XtremeSpeakFreely

there is no hope for you my son...

if your intent is to say there is something wrong with my post, you should try to name it cuz what you say contains absolutely nothing, son

You've already visited wikipedia on canoes (that's where you got your picture) so you know that the second one is also considered a canoe, no matter how high tech it may be. It's like saying you can't travel 200 miles in one hour by car when there are actually cars that can go over 200 mph.

A canoe is a canoe and you fail. Now you're just trying to seem smart... but you fail to realize that you're just failing even more. (yes, I used the word fail a lot because the fail is strong in LOE).

are you really that narrow minded

here are two of the first results from google image search for a boat:





If you mean those are THE SAME only because they both are called boats, then dear boy, you are an idiot

Those two are also the same, because they are both called "a gun"






Your points such big time

Learn the meaning of words. A canoe is a canoe no matter how many GPS devices it has. If it's long and narrow and is powered by rows it's a canoe. The rest is just a lame attempt to cover your monumental FAIL.

the only thing failing here are your moronic analogies

plus in my original post I said a canoe, I did not say "a high tech, hermetically sealed, full of electronics, unsinkable huge, upscaled mock up of a canoe"

that boat is further from a canoe than you from a valid argument

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canoe

A canoe is a canoe. If you wanted to make a point, then you could've said "The Apollo going to the moon and back is like crossing the Atlantic in an old, simple, wood canoe with holes in it and no GPS".
That would've been fine. But you didn't and you got .

End of story.

As for what kind of technology was used for the Apollo missions, that just goes to show how ignorant you are. All the technology was there to complete the mission. Even so, there was a lot of hard work involved, many things could've gotten wrong and some actually did go wrong.
Watch something more than a conspiracy theory "documentary"... maybe even read something about the subject at hand and then try to form an oppinion.
If you really want anyone to take you seriously, talk specifics, don't just spew everything those conspiracy theory movies said that have been debunked over and over again.

well sorry boy, If I knew you would be the one to read my post, I would have explained in that much detail, suited for a retard to understand

other that than, just LOL

You just totally nailed your own ass

From your own link:





Hmm, lets see
1 - slender, tapering to a point at both ends? NO - 1st EPIC FAIL FOR YOU
2 - small, primitive light boat? No - 2nd EPIC FAIL FOR YOU

you're just pathetic
self-owned

In Romania we have a saying: "Prostul nu e prost destul daca nu e si fudul"
That translates into something along the lines of "A fool isn't foolish enough if he isn't arrogant as well".

It is slender. It's just about as wide as a human. It is tapered to both ends.
It is small and it is primitive (you have to row it).

Seriously, are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself? I mean... I know that in Bulgaria your submarines have to surface every 2 minutes so rowers can get some air, but that, my friend, is no high tech boat... is in fact a canoe. Otherwise it wouldn't be recognized as such by the Atlantic Rowing Race officials. Duuh.

oh noessss, you are unbelievable, you'd rather say white to what's black than admit you are just a poor, owned wannabe


you made my day, seriously, fools like you are the reason for every bad thing in this world


carbon fiber body, gps, solar panels, sealed compartments = primitive??? ROFLMFAO If I haven't been to Romania just last week I'd say hobos there drive Lamborghini and an average housewife does her shopping with a space shuttle


poor, diluted, ignorant little phuck that you are, thats so unreal

LOE, I think you're a girl. You won't admit that you're wrong.

Romania vs Bulgaria.

1st Rule. Bulgars are not allowed to call for the Russians or your relatives from the Asiatic horde roaming the Steppes.

2nd Rule. Romanians are not allowed to call for Germany's or Italy's Help.

FIGHT!!

Is either side allowed to use tears of gypsy ?

No no, the boy is right, that boat IS slender and tapered on both ends, it is also OBVIOUSLY made of a burned out log

And that is gallardo's momma, she is also very slender



I surrender, I cannot argue with the facts

Everything goes, gypsy tears, Jew-Jitsu, and the slinging of hardened faeces.

You on about personal insults in the other thread? Oh and I challenge someone to sig the bolded.

ROFL

LOE, you're just making an ass of yourself.

EDIT: From another thread:

Here you go LOE, try and open your eyes


http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm

Here's one for Jon and his global warming religion http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

also some more interesting topics: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

The one about getting to the moon is coherent, but the one about global warming... I think that was a shoot and miss on your part. He actually supports global warming. I find it wierd, however, HOW he does. The page on global warming is a lot less coherent than the one on the moon landing, it has virtually zero science and just a lot of straw man arguments and nit picking. I find it odd that both came from the same man. He even says the burden of proof is on the global warming skeptics to show that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not related to global warming. Err... HELLO! No it isn't.

He says that everyone agrees that carbon dioxide is increasing due to massive human consumption and that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps the warming of the planet. I agree. Then he says that everyone agrees that the planet is getting warmer AND that the correlation is proof of causation. Whoooaaa nelly! The planet had a decade of warmer years. They haven't been increasingly warm, there have been other warm years (in the 20s) and then the climate came back to normal, there have even been cold years (in the 70s) and that Global Cooling mess was debunked when the climate went back to normal so I would hardly agree that it's scientific to draw a trend of warming from all this.
Also, just because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean it can have a devastating effect on our climate. If the earth is warming, but human contributions end up being less than 1% of the cause of all this... is it really worth it to go through the trouble of all this global warming hoopla? Do we want carbon credits and all that crap if we're just a clap during a thunderstorm, a drop in the ocean?

Then he goes on to talk about running out of petroleum, like global warmists usually change the topic to whatever alarmist agenda they might have. Yes, we are going to run out of petroleum, but what makes anyone think that alternative energy sources are a Godsend? Besides the fact that it's going to be VERY expensive to do the R&D and replace current power plants with new ones... what makes you think other energy sources are perfect?
Geothermal. Sure, let's suck heat out of the core of the Earth because in time that can't possibly have a negative effect. I'm sure that energy is just wasted now and in no way can it affect the global climate and surface temperatures and possibly magma flow if we tap into the Earth's furnace.
Sunlight. Sure that light not reaching the surface of the earth to heat it up or reflect it in the atmosphere isn't going to have a negative effect. I can only imagine the headlines in 2109: "Researchers agree that Global Cooling is happening because of widespread solar panel usage."
Windturbines. It's not like the planet has wind for a reason, right?

Earth has a way of resisting pretty much whatever is thrown its way. And life on Earth has a way of adapting and evolving around the continuous changes our planet faces. The sun has more activity, the oceans get warmer, we have more storms and hurrikanes that cool down the planet. The sun has less activity, the oceans get cooler, less evaporates into the atmosphere, so less clouds, less precipitation -> the surface isn't cooled by water and more sunlight passes to the surface. The climate is going to be ok. The weather might get crappy.