wHo sAys yOu nEeD a rEaL fErRaRi tO pIcK uP hOt cHiCs

Tim, with all respect, you are wrong Take a look at this..

http://alcalc.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/6/513

http://alcalc.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/6/513/F1

 

LOL @ that chart you posted...
"% of Boys and Girls that have been drunk 10 times in the last 12 months"

10 times in 12 months? Ten times in ONE month isnt a lot for an american college student.. Infact, since being in prague I would say its been about 4 times per week on average...its just soooo cheap that i figure i might as well enojy it while im here.

Here is where it says Czechs drink the most beer per capita of all countries.
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000601.html

 

Jonas,

A little tipsy, are ya?

Flip the chart rightside up!

DL

 

You have to look at the age difference - The chart you posted is for all the Czechs, mine is for youth's only. (15-16) - And it also said 10 times or more, they could have been drunk 100 times, and the answer would still be on 10 times or more

I did a little research, and you are right. The Czechs drink the most beer pr capita, but the danish teenagers are far the heaviest drinkers in Europe, actually I think the whole world. That I will have to research a little further

 

Im sure Danish teenagers drink a lot, but do Danish college students drink more than American college students? I used to think that europeans didnt drink recreationally, but i was wrong. I now know that all students ages 20-25 love to get wasted and have fun. When i get a chance (ie. after i finish studying for an impossible final exam) i will start a thread with my reflections on spending 3.5 months in a different culture.

 

Well, to my knowledge, yes they do. We have a girl the from the US on our college, and she says drink a lot more. I haven't been to the US, but when I do, I will investigate this matter It's an interesting subject

 

The last thing I wanted to do last night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it, because it's undoubtedly the best way to let Lamarossa know, in no uncertain terms, that even acknowledging his ignorant, brassbound jibes is beneath my dignity. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and examine the warp and woof of his endeavors.

His projects are like an enormous building supply-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must rise to the challenge of thwarting Lamarossa's mudslinging plans, because Lamarossa's recommendations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. I am on an important mission to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. If I don't accomplish that mission, Lamarossa's plans to contaminate clear thinking with Lamarossa's self-centered reinterpretations of historic events could well succeed. If you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that Lamarossa's coadjutors believe that anyone who resists Lamarossa deserves to be crushed. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to declare a truce with Lamarossa and commence a dialogue. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that the acid test for his "kinder, gentler" new jeremiads should be, "Do they still use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to kill the messenger and control the message?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that if Lamarossa wants to pursue a twofold credo of prætorianism and conformism, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. I have certainly had enough of Lamarossa's airy-fairy talk of "maybe this or maybe that". Let's remember that.

Unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Lamarossa is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Lamarossa and his underlings. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that the baneful nature of Lamarossa's expostulations is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. Isn't it interesting which questions he dodges and what tangents he goes off on? Those dodges and tangents make me think that someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Lamarossa. The memo spells out his plans to create massive civil unrest. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Lamarossa does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why Lamarossa uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. This is not the same as saying that I have come to know Lamarossa's forces too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their devious slurs, although that, too, is true.

Why is it that by excluding any possibility of comparison, Lamarossa can easily pass off his own platitudes as works of genius? It's because Lamarossa's ploys cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as Lamarossa. To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of piteous gasbags, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but his mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life.

I heard through the grapevine that Lamarossa uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help him spawn delusions of demagogism's resplendence. Whether or not this rumor is true, Lamarossa ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. So, what's my take on his blinkered, scornful "compromises"? Simply this: Lamarossa claims that gin-swilling, ungrateful idiots are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I believe that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that I'm sure Lamarossa wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does he want to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that some people don't seem to mind that he likes to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. What a damnable world we live in!

The magnitude of Lamarossa's lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education. That conclusion is not based on some sort of callow philosophy or on Lamarossa-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Lamarossa likes to cite poll results that "prove" that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that documents written by Lamarossa's factotums typically include the line, "Lamarossa's Ponzi schemes are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that I'm willing to accept that certain individuals in intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of Lamarossa's more rude notions. I'm even willing to accept that we should give him a taste of his own medicine. But he complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. Lamarossa has commented that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. He wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Lamarossa wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that he maintains that either he has been robbed of all he does not possess or that the few of us who complain regularly about his quips are simply spoiling the party. Lamarossa denies any other possibility.

We'd all be in grave danger if he continued to engage in his merciless behavior. You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. You decide.

Let us postulate that letting Lamarossa prey on people's fear of political and economic instability sends a clear message to the most scary Luddites you'll ever see that they can rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor teetotalism. In that case, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Lamarossa finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that if one could get a Ph.D. in Commercialism, Lamarossa would be the first in line to have one. If I understand his inclinations correctly, then there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of fatuous imbeciles. The other is whether or not this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Lamarossa's depraved behavior, but about the way that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I have to wonder where Lamarossa got the idea that it is my view that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. It is clear from what I have already written that Lamarossa is indisputably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but if stoicism were an Olympic sport, he would clinch the gold medal.

He has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. Lamarossa is absolutely determined to believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders", and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Lamarossa.

*http://www.pakin.org/complaint

 

...and you where saying?

Can someone please give me a short executive summary?

/Peter

 

nice avatar peter.

is she swedish?

 

I'm clueless, I've never seen the front of her...

/Peter
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

cant really remember what this thread was about now

nice ass though