100K in 100 DAYS before WOA:08!!

[gee jay]

yeah, i know they hate it.. but i reckon they sound the same as americans to me... But having said that.. Im sure you think all aussies sound the sme.. there is a bit of accent from state to state here
but mostly we are speaking really bogan

you can hear the accent in words like about. Canadians say it aboot.
and they say eh? a lot. eh ?

 

[Smoo_lord]

But what's fair for you , isn't to someone else.
Who decides ?

good point.. they sort of had a loophole with that law.. because

person a likes doing activity x

person B does not like activity x, so condemns it

Person c does not like activity x, but hates person B so disagrees


you cant win, because they are all exercising their "first amendment rights".. But who's right is greater?

 

[xforeverxmetalx]

But what's fair for you , isn't to someone else.
Who decides ?

same thing as everything else.
but I'm pushing for my cause.

 

[gee jay]

yeah, i know they hate it.. but i reckon they sound the same as americans to me... But having said that.. Im sure you think all aussies sound the sme.. there is a bit of accent from state to state here
but mostly we are speaking really bogan

I've only met1 or 2 Aussies. Real cool girl back about 15 years. Think she was from Sydney. Very cool .

 

[Smoo_lord]

you can hear the accent in words like about. Canadians say it aboot.
and they say eh? a lot. eh ?

yeah lol, we got some cooking shows and shit on cable.. can tell they are canadian.

"this garlic is aboooooot to be turned onto a low heat now"

 

[Smoo_lord]

good point.. they sort of had a loophole with that law.. because

person a likes doing activity x

person B does not like activity x, so condemns it

Person c does not like activity x, but hates person B so disagrees


you cant win, because they are all exercising their "first amendment rights".. But who's right is greater?

i reckon this is a good analogy from a drunk aussie!

 

[xforeverxmetalx]

good point.. they sort of had a loophole with that law.. because

person a likes doing activity x

person B does not like activity x, so condemns it

Person c does not like activity x, but hates person B so disagrees

you cant win, because they are all exercising their "first amendment rights".. But who's right is greater?

everyone's.
person A can do whatever the heck they want.
person B can say person A can't do it, but they can't make them stop.
person C can say whatever they want as well.

 

[Smoo_lord]

same thing as everything else.
but I'm pushing for my cause.

I can piss someone off here without fear of being sued.. i might cop a punch to the teeth, but thats about it

 

[xforeverxmetalx]

http://headbangersblog.mtv.com/2008...and-raves-from-heavy-metal-poet-otep-shamaya/

perfect example of what I feel needs to be done.

 

[gee jay]

everyone's.
person A can do whatever the heck they want.
person B can say person A can't do it, but they can't make them stop.
person C can say whatever they want as well.

doesn't work that way.
should.
doesn't.

 

[xforeverxmetalx]

i reckon this is a good analogy from a drunk aussie!

 

[xforeverxmetalx]

doesn't work that way.
should.
doesn't.

exactly.

 

[gee jay]

I can piss someone off here without fear of being sued.. i might cop a punch to the teeth, but thats about it

i don't think anyone on here has that kind of reach !!

 

[Smoo_lord]

everyone's.
person A can do whatever the heck they want.
person B can say person A can't do it, but they can't make them stop.
person C can say whatever they want as well.

thats in theory, but we all know that is not the case...

Person B would probably sue A, A would counter sue, and C would shoot B

then they would all go and get a burger, and a donut

 

[Smoo_lord]

i don't think anyone on here has that kind of reach !!

i meant "here" as in aus...
but yeha