Re: SPAMMERS
 

Is it me or is S.P.A.M. out in force at times? What's the deal wiith the poetry?

i'm so proud =-] all my little spammers are coming out in force!

now channel this energy! win some spirit awards or something!! heh

and with Warren and Gary and all those great mentors you guys have, i'm sure you'll be an asset to FIRST for many years!

It's all part of their grand plan:

1. Conquer the message board
2. Conquer FIRST
3. Conquer France
4. Conquer THE WORLD
5. Profit!

You want to hear my poetry?

Here it is...

Night after night
Our engineers fight
Over which part to use
To make our robot move

It is extremely confusing
To figure out the scoring
With the quadratic equation we were using
Then only to find out it was wrong

I would love to be rich like Dean Kamen
But I am only a freshman
My team is a winner.
P.S. I eat SPAM for dinner!!!

---
Jon from SPAM, team180

SPAM is hardly out to make a profit.... if anybody knows where we can find $15,000 without having to conquer France, please private message me.

yeah its called fort knox and taking over RUSSIA!!!!

come, come now, didn't you ever study world history? or even play RISK as a kid? Everyone trys for the huge russia their first game. You can't take the whole thing without already having the rest of the world in your pocket already.

Look at Napoleon! He was having a grand time, winning battles here and there, and then he decided to attack russia...
Hitler too. He was fighting a pretty good war and then he started fighting russia at the same time. No, Russia is NOT easy money...

excuse me I happen to have a 5 on AP U.S. History and for your information weapons are cheap from Russia these days and you probably could buy your own country there these days if you could bring them out of their tremendous debt.

Russia is not worth anything. AT BEST, the revenue from the mail-order brides would barely make you a profit, chuck in the poor russian populatin, and you are done with. Russia= -profits

not when you're selling military equipment to places like Iraq *cough* Iran *cough* and other "revolutionary" and paramilitary groups

As I recall, Genghis Khan led the only successful winter invasion of Russia ever. Maybe that warrants a closer look at mongolian weapons/strategies?

umm...
 

:rolleyes: considering the technology of the Mongols and the Cossacks at that time (and that Genghis was a freaking nut case), if things were SLIGHTLY less volatile than right now. Mr Black (kick-$@#$@#$@# teacher dude), once said that Russia had enough nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the world 1 1/2 times i think. You smack them, they nuke you. Besides... we shave now (sorry Josh). :D

You are forgeting that most of the world's oil is in the Middle-East.

If they took over Sudi, Iran, and Iraq, then they would be billionares in hours.

Iraq has enough bios to kill this planet hundreds of times over.

Bush should have taken them by surprise.

Threaten them with military action.

It's not like they're going to fight back.

I dont know if studying US History will give you the best view of...say...Russia...
Also, does cheapest always mean best..drawing from my limited references(History channel, movies based on true stories), the AK line of weapons is rather(understatement) inaccturate.

Cheap weapons aren't always innaccurate. A knife for example...
And France DID win the Franco-Prussian war, so they're not all that weak.

Uh... more than 100 years ago...

Just because it's so easy and fun to ridicule France, you could easilly move 3 before 1.

Actually, I have nothing against France. I kinda like it, though I've never been.

France also won both world wars. (with a little help)

Not the one before World War I where they lost some eastern territory to Germany (Alaciace and Loriane...spelling is wrong but)...that was the Franco-Prussian war. Its 1870-1871...and they were humiliated. The ruler of France was Napoleon the III who hoped to repeat Napoleon I's military success and failed! The Prussians won and then unified Germany even more.

Oh thanks! I had forgotten all about Napoleon. Even if he did eventually lose. He should have studied the mongols more.

Napoleon the III is like his nephew or something. For you Pre-IB students on S.P.A.M., its in your World History Textbook. Look it up. Now Napoleon...lost in 1814 at Waterloo after escaping from Corsica only to be exiled again on some island off S. America. The first time he was exile was after his retreat from France and his army basically stunk as he lost his best troops. Like Hitler after him, they counted on a quick victory. But they failed to supply proper winter fighting gear and equipment and realize how large Russia is. (Hitler also cancelled four engine long range heavy strategic bombers that could have bombed Russian factories - the Soviets just took the factories apart and moved them east, out on the minimum range of the longest ranged German twin-engined medium bomber....and that my friends was at the extent that they ever got into the Soviet Union)

The French are the first to have the MODERN army were units support one another in corps size opeations...like infantry, cavalary, and artillery (not counting support units) operating together under a unified command. Each element of the French army (each corps) is essentially a fraction of the full French army and can function independently against a foe. Before that an army would be made up of units from all sorts of tyoes of divisions/regiments/brigades assigned to a commander where they were dependent on the higher headquarters. (its out there, find it and read it...don't remember where....naval history is more interesting and the French definately lost at sea a lot...only one victory comes to mind and that deals with Yorktown and the American War for Independence)

Which Bush....

1) George H.W. Bush (41st POTUS 1988-1992)
2) George W. Bush (43rd POTUS 2000-20??)

so is it 1 or 2, or is it a family thing?

If we want to talk close combat, sure :)

But throwing one is another matter entirely; even if you do hit your target, you've got maybe a 25% chance of it being at a sharp-end angle, :]

Word

Of course I meant at close range. Why would you throw a knife when there are som many other options out there that are so much more fun? (like a trebuchet. History channel had a special on medieval siege weapons last weekend)

Forget taking over the physical world, take over the cyber world. Google is going down so im going to take up on that....

I would say an AK-47, or any AK model weapon, fall into a somewhat different catigory for weapons.
Ill clarify: AKs, as guns go, are dirt cheap for the most part, but are highly inaccurate.

knives, no matter how much they cost, still hurt up close.

