Europe car-free day

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Europe car-free day
Agent
Member # 1993
Profile #0
Who was celebrating 22th of September?
I was at a bicycle-demonstration; we delayed the traffic for about two hours. I drew with chalk huge bikes in the middle of the streets. Next year I might use spray paint - it remains longer :D

--------------------
^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
Profile #1
I'm afraid my political activism doesn't extend beyond internet message boards...yet. :)
Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #2
To be perfectly honest, I hadn't realised it was happening.

I'd heard about it before and there's been one or two schemes in the past about it, where I live. It's a good idea, encouraging a lowered usage of cars. Now only if America could understand that...

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5009
Profile #3
As I do not live in Europe I can't.

--------------------
Post count 446 + Current.
--------------------
I am Dolney, A guy with some level of grammar and The rightful owner of 5000.
--------------------
"Well, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather watch grainy video of cheerleaders being introduced to lesbianism." -Jeff Vogel
Posts: 30 | Registered: Tuesday, September 21 2004 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally written by spy.there:

Who was celebrating 22th of September?
I was at a bicycle-demonstration; we delayed the traffic for about two hours. I drew with chalk huge bikes in the middle of the streets. Next year I might use spray paint - it remains longer :D

Part of the permanent adversarial minority, are we?
Congrats! You just helped the major corporations stereotype everyone on your side of the argument and contributed to public apathy towards your cause, thereby setting it back by personal action alone at least a few weeks -- in only two hours! Way to go! IMAGE(http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ubb/icons/icon14.gif)

[ Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:43: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 3310
Profile #5
We have a car-free day here in Finland too (much because other countries have and we're dedicated flow-goers). No one really cares. Except maybe people without cars who can feel good and superior for a day. Still, no demonstrations or reclaiming of the streets, I'm afraid.

--------------------
ahhahaha i rule u droool
Posts: 756 | Registered: Monday, August 4 2003 07:00
Cartographer
Member # 1851
Profile Homepage #6
I always use my bicycle or walk to get around. Because I haven't really a choice.

--------------------
"Son--err," her father said, "I mean... Daughter, I give you your first and only sword. Use it for with skill for great villainy." Nanoisms

Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery - WannabeCool Forums
So many strange ones around. Don't you think?
Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00
Warrior
Member # 4537
Profile Homepage #7
Um, I have a question. What about the people who were using cars and didn't have any other choice, like if they were making a long trip or moving a heavy load? What if they were transporting small children or people with delicate medical conditions? What did they do to be inconvenienced, stuck in hot, stifling traffic for two hours?

No hostility, just my view.

--------------------
Digital Neko - more nekojin per capita than you can beat senseless! Now featuring all-new subdomain!
Vote Richter! Belmont in 2004!
Posts: 147 | Registered: Sunday, June 13 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 1993
Profile #8
quote:
Originally written by Fear Uncertainty and Custer:

Part of the permanent adversarial minority, are we?
Congrats! You just helped the major corporations stereotype everyone on your side of the argument and contributed to public apathy towards your cause, thereby setting it back by personal action alone at least a few weeks -- in only two hours! Way to go! IMAGE(http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ubb/icons/icon14.gif)

Could it be Alec, that you are an intrinsical cynic?
Yes, I am mostly with the minority, it's my nature, I hate masses.
You wanted to say, a demonstration is a bad service for the cause?
FBM is right, you cannot understand it. Neither car-free cities nor solar power. You are a true American = ecological illiterate.

Riibu, I went by bicycle my whole life. I even have no drivers licence and never missed a car. Biking saves some physical training ^_^

edit: WS, It was a legal demonstration, escorted from the police, the cars had to wait a few minutes only. They are accustomed to wait because they wait every day in traffic jams, caused by them selves. It's anyhow stupid to drive car in the city, since everything is reachable faster by public transportation or bike.

[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 14:22: Message edited by: spy.there ]

--------------------
^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #9
Generally, minorities create their own masses, no matter what kind of aversion they have to them... what would a demonstration be without people? :)

Listen to the quiet, subdued voice of logic here: average Swiss person has little interest one way or another in the ecology, and all he or she knows about it that day is that some jerk demonstrating against ecological damage by automobiles made them late to an appointment and they had to reschedule... suppose the election is the next day. Who is going to win that, you or the opponent?

Aggressive indirect action never won anything in a civilized society. If you want to affect change, do the Christlike thing and melt quietly into the crowd. Become an avatar of justice, above reproach -- earn respect rather than demanding it.

