ok, one night i was playing starcraft online, then in the middle of a game one of the people said that they were a russian woman 24 years old, playing from her brothers computer in moscow. all of use other players were american, cause we were playing on the US server. so then she asked if one of us would marry her so that she could come live in america. now, she didnt find a husband in that game. but this made me wonder something. is it really that bad in russia? whats so terrible about it? this is a question to all the russians here, whats it like there?

moved to Bash Pit, BMF

things must have really been horrible if she were considering marrying you.

quote:Originally posted by morpheus
things must have really been horrible if she were considering marrying you.
i resent that, i am teh sexy

Bash Pit...

BMF ure from russia arent u?

nah, things arent so bad... is just that the Russian women have prstitutional tendencies...

its supposed to be really bad or something cos there was a documentary on tv a few years ago and it was pretty bad looking and kids smoke and drink really young

looks like they still havent gotten over the whole communist thing

im guessing the main problem is poverty, but that wouldnt make since, how could people afford computers but not food?

main problem is bad ping

quote:Originally posted by Drama
main problem is bad ping

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

i love a russian girl :X

I'd say it was different and hence worse in some way. I'd say the winters are definetly worse. Dunno so much about the Russian economy but I'm sure they have poverty problems just like any other country.
On a side note USA also huge poverty problem which they tend to dust under a carpet.

I'm sure she was just [:-censored]ing with you.

On a side note. Before I moved to Belgium I fostered a stereotypical image of every other country in the world, like most people do who don't have a clue. Then I moved to belgium and all my seterotypes were proven wrong. Except the only russian I met (coz Russia ain't in the EU so she was an exception to "only EU kids at this school" rule like myself) was a girl who seemed like a very notmal human specimen except she drank Vodka from the bottle in school. Other people who found the need to induce intoxication used weed but she loved her vodka... it was quite scary actualy. She also could drink most men under the table if they were drinking burnt liquor (she hated beer). But I'm sure she was one in a million.

I'm sorry.. I'm just reminiscing from when I did not live on this frozen exscuse for an island in the middle of the N-Atlantic.

this is how it is:
Russian girls know there are many rich ppl in U.S.A and then she tryes to find a rich single to use his money... and no its not so bad in russia its just that all the rich ones are taken early.

They see a chance for themselves to get to better conditions...
Marry a rich guy.

I hear americas working people are having it worse than russias.

Ehm.. he met her while playing Starcraft. I don't think that the assumption that every American you meet on B.net has to be rich is a very healthy one :p

quote:Originally posted by Askur

I'm sure she was just [:-censored]ing with you.


letterally ?

quote:Originally posted by Askur
Ehm.. he met her while playing Starcraft. I don't think that the assumption that every American you meet on B.net has to be rich is a very healthy one :p


You know thats not what i meant hihi I ment the general industry
bless á meðan, fara

mmm... Poland is near Russia. I've saw on tv a document where a women was a beggar and she gotten about 15$ and she said "not enough"! God damned! And every day she is going to the restaurant, becouse "in a bar the have old cooking oil"!. Any spelling bugs?

quote:Originally posted by Askur
On a side note USA also huge poverty problem which they tend to dust under a carpet.
Possibly, but I don't really think that it is "brushed under the carpet," at least not so much by Americans. Some of the biggest issues whenever there are elections is the state of welfare, poverty levels, and the unemployment rate. There is a lot of poverty in the US, it's just that other countries and people (such as this Russian "girl") only focus on how great they think it is. Now don't get me wrong, America is a great place, but people seem to have this idealistic illusion of what it's like. Modern immigrants to the US find it to be a lot more difficult than they thought it would be. When I lived in Mexico they all talked about the US as if the streetes were paved with gold or something. Go watch Jerry Springer...

So we agree then?
And why would you tell people to whatch Jerry Springer? I can't believe that man still has a show.

I have lived in Russia for 17 years. I have lived in USA for 3 years. I actually know what I am talking about.

Nobody watches Jerry Springer except people who do not have a job, because it airs during the morning hours. Low lifes mostly watch that crap.

