582 Forum Posts by "PreacherJ"
You now know the answer to the questions you seek. Live long! MWA HA HA HA HA!!
At 4/9/03 02:36 AM, DJcole wrote: By far the funniest the shit iv read all day!
preacher i have a confesion too, well there's this preacher and he posted a annoying thread but im not sure how to tell him stfu, so i just leave at that, have any ideas of what i should do?
Well, since I assume I'm not the one with the annoying thread (since it's your perogative to surf the thread, not mine to lure you here), I don't really recommend telling him to, as you so juvenilely put it, "stfu." It's not constructive, and if it's helping people feel better through e-mail or BBS posting, then it's just plain mean, and unnecessary.
But, if you don't feel that anyone can glean any usefulness out of the topic, then why even bother? It'll sink into obscurity all by it's lonesome, and you telling it to "stfu" will only put it on top for more to view.
So, thanks, and I hope this was helpful for you.
At 4/9/03 02:27 AM, TheShrike wrote: I'm posting this for a friend who doesn't want to ruin his Post Record (0 Posts)
"I saw that you (PreacherJ) use the Shadowrun logo in your signature. I love shadowrun, and seeing the logo has caused me to ruin a pair of perfectly clean pants... is this normal?"
Hoi, Chummer-
Yes. Yes it is. Shadowrunners are few and far between, I've found, nowadays, but especially recently, with FASA publications going under and being forced to sell the rights to WizKid Productions. Anyhoo, Change your pants, and keep running the shadows! :P
At 4/8/03 11:55 PM, biteme2514 wrote: Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
I post way too much on the forums... What should I do?
It's not a sin to over-post. Just be sure to stand up and stretch every once in awhile, and to do everything living beings need to do, like eat, and sleep, and all that other stuff.
At 4/8/03 11:25 PM, Disposable_Chameleon wrote:At 1/29/03 03:29 PM, PreacherJ wrote:I wonder how many times the subject of priest molestation has come up in this thread. PJ, I respect what you're doing here, trying to help people and whatnot with absoloutley no benefit to yourself. Refreshing.
Thanks. I've been lax in updating myself here because, well, there hasn't exactly been a rather large welcome wagon. I appreciate that you didn't e-mail me with a "STFU because I'm a dumbass" pics.
At 4/9/03 02:16 PM, TheShrike wrote: WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP
FREAKAPOTIMUS IS BACK!! YAY!
I'll leave the lights & noise on for you, PreacherJ
Dance, Preacher, Dance!
*Dances like he has never danced before, hoping to attract Freakapotimus*
Ohhhh yeah! Feel it! Whoo!
I guess it's all a matter of preference, then. I like "goddamn" because of the preacher reference, though. :)
At 1/13/03 12:10 PM, RandomFreak wrote: "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to my death your right to say it" -Voltaire
Wow. Yeah. I totally forgot it was Voltaire and not Thomas Paine who said this. Oops. Oh well. My friend will probably get a lot of other questions on his history final right...
No, not at all. I do that sometimes. I just look smarter, though if I re-post it. :P
Propaganda (n.)-
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
I hope this was helpful.
Governments exist to protect the weak. Anarchism has it's heart in the right place, but the idea of a government-less world is ri-god-damn-diculous. There's way too much evil in the world to live without the advent of laws. Anarchy would work, if we all had the ability to coexist peacefully, and in harmony without expending our resources.
This is NEVER going to happen in America. Ever. America is the land of "Grab all you can and fuck the other guy." Removal of those laws protecting the other guy would simply be a ludicrous, asinine descent into an orgy of destruction. Look at what happens in a riot.
If the government were to come up with some sort of mind control, however, and then just dissolve themselves away into the night, thus giving up all of the power, I suppose Anarchy could work. If that happens, though, I'll need to buy a new pair of hockey skates because Hell has fucking frozen over.
Bottom Line Facts:
-The government exists, at it's heart, to provide order to a social structure, and in doing so, provides protection for weaker individuals at the cost of personal liberty.
