Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also pointless deaths


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also pointless deaths Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also pointle... - 8/30/2014 11:12:40 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline 		These are for deaths by automobile in the years 2008, 09, 10, 11, 12
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 1:49:20 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		Gotto imagine what those numbers would look like without speed limits and other driving laws which keep people safe

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 2:18:36 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline 		Actually it is seat belts that save lives.

And a new study has shown that lower speed limits can be dangerous. :)

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 2:24:28 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Actually it is seat belts that save lives.

And a new study has shown that lower speed limits can be dangerous. :)

How dare you challenge the liberal tenant of faith that regulation makes us safer richer and more free?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 4:11:34 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

After the NHTSA blackmailed the states into 55 mph speed limits during the 1973 oil crisis; it was shown to be a cash cow to keep the speed limits low on highways designed for higher speeds.

Now we have a generation that thinks you will have a heart attack and crash and burn if you go over 55. <facetious reaction to having a teenager claim it isn't ever safe to drive over 55 ... what he was taught in driver's education>

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 4:24:43 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

Can you provide any evidence for this claim? At all?

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 4:36:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Aylee

Actually it is seat belts that save lives.

This is true.

And a new study has shown that lower speed limits can be dangerous. :)


This is not true.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/30/2014 4:39:12 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

You said this on the other thread and I called bullshit then as I do now.

After the NHTSA blackmailed the states into 55 mph speed limits during the 1973 oil crisis; it was shown to be a cash cow to keep the speed limits low on highways designed for higher speeds.

How so?

Now we have a generation that thinks you will have a heart attack and crash and burn if you go over 55. <facetious reaction to having a teenager claim it isn't ever safe to drive over 55 ... what he was taught in driver's education>


Perhaps if you were to link us to that text book so we can validate for ourselves this peurile assertion.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 3:58:29 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Actually it is seat belts that save lives.


True....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
And a new study has shown that lower speed limits can be dangerous. :)


How about posting that study? Since I'd like to see how dumb the author(s) are in not understanding a science known as 'Physics'.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 4:14:25 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
These are for deaths by automobile in the years 2008, 09, 10, 11, 12


And what caused those deaths exactly? Human failure? Mechanical failure? Environmental hazard? A combination of the three? Your assuming all the deaths were the result of 'x', when reality is often very different. Course the question that does get generated is.....

"Has technology and knowledge, lessen the chances of death due in some form to an automobile? And by how much?" The first is easy to answer, 'yes'. The second would be a bit more complicated and complex to give a full answer (with supporting evidence). Let us assume for a moment that we are still using the same technology and knowledge from the 1950's. Instead of the number of cars on the roads and hours of operation they were in the 1950's, lets assume 2014 . It would be a safe bet the number of deaths would be far higher. Could it be 1.5 times? Twice? Four times? Ten times? Maybe and maybe not. What does each bit of technology and knowledge add to the whole of technology and knowledge known?

As you can tell, there exists a number of questions without answers. Would take a group of researchers quite a while to figure out the possible/likely numbers of people losing their lives without the technology and knowledge in use.

Regulations, for purpose of this post, are included into the 'knowledge' side. Regulations do not come about until there is evidence that such regulations could lessen the likelihood of injure and/or death. And that takes a lot of time, resources, and research to find such answers.

Now, imagine if we had applied the same amount of time, resources, and research towards firearms as we do automobiles. What would we know in addition to what we know right now? Since the author of the OP is one of those pushing the firearms debates. I've always been of the opinion that such research should be performed. And that none of the gun nuts on here want such research performed. I wonder why that is.....


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 7:44:59 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

You said this on the other thread and I called bullshit then as I do now.


After the NHTSA blackmailed the states into 55 mph speed limits during the 1973 oil crisis; it was shown to be a cash cow to keep the speed limits low on highways designed for higher speeds.

How so?

Now we have a generation that thinks you will have a heart attack and crash and burn if you go over 55. <facetious reaction to having a teenager claim it isn't ever safe to drive over 55 ... what he was taught in driver's education>


Perhaps if you were to link us to that text book so we can validate for ourselves this peurile assertion.



