sailing in that region, alone, during winter is pure stupidity.
Even more so when she is only sixteen. Sailors with 30 years of experience have been lost there.
Parents not buying a security for the rescue should be sued to pay off at least some of the bill, if only to set a precedent.
They force us to buy car insurance after all...


But we have a saying in Germany: "Dumm fickt gut" - "Dumb fucks well"

So, it's all good.

Dumm fickt gut, dumm fickt gut indeed.

they should have sent him with her :

http://www.ultimatecoupons.com/blog/wp-conten...popeye.jpg

im for:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia...66415c.jpg

I HAS A BUCKET CAMERA !

people only want to help their own and only help others only so much. I call it the one step below theory.

Honestly this just shows how people are only concerned about money and not life in general.

not really.

It just that people have been telling her and her family, that it's fucking insane to do it. And she still went ahead with it, and din't get insurance. Maybe because they knew the rescue would be for free, anyway...

When people go skying they will be rescued with a helicopter, too. But either you have the insurance or you pay the bill yourself.

Why the fuck should the Australians have to pay the insurance for her?

here you go... money money money insurance insurance money money money.. who cares about the girl. Why is it stupid? cause you think it is? People do stuff all the time to break barriers and things and all you care about in this situation is whether she has insurance or not. jesus you're so brainwashed you think everything revolves around money. sad for you.

Hate to break it to you, but pretty much everything does revolve around money...

hahaha
go and tell this to Rockefellers and the federal reserve bank (well they spend some electricity for their money machines, which cost a bit...)

insurance for the right to go out wherever you want? yeah what we need is more regulations

First time on a sailing boat, I was two, got my first kid's license with 6. I now have my license for ships up to 80 feet.
I know it is stupid.

Of course they should save the girl, noone ever doubted that. But do you know how many lives could be saved with 300.000$? A whole lot more than one single girl, that is for sure.
But suddenly there is not enough money for all of them.

money money money.

How about you pay for the airplanes all by yourself, next time something like this happens.
Oh and please come with the excuses that you can't afford it or that you want the money back from the person you saved. A life is at stake!

money money money

If Australia didn't have the money there would have been no airplanes to safe her. If the fisherman didn't have money for his boat and fuel, he couldn't have gotten there. (And the captain of that shipped might have died when he fell overboard.)

It always is about money. As cynical as it is.



If people want to risk their lives then fine that is their decision, but simply ignoring warnings and relying on others to pull them out if things go wrong is not the way to go.
The only reason she can rely on not having to pay is a law or agreement from a hundred years ago. People weren't doing trips like this back then.

so you're saying i should save someone personally but a "country" cant?

countries are already saying people and I am not saying they should stop either.
But I am saying that you should pick up the bill for it, afterwards, since you are saying all everyone does is care about money.

So, I want you to proove that you don't simply pay the bill.
Regardless of whether the person that was saved could afford it.
Regardless of whether the person that was saved knew exactly what he was getting into.
Regardless of whether the person that was saved could have gotten an insurance but chose not to.
Regradless of whether the person that was saved might earn money by telling about the trip and the rescue, afterwards.

But If you feel like keeping your money and rather have someone else pay it, you are no better than the rest of us.

ill pay for it.

I'll believe that when I see it.

If you think you should always do absolutely everything you can to save everyone, you could pop down to the hospital today donate a kidney and lung etc save a couple of people's lives.

already have done this.

money comes and money goes no big deal.

In that case, most likely, all you have goes and all that comes in goes to paying your debt.

and have you heard the worst?

Doctors and ambulance drivers have actually demanded salary for saving people's lives! Incarnation of evil, right there.

well they are working.

so what?

those fishermen could have been working and earning money, too. I am convinced they gladly helped but still, I'm not sure they will be compensated for the time they lost.

and why do we have to pay for doctors ourselves, why can't the government just pay for everything?

In fact, why if the fisherman's daughter has a fatal, disease that can't be treated on the Reunion Islands and he can't afford the treatment elsewhere. Will the US government send a plane to pick her up and pay for the treatment?
No, the won't. People are supposed to have health insurance. And that case the daughter might not even have done anything that put her at risk...

your point is stupid. doctors will help you even if you dont have insurance. why they get paid for it? because its their job. none of the fisherman *have to* go help her. they can continue on with their job. you're just too consumed with being paid. did you come from da ghetto?

actually the fisherman do *have to* go help her. Get your facts straight before you write stuff like that, please.

And yes, doctors (at least the good ones) will help you no matter what, and I never said people shouldn't be saved from shipwrecks. I have no idea where you got that idea.
I am saying that people who can afford to pay their rescuers, at least in part, and who got into that situation because of their own bad decision making, should pay their share.

How exactly is that too much to ask? We pay our medical bills, don't we?


And you are just trying to put yourself on moral highground by claiming I am obsessed with getting paid. Our discussion is about money, so of course money is being mentioned.
My point is and always has been, that saving people does come first, but that people should not simply abuse the maritime rescue system that was put in place for people who actually work at the sea and their passengers.

maybe if you start seeing money as an equivalent of time and ressources you will be able to see my point. So here's an example:


Two cavemen go hunting and sucessfully kill a dear. They are about a day's worth of travel from their home cave with their families. Suddenly, the first hunter decides he will try to jump off a tree from 20 feet.
The second hunter tells him that that's retarded and he might get hurt.
The first hunter ignores him and does it anyway, and breaks a leg. Now, of course, the second hunter will and should transport him home instead of taking the deer.
But all the families go hungry for a few days because the first hunter did a stupid thing despite warnings.

Then they find out that the first hunter has a secret stash with food, that he is not willing to share...

Do the second hunter and his family become cynical pricks obsessed with food, when they demand a share?

"if you start seeing money as an equivalent of time and ressources"
I use to see money this way all the time but it just shows me even more that the time is not equal for every two persons in the world, which results in inequitable unbalanced power so if you start considering things this way in order to prove your point on how things SHOULD be, putting calculations on the table, your point is invalid, despite the fact that it is relatively true

Why are you arguing with a German computer geek with the highest post ratio on a gaming website?

Do you REALLY THINK this person is a suitable basis of comparison for embodying the spirit of mankind, for the adventurer in us?

Nobody would ever do anything REMOTLEY EXCITING if it were up to people like him. Let him air his BS, but don't try and argue with it.

There's nothing to argue because he's already wrong.

Plenty of people, kids even have already sailed around the world, plenty of people have set out in stupid conditions and circumstances and achieved things, that's waht makes it special and inspiring.

Why on gods name are you seriously entertaining a Germans (one of the most boring and hated nations in europe-fact) view on such a topic?

Its like asking your gran daddies view on mousepads. He'll have a go, but its not really going to help.

Do you REALLY THINK this person is a suitable basis of comparison for embodying the spirit of mankind, for the adventurer in us?

rofl.

I am on at least two vacations that involve at least hiking, sailing and/or surfing every year.
How about you?


oh and a friend of mine had to be flown out with a helicopter three years ago, boy was he happy his insurance covered that.
But I guess people like you wouldn't even be smart enough to invest in a helmet.

Here is someone being rescued from a hole in my local town.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUvNLmJSqpY
Being rescused means nothing apart from being stupid.

I'm sorry, surfing piddly waves and walking in boots (if you have boots its hiking-if you have trainers its walking) at 29 is clearly the same as a 16 yr old girl wanting to sail the oceans on her own.

What was I thinking, you're practically Columbus!

I wasn't comparing myself to her.

I was laughing at the "adventurer in us" part. You could have realized that yourself, because I underlined it.

I know you were not comparing yourself to her, I was just saying that you're not qualified to come up with policies which would prevent anything remotely inspiring to happen in the world over common sense or safety.

If people didn't break the mold and venture into the unknwon nothing would get discovered and nobody would be inspired.

Youe ideology is a dangerous one.

how exactly is buying an insurance keeping her from doing her trip???

That's not all you said. Most of your post is based around the fact that she attempted it and failed and should not have.

