Dak

the bottom two or three. i tend to use the bottom two, but many wing chun practitioners use the bottom three. the fist is verticle in wing chun punches, by the way, and the punch goes more-or-less in a straight line from the center of the body to the target, with effort only being put in at the last couple of inches. also, chops and palm-strikes are used quite alot (theyre generaly used more than punches at the higher-levels). and elbows. i like elbows oh, and kung-fu pokes to the eyes. i like them too.

amen to that! I wish the same were true in the UK. is it just me, or do the figures of the rasmussen report not add up? that totals 90%... is there an unreported responce which 10% opted for, or is that just survey error? (seems a tad high if the latter) or am i missing something?

all quotes from rev-im-an-annoying-troll-prez who said we were just talking about americans' oppinions? and the statistic which i believe that your referring to is 70% i never said that. ever. go find a bit where i said that. and no, not idiots or slaves; but soldures, with a responcibility to do unplesant tasks. if the fact that there is a quote there doesnt tip you off as to the existance of a paragraph-break, then you are completely beyond hope. by pointing out that public oppinion is linked to terrorists' recruiting power i have failed to substantiate my assertation that the us should have handled the issue of the detainees with greater care, so as to avoid being able to be viewd in such an adverse manner and thus avoid aiding the terrorists with there recruitment programs? of cource iv failed. well done. youv 'won' the 'argument'. you had to resort to the base tactic of ignoring absolutely everything thats been said up until this point, but, by doing so, youv managed to concider yourself to have 'won'. congratulations. now you can go and masturbate your ego to your hearts content, thinking of how you 'beat' the person who was 'stupid' enough to have an oppinon which didnt exactly match yours, and thus was 'incorrect'. congratulations. i really have to hand it to you. no seriously, the strawmans were marvelously fabricated, the ad-hominins believable, and the misquotes handeled with the grace and style. clap. clap. clap. in case you can't tell, im being sarcastic. twat.

I suppose it wasnt really scientifical... but still...

i think that all of the extentions which add extra context menu items rely on reg entrys (and unfortunately, lots of my extentions do use extra context menu items). but yeah, if no1 knows for certain, ill do a bit of an try-it-and-see.

all quotes from revprez 1/it is not dishonest just because you do not agree with it, 2/ there are a vast number of views on the subject, and i do not share them all. no i dont, you self-feltching goit. again, no i dont, you pimlico. i was, in actual fact, pointing out why they are, in my understanding, exempt from critisism in this matter. ie, the exact opposite view than the one that you have accused me of holding. AGAIN!!! seriously now, ****ing well stop it. no. you were accusing me of insinuating that 'unlawful orders were given that the soldures could not disreguard'. i refuted this insinuation. having previously said that i believe the acts in the bay are posibly unjustafiable, i thought id point out that this is not the same as saying that the acts were illegal, which is what i suspected you might be getting confused about. so i have unwarented contempt for american servicemen now, do i? i actually usually try and leave the soldures out of arguments like this, because i think its unfair that they risk there lifes to carry out orders, only to then get critisised for doing so. so, once again, you have made an incorrect assumption about me. youd have thought that youd give up trying to make assumptions about me by now. O4*S, is there anything which you wouldnt argue. i wrote this: You quoted me as saying this: The 'i think not' was not part of my original statement. it is the beginning of my next paragraph, which is patently obviouse as there is a quote in between the two. a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who had been kicked in the head by a horse, could have deduced that there was a break there. WHY CANT YOU? (sigh) OK, hence forth i shal wright in ****ing-moron compatible format. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replywell, even if i havent shown a net benifit, then my original point still stands. there was no need for a net gain for my point to stand. my point was that the terrorists recruitment would go up due to the percieved way in which the bay detainees were handled. wether it goes up enough to yield a net benifit or not is irrelevent. the fact that its benificial to recrutment power is all that i was stating. this is a new paragraphit seriously doesnt matter if theres a net increase or not. if the level of depletion goes down slower as a result of the bay detainees treatment, then in a years time the number of terrorists will be higher than it would have been if no objections had ever been raised about the treatment of the bay detainees. this statement is still true if the number of terrorists in a years time is lower than it is today, thus not being a 'net benifit', using your definition. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyi directly quoted the papers own conclusion that it shows a link between popular support and recruitment. if your arguing with that statement, then your arguing with the paper, not me. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyyes: im trying to put things in simple terms for you, so that you can understand. you dont need to shout 'tautology' every time that i do. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replythats rich, coming from someone who had to utilise colonoscopy to obtain there avitar. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyanswre the question: are you sujjesting that in a conflict between A and B, any perceptions of unjustified acts performed by B would not increace sympathy for A?