Call all the bullshit you want. The original spec called for 95 and it was watered down to 70 as a minimum for safe rural speeds by congressional compromise. The speed limit on I-64, back in 1973, going from Norfolk to Richmond was 95mph. Been there, drove that.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards
quote:

Minimum design speed: In rural areas, a minimum design speed of 70 mph (115 km/h) should be used, with 50–60 mph (80–95 km/h) acceptable in rolling terrain, and as low as 50 mph (80 km/h) allowed in mountainous and urban areas.[1] Speed limits as low as 40 mph (65 km/h) are, however, occasionally encountered and generally assigned to pre-existing freeways that were grandfathered into the system.[citation needed]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm

As to using a government office to propagate a political agenda I refer to Joan Claybrook's attemppts to force state governments into conforming to her idea as how things should be run by withholding NHTSA funds from states that did not toe the line she set on legal policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Claybrook
One of the more hilarious things she publicly stated was that all motorcycles should be required to have seat belts.

And, I never ever mentioned a textbook but what a cheeky teen told me that he had been taught in driver's education when I had him out on a learner's permit trying to teach parallel parking. And, with queries to some oh his friends it was apparent the kids were taught that no speed about 55mph was safe.

I shan't mention what difference the sun rises at without citing references in the future.




< Message edited by MercTech -- 8/31/2014 7:50:55 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 11:31:25 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

You said this on the other thread and I called bullshit then as I do now.


After the NHTSA blackmailed the states into 55 mph speed limits during the 1973 oil crisis; it was shown to be a cash cow to keep the speed limits low on highways designed for higher speeds.

How so?

Now we have a generation that thinks you will have a heart attack and crash and burn if you go over 55. <facetious reaction to having a teenager claim it isn't ever safe to drive over 55 ... what he was taught in driver's education>


Perhaps if you were to link us to that text book so we can validate for ourselves this peurile assertion.



Call all the bullshit you want. The original spec called for 95 and it was watered down to 70 as a minimum for safe rural speeds by congressional compromise. The speed limit on I-64, back in 1973, going from Norfolk to Richmond was 95mph. Been there, drove that.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards
quote:

Minimum design speed: In rural areas, a minimum design speed of 70 mph (115 km/h) should be used, with 50–60 mph (80–95 km/h) acceptable in rolling terrain, and as low as 50 mph (80 km/h) allowed in mountainous and urban areas.[1] Speed limits as low as 40 mph (65 km/h) are, however, occasionally encountered and generally assigned to pre-existing freeways that were grandfathered into the system.[citation needed]



I recall the phrase "reasonable and prudent" being used in some of the driver education classes I've had in the past. That is, even if you were driving faster than the speed limit, you could still argue in court that your speed was "reasonable and prudent" for the traffic conditions. By the same token, people can get cited for driving at or below the speed limit if it wasn't "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions.

Another thing, at least in terms of design, a lot of roads seem like they have more traffic than what they were designed for. Even driving through rural areas, I've come across some parts where the traffic can be rather thick. Or else there might be situations where a truck is in one lane going 60 mph (where the speed limit might be 70 or 75), and someone in an oversized RV is passing them going 61 mph. It doesn't take too long before the traffic behind them starts to build up, all clumped together in close quarters where if any of them makes a wrong move - whamo! A massive multi-car pile up.

There's no design that's truly safe against the stupid, half-asleep, texting, drunken, or otherwise insane drivers out there. The only thing one can do is get some kind of large heavy-duty truck...or maybe a tank. That would bring road rage to a whole new level.


(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 3:08:57 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Call all the bullshit you want. The original spec called for 95 and it was watered down to 70 as a minimum for safe rural speeds by congressional compromise. The speed limit on I-64, back in 1973, going from Norfolk to Richmond was 95mph. Been there, drove that.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards
quote:

Minimum design speed: In rural areas, a minimum design speed of 70 mph (115 km/h) should be used, with 50–60 mph (80–95 km/h) acceptable in rolling terrain, and as low as 50 mph (80 km/h) allowed in mountainous and urban areas.[1] Speed limits as low as 40 mph (65 km/h) are, however, occasionally encountered and generally assigned to pre-existing freeways that were grandfathered into the system.[citation needed]


There's a few things wrong with your 'viewpoint':

A ) Go read the PDF your 'talking point' comes from. Its 89.14MB big. Is quite a read, I'll give it that. It also shows what happens when a massive amount of research and information is 'dumbed down'; the good, essential, concepts loose their understanding as both it and the evidence supporting it are striped away leaving just a 'buzz words' or 'catch phrases'.

B ) You are aware that it is 2014, and NOT, 1973, right? That would mean traffic patterns could very well be different. In my area, the traffic patterns have forced entire lengths of roads to be remade with the newest knowledge. Not just a few hundred feet, but miles and through several communities if not towns! The old fashion 'country road' on main roads is a thing of the past in 2014.

