"Now, the question is, should anyone (such as potential employers) be able to Google their names and get a Wikipedia article naming them as murderers as the first hit?"
Yes, actually, welcome to America.
You probably won't enjoy the Freedom of Speech we have here, but we do.
"You obviously need a logic course. I made no counter-argument."
I know, I said that.
You need a reading course.
"I don't need to provide any evidence as I took no position on the argument except that his is invalid."
That's a position, which you are apparently too obtuse to realize. You provided NO evidence that his argument was invalid.
"Logic dictates that he has no point until he does in fact cite evidence for his point."
No it doesn't.
"Logic" has no such requirement, please stop lying and pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about or have justification for your moronic assertions, when the reality is your having a pedantic little wikipeidan editors breakdown because you don't like what he said but can't refute it.
However, since, by YOUR OWN ASSERTION "Logic dictates that he has no point until he does in fact cite evidence for his point", your idiotic claim that "his is invalid" fails BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
By the way, I actually HAVE taken many logic courses, which is why I just ran rings around you.
"My grade 6 reading comprehension told me your argument lacked substance. My university logic, reasoning and hermeneutics courses informed my sarcastic remark which I stand by -- without even a shred of evidence, your argument is invalid"
Your counter argument provided exactly as much evidence as his.
If you dispute his claim then provide evidence, which counter overwhelming anecdotal evidence and common knowledge.
See, you're arguing against this guy based on stupid wikipedian "citation needed" pedantry, while ignoring that you cannot prove him wrong.
Which is, why I suspect, you're arguing form and not substance.
At least from what I saw, I was looking for links or citations, which you STILL didn't provide.
Because you don't have any and are full of shit.
"Uh, sfb, the quote I provided *is* the cite."
No, it isn't liar, you apparently have no fucking idea what a citation is.
" That's why they article refers to things liked published charts of recommended "fat-burning" zones for heart rate."
Just go ahead and admit you don't have a single citation that shows "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to losing weight" AS YOU CLAIMED, so we can move on to things that don't involve you being a lying piece of shit.
"But thanks for playing, seriously."
So, NO citation, or even an attempt then?
Right, thought so, exactly what I expected from YOU, a bullshit excuse.
"Maybe the argument is: "Someone who we were told was nuts turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is nuts maybe also is right."
Why do you think restating what he said almost exactly makes it any less wrong?
"And tax laws don't deal with the revenue issue because the sites are outside the jurisdiction where they are taxed. Dah."
This is the kind of stupid that needs to be stamped out.
The players and owners of the sites are not.
Does "Dah" mean "What I just said is colossally stupid and ignorant"because if so, then I agree, what you said was colossally stupid and ignorant.
As to the rest of your poorly written and ignorant post, YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT.
Why do you people respond when you're too stupid to even understand what is being discussed?
One last thing, it took two seconds to find links proving this "Nobody is going to going to be fined or even tried by an Australian court for playing online poker." A TOTAL FUCKING LIE.
So, you were wrong about pretty much everything you said.
"Someone needs to get laid and chill the fuck out."
It's unfortunate that you're having a rough day cause your post was pointed out as wrong and childish, by why do you feel the need to share as though we'd care?
" If you're trying to burn fat then "running your butt off" is counterproductive. "
That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the subject, and in the absence of anything resembling a citation (the article DOES NOT say that or even infer it) the conclusion is that you're talking out of your fat ass.
"This is according to people who use actual science (*gasp*) to do things like conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis and all sorts of crazy things."
No it isn't, you're a liar and can't (and WON'T) prove otherwise.
Find a citation that says "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to weight loss" or SHUT THE FUCK UP, you've already proven you're completely full of shit, I don't about your opinion, CITATION OR SHUT UP.
Don't worry, you're not the only one so socially and intellectually stunted that they reference the Simpsons instead of an intelligent, historically relevant example.
The Simpsons didn't exist in 1979 when this wasoriginally planned.
The best you could say is that the Simpsons stole it, which would require you to ignore all the other interesting points of the story and focus on the fact that a shitty TV show mimicked real life.
Get some life experience that doesn't involve you presuming a well worn and currently unfunny show was the originator of everything, you'll look ridiculous.
"If you just cut your calorie intake, your body will adjust."
