|
RE: Child zombies the most dangerious zombies?
|
Discussion Forum
|
Sep 6 2008, 4:39 PM EDT |
31 |
Sep 7 2008, 6:20 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Tiny zombies would be able to fit into more places, thus giving them an easier time getting to you. They could walk through a
view reply
|
|
RE: What if the Water Supply is Infected?
|
Zombie Survival & Defense Wiki
|
Aug 13 2008, 11:54 PM EDT |
60 |
Oct 17 2008, 5:16 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Boiling for ~thirty minutes will kill any and all life in your water. It won't remove radiation or chemicals, though.
view reply
|
|
RE: Being clean?
|
Hygenics and Overall Survival
|
Aug 10 2008, 2:56 PM EDT |
45 |
Nov 30 2008, 4:43 PM EST by
|
Reply: Yeah, you really don't need to shower. As a small child I would go without bathing for months at a time, and the same
view reply
|
|
RE: The palisade
|
Mass Warfare Tactics
|
Aug 9 2008, 11:29 PM EDT |
7 |
Aug 10 2008, 6:06 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Good point.
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:48 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Take advantage of any religion they follow. Convince them that they are going against their religion if they don't follow your orders. Also promise
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:42 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: That is, Kaikelx is right. We really shouldn't have gone on for four pages about this on a thread.
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:37 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: You're right. I apologize for wasting the time of anyone interested in raiding. Jack, if you want to continue this so much, message
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:25 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: I'll stop when you stop. No sooner. This is an argument about a very vital part of being a person, and as a person
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:23 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Just a note, we keep missing your points. Maybe you should think about making your posts clearer and leaving less room for interpretation.
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 6:22 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: You have failed to disprove my final proof. Those definitions are widely accepted by English speakers, and my conclusion follows logically from the three
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 5:36 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Since we can both be proven right, let us drop it. You're right, I'm right. I'm happy, and you should be happy, too. Truce?
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 5:35 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: What gives you the right to determine whether or not my view is complete? I simply have not explained it fully, because it would
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 4:59 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: You have more intellectual might than me, so you are right. I cannot disprove your correctness because your intellectual might is so much greater
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 3:56 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Remember that there are many forms of might, not just military. Another form is intellectual might. Whoever has more of this is more likely
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 3:48 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Moral objectivists believe there is a clearly defined and unalterable set of moral rules, separate from and immune to human tampering. So really you
view reply
|
|
RE: Great Story!
|
Bill: His Story
|
Aug 9 2008, 3:12 PM EDT |
4 |
Aug 9 2008, 3:12 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Awesome!
view reply
|
|
RE: The palisade
|
Mass Warfare Tactics
|
Aug 9 2008, 3:08 PM EDT |
7 |
Aug 10 2008, 6:06 PM EDT by
|
Reply: These would be useful. A zombie impaled on a stake would be practically immobile, and much easier to snipe than a moving one.
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 2:58 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: If you fucking killed me as I tried to raid you, it would be quite obvious you had more might than me. That's not
view reply
|
|
RE: Great Story!
|
Bill: His Story
|
Aug 9 2008, 2:51 PM EDT |
4 |
Aug 9 2008, 3:12 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Very interesting start! I hope to see Bill make a few (if not a few more) genuine mistakes that have actual consequences. I'm tired
view reply
|
|
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
|
The Argument Against Raiding
|
Aug 9 2008, 2:40 PM EDT |
232 |
Aug 24 2008, 4:15 PM EDT by
|
Reply: Kick-ass war cry, right there. "Blargh! Die zombies! BLARGH!"
view reply
|