NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070708/ts_nm/portugal_wonders_dc_7;_ylt=ApNsczxoft2Wwz2y6nyvPV5lM3wV

Looks like they had an on-line poll to let the people decide the new Seven Wonders of the World. Some of the old ones are still on the list, but there are some new ones, including (Oh nooose) a statue of Christ.

And the winners are;

The Great Wall of China, Petra in Jordan and Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer are among the modern day seven wonders of the world chosen in a poll of 100 million online voters, organizers said on Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The other four are Peru's Machu Picchu, the mountain settlement that symbolizes the Inca empire, Mexico's Mayan ruins at Chichen Itza, the Colosseum in Rome and the Taj Mahal in India.

The seven winners were announced at a glitzy show at the Benfica stadium in Lisbon after what is likely to be the biggest online poll at www.new7wonders.com.

I think they should have selected the Airbus A-380. As that thing is so damn big I'm suprised it can fly.

No Mohenjo-Daro? That seems way more impressive than Chichen Itza, IMO.

No Mohenjo-Daro? That seems way more impressive than Chichen Itza, IMO.

Impressive http://www.mohenjodaro.net/

No Mohenjo-Daro? That seems way more impressive than Chichen Itza, IMO.

Quite.

Why must it always be seven, I wonder?

Because C'thulu has decreed that if it wasn't seven, he would devour all of humanity.

Don't fuck with C'thulu. Ever. :p

Impressive http://www.mohenjodaro.net/

That's pretty cool. I mean, Chichen Itza is a wonderful historical site but Mohenjo-Daro offers a whole lot more in terms of human accomplishment relative to the time it existed and the technology with which it was built.

No Banaue Rice Terraces?

Why must it always be seven, I wonder?

Because 8th Wonder of the world is shared collectively by the hundreds of wrestlers, body builders, hype artists, blow hards, ego maniacs, and the like and it provides an artificial cap.

Ancient ruins are some of the 7 wonders of the world...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/ruins.jpg

Ancient ruins are some of the 7 wonders of the world...

]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/ruins.jpg]

Yes! Yes! I love it!

What I do not love is the fact that a statue of Christ was one of the top three. Quit with that crappy stuff. It's just some guy on a stick.

What I do not love is the fact that a statue of Christ was one of the top three. Quit with that crappy stuff. It's just some guy on a stick.

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.

It's a major feat of engineering, for sure, but projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal come from the same era, required much more labor, design, investment and coordination and are definitely more fitting of the term "wonder of the world" than that statue.

Does anyone else think this kind of stuff is ridiculous?

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.

It's a major feat of engineering, for sure, but projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal come from the same era, required much more labor, design, investment and coordination and are definitely more fitting of the term "wonder of the world" than that statue.
Exactly my point, except without all of my bitterness towards Christianity.

Does anyone else think this kind of stuff is ridiculous?

Meh, it's vaguely intriguing. I wouldn't call it ridiculous though, at least not anymore anything else we humans do is ridiculous.

Does anyone else think this kind of stuff is ridiculous?

The wikipedia page is changing every couple of minutes because people keep defacing it, editing it and positively defacing it, all in a bitter cycle. That's over the top in my opinion.

The wikipedia page is changing every couple of minutes because people keep defacing it, editing it and positively defacing it, all in a bitter cycle. That's over the top in my opinion.

:) Sounds like my kind of party. Thanks for the info.

Kong's still the eight.

Oh, how lovely -- they think a statue of someone dead for 2000 years is more important than the Eiffel Tower, Agkor Wat, Neuschwanstein, and the Statue of Liberty.

Go ahead, christian members, and flame me for my comment -- it doesn't change the fact that a jesus statue should NOT be on the list.

You'd think the Pyramids of Giza would automatically get in seeing how they were on the original list. They've only been around for 4500 odd years and yet we still have no clear idea as to how they were built.

However this entire thing is quite silly.

The pyramids were granfathered in as they're the only one remaining from the original list.

No Banaue Rice Terraces?
Ah, a Filipino on board!

Sorry, I can find rice terraces in Indonesia, China, and Peru too.

you realise this whole 'new 7 wonders' thang is just an advertising gimmick for a tourism company? Which goes someway in explaining why they chose the ones they did.
Next up, no doubt, will be a competition to go travel to each of the places.

Some online poll conducted by some random organization does not in fact have the power to declare what the Seven Wonders of the World are. They can declare the Seven Other Wonders of the World, but the Seven Wonders of the World remain the seven they used to be. The Pyramids of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Colossus of Rhodes, the Lighthouse of that place, that Temple of Zeus, The Library of Alexandria, and that other temple to that other god.

Some online poll conducted by some random organization does not in fact have the power to declare what the Seven Wonders of the World are. They can declare the Seven Other Wonders of the World, but the Seven Wonders of the World remain the seven they used to be. The Pyramids of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Colossus of Rhodes, the Lighthouse of that place, that Temple of Zeus, The Library of Alexandria, and that other temple to that other god.

Agreed. I give this whole "New Wonders of the World" thing a massive "FEH".

If I were to pick seven, they wouldn't be fancy useless crap from a bygone era like the Taj Mahal and the Great Wall. I'd pick things that are actually pinnacles of modern technology and engineering.

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.

It's a major feat of engineering, for sure, but projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal come from the same era, required much more labor, design, investment and coordination and are definitely more fitting of the term "wonder of the world" than that statue.
It's been Islamic now for a few hundred years I believe.

Also, I prefer these ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Basil%27s_Cathedral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens

It's been Islamic now for a few hundred years I believe.

Because they stole it. So, it's Christian.

Because they stole it. So, it's Christian.

No, as in it was called the Church of Divine Wisdom in Byzantine times, now it's called the Mosque of Divine Wisdom. As in it isn't a Christian church anymore. Please keep your anti-Muslim bigotry in check.

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.What accomplishment? Christian faith is no accomplishment, it's just mental laziness.

Some online poll conducted by some random organization does not in fact have the power to declare what the Seven Wonders of the World are. They can declare the Seven Other Wonders of the World, but the Seven Wonders of the World remain the seven they used to be. The Pyramids of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Colossus of Rhodes, the Lighthouse of that place, that Temple of Zeus, The Library of Alexandria, and that other temple to that other god.wikipedia helps you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_wonders#Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World) :rolleyes: ;)

No, as in it was called the Church of Divine Wisdom in Byzantine times, now it's called the Mosque of Divine Wisdom. As in it isn't a Christian church anymore. Please keep your anti-Muslim bigotry in check.

Fuck you. It's a Christian church that was conquered by the Muslims. It's Christian by right. It was Christian, it is Christian, it will be Christian until the day it is destroyed.

You keep your anti-Western bigotry in check.

Fuck you. It's a Christian church that was conquered by the Muslims. It's Christian by right. It was Christian, it is Christian, it will be Christian until the day it is destroyed.

You keep your anti-Western bigotry in check.

Anti-Western? Wtf are you talking about, I was just correcting you that the church it once was is no more, it was converted to a mosque after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople.

Fuck you. It's a Christian church that was conquered by the Muslims. It's Christian by right. It was Christian, it is Christian, it will be Christian until the day it is destroyed.

You keep your anti-Western bigotry in check.

Sure, it was a church...five hundred fifty years ago. It's been a mosque ever since, and it is a mosque now.

It's not as if the diety being worshiped matters...none of them exist anyway so is there really any point to calling it a mosque or a church? It's the same thing either way: a waste of time.

Anti-Western? Wtf are you talking about, I was just correcting you that the church it once was is no more, it was converted to a mosque after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople.

And Spain was converted to Christianity in the Reconquista, but you're still arguing for a worldwide Arab caliphate encompassing Muslim and formerly Muslim lands, aren't ya?

Sure, it was a church...five hundred fifty years ago. It's been a mosque ever since, and it is a mosque now.

Get your fucking facts right. It's a museum now, not a fucking mosque.

Get your fucking facts right. It's a museum now, not a fucking mosque.

Over-aggression helping much?

Fuck you. It's a Christian church that was conquered by the Muslims. It's Christian by right. It was Christian, it is Christian, it will be Christian until the day it is destroyed.It's not Christian any more. Christians lost it and it became a mosque. You lose.

Get your fucking facts right. It's a museum now, not a fucking mosque.

...

Oh dear. It seems I misread someone's post and went off from it. Since I actually have no idea what we're discussing I just rolled with it.

...

Actually, wait, no I did not misread their post. They say it is the Mosque of Divine Wisdom. Whether they are correct or not is another matter.

And Spain was converted to Christianity in the Reconquista, but you're still arguing for a worldwide Arab caliphate encompassing Muslim and formerly Muslim lands, aren't ya?

No, I merely posed the question of Arab unity, you probably should learn to respect other religions and peoples.

Yes it's a museum today, but it's still a Mosque, I mean just look at it, the church was converted to one.

Yes it's a museum today, but it's still a Mosque, I mean just look at it.

Then by what reasoning can you argue against it being described as a Christian church when you are giving it the previous description.

Yes it's a museum today, but it's still a Mosque, I mean just look at it.

You can have museums that resemble all sorts of buildings. The real question is whether there is practice of worship inside or not. If not, it is not a mosque, no matter how much it resembles one.

No, I merely posed the question of Arab unity, you probably should learn to respect other religions and peoples.

I'll respect theirs when they respect ours. Which would be never.

It's not Christian any more. Christians lost it and it became a mosque. You lose.

And thank god for Ataturk, the only non-retard the entire region ever produced. He managed to delicately avoid offending Muslims while somewhat making up for their past crimes.

I'll respect theirs when they respect ours. Which would be never.

Ah what a great way to live. I'm not going to show good attributes until someone else does

I'll respect theirs when they respect ours. Which would be never.

Wow, strawman and stereotype the religion of a billion people, nice one.

I'll respect theirs when they respect ours. Which would be never.

Okay, Rusty, like everyone else you seem to be missing the whole point of being morally superior. To be morally superior, you have to actually act morally superior, such as, say, respecting other religions even if those religions do not respect you, or not torturing alleged terrorists and imprisoning them without habeas corpus and all that stuff. Basically, if you want to claim the high ground, prove you have the right to hold such ground, or else Imma toss you back into the pit.

You can have museums that resemble all sorts of buildings. The real question is whether there is practice of worship inside or not. If not, it is not a mosque, no matter how much it resembles one.

You can't stop a few idiots from either religion from coming in and praying, but it's a museum. Some of the Christian features inside were restored. You pay to see the great cultural artifacts that the Muslims tried so hard to conceal.

I'm surprised they didn't just blow the thing up like that giant Buddha statue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

hahahaha Ferrous, pwned

Okay, Rusty, like everyone else you seem to be missing the whole point of being morally superior. To be morally superior, you have to actually act morally superior, such as, say, respecting other religions even if those religions do not respect you, or not torturing alleged terrorists and imprisoning them without habeas corpus and all that stuff. Basically, if you want to claim the high ground, prove you have the right to hold such ground, or else Imma toss you back into the pit.

Well I think the point is, stereotyping all Muslims as intolerant extremists when they are a tiny tiny minority is wrong, I mean Christianity has these kind of bigots too, I mean look at the damn bible-belt USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

hahahaha Ferrous, pwned

Quit acting like you have room to talk. You are being as reactionary as he is, only with different subjects.

And thank god for Ataturk, the only non-retard the entire region ever produced. He managed to delicately avoid offending Muslims while somewhat making up for their past crimes.
What past crimes?

Quit acting like you have room to talk. You are being as reactionary as he is, only with different subjects.

What subjects?

What past crimes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

hahahaha Ferrous, pwned

Using a war crime to justify your views. Sounds about right for a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

It's called war I am afraid, something used quite a bit in those times, and if you want to get into justifications it was the Byzantines who started it by attacking and occupying Anatolia, Syria and other places inhabited by Turks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople?? Constantinople fell to Christian crusaders in 1204. It never really recovered from that. And when the Ottomans took the city in 1453 it was no big deal at all.
Oh and speaking of the crusades, what about that crime?

What subjects?

Israel, Judaism, the Holocaust, capitalism, and so on and so forth.

?? Constantinople fell to Christian crusaders in 1204.

The official Fall of Constantinople is in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered it and renamed it Istanbul.

Israel, Judaism, the Holocaust, capitalism, and so on and so forth.

Actually it's Zionism which is reactionary in it's racist and ultranationalist overtones, and I simply put the holocaust in context and and highlighted the aforementioned ideology it is used to justify. As for capitalism, well being a capitalist means you are reactionary by your very nature, so you fail.

You can't stop a few idiots from either religion from coming in and praying, but it's a museum. Some of the Christian features inside were restored. You pay to see the great cultural artifacts that the Muslims tried so hard to conceal.

I'm surprised they didn't just blow the thing up like that giant Buddha statue.

That was the Taliban, not the Turks, you idiot. :rolleyes:

The official Fall of Constantinople is in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered it and renamed it Istanbul.

Yeah, it was also sacked by greedy French and venicians who were jealous of it's treasures, so much for 'Western' Christian solidarity hey Ferrous.

That was the Taliban, not the Turks, you idiot. :rolleyes:

Shhhh! You'll ruin his strawman.

It's called war I am afraid, something used quite a bit in those times, and if you want to get into justifications it was the Byzantines who started it by attacking and occupying Anatolia, Syria and other places inhabited by Turks.
what?

The official Fall of Constantinople is in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered it and renamed it Istanbul.

Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul until the 20th Century.

Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul until the 20th Century.
...

What? I was always under the impression that it was renamed after conquest.

...damned stupid piece of shit American educational system...

Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul until the 20th Century.

Are you serious? Could you please source this, as far as I know Istanbul is just a Byzantine phrase which means 'the city'.

Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul until the 20th Century.Officially (when the postal system of Turkey no longer delivered mail posted with the old city names). It's been nicknamed that since the middle ages. wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul)

Oh and speaking of the crusades, what about that crime?

The Crusades failed miserably. It's not a crime if they don't get a chance to commit it.

That was the Taliban, not the Turks, you idiot. :rolleyes:

Muslims are Muslims are Muslims.

Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul until the 20th Century.

Duh. Everybody knows that.

EDIT: At least, I thought they did >_<

The Crusades failed miserably. It's not a crime if they don't get a chance to commit it.Oh, so there were no crusader states at all?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Near_East_1135.svg/300px-Near_East_1135.svg.png

It's all made up and it's only a conspiracy against christianity?

Muslims are Muslims are Muslims.

Ah, I see. So then Christians are Christians are Christians, and they're all Crusading, Abortion Clinic bombing, "fag" hating white nutsos?

Muslims are Muslims are Muslims.Just like Christians are Christians are Christians, Mr PhelpsBushRatzinger.

Muslims are Muslims are Muslims.

Oh right, I think you need to go on the ignore list troll, stereotyping different nations, peoples, times just because of one religion is amazingly bigoted, on your logic all Christians today are responsible for massacres of Muslims during the Crusades, as well as many many other atrocities.

Oh, so there were no crusader states at all?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Near_East_1135.svg/300px-Near_East_1135.svg.png

It's all made up and it's only a conspiracy against christianity?