If you insist on aggressive action, try aggressive direct action instead. The group of people demonstrating in the street would have accomplished more handing out fliers or storming Bern with Kalashnikovs. As things stand, your actions were ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

I am not ecologically ignorant, merely pragmatist; I know what problems cars pose to the environment, but frankly I do not believe the way you are tackling it will work. Any American political science student will tell you the same. Perhaps the fact we have been democratic for far longer than Europe -- and we are far more respectful of democracy and the instutition thereof -- makes us more politically pragmatist, I dunno.
It doesn't matter how right you are, it matters who knows you're right and who's willing to vote on it. Get used to the framework of democracy for effecting political change, or you're going to keep wasting your time on silly things like this: a truly European political illiteracy.

Cheers!

[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 14:48: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Seaweed:

We have a car-free day here in Finland too (much because other countries have and we're dedicated flow-goers). No one really cares. Except maybe people without cars who can feel good and superior for a day. Still, no demonstrations or reclaiming of the streets, I'm afraid.
At least in Turku there was some kind of a street action and I suspect there were in other cities too. I didn't participate, I had a lecture.

Well, about causing inconvenience... In every action I've been in and I remember, they have made room for emergency cases, such as ambulances.

In Finland, the demonstration culture is very restrained. I've been in a demonstration in Belgium, where I almost lost my hearing, because people used such loud whistles and screamed very loud. And afterwards, all the streets were covered with serpentine. (That was a demonstration with 100000 participants - mostly middle-aged people - from all over Europe.) In Finland, that kind of action would be easily labeled "rioting". In Belgium, it was not.

Generally, I think football and other sports audiences tend to cause a lot more inconvenience than demonstrators. I've even heard a police say something like that.
Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
Profile Homepage #11
quote:
Originally written by Fear Uncertainty and Custer:

I am not ecologically ignorant, merely pragmatist; I know what problems cars pose to the environment, but frankly I do not believe the way you are tackling it will work. Any American political science student will tell you the same. Perhaps the fact we have been democratic for far longer than Europe -- and we are far more respectful of democracy and the instutition thereof -- makes us more politically pragmatist, I dunno.
It doesn't matter how right you are, it matters who knows you're right and who's willing to vote on it. Get used to the framework of democracy for effecting political change, or you're going to keep wasting your time on silly things like this:

Ahem. I HAVE used my democratic right in all elections after turning 18. I have written in papers, I have handed out flyers, I have used the framework of democracy in every possible way that I have time to. I am right now a candidate in our communal elections. I know many people who do all this. And we get no seats in our parliament. Because we are such idiots according to everyone? Because we are so lazy? No, I don't quite think so. Rather, most people don't really know anything about us, when I talk with them on the street.

How do our democracies work? Parties that get seats in the parliament get a lot of money from multiple party support systems so that they can advertise before elections. Big parties have more time on TV. Newspapers speculate about which big party will win. Small parties have no money. Nobody even knows what their arguments are. Perhaps I oversimplify this but I've heard that in the US this phenomenon can be seen on a larger scale than in Europe.

One can argue, "but why not join the bigger parties?" But I don't think that's democracy anymore.

Then again, I would claim that I'm using my democratic right when I'm demonstrating. Is demonstrating an aggressive tactic itself? In my opinion, no more aggressive than saying on TV that terrorists want Kerry to win. Of course, there are peaceful and violent demonstrations.

P.S. It's also interesting that many people across Europe who participated in demonstrations in their youth - in the 70's - have got top positions in their countries' government nowadays.

[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 15:50: Message edited by: Milu ]
Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #12
Milu: There is a difference between trying to win converts on the street in a non-disruptive way and setting up a roadblock and bantering about like morons. One is constructive and one isn't, and one is disruptive and one isn't.

People are generally half-willing to listen. You should make them listen, but not to the point of making them angry at you, which disruptive behavior tends to do.

The 'ignorant European' thing was a stereotype, and I'll admit an unfair one, but used as a device to subtly attack the way that s.t seems to assume that anyone who would oppose disruptive demonstrations for the Right Cause is obviously on the Wrong Side. I assume you are capable of making the distinction between pragmatist disdain and ideological disdain.

How do things work in Finland politically? Who holds the power, how do they get it, and who's competing for it? You've piqued my curiosity, and I can honestly say that besides Finland being apparently democratic I know nothing about politics there.

[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:03: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Fear Uncertainty and Custer:

Milu: There is a difference between trying to win converts on the street in a non-disruptive way and setting up a roadblock and bantering about like morons. One is constructive and one isn't, and one is disruptive and one isn't.

I agree - there is difference between peaceful and "too" aggressive demonstrations... But where exactly the line goes - that's where people tend to have major differences of opinion, in my experience. Also the spectators. I've also seen well-organized, peaceful roadblocks where people get arrested for blocking the way.
Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #14
Okay. Who are you and what have you done with the real Alec?

Multiple, simple grammatical errors. A blunted edge to the aggression. And to top it all off, a "cheers!" at the end.

Sure. If someone wishes to affect change, they should melt in and do it from the inside. However, if someone wishes to effect change, the position they stand from can often not matter. The latter is my preferred method. It has more instigation. Not that I never use the first. To say that would simply be untrue.

I do agree that if aggresive action is to be taken, it must be done in a way that is actually useful. To aggresively hand out leaflets is not the most useful of actions.

However, to take aggresive action, in the way that you suggest, over such an issue, is, well, stupid. There is a good line between aggresive and violent action. The former, if executed in the right way, can be a brilliant source of publicity and can be very productive. The latter, in all but the most extreme of cases, will earn you no sympathy.

Take the recent security scares here. The Fathers 4 Justice organisation and pro-hunt supporters both, recently performed a agressive, high-profile publicity stunts. The Fathers 4 Justice one was where one of their members, dressed as Batman, managed to climb part-way up Buckingham Palace. And two days later, five or six pro-hunt supporters managed to gain access to the Houses of Parlament, storming the inner chamber, where the Fox Hunting with Dogs Bill was being discussed in the Commons. Both were non-violent.

If, in the first case, there had been an intention to harm anyone, not only would he have been shot on sight, public opinion would have swung against the F4J organisation. More importantly, membership, mainly due to stunts like these, wouldn't have gone up by more than 20%. An effective use of aggresive campaigning.

And for the second, well, if the pro-hunt supporters had burst in there with guns, or merely the intention to injure or kill the MPs there at the time, their related organisations would most likely have their members detained or arrested under a form of conspiracy. And of course, it would win them no friends. In both cases, aggresive action was well used. However, violent action would have been counter-productive.

*sigh*
Alec, when did Britain first have Parlament? Or for that matter, when was the Magna Carta signed? And then, when was the American constitution signed? And when exactly did it actually become a true (mostly) democracy? Check your damn history.

To get someone to agree with something is often very hard. There are generally two ways. Style and substance. Style is easy, just make something look good and right, then stick it infront of someone's nose and they might just take it. Substance is alot harder. It generallly involves alot of work. But when it's done, very few people will be able to argue with actual results.

Style is a fair bit riskier. And has a lower chance of success (unless you're very good at it). But it is definately the way to go in cases such as these. Substance is very hard to achieve in this sort of case.

Bottom line, if you want to effect political change you've generally got to have the following;

A figurehead, someone that people know and respect, someone who's name everyone recognises.
A plan, a foolproof one, not one that you think is foolproof, one that is.
Publicity grabbing stunts, anything which catches the media eye. And I mean anything.
PLENTY of PR and semantics, whatever you do, there's going to be a downside, so make sure when you have a manifesto or suchlike it at least plays them down.

There's some more stuff, but it's mostly minor.

Ah frag it, I'm too dang tired. /blather in the extreme

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #15
OK, smart guy. When did Disraeli become the first man generally acknowledged to hold the post of PM? Hint: we had had more than 10 Presidents by that point. When did parliamentary rule become supreme over monarchial rule? Hard to place -- the groundwork was under George III and IV, both relatively weak monarchs, but royal supremacy would remain doctrinal well into the 20th century. Somewhere between Lloyd George and Churchill, in fact.

The Magna Carta only forfeited rights from the King to the nobles, and was not well-recognized long after it was signed. It also owed to John being a hideous monarch -- and pissing off the aristocrats. No democracy there. One of the biggest historical fallacies out there, in fact.

I did not say we were the first democracy -- that title would not go to you either (although the UK did not even resemble a modern democracy until, varying on your standards, the early 19th, late 19th, or early 20th century). Rather Iceland, who, by the time one of your incompetent monarchs signed a contract giving rise to feudalist principles, had been ruled by elected representatives for centuries.

