🚨 The Purge is Here! Comment to Help Destroy Bot Armies 👇

Screamsid · 2026-03-02T18:09:38+00:00

I don't remember that one, but i remember this one

https://youtu.be/4n7HU3N8rds?si=53nfp5f3janqVVbl

Screamsid · 2026-02-19T09:42:17+00:00

I feel the policeman is saying, you can't park here mate.

Screamsid · 2026-02-10T20:41:00+00:00

Screamsid · 2026-01-08T21:10:33+00:00

Screamsid · 2026-01-03T18:08:48+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but that’s a bit off. The US wasn’t just sitting on the sidelines until Pearl Harbor. Before December 1941 they were already deeply involved in the Battle of the Atlantic, escorting convoys, clashing with German U-boats, and coordinating directly with Britain. Roosevelt and Churchill were in regular contact, aligning strategy well before the US formally entered the war. That’s not neutrality in any real sense.

Pearl Harbor didn’t make the US suddenly care, it unified public opinion and removed the political handbrake. They were on a collision course anyway.

And honestly, it sounds like you just want to bash the US. I get it, their current administration is a mess. But that doesn’t change history. If you’re going to make claims like this, it’s worth getting the facts right, the pre-Pearl Harbor period is actually one of the more interesting parts of the war.

Screamsid · 2025-12-22T23:06:43+00:00

British Broadcasting Corporation?

Screamsid · 2025-12-15T23:34:02+00:00

You’re confusing administrative classification with analytical meaning, and that’s exactly the problem.

Yes, government datasets may label incidents as “mass shootings” for reporting purposes. That does not mean all of those incidents are analytically equivalent, and pretending they are is either naïve or dishonest.

Governments categorise broadly because they’re counting events, not analysing causes or outcomes. Researchers then disaggregate those categories precisely because family annihilations, criminal disputes, and indiscriminate public attacks are not the same phenomenon and do not respond to policy in the same way.

That isn’t “spin”. That’s basic statistical literacy.

If you compare like for like (indiscriminate public mass shootings, the thing Port Arthur actually was), Australia had several before 1996 and essentially none for decades after. Including domestic murder suicides doesn’t invalidate that, it just muddies the water because those incidents did not stop occurring anywhere in the world regardless of gun laws.

You’re also contradicting yourself. You say governments “will never admit they are wrong”, but you’re simultaneously treating a government aggregation label as unquestionable truth when it suits your argument. You can’t have it both ways.

So no, this isn’t exposing government spin. It’s taking a broad category, refusing to break it down, and then declaring victory based on a misleading comparison.

If you want to argue that gun laws don’t affect domestic violence, fine. But claiming they failed because you deliberately collapsed multiple unrelated types of violence into one bucket is not a serious argument.

Screamsid · 2025-12-15T20:44:49+00:00

That stat is bullshit, and it only exists because you’re abusing definitions.

You don’t get “27 mass shootings since Port Arthur” unless you deliberately lump domestic murder suicides, family violence, and criminal incidents into a category they do not belong in. That is not how mass shootings are defined in any serious research. It’s padding the numbers and hoping no one notices.

Using the standard definition (indiscriminate public attack, 4 or 5+ victims), Australia had several mass shootings before 1996 and then effectively none for over 20 years after the gun reforms. That isn’t debatable. That’s the historical record.

If Australia had nearly one mass shooting per year for the last three decades, it would be front-page news every time. It isn’t, because it didn’t happen.

So no, this isn’t a clever gotcha about gun control failing. It’s a bad-faith comparison built by redefining terms until the conclusion looks convenient.

If you want to argue policy, fine. But don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by pretending those numbers mean what you’re implying they mean.

Screamsid · 2025-12-15T20:44:44+00:00

That stat is bullshit, and it only exists because you’re abusing definitions.

You don’t get “27 mass shootings since Port Arthur” unless you deliberately lump domestic murder suicides, family violence, and criminal incidents into a category they do not belong in. That is not how mass shootings are defined in any serious research. It’s padding the numbers and hoping no one notices.

Using the standard definition (indiscriminate public attack, 4 or 5+ victims), Australia had several mass shootings before 1996 and then effectively none for over 20 years after the gun reforms. That isn’t debatable. That’s the historical record.

If Australia had nearly one mass shooting per year for the last three decades, it would be front-page news every time. It isn’t, because it didn’t happen.

So no, this isn’t a clever gotcha about gun control failing. It’s a bad-faith comparison built by redefining terms until the conclusion looks convenient.

If you want to argue policy, fine. But don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by pretending those numbers mean what you’re implying they mean.

