12:11
Originally posted by J.D.
Excellent debate tactic, Filimon. Someone says something negative about Russia - just say the US is bad (too).

Your tactics would make Bill Clinton proud.

Hey, he started it :) "At least America..." is the beginning of his very argument, expressly or impliedly.

Brasco, I figured you weren't American, no American I know is THAT narrow-minded.

I hope you can survive in that evil world which Russia, a country that in its current state exists for the whole 12 years, made so bad. Everyone else is a goody-goody. Let's blame the problems in Sudan, global warming, earthquakes in Japan, stroms in the Carribean and oh, don't forget that meteorite that is surely going to wipe out life on earth - it is all part of the great Russian conspiracy to finally dominate the world.

no competent leaders? Name one from another country, apart from Churchill?

Pooty Poot
18-11-2004, 12:20
Originally posted by BRASCO
"Before you want to liberate Iraq ask it if it wants to be liberated."
-i never said this war was for a good cause, my arguement is strictly about who wins, who loses. once again, iraq=russia's ally. if iraq loses, russia=loses, just like that serbia-equation.


Brasco,

I made deals with Bushy-poo about Russian access to Iraqi oil fields a LONG time ago. I had to give him (via Conocco-Philips) a little share of Lukoil in return, but you're on drugs if you think I'm not rootin' for Junior. Why the hell else would I so openly endorse him before the elections ?

Regards,
Vova

P.S. Fillimon, I've been thinking I might replace that Yastrezhembsky character, if you're lookin' for a job.

Random
18-11-2004, 12:21
As ray guns seem to be not available to the general public, just yet .... Could we not all carry one of these ? Portable and give a nasty shock ....

vince
18-11-2004, 12:26
Yes, but does it work i a water-free environement??

Filimon
18-11-2004, 12:31
Originally posted by Pooty Poot
Brasco,

I made deals with Bushy-poo about Russian access to Iraqi oil fields a LONG time ago. I had to give him (via Conocco-Philips) a little share of Lukoil in return, but you're on drugs if you think I'm not rootin' for Junior. Why the hell else would I so openly endorse him before the elections ?

Regards,
Vova

P.S. Fillimon, I've been thinking I might replace that Yastrezhembsky character, if you're lookin' for a job.

Didn't you sack him already? :)

Sorry, I get enough grief because of my chosen profession as it is :)

Pooty Poot
18-11-2004, 12:35
Originally posted by Filimon
Didn't you sack him already? :)

Heck if I know. I have no clue what goes on in my administration anymore. Whole country's run by a gerbil at the zoo, now. If he takes the cheese, that means 'yes' . Carrot means 'no'.

Random
18-11-2004, 12:36
Originally posted by vince
Yes, but does it work i a water-free environement??

Take one of those sting rays out of water thats when it all kicks off ......

Hmmm maybe you'd need to carry it some sort of water filled holster, then when your ready you'd draw your ray out of it's holster - point and zap !

Needs working on ....

:cool:

Filimon
18-11-2004, 12:54
Originally posted by Pooty Poot
Heck if I know. I have no clue what goes on in my administration anymore. Whole country's run by a gerbil at the zoo, now. If he takes the cheese, that means 'yes' . Carrot means 'no'.

Sounds good to me, why would you need anyone else?

boscoe
18-11-2004, 12:56
Originally posted by Halyavshik
No, haven't you heard ? They're now gonna use particle decompression-ionizididers. Amazing what a little bit of Peanutbutter can do when subjected to electron streams.

Purely a red herring…. But that’s the problem there aren’t that many red herring around this time of year, divide that by the number who will even contemplate eating peanut butter and we are talking a miniscule amount!

They are going to have to go with the bipolar phase module which will NEVER produce a 'dzhoo dzhoo' not in a million years!

boscoe
18-11-2004, 12:59
Originally posted by J.D.
really Boscoe, you're dating yourself. Byflux[sic] capacitors have been out of date for years. QuadFlux are standard now and there are rumors of reversible hexflux underdevelopment.

They are even working on a ray gun that will not have any sound effect at all. It will be totally silent. But only in outer space.

Yes fact is stranger than fiction.


I was discussing this with an intelligent and informed individual, however your first pseudoscientific response has shattered any hope that you will be able to contribute to this discussion... “QuadFlux are standard now and there are rumors of reversible hexflux underdevelopment” what a load of tosh! Firstly even a child would know the thermo dynamical properties of such a proposal would knock the bipolar phase module out of sync with the trimatium regulator, secondly the idea that a reversible hexflux could be ionizided is simply laughable! As a great man often said “you canna change the laws of physics” (unless of course you’re in a collapsing red giant vortex lol)

Quite frankly my friend, you appear to be a cosign short of an equation!

Punch
18-11-2004, 12:59
Yanks, yanks....why did you elect this poor cretin again???? :cool:

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:00
Originally posted by boscoe
aren’t that many red herring around this time of year, divide that by the number who will even contemplate eating peanut butter and we are talking a miniscule amount!


you suggest that the number of people who will EVEN eat peanut butter is large as well as small.
With these kind of math skills it's no wonder that you can't design a decent sounding ray gun.