Yes, and what long lasting, succesful states were they.

Ah, I see. So then Christians are Christians are Christians, and they're all Crusading, Abortion Clinic bombing, "fag" hating white nutsos?

Well, since I haven't seen any Christians attempting to blow up crowded nightclubs or drive vans laden with explosives into busy airports, I'm going to have to say no.

Yes, and what long lasting, succesfuls states were they.In other words, you are wrong.

on your logic all Christians today are responsible for massacres of Muslims during the Crusades, as well as many many other atrocities.

If they didn't want to fucking fight, they shouldn't have invaded Europe first. They started it, and then they go whining about massacres because we fought back.

In other words, you are wrong.

No.

Well, since I haven't seen any Christians attempting to blow up crowded nightclubs or drive vans laden with explosives into busy airports, I'm going to have to say no.
What about almost ridding the Americas of their respective native populations?

What about almost ridding the Americas of their respective native populations?

That didn't occur for religious reasons, rather, expansive imperial ones. It wasn't "For the grace of God, I kill thee", it was "I want your land for my colony, fucking move".

Well, since I haven't seen any Christians attempting to blow up crowded nightclubs or drive vans laden with explosives into busy airports, I'm going to have to say no.

Ah, yes, I see...so only recent events matter?

Why the bloody hell do you care about the invasion and conquering of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire then?! Your hypocrisy is astounding, all the more so to atheists who see Christians and Muslims and think they might as well be exactly alike in how they act towards each other.

If they didn't want to fucking fight, they shouldn't have invaded Europe first.

Urrggg, I don't want to have to argue with your failed logic, but you should know that it was the middle ages, it wasn't exactly out of the ordinary to invade people, plus the 'European Christians' weren't a coherent entity, in fact they fought themselves to a standstill more often than they fought the Saracens or moors.

And also, even if we are to hold those people responsible for invading the European Balkans, then we should hold the Turks of that generation, all of which are now dead.

No.Yes you are. You said that the Crusades failed, which is not accurate. The crusader states were around for over 2 centuries and longer than e.g. the US.

Ah, yes, I see...so only recent events matter?

Why the bloody hell do you care about the invasion and conquering of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire then?! Your hypocrisy is astounding, all the more so to atheists who see Christians and Muslims and think they might as well be exactly alike in how they act towards each other.

I care because Christians had a Renaissance. Muslims didn't. With the possible exception of Turkey (and even then, they ARMY has to enforce secularism), the Muslim world has the same mindset as they did centuries ago; they want to dominate the rest of the world.

Yes you are. You said that the Crusades failed, which is not accurate. The crusader states were around for over 2 centuries and longer than e.g. the US.

Longevity =/= success.

That didn't occur for religious reasons, rather, expansive imperial ones. It wasn't "For the grace of God, I kill thee", it was "I want your land for my colony, fucking move".Spain and other european colonial powers had no problem massacring native Americans because of religion. Even today Christians see non-Christians as inferior. Like you do.

Longevity =/= success.You lose.

I care because Christians had a Renaissance. Muslims didn't. With the possible exception of Turkey (and even then, they ARMY has to enforce secularism), the Muslim world has the same mindset as they did centuries ago; they want to dominate the rest of the world.

No, they don't, and your assuming they do continues to show your ignorance.

Christians had a Renaissance?
You should visit the US, it's hardly visible.

plus the 'European Christians' weren't a coherent entity, in fact they fought themselves to a standstill more often than they fought the Saracens or moors.

They were, more or less, under Frankish rule.

And also, even if we are to hold those people responsible for invading the European Balkans, then we should hold the Turks of that generation, all of which are now dead.

Actually, I was referring to the invasion of Iberia and France by the Moors. If it wasn't for Charles Martel, you'd be speaking Arabic right now, and your girlfriend would be wearing a tent. Not that you'd mind that.

You lose.

The Holy Roman Empire lasted for almost a millennium. It collapsed like a house of cards.

I care because Christians had a Renaissance. Muslims didn't. With the possible exception of Turkey (and even then, they ARMY has to enforce secularism), the Muslim world has the same mindset as they did centuries ago; they want to dominate the rest of the world.

Uh...no, they don't. In fact, if it weren't for Europeans being absolute dicks, we might not have the problems we do now with the Middle East. It was our interference in numerous issues that resulted in serious, continuing anger with the West that has been fostered ever since by our actions against them. We keep doing the wrong damned thing time and again to try to combat the hate and we just keep feeding it. If we took your advice the only thing that would change would be the extent of their hate, and it would only increase.

Also, try looking up the various academic contributions the Arabian world made, like, say, zero, or algebra.

Christians had a Renaissance?
You should visit the US, it's hardly visible.

No, of course they didn't. Vatican II never happened! Last night, I went to the witch burning!

Well, since I haven't seen any Christians attempting to blow up crowded nightclubs or drive vans laden with explosives into busy airports, I'm going to have to say no.

Strawman all the faith of one billion to the actions of some dozens = failure.

Spain and other european colonial powers had no problem massacring native Americans because of religion. Even today Christians see non-Christians as inferior. Like you do.

I'm not Christian. And again, religion had nothing to do with it. It was for the monarch and the country, not the deity.

No, of course they didn't. Vatican II never happened! Last night, I went to the witch burning!

It's just more subtle these days, for example apply for a job with 'Atheist' in your resume and tell me the result, Pat Robertson, bible-belt etc etc etc

Uh...no, they don't. In fact, if it weren't for Europeans being absolute dicks, we might not have the problems we do now with the Middle East. It was our interference in numerous issues that resulted in serious, continuing anger with the West that has been fostered ever since by our actions against them. We keep doing the wrong damned thing time and again to try to combat the hate and we just keep feeding it. If we took your advice the only thing that would change would be the extent of their hate, and it would only increase.

Increase their hate? They want us to convert or die. I don't think it can increase much more.

Also, try looking up the various academic contributions the Arabian world made, like, say, zero, or algebra.

Nope, the zero's from India, and algebra is from ancient Babylonia (Arab, yes, but not Muslim). Transferred through the Muslim world.

It's just more subtle these days, for example apply for a job with 'Atheist' in your resume and tell me the result, Pat Robertson, bible-belt etc etc etc

Worst case scenario, you sue their ass for discrimination.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Would you like to have to have to write that every time you meant 1 million Ferrous? Now you have something to thank the Muslims for.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Would you like to have to have to write that every time you meant 1 million Ferrous? Now you have something to thank the Muslims for.

You want me to thank the creators of Arabic numerals? Fine, I will.

Thank you for the Arabic numerals, India.

Why the fuck is it that every time we have a topic REMOTELY involving culture or cultural items, it ends like this?

Why the fuck is it that every time we have a topic REMOTELY involving culture or cultural items, it ends like this?Because there are retards who feel the urge to defend Christianity.

I'm not Christian. And again, religion had nothing to do with it. It was for the monarch and the country, not the deity.That was the same back then.

The Holy Roman Empire lasted for almost a millennium. It collapsed like a house of cards.So did Constantinople.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 <- Arabic Numeral System.

Also, you started this.

Because there are retards who feel the urge to defend Christianity.

So it's ok to attack Christians and Christianity, but it's a world crisis when someone dares to criticise Islam?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 <- Arabic Numeral System.

Nope. Originated from the Brahmi numerals.

Also, you started this.

I didn't bring religion into it.

Because there are retards who feel the urge to defend Christianity.

Indeed.

Also, the Holy Roman Empire as a wise man once said, was not holy, nor roman, nor an empire.

Indeed.

You are one of the most hypocritical characters on these boards. You blindly defend one faith, while blindly attacking another.