America has been a mostly true democracy since the rise of Jefferson, at the beginning of the 19th century -- ten to a hundred and twenty years before Britain, depending again on what meterstick you use. What I claimed is that we have been the longest-running one. If you really mean to argue that Victoria did not interfere with the democratic process over there, you are somehow even more ill-informed than I had previously gauged.

Aggressive campaigning, yes, but who did climbing up onto Buckingham Palace as Batman disrupt? Or bursting into Parliament?

I said that violent direct action is effective, not necessarily popular. I suppose you believe that all the coups in history are just exceptions, then?

To conclude, I am Belisarius; I am undefeatable and engaging me in combat is a sure road to woe. Kneel before Byzantium, barbarian.

[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:38: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #16
Benjamin Disraeli became Prime Minister in 1868.

The first official Prime Minister in England was Sir Robert Walpole, in 1721. He was also a Whig. Though he was only really, in power terms, first lord of the treasury, in a government dominated by James Stanhope and Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland.

It was indeed under Pitt the Elder's first time as Prime Minister, that the Monarchal power started to wane with Pitt having nearly complete control over the Fleet and the British army at one point in his service.

It is generally considered that true ministerial independence was gained around the time of the later terms of Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury. It was definitively confirmed by the time that Asquith's term had ended.

If you think it occurred between the two world wars, then which minister was it under? Because it sure as hell wasn't under Baldwin, Law or MacDonald.

And actually, if you had taken a look at your own constitution recently, you would have seen that by all reasonable rights, the earliest you could argue that America had a true democracy was after the fifteenth amendment. Post-1870. Thank you very much.

As for the publicity stunts, they disrupted the status quo. They interrupted the norm. And if you want to be picky, they damn well inconveninced the MPs.

ALEC READ WHAT I SAID. IN ALL BUT THE MOST EXTREME OF CASES.

A coup is damn extreme.

And d'you know what? I'm good. I'm damn good. Kneel before me Byzantium, for I am holding a rail-gun. Five times dead before you hit the ground. Kthnx.

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #17
Moron:
quote:
Originally written by FatBatMonkey:

Benjamin Disraeli became Prime Minister in 1868.

The first official Prime Minister in England was Sir Robert Walpole, in 1721. He was also a Whig. Though he was only really, in power terms, first lord of the treasury, in a government dominated by James Stanhope and Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland.

Uh, the position of 'Prime Minister' did not become legally standard until Disraeli. Walpole as the first PM is revisionist, he was merely the first to hold what would become the PMship. This would be like calling various pre-revolutionary American governors representatives of the early US.

It was indeed under Pitt the Elder's first time as Prime Minister, that the Monarchal power started to wane with Pitt having nearly complete control over the Fleet and the British army at one point in his service.

Exception, not the rule. At some points, strong ministers did exist -- they did in all countries. Didn't make them democratic, just made it a time of emergency. You'll note I said 'doctrinal', implying that at some point the idea that the monarch is never superior to the parliament came into fashion. I maintain your examples are far too early -- the executive power of the Monarch would not become effectively feckless until Elizabeth II, for God's sake.

It is generally considered that true ministerial independence was gained around the time of the later terms of Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury. It was definitively confirmed by the time that Asquith's term had ended.

Again: this is almost a century after the instutition of the Constitution, and ~60 years after Jefferson (first transferral of political power by factional lines).

If you think it occurred between the two world wars, then which minister was it under? Because it sure as hell wasn't under Baldwin, Law or MacDonald.

I meant between the two men themselves, not between them in time. I am sorry if I mislead you here; they are both the first convenient examples of the PM utilizing real power in international affairs in the name of Britain rather than her monarch.

And actually, if you had taken a look at your own constitution recently, you would have seen that by all reasonable rights, the earliest you could argue that America had a true democracy was after the fifteenth amendment. Post-1870. Thank you very much.

At which point Indians and Africans had the vote for nearly a century. Point withdrawn, masterful sir.
This is a pathetic argument -- by the same, America wasn't a true democracy until the 1920s (women's suffrage), and Britain until later still. Switzerland? Not until 1970. Absurd, of course, but that's what you get for trying to revise historical metersticks in favor of your argument.

As for the publicity stunts, they disrupted the status quo. They interrupted the norm. And if you want to be picky, they damn well inconveninced the MPs.

You can interrupt the norm dressed in a pink chicken suit on the sidewalk. It isn't going to disrupt traffic or make people in general angry. And the disrupting Parliament thing? They are not thousands of voters. Again, the power of action in the framework of democracy; I am certain that in an undemocratic government, disrupting the lives of ordinary people might lead to change, but in democracy, change must come from mass movements from below. Pissing people off doesn't usually accomplish that.