-Individuals granted power by the government will never want to give that power up.
-Anarchy, in the truest sense of the word, could never be a viable governmental choice, because it's human nature to exceed their needs, and destroy anything preventing that, including other humans.
Word.
The effects of Marijuana use, courtesy of the NIDA (National Institute for Drug Abuse):
Short Term-
problems with memory and learning;
distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch);
trouble with thinking and problem-solving;
loss of coordination; and
increased heart rate.
(Basically, this is the "high" most users seek, because let's face it, if you can't think straight, you can't think about too much bad shit happening, right?)
Long Term Usage:
Cancer-
Regular marijuana use causes cancer. It is known that marijuana contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
Lungs and airways-
People who smoke marijuana often develop the same kinds of breathing problems that cigarette smokers have: coughing and wheezing. They tend to have more chest colds than nonusers. They are also at greater risk of getting lung infections like pneumonia.
Immune system-
THC increases the risk of developing infections by inhibiting normal disease-preventing reactions.
Now, that being said, I am actually for the legalization of marijuana on many levels. I myself do not smoke weed, but I believe it should be legalized for other reasons.
People are going to smoke it anyway. As far as drug users are concerned, marijuana users are relatively harmless, and the addiction one suffers from marijuana use is almost exclusively psychological.
Legalizing it would reduce the strain put on prisons, and bureaucratic police forces everywhere.
The government could actually put a tax on the stuff, and make more money.
Yes, marijuana is what people consider a "gateway" drug, but most pot users don't move on to bigger, better drugs. They just buy better weed.
So, I hope this post was informative, and I have shown some people all the facts.
Thank You.
Word, ver. 2.5
*Sigh*
Damn I'm tired of discussing things in these "God" Topics.
Wait, no I'm not.
Ok. The possibility of "Entity X" as given by Commander has a lot of truth behind it, I believe, and I'm not an advocate for any omnipotent being. I'm not here to debate the existence of "Entity X" or prove/disprove anyone else's theories.
But what I am tired of, is people trying to prove the existence of the gods existing in religions today. If this omnipotent being truly does exist, and we're going to discuss it's existance at length, we need to refer to it as "Entity X" from now on. People try to credit the Christian God for that first particle, or Buddha, or Allah, etc., when in actuality, none of these choices even comes close, even IF there is an "Entity X."
So, if you're going to argue against the disbelief in "Entity X" by stating you do believe there's a "God," all I ask is that you take all of this theoretical information and apply it to your own belief structure. Don't argue that God exists until you can suitably prove "Entity X" exists, you know?
Word.
At 4/22/03 12:36 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Jeez, it took forever to get to page 18, but it didn't take long to get to page 19...
Incidentally, it seems like no one responds to anything I have to say anymore...
Yeah, I know the feeling. Word, yo.
At 4/22/03 10:32 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
HEY!!!
What? I was defending you. Stockton smells like ass compared to the UK. Unless your'e proud of your industrial reek, in which case, I apologize for challenging your title.
At 4/21/03 04:32 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:At 4/21/03 09:59 AM, TheShrike wrote: I say give 'em Uzies.-are these guns like 'futuristic lawgivers' where only a pilots DNA sample will fire the weapon?
Interesting and cool thought, but not unexpected from somebody with the name "Judge Dredd."
I am the law!Sylvester Stallone as Judge Dredd in Judge Dredd
At 4/21/03 03:45 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
GODDAMNIT!!!! Hitler was a man, not a monster. I'm tired of people throwing around Hitler's name like its some kind of curse word. Yes, he did horrible things, but they were all motivated by a genuine love for the aryan race. Nobody seems to mention the fact that the bad things he did were all out of love to the german people, especially consider hitler WAS 1/4 JEWISH!!!!! Does noone notice that hitler was the only black haired member of the 3rd Reich? Hitler was no fairy-tale monster, he was a historical figure. Dehumanization of anyone, be they fascist, jew, or terrorist, is wrong, and I have to make a stand against it. Call me evil, but dont forget I also am a person, albeit an evil one.
