Real men don't get legal disclaimers. Pussy. Come on down. I live right at the corner of Sawyer St. and Washington Ave. About 1 block away from Dopehouse Records. It's a disheveled brown house, right on the corner. You can't miss it. Just knock on the door and ask for 'Philly'. Of course, since you're all talk, I don't have to worry about some drunk mongoloid actually showing up at my place. I told you where. The when is up to you. Bitch.
Okay, Mr. Brave. Why does the US have to invade the "Real America"? Why don't you take your big talk and invade *my* country with it? Perhaps because for all your bravado, you realize that your country would be even more my country's bitch if you tried it. I know, I know, it's hard to believe that Canada could be even more America's bitch, but that's what would happen. As for me being chicken shit, let me know the next time you plan on visiting Houston, Texas. I won't go out of my way to kick your ass, but if you're in the area I'd be delighted to perform that public service. You can meet me in the heart of the fifth ward, fool.
I don't know what would be more amusing to me: that a troll would spend so much time and effort, or that someone could actually be this stupid. Either way, it's clear that I win. Please, post another 50,000 word retort. I can always use a good laugh. As for our country invading yours...well, I'm sure some Saturday when a National Guard post doesn't have anything else to do, it'll happen. Then we can make it a crime to say 'aboot'. Oh, no, eh? What'll you guys do then, eh?
Um...I don't give a fuck if he's on the fucking French Fascist Language Committee. If he thinks that every single person on the planet who speaks French speaks it exactly the same way, he's incorrect. Anyone saying a completely insanely ridiculous thing such as that is probably stupid. I'm not mad at him or anything. I'm just making observations. It isn't like I claimed to know more French than him, or something like that where his 'authority' on the French language would actually come into play, anyhow. Also, I didn't criticise it. I'm not British. I criticized it. I'm living and letting live. If words on a screen typed by a stranger actually affect your life, you have MUCH bigger problems than my critique. (note: hopefully you do anyway, because if some random grammar Nazi correcting your use of the English language actually causes you a problem in the slightest, you should seek counseling. Immediately.)
Yeah, if not for Canada, 20 or 30 nazis would have survived the war. Whoop de fucking do.
- Real American live in a democratic country !
Yeah, whatever. Not only does your government cave like a milk carton under a jackboot to America's least whim, you still pay tribute to a fucking monarch. Yet, you call yourself democratic. You're either ignorant or dumb.
- Real American fight for freedom to the death !
Yeah, what is your country fighting? Moose? Elk? Lumberjacks?
- Real American Liberated Europe from the Nazi by fighting the war from end to finish, both time!
Yeah, I'm sure all 15 of you were a big contribution to the war effort. You know, you hitched rides over there on our vehicles. But, like, live the dream, dude.
- Real American are Noble
I've seen no evidence for this assertion.
- Real American are defender of Americas
Again, from whom? It's real fucking difficult to defend against invisible fucking nonexistent enemies. Good job!
- Real American live in america
There's North America, Central America, and South America. Then there's The United States of America. Basically, either you're lumping yourself in with over 1/3 of the world's population, in which case big fucking deal, or you're excluding everyone who's not in America, such as you. Either way, is that something to be proud of, taking a shitload of time to think up all the words to fit your inane acronym?
- Real American earned there Country
Real American earned there Country? That sentence is so fucked up it makes my inner child cry. First of all, you meant 'Real Americans earned their country'. Second of all, how the fuck did Canada earn shit? You got a country without doing a fucking thing. Good job, that takes a lot of doing. This again makes it look like you're referring to Americans, both because you capitalized it and because we fought a fucking war with the country whose monarch you still honor for our fucking country.
- Real American are not afraid of terrorist
This one is so obvious as to defy comprehension. I don't know a single person who's afraid of terrorists. Besides, your damn country does whatever it can to placate terrorists. If not from fear, why?
Well, this was fun. I know that, like my last post, you'll be unable to comprehend most of what I said. That's ok. You'll always be our wacky, lovable screwball neighbor upstairs. Oh, Canada.
Hey guy, cool down, guy, eh. I spelled it Canadia because you call yourselves Canadians, not Canadans. Sorry it went over your head, with its giant flapping mouth and beady little eyes. Also, the ironic part about travel plans also went over your moose-humping, molson-swilling head. I did not actually have any intention of visiting. I'm sure your blatant lack of humor and anti-Americanism will convince me to visit your "lovely" country. (The previous sentence is sarcastic.) Have a nice day! (Is the previous sentence sarcastic as well? It's a reader excercise. What have you learned?)