Secondly, even if I was going to accept the insurance thing, there are plenty of things that you would not be able to get insurance for in life, it does not mean they should not be attempted and I'm not convinced she would have gotten insurance aside from life insurace and even then, if you put yourself in certain situations its void, just as car insurance is if you crash on a race trackday unless you get special policy.

End of the day, you can't expect all go getters to do everything by book, if they did they would not be the people they were in the first place and not seek out those challenges.

First person to go super sonic, into space etc, there was no insurance other than just having something many people don't have.

most of my post is based on that she should have taken another route or at least another season to do it.
But I suppose you haven't ever sailed on an ocean yourself so you probable wouldn't know how important and basic those decisions are.

Additionally, you people are very focused on the money aspect.
I also mentioned that her rescue might have gotten the captain of the fishing boat killed. Care to explain how putting other's lives at risk with those dumb decisions is alright?



You are also betraying your normal mindset right now.
How about people, lets say a Pakistani wants to take an adventure and move to a different country, say the UK, and try to make it there. Shouldn't he be supported by that country if something goes wrong? Cause he didn't take unnecessary risks.
Or is him having a diffrent skin color to much of a problem for you?

well you can't name yourself an "adventurer" as long as you have an insurance on it, isn't it?

yeah sure, having your sail ripped to pieces in 8 meter waves an winds at 60 knots+ suddenly becomes as boring as ironing in your living room when you know those $300.000 are covered.

on the contrary, I'd feel very pleased knowing that I have insurance on it
as a matter of fact I'd even jump into water from time to time, just to push the adventure of getting insurance to the limits

ah yes, the sarcastic approach...

I'm gonna go out on limb here and say you have never sailed on the open sea with waves of at least 2 meters. Am I right?

no, I only sail when the waves are OVER 2 meters tall, to be sure I don't sound ridiculous

problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about and you realized it.
hence your escape into sarcastic remarks.


Claiming that going sailing, alone, in that region, during winter season is not adventurous when you have an insurance, that would pay for the exact same rescue that did happen, shows that very clearly.

Helen Keller: "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
it's like 1 or 0, no space between
one of my friend's paragraph come in handy here very well: babe, your whole life is an adventure
if you have to go, go with an insurance

aha.

that must be the dumbest tings I have heard today.

So in your opinion she shouldn't have had the emergency beacon, either?
Cause after all it's only there in case something goes wrong.
And no life-raft.

"that must be the dumbest tings I have heard today"
dumb? I though this word doesn't exist in your modern dictionary. your capacity for intelligent statements is deteriorating by every new reply
of course you can't call yourself an adventurer if you carry an entire hospital, the priest and the whole church community alltogether with you!
someone must have trickening you very hard: he selled ships, vacation tickets and insurance to a sucker, saying him that if he pay for these things, he will become an adventurer; now look what they did to you: you sail a 2$ ship you payed a lot on it, without proper knowledge, on hostile oceans; fuck this life, this is not fair. even the ocean rejects you; of course you need that insurance. a wise man doesn't even enter the toilet without insurance

now. do you even understand what "adventuring" is?
you know, adventuring has so many senses, yet its general good ol' form (undeformed by fake adventurers who pay insurances and get monitored 24/24, including the moments they take adventurous dumps) so the original mean was that of going into unknown, at the will of hazard; in the past if you called someone an adventurer and gave your girl the advice to keep away from him, that was meaning that that guy is a bold one, a guy who is lacking logics pretty much, a crazy one; you can't be a cold-blooded math machine who lives adventures, even my daughter agree on this