C ) What is the last two words of that quote above? I 'wonder' what that means.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm


Tell me that you actually...CHECKED THE DATES...on this one? According to that link, there are 46, 726 miles of roads in America. For 2002. Is it 2002 right now? Your information is....WAY OUT OF DATE!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
As to using a government office to propagate a political agenda I refer to Joan Claybrook's attemppts to force state governments into conforming to her idea as how things should be run by withholding NHTSA funds from states that did not toe the line she set on legal policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Claybrook
One of the more hilarious things she publicly stated was that all motorcycles should be required to have seat belts.


An yet, I could post a few thousand stupid things Republicans and Tea Partiers have done and stated; would that mean you instantly are against them for stating something stupid? Hell, everything out of Sarah Palin's mouth is stupid!

An "...using a government office to propagate a political agenda..."? Funny how your not at more serious odds with the former Bush administration. Or the Republican/Tea Party during the partial shutdown of the federal government in 2013. You have big issues with some lesser 'nobody', and no issues with individuals that did bad things to the nation....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
And, I never ever mentioned a textbook but what a cheeky teen told me that he had been taught in driver's education when I had him out on a learner's permit trying to teach parallel parking. And, with queries to some oh his friends it was apparent the kids were taught that no speed about 55mph was safe.


Its been shown one saves on gas at lower speeds that higher ones. As surviving an accident is more likely at 30 mph, then 90 mph. We know this through science (physics and chemistry come to mind). You know, the stuff you don't even know exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
I shan't mention what difference the sun rises at without citing references in the future.


Yeah, you know...NOTHING...about what science understands. Its been proved a long time ago, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. That the planet spins on an axis, and that light can not bend around corners unless by other means. Meaning when the place you are located on, turns away from the source of sunlight, it gets dark, right? But that you can see the moon's surface when its dark outside, is because the moon has a 'line of sight' to the sun, to which you don't at the time.

Its an old fashion expression that 'the sun rises from the east and sets in the west'. Since such concepts as 'north, south, east, and west' only apply when one is on a planet. In outer space, establishing a point in a universe that is continuously expanding is not as easy as one would think,.




(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 5:29:06 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Call all the bullshit you want. The original spec called for 95 and it was watered down to 70 as a minimum for safe rural speeds by congressional compromise. The speed limit on I-64, back in 1973, going from Norfolk to Richmond was 95mph. Been there, drove that.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards

No where does it says any part of the interstate system was designed for 95 mph.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 8/31/2014 8:41:23 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the design criteria for the Interstate Highway System was that the non-urban highways was to be designed to support safe sustained speeds of 95 mph.

After the NHTSA blackmailed the states into 55 mph speed limits during the 1973 oil crisis; it was shown to be a cash cow to keep the speed limits low on highways designed for higher speeds.

Now we have a generation that thinks you will have a heart attack and crash and burn if you go over 55. <facetious reaction to having a teenager claim it isn't ever safe to drive over 55 ... what he was taught in driver's education>

Well I know the auto insurance industry loved the 55 mph speed limit (BTW the NHTSA was not specifically involved) it was a windfall profit.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 9/1/2014 6:44:41 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



There's a few things wrong with your 'viewpoint':

A ) Go read the PDF your 'talking point' comes from. Its 89.14MB big. Is quite a read, I'll give it that. It also shows what happens when a massive amount of research and information is 'dumbed down'; the good, essential, concepts loose their understanding as both it and the evidence supporting it are striped away leaving just a 'buzz words' or 'catch phrases'.

B ) You are aware that it is 2014, and NOT, 1973, right? That would mean traffic patterns could very well be different. In my area, the traffic patterns have forced entire lengths of roads to be remade with the newest knowledge. Not just a few hundred feet, but miles and through several communities if not towns! The old fashion 'country road' on main roads is a thing of the past in 2014.

C ) What is the last two words of that quote above? I 'wonder' what that means.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm


Tell me that you actually...CHECKED THE DATES...on this one? According to that link, there are 46, 726 miles of roads in America. For 2002. Is it 2002 right now? Your information is....WAY OUT OF DATE!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
As to using a government office to propagate a political agenda I refer to Joan Claybrook's attemppts to force state governments into conforming to her idea as how things should be run by withholding NHTSA funds from states that did not toe the line she set on legal policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Claybrook
One of the more hilarious things she publicly stated was that all motorcycles should be required to have seat belts.


