The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I highly recommend you watch this if you haven't seen it before.
[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]
or
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Seems pretty feasible to me.
[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]
or
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Seems pretty feasible to me.
Page:
munn wrote:
>What they don't tell us is that Earth is actually enclosed in a big
> dome with TV screens on the roof, and the planes are justattached to
> the dome roof via strings (Really big strings), and the plane doesn't
> move, the rest of the world just rotates whilst the plane is stuck to
> the ceiling.
Sounds like it has similarties to the truman show or the book 1984
>What they don't tell us is that Earth is actually enclosed in a big
> dome with TV screens on the roof, and the planes are justattached to
> the dome roof via strings (Really big strings), and the plane doesn't
> move, the rest of the world just rotates whilst the plane is stuck to
> the ceiling.
Sounds like it has similarties to the truman show or the book 1984
Your Honour wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
>
> So how should I have interpreted it then?
Well, when it's obviously a euphamism ("bloke said down the pub" being a euphamistic reference for ill-informed tripe), that's a good time to interpret it thus.
>
>
> If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have
> left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point
> of
> view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you
> think.
>
> Why not? You can look at the "evidence" on this blokes
> web-site objectively. Whether he was objective when he put it
> together or not is a different matter.
Hmm...yeah, fair point.
>
> What started of meaning to be a lighthearted thread (or so I
> imagine), seems to have turned out to be something else entirely.
That's the nature of the beast though; if someone gets offended by what one says, then it's ones responsibility to address that offence. Even if the only response is "Screw you and your upset"; at least then it's addressed (albeit unsatisfactorily).
> I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as
> much
> of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional
> reaction to a topic?
>
> No, what I mean is the "exercising diplomacy" argument
> shouldn't be used to avoid discussing certain topics.
Agreed, it shouldn't. And in this thread, it hasn't been. However, like I say, if someone does get offended at what has been said then I'd saying the creator of the topic that offended has a duty to address what the person who was offended said.
> Light wrote:
> Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
>
> So how should I have interpreted it then?
Well, when it's obviously a euphamism ("bloke said down the pub" being a euphamistic reference for ill-informed tripe), that's a good time to interpret it thus.
>
>
> If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have
> left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point
> of
> view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you
> think.
>
> Why not? You can look at the "evidence" on this blokes
> web-site objectively. Whether he was objective when he put it
> together or not is a different matter.
Hmm...yeah, fair point.
>
> What started of meaning to be a lighthearted thread (or so I
> imagine), seems to have turned out to be something else entirely.
That's the nature of the beast though; if someone gets offended by what one says, then it's ones responsibility to address that offence. Even if the only response is "Screw you and your upset"; at least then it's addressed (albeit unsatisfactorily).
> I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as
> much
> of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional
> reaction to a topic?
>
> No, what I mean is the "exercising diplomacy" argument
> shouldn't be used to avoid discussing certain topics.
Agreed, it shouldn't. And in this thread, it hasn't been. However, like I say, if someone does get offended at what has been said then I'd saying the creator of the topic that offended has a duty to address what the person who was offended said.
It's an aeroplane conspiracy theory.
WHat they don't tell us is that Earth is actually enclosed in a big dome with TV screens on the roof, and the planes are justattached to the dome roof via strings (Really big strings), and the plane doesn't move, the rest of the world just rotates whilst the plane is stuck to the ceiling.
WHat they don't tell us is that Earth is actually enclosed in a big dome with TV screens on the roof, and the planes are justattached to the dome roof via strings (Really big strings), and the plane doesn't move, the rest of the world just rotates whilst the plane is stuck to the ceiling.
Thing is, not much of a plane is hollow.
At the start of the flight the wings are full of fuel, for a start. Then you've got all the baggage of the passangers, all the food on board to feed them all etc etc.
At the start of the flight the wings are full of fuel, for a start. Then you've got all the baggage of the passangers, all the food on board to feed them all etc etc.
ShortyUK wrote:
> Well if they were completely solid they wouldnt be able to fly would
> they? You know what i ment. They have to have hollow space, because
> if that space were solid material, theyd have a hard time taking off
> due to the weight, fuel consumption would be too high etc...
Errrr, it's not as if five people could lift up a plane among themselves, they're a bit heavier than you think.
It's the same with a ship, they way a few kilograms too, but they still manage to float, and don't say it's becuase they're "hollow" as logs from huge trees can float, yet a penny dropped in water would sink.
It's all about the Physics, dude.
Of course, you should have already known that if you're a logical kind of guy, you know?
> Well if they were completely solid they wouldnt be able to fly would
> they? You know what i ment. They have to have hollow space, because
> if that space were solid material, theyd have a hard time taking off
> due to the weight, fuel consumption would be too high etc...
Errrr, it's not as if five people could lift up a plane among themselves, they're a bit heavier than you think.
It's the same with a ship, they way a few kilograms too, but they still manage to float, and don't say it's becuase they're "hollow" as logs from huge trees can float, yet a penny dropped in water would sink.
It's all about the Physics, dude.
Of course, you should have already known that if you're a logical kind of guy, you know?
monkey_man wrote:
> Break a window - does the glass smash inwards? Nope.
Guh, that confused me for a while, because I thought you meant break a window from the outside.
Damn you.
> Break a window - does the glass smash inwards? Nope.
Guh, that confused me for a while, because I thought you meant break a window from the outside.
Damn you.
Mode wrote:
> I enjoyed that - Thanks Paradox.
>
> I won't post my opinion because it mean I'll then have to think about it.
> Your Honour said the right words concerning this topic.
> I enjoyed that - Thanks Paradox.
>
> I won't post my opinion because it mean I'll then have to think about it.
> Your Honour said the right words concerning this topic.
I enjoyed that - Thanks Paradox.
I won't post my opinion because it shall get p***ed all over.
Your Honour said the right words concerning this topic.
I won't post my opinion because it shall get p***ed all over.
Your Honour said the right words concerning this topic.
G-Ah?
I said it was carefully constructed and I appreciated every word.
Did you use your special numpty-deciphering-code you got free with your mail-order careworker to change what I said?
Did you use your special numpty-deciphering-code you got free with your mail-order careworker to change what I said?
Page: