They should release dozens of "diplomatic pouches" (actually crates, big enough for a human to fit inside), only 30 seconds or so apart, while at the same time, hundreds of impersonators just walk about in front of the embassy, and surrounding streets, creating a huge confusion for the police. Meanwhile, other impersonators leave the embassy at the same time. Some through the door, others through the windows to pretend they are actually Assange trying to escape.

Previous to all that, Assange would have called a press meeting, to announce his surrender to the british authorities.

In the middle of the confusion, Assange, with black hair, slightly tanned, prosthetic nose and what not, comes out of the embassy pretending to be a reporter, with another person holding a camera pretending to be his camera-man. OR... he was in the first crate all along, and with the confusion he actually manages to escape because the police loses focus. The crate could actually contain a false bottom where he could hide if they actually got around to open it.


Or plan B: Assange, simply strolls out the door at any given minute, as if nothing was wrong, not even trying to be sneaky. He would be like Capt. Speirs in Band of Brothers.

I hope you're keeping up with your artwork. It's good stuff. Give the gwizzard my regards too. Take care.

PS: Jesus, there are a lot of new faces around here since I left. Damn kids!

In reply to this comment by Lann:
Man, they don't give out drugs for anything!

Seriously though, I've only been to the doctor a few times here so I am no expert on the system. Sometimes it takes a while if it's not an emergency but that's a decent sacrifice considering I almost never went to the doctor in the states.

I don't have a lot going on either besides language classes and some other stuff.

Anyrate, I was just seeing what an old sifter is up to. (P.S. I like the photos you got there ^)
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I'm good. Nothing exciting in my life right now. That's not always a bad thing.

And you? You still living in Danmark? How do you like socialized medicine? They've had Obamacare longer than Obama's been alive. How'd they pull that one off? Those fuckers are sneaky.
In reply to this comment by Lann:
How you doin'?

Man, they don't give out drugs for anything!

Seriously though, I've only been to the doctor a few times here so I am no expert on the system. Sometimes it takes a while if it's not an emergency but that's a decent sacrifice considering I almost never went to the doctor in the states.

I don't have a lot going on either besides language classes and some other stuff.

Anyrate, I was just seeing what an old sifter is up to. (P.S. I like the photos you got there ^)
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I'm good. Nothing exciting in my life right now. That's not always a bad thing.

And you? You still living in Danmark? How do you like socialized medicine? They've had Obamacare longer than Obama's been alive. How'd they pull that one off? Those fuckers are sneaky.
In reply to this comment by Lann:
How you doin'?

I'm good. Nothing exciting in my life right now. That's not always a bad thing.

And you? You still living in Danmark? How do you like socialized medicine? They've had Obamacare longer than Obama's been alive. How'd they pull that one off? Those fuckers are sneaky.
In reply to this comment by Lann:
How you doin'?

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

>> ^newtboy:


You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.


Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.

>> ^newtboy:

What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.


Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.

>> ^newtboy:

I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.

THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!

Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.

>> ^newtboy:

If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.


"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.

Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Well, my reading must be broken then, because I missed the bit where he won anything.
>> ^newtboy:
contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention.

So basically what you're saying is that Paul is working to subvert the will of the electorate and get in with backroom deals? Wow, what a great candidate.
He lost. Romney is the candidate. Get over it.

You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored. If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

Not offsides. Once the goalie has the ball like that, it's his bad. That only time offsides would be even in question is when the first shot was taken. And as it was taken by the player furthest towards the goal, it's impossible for that to have been offsides.

The scorer really just is a sneaky, sneaky bastard.

>> ^Quboid:

Yes @Unsung_Hero, but as I also pasted, this only applies "if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" which it does not. I even emphasised it.
I didn't stumble across the rule, I know the rules and I've read the FIFA rules handbook that I posted a section from. The time that matters is when the ball is passed by his team mate, which is never.
He was in an offside position, but that doesn't have any relevance when your team is not in possession.



"However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

With this scenario a teammate doesn't need to have touched the ball. The goal should not have been allowed and the ref SHOULD have cautioned the player, in my opinion. It is up to the ref's consideration as to whether or not the attacker gained an "unfair advantage" from leaving the field and returning. I think it's obvious but I wasn't reffing.

I do apologize for saying you "stumbled" across the FIFA Handbook. I do wish more people would read it.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.

You are offside the moment your team-mate touches the ball on - this moment didn't occur. The only thing that had occurred in the phase of play that the attacker scores from is for the goalkeeper to put the ball down. It's like when a defender plays a pass-back, if there is an attacker near the goal keeper, in an offside position, they will probably score because at no point did a team mate touch the ball towards them.
Edit - from The Rule Book (emphasis mine):

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

You should really read what you post as a reference more in depth instead of stumbling across part of the rule and pasting it as your argument...
From FIFA:

"“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that
rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside
position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having
been in an offside position"

"It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to step
off the fi eld of play to show the referee that he is not involved in active play.
However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

...Which is exactly what I was saying.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.


You are offside the moment your team-mate touches the ball on - this moment didn't occur. The only thing that had occurred in the phase of play that the attacker scores from is for the goalkeeper to put the ball down. It's like when a defender plays a pass-back, if there is an attacker near the goal keeper, in an offside position, they will probably score because at no point did a team mate touch the ball towards them.

Edit - from The Rule Book (emphasis mine):

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

>> ^EMPIRE:

I think someone really doesn't understand the offside rule.


>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
Even though I truly enjoy watching the sneakiness of the forward (Although this trick has been done many times before), he is offsides and the goal shouldn't stand.

He is not offside. The ball was not played to him by his own team. I think everyone, including the referee, realised that.


I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.

Seriously: this guy is in an offside position, but he is not offside. He's only offside if he is in an offside position when team mate passes the ball and he is interfering with play (i.e. touches the ball, blocks an opponent, etc). He certainly "interferes with play" but not from a team mate's pass so no foul.

I could see this being ruled out because the sneaky player leaves the pitch and comes back on without permission. This happens all the time (slide tackles, taking corners/throws) but I think if used to gain an advantage, a referee could pull the play up and book the player.

In this case, the guy is just coming back and takes the chance, but I've seen players go right around the back of the opponents' net to gain position and maybe catch someone out and that is pushing it.

Your video, You sneaky, sneaky bastard!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I think someone really doesn't understand the offside rule.


Nobody does, it's like quantum physics. As Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand the offside rule, you don't understand the offside rule".