Actually, Homer's set up as a lovable oaf so that most of what he says is dumb. That way, there's more effect when he says something insightful. I'm truly sorry for you that you weren't able to figure that out on your own.
Before you slam on English too hard, perhaps you'd care to learn it? First of all, the phrase 'every corner people' does not make sense. Perhaps you meant 'every corner person'? This still doesn't make any sense, since as far as I know the only 'corner person' is the second ringside assistant to a boxer, but it is at least grammatically correct. Perhaps you really did mean that the people who wipe blood off boxers and force feed them water re-write the English language, in which (not wich, which) case you're simply insane. Of course, as you're from Canadia, that wouldn't surprise me. Now, what about contractions? 'Its' is the possessive form of 'it'. For example, "The door was knocked off its hinges." 'It's' is the contracted form of 'it is'. For example, "Can we leave at four o'clock? It's 3:30 now." A simple test to see if you're using the correct spelling follows: read your sentence and replace either "its" or "it's" with "it is". If the sentence still makes sense, use "it's". You are incorrect and probably stupid if you think that every French-speaker in the entire world speaks exactly the same language. The fact that more people speak English than French world-wide indicates to me that English is at least as real a language as French. Additionally, you may be a North American but you are not a 'Real American'. You guys should have called your country 'Real America' instead of 'Canada'. I blame you completely.
On the subject of Canada and the Simpsons, Homer said it best when he said: "Canada? Why should we leave America to visit America Junior?"
Hopefully I've been trolled, because if this is an average Canadian, I think I'll have to cancel my summer travel plans.
I agree 100%. That's why I've never understood this insistence that men and women are exactly the same, oh, well, apart from those physical differences. It's always seemed rather foolish to me to assert that there are no differences caused BY the difference in anatomy, much less any others not related to anatomy. I feel that the situation won't improve if we categorically label any attempt to even explore differences between men and women at the biological level as sexist. It's true that creating artificial differences serves to divide, but then wouldn't understanding actual ones and making the distinction between real and artificial differences help?
Well, men are told to shut up, quit whining, and take it like a man. Wouldn't equality dictate that women in the same situation be told the same thing? Would it not be sexist to treat women different simply because they're women? I'm just curious, here. No need for offense or attacks. Thanks. On a side note, I'm amazed by how many 'feminists' I've known who firmly believe that no man should ever hit any women no matter what. I'm sorry, I'm a big believer in equality and so if some woman starts talking shit and/or throws a punch at me, I'm going to lay her out like I would a man who did the same thing. I've just had personal experience with a lot of women who think I'm sexist for holding that point of view. Seems like many feminists believe not that women = men, but that women >= men. Shame on you!
Had you read his comments, you'd realize that he did not say 'there are fewer women in math and science because women aren't as good as math and science'. He said 'There are fewer women than men in math and science. We should explore the reasons, including biological ones if they indeed exist.' [paraphrased]
What you are saying is that even if there are biological differences which relate to aptitudes for math and science, you can't postulate them because then you're a "biggot"[sic]. How about height differences between the average Asian and the average American? Yes, there are short Americans and tall Asians. That doesn't mean that Americans and Asians are all equally tall, does it? Of course not. The *fact* is, there are fewer women than men in fields of math and science. Why? NO ONE KNOWS. Thus, we don't know if it's biological, social, a combination, or neither. Why is this issue different from average height, or center of gravity, or upper body strength? There are of course exceptions to every generalization, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. Men and women are biologically different. We simply don't know the extent of those differences. Pretending that men and women are identical is ludicrous. Stating that they're equal is obvious. Why do people confuse equality with sameness? They aren't equivalent. Women have exactly the same RIGHT to be in math and science fields that men have. They are either not choosing to excercise it or they aren't as genetically motivated to do so or there is something else causing the dearth of female mathematicians and scientists. Instead of going on and on about how there can't possibly be any explanation, wouldn't we be better served at least ruling out biology as a cause of the problem? I mean, if we're really working towards a solution and not simply wishing to substitute our own pretend version of reality for the actual reality.
Sales aren't down. Sales are up, even though the total number of artists releasing albums is down. The RIAA pretends like they would have made billions more dollars if not for file-sharing, etc. However, they're making more money than they ever have before. Seems pretty fucking greedy to complain about 'lost sales' when you're selling more crap than ever before. Also, people DO buy full albums. If no one liked pop music, it wouldn't be popular music. Just because you aren't getting what you want from record companies does not mean that no one else is. Damn, that's a pretty egotistical point of view, isn't it? That if you don't like something, no one else can either? Holy arrogance, Batman.
Well, the problem with your knee-jerk, elitist attitude is that indeed many people will listen to them. See, that's why they're called 'hits'. Because they're popular. You know, with some of those millions of other humans on this planet who are not you. Sure, I might not like pop music, you might not like pop music...let's say a majority of readers of this site don't like pop music. Fine. That only leaves millions of people who do like it. Yes, it's crap. Yes, it's derivative garbage. Yes, pop music blows goats. However, you must accept that this opinion, our opinion, is not universally shared. The fact is, if everyone shared the opinion about pop music that we share, it wouldn't be popular music. Look, just accept that sometimes other people, perhaps even quite a lot of them, are going to like something you dislike. For example, even though I am aware that olives are nature's worst mistake, other people seem to actually enjoy them. It's inconceivable to me, but it does appear to be true. Oddly enough, it turns out that I can dislike olives and others can like them with absolutely no repercussions. I suggest you try the following: continue disliking pop music, and continue not buying it. Then let people who do like it continue to buy it. Then simply call yourself superior and go about your business. Now, you've successfully dealt with other people's lack of good taste. Congratulations!
You're wrong. It had NOTHING to do with the Bible. It was proposed in order to 'simplify' math for those poor kids. It's too hard for them to learn pi so we need to change pi to make it easier. I fucking HATE federalized education. That's a fucking oxymoron, if you ask me.
You didn't understand the post you replied to. He clearly stated that it was the center of the observable universe. It's all a matter of your frame of reference. It's like, all relative, or something.
yeah...you know, that *could* work! In fact, if you had RTFA or if you kept up with tech news, you'd know that processors of this type are currently available. They're called 'multicore processors', and they aren't exactly new (although Intel and AMD won't have them for another year or two).
If you could make crack out of, say, milk and bread and salt, then it would be pointless to ban crack. That is, in essence, what Mr. Felton's trying to say. It isn't that his is faster or easier, it's that it's *so* fast and simple to do that concurrent development is inevitable. Hope that helps. Please note that his argument isn't predicated on the ethics of file-sharing. Also, your post seems to indicate that you don't believe there are valid reasons to make crack legal. While I don't smoke crack nor suggest that anyone else do so, there *are* perfectly valid reasons for making it legal.
Religion doesn't make people moral. It imposes a moral code upon them, with consequences for violating that code. Atheists may also choose an external moral model, but it is not forced upon them as it is upon religious people. The fact that many people claim to be religious while violating the moral code that is imposed does not negate the fact that the moral code is there. Similarly, joining a club which has specific rules does not guarantee that the joiner will follow those rules. It merely imposes consequences for breaking them. As the consequences for breaking religious codes are not experienced until after death, violaters seem to act with impunity. Of course, I'm greatly simplifying here and am ignoring additional outside-imposed moral codes such as legal codes. (anyone who says you can't legislate morality is a twit, as laws are simply society-specific codified morals)
Yes. You sure did get me. Even though I didn't proclaim my beliefs at all, you assumed. I'm not a Bible-thumper. I haven't ever thumped a single Bible in my entire life. It wasn't that I was offended by what you said, it was that it was derogatory, even though you claimed to only have used logic in your post. Attempt to justify all you wish. It makes you look silly. You claim it is me who interpreted the word wrong. I claim it was someone translating a long time ago. Why is my claim that someone else mistranslated absurd but your claim that *I* mistranslated not absurd? I thought you liked logic. You attacked me personally. You didn't say 'and now some Catholics should go sodomize small boys'. Dipshit. I only sodomize women (age 18 and over), and I'm not Catholic, nor of any other organized religion. Nor am I atheist. Before you condemn my beliefs, you should find out what they are. Of course, I haven't told you yet, and with the level of your discourse to date I'm not likely to. You lecture me on word meanings, and then you don't even know what rhetorical means? Holy shit. That's just funny. How does the subject of your insult make it any less personal? Had you told me to go kill a few Moors like in the Crusades, that would still be a personal attack, as it would imply my willingness to do so. Your stupidity is truly staggering. Don't forget to breathe.
