So your point was that I -- a person you had no knowledge of until after you made said point -- is retarded? Your level of brainpower is simply astonishing.
Yes, because everyone knows that peoples' lives get really fucked up from Slashdot postings. Yes, your posts were completely devoid of hyperbole and relied on strict logic. Yes, your rationalizations for fucking up peoples' lives are much more interesting than mine. Yes, you stuck 100% with facts and didn't rely on ranting like a complete fucking lunatic. Yes, my opinion that I am mostly free DOES "fuck up" other people. </SARCASM> Yes, I am an asshole, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you're a brainless troll.
> Simple denial of facts you don't like doesn't entitle you to any respect when you open your mouth in public.
Yet you demand respect for spouting complete nonsense OVER, and OVER? It's one thing to state your opinion and argue it. It's another thing entirely to keep repeating yourself, screaming as loud as you can, without adding anything new yourself.
> Or at least disagree with some substance
Do you think about what you are saying? You said "All nonconsensual pollution should be prohibited" and I pointed out that there are certain freedoms which are designed to stop you from trying to make illegal every little thing you disagree with.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, THAT'S WHAT I'M SPEAKING: LEARN IT.
> All nonconsensual pollution should be prohibited
I don't consent to your noise pollution: listening to you whine about things that don't pose half the risk you claim they do... however, I'm still not calling for a ban on your mouth.
He said "real pirates." REAL pirates wouldn't be so unsuccessful in taking over a ship. I'm thinking that they also would not be using rocket-propelled grenades.
If Comcast can give me movies for $2 each, downloads can darn well be downloaded for less than $8. Of course, it's certainly better than the hundred-thousand dollar lawsuits...
> In a word, ID is the same old creationist bullshit rehashed to make it less obvious.
Hey, that's 11 words! And therefore, since one part of your argument was incorrect, that means the whole thing is incorrect. Or at least, that's the First Law of Dave's Scientific Method of Discrediting Science and Proving Intelligent Design!
> > Who the FUCK said SETI was science, so I can beat their ass? > SETI itself?. A quote from their webpage: "SETI@home is a scientific experiment
Need to work on your reading comprehension. SETI is an EXPERIMENT. Do you not realize that "a scientific experiment" != "science?" An experiment is a single test, science is a method of obtaining information.
To make a strange analogy, I can do something LOVINGLY without being IN LOVE. I can do something SCIENTIFICALLY without it being SCIENCE.
> Before the first sin there was no death and therefore could not have been evolution before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe Genesis to be the word of God and believe in evolution at the same time.
Before the first life there was no death and therefore could not have been death before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe in life and believe in death at the same time.
Your argument makes very little sense, unless you are saying that God could not have created evolution (change, chaos) after sin, or perhaps created it beforehand while protecting A&E from its effects? I'm not a Christian, but most Christians I know don't put such limits on the power of their God.
> In any rational person's mind, there is much more to the question of the existence of God [...] than supplying a mechanism for transforming biological mass from one form to the next
Can you explain why that is necessarily true? So if I believed that God "created" us/evolutionary processes and then abandoned us -- after all, he never did anything I asked, even when I was way-too-Christian -- I must be an inherently irrational person?
> If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion
Partially correct: It means that you must not bring religion into it at all, because religion is not testable/falsifiable. What wacky beliefs you practice at home is your own decision, but too many creationists hide behind the facade of ID to force their views of God on everyone's children. I'll concede that there may be an ID supporter who is not a creationist -- besides those who think the "creator" is an alien race -- but I have never met one.
I may not understand what they mean by "neutral," but couldn't that be construed to mean any open standard? Otherwise, XML doesn't transfer data at all, let alone in a neutral format. The format is defined by the use!
Except stops all your incoming traffic from people who bookmarked your URL with the domain name and them assume your site went down when it no longer works. Saying Domain Names are nothing is utter bullshit, an extremely miniscule number of people use IP addresses to get to ANY website.
> perhaps the increased brain cell growth is actually due to the brain damage occurring due to this drug
I don't believe so, as they would have had a control group to compare, I would hope. Not only that, but these rats were probably not long-term marijuana abusers:) PROBABLY.
> you really need to bump your humour detector up a notch
Are you sure the problem wasn't with your humo(u)r emitter? My detector is quite sensitive and found no indication that said post was intended to be humo(u)rous. You misrepresented the facts (evidently to create the humo(u)r, not to misinform), you did not put a humo(u)rous spin on them. Not that I really care, nor does it truly affect anyone. I just feel like I have to post this... because I'm here.
Anyway, it's a good thing you included "artificial" in that sentence, because I know quite a few people who have conducted marijuana "expiriments" on their cats & dogs, and the answer is "yes," they do get munchies.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, I said "I is..." damn you, Karma.
So your point was that I -- a person you had no knowledge of until after you made said point -- is retarded? Your level of brainpower is simply astonishing.
Wow, you make an amazing observation: different people have different opinions! And here, I thought everyone on Slashdot thought exactly the same way.
Yes, because everyone knows that peoples' lives get really fucked up from Slashdot postings.
Yes, your posts were completely devoid of hyperbole and relied on strict logic.
Yes, your rationalizations for fucking up peoples' lives are much more interesting than mine.
Yes, you stuck 100% with facts and didn't rely on ranting like a complete fucking lunatic.
Yes, my opinion that I am mostly free DOES "fuck up" other people.
</SARCASM>
Yes, I am an asshole, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you're a brainless troll.