do you see the contradiction now, you imbecil? you can't call yourself an adventurer as long as you are one who doesn't do nor want to make mistakes, and living an adventurous life is all going by the wind, a lot of mistakes included. all you wanna do all the time is go right every time yet you call yourself an adventurer because some 6th sense you got is telling you that you got foolled by a stupid society and a bunch of sellers? go on, lie yourself, my son. you might feel upset and raged now that I helped you discover on how this diabolic society was fooling you in misterious satanic ways. you are pointing your hate in the wrong direction. your enemies are the miserable people who tricked you when they were lying to you that you are an adventurer, while me on the other hand, I am just telling you the true by calling you an imbecil
god bless becks, the poor lost sheep he who thinks that he is a lion because the slyness fox with the satanic snake fooled him together that he is a real lion, but now he got scared because he seen his ass in the mirror oh lord so he run very fast to pay his insurance, in the good old "order and discipline" german spirit. so do not reject oh lord your lost sheep becks for he has come back to you asking for forgiveness. amen

as Jamerio can see now very well, I am not argueing becks, I am just offering him forgiveness and giving him life lessons free of charge, to the risk of losing money in the process (omg this would be a real tough 1, if I'd ever care) -for I am mercifull like lord himself

all that and you didn't answer my question.

Should she not have taken the emergency beacon?

your obssession on this matter is a margin that you think you can use as a trap which should help you demonstrate the lack of logics to whoever doesn't share your "logic" and to give you an excuse for insurance by analogy
yet it is just a margin
if the option of using an emergency beacon exists you can use it if you want, but it is not absolutely necessarily you equip your ship with it, because as long as your decisions doesn't endanger other people's life you should not be FORCED by anyone to invest money in safety equipment

similar problem with insurances. the difference on the matter is the financial OBLIGATIONS you propose for all people, implying that the right to be saved asks for the neccesity to pay bills, which in your opinion is a good thing who must be generalised. yet you have to admit that the cases of ships getting lost are rare so why in god's name would you wanna impose a law based on generalisation because exceptional situations which does not endanger other people excepting those who are faceing the exceptions

considering the small chances my ship get lost or something bad is happening so I need a team to rescue me, first of all from a financial point of view (the rentability you like mumbling with every occasion) so from a financiar point of view, statistically speaking to me it doesn't worth the money, and then from my personal point of view, I can't accept that some entity/lawfull system wanna stop me sailing the sea on the basis of not being a part in their big dirty bussinesses (it is well known how big profits the insurance companies are doing, how the proportion between the money they invest and the money they got is unbalanced) and I don't wanna be part in their enslaving financiar system so it is a matter of choice, the price of freedom comes with its risks, but this should be my personal choice and as long as I don't force you getting on my ship you can beat it
I buy a boat, the boat is mine. if I wanna sail it, I sail it. authorities should not have the right to force people into signing up financial contracts with companies, under normal circumstances. you pay x dollars to leave the coast? what's next? pay for getting out of your house? because leaving your house imply some risks too, and insurance companies can put some finances at good use in the process of rescueing you in any circumstance, you know.
authorities can't even force me to put a sign on my boat with the warning that the boat doesn't have insurance so you sail it on your own risk, but insurance companies can put the clause "our clients will display a warning saying that they have insurance and thus the right to be saved by rescue teams" in their contract