Also, the Holy Roman Empire as a wise man once said, was not holy, nor roman, nor an empire.

Which has absolutely ZERO relevance to anything stated in this topic so far.

So it's ok to attack Christians and Christianity, but it's a world crisis when someone dares to criticise Islam?You go much further than just criticizing Islam.

So did Constantinople.

Except that Constantinople was attacked by outsiders; it's like blaming the French Third Republic for it's own demise. The HRE collapsed because each state was too busy working for themselves.

You go much further than just criticizing Islam.

I don't pretend to like Islam. I hate Islam. Of all the major religions and denominations on the planet today, Islam is THE WORST. More religious violence comes from Islam than any other religion. More Islamic leaders spew hatred towards non-Muslims than any other religious leaders. It is nothing but bad news.

No, I dislike all religions based on what they are, a suspension of critical thought and rationality and in favor of unconsciousable pack mentality delusion, whether it be Christianity or Islam, I was merely pointing out that you say ALL muslims want to destroy 'the West' (as if such a coherent entity exists), I simply say that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and it's that tiny minority which people like you use to justify bigotry and racism.

Except that Constantinople was attacked by outsiders; it's like blaming the French Third Republic for it's own demise. The HRE collapsed because each state was too busy working for themselves.No. It was because Napoleon covered Europe with war.

I didn't bring religion into it.
.

Fuck you. It's a Christian church that was conquered by the Muslims. It's Christian by right. It was Christian, it is Christian, it will be Christian until the day it is destroyed.

Why must it always be seven, I wonder?
Any more or less, and the Grues attack. And nothing can save us then.

I don't pretend to like Islam. I hate Islam. Of all the major religions and denominations on the planet today, Islam is THE WORST. More religious violence comes from Islam than any other religion. More Islamic leaders spew hatred towards non-Muslims than any other religious leaders. It is nothing but bad news.

Then you prove your own ignorance and your belief of the sensational media coverage that enforces this kind of 'opinion'. 'Terrorism' for the most part is portrayed as some kind of massive global Islamic conspiracy, when for the most part those doing the killing are doing it for land, nation, local disputes etc, it's easier for politicians to make it into some giant conspiracy which doesn't exist.

I don't pretend to like Islam. I hate Islam. Of all the major religions and denominations on the planet today, Islam is THE WORST. More religious violence comes from Islam than any other religion. More Islamic leaders spew hatred towards non-Muslims than any other religious leaders. It is nothing but bad news.Christianity has been doing all the same. There is no real difference.
The violence we see in Islam recently is only a reaction to Western interference in the Muslim part of the world. Altogether Islam is a rather calm and reasonable philosophy, the violent pieces are a small minority

No. It was because Napoleon covered Europe with war.

That was the last straw. The HRE was virtually dead long before that.

.

Indeed.

Why would you pick the Colossuem over the Pantheon? The Pantheon was the very first building to utilise the dome. Whereas, the Colossuem is just a circular wall that uses arches, which had been around since 2500BC.

Oh right, I think you need to go on the ignore list troll, stereotyping different nations, peoples, times just because of one religion is amazingly bigoted, on your logic all Christians today are responsible for massacres of Muslims during the Crusades, as well as many many other atrocities.

The ignore list is exactly where I put him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070708/ts_nm/portugal_wonders_dc_7;_ylt=ApNsczxoft2Wwz2y6nyvPV5lM3wV

Looks like they had an on-line poll to let the people decide the new Seven Wonders of the World. Some of the old ones are still on the list, but there are some new ones, including (Oh nooose) a statue of Christ.

And the winners are;

The Great Wall of China, Petra in Jordan and Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer are among the modern day seven wonders of the world chosen in a poll of 100 million online voters, organizers said on Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The other four are Peru's Machu Picchu, the mountain settlement that symbolizes the Inca empire, Mexico's Mayan ruins at Chichen Itza, the Colosseum in Rome and the Taj Mahal in India.

The seven winners were announced at a glitzy show at the Benfica stadium in Lisbon after what is likely to be the biggest online poll at www.new7wonders.com.

I think they should have selected the Airbus A-380. As that thing is so damn big I'm suprised it can fly.

I can totally see The Great Wall of China and Petra, and Machu Picchu, too. The rest? Meh. Not that I'd have had any better ideas.

I can totally see The Great Wall of China and Petra, and Machu Picchu, too. The rest? Meh. Not that I'd have had any better ideas.Not even the Colosseum?

I'd put Holland on the list.:)

Not even the Colosseum?

I'd put Holland on the list.:)

*pats*

*pats**purs*

It's called war I am afraid, something used quite a bit in those times, and if you want to get into justifications it was the Byzantines who started it by attacking and occupying Anatolia, Syria and other places inhabited by Turks.

Brief history lesson for you: the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia and Syria predated both the Arabic and Turkish invasions of those regions. The date of that the Byzantine Empire began can probably be stated as 285 when the Emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into two autonomous halves. The Arabic invasion of Byzantine territory began in the 630s. The Turks appeared on the Byzantine borders in the tenth century. So the conquest of Byzantine Empire by the two Muslim groups was most certainly an aggressive act.

surelly they should of put the Bell Rock Lighthouse on the list

Brief history lesson for you: the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia and Syria predated both the Arabic and Turkish invasions of those regions. The date of that the Byzantine Empire began can probably be stated as 285 when the Emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into two autonomous halves. The Arabic invasion of Byzantine territory began in the 630s. The Turks appeared on the Byzantine borders in the tenth century. So the conquest of Byzantine Empire by the two Muslim groups was most certainly an aggressive act.Why? The spread of Islam was so fast because people embraced the new religion. And when the Turks came to Anatolia is not the same thing as the rise to power of a certain Osman and his successors.

Nothing more than a tourism ploy.

I can totally see The Great Wall of China and Petra, and Machu Picchu, too. The rest? Meh. Not that I'd have had any better ideas.

Why go for Petra if you don't want to go for the Statue in Rio. Petra is just some caves carved into the rock, with a bit of ornamentation.

Why? The spread of Islam was so fast because people embraced the new religion. And when the Turks came to Anatolia is not the same thing as the rise to power of a certain Osman and his successors.

I do not understand your point - are you stating that the Turkish conquest was not of an aggressive nature because they were in fact 'liberating' recently converted co-religionists? I would certainly not agree with this argument, if it is the one you were making: the Anatolian planes remained predominately Christian (not surprising when you consider Anatolia effectively formed the core of the Byzantine Empire) until the Turks were able to conquer enough of it to launch a sustained programme of conversion.

Ancient ruins are some of the 7 wonders of the world...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/ruins.jpg

I would have preferred a D6 of magic items, but other than that, I like that poster. :D

Why go for Petra if you don't want to go for the Statue in Rio. Petra is just some caves carved into the rock, with a bit of ornamentation.
Lemme see:

1)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Brasil.RioDeJaneiro.Corcovado.jpg/180px-Brasil.RioDeJaneiro.Corcovado.jpg
A 30m high statue made from steel concrete in 1931.

2)
http://www.aquatours.com/jordan/petra/treasury-02.jpg
A city hewn from stone 2000 years ago.

Yeah, no, I go with No.2 here.

Although, to be fair, I'm at least equally impressed with the rock-hewn churches in Lalibela, Ethiopia - they're totally mindboggling because they're carved out of the ground, really:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Bet_Giyorgis_church_Lalibela_01.jpg/250px-Bet_Giyorgis_church_Lalibela_01.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Bete_Giyorgis_Lalibela_Ethiopia.jpg/300px-Bete_Giyorgis_Lalibela_Ethiopia.jpg

European bias.

wikipedia helps you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_wonders#Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World) :rolleyes: ;)

Ah, the Mausoleum. Always forget the Mausoleum and add the Library.

