Americans...no fun :PFollow

Hmmm...I just need to clear up a couple of points picked up on by Jobago.

1) I didnt say the guild I joined sucked. I said that it was a very serious guild. I was shocked to see they interviewed for positions and the level of humour that i saw on Guild chat was low to non-existent.

2) I didn't say this level of seriousness was just the guild. it was something I saw on the server as a whole. The ooc chat was downright dreary and when I joined groups people seemed to treat the game like it was a life or death responsibility to play to the letter and not actually have a bit of fun. Maybe my idea of fun is warped!!

3) I am genuinely upset that you read my post as anti-American. it was not! If you read it properly you will see that I have American friends. I served with Americans in Bosnia. I have been to America. I love all my American friends, they are the most friendly, genuine and generous people I have had the privelage of meeting. For my political answer to your little tirade, see below (I dont wnat to inflict it on people who arent interested.)

4) I feel I CAN generalise and say that it seems to be an American attitude in the game. The reason is that on a European server (SWG) where the majority of people i encountered were European I felt there was far better atmosphere than on the US server (EQ2) where I have on the main encountered only Americans. This is in MY experience. I am not claiming it is the absolute tructh. I AM claiming it is my experience. Who knows, maybe it's the game itself that breeds this seriousness as it was SWG that I had such a great experience with.

Anyway, I'm glad that my comments have opened up a debate and I look forward to meeting the kind of peeps I get along with in the game with time.

Cheers
Minky

and as promised.....



First of all. The UK were being petitioned for peace by the Germans as they knew they couldnt feasibly invade as we controlled the skies and had insurmountable costal defences. This was before the US entered the war.

Secondly. I have nothing but respect for everyone who fought in that war. (French, Polish, Russian, Brits, Americans, Canadians, Indians, Australians and so on...) In fact, when recently asked who my heroes were I quoted World War veterans as my answer. I did not dicsount the US war effort in both wars and respect them for their part in the war effort.

Did the US ask for anything in return? NO! The US and the UK have a special relationship whereupon we can rely on each other when in time of need. The US helped us in WWI and WWII just as our boys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan aiding the US in what is seen by the rest of world as an illegal war.

So, Jobago...please get off your Jingoistic pedestal. Read some history books and chill out. And please never call someone who served in a conflict zone with your soldiers and whose family members died fighting in wars an ungrateful A$$...it smacks of ignornace. And remember....not everyone is out to get you guys!!

Phewwww...now you guys got me going all serious :P

lol....You Americans are too funny. (See, I was sooooo wrong!!!). All you have to do is make a vaguely disparaging remark about Americans and you all turn on each other in a political slanging match. I may try that on OOC later on

Minky

just have to find the right americans

Izzoz is correct. Germany sought alliance with Britain several times. According to what I've read, it "pained" the Fuehrer to make war on the British since they were of similar Aryan stock.

Secondly, there is always an ulterior motive to foreign policy ventures. We (Americans) may have gone to war with avenging Pearl Harbor in mind, but in the end we were able to rebuild Europe and Japan and create large markets for our goods and make better the world economy. So we did get something.

In all honesty, I wish America would withdraw from NATO, pull troops out of Europe, South Korea, and the Middle East, and make secure the borders which give terrorists free access to the United States.

In this way, we can still be friendly with foreign nations and carry out harmonious trade which is beneficial to all.

And before you say it, this idea is not "isolationist".

In response..

3) Read your post again. You specifically say "You Americans".. Sounds pretty prejudice if you ask me. Did I call you a limey and say all you Brits talk funny? No.

4) No you can't generalize. I can say Brits have nasty teeth, but the fact is only some do. It's a stereotype. Can't judge the whole by the actions or appearance of a few.

Tirade:

If your skies were so dominant, AND the coastal defenses were insurmountable, then why was your cities bombed constantly by zee Germans? Read your history books. If you dominated the skies, then zee Germans wouldn't have been able to get there would they?

I do agree about the "special relationship though". I hope it just grows stronger and stronger and stronger as we head on into the future. Nothing but good can come out of it.

I do respect that you've fought in hot zones, etc. etc. but if you read your post, it does come across as anti-American. Who can blame me for thinking you had that attitude? We've got a Brit publication (granted I do think it's the equivalent of the US's National Inquirer but I don't know that for a fact) calling half of America morons. When you look at the two candidates who ran, they weren't all that different. Pretty close in almost all of their "visions". So it's obvious why so many people had a tough time choosing between the two. And personally, I think it came down to their view on gay marriage which is absolutely ridiculous and meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Also, while I am happy the Britain has contributed to the mess in Iraq (which I do agree with us being there for completey different reasons than Bush, etc.) you canNOT compare 100's of thousands of people dying in WW2 to a 100 or 200 Brits, if that in Iraq. No comparison. And who cares what the rest of the world thinks. America was started on that principle. Get out of Europe, start something fresh and new.