Yes...calling the OP a bible-thumper, using phrases like 'welcome to science!', and blowing off religion entirely by claiming that it's 'people making guesses' shows utmost respect.
1. You believe that life happened somehow. It doesn't matter to me *what* your specific belief is, as none of them have been proven. Whatever you believe is a 'guess' and therefore you needn't have stated your specific belief. In fact, if you want to prove me wrong, create some life out of non-life. What I was doing was pointing out that it is impossible to live without faith, because as much as we know and can prove, there is also much we do not know and cannot prove. I'm sorry if you don't like this fact, but that doesn't change it. 2. Pointing out 'logical flaws' with 'logical flaws' isn't..erm...logical.
It wasn't because you responded to his point that I accused you of 'picking' your argument. It was your refusal to learn about the language used in Genesis. You used a mistranslation to make something appear different than it is. Your response indicates that you did it purposefully.
I'm one of 'THOSE', am I? One of those who realizes that multiple meanings are common among languages? One of 'THOSE' who doesn't believe in the infallibility of translators? One of 'THOSE' who doesn't take things I've been told at face value? Yep, I sure am one of 'THOSE'. For your edification, the word used in Genesis is not the same one used to denote 'day' most other places. You knew that, though, right? No? Weird. You made the assertion....but didn't have the facts. How odd. For fuck's sake, multiple meanings are part of many languages. Bat, trap, account, snap, roll. Quick, what's the ONE definition for each of those words? I could easily go on. Your claim that a word may only have one meaning is both patently stupid and blatantly incorrect.
You also resorted to attacking me personally. I don't know why you think that attacking me will help convince me of the merits of your arguments. Perhaps it makes you feel better to attack someone else. In that case, feel free to continue. I can certainly stand whatever mean things you might think up, as I've 'debated' many like you who apparently feel that personal attacks equal salient points and logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Real men don't get legal disclaimers. Pussy. Come on down. I live right at the corner of Sawyer St. and Washington Ave. About 1 block away from Dopehouse Records. It's a disheveled brown house, right on the corner. You can't miss it. Just knock on the door and ask for 'Philly'. Of course, since you're all talk, I don't have to worry about some drunk mongoloid actually showing up at my place. I told you where. The when is up to you. Bitch.
Okay, Mr. Brave. Why does the US have to invade the "Real America"? Why don't you take your big talk and invade *my* country with it? Perhaps because for all your bravado, you realize that your country would be even more my country's bitch if you tried it. I know, I know, it's hard to believe that Canada could be even more America's bitch, but that's what would happen. As for me being chicken shit, let me know the next time you plan on visiting Houston, Texas. I won't go out of my way to kick your ass, but if you're in the area I'd be delighted to perform that public service. You can meet me in the heart of the fifth ward, fool.
I don't know what would be more amusing to me: that a troll would spend so much time and effort, or that someone could actually be this stupid. Either way, it's clear that I win. Please, post another 50,000 word retort. I can always use a good laugh.
As for our country invading yours...well, I'm sure some Saturday when a National Guard post doesn't have anything else to do, it'll happen. Then we can make it a crime to say 'aboot'. Oh, no, eh? What'll you guys do then, eh?
Um...I don't give a fuck if he's on the fucking French Fascist Language Committee. If he thinks that every single person on the planet who speaks French speaks it exactly the same way, he's incorrect. Anyone saying a completely insanely ridiculous thing such as that is probably stupid. I'm not mad at him or anything. I'm just making observations. It isn't like I claimed to know more French than him, or something like that where his 'authority' on the French language would actually come into play, anyhow.
Also, I didn't criticise it. I'm not British. I criticized it.
I'm living and letting live. If words on a screen typed by a stranger actually affect your life, you have MUCH bigger problems than my critique. (note: hopefully you do anyway, because if some random grammar Nazi correcting your use of the English language actually causes you a problem in the slightest, you should seek counseling. Immediately.)
- Real American never lost a war !
Yeah, if not for Canada, 20 or 30 nazis would have survived the war. Whoop de fucking do.
- Real American live in a democratic country !
Yeah, whatever. Not only does your government cave like a milk carton under a jackboot to America's least whim, you still pay tribute to a fucking monarch. Yet, you call yourself democratic. You're either ignorant or dumb.
- Real American fight for freedom to the death !
Yeah, what is your country fighting? Moose? Elk? Lumberjacks?
- Real American Liberated Europe from the Nazi by fighting the war from end to finish, both time!
Yeah, I'm sure all 15 of you were a big contribution to the war effort. You know, you hitched rides over there on our vehicles. But, like, live the dream, dude.
- Real American are Noble
I've seen no evidence for this assertion.
- Real American are defender of Americas
Again, from whom? It's real fucking difficult to defend against invisible fucking nonexistent enemies. Good job!
- Real American live in america
There's North America, Central America, and South America. Then there's The United States of America. Basically, either you're lumping yourself in with over 1/3 of the world's population, in which case big fucking deal, or you're excluding everyone who's not in America, such as you. Either way, is that something to be proud of, taking a shitload of time to think up all the words to fit your inane acronym?
- Real American earned there Country
Real American earned there Country? That sentence is so fucked up it makes my inner child cry. First of all, you meant 'Real Americans earned their country'. Second of all, how the fuck did Canada earn shit? You got a country without doing a fucking thing. Good job, that takes a lot of doing. This again makes it look like you're referring to Americans, both because you capitalized it and because we fought a fucking war with the country whose monarch you still honor for our fucking country.
- Real American are not afraid of terrorist
This one is so obvious as to defy comprehension. I don't know a single person who's afraid of terrorists. Besides, your damn country does whatever it can to placate terrorists. If not from fear, why?
Well, this was fun. I know that, like my last post, you'll be unable to comprehend most of what I said. That's ok. You'll always be our wacky, lovable screwball neighbor upstairs. Oh, Canada.
Hey guy, cool down, guy, eh. I spelled it Canadia because you call yourselves Canadians, not Canadans. Sorry it went over your head, with its giant flapping mouth and beady little eyes. Also, the ironic part about travel plans also went over your moose-humping, molson-swilling head. I did not actually have any intention of visiting. I'm sure your blatant lack of humor and anti-Americanism will convince me to visit your "lovely" country. (The previous sentence is sarcastic.) Have a nice day! (Is the previous sentence sarcastic as well? It's a reader excercise. What have you learned?)
Actually, Homer's set up as a lovable oaf so that most of what he says is dumb. That way, there's more effect when he says something insightful. I'm truly sorry for you that you weren't able to figure that out on your own.
Before you slam on English too hard, perhaps you'd care to learn it? First of all, the phrase 'every corner people' does not make sense. Perhaps you meant 'every corner person'? This still doesn't make any sense, since as far as I know the only 'corner person' is the second ringside assistant to a boxer, but it is at least grammatically correct. Perhaps you really did mean that the people who wipe blood off boxers and force feed them water re-write the English language, in which (not wich, which) case you're simply insane. Of course, as you're from Canadia, that wouldn't surprise me. Now, what about contractions? 'Its' is the possessive form of 'it'. For example, "The door was knocked off its hinges." 'It's' is the contracted form of 'it is'. For example, "Can we leave at four o'clock? It's 3:30 now." A simple test to see if you're using the correct spelling follows: read your sentence and replace either "its" or "it's" with "it is". If the sentence still makes sense, use "it's".
You are incorrect and probably stupid if you think that every French-speaker in the entire world speaks exactly the same language.
The fact that more people speak English than French world-wide indicates to me that English is at least as real a language as French.
Additionally, you may be a North American but you are not a 'Real American'. You guys should have called your country 'Real America' instead of 'Canada'. I blame you completely.
On the subject of Canada and the Simpsons, Homer said it best when he said:
"Canada? Why should we leave America to visit America Junior?"
Hopefully I've been trolled, because if this is an average Canadian, I think I'll have to cancel my summer travel plans.
twenty hands. thanks for asking.
I agree 100%. That's why I've never understood this insistence that men and women are exactly the same, oh, well, apart from those physical differences. It's always seemed rather foolish to me to assert that there are no differences caused BY the difference in anatomy, much less any others not related to anatomy. I feel that the situation won't improve if we categorically label any attempt to even explore differences between men and women at the biological level as sexist. It's true that creating artificial differences serves to divide, but then wouldn't understanding actual ones and making the distinction between real and artificial differences help?