European bias.

Please tell me you're joking Ruffy.

Please tell me you're joking Ruffy.

There are plenty of things in USA that are better than the places on that list.

Why the fuck is it that every time we have a topic REMOTELY involving culture or cultural items, it ends like this?

Because people like you think that all Muslims are a hivemind that must be killed.

There are plenty of things in USA that are better than the places on that list.

If it's European bias then why is there only 1 thing from Europe on the list?

If it isn't, then why are there no American places on the list?

Interesting leap

If it's European bias then why is there only 1 thing from Europe on the list?

If it isn't, then why are there no American places on the list?

If it isn't, then why are there no American places on the list?

because a lot of things in America have been around for a relatively small amount of time, look at petra, thousands of years old! European civilization has been around for so much longer than American society..

because a lot of things in America have been around for a relatively small amount of time, look at petra, thousands of years old! European civilization has been around for so much longer than American society..

We're better.

Wooo! Taj Mahal got in.

Though that wasn't really much of a surprise.

We're better.

who is better?

If it isn't, then why are there no American places on the list?

This was voted for by internet users. Which country has the highest number of internet users?

Maybe people from the US are just a bunch of self haters.

The list has only one continent with more than 1 entry and thats South America so logically you should be complaining about South American bias anyway.

We're better.

American bias

How about the Gateway Arch?

How about the Gateway Arch?

Very impressive but I don't personally think i'd call it a wonder of the world

This was voted for by internet users. Which country has the highest number of internet users?

Maybe people from the US are just a bunch of self haters.

The list has only one continent with more than 1 entry and thats South America so logically you should be complaining about South American bias anyway.

or maybe the people who voted knew that the things outside of the US was a lot better? I am American, and I did not vote for anything in the US becaue the things outside of the US were much better, and were better wonders

or maybe the people who voted knew that the things outside of the US was a lot better? I am American, and I did not vote for anything in the US becaue the things outside of the US were much better, and were better wonders

Or because the things in the US aren't as impressive to them because they dont have an air of the exotic to them when they're from your own country

Very impressive but I don't personally think i'd call it a wonder of the world

Why not, it is six times as tall as that Jesus, and you can ride a tram to the top.

I bet you can't feel that Jesus swaying in the wind.

who is better?
America.
This was voted for by internet users. Which country has the highest number of internet users?
Way to generalize. :rolleyes:
Maybe people from the US are just a bunch of self haters.
Or perhaps the EU made sure they would win.
The list has only one continent with more than 1 entry and thats South America so logically you should be complaining about South American bias anyway.
They are part of Europe.

Jeeze, buy a map. :rolleyes:
American bias

It's called patriotism.



I have proved my point, I am now done with this debate.

Why not, it is six times as tall as that Jesus, and you can ride a tram to the top.

I bet you can't feel that Jesus swaying in the wind.

Meh but I don't like the statue being included either. It's impressive to look at but I don't think I could compare 2 years of building to the amount of time taken to build the Pyramids

They are part of Europe.

Jeeze, buy a map. :rolleyes:



YAY :p

Meh but I don't like the statue being included either. It's impressive to look at but I don't think I could compare 2 years of building to the amount of time taken to build the Pyramids

Oh, I thought the Pyramids were precluded or something. How did they not make it?

Oh, I thought the Pyramids were precluded or something. How did they not make it?

They're in the real list just not in this one. Sorry I thought thats what we were discussing

Lemme see:

1)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Brasil.RioDeJaneiro.Corcovado.jpg/180px-Brasil.RioDeJaneiro.Corcovado.jpg
A 30m high statue made from steel concrete in 1931.

2)
http://www.aquatours.com/jordan/petra/treasury-02.jpg
A city hewn from stone 2000 years ago.

Yeah, no, I go with No.2 here.

Although, to be fair, I'm at least equally impressed with the rock-hewn churches in Lalibela, Ethiopia - they're totally mindboggling because they're carved out of the ground, really:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Bet_Giyorgis_church_Lalibela_01.jpg/250px-Bet_Giyorgis_church_Lalibela_01.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Bete_Giyorgis_Lalibela_Ethiopia.jpg/300px-Bete_Giyorgis_Lalibela_Ethiopia.jpg
I don't think you quite realise what a huge innovation concrete was.

Think of it this way. I was to take a sheet of paper and make a paper aeroplane out of it, would be impressed?

Now if I was to take some diamond shredded paper and make a similar sized paper aeroplane out of it, would you be more, less or equally impressed?

The human mind has an incredibly amazing ability to make the mundane amazingly, and make the amazing seen mundane, just because it has become common.

About half of Petra was distroyed in the 4th century AD by an earthquake. Petra only predates the Pantheon (made with large amounts of concrete) by a couple of centuries, and yet the Pantheon stands as it was the day it was built with no structural damage. Even in spite of earthquakes which partially destroyed the Colosseum.

Oh, and you also forget to add that the statue in Rio de Janerio is 700 tonnes, and 700m above sea level in a city which is at sea level. That would be like elavating 3 Statues of Liberty to the top of the Appalachian Mountains. Now if you think such a feat is trivial, then that's probably half the feat - making it seem easy.

Way to generalize. :rolleyes:

Or perhaps the EU made sure they would win.

They are part of Europe.

Jeeze, buy a map. :rolleyes:

Does that mean the EU wins cakes?

Or pie...I'll take pie.

I don't think you quite realise what a huge innovation concrete was.


The Romans were using concrete. If that's the reason it was included then there are some more impressive structures that used it they could have picked from.

I refuse to recognize such horrible choices. The uneducated masses are not fit to choose the Wonders of the World. A college of scholars should have assembled to determine them.

The Romans were using concrete. If that's the reason it was included then there are some more impressive structures that used it they could have picked from.

Like the Aqueducts, for example.

I don't think you quite realise what a huge innovation concrete was.

Actually, concrete was invented by the Romans and after the fall of the empire concrete was lost to be rediscovered many centuries later.

In any case, I think this is much more impressive than the statue in Rio. Several thousand years old, still standing, and still carries water.

Roman Aqueduct, Segovia Spain.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aqueduct.html

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aquelng2.jpg

Like the Aqueducts, for example.

Exactly.

This was voted for by internet users. Which country has the highest number of internet users?

I don't think most Americans even knew this was happening.

Like the Aqueducts, for example.

Man, we thinking alike this morning. :D

The Romans were using concrete. If that's the reason it was included then there are some more impressive structures that used it they could have picked from.You're telling me the Romans used concrete? After I just mentioned the Pantheon and what it was made from? I guess you learn something new everyday.

edit:Actually, concrete was invented by the Romans and after the fall of the empire concrete was lost to be rediscovered many centuries later.

In any case, I think this is much more impressive than the statue in Rio. Several thousand years old, still standing, and still carries water.

Roman Aqueduct, Segovia Spain.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aqueduct.html

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aquelng2.jpgArgh! Does no one know what the fucking Pantheon is? It's a building in Rome built in 125AD using concrete and bricks. It is the first building in the world to use the architectural concept of a dome. At the time of it's construction if contained the largest open space under a roof. It is called the Pantheon because it was originally dedicated to all the Roman gods, but it is now a Christian Church.

http://www.historywiz.com/images/rome/pantheon.jpg

Man, we thinking alike this morning. :D

No, I just can't come up with any other wonder-worthy concrete things from Rome.

You're telling me the Romans used concrete? After I just mentioned the Pantheon and what it was made from? I guess you learn something new everyday.

That'll teach me for skim reading.