"Poverty" in USA and poverty in the rest of the world is a different thing. "Poor" people in USA get about 20,000 dollars a year. "poor" people in Russia get anywhere from 600-1000 dollars of income a year. See the difference?

quote:things must have really been horrible if she were considering marrying you.
Nice...

But I'm pretty sure she (or maybe he, who knows?) was just messing around. No one goes around looking for an ideal mate while playing Starcraft online. You're too gullable.

Well, if she's in Russia, has a computer and has time [and money] to spend time playing a game online then I don't think it's that bad.quote:she asked if one of us would marry her so that she could come live in america.Heh, that reminds me of 'Viva La Bam' They bought Rab himself a wife from Russian. Hilarious. She was pretty hot as well..

There are people in the US who are just as poor as people in other countries although the poverty level is defined as being higher in the US. That's just the cutoff. However, they probably aren't as high a percentage of the population here.

Most of people that go on Jerry Springer are members of the part of the population that is below the poverty level, so if you want to see an example of "poorer America," there you go.

Hitman, its that bad

quote:Russian women have prstitutional tendencies
lol thats just cus they thought they may aswell get paid to go out with freakshows like u weed..

EDIT: lets take a good look at weeds profile from another set of forums

Birthday:
June 5, 1986
Biography:
Im all that and 5 bags of potatoe chips
Location:
Israel
Interests:
Music, Games, Girls, Moooooooovies, Girls, More Girls, More Music, Lot More Music, Did I mention Music & Girls ?
Occupation:
P.I.M.P


ROFl.... u tha man!!

she said she lived in st. petersburg and WAS PLAYING FROM HER BROTHER'S COMPUTER IN MOSCOW. and why is this so hard to believe? there are tons of websites where u can choose to date russian women who are interested in only american men. she said her name was svetlana. maybe it was fake, i did see her on a russian women website one time. (right after this game i looked to see if she was on one of those sites) but fake or not i didnt ask for ur comments on this. i was asking the russians of this forum what its really like in russia. so far not 1 russian has answered, cept BMF but hes american now

I am not american, i am still a russian citizen.

quote:Originally posted by gi.joe
quote:Russian women have prstitutional tendencies
lol thats just cus they thought they may aswell get paid to go out with freakshows like u weed..

EDIT: lets take a good look at weeds profile from another set of forums

Birthday:
June 5, 1986
Biography:
Im all that and 5 bags of potatoe chips
Location:
Israel
Interests:
Music, Games, Girls, Moooooooovies, Girls, More Girls, More Music, Lot More Music, Did I mention Music & Girls ?
Occupation:
P.I.M.P


ROFl.... u tha man!!


Women of any generally financially challenged-ethnic group tend to have prostitutional tendancies.

This is a Russian girl *in Israel*. Most Russians that I've met in Israel had worse financial conditions than my family had, and mine was pretty bad. General income in Israel is 3-4 thousand Shekels, which approximate to 1000$ US. You can find alot of prostitution amongst Russians, Arabs, Ethiopians, and Moroccans in Israel, these make up the 4 poorest in there. And this is true for every country.

Ever heard of the industrial revolution? When people migrated to the cities in masses there was huge poverty, the cities stank with trash and uncleaned vicinities. Most of the people lived in disease-ridden, compressed blocks. And prostitution normally brought in more money than the average job did.

You make it sounds like the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing... :)

To digress alot from the original topic..
What in gods name gives people the idea that they have the right to ban such things as prostitution...
and then the same people go out and buy women drinks at bars... and we all know why we do that.

The industrial revolution was something worse than a "bad thing" for the people below the middle class, which constituted the bulk of the population. The benefit came years later when all the efforts and the suffering turned out a good effect.

And you think we'd all be better off without that pesky industrial revolution?
Well maybe if your family is alreadty rich and can be counted amongst the aristocracy.

That's like saying that the invention of tools and agriculture was worse than a bad thing because it lead to increased work for people. If better living condition require more work then you're going to do more work and be happy about it.