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 13:01
J.D., get off it, man. Next you're gonna tell us ray guns still use dylitheum crystals !

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:04
Old soviet models do.

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:06
Originally posted by Halyavshik
J.D., get off it, man. Next you're gonna tell us ray guns still use dylitheum crystals !

When used in a ray gun it is spelt 'DIElitheum'.

boscoe
18-11-2004, 13:08
Originally posted by J.D.
you suggest that the number of people who will EVEN eat peanut butter is large as well as small.
With these kind of math skills it's no wonder that you can't design a decent sounding ray gun.

JD your English comprehension skills are better than your raygun design theories, but that’s not saying much – read it again...

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:15
Sorry Boscoe, I assumed that you were speaking modern English. But I see that your era of English language matches that of your technology.

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 13:23
JD,

Now I really got to ask what you're on about. What exactly in Boscoe's sentence implied not using modern English ?

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:30
Halyavshik, don't put me on the spot.

Oh well when he said

Purely a red herring…. But that’s the problem there aren’t that many red herring around this time of year, divide that by the number who will even contemplate eating peanut butter and we are talking a miniscule amount!

I understood him to mean 'and THERFORE we are talking about a miniscule amount'. Some sort of comma should have been there to keep me from making that conclusion.

That combined with the fact that he is surely talking about ancient ray gun designs that run on electricity led me to believe that he is speaking old English, or even older.

Random
18-11-2004, 13:37
Nay ! Nay ! and thrice Nay !!!

We will not start this thread on the grammer & english - alright !!

Now stop it the lot of you before I declare war on the lot of you ....hand me that ray !!!

:)

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 13:38
JD, I'm sorry, mate, but that made about as much sense to me as the Hambone and Flippy thing in my signature.

J.D.
18-11-2004, 13:40
I'm glad you agree.

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 13:44
Originally posted by Random
Nay ! Nay ! and thrice Nay !!!

We will not start this thread on the grammer & english - alright !!

Now stop it the lot of you before I declare war on the lot of you ....hand me that ray !!!

:)

You should definitely have a question mark after the interrogative 'alright' as well as a comma before a term of address like 'the lot of you'.

Random
18-11-2004, 13:48
Right thats it hand me that ray !!

You think English is my 1st language ???

like I care what you think .... ruddy grammer nazi's !!! :p

boscoe
18-11-2004, 13:52
Originally posted by J.D.
Halyavshik, don't put me on the spot.

Oh well when he said

Purely a red herring…. But that’s the problem there aren’t that many red herring around this time of year, divide that by the number who will even contemplate eating peanut butter and we are talking a miniscule amount!

I understood him to mean 'and THERFORE we are talking about a miniscule amount'. Some sort of comma should have been there to keep me from making that conclusion.

That combined with the fact that he is surely talking about ancient ray gun designs that run on electricity led me to believe that he is speaking old English, or even older.

I’m ashamed that my level of English is so behind yours! :shame: I wonder if you could recommend a ‘modern’ English teacher who could instill in me the importance of using unnecessary punctuation, stop me from using you’re (when abbreviating ‘you are’) and teach me to use ‘your’ instead and help me scatter apostrophes into any and every word that end’s (see I’m learning) in an ‘s’ - please PM me with a list of your (or should that be you’re, I’m confused now!) tariffs...

I de’sperately, would like to, communicate; effectively with, American literary. Giant’s such as you’re self!

PLEA’SE HELP!

J.D.
18-11-2004, 14:19
There be a much easier and even more pleasanter soulution.
Every morning look in the mirror and say.
"I'm OK!"
"There's nothing wrong with."

Continue this every morning until you believe it.


It worked for me.

boscoe
18-11-2004, 14:36
Originally posted by J.D.
more pleasanter

I'm just never going to be at your level!

:)

J.D.
18-11-2004, 14:39
That was

EVEN more pleasanter

J.D.
18-11-2004, 14:42
similar in emphasis to 'ain't no'
but it is even more stronger.

maybe more like 'ain't even no . . .'

it's the strongest variant possible without the use of explecatives

boscoe
18-11-2004, 14:53
"even more pleasanter"
"even more stronger"

even more deeper into the hole :)

J.D.
18-11-2004, 15:00
Originally posted by boscoe
even more deeper

now you're gettin the hang of it

Random
18-11-2004, 15:01
Originally posted by boscoe
"even more pleasanter"
"even more stronger"

even more deeper into the hole :)

Sounds like a good night out !!

Halyavshik
18-11-2004, 15:12
Originally posted by J.D.
similar in emphasis to 'ain't no'
but it is even more stronger.

maybe more like 'ain't even no . . .'

it's the strongest variant possible without the use of explecatives

J.D. I can't tell if you're being facetious or saying it's slang. You do know that it's grammatically incorrect to say that something is 'more xxxer', right ? It's redundant. It's either more xxxx or xxxxer. Not both. Not all adjectives accept the 'er' either. Pleasant is one of them.

boscoe
18-11-2004, 15:16
Superfluous is a better word, but ‘redundant’ will do :)

J.D.
18-11-2004, 15:48
either you guys have been in Russia to long or you need some beer.

I can't help with the former but . . .