England Riots

They should duke it out to eliminate competition. Let the best man win.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:They should duke it out to eliminate competition. Let the best man win.

It wouldn't work, the french would surrender

KGBOOM wrote:It wouldn't work, the french would surrender

eaustinn36 wrote:Nah too easy.... France would just surrender

I deleted my post but I knew someone would say it anyways.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:As far as I know, exception being Germany (who everyone wants to bail their own country out) Europe is on the brink of recession.

I don't think we are... then again, it would be great if we were. Would bring a lot of people on the same level as I am on right now.

Don't quote me on this but I think Finland is just in the middle right now. They aren't a powerhouse but aren't on the brink of a recession either. I think the reason is because they aren't involved in the global market as much, so when the US tanks for example, they wouldn't drag Finland down with them (as they did near everyone else).

Nah, don't wish recession on yourself. The US is on the brink of recession itself and I'm trying to look for work right now so that's not preferable.
(Not going to College, at least now anyways)

Also, when I say Europe, I kind of mean the EU, but good for Finland I say for remaining independent. Also, I don't hear a lot about Finland in world news, so to be honest, I wouldn't really know.

As Erik stated, Finland didn't cash in on globalization in the 90s, or ever as far as I know.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The US is on the brink of recession itself

We've past that point in 2008. We've been in a full blown recession for nearly 3 years now (although we are slowly recovering at a snail pace).

eaustinn36 wrote:Don't quote me on this but I think Finland is just in the middle right now. They aren't a powerhouse but aren't on the brink of a recession either. I think the reason is because they aren't involved in the global market as much, so when the US tanks for example, they wouldn't drag Finland down with them (as they did near everyone else).

Pretty much that, yeah. We've never been a powerhouse, but always been pretty stable in between...

eaustinn36 wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The US is on the brink of recession itself

We've past that point in 2008. We've been in a full blown recession for nearly 3 years now (although we are slowly recovering at a snail pace).

Officially, no. In the economic-science definition of the word, the recession ended in July 2009. What you're referring to by the word which is the lay-mans speak version, recession is ongoing hardship. Which is fine, but don't refer to it as an actual recession.

A second recession may happen, the Dow Jones Industrial has dropped 500 points almost every day with a few days gaining minimal.

It's like calling a Mercedes Benz a Merc. A Mercedes isn't a Merc, a Mercury is a Merc.

Made in Finland wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:Don't quote me on this but I think Finland is just in the middle right now. They aren't a powerhouse but aren't on the brink of a recession either. I think the reason is because they aren't involved in the global market as much, so when the US tanks for example, they wouldn't drag Finland down with them (as they did near everyone else).

Pretty much that, yeah. We've never been a powerhouse, but always been pretty stable in between...

Localized economy.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
Officially, no. In the economic-science definition of the word, the recession ended in July 2009. What you're referring to by the word which is the lay-mans speak version, recession is ongoing hardship. Which is fine, but don't refer to it as an actual recession.

http://tinypic.com/r/28vgmjc/7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession
You're so funny.

You think you're really that clever?

You think I know what the actual definition for recession is off the top of my head? Like I just remembered everything from economics class or something? Of course I'm going to look up wikipedia or some other source. Wouldn't be the first time for me, or anyone for that matter. That's what it's there for.

I'm sorry, I guess you just knew everything when you were born. Sorry about that, my bad.

Why fix what isn't broken? Am I going to get sued now for stating one sentence from a public encyclopedia? Am I somehow not credible?

Jesus, I think you're just one of those people who argue to argue.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:You think you're really that clever?

You think I know what the actual definition for recession is off the top of my head? Like I just remembered everything from economics class or something? Of course I'm going to look up wikipedia or some other source. Wouldn't be the first time for me, or anyone for that matter. That's what it's there for.

I'm sorry, I guess you just knew everything when you were born. Sorry about that, my bad.

Why fix what isn't broken? Am I going to get sued now for stating one sentence from a public encyclopedia? Am I somehow not credible?

Jesus, I think you're just one of those people who argue to argue.

Just sayin', plagiarism isn't nice.

It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

I can't drink water due to my natural surplus build up of juice in my head.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.

I was the first person to embrace my watermelon head heritage.

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

So why are you yelling at him for Plagiarizing if you just did the same exact thing?

Calm down no one in wikipedia is going to care if you quote one sentence from their wiki.

Meatshield718 wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

So why are you yelling at him for Plagiarizing if you just did the same exact thing?