I urge you to go and look at historical documentation of how utopian the pre-industrial age was for those below the middle class and how much their lives 'worsened'. Ofcourse if working hard for little money is worse than starving hard without any money at all...

TFS owned by an icelandic forum noob? *rubs eyes*

I think what snipey is saying is that, what with everyone flocking to the factories during the industrial revolution, such dramatic changes brought unsteadiness which in time got ironed out. Mostly.

All changes of such a grand size will always have some crap unwanted effect on some poor bugger. All those candlestick makers when lightbulbs were invented...
All those mathamaticians when calculators came out...
All those heavy metal fans when Metallica made another album....
All those loyal ak74 fans from 1.1.5 to 1.2....

out with the old in with the new is all well and good, but it's painful.

I know what he's saying and I don't agree with it. I also object to the term forum n00b because it doesn't say anything about my opinion on the matter. However being Icelandic marks me as an arrogant smartass who believes he's the king of his (miniscule) world so I have no beef with that statement :)

Big changes always bring about unstable times. We both agree on this. The bigger the change the more ruckus is created within society... now this says nothing about the worth of the change. However it says alot about the degree of the change. If you want to test the merits of some new innovation you have to wait to be able to take into account the actual long term effects said innovation causes. The fact that society was turned upside down by the IR is due to the fact that it was a bloody big change on a global scale.
I say you blame old 'change' for the 'change' and thank the industrial revolution for the fact that you aren't living in cottages made from mostly mud and that you aren't starving due to global overpopulation which wouldn't actualy be a problem since most of us would die during infancy as we'd have no realiable way to mass-produce or distribute such things as penicilin.

The introduction of new agricultural techniques has given the world alot more to eat and hence advanced the global problem of overpopulation. Now is more food also bad?

russia's problem is that it went straight from communism into an american-style free market, with all the american vices - sex workers, drugs, crime etc. the people didn't know how to deal with that, so russian society collapsed.

It's western moral degredation you're speaking of.. it's not an isolated American thing.
It's also a big load of crap considering the fact that sex workers, drugs and crime exist in every state. I find it kinda funny when islamic fundamentalists (bloody fundamentalists ruining the good name of Islam) start talking about the degredation of western morals while they themselves are supporting about 90% of our Heroin (bad morals) which they use themselves (so what makes us so special). Then you look to africa and see HIV infected people raping virgin girls due to silly superstition and then the same countries point the "oh-so-holy" accusing finger at us.
If you're going to talk about western drug use then you only have to think back to where the world started (Mesapotamia and it's surroundings) to see where the drugs started. Hell, the Khoran forbids alcohol consumption but it says nothing at all about Marijuana.
And sex workers.. atleast our sex workers are allowed to show some flesh. And crime.. crime is a product of unequal distribution of goods which exists everywhere but as more goods exist in Western societies ofcourse there is more crime. There's the same inequal distribution (if not even worse in non-western societies such as Brunei where the ruling dude (dunno what the title is in english) owns EVERYTHING and his subjects just live off his bottomless generosity..) but we just have more stuff to steal.. we also don't execute petty thiefs. I'd say executing petty criminals is more degenerate than not doing it.

Freedom to deviate vs. Freedom to conform?
Ultimately they both lead to the same problem because it is the human being that causes problems not ideology. Neither one leads to increased happiness in any meaningful sense because I can be a happy junkie who's been allowed to choose the syringe over life but then some people would argue that I ain't happy at all. Smart people would point out the fact that happiness is subjective and trying to define what makes other people than yourself happy is just bloody stupid. The real difference is that being free to conform to something is abusable and has been abused. Doesn't matter which form it takes whether it's Hitler or McCarthyism it starts off as a well formed idea on how to safe society from its impending doom (well they think so) and ends up as persecution because it is necessary to make everyone conform for this system to work.

Now this is pointed to no one in particular, stop trying to 'a better person' than your brothers. Stop picking fashionable minorities like, for example, the poor people of Africa that have been economicly slaved by globalization. You don't know where they would be without our interference and you have no right to base criticism on speculations. Besides, you wouldn't want things turned around. Western society is NOT inherently evil and if you ever try and convince your peers of that I hope you get your wish fulfilled and get transported to some remote tribal village in the deep jungles of Africa and see how more innocent life there really is.