now about regulations, the way things go on, in general. you was into romania, right? germany "helped" (a-ha-ha-ha) romanian gases companies to modernise their equipment. right? but at what cost? let's see what was happening behind the courtain. romanian companies bosses along with germans were putting these facts on the table: we the germans give you equipment you don't have to pay much on it, low costs, and the advantages are as follow, from the UE political perspective we helped your country and you received UE's help, sounds good excuse for ignorant people who does pay taxes, and in reality this is what is happening, you increase the price of natural gases because hey, the price of extraction is higher because it uses modern technology so you have to cover the "investment", so you make more money, and on the other hand, we, the germans, because romanian natural gases are not cheap, can sell to our people natural gases at the same price, if not even better, and we all know we get percentages from what we sell, so some german leaders and the bosses from romanian natural gases companies they are all happy because they make MORE MONEY. and who does feel the increase of the cost of natural gases, if not the POPULATION, both german and romanian population? so you don't know shit when it is about the direction of the efficiency of financial systems and how bad these systems works against population.
what is the connection between these facts and the insurances idea? both are part of the modernising the transports, shipping, extractions, etc etc financiar solutions
more money doesn't equal better living conditions, see the lack of balance in most monetary systems, deep-shit. your idea of forceing all people to pay insurance with which your bosses and those "civilised" stupid germans were brainwashed/on brainwashing would just fuck up the living conditions of regular people even more
and don't be deceived: the difference of wealth between western europe countries and eastern europe countries is not caused by some extraordinary capacity of the workers from western europe countries or some miraculous ways, double-triple-becks IQ people who know great financiar solutions all around (well excepting those solutions which gives them, THE FEW, most of the benefits) but because these countries fucked up other countries, for hundreds and hundreds of years, starting with england with its colonial dominations and ending with germany who started two world wars and used to fuck up constantly poland from the west like russians fucked up poland from the east, sometimes using brute force, other by influence; even france did the same, napoleon conquered europe because he realised that no peacefull monetary system will rise up the standards of leaving the way wars do if you are the one who do the conquers
isolated contries were allways adapting to their geopolitical situation by starting wars or conspiring bigtime (! england USA and Russia, with the small omission that USA and Russia were big on natural resurces, the #1 factor which decides the level of living, while germany and england had to rely more on "smarter" decisions, read it collaboration), while other countries made money by commerce, being heavily influenced by these three countries

so excuse me if I don't believe in your german way of thinking about regulations on how tightening the connection between laws and regular people increase the standard of living and how good it will be for the regular people if the papers he got in his house say that he has to pay more money more often
any law based on exceptions which endangers the freedom of the individual by restraining his financial capabilities, because the high risk of putting individual in a corner at a higher scale, is a bad law

if the option of using an emergency beacon exists you can use it if you want, but it is not absolutely necessarily you equip your ship with it, because as long as your decisions doesn't endanger other people's life you should not be FORCED by anyone to invest money in safety equipment

exactly, she wasn't forced to. But still she installed a sefety mechanism. That is the real insurance that can save her life.

The insurance would change nothing except cover the costs AFTER the rescue. There won't be a rescue team other than those that already exist in Australia and the Reunion Islands.

In fact the only thing that did put someone else life in danger was that she have the beacon, because rescue operations at high seas are very dangerous.



I would also like to inform you that the gas price is fixed to the oil price and that the oil price is demand driven. (i.e.: deep sea drilling and converting oil sands only became feasible because the oil price went up, not the other way around).

We also charged the Romanians in full, and engineering companies who build the plants don't participate in the sale of gas or oil.

Please stop failing so hard.

"engineering companies who build the plants don't participate in the sale of gas or oil"
this is only what you know but it does not mean you really know what's going on
there was an official statement saying that the reason why the price of natural gases got much higher than 10 years before it is because the "politics of aderation to the EU"; maybe if my nick would have been becks this answer would have pleased me...
the price you know about for your equipment it is well written ON PAPER, because this is exactly the part of the excuse for which romanian natural gases companies increased its price, exactly the thing I am talking about. the way companies like yours or other treat this matter varies pretty much, in this case at the best they charged the exact price it is written on the paper (yet is very possible it is not entirely true, depending from case to case to the raport between the percentage engineers get from their work and the taxes, but as most ingineers have a fix salary the fiscal evasion is pretty high, not like in eastern europe countries but still)
anyway the fact that you just say what you know about does not disprove my point, only proves your ignorance; it's like saying that the fact that you have done well the work what your bosses told you to do, proves that he is innocent; that's why I was mentioning "behind the courtain". you just wasn't where you should not be in the first place

"the gas price is fixed to the oil price and that the oil price is demand driven"

the price of natural gases might have some connection with the price of oil, as oil regulates the value of money, but the direct connection between these two remains pretty vague, which lets a lot of space for dirty bussiness, because see below:

"The residential price varies from 50% to 300% more than the wholesale price"
"Gas prices for end users vary greatly across the EU"
greatly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

