X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 That statement wasn't delivered to the British, either. It was part of a speech he gave, I believe in Munich honoring the Beer Hall Putsch. Hardly constitutes "offerring peace", considering he didn't actually "offer" anything to anyone. 859642[/snapback] It was given without diplomatic contacts and was never taken seriously in Britain.
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 You've already established for us that books aren't credible sources of information. 859640[/snapback] There's a bunch of malarkey if I've ever heard it. You've offered zero quotes from any stats books whatsoever to support your moronic position on regression toward the mean, yet you prance about as if every stats book ever written supports your braindead views. Guess what? Stats book authors are a lot smarter than you.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 There's a bunch of malarkey if I've ever heard it. You've offered zero quotes from any stats books whatsoever to support your moronic position on regression toward the mean, yet you prance about as if every stats book ever written supports your braindead views. Guess what? Stats book authors are a lot smarter than you. 859652[/snapback] How the hell would you know? You haven't read any.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 It was given without diplomatic contacts and was never taken seriously in Britain. 859650[/snapback] Considering they were gearing up for Sealoewe and Alder Tag at the time, it was never taken seriously in Germany either. Apparently, the only one who's EVER taken it seriously is...Holcomb's Arm.
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Considering they were gearing up for Sealoewe and Alder Tag at the time, it was never taken seriously in Germany either. Apparently, the only one who's EVER taken it seriously is...Holcomb's Arm. 859657[/snapback]
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 For this purpose, and for his lebensraum goal, the conquest of the Soviet Union would have been more than enough. 859623[/snapback] More than enough for what, exactly?
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 More than enough for what, exactly? 859671[/snapback] More than enough to create the additional farmland and living space for Germans Hitler envisioned.
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 How the hell would you know? You haven't read any. 859654[/snapback] Once again, you're wrong.
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 More than enough to create the additional farmland and living space for Germans Hitler envisioned. 859674[/snapback] Seems harmless enough. Who would he have working on those farms?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Once again, you're wrong. 859676[/snapback] Hyperstats is NOT a textbook, sorry.
yall Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 It was given without diplomatic contacts and was never taken seriously in Britain. 859650[/snapback] I think Hilter had a truce with Russia too. Worked out real well for everyone as I recall... But if we are going to rate presidents, shouldn't we agree to some standards for judging them? I say we start with height and weight. From there, we can factor in fishing and hunting accomplishments. In the event of a tie we can count the number of letters in their last name, divide it by the lenght of their penis in centimeters, and award victory to the man who can eat the most jerky.
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I think Hilter had a truce with Russia too. Worked out real well for everyone as I recall... But if we are going to rate presidents, shouldn't we agree to some standards for judging them? I say we start with height and weight. From there, we can factor in fishing and hunting accomplishments. In the event of a tie we can count the number of letters in their last name, divide it by the lenght of their penis in centimeters, and award victory to the man who can eat the most jerky. 859687[/snapback] TR wins. He was stout, but a bully hunter.
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Seems harmless enough. Who would he have working on those farms? 859679[/snapback] Germans.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 TR wins. He was stout, but a bully hunter. 859693[/snapback] I say the same thing. I immediately thought Taft... Starting with weight, he went down hill after that... His four letters in his last name really did him in vs. Roosevelt!
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Hyperstats is NOT a textbook, sorry. 859685[/snapback] Never said it was.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Never said it was. 859700[/snapback] You mean you've read an ACTUAL book? Please, tell me the authors of the textbook that actually supports your warped math beliefs...I have to see this book with my own eyes...
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Germans. 859698[/snapback] What would happen to the low lives that already lived on those lands?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 What would happen to the low lives that already lived on those lands? 859729[/snapback] They'd regress toward Germanic the more you checked on them.
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 They'd regress toward Germanic the more you checked on them. 859736[/snapback] Stats don't lie.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Stats don't lie. 859751[/snapback] It's just because Slavs are error-prone...
Recommended Posts