...man studying calculus really brings out the worst in me :p

quote:Originally posted by Askur
And you think we'd all be better off without that pesky industrial revolution?
Well maybe if your family is alreadty rich and can be counted amongst the aristocracy.

That's like saying that the invention of tools and agriculture was worse than a bad thing because it lead to increased work for people. If better living condition require more work then you're going to do more work and be happy about it.

I urge you to go and look at historical documentation of how utopian the pre-industrial age was for those below the middle class and how much their lives 'worsened'. Ofcourse if working hard for little money is worse than starving hard without any money at all...


I never said the industrial revolution was a bad thing. What I said was that at the start, meaning *before* the goverment decided to start cleaning cities, making up some civil programs to improve living standards, and make worker's unions legal, the people suffered harshly.

Before that, most of them were farmers, they didnt have any splendor in particular, they lived a normal life farming. They did not live in the filth of the cities, because they had rural lands. They did not have kids work at coal mines to push carts in and out, which then turned out growing deformed limbs and other bodyparts. And they did not have excrutiating work at the factory for minimal wage.

Most of the former farms were then converted into pastures to grow sheep and other cattle in. Especially sheep for the wool. Who grew the food then? The same people the English used and abused for centuries - The Irish. So basically what Im saying is that the time of the change itself was bad for the people, the result isnt.

"And you think we'd all be better off without that pesky industrial revolution?
Well maybe if your family is alreadty rich and can be counted amongst the aristocracy."

If you even tried to see where I was getting at at my previous post, you'd see that this statement above was pretty much pointless and irrelevant to my arguement. And no, my family is far from rich. We are rather low-middle class. Dont try to put words in my mouth. I mean exactly what I say in my posts.

Sorry for straying off that long because of that arguement, but I cant let something like that slip by since I'm an egoistic elitist prick :P

I do agree on your post about freedom, though. You have good articulation.

quote:Before that, most of them were farmers, they didnt have any splendor in particular, they lived a normal life farming. They did not live in the filth of the cities, because they had rural lands. They did not have kids work at coal mines to push carts in and out, which then turned out growing deformed limbs and other bodyparts. And they did not have excrutiating work at the factory for minimal wage.
TFS, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In your opinion before the Industrial Revolution everybody lived in nice little villages, ever family had a cow and some sheep so they would peacefully grow their own food? What are you, stupid? Or maybe you think that cleaning up cow dunk is not "filthy"? Have you ever been in an actual village, like old-school village. I am not talking about american-type farm. A village where people work fifteen hours a day to barely feed themselves. A village where people have cattle in their house to keep warm?

Before the Industrial Revolution people died of hunger, because they did not have the technology to improve their farming. Right now in under-developed countries over 50% of people farm, and they cannot feed themselves. In USA less than 2% of the people are farmers, and they manage to feed half the world.

TFS your post is so ridiculously wrong, that I will take it apart sentence to sentence. Sorry for that.
quote:Before that, most of them were farmers, they didnt have any splendor in particular, they lived a normal life farming.

Sure they had no "splendor". With good luck, drought or early cold weather would destroy the crops only once in three or four years. I mean it was really good living, right? One bad thing tho, every once in a while half the village would die of hunger because the harvest was poor that year. Other than that, everything was cool.
quote:They did not have kids work at coal mines to push carts in and out, which then turned out growing deformed limbs and other bodyparts. And they did not have excrutiating work at the factory for minimal wage.
Yeah screw the factories man. Farmers of the past worked only six or seven days a week. Waking up at 5 am and going to bed after dark. Children over the age of seven would work as adults. Ninety percent of children would die before the age of one anyway. There was no medical care to speak of. I mean life was awesome.

TFS, you really did a number this time. Did you write that stuff on purpose just to piss us off? Or you really have no idea what is going on outside the general L.A. area?

quote:Originally posted by BMFIn USA less than 2% of the people are farmers, and they manage to feed half the world.