The point of why the use of concrete means that this statue deserves a place on this list still stands though.

You're telling me the Romans used concrete? After I just mentioned the Pantheon and what it was made from? I guess you learn something new everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete

History

In Serbia, remains of a hut dating from 5600 BCE have been found, with a floor made of red lime, sand, and gravel. The pyramids of Shaanxi in China, built thousands of years ago, contain a mixture of lime and volcanic ash or clay.[2]

The Assyrians and Babylonians used clay as cement in their concrete. The Egyptians used lime and gypsum cement. In the Roman Empire, concrete made from quicklime, pozzolanic ash / pozzolana and an aggregate made from pumice was very similar to modern Portland cement concrete. The discovery of concrete was lost for 13 centuries until in 1756, the British engineer John Smeaton pioneered the use of Portland cement in concrete, using pebbles and powdered brick as aggregate. In modern times the use of recycled materials as concrete ingredients is gaining popularity because of increasingly stringent environmental legislation. The most conspicuous of these is fly ash, a byproduct of coal fired power plants. This has a significant impact by reducing the amount of quarrying and landfill space required. The properties of concrete have been altered since Roman and Egyptian times, when it was discovered that adding volcanic ash to the mix allowed it to set under water. Similarly, the Romans knew that adding horse hair made concrete less liable to shrink while it hardened, and adding blood made it more frost resistant. In modern times, researchers have added other materials to create concrete that is extremely strong, and even concrete that can conduct electricity.

Roman Aqueduct, Segovia Spain.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aqueduct.html

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aquelng2.jpg

No, I just can't come up with any other wonder-worthy concrete things from Rome.

No concrete in this aqueduct though which to me makes it much more impressive a feat than the statue. Also, this has been standing and in use for abut 4,000 years now. I wonder if that statue will be there in 4,000 years? The Romans might have used concrete in some other aqueducts though.

I don't think you quite realise what a huge innovation concrete was.

Think of it this way. I was to take a sheet of paper and make a paper aeroplane out of it, would be impressed?

Now if I was to take some diamond shredded paper and make a similar sized paper aeroplane out of it, would you be more, less or equally impressed?

The human mind has an incredibly amazing ability to make the mundane amazingly, and make the amazing seen mundane, just because it has become common.

About half of Petra was distroyed in the 4th century AD by an earthquake. Petra only predates the Pantheon (made with large amounts of concrete) by a couple of centuries, and yet the Pantheon stands as it was the day it was built with no structural damage. Even in spite of earthquakes which partially destroyed the Colosseum.

Many buildings at Petra were made with stucco and cement. I believe Petra has been dated to about the 6th century BC? The Pantheon, on the other hand, was built during the lifetime of Agrippa (63-12 BC), burned in 80 AD, and rebuilt in 125 AD under Hadrian's reign. So that's 700 years worth of difference, AND the use of cement.

I don't think you quite realise what a huge innovation concrete was.

Think of it this way. I was to take a sheet of paper and make a paper aeroplane out of it, would be impressed?

Now if I was to take some diamond shredded paper and make a similar sized paper aeroplane out of it, would you be more, less or equally impressed?

The human mind has an incredibly amazing ability to make the mundane amazingly, and make the amazing seen mundane, just because it has become common.

About half of Petra was distroyed in the 4th century AD by an earthquake. Petra only predates the Pantheon (made with large amounts of concrete) by a couple of centuries, and yet the Pantheon stands as it was the day it was built with no structural damage. Even in spite of earthquakes which partially destroyed the Colosseum.

Oh, and you also forget to add that the statue in Rio de Janerio is 700 tonnes, and 700m above sea level in a city which is at sea level. That would be like elavating 3 Statues of Liberty to the top of the Appalachian Mountains. Now if you think such a feat is trivial, then that's probably half the feat - making it seem easy.

I'm pretty sure building Taipei 101 (http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/01/329425.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro. I also am pretty sure that, when we're looking at "building big things on tops of mountains", something like the Meteora monasteries (http://www.photoseek.com/greece/01GRE-43-27-VarlaamMonastery.jpg) or Mont St. Michel (http://www.anse-du-brick.com/images/Zoom/Mont%20St%20Michel.JPG) or really any old run-of-the-mill castle perched precariously on a rock (http://www.reiseziele.com/reiseziele/schwaebische_alb/images/lichtenstein_07.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.

Just because the statue is located in a really spectacular setting doesn't make it more impressive a feat than other things.

*stubborn*

I think it's b/s that people living in the 21st Century think the greatest constructed accomplishments of mankind's entire history were built 2-5 thousand years ago.

Stone monuments were the amazement of Herodotus. Space stations, the Three Gorges Dam, even the Statue of Liberty because of how it symbolizes liberty, equality, and fraternity (or life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

Constructions that let people live and dwell in outer space? Surely that's more fantastical than the Taj Mahal

Constructions that let people live and dwell in outer space? Surely that's more fantastical than the Taj Mahal
I'd agree with you on the space station.

I am still prety shocked that the pyramids of Giza did not get in again, as it has lasted pretty long, and it is relatively perfect, as perfect as a structure like that can get. And it was built without pulleys or the wheel!

I'm so glad I started this thread. I've learned a lot about places I never knew existed. This is great. Thanks all, and keep those places and links coming.

I'm pretty sure building Taipei 101 (http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/01/329425.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro. I also am pretty sure that, when we're looking at "building big things on tops of mountains", something like the Meteora monasteries (http://www.photoseek.com/greece/01GRE-43-27-VarlaamMonastery.jpg) or Mont St. Michel (http://www.anse-du-brick.com/images/Zoom/Mont%20St%20Michel.JPG) or really any old run-of-the-mill castle perched precariously on a rock (http://www.reiseziele.com/reiseziele/schwaebische_alb/images/lichtenstein_07.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.

Just because the statue is located in a really spectacular setting doesn't make it more impressive a feat than other things.

*stubborn*

I've been to Mont St. Michel. I wouldn't call it a Wonder, but it's certainly a work of craftsmanship.

Though if you're not careful, the tide swallows your car in the parking lot.

I think it's b/s that people living in the 21st Century think the greatest constructed accomplishments of mankind's entire history were built 2-5 thousand years ago.

Stone monuments were the amazement of Herodotus. Space stations, the Three Gorges Dam, even the Statue of Liberty because of how it symbolizes liberty, equality, and fraternity (or life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

Constructions that let people live and dwell in outer space? Surely that's more fantastical than the Taj Mahal

the vote was for the 7 wonders of the world the space station is a wonder of space

The Great Pyramid of Giza got in as an honorary candidate without votes cuz the arabs thought it was a conspiracy to usurp its status as the only surviving ancient wonder. :gundge: More proof that this list is stupid!

The Great Pyramid of Giza got in as an honorary candidate without votes cuz the arabs thought it was a conspiracy to usurp its status as the only surviving ancient wonder. :gundge: More proof that this list is stupid!

i heard that the Egyptian government was outraged that the Pyramids of Giza had to run for the new list.
I would be pissed if I were them

I've been to Mont St. Michel. I wouldn't call it a Wonder, but it's certainly a work of craftsmanship.Oh, I absolutely agree. None of my examples of things that pwn the Christ the Redeemer statue are things I'd call a Wonder of the World. That was sort of the point. ;P

Though if you're not careful, the tide swallows your car in the parking lot.That, too.

I am still prety shocked that the pyramids of Giza did not get in again, as it has lasted pretty long, and it is relatively perfect, as perfect as a structure like that can get. And it was built without pulleys or the wheel!The Pyramids were removed from the vote because of the complaints of Mr Hawass, who maintains the position that the Pyramid(s) as the only remaining ancient Wonder have no need to compete against any other arbitrarily selected monuments.

