NationStates Jolt Archive

A Traduction (try) from a Belgian article that I read about a UK study.

ADOLF HITLER IS A FICTIONAL PERSONAGE, ROBIN HOOD AND CONAN THE BARBARIAN WERE REAL. THESE COULD BE THE OPINIONS FROM CRAZY SECTS OR REVISIONISTS THAT THAT TRY TO CHANGE HISTORY BOOKS. BADLY ENOUGH, IT IS ALL ABOUT MISTAKES THAT ARE BELIEVED TRUE BY LOTS OF UK CITIZENS (AND US), THINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED AS HISTORICAL FACTS. THIS SHOWS US A UK STUDY FROM LAST WEEK:

REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

Djengis Khan (Mongol Concurer): 38%
Benito Mussolini (Fascists Italian Dictator): 33%
ADOLF HITLER: 11%
Winston Churchill: 9%


FICTIONAL PERSONS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO BE REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

King Arthur (Mythical King): 57%
Robin Hood (played by lots like Kevin Kostner): 27%
Conan The Barbarian (played by Adolf "Governator" Schwarzenegger): 5%
Edmund Blackadder: 1% (!)


The study that is published this week and in wich 2000 Britons were asked about there knowledge from the past wanted to show that this knowledge is taking "absurd and deprimating" proportions. Researchers found out via interviews that one third of the Brittons believe that the cold war never took place. And 6% believes that H.G. Wells fictional "War of the Worlds" really happened (the Marsian story :? ).
A lot of them believe that fictional Hollywood figures have the status of real historical figures. That is how 57% of the people in the study believes that the mythical King Arthur really has lived and 5% tells themselves that Conan (played by Schwarzie) really threathened our planet once.
That people can't see the real meaning of King Arthur is perhaps bad but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character like 9% sees Churchill as fictional is making some prominent Britts very angry ( I would be more angry with less :roll: ). Following Lord Janner from the National Holocaust Educational Trust, this prooves that they have to change History lessons in the education system "If we want to prevent Hitlerism, than we have to know our past" "Just like our students have to learn the parrallels that lead society to Bush and Sharon". He was aware of the poor knowledge from a big part of the poppulation but the study prooves his worst nightmares.

A lot of fingers point at the Hollywood filmindustry that should have mislead a lot of spectators. A very recent and good example is the movie "U-571" with Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi. This movie was responsable for a lot of commotion 4 years ago becaus eit suggested that the Americans changed WWII by taking the Enigma codemachine from the Germans. In real, it were Britts and Canadians that took the machine in may 1941, so long before the uS entered the war. Just like EU and US millitary historians pointed "Saving Private Ryan" in wich the spectator only sees US soldiers in Normandy while in real, the total of Britts, Canadians, Free Poles, Free French, Free Dutch, Free Belgians aso. was higher then the number of US soldiers on 6/6/44, just like it allways was higher during the rest of the war.

Movies like the ones of Costner and Mel Brooks (I like Brooks :wink: ) were perhaps the main thing why 27% of the ones in the study believed that Robin Hood ever lived. And what to think about the fact that 60% did not see the fictional character of the battles in "Lord of the Rings"?

The right wing historian Andrew Robberts has found enough powder to see "that the UK is loosing it's national identity".

Following history professor Kaat Wills at the university of Louvain or Leuven (in Dutch) in Belgium, are such studies typical Anglosaxon (read US. "Mostly, these studies start from very unreal and erudite expactations
and people try to proove that the persons that are enquired have poor knowledge about history. It is a constant in history that people try to proove that the youth's education is going down. People that come by with such negative conclusions seem never to ask themselves if it was anytime different. Even the Romans complained about how difficult it was to educate youth."

Following Wils, the knowledge in Flanders and most other EU countries including the UK is still higher and the youths hunger about it is still huge. But, "We as EU and US historians have to take care that Hollywood or US politics don't change history via blockbuster movies that have a agenda in wich the real history is changed and the US role is made more important than it was like we know it by historical facts, that is the most important thing."

Errr...Robin Hood was 'real', maybe not the Robin Hood we all know and love, but there are records of a highwayman under his name.
And I think Arthur is pretty much in the same book (hahaha), he was 'real' but not as we know him.
As to the people who dont think the people who were really real exist...well, something like %5 of the US population is illterate, I dont know about Britain, but if its similar they may have just conducted their study in the wrong part of town.
And you mispelled conkeror 8)

Ok I will dismiss the article.

Here is a hint.

Movie
Documentary

Movies != Documentary

But I could see the concern as many dumb Americans use movies for "history" lessons! :shock:

I remember a French class were a girl asked about the King's twin brother(Man in the Iron Mask) :shock:

She was also surprised to hear the three musketiers didn't exist! :roll:

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Ok I will dismiss the article.

Here is a hint.

Movie
Documentary

Movies != Documentary

But I could see the concern as many dumb Americans use movies for "history" lessons! :shock:

I remember a French class were a girl asked about the King's twin brother(Man in the Iron Mask) :shock:

She was also surprised to hear the three musketiers didn't exist! :roll:

Yes, but both those characters (or groups of characters) WERE partially based on historical people! Dumas claimed that he came up for the idea for "Iron Mask" after reading about a man in the King's court who always wore a black mask- identity never discovered. Similarly, there is, in fact, evidence to suggest that the individual musketeers were real people- D'Artagnan, for instance.

Most fiction, particularly historical fiction, is rarely "pure" fiction. You could even say that, at least in the genre of historical fiction, that it's impossible for something to be "pure" fiction.

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Psssst hey buddy!

Private Ryan suggests we won the war? :shock: Interesting since the platoon sent to retrieve him was all but wiped out.

Actually as films go; it is suprisingly accurate for the DDay landings. I know 2 vets and they said the only thing missing was the smell of death.

Pssst hey buddy!

Pearl Harbor? ahhh well we kind of got our collective butts kicked in that one.