yup, i firefox it is. and im more confused about how to copy across the reg entries for the extentions. does anyone know if its just a case of copying across HKCU/software/mozila, or would i need to copy HKCU/software/netscape aswell? (and obviously all of the files/folders used by firefox and its extentions)? If no-one knows, then ill embark on some experimentation! (daks parents' compupter's registry shudders in terror) [edit]Ooooooooooh, a new sub-forum! dave must have felt that all the n00by questions like these were cluttering up his forum just for future reference, what goes in the main computer forum, and what goes in computer help?[/edit]

can it be done? i have loads of extentions, custom settings and book marks, and dont really fancy downloading FF, installing FF, pissing about with the settings, downloading all my extentions, setting all the options on all the extentions, exporting and inporting my bookmark list etc... is there a way in which i can just copy my FF -- extentions, settings and reg entrys inall -- across to another computer?

yeah, this is arguably very true. the US could still have done more to prevent the media from being able to portray it in such a fashion tho, imo. The manner in which the bay detainees were treated left alot of options to portray it as wrong.

All quotes from revprez no. this issue, which you are refering to here, is about public oppinion. coincidentaly, i do think the charges are plausable. that, however, is irrelevant. no. as i said, there are circumstances where soldures can disreguard orders. however, the US is maintaining that these orders are perfectly legal. i dont think that the soldures should be expected to disreguard these orders, irreguardless of there justification. nice ad hominin by the way. tosser. 1/ unjustifyable != illegal. 2/ its not relevant to the aspect of the issue that we're currently discussing. no you didnt. as evidenced by the unarguable fact that you misquoted me. there was a quote inbetween one paragraph and the next. how more obviouse do you wish the seperation of one paragraph and the next to be? again, if you read my posts instead of just hitting 'quote' and then ranting on, you might actually be able to understand. as previously (and repeatedly) mentioned, this is irrelevent within the current context. yes, but i wasnt sure wether you did. your equasion shows that public support (St) is positively related to terrorist activity, Tt. thank you for proving my point. no. public support increases terrorist recruitment. other factors may deplete terrorist numbers. if the latter is happening faster than the former, then the number of terrorists will go down, BUT an increase in Rt, even if not enough to counteract the depletion and cause a rise in terrorist numbers (ie, show a 'net gain'), will at the very least slow down the depletion in numbers. concidering that the number of terrorists is related to there effectiveness, and that the more effective they are the more people die, i dont think that you could argue that a decrease in there rate of depletion isnt bad. you also havent shown that there depletion is greater than there replenishment. you should do so, before continuing with this specific line of argument. no, i was not showing that. i was showing that an increase of public support has a positive effect on terrorist activities, which i have done so. i am under no obligation to explain the paper to you. its enough that the paper itself states that it shows a link between public support and recruitment. my, what a constructive comment. i think ill respond with an equally constructive comment: **** off. no. i said appearing hypocritical makes the us appear hypocritical. which is self evidently true. the reason which i stated such a simple fact is because you were being to thick-headed to realise what i was saying. i then went on to elaborate as to why their apparent hypocracy is relevent. if people feel that america is acting unfairly, hypocritically, or is violating human rights, then this will lower there oppinion of the US (unless they think that any of those acts are commendable). This will, in turn, undoubtably increase sympathy, and thus public support, for the terrorists 'war' against the US. unless, of cource, you are sujjesting that, in a conflict between A and B, any perceptions of unjustified acts performed by B would not increace sympathy for A?