BTW I really doubt the outcome of this vote.

Oh, I absolutely agree. None of my examples of things that pwn the Christ the Redeemer statue are things I'd call a Wonder of the World. That was sort of the point. ;P

That, too.

We were with a tour, and it was around 5:30, and the guide was like "Ok, we're done, you guys should probably all GTFO" (I'm paraphrasing) And we're all "Why, we wanted to pick up some souvenirs and such. She just points out over the parking lot to the tide slowly creeping its way up. We all GTFO.

The stepped terrace hills in the phillipines are really beautiful

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=Rice%20Terraces%20of%20the%20Philippine%20Cordilleras&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

this list might be a good start...

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31

Screw this. I can call whatever sites I want as "the seven wonders". And here is my list:

1) NSG
2) NSG
3) NSG
4) NSG
5) NSG
6) NSG
7) NSG

i heard that the Egyptian government was outraged that the Pyramids of Giza had to run for the new list.
I would be pissed if I were them

If I were them I wouldn't make a big deal about it since this is a list of the new wonders, not the ancient wonders

The Pyramids were removed from the vote because of the complaints of Mr Hawass, who maintains the position that the Pyramid(s) as the only remaining ancient Wonder have no need to compete against any other arbitrarily selected monuments.

BTW I really doubt the outcome of this vote.

yeah, so do i

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.

It's a major feat of engineering, for sure, but projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal come from the same era, required much more labor, design, investment and coordination and are definitely more fitting of the term "wonder of the world" than that statue.

Yeah. I would much rather the Hagia Sophia be the wonder rather than a statue.

Screw this. I can call whatever sites I want as "the seven wonders". And here is my list:

1) NSG
2) NSG
3) NSG
4) NSG
5) NSG
6) NSG
7) NSG

You have a very shallow one track mind stuck forever in the bowels of NSG. :D

Yeah. I would much rather the Hagia Sophia be the wonder rather than a statue.I can reassure you that the Hagia Sophia is not a statue.

Yeah. I would much rather the Hagia Sophia be the wonder rather than a statue.

You guys/gals should supple links or pictures of these places so us lazy old farts don't have to google them up. :eek:

http://images.google.com/images?q=Hagia+Sophia&hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2dG&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Many buildings at Petra were made with stucco and cement. I believe Petra has been dated to about the 6th century BC? The Pantheon, on the other hand, was built during the lifetime of Agrippa (63-12 BC), burned in 80 AD, and rebuilt in 125 AD under Hadrian's reign. So that's 700 years worth of difference, AND the use of cement.You make on fatal assumption here. You assume that current Pantheon is an exact replica of Agrippa's Pantheon. This is not the case. The current Pantheon is domical, whereas Agrippa's was t-shaped... and rectilinear (whatever that means - doesn't sound like a dome at any rate).

600BC? Where did you get that? I was under the impression that the town still wasn't even in existance in 3rd century BC. Besides, to claim that the stonework of Petra was built when the town was first founded would be like claiming that all of Rome was built in day - Colosseum, Vatican, and call.

Anyway, I have no idea what you mean by 'So that's 700 years worth of difference, AND the use of cement'. Are you claiming the rest of the world didn't have access to cements and mortars? Are you claiming that Petra has stood undamaged for longer than the Pantheon? (the Pantheon has stood undamaged for 1800 years, compared to 700-1000 years that Petra stood undamaged for) The current Pantheon has stood for 1800 years, in more corrosive conditions, is the first use of the dome in architecture, and is an example of Roman concrete. This, as well as the Pantheon's interior beauty, is why I believe that the Pantheon is one of the most impressive buildings in the world.

I'm pretty sure building Taipei 101 (http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/01/329425.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro. I also am pretty sure that, when we're looking at "building big things on tops of mountains", something like the Meteora monasteries (http://www.photoseek.com/greece/01GRE-43-27-VarlaamMonastery.jpg) or Mont St. Michel (http://www.anse-du-brick.com/images/Zoom/Mont%20St%20Michel.JPG) or really any old run-of-the-mill castle perched precariously on a rock (http://www.reiseziele.com/reiseziele/schwaebische_alb/images/lichtenstein_07.jpg) was a lot more difficult a feat than building the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.

Just because the statue is located in a really spectacular setting doesn't make it more impressive a feat than other things.

*stubborn*No, you're right. I guess I just have a thing about concrete. It's just dismissed so easily these days. If we're going for height then probably Machu Picchu is the hands up winner. In addition to the height is also the Incans amazing drystone building. The stonework there is just amazing. Just look at how finely the stone fits together.
http://www.andrys.com/ol9.jpg

Though the Varlaam monastery was looking pretty impressive too.

Christ the Redeemer just proves how ridiculous this list is. Probably was just voted in by Brazilians who wanted to get their country in. I read from somewhere then vote was still going on, that Asians and South-Americans showed a lot more activity then Europeans and North-Americans.

Just few things that I think deserved that spot better but were not even candidates:
Potala Palace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace), Forbidden City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_city), Himeji Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_castle), Shwedagon Pagoda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwedagon_Pagoda), St. Peter's Basilica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter's_Basilica), St. Stephen's Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen's_Cathedral%2C_Vienna), Cologne Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_cathedral), Tikal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal), Uxmal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxmal), Borobudur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borobudur), Golden Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Temple)

Of course there are many more, just those few were first to jump in head.

I am still prety shocked that the pyramids of Giza did not get in again, as it has lasted pretty long, and it is relatively perfect, as perfect as a structure like that can get. And it was built without pulleys or the wheel!

Well, it's one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It doesn't need to be amongst the n00bs, it's the king of the wonders by its own right of being a member of the old guard.

Basically, it goes like this:

<Machu Picchu> lol i r lvl 60 n00bs!
<Petra> same hear lol
<Great Wall of China> I'm bigger n00bs
<Hagia Sophia> not fair! im lvl. 55 :(
<Chichen Itza> i has litening spelz
<Colosseum> Hakkaa Päälle!
<Taj Mahal> wate...thats swedish lol
<Colosseum> stfu n00b
<Christ the Redeemer> AHA! lvl 60 paladin!
<Chichen Itza> stfu n00b lol
<Petra> lets go pwn som pplz
<Pyramids> Great, who the fuck let you be level 60?
<Machu Picchu> im 1337 now permids suk mi cok lol
*Pyramids does 4300 damage to Machu Picchu
*Pyramids kills Machu Picchu
<Pyramids> Anyone else?

Thats a very shitty list.

You have a very shallow one track mind stuck forever in the bowels of NSG. :D

You haven't been here long enough to understand. :D

It's not even that; there are some really beautiful and historically significant Christian religious buildings that required far more human ingenuity, resources, and work and have much more history behind them than the statue. Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica, the Hagia Sophia, even the Sagrada Familia...all of them are these great works that will last for centuries or even millenia and represent a much greater accomplishment.

It's a major feat of engineering, for sure, but projects like the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal come from the same era, required much more labor, design, investment and coordination and are definitely more fitting of the term "wonder of the world" than that statue.

What about St. John the Unfinished? It's an example of dedication, if nothing else.

The voting was crap. I have tried to vote too online but I never received any confirmation email to actualy register and be able to vote online on that shity site. I even have tried 3 email adresses. . .
And if I could really wanted I could vote by SMS and by phone call too . . .

I really wonder if the online voting had been working at all, and the sms voting, heh . . . I have three phone numbers myself.

Beside of the shity voting system it was also a stupid list, a building should have been put there indiferently if it was still existing or not. And beside of that I was not knowing half of those buildings . . . it is not the job of some hystorian, architect etc to decide the greatest most spectacular and MOST IMPORTANT buildings of the world and not the job of uneducated masses?