I agree with your post, but this one phrase is a bullsh!t. Or maybe you are talking abut feeding people with hamburgers in McDonalds. No, thanks. [xx(]

BTW, USA could feed 3 x more people, because right now in USA people eat 3 x more than they really need.

BTW, It's funny when I watch an american movie and all the people - actors are slim (or there is one fat "characteristic" actor). Then I see some reportage from an american street, and almost everyone is fat.

I am talking about all the food USA exports. Which is: chicken, grain, bread, corn etc. The government has to buy extra food that farmers produce and often give it away for free, because the farmers with their technology produce too much.
quote:I agree with your post, but this one phrase is a bullsh!t. Or maybe you are talking abut feeding people with hamburgers in McDonalds. No, thanks.
Aquarius, before opening your mouth please go an check the facts. Poland buys alot of their food products from American producers.

You still dont get it BMF. I never said their life was good as farmers. I was better than the start of the industrial revolution.

Farmers had no chance to actually be anything else but farmers. The difference between their life and the early city life is that their jobs were bearable. Or at least, more bearable than what the factories were.

People always died of hunger. You think this was changed during the first few years of the industrial revolution? Ooooh, now they work in factories, I'm sure they all could afford a nice big meal at some expensive restaurant, right?

"TFS, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In your opinion before the Industrial Revolution everybody lived in nice little villages, ever family had a cow and some sheep so they would peacefully grow their own food? What are you, stupid?"

Oh, so now you're telling me what my opinion is? I've never said they all lived in nice little villages, hell, nobody was content back then than the rich people, and the few middle class.

The land, sheep, pastures, farms, crops, and the harvest all belonged to the landlords, who recieved tribute from farmers who legaly had the option of doing something else (as an excuse of not calling them serfs), but financially, nobody could do much anything than few lucky ones who were made famous by poems, inventions, and whatnot. Like I said before, dont put words in my mouth. If I really thought people lived in utopian rural villages and were content before the industrial revolution I would have said it, and I would have argued about a completely different thing, wouldnt I?

Bottom line: All this fuss all about is that I'm saying that...drumroll...People were more content generally before the first few years of the industrial revolution. For some reason everyone tries to misinterpret the purpose of 3 different posts just to try and make me look stupid. Lets celebrate, you've succeded, hooray...

quote:Farmers had no chance to actually be anything else but farmers. The difference between their life and the early city life is that their jobs were bearable. Or at least, more bearable than what the factories were.
Completely wrong. Check your facts, read history books.

Anyway, I dont understand where you are going.

Actually, back in the middle ages, sefs were legally tied to the land and bound to their landowners, in other words, a form of slavery. When Europe started banning serfdom, it meant that farmers were no longer tied to their land, and could, if they had any chance at all, legally move on and try to better their living standards. The catch was, almost all farmers were too damn poor to do anything else but continue their service to the land owners.

And I wasnt going anywhere, this whole arguement was about a misinterpretation of a simple statement which is based on my opinion. I *think* that life was more comfortable before the industrial revolution than it was in its beginning few years. And all you guys argued about was general opinion. None of us can actually go back in time and ask all the population about their preference, can we? Lets end this and get back on topic.

wow Askur.. wow


that was some deep stuff man..


wow

askur is like the new Duke33 or something

Thanks for your kind words on my superior articulation :)

But seriously TFS. I know what you're saying. Ofcourse change is quite bad on people who don't really know whats happening to them. I wouldn't want to worry about eating tomorrow and than a huge social upheaval takes place and the world as I know it gets screwed over. It's not nice.

But that's not the bloody point. What are you trying to tell us? As far as I can see you are either trying to argue that "changes will inevitably cause changes" which is obvious from where I'm standing. Or you are trying to say that "people where better of before the industrial revolution started then they were at the dawn of it". Both these opinions are redundant. Not stupid but redundant. It's something like saying "You're better off having reached terminal velocity in mid air then when you hit the ground". Well duh! But the end result is the same! If you take the evolution of man and make some sort of a "happiness" graph you are looking at a singular point on the graph where as we are speaking of a whole interval. Now if you know basic calculus you'll know the difference between local extremas and absolute extremas. What you are saying is that your point is the absolute extrema because you refuse to look at the rest of the graph or the rest of our interval to check for other extremas. But eff calculus no one likes that...