All quotes from revprez unless otherwize stated. yes, and if you read my own words withing their original context, you can see that the reason i feel that they have handeled it ineptly is because of the fact that they have allowed it to appear as if human rights violations have occoured. it doesnt mean that human rights violations definately occoured, but the fact that it seems as if they might have in-and-of-itself is damaging. this bit, from the same paragraph, makes my meaning clear again, stop quoting me out of context. i actually pointed out that, within the context of the point that i was trying to make, wether or not the accusations are true or not is irrelevent. wether or not i believe the accusations to be true is equally irrelevant. not that your 'point' has any relevance to my statement that you quoted. wether the accusation that the detainees treatment was unnaceptable is true or not, soldures cannot disreguard orders. it was in responce to your accusation that i was giving "short shrift" to the "americans in uniform", which i took to mean soldures. even if the treatment of the bay detainees was unnaceptable, the soldures are not to blame, and thus i am in no way shape or form giving "short shrift" to american soldures. to head of a potential side track upon which i feel you may embark, im well aware that there are circumstances under which soldures can disreguard orders, and im equally aware that they dont apply in this case. 1) stop misquoting me. the 'i dont think so' at the end of the quote is from the next paragraph, which is in responce to another issue, as is made clear by the fact that theres another quote inbetween. it may not seem relevant, and in this case it hardly changes the meaning of the quote, but, all the same, dont do it again. 2)and nor am i. im arguing that there are alot of people who believe that the US acted in violation of human rights, and that this wide-spread belief has a significant and negative impact upon the US's interests. america is preaching human rights. america has cited human rights as a justification for parts of its foreighn policy. to be seen to not be honoring human rights itself would throw doubt on its motives. this could lead to less cooperation from other nations, which could feasably make americas promotion of human rights in other nations less easy. no, lets not use that restrictive definition of the net strength of terrorist organisations. equasion 3" is Tt = αRt + δTt-1 - Ω, in which terrorist recruitment power, Rt, has already been defined, so its not possible to show a link between popular support for the terrorists and there recruiting power using just equasion 3", which i suspect is why you chose it. if, however, we dont chose to ignore the rest of the paper, we could say this: equation 2: Rt = a + bSt this shows a direct rise in number of new recruits, Rt, as public support of the terrorists, St, goes up. if we now look at equasion 3" again, you can see that Rt has a positive effect on Tt (the number of terrorist attacks). as public support for the terrorists, St, has a positive effect on Rt, which in turn has a positive effect on Tt, it is true that public support, St, has a positive effect on the number of terrorist attacks, Tt. not to mention that the paper actually states "This paper presents a dynamic model linking popular support to terrorist activities". what about the fact that i pointed out that public support for terrorists increases the number of recruits. if you have to ignore parts of what i say, and twist what remains into an easyer to rebuke shape, i would sujjest considering conceding. or in other words, if you cant soundly argue against it, dont argue against it. yes it does. percieved mistreatment and hypocracy would increase public support. this would increase the terrorist activities. as proved above. and yet, in the very next quote, you highlight a few other options so now im a dishonest america-hater, am i? at least i dont molest goats, like you do. and yes, the red cross were an indipendant 'commision', so to speak. maybe it would have been advisable to have heeded them before they made a public condemnation of americas treatment of the bay detainees.

i used to do wing chun. the hips can be twisted, or the entire body sunk down, in order to throw the bodys weight into the punch. in wing chun, most of the power was sacraficed for speed; the twisting of the body etc is an attempt to regain some of that power without lessening the speed too much, but wing chun punches are still weaker than most martial arts -- they still hurt though, and are generaly very fast (8 per second, if your a black belt and dont throw your weight into the punches) and are usually aimed at the throaght. one interesting thing about wing chun punches, is that theyre powerful in a very quick and snappy way: when i used to get punched in the chest in training, i never used to go flying backwards or anything, hardly recoiled atall infact, but i could definately feel the energt sink into my chest, whereupon it usually winded me.

Ninjas in feudal japan used to use guns ('teppo', similar to our match-lock guns). Some modern ninja clans hire themselves out as bodyguards, which means that they use guns.

my pleasure the reason the reistalation left the registry alone is that you only did an 'over-the-top', or fix/repair instalation. theyre desighned to reinstall system files, but not affect other stuff, like documents, non-system files, and reg entries. i shal play with your mod thingy when i have my own pc back... whats it do, pop up a funny message when you log on?

Hi troll! hows it going. i notice that youv strawmanned me quite a bit. no. i never said that the fact that many people believe it makes it true. however' date=' the fact that many people believe it means that many people believe it. this is the issue which i was addressing, as i made clear in my post. as for the soldures: they follow orders. they do not have the liberty of disreguarding orders because they dont agree with them. yes. i know. i read your link. i comprehend. that doesnt change the fact that many people believe that the US has intentionally found loop holes to exploit. are you trying to argue that lots of people arent accusing the US of doing this? i think not. for a start, america's allies and own citisens are joining in the citisism. i also fail to see how being percieved (correctly or otherwize) of human rights violations can be anything other than damaging to a contry which is trying to protect peoples human rights across the globe, including in areas where they have no soverighnty: it makes them appear hypocritical. note the word appear. plonk (pdf) knowing your disinclanation to actually bother to read peoples sourses' date=' here are the most relevant bits, which quantatatively show the relationship between public oppinion and terrorism's perpetuation: although of course the paper goes into much greater deapth than the mere snippets that iv shown above; youll have to read it, even if only to see how completely i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. so you see, it has been established that the more valid that the terrorists can make their campeighn appear to the public, the more recruts they will have. my point about the percieved mistreatment of the detainees being an issue wether there treatment was justified or not still stands. theyre not the only options (nor are they the only options sujjested by the critics, as you full well know). maybe all that would be nessesary is a better public explanation of why the detainees were denied PoW status, and maybe an independant commision to ensure theyre humanitarian treatment.

