only add me if, you can tell me were in the world New Zealand is on a map, if not to bad =P, xfire account: KiwiWarrior 2010, Steam: KiwiWarrior: New avatar its the good night Kiwi a very famous T.V. Show way back when
Just saying hello people i'm back, did we all have a good xmas i hope you all did well i did, yep... and happy new year a bit late but better then never rite ??
So whats every one been up to lately having a good holiday if you still at school (lucky fuckers xD)
i been working 75 to 80 hour weeks..... not fun but lots of OT xD
(OT = over time....)
OK this will just be a quick little blog saying this
KiwiWarrior is moving to a new flat there is not net connected there atm, so i will not have the net i don't know for how long maybe 1 week maybe 2 it maybe a month, but we will see when it comes to that. because i have to find a good ISP and a good plan, so i will see you all in again maybe a 1 week or 2 or a month i just don't know
Best song EVER
The Goodnight Kiwi, later also called TV Kiwi, is a character in an animated short which has been used to signal the end of nightly broadcasts on Television New Zealand channels. The animation was originally played out before closedown on Television One and Television Two between 1981 with its last screening on October 19, 1994, before TV2 began 24-hour broadcasting. This animation returned on 6 September 2007 for use on TVNZ 6 when the channel ends transmission at midnight.The Goodnight Kiwi's companion is simply known as The Cat.
and more from wiki
The one minute long animation begins with Goodnight Kiwi and the Cat in the master control room. Kiwi shuts down the screens, and starts an audio cassette playing an instrumental arrangement of the traditional Māori lullaby, Hine e Hine, or sometimes God Save the Queen. Kiwi walks through the studio while Cat jumps and pulls faces into a camera. Kiwi turns out the lights, puts a milk bottle on the porch and locks the door, while the cat heads upstairs to the studio roof. The Kiwi follows and rides an elevator (presumably just after it had been used by the cat) to the top of a transmission mast. At the top, Kiwi covers himself in blankets (in which the cat was already curled up) and goes to sleep in a satellite dish with the Cat sitting on his stomach. The short closes with the words: "Goodnight from TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND." There was a slight variation of the ending, with the TVNZ channel ident and the announcer fading down the volume to announce "and it's goodnight from Channel . . ." (this being directly followed by the channel number e.g. "and it's goodnight from Channel 2").An alternate version of the Goodnight Kiwi clip was used by South Pacific Television somewhere between 1976 and 1980 and saw the Goodnight Kiwi and his companion living in a television camera. At the end of the clip, the kiwi would close the side flaps on the camera and then the South Pacific Television logo would appear as the music faded out.During transmission breakdowns, a still picture of the Goodnight Kiwi was often used, in poses including one of sweeping the floor and accidentally pulling out a power cord.
The characters are regarded as part of New Zealand broadcasting culture.
And heres some clips of him
heres his last one in October 19, 1994 (sad sad day for all of kiwi land), he come back in 2007 for 6 oooo but i don't get 6 here ='(
A woman who dyed her cat pink with food colouring will have her pet returned to her.However, the RSPCA said Natasha Gregory, 22, from Swindon, would also be informed of the potential hazards of dyeing cats.The cat, called oi! Kitty, was reportedly seen being thrown over the garden fence of a man on 18 September, who called RSPCA officers.An RSPCA spokeswoman at the time criticised it as a "sick prank".The organisation's officers washed the two-year-old cat, but its colour only faded slightly.'No offence'Following widespread media coverage, Miss Gregory, who has pink hair and says she "loves" the colour, contacted the RSPCA and asked them to return the animal.She told the BBC: "I love my cat - that cat is fed better than most people. I wanted people to know she wasn't harmed at all.
"I wont be doing it again - I was so shocked to see my cat on the news. I thought I'd never see her again."An RSPCA spokeswoman said the organisation would visit Miss Gregory to give her advice on animal care.She added: "Following the visit, as no offence has been committed and as a vet has confirmed the cat is in good health, she will be returned to her owner.
a Aussie the will stay nameless said my blog is to long this better ?