Your problem is the same problem that the french philosopher Jean Jaqcues Rousseau. I was once forced to read an essay he sent to the university of Dijon in France. It was titled "A Dissertation On the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind". Alot of it was based on the current belief of the 18th century that savages where purer than civilized man. The essay is a really good essay but it showed me how it is possible to argue in a reasonable and contructed manner about total bull[:-censored]. In this book Rousseau makes a 'conjecture' about the early stages of man which are so ridiculous that words cannot describe it. Let's just say the word "Noble savage" is used alot and Rousseau curses the day that 'agriculture' was discovered as it lead to the concept of 'property' where in Rousseau found all the roots and inequality and evil. It speaks of males and females only happening upon one another in the jungle, which shrouds the noble savage and shileds him from the harsh nature and offers him trees to hide from pretadors(not to make tools mind you for tools are the hallmark of civilized men who are corrupt!), and only when they happen upon each other will they conceive. The man will then wander off blissfully and the woman will later give birth. The child will wander blissfuly with it's mother untill it will blissfuly wander off into the forest and never see it's mother again. All very pretty and *!!enter keyword!!* romantic in a naturalistic kinda way.

Cause Romaticism was very fashionable in the 18th century. So you can understand why the man was so deluded.

But you seem to have the same utopian idea about rural living of old. Maybe you're a nature child.. maybe you've never stepped outside of a city and therefore you've got a twisted idea given to you by your environment. Either way you aren't looking reasonably upon this because the fact that you refuse to look at the big picture and are going to argue against the IR using a very short timespan where society was adopting to change is not a reasonable approach. It's a pre-contructed approach designed to allow your arguments but not allow ours.

It's something like saying "Oh innsurections are great! Jolly good fun! Good for the community too! Just look at the French revolution!" and then skipping the whole part where heads started to fly left right and center and common people started suffering more and more. Never mind the "new faith" which was created and countless cultural moments which were torn down. You see, it's not enough to pinpoint a single happening when you are discussing an event. The event happens over an interval and therefore you study that interval not just any point which in convenient for you.

Bottom line: Mankind would be far worse off without the IR regardless of some short term difference of lifestyle.

P.S. my country just went through it's industrial revolution during the 20th century. Things did NOT get worse during the beginning years.. infact the got drasticly better very quickly. Mainly because we stoped living in holes we dug into hills (they look like that to foreigners) and started contructing buildings. My grandparents lived to see the change and they don't speak of it with horrible empty voices of pain. Maybe that's because Iceland is small or because we were so bloody late. Either way we never had the problems Europe/America had. What does that teach us? That the horrors you speak of were a direct product of society rather than the IR.

Who's Duke33, should that piss me off or?

haha, gi.joe, i dunno which forum is that from, but i surely didnt write occupation: PIMP.
thats just not me :D

...i'm glad I don't get too involved in these kind of threads.

Chakra I hear you man, I should have stayed out of it.

Yes.. because once you post you get dragged into a downward spiral of my eternal babble.
Or you just stop posting in said thread?
Not that hard really.

But good constructive comments nonetheless.

quote:Thanks for your kind words on my superior articulation :)ROFL!

It's called arrogance.. I've heard it suits me :)

i dont really read ur posts, if someones posts are longer than 3 sentences i usually bypass them. i just assumed ur intelligence based on your enormous posts/proper sentence structure, spelling, and puncuation

I actually find Askur very entertaining, welcome to the forums. Its good to see more intelligent people join in. My point was, in the first post that I've made in this thread, was that prostitution was common in every single place where there is concentrated poverty. I used the beginning years of the industrial revolution as an example. And it was true actually, that due to the huge poverty problems and other such things, prostitution made better money than most jobs did. And it basically rolled down from that... By the way, I didnt look at the graph because I didnt have to. I simply made a comment, I didnt ever say that the industrial revolution wasnt worth it, because it was. All I've said was that *Life in the beginning of the industrial revolution was harsh on the poor people*. Now you tell me which graph do I refuse to look on. I made one statement which I believe is true. What am I missing here?