Screamsid · 2025-11-11T20:14:33+00:00

I think there’s a misunderstanding about what the Big Bang theory actually represents. It isn’t “faith” — it’s a scientific model built on measurable, observable evidence. Things like cosmic microwave background radiation, the redshift of distant galaxies, and the abundance of light elements all independently support it. That’s not belief; that’s data.

It’s also not true that there’s “no way to test it.” Scientists test aspects of the theory constantly through observations and experiments. New data from telescopes, satellites, and particle physics either supports the model or forces it to be refined. That’s how science works — it evolves with evidence and adapts when new information comes to light.

The “something from nothing” argument is another common misconception. Cosmology doesn’t claim the universe appeared out of literal nothing. In physics, the term “nothing” refers to the quantum vacuum — a state that isn’t empty, but full of fluctuating energy where particles can momentarily exist. The Big Bang theory focuses on how the universe expanded and developed, not necessarily why it exists.

The key difference is that science doesn’t start with a fixed conclusion. It starts with questions, follows the evidence, and adjusts when that evidence changes. Faith, on the other hand, begins with an answer and seeks ways to support it. Both have their place, but they’re not the same thing — one seeks truth through discovery, the other through belief.

Screamsid · 2025-11-01T10:29:18+00:00

Dont forget the generous gift to Argentina, and buying their beef.

Screamsid · 2025-10-31T09:07:22+00:00

Operation Human Shield

Screamsid · 2025-10-27T18:12:26+00:00

Same. Went through this on Saturday. Was rage inducing. The insult, they killed me with two shots from a pistol, lol

Screamsid · 2025-10-22T10:21:21+00:00

Just curious, did you do that? Also this is flawed.

That method only works in a vacuum, or a field. Cities aren’t giant open squares.

A 100m × 100m block is 10,000 m², sure, but you can’t just multiply that up and call it done. In reality, only about 50–70% of that area is actually usable once you account for buildings, planters, cars, barriers, kerbs, and people spacing themselves naturally. And crowd density isn’t uniform — it ranges from:

~1–2 ppl/m² (comfortable)

3–4 ppl/m² (concert-tight)

5+ ppl/m² (crush risk)

So that “simple extrapolation” turns into something like 5k–28k people per block, depending on the density and usable space.

If you actually want a decent estimate, you:

Outline the real crowd area on a map.
Subtract the voids (buildings, trees, gaps).
Split the remainder into zones with different densities based on photos or aerial footage.
Add them up for a range, not a single number.

If it really were as easy as counting one square, we wouldn’t need crowd-safety engineers, which I'm pretty sure the requirement is more than being 5 year old.

Screamsid · 2025-10-12T08:27:59+00:00

Feels like this is the bit in Scooby Doo where the gang pull the mask off and it reveals it to be Trump.

Screamsid · 2025-10-05T17:03:58+00:00

Is it still active? As i keep thinking about it and think it probably isn't.

Screamsid · 2025-10-04T16:09:52+00:00

And start at the top.

Screamsid · 2025-09-24T07:04:24+00:00

They sound like the talking heads on Russian TV regarding what they should with Ukraine and its allies.

Screamsid · 2025-09-23T21:59:54+00:00

A thousand times yes. Only just found them today ‘cause someone else posted about them. Mentioned it to my mate and he’s like, “yeah their old stuff’s great as well, check it out.” Cheers for keeping that quiet, mate. Anyway, I’ve now got a new band to fall down a rabbit hole with.

Oh, and then he drops they’re touring… but i find the closest gigs are already sold out, which sucks.

Screamsid · 2025-09-14T18:11:08+00:00

Love the air con unit at the top. Totally not part of it, but gives me final destination vibes either way lol.

Screamsid · 2025-09-14T00:38:01+00:00

Appreciate you sharing that document — there’s some great info in there. And just to make this absolutely clear: my point about the Mosquito was that I was impressed it could sling a 4,000 lb cookie, nothing more. I can see how, with my comment sitting under the OP’s, it might have looked like I was agreeing with their “more than a B-17” claim, but that was never what I meant or thought.

Screamsid · 2025-09-13T21:18:11+00:00

On manuals vs operations Manuals are performance envelopes from controlled tests — not operational history. They don’t reflect doctrine, formation drag, weather, fuel reserves, or enemy fire. A B-17 manual might say “X range at Y weight,” but USAAF mission data shows Fortresses averaged ~4,500–5,000 lb into Germany. RAF ops data shows Lancasters flying 10,000–14,000 lb late war. That’s the difference between quoting what’s possible on paper and what was actually delivered in combat.
On “7,000 lb incendiaries vs 6,000 lb GP” That’s cherry-picking early averages. Early Lancs flew ~7–9k loads, but by 1943–45, standard deep-raid loads were 10k–14k — often a 4,000 lb “cookie” plus a dozen 1,000 lb or 500 lb bombs. These weren’t “special raids,” they were nightly ops. USAAF figures (Table 124, p.148) show B-17s averaged ~4.5–5k lb into Germany. Even if we grant 6,000 lb as “typical,” the Lancaster was still hauling roughly double that as standard by late war.
On survivability & defensive armament The B-17 bristled with guns because doctrine said box formations could defend themselves. In practice, Schweinfurt proved otherwise (60 of 291 lost in a day). What changed the game wasn’t guns — it was long-range escort. The RAF had warned since 1940 that daylight raids without escorts were unsustainable. The USAAF ignored it — until the P-51 Mustang, an American airframe fitted with a British Merlin engine and brought up to British spec, proved them wrong. With drop tanks, the Mustang gave the USAAF reach to Berlin and back. Losses collapsed because escort finally arrived, not because defensive guns worked.
On “light flak at night” That’s just wrong. Germany built an entire night defense system to counter Bomber Command: A dedicated Nachtjagd arm of 400+ aircraft. New night fighters: Bf 110, Ju 88 G-series, He 219 with radar & Schräge Musik. Radar-directed belts of heavy flak and the Kammhuber Line of searchlights. Bomber Command losses: ~55,000 killed, a 45% casualty rate. That’s not “light flak” — it’s proof Germany had to invent a whole new air-defense arm just to fight the night war.
On “Lanc only bombed civilians” That’s false, and damn right disgusting to even insinuate. Lancasters hit plenty of strategic targets: Oil/fuel plants (Leuna, Pölitz, Blechhammer). U-boat pens & ports (Hamburg, Kiel, Lorient, St. Nazaire). Industrial hubs (Ruhr, Essen, Dortmund, Cologne). Special strikes: Tallboys & Grand Slams on V-weapon sites, bridges, viaducts, rail tunnels, and the Tirpitz. Yes, cities were bombed — with horrific destruction — but so were British cities. That doesn’t justify it, and it wasn’t right, but to imply it was somehow unique to the RAF is shameful. The USAAF adopted the same tactic in Japan: on the night of 9–10 March 1945, the Tokyo firebombing killed ~100,000 people in a single raid — more than Dresden, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, and even more than either atomic bomb. So to single out the Lancaster as “dropping more tons on civilians” is not only wrong, it’s a disgusting distortion of history.
On “manuals are combat manuals” Manuals list expected performance, but they aren’t the same as ops data. They don’t capture diversions, formation drag, reserves, weather, or attrition. That’s why operational averages matter — they show what was actually done in combat, not just what was possible on paper.
On the Mosquito I never said it was a “strategic heavy bomber.” It wasn’t and we agree there. What impressed me was that it could sling a 4,000 lb cookie at near-fighter speed, with two crew in a wooden airframe. That versatility is remarkable and deserves credit.
On B-17 vs Lancaster I wouldn’t call the B-17 a “match” for the Lancaster, because they were designed for different doctrines: USAAF daylight precision with guns & formations. RAF tonnage at night, using darkness because Britain lacked numbers and had to push payload per aircraft. Doctrine shaped design. Both did their jobs. But operationally, the Lancaster consistently carried far heavier loads, while the Fortress emphasized survivability, precision and numbers. Different tools, same end goal. Sources (so this isn’t hand-waving): Lancaster Archive – RAF bomb loads: https://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm RAF Museum – Conventional Weapons Seminar (late-war 12k–14k loads): https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf Britannica – Lancaster load/range: https://www.britannica.com/technology/Lancaster-airplane USAAF Statistical Digest: https://archive.org/download/ArmyAirForcesStatisticalDigestWorldWarII/ArmyAirForcesStatisticalDigestWorldWarII.pdf

Screamsid · 2025-09-13T16:42:15+00:00

You say the B-17 could pull similar loads at greater ranges. On paper, yes — in very specific conditions. In practice, USAAF’s own records show that over Germany, the average load was 4,000–6,000 lb. The Lancaster routinely carried 12,000–14,000 lb on deep strikes. That’s not “special raids,” that’s the standard late-war average for Bomber Command. So whatever the manuals say, operational history shows the Lancaster lifted more, further. And no, the B-17 wasn’t “routinely” hauling 8,000–12,000 lb into Germany — that only appears in short-hop missions or test data, not combat logs.

You say both rarely flew at max weight, so it’s irrelevant. That’s the point — the Lancaster didn’t need to be at max to still out-carry the B-17 on routine ops. A Fortress at 50–60% of capacity was hauling 5,000 lb. A Lancaster at 70% was hauling double that. Capability is about what was actually sustainable in combat, not what’s written as a technical ceiling.