No. It takes a significant reduction in calories over time to cause this, cutting say, 5-10% of your weekly intake won't do it, but will lead to weight loss overtime.
"You have to exercise so you're body doesn't decide that your muscle mass is more expendable than your energy reserves (fat)"
That's not why you exercise, and it's not necessary for weight loss.
Please, stop sharing your opinion until it's not wrong.
But..but...it's just thermodynamics! There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that! If you're fat it's because you're lazy! Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!
Yeah, pretty much, it's been proven time and time again, and this study does nothing to disprove it,all your smug childish attempts at sarcasm aside.
Oh, wait...
You mean like YOU did before it was shown that this is almost certainly a result of confounding variables?
Oh, you DIDN'T, you just smugly, sarcastically assumed that something you want to believe, in spite of mounds of evidence against it, was now DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.
No, I won't wait, I'll dismiss your post in it's entirety right now, thanks.
There's no legitimate reason to make a criminal out of the PLAYER because YOU are irrationally concerned about the site being a scam, and tax laws already deal quite effectively with the revenue issues.
Yes actually, they did. That was the WHOLE POINT. Which you "missed" and by "missed" I mean "ignored because it goes against what I think, even though I'm not terribly bright and not deserving of having my opinion considered"
Anything else you'd like to make bloviating but incorrect assumptions about?
I haven't heard a discouraging word about comics since specialty stores started pulling in big bucks and especially since Bruce Willis made it a habit of using them as a primary source.
Your ignorance and willful exaggeration is no indication of the actual state of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
"Now, the question is, should anyone (such as potential employers) be able to Google their names and get a Wikipedia article naming them as murderers as the first hit?"
Yes, actually, welcome to America.
You probably won't enjoy the Freedom of Speech we have here, but we do.
"Now my phone can give me two small objects to misplace."
Awesome!!!
You're like the fifth person to make that joke out of 40 posts!!!
Creativity is Awesome!!!
And seriously, are you people retarded or something, losing crap constantly?
Not having Alzheimer's is Awesome!!!
"You obviously need a logic course. I made no counter-argument."
I know, I said that.
You need a reading course.
"I don't need to provide any evidence as I took no position on the argument except that his is invalid."
That's a position, which you are apparently too obtuse to realize. You provided NO evidence that his argument was invalid.
"Logic dictates that he has no point until he does in fact cite evidence for his point."
No it doesn't.
"Logic" has no such requirement, please stop lying and pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about or have justification for your moronic assertions, when the reality is your having a pedantic little wikipeidan editors breakdown because you don't like what he said but can't refute it.
However, since, by YOUR OWN ASSERTION "Logic dictates that he has no point until he does in fact cite evidence for his point", your idiotic claim that "his is invalid" fails BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
By the way, I actually HAVE taken many logic courses, which is why I just ran rings around you.
It's pretty clear you didn't RTFA.
"My grade 6 reading comprehension told me your argument lacked substance. My university logic, reasoning and hermeneutics courses informed my sarcastic remark which I stand by -- without even a shred of evidence, your argument is invalid"
Your counter argument provided exactly as much evidence as his.
If you dispute his claim then provide evidence, which counter overwhelming anecdotal evidence and common knowledge.
See, you're arguing against this guy based on stupid wikipedian "citation needed" pedantry, while ignoring that you cannot prove him wrong.
Which is, why I suspect, you're arguing form and not substance.
At least from what I saw, I was looking for links or citations, which you STILL didn't provide.
Because you don't have any and are full of shit.
"Uh, sfb, the quote I provided *is* the cite."
No, it isn't liar, you apparently have no fucking idea what a citation is.
" That's why they article refers to things liked published charts of recommended "fat-burning" zones for heart rate."
Just go ahead and admit you don't have a single citation that shows "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to losing weight" AS YOU CLAIMED, so we can move on to things that don't involve you being a lying piece of shit.
"But thanks for playing, seriously."
So, NO citation, or even an attempt then?
Right, thought so, exactly what I expected from YOU, a bullshit excuse.
"Maybe the argument is: "Someone who we were told was nuts turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is nuts maybe also is right."
Why do you think restating what he said almost exactly makes it any less wrong?
"And tax laws don't deal with the revenue issue because the sites are outside the jurisdiction where they are taxed. Dah."
