i say we continue just to mock ska.

@moros while Mythbusters is cool and funny, and there are other great shows, the comedy genre is usualy my favorite, and when it comes to comedy, TBBT is king

@Ska actualy, theres a thing called rambling, which means that as long as you have a link, you can switch subjects to whatever you want, when you want

What is TBBT?

Short for the big bang theory.

Mylor Thricedamned {Warlighter}

lol wiki sarcasm ...

but really to paraphrase NOFX ....

So long and thanks for the lols

bye

@min34:

RvW: What did the French accually won on their own. Napoleon came far but failed. They had a big empire before WWII, so they did well then but.... Read this thread, I`m not going to discus it all again.

I never said they won anything, merely that I hadn't heard them being called failures before. But, do you think it makes sense to have a argument along the lines of "they once had a great empire, but then they lost it, so they're failures"...? Every great empire has fallen; even Alexander the Great's Empire (who ruled pretty much the entire known (to him) world) was utterly destroyed within a few generations. How does it make sense to disregard the achievement of conquering that empire (and Napoleon did his fair share of conquering, we can all agree about that, right?) just because it was later lost?

So back on topic: TBBT is indeed also humour and science, but more humour than sience, while Mythbusters is more science than hunour.

s/on/off/, fixed that for you :p

Besides, TBBT isn't really about science at all; it's about geeky humour with a "science sauce" poured over it, just to make it look better.

MB on the other hand is all about science (and, contrary to let's say Brainiac..., getting things right and oh, not faking it). Also, they're not so much about "fun" as they are about "cool stuff". And, every once in a while, something important (such as the episode about getting trapped in a car underwater, which showed just how dangerous that is; there's a very real possibility that episode saved a few lives, even if just by getting people to realise it).

---

So long and thanks for the lols

Wait, I didn't see any fish anywhere...?

/me troutslaps Ska2D2

Aaah, there it is! ;)

Wait, I didn't see any fish anywhere...?

I think that was close, very close, but not unlike a reference to something. Don't panic.

RvW: But, do you think it makes sense to have a argument along the lines of "they once had a great empire, but then they lost it, so they're failures"...?

That is very logical :). indeed every great empire has fallen ( or will fall) during history, but how the French (and the other Europian Nations) took over massive parts of Africa and Asia with "modern weapons" against spears in Africa isn`t very good. I think Napoleon did the best job for his country, if you compare the enemys.

To continue the reference I must say to everyone reading all this crap...

Sorry for the inconvenience.

i disagree min34 you said the european nations were guns against spear but that is wrong the africans had guns bought from the slave trade and guns sold by other European countries perhaps for trade or to stop their european neighbour advances in Africa.

But having had a large empire is no guarantee for any current military advantage. Even the Polish and Lithuanians had a large empire, and so did the Hungarians, Austrians, Bulgarians and Danish.

This thread is now mostly harmless.

At least I've got my towel with me.

Ironheart are you saying that it was a usually a fair fight?
"Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not"
Springs to mind.

Am not saying it was a fair fight i was just saying it was not as easy as min puts t after all it was not just a slaughter.

For the Italians it wasn`t easy, but for most Europian country`s, it wasn`t that hard. Only North-Africa had guns, south- (middle-?) Africa didn`t

actually that is wrong too min it was tough for the italians.But all part of Africa had guns even the middle and south as tribes traded guns with themselves and so did european nations guns were traded and spread across easily.

Also, they could always steal the guns from european corpses. Just common sence, Although they might not have been good at using them.

Another reason most countries easily took Africa was because it was always in-fighting and never had anything close to an organized military. They ruled by a tribal system, not a very good system by military standards

i disgaree the tribal system worked fine it made organizing loyalties allegiance and ties easier people.Even in mordern African countries and other world countries a tribe on you side can be usefull and effective.Arab spring for example.