ALEC READ WHAT I SAID. IN ALL BUT THE MOST EXTREME OF CASES.

A coup is damn extreme.

My example relied on a coup -- I said that you can cause social change by overthrowing the government violently or peacefully and non-disruptively encouraging change. Your points rely on your own argument, and while it is nice to do that, it is against the protocol of debate and logically absurd anyway.

And d'you know what? I'm good. I'm damn good. Kneel before me Byzantium, for I am holding a rail-gun. Five times dead before you hit the ground. Kthnx.

Clearly there is something about 'undefeatable' that you fail to grasp.



[ Thursday, September 23, 2004 17:38: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #18
I gotta wonder what the point is in holding up traffic. All you're doing is keeping those cars running longer (chewing up fossil fuels, spewing Carbon Monoxide, etc.), and making the people who are sitting in their cars for two hours become antagonistic to your cause.

Leaving the pros and cons of the cause itself aside, it does seem to be a very counterproductive action.

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #19
America's women gained voting capabilities in 1920. The first female vote in Britain was at the general election in December, 1918. Many women, in fact, stood for political office then. Only one was elected, a Constance Markiewicz, standing for Sinn Fein.

If you want to be all technical though, in actual fact, the queen has overall say on the passing of all laws. Every year there is a ceremony where she must ratify the laws passed in the previous year. She also has the right to seize any area of land in Britain. Along with various other powers. Just because she doesn't use them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

And SURE, walking down the street in a pink chicken suit might disturb some people, but it doesn't actually do anything. Due to the recent security breaches (actually, a reporter for one of the tabloids managed to gain access to the house of commons, the very day after the hunt supporters broke in, with fake bomb equipment) there is a massive shake-up of security guarding various institutions. In addition, it has raised awareness and has swung public opinion slightly towards these groups. Not to mention embarrassing the government.

Social change can be effected in a number of ways. While a coup and non-disruptive methods are two ends of the scale, there's plenty of leeway inbetween. And I debate, not because it's something to do or because I can, I debate because I must. Claiming something to be logically absurd is absurd. Simply because there are so many things in this world that are logically absurd, yet work. Just because it's logically absurd, doesn't make it any less valid.

Even the invincible die. In 565, in this case. I do consider death to be a form of defeat. Ooo fun, 04:07!

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Master
Member # 1046
Profile Homepage #20
take public transit, you nubs. like me.

--------------------
Polaris - Weather balloons, ninjas, and your big daddy Wise Man. What more could you want?
Undead Theories - Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Posts: 3323 | Registered: Thursday, April 25 2002 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 3310
Profile #21
New Zealand was the pioneer, accepting women’s right to vote in 1893, followed by Australia in 1902, while Finland was the European forerunner in 1906. Finland’s thoroughgoing parliamentary reforms gave all adult men and women not only universal and equal suffrage, but also the full right to stand for elective office. This was unprecedented in the whole world.

Choke on that, people who talk too much anyway.

--------------------
ahhahaha i rule u droool
Posts: 756 | Registered: Monday, August 4 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 22
Profile #22
quote:
And two days later, five or six pro-hunt supporters managed to gain access to the Houses of Parlament, storming the inner chamber, where the Fox Hunting with Dogs Bill was being discussed in the Commons. Both were non-violent.

Oh, I don't know. Watching the pro fox hunting lobby getting beaten the crap out of outside by the police was the highlight of my day.
Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Cartographer
Member # 1851
Profile Homepage #23
So, should I tell you about Finland's politics? I just had an exam on that subject yesterday (history and civics, course 5). I don't think I did too badly. It's just that, I'm not exactly into politics, so my knowledge is a bit vague and at best only what I've learned from the book. No real-life examples possible. I'd just need to get home to check some things in my book... For clarification, you know?

--------------------
"Son--err," her father said, "I mean... Daughter, I give you your first and only sword. Use it for with skill for great villainy." Nanoisms

Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery - WannabeCool Forums
So many strange ones around. Don't you think?
Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #24
Hey, I never said that the demonstration outside was peaceful. THAT, was verging on a riot.

Go Finland! No real reason. Just wanted to say that.

I am also one of those who regularly has to take public transport, walk or bike.

However, should you feel the urge, Riibu, feel free to enlighten us all on Finnish politics.

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00

Pages