Besides that film was not made for accuracy that was made for the tiny boppers to go ewww aahhh over Josh and bennifer! ;)

The movie was pretty bad. Especially the bomber straffing the Japenese soldiers scene :roll:

So what other films make the US look like it won the war? Keep in mind the time they were made! Some are propaganda films! ;)

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.


Psssst hey buddy!

Private Ryan suggests we won the war? :shock: Interesting since the platoon sent to retrieve him was all but wiped out.

Emphasis added to Ivorila's post in the hope that the Black Forest can understand the point (s)he was trying to make.

The Arthur cycle may have historic roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#The_Arthur_of_History).

My biggest beef with the American media is their treatment of Cuba.

According to the U.S. media, Castro is just as bad as Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, even though he's revered as a hero to working class Latin Americans.

I've travelled to Cuba, Costa Rica and Mexico, and in all countries I have heard warm things said about Castro, Che, and the Cuban system in general. (To be fair, Costa Ricans are a bit less fond of Cuba than Mexicans)

Notably, Bad Boys II accuses Cuba of connections to drugs. (Cuba's drug laws are more strict than the USA, and drug abuse has plummetted since the revolution.) ... and CSI Miami loves taking shots at Castro, including accusations of terrorism.

I realize this is all fiction, but in a country where 2/3 of the population thinks Saddaam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, influencing the media can be VERY powerful.

(On a side note, I just saw pictures of Shi'ite protestors in Iraq on FOX, and the anchor said they are former Saddaam supporters.)

The Emperor of Khanebostan has spoken.

Most recently: hitler's advisors were masters of black magic, and tried to summon the beasts that would bring about armageddon :P

(Hellboy)

and can someone give me an official ruling:

Saddam
Sadaam
Saddaam

which one?

thanks

The Emperor has spoken.

and can someone give me an official ruling:

Saddam
Sadaam
Saddaam

which one?

thanks

The Emperor has spoken.How about P.O.W. #37865 ;)

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Not really...

Ok I will dismiss the article.

Here is a hint.

Movie
Documentary

Movies != Documentary

But I could see the concern as many dumb Americans use movies for "history" lessons! :shock:

I remember a French class were a girl asked about the King's twin brother(Man in the Iron Mask) :shock:

She was also surprised to hear the three musketiers didn't exist! :roll:

Yes, but both those characters (or groups of characters) WERE partially based on historical people! Dumas claimed that he came up for the idea for "Iron Mask" after reading about a man in the King's court who always wore a black mask- identity never discovered. Similarly, there is, in fact, evidence to suggest that the individual musketeers were real people- D'Artagnan, for instance.

Most fiction, particularly historical fiction, is rarely "pure" fiction. You could even say that, at least in the genre of historical fiction, that it's impossible for something to be "pure" fiction.

The Man in the Iron Mask was based on the story of a French prisoner during the reign of the Sun King (Louis the ??) who was very well treated but was never seen without a black velvet mask, this lead to rumours of him being the king's brother. A novel was written about it which was adapted centuries later into a movie.

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Wait a second, out of all the movies that over-exaggerate America you pick the two that don't?

First, Saving Private Ryan, where to start. The entire movie is based on squad level Americans operating in an American sector of the Normandy Beachhead, why should there be any other nationalities besides German and French (Except the drivers of the Higgins, to which there is some level of debate whether they should be Coast Guardsmen or British). Putting in a British unit would be like making a movie about the Battle for France and putting the 1st "Big Red One" Division leading the counterattack at Arras.

Now onto Pearl Harbor, ok, this one has huge and glaring historical innaccuracies, and does over-exagerate a lot. Brits do have something to be ticked off at with Afleck showing up in the thick of the BoB and becoming what seems to be an ace who is calling the shots. But other then that, the movie takes place in the Pacific, more importantly the West Pacific around Hawaii, there is absolutely no reason for any other nationality besides American and Japanese to showup in this arena. It does show accurately how some fighters did get in the air and did in fact down 4 Japanese fighters (Though not quite the way illustrated, and not by just 2 P-40's), and it also shows a devestating defeat brought upon the United States, in case you didn't notice those burning wrecks were once the US Pacific Battlefleet. If anything this movie underrates other American endeavors in favor of the one's their characters participate in (At the end it's mentioned the Doolittle raid was the turning point, no mention of the Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, or Midway at all, up which against the Doolittle Raid was nothing), which is btw also innaccurate, since both characters are fighter pilots, why they would pilot Army bombers is beyond me.

Pearl Harbor had huge glaring innaccuracies, not the least of which was the bombing of the harbor itself. The bombers attacked rather immediately; they did not do a fly-by first. This movie was heavily criticized for not even getting the central moment of the movie right.

My biggest beef with the American media is their treatment of Cuba.

According to the U.S. media, Castro is just as bad as Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, even though he's revered as a hero to working class Latin Americans.

I've travelled to Cuba, Costa Rica and Mexico, and in all countries I have heard warm things said about Castro, Che, and the Cuban system in general. (To be fair, Costa Ricans are a bit less fond of Cuba than Mexicans)

Notably, Bad Boys II accuses Cuba of connections to drugs. (Cuba's drug laws are more strict than the USA, and drug abuse has plummetted since the revolution.) ... and CSI Miami loves taking shots at Castro, including accusations of terrorism.

The whole handling of Cuba has been awful, especially the embargo. However, Castro isn*t the nicest guy around either. (Even tough he might be better than Batista was.)

Shame on both the US and Castro.


I realize this is all fiction, but in a country where 2/3 of the population thinks Saddaam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, influencing the media can be VERY powerful.

Can we have a citation on that figure please?

I realize this is all fiction, but in a country where 2/3 of the population thinks Saddaam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11, influencing the media can be VERY powerful.