And if you are unfortunate enough to be under a trebuchet's recently released payload, well, ouch

Considering how computer-literate Team 180 seems to be compared to other teams, taking over the cyber world doesn't sound too impossible. Easier than taking over France.
PS. France has trebuchets. And knives.

LOL, rulling cyberspace would be fun, but watching the french being kicked out of france by robots manned by maniacs, that would be a site to see.

Ok, let me clarifiy this statement.

Not that I don't like Bush Jr. or Sr, I think Bush Sr. should have ousted Saddam in Desert Storm.

In 2002-3, Bush Jr. should have taken them, Iraq, by surprise, rather then going to the <PUKE>UN</PUKE>. (GC for those avid "Left Behind" readers:cool: )

I smell a republican.

Why do you think so many countries hate the US? Maybe it's because we have people like bush running our country and waging war without proof (isn't there something like...one's innocent until proven guilty :)?). I mean if the UN is going to handle it, bush should just back off and let them do their thing instead of showing off his military power. All that's going to do is make more countries hate the US. Plus, even the popular vote was against bush...he shouldn't have been president :P

Btw, don't respond to this saying "I smell a democrat" :cool:

Ok, I sense a liberal.

I smell the triumph of derailing this thread like a penny on a railroad track.
To kick both sides while they're down, the only reason the US didn't oust Saddam is because we followed the UN charter, which said, in essence, to end aggression against Kuwait, not depose Hussein.

-Reed
"Will the UN serve its purpose, or will it be irrelevant?"
"There's a difference?"

Ever since reading Left Behind (www.leftbehind.com), I have NEVER liked the GC, I mean UN.

That's because we play policeman of the world, trying to dictate to people on what you can and cannot do.

Help STOP SPAM: Try the new...

I laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we intervene: "AMERICA! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?!"
If we don't intervene: "AMERICA! WHY AREN'T YOU HELPING?!"

Exactly.
We pressure Iraq and everyone says we should stay home, that Saddam is really a misunderstand person that would never try to develope weapons of mass destruction.
Now with North Korea everyone asks "Why aren't we doing anything?"

It might not solve any problems but if you just nuked the better part of Asia...

<random thought/>
...It would eliminate the need for lighting
...They would glow in the dark
...The Russian submarine force already does
...maybe you could start nuclear fusion
...maybe you could drill a big hole to the center of the earth with 400 meagaton hydrogen bombs
...maybe we should have made the panama canal like that
...you would save the cost af those bullet the ground pounders use
...it wouln't solve anything because all the funds are in Swiss banks
...and the houses are in South America
...entropy is constantly increasing
...im sounding like a word association
</random thought>

can't we all just get along?

no.

:D ROTFL :D

/me think mgreenley has had to much expresso.

Well, I would like to point out that it is the responsibility of the United states to uphold the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document gaurantees basic human rights for all people, and in recent years the trend has been more and more to enforce it, including sending intervention into areas where it was not wanted. I believe that it is the responsibility of the United states as the nation with the most available military to intervene. (10 Army divisions, 12 carrier battle groups, 12 air force fighter wings, and 3 marine expeditionary forces, according to January 2003 issue of Proceedings) On the other hand, this should be done as part of an international force. Only with the support of the international community should such a thing be undertaken, and that is not something that Bush had when he began deploying troops to the middle east.

On the plus side, it looks like the pentagon might finally get to test its stated ability to fight two wars independant of each other at the same time... bets on how long until the first announced deployment of manpower/equipment to N. Korea?

Actually for starters its 11 carriers. The 12th, the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67), is partially manned by reservists. She counts, but not all that much. In actuallity the Navy itself should have at least 15 deployable carriers and the 16th to serve as a training platform for naval aviators undergoing training to try the real thing. (Sea Classics December 2000). Also the Navy be increased to about 600 ships of all types (especially patrol craft and minesweepers) and I know the 600 ship navy is the Cold War figures (see Lehman Jr., John F.. “The 600-Ship Navy”. The Maritime Strategy. Ed. James A. Barber Jr.. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute, 1986. ), but it really extends to today as we still have interests all over the globe. All war plans developed encompassed a two front war...if World War Three broke out against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact verus N.A.T.O. we'd be fighting on a possible three. The Atlantic and Europe, the Middle East (oil), and the Pacific. So the plans are made with that in mind....the personnel and assets being available is a whole other ball game. And beside, we technically should already have at least one CVBG (Carrier Battle Group) up off of Korea along with an ARG (Amphibious Readiness Group) not counting nearby prepositioned marine and army equipment in Korea itself and all those island bases we still maintain like the Marianas, a few SSNs (Submarine- Nuclear, generally refered to as an attack boat/sub), an army divsion (or two, most likely infantry or mechanized infantry) and not counting whatever the Air Force has up there (I think a wing). The Korean War never ended, they just signed a cease fire agreement.

Personally, I do not want to know what will happen if we fight on two fronts againt two different "enemies." And also they better let the military fight it without political restrictions like they did in Vietnam. (See Tillman, Barrett and Nichols III, Commander John B., United States Navy (Retired). “Fighting Unwinnable Wars” Proceedings April 1986: 78-86.)

I'd just like to say that aircraft carriers are cool, and war is not. That is all. You may resume.

I thought this thread was about S.P.A.M. and there's another thread about this war with Iraq thing somewhere in Chit-Chat.

I agree, but as you can see SPAM is the cause of all of this, so why not kust start eating turkey?

What about lasagna?

S.P.A.M. is not your momma's luncheon meat!!!!

...its what's for dinner.

lasagna is fine, and in response to a earlier comment- I don't drink expresso. (now u r scared).

There's also S.P.A.M. Turkey out there too.