Well, men are told to shut up, quit whining, and take it like a man. Wouldn't equality dictate that women in the same situation be told the same thing? Would it not be sexist to treat women different simply because they're women? I'm just curious, here. No need for offense or attacks. Thanks.
On a side note, I'm amazed by how many 'feminists' I've known who firmly believe that no man should ever hit any women no matter what. I'm sorry, I'm a big believer in equality and so if some woman starts talking shit and/or throws a punch at me, I'm going to lay her out like I would a man who did the same thing. I've just had personal experience with a lot of women who think I'm sexist for holding that point of view. Seems like many feminists believe not that women = men, but that women >= men. Shame on you!
Had you read his comments, you'd realize that he did not say 'there are fewer women in math and science because women aren't as good as math and science'. He said 'There are fewer women than men in math and science. We should explore the reasons, including biological ones if they indeed exist.' [paraphrased]
What you are saying is that even if there are biological differences which relate to aptitudes for math and science, you can't postulate them because then you're a "biggot"[sic]. How about height differences between the average Asian and the average American? Yes, there are short Americans and tall Asians. That doesn't mean that Americans and Asians are all equally tall, does it? Of course not. The *fact* is, there are fewer women than men in fields of math and science. Why? NO ONE KNOWS. Thus, we don't know if it's biological, social, a combination, or neither. Why is this issue different from average height, or center of gravity, or upper body strength? There are of course exceptions to every generalization, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. Men and women are biologically different. We simply don't know the extent of those differences. Pretending that men and women are identical is ludicrous. Stating that they're equal is obvious. Why do people confuse equality with sameness? They aren't equivalent. Women have exactly the same RIGHT to be in math and science fields that men have. They are either not choosing to excercise it or they aren't as genetically motivated to do so or there is something else causing the dearth of female mathematicians and scientists. Instead of going on and on about how there can't possibly be any explanation, wouldn't we be better served at least ruling out biology as a cause of the problem? I mean, if we're really working towards a solution and not simply wishing to substitute our own pretend version of reality for the actual reality.
Sales aren't down. Sales are up, even though the total number of artists releasing albums is down. The RIAA pretends like they would have made billions more dollars if not for file-sharing, etc. However, they're making more money than they ever have before. Seems pretty fucking greedy to complain about 'lost sales' when you're selling more crap than ever before. Also, people DO buy full albums. If no one liked pop music, it wouldn't be popular music. Just because you aren't getting what you want from record companies does not mean that no one else is. Damn, that's a pretty egotistical point of view, isn't it? That if you don't like something, no one else can either? Holy arrogance, Batman.
Well, the problem with your knee-jerk, elitist attitude is that indeed many people will listen to them. See, that's why they're called 'hits'. Because they're popular. You know, with some of those millions of other humans on this planet who are not you. Sure, I might not like pop music, you might not like pop music...let's say a majority of readers of this site don't like pop music. Fine. That only leaves millions of people who do like it. Yes, it's crap. Yes, it's derivative garbage. Yes, pop music blows goats. However, you must accept that this opinion, our opinion, is not universally shared. The fact is, if everyone shared the opinion about pop music that we share, it wouldn't be popular music. Look, just accept that sometimes other people, perhaps even quite a lot of them, are going to like something you dislike. For example, even though I am aware that olives are nature's worst mistake, other people seem to actually enjoy them. It's inconceivable to me, but it does appear to be true. Oddly enough, it turns out that I can dislike olives and others can like them with absolutely no repercussions. I suggest you try the following: continue disliking pop music, and continue not buying it. Then let people who do like it continue to buy it. Then simply call yourself superior and go about your business. Now, you've successfully dealt with other people's lack of good taste. Congratulations!
what, you mean it's all relative? Hyuk hyuk!
You're wrong. It had NOTHING to do with the Bible. It was proposed in order to 'simplify' math for those poor kids. It's too hard for them to learn pi so we need to change pi to make it easier. I fucking HATE federalized education. That's a fucking oxymoron, if you ask me.
You didn't understand the post you replied to. He clearly stated that it was the center of the observable universe. It's all a matter of your frame of reference. It's like, all relative, or something.
and how do you know these scum are all white?
That said, I hate crackers too.
Yeah yeah yeah I knew that.
Of course you did!
Fuck off.