"As the world market for natural gas is fragmented in different regional markets, it is not possible to talk about a world price for natural gas. Although there is a market liberalization trend all over the world, in many countries natural gas markets are still highly regulated. As a result of different degrees of market regulation, natural gas prices differ among countries. In North America, for example, where the market is highly liberalized, prices are very competitive and respond to demand and supply forces. After liberalization, natural gas prices have declined significantly. On the contrary, in the Russian Federation, where there is a clear monopoly, domestic prices are kept artificially low while gas is sold in foreign markets at higher prices in order to recover loses. In Europe, sales price for natural gas is most often based on competition with alternative fuels."
http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/gas/prices.htm

as you can see the margins and the terms you can put into the prices are so complex that you can cover any excuse why the price is high, in order to full your pocket, yet I am stateing you facts: the price of natural gases is much higher than it was a few years ago and the only "logical" explanation was the EU political orientation, which is plain bs

we are a small enough company to know that we do not participate in gas sales.
I certainly know more about it than you.

As for the two projects in Romania I got in touch with, here is a short explanation of what we did:

1. The platforms in the Balck sea used to burn all the natural gas that comes out of the earth alongside the oil. For their power generation the used diesel generators. The used ships to bring the diesel to that platform. I believe most people can see how that is highly inefficient and also bad for the environment.

Our project was to install a gas powered generator to produce energy by burning natural gas, thereby stopping the waste and the need for diesel.


2. This is connected to the first project: The excess gas that was not used for power generation gets send to the coast now. In order to be able to use it in standard applications it needs to be refined. For that we build a so-called CH3 extraction plant. Without that plant the natural gas would again be wasted.



Now you may try to explain to me how those projects were inefficient for Romania.

Jamerio
Posts: 12030

becks
Posts: 16105

You jealous??

don't worry I am not arguing with him, I am just educating him and offering him some reflections to help him find his own origins and limits
it is pretty obvious we have here a guy who did not heard about Schrödinger's paradox nor the idea of Nietzsche beyond good and evil, because both might demolish his perception on logics and thus on himself -pretty strange for a half part educated german this behaviour, though

you only think you do.

Why both of you seem to fail to realize is that if she had had an insurance not a single event in her adventure would have changed. Her rescue would have happened the exact same way.

and I am talking about the necessity of NOT forceing people into paying insurances
where's the contradiction?

the contradiction is that if someone is in danger at sea, the surrounding countries and all nearby ships (private, government and commercial) are forced to help them if they can.

That is a very good agreement, but that doesn't mean it should be abused as a "I will be saved, anyway" card.

I did not say "I will be saved anyway", as I talked about risks
now if international agreements between governments decided some stuff at higher level, they should keep it, try to find a way around it, or remove it
this doesn't mean that they have to FORCE the regular individual to sign up agreements with rescue companies

if this option will be removed, the laws regarding international waters modified, etc, then maybe people will decide to sign up with private rescue companies, but this must remain a matter of personal choice
no contradiction in this. well if the governments laws contradict each other /put them into trouble, that's not my business. that's why they are put there and get payed, to make things work, but to make things work as good as they can without limiting the freedom of individual by forceing him into contracts with corporations (or more taxes)

The agreement is a very good one and served its purpose well. Afair, it was put in place after the Titanic disaster. What happens is that you basically get a call over radio that tells you are the nearest ship or one of them, and to go help them. However, on the Ocean nearest doesn't mean much and travelling to the spot can take days. It even happened several times that sailors in a match race where ordered to turn around and help their competition.
Everyone does it, because they know they might be the next ones to need help.

But since this system is in place people should be responsible enough to make decisions that do not put them in very high danger of needing it. She could have taken another route or gone in another time of the year. That always was my main point, the lack of insurance that you guys lodged onto is just the icing on the cake in my eyes.
"Hey guys, thanks for coming and rescuing me and paying the bill for it. With the money I saved I'll be repeating the trip next year."


Afaik, there are no private rescue services, that you seem to envision. Rescuing at sea will always happen with the means I described above.
The only thing they could have done differently, is to have a second vessel trailing her. Maybe steered by her family or something. But yes, that would have been the only measure making it less adventurous.