Well, it's official. I've seen everything on the Politics Forum now. This guy gets my "prop" card for the day. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that wasn't a white supremacist defend Hitler, and I respect his going against the grain.
Word.
*Returns*
Sorry for my lengthy absence... more problems at home. I should be picking up here again real soon.
Oh, and Ted, I didn't get to thank you a few pages back for re-introducing the WOOPs I hold so dear. Thanks again.
At 4/19/03 12:08 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 4/19/03 11:00 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:youve obviously become accostomed to the smell of france so close to your country. America actually smells like gasoline and french fries, with the occasional waft of brand new technology. what does the UK smell like? probably old fish and rusted 1800's industrial plants. America is not a shithole, well, maybe some of the the French Quarter in New Orleans, but michigan definitely kicks ass. (I still hate michael moore, though)At 4/18/03 02:55 AM, Wolverine090 wrote: Michael Moore is a comunist bastard that needs to go back to russia or hell or whatever shit hole he came out of!!!!!He came out of the shit hole called America.
Well, all of America has a host of different smells. Stockton, California TOTALLY smells like ass, because there's a whole lotta cows out here. Hot days are murder on the nostrils, I'm telling you. It would smell more pleasant if I went and stuck my head up (insert random animal's ass here). That, coupled with the smell of swamp/delta decomposition and industrial pollution, you've got a wonderful bouquet of smells that would make the UK a wonderland, I'm sure.
Ok, so, I'd just like to step in and reinterate that drugs are a necessary part of many people's lives to allow them to be productive members of society. That being said, I agree with Judge whole-heartedly on the fact that way too many children nowadays are getting drugged up due to lazy and/or misinformed parents. did anyone ever see that "King of the Hill?" The one where Bobby has to take Ritalin? It was pretty funny.
As for giving your kids a whippin'-
Many persons still support the old notion of "spare the rod and spoil the child." They advocate paddling as a method of disciplining children in homes and schools.
A vast amount of scientific evidence, however, shows that any hitting of children is a counterproductive and harmful form of discipline.
In the 1994 book Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families, Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire's Family Research Lab sets forth the results of years of research, obtained from a variety of sources, concerning the effects of corporal punishment on children.
The research indicates that corporal punishment is a contributing cause of a host of serious personal and social problems. These problems include aggression, crime, spousal abuse, child abuse, depression, suicidal thoughts, distorted sexual behavior, impaired learning ability, and lowered occupational success and income.
Particularly compelling is the research showing that corporal punishment in the parent-child relationship leads to violence in other relationships and situations. Straus explains this result by noting that the basic principle underlying corporal punishment is that "when someone does something outrageous and won't listen to reason, it is morally correct to physically attack the offender."
Because corporal punishment carries high risks of teaching children to use violence and causing physical and emotional damage, Straus supports a complete ban on that form of discipline. He advocates alternative child-rearing practices that have proven to be more effective.
Those methods involve establishing clear and rational behavioral standards, applying rules consistently, setting a good example, monitoring the child's activities and whereabouts, explaining the reasons that certain behavior is appropriate and other behavior is unacceptable, recognizing and rewarding good behavior, using nonviolent disciplinary methods such as requiring time-outs or depriving the child of a privilege, and providing lots of warmth and support to create a strong bond of affection between the parent and child.
According to Straus, children whose parents use these sorts of nonviolent techniques are generally easier to manage and better behaved than children whose parents spank. He adds that children who are not spanked "tend to control their own behavior on the basis of what their own conscience tells them is right and wrong rather than to avoid being hit."
Further, he states that "on the average, studies show that those kids who are not spanked tend to be better behaved and do better in school. When they grow up, they tend to have better marriages, earn more money, and live better lives."
With all these reasons for anti-violence methods of parenting available, one could attempt to label using drugs as such a method of anti-violent behavior. I believe, however, that, well, violence does serve some purpose in rearing children. The children certainly begin to discern what is right and wrong a lot faster with the simple concept of pain rather than the abstract concepts of right and wrong themselves. Many children fail to understand why they've been put on "time out," and plenty of children have recognized that the only consequences for their actions are minimal, thus turning them into kids who develop into "white collar" criminals, rather than the aggresive, violent criminals that stem from over violent parental disciplining.