The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.The content field must be at least 300 characters in length.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
Just how stupid are we? Pretty stupid, it would seem, when we come across headlines like this: "Homer Simpson, Yes -- 1st Amendment 'Doh,' Survey Finds" (Associated Press 3/1/06).
"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.
"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."
But what does it mean exactly to say that American voters are stupid? About this there is unfortunately no consensus. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who confessed not knowing how to define pornography, we are apt simply to throw up our hands in frustration and say: We know it when we see it. But unless we attempt a definition of some sort, we risk incoherence, dooming our investigation of stupidity from the outset. Stupidity cannot mean, as Humpty Dumpty would have it, whatever we say it means.
Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
Taking up the first of our definitions of stupidity, how ignorant are we? Ask the political scientists and you will be told that there is damning, hard evidence pointing incontrovertibly to the conclusion that millions are embarrassingly ill-informed and that they do not care that they are. There is enough evidence that one could almost conclude -- though admittedly this is a stretch -- that we are living in an Age of Ignorance.
Surprised? My guess is most people would be. The general impression seems to be that we are living in an age in which people are particularly knowledgeable. Many students tell me that they are the most well-informed generation in history.
Why are we so deluded? The error can be traced to our mistaking unprecedented access to information with the actual consumption of it. Our access is indeed phenomenal. George Washington had to wait two weeks to discover that he had been elected president of the United States. That's how long it took for the news to travel from New York, where the Electoral College votes were counted, to reach him at home in Mount Vernon, Virginia. Americans living in the interior regions had to wait even longer, some up to two months. Now we can watch developments as they occur halfway around the world in real time. It is little wonder then that students boast of their knowledge. Unlike their parents, who were forced to rely mainly on newspapers and the network news shows to find out what was happening in the world, they can flip on CNN and Fox or consult the Internet.
But in fact only a small percentage of people take advantage of the great new resources at hand. In 2005, the Pew Research Center surveyed the news habits of some 3,000 Americans age 18 and older. The researchers found that 59% on a regular basis get at least some news from local TV, 47% from national TV news shows, and just 23% from the Internet.
Anecdotal evidence suggested for years that Americans were not particularly well-informed. As foreign visitors long ago observed, Americans are vastly inferior in their knowledge of world geography compared with Europeans. (The old joke is that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.") But it was never clear until the postwar period how ignorant Americans are. For it was only then that social scientists began measuring in a systematic manner what Americans actually know. The results were devastating.
The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.
Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)
Some of the numbers are hard to fathom in a country in which for at least a century all children have been required by law to attend grade school or be home-schooled. Even if people do not closely follow the news, one would expect them to be able to answer basic civics questions, but only a small minority can.
In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.
Polls over the past three decades measuring Americans' knowledge of history show similarly dismal results. What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest. Who said the "world must be made safe for democracy"? Just 14% know it was Woodrow Wilson. Which country dropped the nuclear bomb? Only 49% know it was their own country. Who was America's greatest president? According to a Gallup poll in 2005, a majority answer that it was a president from the last half century: 20% said Reagan, 15% Bill Clinton, 12% John Kennedy, 5% George W. Bush. Only 14% picked Lincoln and only 5%, Washington.
And the worst president? For years Americans would include in the list Herbert Hoover. But no more. Most today do not know who Herbert Hoover was, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey in 2004. Just 43% could correctly identify him.
The only history questions a majority of Americans can answer correctly are the most basic ones. What happened at Pearl Harbor? A great majority know: 84%. What was the Holocaust? Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?) But it comes as something of a shock that, in 1983, just 81% knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was and that, in 1985, only 81% could identify Martin Luther King, Jr.
What Voters Don't Know
Who these poor souls were who didn't know who Martin Luther King was we cannot be sure. Research suggests that they were probably impoverished (the poor tend to know less on the whole about politics and history than others) or simply unschooled, categories which usually overlap. But even Americans in the middle class who attend college exhibit profound ignorance. A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)
The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?
Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.
If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.
On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other (which will come as a surprise to many history teachers). Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.
In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.