Have a nice day!
yeah...you know, that *could* work! In fact, if you had RTFA or if you kept up with tech news, you'd know that processors of this type are currently available. They're called 'multicore processors', and they aren't exactly new (although Intel and AMD won't have them for another year or two).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=turion
If you could make crack out of, say, milk and bread and salt, then it would be pointless to ban crack. That is, in essence, what Mr. Felton's trying to say. It isn't that his is faster or easier, it's that it's *so* fast and simple to do that concurrent development is inevitable. Hope that helps. Please note that his argument isn't predicated on the ethics of file-sharing. Also, your post seems to indicate that you don't believe there are valid reasons to make crack legal. While I don't smoke crack nor suggest that anyone else do so, there *are* perfectly valid reasons for making it legal.
Religion doesn't make people moral. It imposes a moral code upon them, with consequences for violating that code. Atheists may also choose an external moral model, but it is not forced upon them as it is upon religious people. The fact that many people claim to be religious while violating the moral code that is imposed does not negate the fact that the moral code is there. Similarly, joining a club which has specific rules does not guarantee that the joiner will follow those rules. It merely imposes consequences for breaking them. As the consequences for breaking religious codes are not experienced until after death, violaters seem to act with impunity. Of course, I'm greatly simplifying here and am ignoring additional outside-imposed moral codes such as legal codes. (anyone who says you can't legislate morality is a twit, as laws are simply society-specific codified morals)
Yes. You sure did get me. Even though I didn't proclaim my beliefs at all, you assumed. I'm not a Bible-thumper. I haven't ever thumped a single Bible in my entire life. It wasn't that I was offended by what you said, it was that it was derogatory, even though you claimed to only have used logic in your post. Attempt to justify all you wish. It makes you look silly.
You claim it is me who interpreted the word wrong. I claim it was someone translating a long time ago. Why is my claim that someone else mistranslated absurd but your claim that *I* mistranslated not absurd? I thought you liked logic.
You attacked me personally. You didn't say 'and now some Catholics should go sodomize small boys'. Dipshit. I only sodomize women (age 18 and over), and I'm not Catholic, nor of any other organized religion. Nor am I atheist. Before you condemn my beliefs, you should find out what they are. Of course, I haven't told you yet, and with the level of your discourse to date I'm not likely to. You lecture me on word meanings, and then you don't even know what rhetorical means? Holy shit. That's just funny. How does the subject of your insult make it any less personal? Had you told me to go kill a few Moors like in the Crusades, that would still be a personal attack, as it would imply my willingness to do so. Your stupidity is truly staggering. Don't forget to breathe.
Yes...calling the OP a bible-thumper, using phrases like 'welcome to science!', and blowing off religion entirely by claiming that it's 'people making guesses' shows utmost respect.
1. You believe that life happened somehow. It doesn't matter to me *what* your specific belief is, as none of them have been proven. Whatever you believe is a 'guess' and therefore you needn't have stated your specific belief. In fact, if you want to prove me wrong, create some life out of non-life. What I was doing was pointing out that it is impossible to live without faith, because as much as we know and can prove, there is also much we do not know and cannot prove. I'm sorry if you don't like this fact, but that doesn't change it.
2. Pointing out 'logical flaws' with 'logical flaws' isn't..erm...logical.
It wasn't because you responded to his point that I accused you of 'picking' your argument. It was your refusal to learn about the language used in Genesis. You used a mistranslation to make something appear different than it is. Your response indicates that you did it purposefully.
I'm one of 'THOSE', am I? One of those who realizes that multiple meanings are common among languages? One of 'THOSE' who doesn't believe in the infallibility of translators? One of 'THOSE' who doesn't take things I've been told at face value? Yep, I sure am one of 'THOSE'.
For your edification, the word used in Genesis is not the same one used to denote 'day' most other places. You knew that, though, right? No? Weird. You made the assertion....but didn't have the facts. How odd. For fuck's sake, multiple meanings are part of many languages. Bat, trap, account, snap, roll. Quick, what's the ONE definition for each of those words? I could easily go on. Your claim that a word may only have one meaning is both patently stupid and blatantly incorrect.
You also resorted to attacking me personally. I don't know why you think that attacking me will help convince me of the merits of your arguments.
Perhaps it makes you feel better to attack someone else. In that case, feel free to continue. I can certainly stand whatever mean things you might think up, as I've 'debated' many like you who apparently feel that personal attacks equal salient points and logic.