This is the kind of stupid that needs to be stamped out.
The players and owners of the sites are not.
Does "Dah" mean "What I just said is colossally stupid and ignorant"because if so, then I agree, what you said was colossally stupid and ignorant.
As to the rest of your poorly written and ignorant post, YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT.
Why do you people respond when you're too stupid to even understand what is being discussed?
One last thing, it took two seconds to find links proving this "Nobody is going to going to be fined or even tried by an Australian court for playing online poker." A TOTAL FUCKING LIE.
So, you were wrong about pretty much everything you said.
"Someone needs to get laid and chill the fuck out."
It's unfortunate that you're having a rough day cause your post was pointed out as wrong and childish, by why do you feel the need to share as though we'd care?
"And you didn't read the article either."
I did.
" If you're trying to burn fat then "running your butt off" is counterproductive. "
That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the subject, and in the absence of anything resembling a citation (the article DOES NOT say that or even infer it) the conclusion is that you're talking out of your fat ass.
"This is according to people who use actual science (*gasp*) to do things like conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis and all sorts of crazy things."
No it isn't, you're a liar and can't (and WON'T) prove otherwise.
Find a citation that says "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to weight loss" or SHUT THE FUCK UP, you've already proven you're completely full of shit, I don't about your opinion, CITATION OR SHUT UP.
"Yeah, you have sarcasmfail."
Um, no douche, if you could read you'd see I said ",you just smugly, sarcastically assumed "
See how you're too stupid to read for comprehension, much less have an intelligent opinion on this subject?
"I supposed debating folks on the Internet who like to be complete assholes"
Don't be so hard on yourself, you weren't a complete asshole, just an ignoramus who thinks they're more informed than they are.
OK Mr. Happy.
Awww, look who's upset cause your Simpsons post was pointed out as wrong and childish.
What does any of that have to do with my post,and you being factually incorrect?
Nothing you said there proves your point in any way, nor refutes me at all.
"Reality copies the Simpsons (Movie)"
This was planned in 1979.
Don't worry, you're not the only one so socially and intellectually stunted that they reference the Simpsons instead of an intelligent, historically relevant example.
The Simpsons didn't exist in 1979 when this wasoriginally planned.
The best you could say is that the Simpsons stole it, which would require you to ignore all the other interesting points of the story and focus on the fact that a shitty TV show mimicked real life.
HOLY SHIT, A TV SHOW MIMICKED REAL LIFE!!!
Yeah, no one else cares either.
This was planned in 1979.
The Simpsons didn't exist in 1979.
Get some life experience that doesn't involve you presuming a well worn and currently unfunny show was the originator of everything, you'll look ridiculous.
"If you just cut your calorie intake, your body will adjust."
No. It takes a significant reduction in calories over time to cause this, cutting say, 5-10% of your weekly intake won't do it, but will lead to weight loss overtime.
"You have to exercise so you're body doesn't decide that your muscle mass is more expendable than your energy reserves (fat)"
That's not why you exercise, and it's not necessary for weight loss.
Please, stop sharing your opinion until it's not wrong.
"Personally I think that is reasonable"
Then you're part of the problem.
There's no legitimate reason to make a criminal out of the PLAYER because YOU are irrationally concerned about the site being a scam, and tax laws already deal quite effectively with the revenue issues.
In short, you're completely wrong.
"What sort of backward, third world, Taliban-inspired place would you have to live in where you could get 2 years in jail for playing poker?"
Nowhere in the US, except Washington state.
"Did they compare the comic books to those?"
Yes actually, they did. That was the WHOLE POINT. Which you "missed" and by "missed" I mean "ignored because it goes against what I think, even though I'm not terribly bright and not deserving of having my opinion considered"
Anything else you'd like to make bloviating but incorrect assumptions about?
Your ignorance and willful exaggeration is no indication of the actual state of reality.
It's not a Federal crime, stop perpetuating this BS.
There are some localities that have outlawed it, but there is no Federal law against it, and no, UIGEA doesn't outlaw it.
You're completely wrong.
You really don't have any idea what the real world is like at all, do you?
Hint: What you said there, so completely wrong that, in the future, anything you say must be considered worthless.
It's hard to be that wrong, but there it is, you did it.