1337: cheers dave

try this: back up your registry first! (goto regedit and click export on one of the tags at the top). go here copy the code into a notepad file, ensuring that there is NO SPACE at the beginning (ie, the regedit bit is right up the top of the notepad) and that your computer doesnt do the stupid thing that mine just did, ie puts random spaces in at potentially reg-shafting places. in notepad, goto 'save as type', and select 'all file types'. for 'save as', type "givemebackmyfarkingpoweroptions.reg". now, locate the givemebackmyfarkingpoweroptions registry file. double click it and select 'yes' when it asks if you want to inport it. restart your pc and see if the power options are back. if not, then goto regedit, select 'inport' and restore your back-up copy of the reg.

yes, i know... my point was simply that, rather than an entire over-the-top/repair installation, you could have simply used the recovery consol to replace just your ntoskrnl, thus saving yourself the effort of having to update everything again.

your right about not being able to boot from a start-up disk; i was getting cofused and thinking about other files, earlyer in the boot sequense. sorry bout that. as for the recovery consol, here is a link. you can load up the recovery console from the instalation CD even if ntoskrnl is shafted beyond recognition, and then replace ntoskrnl either with a back-up copy which is saved on your hdd, or from the copy on the instalation CD.

it is apparently just as simple as wrighting something to the effect of "expand D:\i386\ntoskrnl.ex_ : C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntoskrnl.exe" in the recovery consol, and the file is uncompressed from its location on the install cd and copied to your os. although tbh, i would have thought that a recovery disk would allow your OS to boot (as i ntoskrnl is one of the files found on a recovery disk), and then you could actually replase ntoskrnl.exe from within XP itelf?

on the other hand, for a country like america which is actively involved in persuing respect of human rights across the globe, it could be damaging for them to be seen, themselves, as breaching peoples human rights. its definately something which should be taken into account imo. well, thats definately an argument against confering PoW status on them. i assume that the mail is censored? even so, i can see it being a problem, as it would give the terrorists a clue as to what was going on. ----------------------- i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly. across the world, people are accusing the US of violation of human rights, of intentionally seeking out loop-holes in the geneva convention which allowed them to contrevene there human rights... in a way, it is irrelevant wether the US has done so: for a contry which is preaching gloabal human rights, it is damaging to be seen violating them (even if the perseption is innacurate); and also the more the terrorists can daemonise the US (and the way in which they appear to have handeled the detainees definately facilitates the daemonising of the US), the easyer it is to recrute new terrorists to fight against the US. even if the detainees treatment is justified (which im still not convinsed about), I think that the US should have handeled it in a way which included more instantly recognisable safe-guards to the detainees human rights, simply to avoid the numerouse accusations that the US have had to tolerate, justifyably or not, as a result of their treatment of the detainees.

could you not whack the installation cd in and access the recovery consol? i dont have too much experience in this area, but i was under the impression that the installation cd could load the drivers nessesary to make changes to the hdd, and so could copy across missing/corrupted files from the cd to the hdd.

youd learn more if you tried to learn how to fix it after you break it (theres a command-line thingy in the repare console that you could have used to extract just the ntoskernel from the instalation cd to the hdd, thus fixing your pc without reinsalling) but yeah, breaking stuff is an excellent way of learning how stuff works. make sure to make regular back-ups if you do, though.

Wasnt sure where to put this, so GD it is. Mysteriouse wierd purple dot thing stare at the outside of the ring, and you can clearly see a ring of purple dots with a green dot rotating around the circle. if you try and follow the green dot, it disappears, to be replaced by a rotating gap in the purple dots. if you stare at the cross in the centre, all of the purple dots will dissapear. wierd, neh?

To get the thread slightly more on topic (my apologies for my part in marring it), here are a few questions that i dont believe have been asked/addressed in this thread yet: Should the prisoners have been granted POW/criminal status: im not talking legally here, im talking 'would it have been better all round to have confered that status on them'? would the treatment of the prisoners have been more acceptable had they been tried and convicted in US civillian courts prior to their interrogation? would other forms of coersion to extract intel have been more acceptable, such as bribery, 'truth-drugs' etc. do you think that the US's humanitarian reputation has been damaged as a result of the detainees treatment. if so, should this be taken into account when desciding wether or not to treat future detainees in a similar manner.