Can we have a citation on that figure please? I heard that same figure as well, read it in a news article about 4 months back when bush admitted saddam had no ties to al-queda. I checked my favorites but the link to the yahoo story had expired.

A Traduction (try) from a Belgian article that I read about a UK study.

ADOLF HITLER IS A FICTIONAL PERSONAGE, ROBIN HOOD AND CONAN THE BARBARIAN WERE REAL. THESE COULD BE THE OPINIONS FROM CRAZY SECTS OR REVISIONISTS THAT THAT TRY TO CHANGE HISTORY BOOKS. BADLY ENOUGH, IT IS ALL ABOUT MISTAKES THAT ARE BELIEVED TRUE BY LOTS OF UK CITIZENS (AND US), THINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED AS HISTORICAL FACTS. THIS SHOWS US A UK STUDY FROM LAST WEEK:

REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

Djengis Khan (Mongol Concurer): 38%
Benito Mussolini (Fascists Italian Dictator): 33%
ADOLF HITLER: 11%
Winston Churchill: 9%


FICTIONAL PERSONS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO BE REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

King Arthur (Mythical King): 57%
Robin Hood (played by lots like Kevin Kostner): 27%
Conan The Barbarian (played by Adolf "Governator" Schwarzenegger): 5%
Edmund Blackadder: 1% (!)


The study that is published this week and in wich 2000 Britons were asked about there knowledge from the past wanted to show that this knowledge is taking "absurd and deprimating" proportions. Researchers found out via interviews that one third of the Brittons believe that the cold war never took place. And 6% believes that H.G. Wells fictional "War of the Worlds" really happened (the Marsian story :? ).
A lot of them believe that fictional Hollywood figures have the status of real historical figures. That is how 57% of the people in the study believes that the mythical King Arthur really has lived and 5% tells themselves that Conan (played by Schwarzie) really threathened our planet once.
That people can't see the real meaning of King Arthur is perhaps bad but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character like 9% sees Churchill as fictional is making some prominent Britts very angry ( I would be more angry with less :roll: ). Following Lord Janner from the National Holocaust Educational Trust, this prooves that they have to change History lessons in the education system "If we want to prevent Hitlerism, than we have to know our past" "Just like our students have to learn the parrallels that lead society to Bush and Sharon". He was aware of the poor knowledge from a big part of the poppulation but the study prooves his worst nightmares.

A lot of fingers point at the Hollywood filmindustry that should have mislead a lot of spectators. A very recent and good example is the movie "U-571" with Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi. This movie was responsable for a lot of commotion 4 years ago becaus eit suggested that the Americans changed WWII by taking the Enigma codemachine from the Germans. In real, it were Britts and Canadians that took the machine in may 1941, so long before the uS entered the war. Just like EU and US millitary historians pointed "Saving Private Ryan" in wich the spectator only sees US soldiers in Normandy while in real, the total of Britts, Canadians, Free Poles, Free French, Free Dutch, Free Belgians aso. was higher then the number of US soldiers on 6/6/44, just like it allways was higher during the rest of the war.

Movies like the ones of Costner and Mel Brooks (I like Brooks :wink: ) were perhaps the main thing why 27% of the ones in the study believed that Robin Hood ever lived. And what to think about the fact that 60% did not see the fictional character of the battles in "Lord of the Rings"?

The right wing historian Andrew Robberts has found enough powder to see "that the UK is loosing it's national identity".

Following history professor Kaat Wills at the university of Louvain or Leuven (in Dutch) in Belgium, are such studies typical Anglosaxon (read US. "Mostly, these studies start from very unreal and erudite expactations
and people try to proove that the persons that are enquired have poor knowledge about history. It is a constant in history that people try to proove that the youth's education is going down. People that come by with such negative conclusions seem never to ask themselves if it was anytime different. Even the Romans complained about how difficult it was to educate youth."

Following Wils, the knowledge in Flanders and most other EU countries including the UK is still higher and the youths hunger about it is still huge. But, "We as EU and US historians have to take care that Hollywood or US politics don't change history via blockbuster movies that have a agenda in wich the real history is changed and the US role is made more important than it was like we know it by historical facts, that is the most important thing."

What's a 'traduction'?

I would find this survey a lot easier to believe if you cited a specific source (*which* Belgian newspaper? Who conducted the survey? How many people were surveyed).

It really annoys the hell out of me when movies, especially Hollywood movies, change Historical facts around. Why can't movies be entertaining *and* educational? However, I don't think Hollywood can be blamed for people thinking that fictional characters are really, any more than your average novel can. If people are too stupid to recognise a work of fiction that's nobody's fault but their own.

...but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character...

...REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:...
...ADOLF HITLER: 11%...

How do you figure?
Also, you mispelled historical.

DP

DP

Errr...Robin Hood was 'real', maybe not the Robin Hood we all know and love, but there are records of a highwayman under his name.
And I think Arthur is pretty much in the same book (hahaha), he was 'real' but not as we know him.
As to the people who dont think the people who were really real exist...well, something like %5 of the US population is illterate, I dont know about Britain, but if its similar they may have just conducted their study in the wrong part of town.
And you mispelled conkeror 8)

1. Robin Hood or "Robin des Bois" is still a myth, when I studied history we did not see any evidence of his existance.

2. Same for Arthur, Hollywood, now makes a movie in wich their was a Roman officer that was called Arthur, same stuff, you want to believe but their is no evidence.

3. Try Dutch, French, German and let me see if you don't mispell something :wink:

...but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character...

...REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:...
...ADOLF HITLER: 11%...

How do you figure?
Also, you mispelled historical.

About mispelling, we can continue in het nederlands, eens zien hoe je het er van af brengt OK?
Oui en Français, tu peut être sûr, petit branleur que je vais corriger tous tes fautes, d'acc? Continue de branler...

Auf Deutsch, ach ja sie sind Amerikaner und kan nur English redenen..blödes Arssloch...

...but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character...

...REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:...
...ADOLF HITLER: 11%...

How do you figure?
Also, you mispelled historical.

About mispelling, we can continue in het nederlands, eens zien hoe je het er van af brengt OK?
Oui en Français, tu peut être sûr, petit branleur que je vais corriger tous tes fautes, d'acc? Continue de branler...

Auf Deutsch, ach ja sie sind Amerikaner und kan nur English redenen..blödes Arssloch...

Kevin Kostner
Adolf Schwarzenegger


Umm...

Actually as films go; it is suprisingly accurate for the DDay landings. I know 2 vets and they said the only thing missing was the smell of death.




Psst hey buddy, I know 4 Vets that say the oposite :wink:

Kevin Kostner
Adolf Schwarzenegger


Umm...

Guess you don't get it, but that is normal for a rooky. Ask your teacher why they are called like this. :wink:

what's with everyone making huge posts? nobody wants to read all of that.

yeah, i like summeries :P

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.
Two examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
- Pearl Harbour

Well we didnt start winning till America came in the war so...

Also movies arent real and th epast isnt that important in my opinion.

If people are too stupid to recognise a work of fiction that's nobody's fault but their own.

Want a typical, yet often overlooked, example?

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". :evil:

Why worry about whether Robin Hood or King Arthur were based on real people when there is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus (the main character of the four "Gospel" novels) ever existed?

A Traduction (try) from a Belgian article that I read about a UK study.

ADOLF HITLER IS A FICTIONAL PERSONAGE, ROBIN HOOD AND CONAN THE BARBARIAN WERE REAL. THESE COULD BE THE OPINIONS FROM CRAZY SECTS OR REVISIONISTS THAT THAT TRY TO CHANGE HISTORY BOOKS. BADLY ENOUGH, IT IS ALL ABOUT MISTAKES THAT ARE BELIEVED TRUE BY LOTS OF UK CITIZENS (AND US), THINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED AS HISTORICAL FACTS. THIS SHOWS US A UK STUDY FROM LAST WEEK:

REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

Djengis Khan (Mongol Concurer): 38%
Benito Mussolini (Fascists Italian Dictator): 33%
ADOLF HITLER: 11%
Winston Churchill: 9%


FICTIONAL PERSONS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO BE REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

King Arthur (Mythical King): 57%
Robin Hood (played by lots like Kevin Kostner): 27%
Conan The Barbarian (played by Adolf "Governator" Schwarzenegger): 5%
Edmund Blackadder: 1% (!)


The study that is published this week and in wich 2000 Britons were asked about there knowledge from the past wanted to show that this knowledge is taking "absurd and deprimating" proportions. Researchers found out via interviews that one third of the Brittons believe that the cold war never took place. And 6% believes that H.G. Wells fictional "War of the Worlds" really happened (the Marsian story :? ).
A lot of them believe that fictional Hollywood figures have the status of real historical figures. That is how 57% of the people in the study believes that the mythical King Arthur really has lived and 5% tells themselves that Conan (played by Schwarzie) really threathened our planet once.
That people can't see the real meaning of King Arthur is perhaps bad but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character like 9% sees Churchill as fictional is making some prominent Britts very angry ( I would be more angry with less :roll: ). Following Lord Janner from the National Holocaust Educational Trust, this prooves that they have to change History lessons in the education system "If we want to prevent Hitlerism, than we have to know our past" "Just like our students have to learn the parrallels that lead society to Bush and Sharon". He was aware of the poor knowledge from a big part of the poppulation but the study prooves his worst nightmares.

A lot of fingers point at the Hollywood filmindustry that should have mislead a lot of spectators. A very recent and good example is the movie "U-571" with Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi. This movie was responsable for a lot of commotion 4 years ago becaus eit suggested that the Americans changed WWII by taking the Enigma codemachine from the Germans. In real, it were Britts and Canadians that took the machine in may 1941, so long before the uS entered the war. Just like EU and US millitary historians pointed "Saving Private Ryan" in wich the spectator only sees US soldiers in Normandy while in real, the total of Britts, Canadians, Free Poles, Free French, Free Dutch, Free Belgians aso. was higher then the number of US soldiers on 6/6/44, just like it allways was higher during the rest of the war.

Movies like the ones of Costner and Mel Brooks (I like Brooks :wink: ) were perhaps the main thing why 27% of the ones in the study believed that Robin Hood ever lived. And what to think about the fact that 60% did not see the fictional character of the battles in "Lord of the Rings"?

The right wing historian Andrew Robberts has found enough powder to see "that the UK is loosing it's national identity".

Following history professor Kaat Wills at the university of Louvain or Leuven (in Dutch) in Belgium, are such studies typical Anglosaxon (read US. "Mostly, these studies start from very unreal and erudite expactations
and people try to proove that the persons that are enquired have poor knowledge about history. It is a constant in history that people try to proove that the youth's education is going down. People that come by with such negative conclusions seem never to ask themselves if it was anytime different. Even the Romans complained about how difficult it was to educate youth."

Following Wils, the knowledge in Flanders and most other EU countries including the UK is still higher and the youths hunger about it is still huge. But, "We as EU and US historians have to take care that Hollywood or US politics don't change history via blockbuster movies that have a agenda in wich the real history is changed and the US role is made more important than it was like we know it by historical facts, that is the most important thing."

What's a 'traduction'?

I would find this survey a lot easier to believe if you cited a specific source (*which* Belgian newspaper? Who conducted the survey? How many people were surveyed).

In fact, I should not react because obviously you did not read the article.
all the numbesr are in it:
1.2000.
2. Lord Janner (NHET)
3. As a English speaker you will not know anything about Belgian Newspapers, but since ya insist: De Morgen

what's with everyone making huge posts? nobody wants to read all of that.

Don't generalise, perhaps you don't, but you are not speaking for the rest of NS :wink:

Kevin Kostner
Adolf Schwarzenegger


Umm...