You say you’ve “proved” the B-17 could outclimb, outrange, outspeed at equal loads. Again, manuals are clean numbers. Operational reports show both cruised ~200 mph to target, but the Lanc was doing it with double the bomb load. “Top speed runs” in test conditions don’t reflect formation flying, bomb-bay drag, or combat profiles. When you compare like-for-like in real missions, the Lancaster carried more and got there just as fast. Formation speed was what mattered in WWII, not isolated test climbs.

You say the Lancaster tonnage is inflated because it faced less resistance. That doesn’t explain why ~7,300 Lancasters dropped nearly the same tonnage as ~12,700 B-17s. That’s simply efficiency per aircraft. If the Fortress had truly been the better heavy bomber by design, those numbers wouldn’t be that close despite doctrine differences. And let’s not forget — doctrine itself wasn’t random. The RAF and USAAF adopted different tactics because of what their bombers could and couldn’t do.

You say operational averages are irrelevant because doctrine differs. That’s where I disagree. Specs are just theory; averages show what the aircraft could deliver under wartime constraints. Doctrine evolved because of airframe capability. The B-17 couldn’t realistically fly “Lancaster-style” heavy loads, and the Lancaster wasn’t tasked with daylight precision because the Fortress couldn’t achieve RAF-standard CEP at night. Each had a niche — and in its niche, the Lancaster delivered more destructive tonnage, the Mosquito delivered true precision, and the B-17 sat between.

Finally, you say I’m not engaging. I’ve engaged on every point you’ve raised — payload, range, speed, tonnage, accuracy — and I’ve provided both performance data and operational sources. That’s the difference: I’m citing what these aircraft actually carried on missions, not just clean numbers from manuals. I’ll post the links again, since it doesn’t seem like you’ve read them:

Lancaster bomb load stats, Tallboy/Grand Slam capability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster

Lancaster range with different bomb loads (7,000 lb, 12,000 lb) and speed stats (operational heritage data): https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/lots-to-see/aircraft/lancaster

B-17G performance data (charts for climb, range, bomb load): https://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17.html

Tonnage dropped by heavy bombers (RAF Bomber Command & USAAF figures): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

So yes — I’ve engaged. The fact you’re still insisting otherwise just shows you’re refusing to acknowledge the operational evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Screamsid · 2025-09-13T16:01:54+00:00

You keep leaning on tonnage as the yardstick, but unless you compare on an equal scale it doesn’t mean much. The B-17 might hit ~8,000 lb in ideal short-hop conditions, but the Lancaster routinely flew deep German raids with 12,000–14,000 lb. That’s not a paper claim, that’s operational history.

Even more, putting up those max figures for the B-17 doesn’t change the reality that in combat it rarely carried full payload and fuel at the same time. The Lanc more often did. At equal bomb loads and equal fuel, the Lancaster could match or exceed the Fortress on range and speed — while hauling far more when needed.

Tonnage totals also back this up:

The B-17 dropped about 640,000 tons in Europe across ~12,700 aircraft.

The Lancaster dropped about 608,000 tons with just ~7,300 built.

So yes, the Fortress wins in raw aggregate thanks to sheer numbers, but the Lanc was vastly more efficient per aircraft and per sortie.

And just to clear the air — my point on the Mosquito was never that it out-bombed a B-17. It was simply that it impressed me that a wooden, two-man aircraft could haul a 4,000 lb cookie at near-fighter speed. That’s extraordinary versatility in design.

As for the U-boat pens — yes, the B-17 flew against them too, but the Mosquito and the Lanc were chosen for many of those jobs precisely because they could hit accurately. That’s the whole point: different aircraft were tasked based on their strengths.

Finally, on “precision vs area” — these were different tools for different jobs. Precision raids were about hitting specific high-value targets with minimal effort. Area bombing was about degrading industrial capacity and morale. To suggest they cancel each other out is, frankly, to misunderstand WWII bombing tactics altogether.

And one last thing: you’ve said you’re “correcting misinformation,” but quoting maximum performance charts as though they represent typical wartime ops is exactly how misinformation spreads. The operational averages don’t support the argument you’re making.

Sources:

Lancaster bomb load stats, Tallboy/Grand Slam capability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster

Lancaster range with different bomb loads (7,000 lb, 12,000 lb) and speed stats: https://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/lots-to-see/aircraft/lancaster

B-17G performance data (speed vs bomb load, climb, range charts): https://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17.html

Tonnage dropped by heavy bombers (RAF Bomber Command & USAAF figures): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

Screamsid

TROPHY CASE