"The agreement is a very good one"
"people should be responsible enough"
I don't know if you do realise that this "should" basically disproves your first statement, because if you make a law baseing on the fact that people will act like you think all people in your tiny german world must do (blindly listen to 'law and authority'), you will always have surprises, proving that the law is in fact not good

"Hey guys, thanks for coming and rescuing me and paying the bill for it. With the money I saved I'll be repeating the trip next year."
that little lady right there is making plans on her next trip already. that little bitch
fact is whatever her reason, she could have been very well plan this rescue in advance in order to make some guys spend money, she little evil one, fact is that this does not give the authorities the right to put everyone in debt; maybe I don't wanna fool rescue teams into losing money right there and maybe I don't want them to come to rescue me, in exchange to me paying all my life for the right to sale; the way you see things nobody will have the right to sale anymore without hard stuff regulations, and once such a commission and the departments who will take care of these regulations will be born, they will want more and more money, they will feel their "importance" so they will propose more little regulations, at the degree that at some point you will realise that you will have to pay another 50,000 euros for modern-gps equipments etc, over the price of the boat, else you wil not efectively have the right to go outside the sea. maybe my whole boat is a cheap one, one 8,000$ boat, so you want me to pay another 10,000$ just for the rescue-equipment, another money for the insurance, plus the money for your great ideas who wanna go deeper, not just "scratch the surface"
are you crazy? well no, you are just german. order and discipline, authorities must not be put into questions, sieg heil. don't you find it kinda strange the connection between your nationality and the deep sense for authority you possess? I mean do you see what do you here? you just blame the population for the undesired conflicting results caused by a faulty law, which you partially admit it is wrong when you say that something must be done, but in the same time you say it is a very good one

I don't know if you do realise that this "should" basically disproves your first statement, because if you make a law baseing on the fact that people will act like you think all people in your tiny german world must do (blindly listen to 'law and authority'), you will always have surprises, proving that the law is in fact not good

no it doesn't in reality.
It only does in your head because you are so set in your prejudiced views.

So if I wanted to go down to your level and base my argument on prejudices I could reply that I am aware that you as a Romanian have no difficulties with ignoring laws.

But I really don't want to so I'll just stop replying to your nonsense right here.

exactly this is the point, no law 4 me and no regulations
why the hell should I pay insurances for my car, home, boats and everything else if I don't want? we are not living in 1500 bc to have the obligation to serve others who has more money than they handle but they always need more, more and more as those who produce the money fooled them that money really matters
no regulations, not now, not later
about your repairing stuff into the black sea, won't open another reply, hope this is my last on this matter anyway
so: I don't need your cheap ass experience, your crappy equipment and your crappy laws. germany did not grow on the smartness of laws but because the help of UK and USA and the help of the bankers, who are the real regulators. the fact that you modernise some productions systems is giving the bosses a good excuse to increase the prices because the politic orientation help them do it! exactly like the politics of aderation to the EU statement.
you have no idea how bad the influx of big capital was going on around here, based on the idea of making business and dealing with corporations. every company in the country has a dirty big business behind it.15 years ago, most of the land in the country was cultivated, now most of it is left dry. over 90% of all the money in the country is in the hands of a few people while the number of laws and obligations increases and you wanna convince me that imposing laws on the public is a good thing and that cooperating with foreign companies is a good thing? do you know that most of the material used in the construction of the roads in romania, the same material at fault for these roads becoming futile every two years is from Italy? I have to ask you once again are you out of your mind?
if I wanna leave free, leave the town and build a farm, this way, the old way, pick up an axe go in the wood and chop chop chop some trees then make my first house there, so if I want to be able to leave on my own, with no bankers around, I want to be able to "just do it" without having to care about accumulated debts or other shit. I have some land somewhere close to a river, I wanna go and build there a house without having to pay an engineer, paying for a topograph, paying the officials and all other fuckers around there, for the sake of regulations. not everybody wanna be part of your big glorious stalinist society who makes the laws work the same for all, in fact my whole life I was just depositing money to banks but never asked for loans nor payed any dept. I'd rather kill you rather than ask you to loan me money, if I'd have no other alternative. as a matter of fact, it was your fault you the fuckin germans who was putting Hitler into power, it was your fault that Stalin got to enslave half of Europe, and you had pretty convincing laws there too and you used to call yourself civilised people too, while slaves were all "barbarians". are you trying to teach me now about the benefits of regulations and about the benefits of collaboration with your shit?
in fact even if I ever want to open a store and you come to me asking me to make dunno what adjustments or modernise the equipment or ask me to pay money for god knows what stupid idea some politician said that it is good, for the sake of regulations, I will shoot you in the head. I hope this sounds civilised enough for you. stick your cheap ass regulations right there where you live and where you sit.