Thank you for agreeing what I did was plagarism to concur his actions were, essentially. <3

LimeyPolo wrote:

Meatshield718 wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

So why are you yelling at him for Plagiarizing if you just did the same exact thing?

Thank you for agreeing what I did was plagarism to concur his actions were, essentially. <3

No, I think he was calling you a hypocrite. He wasn't agreeing with your (incredibly silly) accusation.

That being said, we should not be talking about plagiarism in a topic titled "England Riots", especially when it's because someone used a figure from wikipedia. That is absolutely silly.

Super Mega King wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Meatshield718 wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's not even plagiarism. It's simply restated knowledge. We all draw water from the same well friend.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

So why are you yelling at him for Plagiarizing if you just did the same exact thing?

Thank you for agreeing what I did was plagarism to concur his actions were, essentially. <3

No, I think he was calling you a hypocrite. He wasn't agreeing with your (incredibly silly) accusation.

That being said, we should not be talking about plagiarism in a topic titled "England Riots", especially when it's because someone used a figure from wikipedia. That is absolutely silly.

I did the plagarism of plagarism on purpose (see the laugh?). Plus, to manipulate someone to inadvertently agree with my point if they noticed & took it seriously.

Frankly, when he basically copied the text without referencing - interexchanging basic grammatical modifiers - I think it's not only quoting a figure. My issue is, though, that he basically told off someone for not KNOWING this figure when he needed to RESEARCH it (even confessed after I demonstrated sucH) immediately before.

Frankly, based on this, there's strong evidence he researched the topic before to PEDANTICALLY correct a triviality to look RIGHT. Why? Imparting knowledge? I don't think so when he did so snobby like, "You should know this, it's so bad that you didn't", whilst he didn't COMPLETELY, obviously.

The guy's a hypocrite if anyone, IMO, as he attributes stuff about me (e.g. arrogant, haughty, 1-upper) which is just EVIDENTLY himself. If anything is true, he's trying to be in competition with himself through me or thinking I am like him (only see what you know best, yourself, too far?).

I'm fine with humble education, anyway, and noting research figures/statistics/facts, but I don't approve of someone EXTRACTING these to be condescending whilst they were COMPARABLY ignorant moments before.

Riots are friggin stupid, I don't understand the reasoning behind them, all they cause is turmoil, damage and stress on the country and government and in some cases like this one, take people's lives. Problems should be solved peacefully with each group coming together and solving it together but of course in this world, thats impossible because theres always some idiots trying to start stupid shit for no reason and only to get a aggravated reaction from the government or law enforcement.

I really think it's because you have a bias against me. The first topics I ever replied to you were in opposition to what you were saying, therefore I'm presented as an enemy. You're not as objective as you probably think. Nobody is.

The correct situation was not "Oh man, I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about, I need to look it up and call him stupid for not knowing about it! Hurr hurr hurr!"

It was simply that I knew what a recession was in general, I also know that it's been stated before by experts that the recession ended quite some time ago, when exactly, I don't know. Why it was stated it ended, I don't know either, although I knew the general definition of a recession from economics class. Therefore, I read on it the first place I thought, then summarized it which happened to be similar.

I'm also not stating "This is my knowledge, nobody else knows it, I came up with it," I think it'd be redundant to do so. Also, because this is in text, there is a bias that anything you say here because it is in text that is similar to somewhere else is plagiarism. You should be comparing this more to a conversation, and if I happened to say something I read earlier in an article in a face to face conversation, you would never accuse me of plagiarism in the first place.

In other words, you're silly. You're silly because you brought up a plagiarism debate in a conversation. It's not like I'm publishing an article for people to take resource from. Stop trying to act like you're so ahead of the bend with everyone, it gets on my nerves and probably everyone you do it to.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
Officially, no. In the economic-science definition of the word, the recession ended in July 2009. What you're referring to by the word which is the lay-mans speak version, recession is ongoing hardship. Which is fine, but don't refer to it as an actual recession.

A second recession may happen, the Dow Jones Industrial has dropped 500 points almost every day with a few days gaining minimal.

It's like calling a Mercedes Benz a Merc. A Mercedes isn't a Merc, a Mercury is a Merc.

I don't see how this is insulting Erik for is knowledge and propping myself up. Please, show where and I'll happily correct you.

[Mod Removal. Essentially "I can't intelligently contribute to the topic so I'll just curse." ]

-DeadApe.

I am more afraid of the riots in this very thread.

^

Agreed