Guess you don't get it, but that is normal for a rooky. Ask your teacher why they are called like this. :wink:

Ehh...I've been playing for almost exactly a year--just not all on this nation.

The right wing historian Andrew Robberts has found enough powder to see "that the UK is loosing it's national identity".

Sorry, but that made me crack up.

This doesn't surprise in the least, although I was bought up thinking that Robin Hood existed (but not in the Robin of Locksley, a la K. Costner, persona). It is worrying when historical films are reportedly accurate in many details, because it is largely assumed that in is wholly accurate. I also know, personal experience, that many Brits are fed up with the Americans 'Re-writing history' by way of cinema (especially when it concerns something British). It also brings to mind the phrase "He who controls the past controls the future" (I have a feeling that is wrong so feel free to correct it).

Blackadder? Real? OMG the country is going to the dogs :shock:

:shock: You....you....you mean that BlackAdder and Baldrick never realy existed? :cry:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......

Well, watch nearly any American WW2 movie, and it will lead you to believe that the USA won the war on it's own.


Psssst hey buddy!

Private Ryan suggests we won the war? :shock: Interesting since the platoon sent to retrieve him was all but wiped out.

Emphasis added to Ivorila's post in the hope that the Black Forest can understand the point (s)he was trying to make.

I understand the point made and it just amazes me that you silly Europeans(I am guessing you are one) get so upset about a MOVIE!

It is not a documentary! The story lines are rarely factual. The main characters are usually fictional.

It is an American made movie for the american publics consumption. As with business they send it overseas to see if it will make money as well.

Finally, out of curiousity, I would offer the offended to site some movies that suggest the americans won the war.

Saving Private Ryan does not
Pearl Harbor does not.


BTW: The love story on the Titanic? Did not happen! ;)

:shock: You....you....you mean that BlackAdder and Baldrick never realy existed? :cry:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......

Mr. Bean does not as well! :evil: :P

Robin Hood nor real? :shock:

Next ye'll be denyin' the hyterical veracity o' Long John Silver!

*reexamines his career plans*

:shock: You....you....you mean that BlackAdder and Baldrick never realy existed? :cry:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......

Mr. Bean does not as well! :evil: :P
Well duh!!!! :roll: Everyone knows Mr. Bean was just a puppet and that Teddy, who played Beans Teddy bear, was the real person.

Robin Hood nor real? :shock:

Next ye'll be denyin' the hyterical veracity o' Long John Silver!

*reexamines his career plans*


Not to worry! I saw an ad for the restaurant so your plans are safe! :P

Robin Hood nor real? :shock:

Next ye'll be denyin' the hyterical veracity o' Long John Silver!

*reexamines his career plans*
Well, Long John Silver didn't get his name cause he was so tall, but cause he was socensorship.........MMMPHL...censorship

...but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character...

...REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:...
...ADOLF HITLER: 11%...

How do you figure?
Also, you mispelled historical.

About mispelling, we can continue in het nederlands, eens zien hoe je het er van af brengt OK?
Oui en Français, tu peut être sûr, petit branleur que je vais corriger tous tes fautes, d'acc? Continue de branler...

Auf Deutsch, ach ja sie sind Amerikaner und kan nur English redenen..blödes Arssloch...

You mispelled 'kann' :)

A Traduction (try) from a Belgian article that I read about a UK study.

ADOLF HITLER IS A FICTIONAL PERSONAGE, ROBIN HOOD AND CONAN THE BARBARIAN WERE REAL. THESE COULD BE THE OPINIONS FROM CRAZY SECTS OR REVISIONISTS THAT THAT TRY TO CHANGE HISTORY BOOKS. BADLY ENOUGH, IT IS ALL ABOUT MISTAKES THAT ARE BELIEVED TRUE BY LOTS OF UK CITIZENS (AND US), THINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED AS HISTORICAL FACTS. THIS SHOWS US A UK STUDY FROM LAST WEEK:

REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

Djengis Khan (Mongol Concurer): 38%
Benito Mussolini (Fascists Italian Dictator): 33%
ADOLF HITLER: 11%
Winston Churchill: 9%


FICTIONAL PERSONS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO BE REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:

King Arthur (Mythical King): 57%
Robin Hood (played by lots like Kevin Kostner): 27%
Conan The Barbarian (played by Adolf "Governator" Schwarzenegger): 5%
Edmund Blackadder: 1% (!)


The study that is published this week and in wich 2000 Britons were asked about there knowledge from the past wanted to show that this knowledge is taking "absurd and deprimating" proportions. Researchers found out via interviews that one third of the Brittons believe that the cold war never took place. And 6% believes that H.G. Wells fictional "War of the Worlds" really happened (the Marsian story :? ).
A lot of them believe that fictional Hollywood figures have the status of real historical figures. That is how 57% of the people in the study believes that the mythical King Arthur really has lived and 5% tells themselves that Conan (played by Schwarzie) really threathened our planet once.
That people can't see the real meaning of King Arthur is perhaps bad but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character like 9% sees Churchill as fictional is making some prominent Britts very angry ( I would be more angry with less :roll: ). Following Lord Janner from the National Holocaust Educational Trust, this prooves that they have to change History lessons in the education system "If we want to prevent Hitlerism, than we have to know our past" "Just like our students have to learn the parrallels that lead society to Bush and Sharon". He was aware of the poor knowledge from a big part of the poppulation but the study prooves his worst nightmares.

A lot of fingers point at the Hollywood filmindustry that should have mislead a lot of spectators. A very recent and good example is the movie "U-571" with Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi. This movie was responsable for a lot of commotion 4 years ago becaus eit suggested that the Americans changed WWII by taking the Enigma codemachine from the Germans. In real, it were Britts and Canadians that took the machine in may 1941, so long before the uS entered the war. Just like EU and US millitary historians pointed "Saving Private Ryan" in wich the spectator only sees US soldiers in Normandy while in real, the total of Britts, Canadians, Free Poles, Free French, Free Dutch, Free Belgians aso. was higher then the number of US soldiers on 6/6/44, just like it allways was higher during the rest of the war.