That doesn't mean you should beat your kids with a rod every time they get in trouble, now. Develop some sort of medium between non-violent and violent parenting methods, and your kids will be much more likely to grow up well-adjusted.
Coming from a home where abuse, not discipline, was more often the choice of the day, I can tell you from experience that beating your children won't turn them into productive members of society. It will only teach them to hate you for ruining their childhood, and for the less intelligent members of your kin, you'll notice that they'll develop a lot more psychological problems than just the depression and alienation that I've been subjected to.
With all my thoughts on child abuse being mentioned, and a tear slowly drifting down my cheek, I'd like to quickly mention something else that pisses me off-
Kids that are angsty because they think it's how they're supposed to act from watching too many episodes of Dawson's creek, and the wave of "bisexual" people in my life that claim that they're bisexual simply because it's "cool".
Sorry, once again, for the huge, huge rant. It's just a topic that touches close to home, I guess.
You do know that killing people is cheaper than supporting them, right?
*Stops disco dancing*
Hey! Where's the red lights and the cool "WOOP WOOP WOOP"s?
*sigh*
I guess I'll just get my leisure suit and go home. :(
As a general rule, American history textbooks give the impression that what went on in the thirteen transatlantic British Colonies from 1778 to 1783 was the major phase of the War of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, to most contemporaries outside of America, that was only a small part of a much bigger war-one that may indeed be called a ''world war,'' if by that phrase is meant a struggle fought all over the world. Only a portion of the total forces involved were engaged in what is now the eastern part of the United States and Canada. Others fought in the West Indies, South America, Africa and Asia, and on the high seas. The total number of land forces under arms in the United States seldom if ever, reached more than 40,000 on either side. In only one instance did Washington command more than 16,000 men, and that was at Yorktown, where nearly half of them were French. A bigger army in France had constituted one of the most serious threats of invasion that England had ever had to face before l940, and in Spain another army nearly as large had besieged Gibraltar and invaded Minorca. The fleets that fought in the East and the West Indies sometimes numbered more men than were engaged in the most decisive land battles of the American phase of the conflict.
Eventually nearly every country of Europe was involved directly or indirectly in the war, which was only another in a century-long series that France had been fighting against England for world hegemony. Since the Treaty of 1763, the French had made a vigorous effort to fan the ill-feeling between the American colonies and their mother Country into a flame that could be quenched only with blood. After rebellion started, it would probably have resulted in reconciliation between the colonies and England if the French had been willing that it should end in a peaceful manner. Not only did they form an alliance with the United States, they also brought in the Spanish and the Dutch. Before peace was made, a formidable coalition of world powers was lined up against England instead of merely thirteen under-populated colonies.
France also put a great deal of effort and money into the thirteen colonies themselves. True, the forces sent there were small compared to those sent elsewhere. Likewise, the fleets that sailed there went usually on side-trips from their campaigns in the West Indies. But the visit of one of those fleets proved to be the means by which Cornwallis was cut off from aid or retreat, and the half-army that Rochambeau placed under Washington at Yorktown was the deciding factor in winning that decisive encounter.
So, yes, the French Navy and Army both played a very active part in the Revolutionary War.
Word.
Hangin' ain't such a bad ideer, I reckon. Beats the wicked amounts of money we throw away on electric bills or all the drugs pumped into criminals during lethal injection.
Another thing-
Why the hell do we give criminals a physical before we kill them? And use sterilized needles?
Anywho...
Just remember a quote from a song from Ren & Stimpy:
Ohhhh.... The Lord loves a hangin', and so do we, by heck! So grab a rope and tie a knot and decorate your neck!
Back when someone was running the "Newgrounds: The Gathering" thread, the man was nice enough to make me a card. I figured it'd be slightly relevant.