Young and Ignorant -- and Voting
At least, you may think to yourself, we are not getting any dumber. But by some measures we are. Young people by many measures know less today than young people forty years ago. And their news habits are worse. Newspaper reading went out in the sixties along with the Hula Hoop. Just 20% of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 read a daily paper. And that isn't saying much. There's no way of knowing what part of the paper they're reading. It is likelier to encompass the comics and a quick glance at the front page than dense stories about Somalia or the budget.
They aren't watching the cable news shows either. The average age of CNN's audience is sixty. And they surely are not watching the network news shows, which attract mainly the Depends generation. Nor are they using the Internet in large numbers to surf for news. Only 11% say that they regularly click on news web pages. (Yes, many young people watch Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. A survey in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of the viewers of The Daily Show score in the "high knowledge" news category -- about the same as the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.)
Compared with Americans generally -- and this isn't saying much, given their low level of interest in the news -- young people are the least informed of any age cohort save possibly for those confined to nursing homes. In fact, the young are so indifferent to newspapers that they single-handedly are responsible for the dismally low newspaper readership rates that are bandied about.
In earlier generations -- in the 1950s, for example -- young people read newspapers and digested the news at rates similar to those of the general population. Nothing indicates that the current generation of young people will suddenly begin following the news when they turn 35 or 40. Indeed, half a century of studies suggest that most people who do not pick up the news habit in their twenties probably never will.
Young people today find the news irrelevant. Bored by politics, students shun the rituals of civic life, voting in lower numbers than other Americans (though a small up-tick in civic participation showed up in recent surveys). U.S. Census data indicate that voters aged 18 to 24 turn out in low numbers. In 1972, when 18 year olds got the vote, 52% cast a ballot. In subsequent years, far fewer voted: in 1988, 40%; in 1992, 50%; in 1996, 35%; in 2000, 36%. In 2004, despite the most intense get-out-the-vote effort ever focused on young people, just 47% took the time to cast a ballot.
Since young people on the whole scarcely follow politics, one may want to consider whether we even want them to vote. Asked in 2000 to identify the presidential candidate who was the chief sponsor of Campaign Finance Reform -- Sen. John McCain -- just 4% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 could do so. As the primary season began in February, fewer than half in the same age group knew that George W. Bush was even a candidate. Only 12% knew that McCain was also a candidate even though he was said to be especially appealing to young people.
One news subject in recent history, 9/11, did attract the interest of the young. A poll by Pew at the end of 2001 found that 61% of adult Americans under age 30 said that they were following the story closely. But few found any other subjects in the news that year compelling. Anthrax attacks? Just 32% indicated it was important enough to follow. The economy? Again, just 32%. The capture of Kabul? Just 20%.
It would appear that young people today are doing very little reading of any kind. In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts, consulting a vast array of surveys, including the United States Census, found that just 43% of young people ages 18 to 24 read literature. In 1982, the number was 60%. A majority do not read either newspapers, fiction, poetry, or drama. Save for the possibility that they are reading the Bible or works of non-fiction, for which solid statistics are unavailable, it would appear that this generation is less well read than any other since statistics began to be kept.
The studies demonstrating that young people know less today than young people a generation ago do not get much publicity. What one hears about are the pioneer steps the young are taking politically. Headlines from the 2004 presidential election featured numerous stories about young people who were following the campaign on blogs, then a new phenomenon. Other stories focused on the help young Deaniacs gave Howard Dean by arranging to raise funds through innovative Internet appeals. Still other stories reported that the Deaniacs were networking all over the country through the Internet website meetup.com. One did not hear that we have raised another Silent Generation. But have we not? The statistics about young people today are fairly clear: As a group they do not vote in large numbers, most do not read newspapers, and most do not follow the news. (Barack Obama has recently inspired greater participation, but at this stage it is too early to tell if the effect will be lasting.)
The Issues? Who knows?
Millions every year are now spent on the effort to answer the question: What do the voters want? The honest answer would be that often they themselves do not really know because they do not know enough to say. Few, however, admit this.