> Simple denial of facts you don't like doesn't entitle you to any respect when you open your mouth in public.
Yet you demand respect for spouting complete nonsense OVER, and OVER? It's one thing to state your opinion and argue it. It's another thing entirely to keep repeating yourself, screaming as loud as you can, without adding anything new yourself.
> Or at least disagree with some substance
Do you think about what you are saying? You said "All nonconsensual pollution should be prohibited" and I pointed out that there are certain freedoms which are designed to stop you from trying to make illegal every little thing you disagree with.
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, THAT'S WHAT I'M SPEAKING: LEARN IT.
> All nonconsensual pollution should be prohibited
I don't consent to your noise pollution: listening to you whine about things that don't pose half the risk you claim they do... however, I'm still not calling for a ban on your mouth.
He said "real pirates." REAL pirates wouldn't be so unsuccessful in taking over a ship. I'm thinking that they also would not be using rocket-propelled grenades.
If Comcast can give me movies for $2 each, downloads can darn well be downloaded for less than $8. Of course, it's certainly better than the hundred-thousand dollar lawsuits...
> how would you design an experiment that would demonstrate that macro-evolution was false?
Easy. The first step is to build a time machine...
> In a word, ID is the same old creationist bullshit rehashed to make it less obvious.
Hey, that's 11 words! And therefore, since one part of your argument was incorrect, that means the whole thing is incorrect. Or at least, that's the First Law of Dave's Scientific Method of Discrediting Science and Proving Intelligent Design!
> > Who the FUCK said SETI was science, so I can beat their ass?
> SETI itself?. A quote from their webpage: "SETI@home is a scientific experiment
Need to work on your reading comprehension. SETI is an EXPERIMENT. Do you not realize that "a scientific experiment" != "science?" An experiment is a single test, science is a method of obtaining information.
To make a strange analogy, I can do something LOVINGLY without being IN LOVE. I can do something SCIENTIFICALLY without it being SCIENCE.
> Before the first sin there was no death and therefore could not have been evolution before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe Genesis to be the word of God and believe in evolution at the same time.
Before the first life there was no death and therefore could not have been death before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe in life and believe in death at the same time.
Your argument makes very little sense, unless you are saying that God could not have created evolution (change, chaos) after sin, or perhaps created it beforehand while protecting A&E from its effects? I'm not a Christian, but most Christians I know don't put such limits on the power of their God.
> In any rational person's mind, there is much more to the question of the existence of God [...] than supplying a mechanism for transforming biological mass from one form to the next
Can you explain why that is necessarily true? So if I believed that God "created" us/evolutionary processes and then abandoned us -- after all, he never did anything I asked, even when I was way-too-Christian -- I must be an inherently irrational person?
> If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion
Partially correct: It means that you must not bring religion into it at all, because religion is not testable/falsifiable. What wacky beliefs you practice at home is your own decision, but too many creationists hide behind the facade of ID to force their views of God on everyone's children. I'll concede that there may be an ID supporter who is not a creationist -- besides those who think the "creator" is an alien race -- but I have never met one.
I may not understand what they mean by "neutral," but couldn't that be construed to mean any open standard? Otherwise, XML doesn't transfer data at all, let alone in a neutral format. The format is defined by the use!
> If it's such a big deal who controls the internet, start your own.
Yeah, if you don't like the phone company, start your own phone network.
If you don't like the rules about swearing and having music on HAM radio, make your own radio that operates at a frequency not regulated by the FCC...
Just because someone can, as you say, "start their own," it does not mean it is a realistic or even acceptable answer.
> Taking away your domain name does NOTHING
Except stops all your incoming traffic from people who bookmarked your URL with the domain name and them assume your site went down when it no longer works. Saying Domain Names are nothing is utter bullshit, an extremely miniscule number of people use IP addresses to get to ANY website.
> I think there are a lot of Americans collectively wishing for [California to disappear]
Not a "lot," only people like you, who think that people with differing opinions don't deserve any say in your country.
> our new Overlords to whom we bow down?
Or perhaps, "to whom we bow-wow?"
Sorry...
Amazing that the Ancient Chinese knew what a "gravity well" was....
> politicians would ensure their constituents have high quality services, they wouldn't risk their political hides over a fibre cable
Yes, because the threat of losing the next election has kept them so corruption-free and kept them making decisions that help us all SO FAR.......
> but on the off chance this [...] works for humans ... anyone got a light?
But dude, I like... already gave it to you, man. You musta' forgot!
> This looks like NS is trying to keep out of the political crossfire on the marijuana debate
I don't think that is the case. New Scientist has had some articles that could be considered "pro-marijuana," or at least non-negative. (one example)
> perhaps the increased brain cell growth is actually due to the brain damage occurring due to this drug
:) PROBABLY.
I don't believe so, as they would have had a control group to compare, I would hope. Not only that, but these rats were probably not long-term marijuana abusers
> you really need to bump your humour detector up a notch
:)
Are you sure the problem wasn't with your humo(u)r emitter? My detector is quite sensitive and found no indication that said post was intended to be humo(u)rous. You misrepresented the facts (evidently to create the humo(u)r, not to misinform), you did not put a humo(u)rous spin on them. Not that I really care, nor does it truly affect anyone. I just feel like I have to post this... because I'm here.
Anyway, it's a good thing you included "artificial" in that sentence, because I know quite a few people who have conducted marijuana "expiriments" on their cats & dogs, and the answer is "yes," they do get munchies.