"P.S. my country just went through it's industrial revolution during the 20th century. Things did NOT get worse during the beginning years.. infact the got drasticly better very quickly."

Your country didnt have to face the same difficulties others did when they had their IR's. England, for example, was very close to feudal. The lowest class was very poor had a bad life, the middle class people were above these, they were made up of lawyers, goverment workers, and bankers and such. Then wealthy merchants, which made money mainly from trade in other countries, importing/exporting goods in and out of England. Finally there's the ruling class, dubbed "Nobles" who basically didnt give a crap about how the poor people suffered while they lived the good life. Just as long as they didnt have to do jack for living and reap all the benefits, they were happy. Because of them and their greed/cruelty/uncarelessness/call it what you want, did poor people. Badly.

Did Iceland have the same caste system in the 20th century? Did they already have in mind that they should make programs to clean the cities when they get populated, build better houses, refine their piping and civil services, rebuild roads, and make worker unions legal? I wouldnt know, but I'm sure you do.

So basically, you shouldnt deduce all by yourself that I'm one of those utopians that supported whatever Russeau said in his essay (I admit, though, I used to support that view a few years ago). I have my own "philosophy" and way of thinking, but I'm sure you've heard that from every single person you've come across anyway so I wont get into it. My point was that the first few years of the IR were hard on the poor people. Is that so hard to understand by itself, or must everyone go on about me being a utopian because of one statement that somehow relates to that view? That point, by the way, also goes into all radical changes. Whenver there was a major change in pretty much anything, something suffered, weather lightly or heavily, changes dont come without a cost. But their results depends on the changes themselves. Now, tell me when exactly did I say that the industrial revolution was a bad thing.

Now thats what I thought you said from the beginning. Why'd you have to go blow it out of proportion Asky?

weed...

let me refresh ure memory seeing as u must have forgotten..

http://www.staticgamer.com/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&f=2

enjoy

u cool guy, you...

Thank you TFS you ain't so bad yourself. And thank you for the warm welcome.
Five minutes ago I was just ready to end this but I just caught a glance of my calculus book which I'll have to study all day and now I'm ready to give every suffering kid in the world AIDS just to spread the pain.

But it doesn't change the fact that this is getting silly. We agree on everything except that I maintain that poor people lived [:-censored]ty lives before, during and after the IR.
I didn't ask you to look at any particular graph. It was a bad metaphor to show our different approaches towards the matter. My way would be the question "Study the behavior of the graph f(x) over the interval ln(1) <= x >= ln(10)" whereas your question would sound something like "What is happening to the graph f(x) at the point (x,y)". There is no actual graph. It's just a thought to differentiate between our opinions.

I don't really feel like writing anything before my morning coffee so I'm just going to do the "copy your post and post smartass comments after each quote".

TFS said:
"My point was that the first few years of the IR were hard on the poor people."

And I answer back:
Well my point is that life was and will always be hard on the poor.

TFS said:
"Your country didnt have to face the same difficulties others did when they had their IR's."

And I answer:
Woah there chief! What do you know about Iceland that allows you to maintain that? But atleast you end this on asking me a question about it. But dont do that! Don't throw a statement like that into the air.

We did have loads of difficulties. But luckyly they weren't connected to any caste system for a very extended period of time. However that was mainly because we were ALL poor. Some people got into comfortable places by sucking up to the Danes (who owned us untill 1945 so we can actualy be considered a Western Colony like Kongo, India, South-Africa etc.) but Icelands caste system basicly worked on the principles of Dane/Icelandic.
But this is the part of our History when the textbooks stop talking about people killing eachother and start talking about economic development and BS so I kinda fell asleep in every history lecture I had. Then I moved to belgium where they reach important 20th century history like WW I and II so I'm not going into any particular details.