It's been proven that Saddam was a dictator and simply evil. Corrupt and a crook. Murderer and rapist. That's enough reason for me, not including any terrorist ties, etc. That would just be a bonus to the whole thing. Unfortunately, (and this I finally understand cause of something Chirac said) it's viewed as us being occupiers and colonists. That's not why we're there, and if in fact, that is what the gov't went there for, we the people will not stand for it. What happens after that is anyone's guess.


In response to the hate statement, I was at work, had little time, made it short and sweet.. and yes, while I extremely dislike how Bush specifically ties in religion with politics, I don't hate him. I just think he doesn't understand the idea of seperation of church and state. I do agree with alot of his other ideas, so I'm actually more conservative when it comes to economy and military, but liberal in social policy and education.

However, after alllllllll this, I will apologize for calling you ignorant cause, now, after second post, you don't appear to be. Again, you're first post does come across as ignorant AND anti-American, especially when seen by an American who everyday reads about people burning American flags, stepping on Bush dolls, etc. etc. We're in defensive mode, and have reason to be.

My last soapbox statement, I agree with the person who said we should withdraw all our troops from other countries. Pull up the drawbridge and let everyone else duke it out until genocide or something worse happens outside the moat seperating us. I don't think we should be isolated, diplomatically and socially, but militarily would be just fine with me. Deploy as needed.

Now, c'mon, flame, thank, say kudos, or whatever it is you agree or disagree with.. cause this is actually a meaningful topic and fun to read throughout the day.

Shake hands and make friends:)

Sorry if I did seem Anti-American. I get the feeling that the US is currently in a state of Paranoia at the moment (From experience) and take up any vaguely anti-US statement as a message of hate. I guess that will improve with time as the pain of 911 fades a bit.

Anyway, sorry if I upset you. It was never my intention.

But...and there's always a but. On the Air superiority topic. Following the Battle of Britain, it became clear to the germans that any assualt on British soil was doomed to failure as we DID own the skies by the time the germans controlled the french North coast and had enough troops in place to stage an invasion. Up to that point , yes, our towns were bombed by swarms of german bombers. At the point were invasion was even slightly likely, the bombing raids slowed and they had to resort to rocket attacks.


Oh...and....my teeth are pretty gnarly!!

Cheers
Minky

heh... he was refering to your real life job being the first... just a note

Xal,

Thanks for the back-up...it is true that the French funded and aided the removal of the British from the US colonies and in fact take a look at the Statue that symobolises American liberty. That was designed and built by the French and shipped over to you guys as a gift. I lived in the the town (Colmar) where the designer of the Statue came from and they are immensely proud of their donation to the US.

I get the feeling that the French (and yes I have lived in France for six months, speak French and have lots of French freinds) are a little stand-offish (is that a word!!) with most other nationalities. But then do you blame them...they seem to get invaded from all sides on a regular basis....see Spain, England, Germany and even as far back as the Romans they have dealt with invasion after invasion. Poor chaps :)

Anyway, i get the feeling the disagreement has been diffused and me and Jobago will get along just fine :)

And yes...my original post was written after a few crappy nights of boredom but was meant to be tongue in cheek...and I did try to defend myself in that post and following posts by pointing out my actual feelings towards to the US and its peeps. I didnt for once expect it to turn into a debate about whether The UK would have been invaded by the Germans...lol

Now let's all have a big group hug...and those with nice sparkly straight teeth....smile!

Cheers
Minky

I definately think once people get to the point where they arent competing so much to get to highest level people will calm down a bit

background info first!

i've been with my guild in EQ for 2 years, and they have been together since they met in realm about 8 years ago. we're a social/family guild and we have a blast :).

when we played, we knew our classes and worked together as a team, which led to people asking to join, but we always had, and still have, to screen applicants for exactly the opposite reason that you stated ... we have to make sure they arent too serious to hang with us :D.

of late, in eq, we'd try to raid, but rarely had the numbers in recent months, raided anyway ... died horribly and repeatedly... and had an absolutely spooterrific time of it :). we had to make sure that people we tagged weren't going to go spooty because of that ... because people that sulk and complain and never contribute back are no fun :x.

we've split between WoW and EQ2, with a few ppl still on EQ, and we're all goin to meet at a members house *again* this year because we can't get together and *not* have fun :D. (for the record, i play both and am the GL for EQ2 ^-^)

now to your point:

yes, alot of americans take their gaming seriously. this is not to say that these particular americans are a majority, or even that they are representative. they may simply be more noticable.