Movies like the ones of Costner and Mel Brooks (I like Brooks :wink: ) were perhaps the main thing why 27% of the ones in the study believed that Robin Hood ever lived. And what to think about the fact that 60% did not see the fictional character of the battles in "Lord of the Rings"?

The right wing historian Andrew Robberts has found enough powder to see "that the UK is loosing it's national identity".

Following history professor Kaat Wills at the university of Louvain or Leuven (in Dutch) in Belgium, are such studies typical Anglosaxon (read US. "Mostly, these studies start from very unreal and erudite expactations
and people try to proove that the persons that are enquired have poor knowledge about history. It is a constant in history that people try to proove that the youth's education is going down. People that come by with such negative conclusions seem never to ask themselves if it was anytime different. Even the Romans complained about how difficult it was to educate youth."

Following Wils, the knowledge in Flanders and most other EU countries including the UK is still higher and the youths hunger about it is still huge. But, "We as EU and US historians have to take care that Hollywood or US politics don't change history via blockbuster movies that have a agenda in wich the real history is changed and the US role is made more important than it was like we know it by historical facts, that is the most important thing."

What's a 'traduction'?

I would find this survey a lot easier to believe if you cited a specific source (*which* Belgian newspaper? Who conducted the survey? How many people were surveyed).

In fact, I should not react because obviously you did not read the article.
all the numbesr are in it:
1.2000.
2. Lord Janner (NHET)
3. As a English speaker you will not know anything about Belgian Newspapers, but since ya insist: De Morgen

I did read the article, actually, I suppose I was just a bit overwhelmed by the length of it, and trying to follow when your spelling is a bit odd (I understand you're not a native speaker, it's no big deal, it can just make things a bit tricky to read)
1. That's seems like a pretty small sample to be drawing conclusions about the population of Britain.
3.What makws you think no English speakers would know anything about Belgian newspapers? *You* speak English. :P

If I hear the defence "but they are made for American audiences" for why Hollywood screws around with history so much I am going to scream. That's exactly why they should tell it properly, then Americans wouldn't have the unfortunate repution of ignorance that they seem to have earned themselves in most places of the world.

Another thing, the Pacififc War wasn't just US vs. Japan. Australians fought there too. The Australian army actually were the first to defeat the Japanese in a land campaign on the Kakoda Track in PNG, before Guaducanal (sp?). We were fighting for our survival then. We had been in WW2 since it started in 1939 and had fought in North Africa, Greece, Crete and in the air war over Europe, such as in the Battle of Britian. But I suppose if you get your history from Hollywood you wouldn't know this. Also, I think China played a fairly big role in defeating the Japanese, they sure as hell fought them for long enough. Australia was in Vietnam too.

Ever seen a British movie about D-Day or the Battle of Britian? For some reason they manage to acknowledge the contributions of other nations.

If I hear the defence "but they are made for American audiences" for why Hollywood screws around with history so much I am going to scream. That's exactly why they should tell it properly, then Americans wouldn't have the unfortunate repution of ignorance that they seem to have earned themselves in most places of the world.

Another thing, the Pacififc War wasn't just US vs. Japan. Australians fought there too. The Australian army actually were the first to defeat the Japanese in a land campaign on the Kakoda Track in PNG, before Guaducanal (sp?). We were fighting for our survival then. We had been in WW2 since it started in 1939 and had fought in North Africa, Greece, Crete and in the air war over Europe, such as in the Battle of Britian. But I suppose if you get your history from Hollywood you wouldn't know this. Also, I think China played a fairly big role in defeating the Japanese, they sure as hell fought them for long enough. Australia was in Vietnam too.

Ever seen a British movie about D-Day or the Battle of Britian? For some reason they manage to acknowledge the contributions of other nations.

Well that's the fact. So start screaming! ;)


Ok I will try it another way.

We have heard the documentary vs fictional movie argument.

How about this.

Hollywood is in the United States. It is easier to release films there then over seas. I would guess they probably charge more here as well. A movie for two on a date night with drinks and popcorn can run about $40 US.

Hollywood is run by businessmen. If they are going to make more money talking about americans with american pretty boys, stretching facts, guess what they are going to do? Show them that reality will generate more money and gues what they will do?

They have tried showing movies from other perspectives(ie Gallipoli, Breaker Morant, Das Boot) and they bombed. I loved the movies by the way.

Now answer me this. Considering the studios in Australia and England, why aren't they making movies about the American perspective? Could it be the target audience would not like it? ;)

Side note: I am far more impressed with the people and movies comming out of your region these days. Hollywood seems to think pretty faces is all that matters. :roll:

Ok now lets look at your comments:

"Another thing, the Pacififc War wasn't just US vs. Japan. Australians fought there too. The Australian army actually were the first to defeat the Japanese in a land campaign on the Kakoda Track in PNG, before Guaducanal (sp?). We were fighting for our survival then."

I can't speak for what is in schools for today but when we learned about the war, it was called the War in the Pacific. Not the US war against Japan. Also, it tends to be taught as part of American History then say world studies. So the perspective is mainly American. When you get in to higher education, you can find courses that talk about the war from all perspectives.

Side Note: I had relatives that slogged some of the same crap along the Aussie guys. Nothing but compliments about them. One uncle owes his life to a costal watcher(see an american can know somethings! :P ).

"We had been in WW2 since it started in 1939 and had fought in North Africa, Greece, Crete and in the air war over Europe, such as in the Battle of Britian. But I suppose if you get your history from Hollywood you wouldn't know this."

Not entirely true. IF you go to old hollywood, you can find this stuff. A documentary on the battle of tobruk talks about the Aussies. Even mentioned Rommels comments that the Aussie soldiers were some of the biggest men he had ever seen in his life.