An yet, I could post a few thousand stupid things Republicans and Tea Partiers have done and stated; would that mean you instantly are against them for stating something stupid? Hell, everything out of Sarah Palin's mouth is stupid!

An "...using a government office to propagate a political agenda..."? Funny how your not at more serious odds with the former Bush administration. Or the Republican/Tea Party during the partial shutdown of the federal government in 2013. You have big issues with some lesser 'nobody', and no issues with individuals that did bad things to the nation....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
And, I never ever mentioned a textbook but what a cheeky teen told me that he had been taught in driver's education when I had him out on a learner's permit trying to teach parallel parking. And, with queries to some oh his friends it was apparent the kids were taught that no speed about 55mph was safe.


Its been shown one saves on gas at lower speeds that higher ones. As surviving an accident is more likely at 30 mph, then 90 mph. We know this through science (physics and chemistry come to mind). You know, the stuff you don't even know exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
I shan't mention what difference the sun rises at without citing references in the future.


Yeah, you know...NOTHING...about what science understands. Its been proved a long time ago, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. That the planet spins on an axis, and that light can not bend around corners unless by other means. Meaning when the place you are located on, turns away from the source of sunlight, it gets dark, right? But that you can see the moon's surface when its dark outside, is because the moon has a 'line of sight' to the sun, to which you don't at the time.

Its an old fashion expression that 'the sun rises from the east and sets in the west'. Since such concepts as 'north, south, east, and west' only apply when one is on a planet. In outer space, establishing a point in a universe that is continuously expanding is not as easy as one would think,.






Absolutely hilarious ... absolutely...

If talking about the original design criteria for interstate highways; the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 is not an "out of date" reference.

Cited references are current references on the internet. Where else is an internet discussion going to go for a reference.

I never cited a massive PDF but gave a link to an official government webpage in case someone wanted to dig into the deep darks of reference material.

On a more personal level; it was the antics of people like Joan Claybrook that convinced me to quit voting the Democratic line as my family had done for generations.

No argument that lower speeds don't mean better gas mileage? At least until restrictive speed limits require a downshift and higher engine rpm. The point was bullshit myth being propagated by one district's schools. I twas shown in the 1800s that traveling faster than 50 mph does not cause the internal organs to burst. (Yes, at one time that was purported to be true by opponents of mechanized transportation.)

I still think B.S. myths were used to degrade the original design of the Interstate highway system. When discussing history; is it better to cite references when the item happened or up to date references to someones spin on what happened?

For your perusal, a dated reference to the Joan Claybrook policies I remember and cringe from.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-fkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=NHTSA+policies+under+Claybrook&source=bl&ots=fGTHlsqq6U&sig=dzHEQ37BthBuwDNKwA8qvVs5vus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0XUEVIrACIzGgwT4rILQCQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=NHTSA%20policies%20under%20Claybrook&f=false





(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 9/1/2014 4:40:18 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-fkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=NHTSA+policies+under+Claybrook&source=bl&ots=fGTHlsqq6U&sig=dzHEQ37BthBuwDNKwA8qvVs5vus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0XUEVIrACIzGgwT4rILQCQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=NHTSA%20policies%20under%20Claybrook&f=false


Yes please, do not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle as long as you've signed your organ donor card, I need a kidney.

Why you think wearing a helmet and saving the country untold millions is a bad thing is beyond me.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 9/1/2014 5:15:51 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		FR

Why isn't this thread about guns? This is the Politics forum, isn't it? Why has nobody mentioned guns yet?


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 9/1/2014 5:26:33 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Why isn't this thread about guns? This is the Politics forum, isn't it? Why has nobody mentioned guns yet?



you stupid twat Peon, cars are just like guns. If a have a car I can defend myself against other car users, if I don't have a car then car owners can just drive into me and kill me, but if I have a car no one will fuck with me unless they drive faster or have a bigger car.

Shit, I better go and buy a bigger, faster car, I will be safe then

_____________________________


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also poi... - 9/1/2014 8:37:45 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
FR

Why isn't this thread about guns? This is the Politics forum, isn't it? Why has nobody mentioned guns yet?


Because the unwritten rule is we have our own metaphorical "Godwin's Law". Either that or its metaphorically like 'Fight Club'

Take your pick....


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> 37,423...33,843...32,999...32,479...33,561 also pointless deaths Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109