Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 9:35am:


If not starving and being able to produce a profitable society is not an example of a first-world society, I don't know what society in the world would be an example.

And different from most


The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living. Various ways in which modern First World countries are often determined include GDP, GNP, literacy rates, life expectancy, and the Human Development Index.[1] In common usage, as per Merriam-Webster, "first world" now typically refers to "the highly developed industrialized nations often considered the westernized countries of the world".[2]

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 2:34pm:


*mocking Brian* I want to see evidence that this allegation is not bullshit. Make sure you cite a journal article, news article, website article, etc.

Apparently, I am one up on you, Brian.

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

Look who's talking!! We have been wondering about you in that regard ever since you started here , Bwian.


"Australia's non-role in liberating East Timor"??

You are safely and securely remain OUTA your mind on any topic you start or contribute to, Bwian the Cockwomble. Your role is to come up with the stupid angle everyone else thinks too outlandish - let's wait for Bwian, he'll come up the stupids none of us could imagine.  And sure enough, here you are, once again, gorged full to bursting with the stupids, leaking, reeking, spouting out of you, soiling every thread you splatter onto.

Redacting statements is the reason why people like you, Brian, think that the onus is on others to prove what they saw and heard. The problem for you, Brian, is that you will go on blissfully unaware about the validity of someone's statement. You think there needs to be hard proof for someone's claims to be right. Much like the lawyers who used the Rodney King beating video footage as inadmissible due to the blurriness. Redacting someone's statements, even symbolically, is the basis of your defence. "Tree falling in the woods" logic -- Did not see it. Did not hear it. Did not happen.