shit logic is shit

on another note, for compensation she should have to have show us those nice melons she got. (no pedo)

this.
I think it's a fair trade

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00...28554a.jpg

here you go.

oh my god now i have to wank off.

nice following up on my train of thought there

everybody wants to ride the pussywagon

frank from new jersey is a pedo!

HOLY SHIT CALL THE NEWS

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya
Ba ya ha ya ah ah ah ah ah ba ba ya ya
ha ah ah ah ah ah ah


ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya
Ba ya ha ya ah ah ah ah ah ba ba ya ya
ha ah ah ah ah ah ah
Verse 1

There used to be a greying tower alone on the sea.
You became the light on the dark side of me.
Love remained a drug that's the high and not the pill.
Chorus 1

But did you know,
That when it snows,
My eyes become large and,
The light that you shine can be seen.
Chorus 2

Baby,
I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey.
...kiss from a rose on the grey.
Ooh,
The more I get of you,
Ooh...................
Stranger it feels, yeah.
And now that your rose is is in bloom.
A light hits the gloom on the grey.
Inter

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya
Ba ya ha ya ah ah ah ah ah ba ba ya ya
ha ah ah ah ah ah ah
Verse 2

There is so much a man can tell you,
..there....................woa...
So much he can say.
there's so much inside.
You remain,
you.......
My power, my pleasure, my pain, baby
To me you're like a growing addiction that I can't deny.. yeah.
Won't you tell me is that healthy, baby?
Chorus 1

But did you know,
That when it snows,
My eyes become large and the light that you shine can be seen.
Chorus 2

Baby,
I've...
I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey.
been.............. kissed from a rose on the grey.
Ooh, the more I get of you
...ooh...........the..
Stranger it feels, yeah
stranger it feels, ...yeah.
Now that your rose is in bloom.
A light hits the gloom on the grey,
Bridge

I've been kissed by a rose on the grey,
...I've been.......................I've...
I've been kissed by a rose
...been kissed by a rose on the grey.
I've been kissed by a rose on the grey,
...I've been.......................I've...
...And if I should fall, at all
I've been kissed by a rose
...been kissed by a rose on the grey.
Verse 3

There is so much a man can tell you,
..there....................woa...
So much he can say.
there's so much inside.
You remain
you.......
My power, my pleasure, my pain.
To me you're like a growing addiction that I can't deny, yeah (L)
Won't you tell me is that healthy, baby.
Chorus 1

But did you know,
That when it snows,
My eyes become large and
the light that you shine can be seen.
Chorus 2

Baby,
I've...
I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey.
been.............. kissed from a rose on the grey.
Ooh, the more I get of you
...ooh...........the..
Stranger it feels, yeah
stranger it feels.
Now that your rose is in bloom,
A light hits the gloom on the grey.

Yes I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey
I've..........been kissed from a rose on the grey.
Ooh, the more I get of you
...ooh...........the..
Stranger it feels, yeah
stranger it feels. ...yeah.
And now that your rose is in bloom
aah-ee-aah...
A light hits the gloom on the grey
aah-ee-aah...
Outro

ba da ba da da da ah ya ya
ba da da da ba ba ee ah
Ba ya ya ba ba de ba da da da ah ya ya


Now that your rose is in bloom,
A light hits the gloom on the grey.