"Also, I think China played a fairly big role in defeating the Japanese, they sure as hell fought them for long enough."

Yes and we fought along side them as well. Chenalts bunch. But if it wasn't for the fat lazy Americans, the British and you guys, they would have been conquered.

"Australia was in Vietnam too."
That I will agree is rather sad on our part. There is little or no mention about that. I only found out about it by going to an art house film from Australia about guys and their experiences in Nam. Even with the books about Nam, it is hard to find references to them.

If you have any, I would be interested....

"Ever seen a British movie about D-Day or the Battle of Britian? For some reason they manage to acknowledge the contributions of other nations."

Ever see the longest day? A bridge too far?

The longest day does have more American stuff in it (again target audience) but they sure as hell don't go "Oh yea and there is the British"

Does the British Battle of Britain move mention the American Eagle squadran?

Again: don't consider the propaganda films(anything made during the war years) as they indeed make it look like we are winning the war. They were meant to do that to keep people interested in fighting the war.

Finally, there is only 2 hours to tell a story not much room to do stuff justice.

...but that 57% sees Adolf Hitler as a fictional character...

...REAL HISTORIAN PERSONS THAT NEVER LIVED OR ARE FICTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY:...
...ADOLF HITLER: 11%...

How do you figure?
Also, you mispelled historical.

About mispelling, we can continue in het nederlands, eens zien hoe je het er van af brengt OK?
Oui en Français, tu peut être sûr, petit branleur que je vais corriger tous tes fautes, d'acc? Continue de branler...

Auf Deutsch, ach ja sie sind Amerikaner und kan nur English redenen..blödes Arssloch...

You mispelled 'kann' :)

Ach mein Deutsch ist nicht so Gut, (ich komme aus Flandern) aber ess ist besser wie Elomeras Deutsch :wink:

If I hear the defence "but they are made for American audiences" for why Hollywood screws around with history so much I am going to scream. That's exactly why they should tell it properly, then Americans wouldn't have the unfortunate repution of ignorance that they seem to have earned themselves in most places of the world.

Agreed, though Europe is also fairly ignorant to a lot of things too, in fact, most humans are.

Another thing, the Pacififc War wasn't just US vs. Japan. Australians fought there too.

Actually the majority of Australian fighting was in North Africa against the Italians and Germans, that's why the majority of forces in Pacific operations were American, becuase all the Australians had in their homeland were second and third rate forces. This is not to say they didn't fight, and Australia was an important springboard for the Southern campaigns, but still, it was mostly a US vs. Japan theatre, and you seemed to have neglected the Chinese.

The Australian army actually were the first to defeat the Japanese in a land campaign on the Kakoda Track in PNG, before Guaducanal (sp?). We were fighting for our survival then.

Actually the two battles were fought within relative vicinity of one another,
Guadalcanal and Kakoda both started in August 1942 (Guadalcanal actually started about a week before Kakoda), and both ended in early '43 (January for Kakoda, Febuary for Guadalcanal), of which Guadalcanal was the larger of the battles. This is not to diminish what the Aussies did, they were fighting in far worse conditions then the Americans on Guadalcanal.


We had been in WW2 since it started in 1939

This is a rather annoying assumption most Americans (Who don't think is started on Dec. 7, 1941) and most Europeans believe, this tends to ignore the Chinese who had been fighting Japan since 1937 while the rest of the world sat back.

and had fought in North Africa, Greece, Crete and in the air war over Europe, such as in the Battle of Britian. But I suppose if you get your history from Hollywood you wouldn't know this. Also, I think China played a fairly big role in defeating the Japanese, they sure as hell fought them for long enough. Australia was in Vietnam too.

In reality the armies of Nationalist and Communist China did little to nothing to stop the Japanese, most resistance crumbled (as shown by the repeated defeats in the rice offensives), however becuase of the sheer size of China and the need to leave behind large garrisons (against partisans), they couldn't advance much further if they wanted to keep a force available for offensives in the Southern Resource Zone. And Australia was in Korea too, however the majority of forces in combat of Western nations in both conflicts was American (More so for Vietnam) and it is remembered as an American war.

Ever seen a British movie about D-Day or the Battle of Britian? For some reason they manage to acknowledge the contributions of other nations

Actually I can't say that I have, could you recommend some?

Hey guys, before you continue fighting, I just posted the article that was specially ment to state that Hollywood movies are movies, no more and that some people believe fiction instead of history. That is all.
And yes, No bananas is wright, the Aussies and Kiwis did a hell of a job, just like the South Africans, Indians aso. and the Britts have a netter and more accurate approche in this. the last I want to do is saying that the God broadcast of all docs, my beloved aunt Beep is wrong about this. Hey, every EU broadcast and selfrespecting US station sees BBC as The example.

Going to ask to lock this topic.

Hey guys, before you continue fighting, I just posted the article that was specially ment to state that Hollywood movies are movies, no more and that some people believe fiction instead of history. That is all.
And yes, No bananas is wright, the Aussies and Kiwis did a hell of a job, just like the South Africans, Indians aso. and the Britts have a netter and more accurate approche in this. the last I want to do is saying that the God broadcast of all docs, my beloved aunt Beep is wrong about this. Hey, every EU broadcast and selfrespecting US station sees BBC as The example.

Going to ask to lock this topic.

Oh don't do that. It's a good discussion!

This study is scary. I can't believe even some recent figures are thought of as mythical, like Hitler!
However, there's historical evidence King Arthur did exist. Records show a British leader named Arthur who drove out the Saxons in the 600s.

You think we should let it here?
Pleas ereply fast so I can delete my demand in Mod section?
I think its US versus EU again and that is not what i want to post

The quote thing screwed up so I'll do the best I can.