I mean that only a hystorian could realize now what was meaning the construction of take for example Sonenhege at that age . . . by very primitive civilization with very primitive tools.

Why no fortress was on the list . . . like Catar!?

You haven't been here long enough to understand. :D

Oh yes I do. I am a reincarnation. :eek: I left forever and was back in around three months. :(

Oh yes I do. I am a reincarnation. :eek: I left forever and was back in around three months. :(

If that.

No Carhenge? :(

The list just isn't right.

No, you're right.:eek: That was surprising. :p

I guess I just have a thing about concrete. Oh-kay.... ;P

It's just dismissed so easily these days. If we're going for height then probably Machu Picchu is the hands up winner. In addition to the height is also the Incans amazing drystone building. The stonework there is just amazing. Just look at how finely the stone fits together.
http://www.andrys.com/ol9.jpg
See, now that I find impressive, too.

Olmedreca;12856745']Christ the Redeemer just proves how ridiculous this list is. Probably was just voted in by Brazilians who wanted to get their country in. I read from somewhere then vote was still going on, that Asians and South-Americans showed a lot more activity then Europeans and North-Americans.

Just few things that I think deserved that spot better but were not even candidates:
Potala Palace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace), Forbidden City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_city), Himeji Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_castle), Shwedagon Pagoda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwedagon_Pagoda), St. Peter's Basilica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter's_Basilica), St. Stephen's Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen's_Cathedral%2C_Vienna), Cologne Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_cathedral), Tikal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal), Uxmal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxmal), Borobudur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borobudur), Golden Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Temple)

Of course there are many more, just those few were first to jump in head.
As I already said, I completey agree on the Christ the Redeemer Statue. And I'd go for Bagan before I'd go for the Shwedagon:
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/X1011/PC/SuperStock_1566-047233.jpg

The voting was crap. I have tried to vote too online but I never received any confirmation email to actualy register and be able to vote online on that shity site. I even have tried 3 email adresses. . .
And if I could really wanted I could vote by SMS and by phone call too . . .

I really wonder if the online voting had been working at all, and the sms voting, heh . . . I have three phone numbers myself.

Beside of the shity voting system it was also a stupid list, a building should have been put there indiferently if it was still existing or not. And beside of that I was not knowing half of those buildings . . . it is not the job of some hystorian, architect etc to decide the greatest most spectacular and MOST IMPORTANT buildings of the world and not the job of uneducated masses?

I mean that only a hystorian could realize now what was meaning the construction of take for example Sonenhege at that age . . . by very primitive civilization with very primitive tools.
I had only heard of this whole thing once, in passing, while the voting was apparently going on. The results were mentioned on the TV news today and apparently the organization behind the whole thing and esp. the way they organized it have been getting lots of criticism.

And I agree with you that experts should be deciding this.

If that.Indeed.

If that.

My final post in my former life. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522657

Eutrusca was also retired military and when he left, he didn't come back. :(

My final post in my former life. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522657

Eutrusca was also retired military and when he left, he didn't come back. :(

Eut's still around, on NS. Apparently he just doesn't post on NSG.

I liked the old ones. But for the odd extra-Meditteraneo-European monument (Aztec/Mayan temples, tomb of first emperor and a subcontinental temple city I can't remember), I cannot see any alternatives.

the vote was for the 7 wonders of the world the space station is a wonder of space

:rolleyes:
If you wanna get real technical, I guess so. I'd thought it just meant what's the seven most wonderous accomplishments of human construction. How about the Internet? Is that valid?

Back again....

The absence of the acropolis is a joke. It is, given the paradigm in which it was constructed, amongst the most impressive structures to have existed.

I can reassure you that the Hagia Sophia is not a statue.

...Thanks? I wasn't aware that I was calling it a statue. I said I want the Hagia Sophia RATHER THAN a statue.

Oh yes I do. I am a reincarnation. :eek: I left forever and was back in around three months. :(

When was your original joindate?

:eek: That was surprising. :pI was just playing devil's advocate. My mother dearest says it's a bad habit of mine. Plus I'd also been reading some Terry Prachett recently. How the human brain has the capacity to make things seem boring because it was like that yesterday as well.

Oh-kay.... ;PWell, just think of it this way. Imagine what an ancient Egyptian would think if you told you could crumble up stone into sand a pebbles and then reconstitute into any shape you liked. Instead of having to heavy around heavy blocks of stone and carve the desired shape from them. So instead of heaving huge blocks of stone to the top of the Pyramid you could just carry up some bags of sand, lime, pebbles, and clay, and some planks of wood.

See, now that I find impressive, too.I'm glad you agree. :)
Back again....

The absence of the acropolis is a joke. It is, given the paradigm in which it was constructed, amongst the most impressive structures to have existed.Do you mean the Acropolis or the Parthenon? I seem to remember that the Acropolis had bits of it built over a huge time period, whereas the Parthenon was specifically around 400BC.

the Muslim world has the same mindset as they did centuries ago; they want to dominate the rest of the world.
By this I assume you are refering to the Muslim countries which have dominated the world over the past century like
France. Colonies: Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Middle Congo, Oubangi-Chari, French Morocco, French Somaliland, French Togoland, Dahomey, French Guinea, French Sudan, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Upper Volta, Madagascar (including the Comoros, Mayotte, the Kerguelen Islands, Amsterdam Island, Saint-Paul Island and the Crozet Islands), Réunion, Tunisia, French Guiana, Guadaloupe (including Saint Barthélemy and half of Saint Martin), Martinique
Saint Pierre and Miquelon, French concessions in China: Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tianjin, and Hankou, French India (Pondicherry, Chandernagore, Karaikal, Mahé, Yanaon), French Indochina, Annam (a protectorate, part of modern Central Vietnam), Cambodia, Cochin China (a colony, part of modern South Vietnam), Laos, Tonkin (a protectorate, part of modern North Vietnam), Kwang-Chou-Wan (a leased port in China), Lebanon (a League of Nations Mandate), Syria (a League of Nations Mandate, including the Sanjak of Alexandretta), French Polynesia (including Clipperton Island), New Caledonia (a colony, including Wallis and Futuna), New Hebrides.

Or maybe you mean the Muslim country Great Britain.
Colonies: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Solomon islands, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Seychelles, Mauritius, Maldives, Bantam, Madagascar, Ceylon, Rhodes, Malta, Cyprus, Bermuda, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Virgin islands, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Cayman islands, Montserrat, Guyana, Falklands, Jordan, Palestine, Lesotho, Botswana, Surat, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Tripoli, Sudan, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Nigeria, Niger, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Libya, Cameroon.

Then there's the Christian-hating Islamic state the Netherlands.
Colonies: Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia.

Brief history lesson for you: the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia and Syria predated both the Arabic and Turkish invasions of those regions. The date of that the Byzantine Empire began can probably be stated as 285 when the Emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into two autonomous halves. The Arabic invasion of Byzantine territory began in the 630s. The Turks appeared on the Byzantine borders in the tenth century. So the conquest of Byzantine Empire by the two Muslim groups was most certainly an aggressive act.

News Flash: It was the middle ages, there was no such thing as international law, you could do whatever you wanted given your power, the Christians and the Muslims did conquests because that was the way of things, nothing more.

News Flash: It was the middle ages, there was no such thing as international law, you could do whatever you wanted given your power, the Christians and the Muslims did conquests because that was the way of things, nothing more.

I do not deny your point but regardless it was still an act of aggression. I am not condemning the Turks or Arabs for their aggression. My point was that you were incorrect in stating that the Byzantine Empire was the aggressor.