In the election of 2004, one of the hot issues was gay marriage. But gauging public opinion on the subject was difficult. Asked in one national poll whether they supported a constitutional amendment allowing only marriages between a man and a woman, a majority said yes. But three questions later a majority also agreed that "defining marriage was not an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution." The New York Times wryly summed up the results: Americans clearly favor amending the Constitution but not changing it.
Does it matter if people are ignorant? There are many subjects about which the ordinary voter need know nothing. The conscientious citizen has no obligation to plow through the federal budget, for example. One suspects there are not many politicians themselves who have bothered to do so. Nor do voters have an obligation to read the laws passed in their name. We do expect members of Congress to read the bills they are asked to vote on, but we know from experience that often they do not, having failed either to take the time to do so or having been denied the opportunity to do so by their leaders, who for one reason or another often rush bills through.
Reading the text of laws in any case is often unhelpful. The chairpersons in charge of drafting them often include provisions only a detective could untangle. The tax code is rife with clauses like this: The Congress hereby appropriates X dollars for the purchase of 500 widgets that measure 3 inches by 4 inches by 2 inches from any company incorporated on October 20, 1965 in Any City USA situated in block 10 of district 3.
Of course, only one company fits the description. Upon investigation it turns out to be owned by the chairperson's biggest contributor. That is more than any citizens acting on their own could possibly divine. It is not essential that the voter know every which way in which the tax code is manipulated to benefit special interests. All that is required is that the voter know that rigging of the tax code in favor of certain interests is probably common. The media are perfectly capable of communicating this message. Voters are perfectly capable of absorbing it. Armed with this knowledge, the voter knows to be wary of claims that the tax code treats one and all alike with fairness.
There are however innumerable subjects about which a general knowledge is insufficient. In these cases ignorance of the details is more than a minor problem. An appalling ignorance of Social Security, to take one example, has left Americans unable to see how their money has been spent, whether the system is viable, and what measures are needed to shore it up.
How many know that the system is running a surplus? And that this surplus -- some $150 billion a year -- is actually quite substantial, even by Washington standards? And how many know that the system has been in surplus since 1983?
Few, of course. Ignorance of the facts has led to a fundamentally dishonest debate about Social Security.
During all the years the surpluses were building, the Democrats in Congress pretended the money was theirs to be spent, as if it were the same as all the other tax dollars collected by the government. And spend it they did, whenever they had the chance, with no hint that they were perhaps disbursing funds that actually should be held in reserve for later use. (Social Security taxes had been expressly raised in 1983 in order to build up the system's funds when bankruptcy had loomed.) Not until the rest of the budget was in surplus (in 1999) did it suddenly occur to them that the money should be saved. And it appears that the only reason they felt compelled at this point to acknowledge that the money was needed for Social Security was because they wanted to blunt the Republicans' call for tax cuts. The Social Security surplus could not both be used to pay for the large tax cuts Republicans wanted and for the future retirement benefits of aging Boomers.
The Republicans have been equally unctuous. While they have claimed that they are terribly worried about Social Security, they have been busy irresponsibly spending the system's surplus on tax cuts, one cut after another. First Reagan used the surplus to hide the impact of his tax cuts and then George W. Bush used it to hide the impact of his cuts. Neither ever acknowledged that it was only the surplus in Social Security's accounts that made it even plausible for them to cut taxes.
Take those Bush tax cuts. Bush claimed the cuts were made possible by several years of past surpluses and the prospect of even more years of surpluses. But subtracting from the federal budget the overflow funds generated by Social Security, the government ran a surplus in just two years during the period the national debt was declining, 1999 and 2000.
In the other years when the government ran a surplus, 1998 and 2001, it was because of Social Security and only because of Social Security. That is, the putative surpluses of 1998 and 2001, which President Bush cited in defense of his tax cuts, were in reality pure fiction. Without Social Security the government would have been in debt those two years. And yet in 2001 President Bush told the country tax cuts were not only needed, they were affordable because of our splendid surplus.
Today, conservatives argue that the Social Security Trust Fund is a fiction. They are correct. The money was spent. They helped spend it.
To this debate about Social Security -- which, once one understands what has been happening, is actually quite absorbing -- the public has largely been an indifferent spectator. A surprising 2001 Pew study found that just 19% of Americans understand that the United States ever ran a surplus at all, however defined, in the 1990s or 2000's. And only 50% of Americans, according to an Annenberg study in 2004, understand that President Bush favors privatizing Social Security. Polls indicate that people are scared that the system is going bust, no doubt thanks in part to Bush's gloom-and-doom prognostications. But they haven't the faintest idea what going bust means. And in fact, the system can be kept going without fundamental change simply by raising the cap on taxed income and pushing back the retirement age a few years.
How much ignorance can a country stand? There have to be terrible consequences when it reaches a certain level. But what level? And with what consequences, exactly? The answers to these questions are unknowable. But can we doubt that if we persist on the path we are on that we shall, one day, perhaps not too far into the distant future, find out the answers?
1. our name is shithappens xD
2. They think being called a Aussie is a good thing
3. they say g'day mate to all the people they walk past
4. they think this is the other way around =
5.You think Ayers Rock is just a rock, when in fact its a Nz army base build in the middle of it theres tunnels that go under ground and link it back to Nz thats why no one see any one coming or going
6. Your leader just got pussy wiped
7. You love Americans
8. You are a mummy's boy (aka the queen), you tell your brother (aka New Zealand), you don't wanna be under her rule any more, but you would take a bullet for her.
9.You are racist to Your people that owned Aussie before you, you give them shit all rights to there land, you think we are still in the 18th or 17th century.
there to parts to this
1. You give the native people to much rights
2. You dis like Aussies xD
3. Not a big fan of American's
4.You Know Auckland isn't part of Nz its part of china
5. You love china as a country
6. 1 in 4 friends is black or a native
7. You dis like South landers
8. You get spamed by a South lander named C&C-Pickled
1. your name is C&C-Pickled
2. you spam kiwi and rwr over xfire
3. you love Aussies
4. You think kiwi is a Racist
5. 1 in 300 of your mates in black or native
6. Your lazy
7. You LOVE American's
8. You think Aussies are gods
1. You think your a super power (LMFAO)
2. You have big heads, about your country
3. You think you got Independence from U.K by your self. but you only won because you had big help from France, and France and U.k were at war so u.k was abit down under
4. You think England and U.k are the same think( heres a clue = U.k = United Kingdom, big clue there)
5. You talk funny over xfire or Ts, and when ever you talk me make me LOL at your voice
6. One in 10 of your Friends is fat
7. You haven't ever won a war by your self, but you still think your a super power.(don't say you have won in the middle east what a joke lol)
1. You have a normal voice on Ts and xfire
2. You are nice people
3. You can take jokes
4. You are Americans brain
5. Kiwi loves all Canadians
6. You know the diffidence between england and U.K
7. You are the second best people in the world (first place goes to the Russians xD)
8. To end off you are just super cool people
1. You know the diffidence between england and U.K, (well you better)
2. You see those big red buses
3. You think you are not a super power when in fact you are
4. You are level headed
5. You ever give up no matter the odds
6. You have the best trained Navy and air force, its not numbers its how you use them
7. You talk funny, but don't make me LOL
8. Your name is BigCheesey
1. You don't trust Americans and with good right
2. You have sexy/cool/epic voices
3. Very thing is big xD
4. you have names like Stalin
5. You are hard working
6. You love the cold xD
7. You love Poland (lmfao any get this joke)
8. You have cool city names like Moscow
1. You love Russia so very much (LMFAO)
2. You are nice people
3. You sound normal
4. You like the cold
5. You are not scared of Russians
7. Your country has the word pol in it
8. yep thats the end
this is the end
i told you
1. No one likes you =D
ok now its the end in
OMG wtf happen to the good old vampire movies this makes me mad lol all the new ones are about love and the action takes the back sit sigh, i never was like this before, movies like blade had more action don't get me wrong but they did have love bit in its but that taken a back sit to the action now its gone the other way around why god dam it WHYYYYYYY, all vampire movies now are chick movies i and will only go to then with my gf cos i know i will get some think back ooo yep you know what i mean =D,
omg were are all my loved action/war movies going there is shit all now, well the A-team is out here now yet to see it, now all i see adds for are funny movies and drama and honnor(how i hate honnor movies) now why do i hate honnor movies cos I'm a big fucken SCAREY CAT i hate being scared lol xD, any thing with a little bit of honnor i will not get be it game or movie or tv show.
so to end this up i say been back BLADE to vampire movie's -_-
For the love of god i'm sick of hearing about this shit ass game, and the a new one coming out soon omg, how much can they milk this ONE fucken game, what they have done to wow has put me off star craft 2 cos i'm sure they are going to milk that as much as they can as well, i mean they selling star-craft 2 in 3 packs ok so here how it will go down
the 1st pack of sc they start will be normal cost which = $120 to 130 here
the other to bits are going to be sold at addon cost which is =$60 to $80
so if i wanna get all 3 which you have to, to see how the story goes its going to cost = $290 (this is with the high cost) this is like omfg for a fucken game omg i have better things to send my money on e.g. my flat my car and fucken food no fucken game should cost more then $130 omg
Wow plays i'm making a class to get you off wow, the first thing i will help you do is ti make some real life friends, second thing i will do is find you a girl friend or boy friend what ever way you are wow could of fucked you up on that end, its $20 a week and i'm don't know if it will work and you don't get any money back =D
OK but i see some hope left in the gaming world bioware and petroglyph they are my last hopes, steam and that one that makes half-life can go and fuck one other i hate both of them tell you why later. mayb next month or longer
omg i can't wait for mass effect 3 next year its going to be fucken epic best RPG of 2010 i think <3
and omg this game, has me coming back to RTS games end of nations Endofnations.com
now its a MMORTS i have seen lots of these fail but this game will not fail me it can not fail me
FPS game i don't like any of them for pc xD, pc should only have RPG's and RTS FPS which just be on ps3 or xbox
who here hasn't heard of the oil thats going into the gulf of some think xD,
What they should do is burn all of it, it would the the biggest bomb fire ever and get a big party to getter and you could have a epic party with the whole gulf of fire xD wait then again world warming
Question any one live close to the gulf ?? any seen the oil first hand ?? any fell sorry for BP ???
I fell sorry for BP XD if American wasn't so money greedy this wouldn't of happened i mean BP only had to pay off some people to let them do it, you don't see this shit happening in other country's and usa isn't the only country with off store oil rigs xD =D
OK, what i love to do you but people outa there depth, its funny when you go up and hug a random and see what they do its like WTF, umm i have been called a recast but 98of; my friends xD, i wouldn't say i'm a recast cos i like the people i just don't like the idea of that country and what it does, so i'm a countest xD ( if you haven't guess i hate the USA) , you may ask my i hate USA so much i guess its cos they think they are the center of the world, they talk shit about other country's, i think they think all country's are lower then them, they always say they have the best army, navy and air-force when this has't been true in years and years.
They say this have the best tank in the world this is far from fact look at the fucken cost of it, it would never be a tank you would use in a front lines in a big war and its got nothing on the t-90 or challenger 2.
They say they have the best trained navy OMG how wrong could you be thats the U.K they my not have as much ships as usa but there navy fucken pro at what they do.
They say they have the biggest air force sigh wrong again this is china =S,
My face music is
Guns & roses
and other rock (some heavy metal but not alot i mean very little)
I work night shift 6pm to 2am xD
I Start tech next month xD
do next month i will not be on that much xD
i'm building a new pc over the next 3 to 6 weeks
What i'm doing at tech is a :
Bechelor if computing, communications and technology (3 years OMG rite)
i Just don't know what major to go for i'm suck here
I could go the hardware/technical side but there is shit loads of these people in nz not lucky to get a job but could
Systems Design eg programmer i like this one the best but i don't know i just i will work it out
I'm thinking of giving steam one more shot xD , but i'm not going to join it to i know who uses it so leave a comment with your steam name xD
One more thing i'm more into commie gov and shit
I love to do any thing in the sea eg:
I well i'm going to have lunch and watch the CSI and NCIS which i dvded last night xD