being performance oriented is a fairly common attribute here, and a cultural legacy. i've lived in several countries and there is no doubt in my mind that this is true. it's not necessarily a bad thing. being performance oriented myself, i personally like being good at something in such a way that i can relax and enjoy it without having to hurt myself in the process :).

there are a lot of american gamers that are extremely competitive and prefer to wind themselves tighter than a swiss watch spring... and that's their prerogative. if you are in a hardcore raiding guild, these are likely the types of people you are having to deal with. but *please* dont write off the really spooty gamers that know that trying to do things, just for the halibut, like duoing grimgash with 2 melees and no healer can totally rock, whether ya win or not :D! (we tried him 5x and actually killed him once... then died horribly yet again to the last mob in the cave hah!)

btw we're on blackburrow... feel free to look us up!

trollbraggers, rar!

UH OH

To clear up several misconceptions:

You can thank Britain's victory in the Battle of Britain to Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who ordered a nuiseance strike against Berlin by RAF bombers during the Battle. Goering had promised Hitler that German soil would 'never' be attacked from the air and the RAF proved him wrong. Hitler then ordered reprisal raids against English cities rather than a continues offensive against RAF airfields. Had he continued attacking the airfields, it is almost certain (as certain as anything is in war) that the RAf would've been defeated and the Germans would've been able to lauch Operation Seelion, the invasion of England. The Royal Navy might've been able to contest the landings but, without air support (see what happened to the HMS Repulse and the HMS Prince of Wales when they tried to steam thru enemy waters without air cover), it is doubtful that they would've been able to stop the landings. Considering the overwhelming force the Wehrmacht would've been able to bring against the British (remember, Dunkirk, the huge success that it was, resulted in most of the rescued troops leaving all their equipment on the beaches of France), it is doubtful that England would've survuved to see 1941. Secret plans were already in the works to have the Royla Family and many high ranking government officials leave for Canada to establish a government there and Roosevelt was almost fatally concerned that the Royal Navy would be forced to surrender to the Germans. England owes their continued existance to "The Few" of the RAF.

As for Germany and England becoming any sort of allies, it is very true that Hitler made several overtures to have England drop out of the war so that Germany could concentrate on defeating what it considered to be the real enemy: Russia. Hitler didn't want a two-front war (one of his very few strategically cound thoughts) and was willing to allow England to remain free and independent with comparatively few concessions (certainly nothing like the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon Germany at the end of WW 1) like losing its African colonies and pledging to remain neutral if Germany attacked Russia. Had it been anyone but Hitler that made such an offer, the world might've been far better off had England agreed to it and Germany been able to defeat the Russians (assuming they could've done so). However, the boon of a world without the Cold War pales in comparison to a Europe under Nazisim.

Now, as for the 'separation of Church and State'. The interpretation by the hardcore Left of the Establishment of Religion clause of the US Constitution is a perversion of its original intent. What the Founding Fathers meant by this clause is that the Government would not insist upon one particular religion ben deemed Official and be practiced by its citizens, much as England had done with the Anglican Church. In no way did they mean that any religious expression by the Government or its citizens would be prohibited. Many on the Left would prefer not to know this, but all the Founding Fathers professed a strong personal belief in God and that He had blessed these United States in many, many ways. Jefferson might be the most secular of all the Fathers, but hew would be totally outraged about the degree to which activist judges have sought to ban all religious expression from everyday life. Read George Washington's Rarewell Address. Read the Declaration of Independence (unless you happen to live in the People's Republic of California where it is being prohibited in classrooms). Read the Constitution. All mention God by one Name or another- a clear indication of how they felt toward religion.

As for George W. Bush's personal or political expressions of religion, I say, So What? All US Presidents have, to one degree or another, acknowledged religion and God. Bush does take it a step further by naming Jesus Christ as his most influential philosopher and by advocating a Faith-Based solution to many societal problems. Again, So What? If anything, the church (or synagog or mosque) down the street knows alot more about the ills of the community surrounding it and could make more efficient use of monies, either Federal grants or donations by a concerned public, to treat those problems. If they can solve a problem and use less of my tax dollars so I have more to spend on my family, I'm all for it. School Choice vouchers are another bugaboo. Religious schools give a better education for far less money than Government schools- that's a proven fact. Should not lower-income families receive a bit of help in getting their child the best education possible, or should that be the exclusive province of the Rich (like the Clintons and the Gores, who sent their kids to expensive private schools in Washington when they could've sent them to public schools)? Sorry, but fears over Bush's expressions of religion, both personally and in terms of policy, are totally misplaced. But then, most of the Left's fears are similarly misplaced and easily defeated by the truth and facts.

Me too ;;

RIP ... ~Shogunn~ Mithra, Bard 64 ... Midgardsomir