Firstly, I wasn't saying all Americans are ignorant morons, far from it. I have met plenty of Americans that I have gotten along with fine and they have had a good knowledge of the world around them. I'm saying it's unfortunate you guys have some how managed to get a reputation along these lines, a reputation I don't think Hollywood movies have helped.

I still don't think it's a valid defence "we are hear to make money so lets put an American angle on everything". I think it is possibly a cultural thing, for some reason some Americans don't seem to like it unless an American is in it which I think is pretty stupid and, if you strecth it (I personally don't think this), racist. We see plenty of yanks on our big screens and Hollywood makes plenty of money out of us, why shouldn't the US public accept ours and other "foriegn" (a term I still don't like) movies?

About US vs. Japan in the Pacific, I was replying to something somone else said about this early, saying the Pacific War was between the US and Japan. About Vietnam, when I mention my uncle got conscripted and sent there to Americans they jaws for the most part drop, not realising Aussies were there too. I remember one Battle of Britian flick made in England, can't remember the title, that had and American fighter piolit in it. I would be surpirised, though, if a US movie acknowlegded such a small contribution to a war effort (in that respect, the Battle of Britain), such as Australians in Vietnam. Get what I mean?

BTW - Wasn't traweling for compliments on how well Australians fight, but thanks, I know allot of old diggers who'd be chuffed. I know plenty of Australian diggers who said the US soldiers were some of the friendliest people they had met.

Kakoda - We actually recalled our 9th and 8th Divisions from North Africa comprising of the 2nd AIF, our better trained and more experianced soldiers. We threw in our militia initially because that was all we had left, don't forget heaps of us along with Kiwi's and Brit's got captured when Singapore fell.

I wasn't saying the Chinese fought the Japanese particularly effectively and I know the US gave them support, to the KMT atleast, not the Communists, in the terms of material and a figther/bomber squadron if I'm not wrong? They tied up a hell of allot of Japanese manpower though and the Communist forces in Northern China did manage to piss off the Japanese a bit, from what I can remeber.

No Bananas, I was positive about you, not negative. I exacly understand what you mean. If you want, I can PM you some good (from the largests in the world) WWII sites were you will find techical evidence very easy about that. Just PM and I 'll give you the adresses (the world is on those sites: Asia, Russia, EU, Australia, US, China aso..)

The quote thing screwed up so I'll do the best I can.

Firstly, I wasn't saying all Americans are ignorant morons, far from it. I have met plenty of Americans that I have gotten along with fine and they have had a good knowledge of the world around them. I'm saying it's unfortunate you guys have some how managed to get a reputation along these lines, a reputation I don't think Hollywood movies have helped.

I still don't think it's a valid defence "we are hear to make money so lets put an American angle on everything". I think it is possibly a cultural thing, for some reason Americans don't seem to like it unless an American is in it which I think is pretty stupid and, if you strecth it (I personally don't think this), racist. We see plenty of yanks on our big screens and Hollywood makes plenty of money out of us, why shouldn't the US public accept ours and other "foriegn" (a term I still don't like) movies?

About US vs. Japan in the Pacific, I was replying to something somone else said about this early, saying the Pacific War was between the US and Japan. About Vietnam, when I mention my uncle got conscripted and sent there to Americans they jaws for the most part drop, not realising Aussies were there too. I remember one Battle of Britian flick made in England, can't remember the title, that had and American fighter piolit in it. I would be surpirised, though, if a US movie acknowlegded such a small contribution to a war effort, such as Australians in Vietnam. Get what I mean?

If I was implying you were suggesting we are all morons, I wasn't ;) Many of my countrymen are morons! Many don't know their own history! People get stunned when I tell them one grandfather fought for England(1st Polish Airborne). After all I am obviously American :roll:

As to your comments? Well I don't think the Americans are particularily racist in that regard. I would offer it is more ignorance. You have to understand that the American Culture seems to think that all stories have to have a happy ending! :roll:

As to accepting Aussie and kiwi films. It is starting to happen. Great Actors and actresses are comming from that region. The Lord of the Rings was made over there and it won some great awards.

I tend to think that Oscars don't rate things fairly. So I side with your hollywood complaints about that one. Titanic! *spits* Great FX, stupid story line. I thought Her Majesty Mrs. Brown was a far superior film.

So unfortuanitly the system will call your stuff foreign. I think that should be changed as we become a global community! Change is always hard but in time I think it will happen. Especially when your actors and actresses make many of our home grown variety look like a bunch of 6 year olds doing a school play! ;)

This study is scary. I can't believe even some recent figures are thought of as mythical, like Hitler!
However, there's historical evidence King Arthur did exist. Records show a British leader named Arthur who drove out the Saxons in the 600s.

There was leader of the Britons (not British) named something like Arthur who actually stopped the Saxons or Angles, can't remmber, from advancing to far into Briton lands. Before that the Britons were getting licked. This happened sometime in the Dark Ages so details are skecthy.

Silly Mountain Walks - what dose PM mean? Thanks for the help.

Black Forrest - Have to say I agree with for the most part. Being of Polish decent I suppose you realise not all stories have a happy ending. The US isn't devoid of good actors, such as Edward Norton in American History X. He was good in Fight Club too. Titanic, what a piece of s**t of a movie? It was cool when the the thing snapped in half. My now ex- girlfriend slaped me when I said that.

Aw come on! Post the links here! Maybe some of my countrymen can learn something.

Also Bananas! If you can suggest some books(if they exist) about the Aussies in Nam, I would be interested!

[Silly Mountain Walks - what dose PM mean? Thanks for the help.

.

Well my dear, this means a Private Message, you can see them on the board of your nation as a telegram :wink:

Aw come on! Post the links here! Maybe some of my countrymen can learn something.

Also Bananas! If you can suggest some books(if they exist) about the Aussies in Nam, I would be interested!

Don't know about books, but they were there. But in WWII, people often forget what they did, sadly :(

At the request of the thread author (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137758), iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator