652 Forum Posts by "Boltrig"
Just FYI, this dude has been signing up to every forum he can find and spamming it with the same stuff. They've dont the detective work here:
http://www.bluegartrls.com/forum/showthr ead.php?t=83060&page=1
1. Should drugs be legalized?
No, cultures of excess cant be trusted
2. If legalized, should they be legalized partially, or totaly?
Hypothetically, totally
3. If drugs were legalized, would you use them?
No
4. Would knowing others use them make you any more likely to use drugs?
No
5. Do you feel that the legalization of drugs is more risky than continuing their ban?
Yes.
At 3/21/08 05:56 PM, KemCab wrote: No, but if a thousand people do it (without obvious intention to act on that threat) then you can't arrest all of them.
Legally, you probably could. Logistically... nah.
At 3/18/08 08:20 PM, KemCab wrote:
The death threats and bomb threats and prank calls are all real.
TBH, th bomb / death threats were by over zealous little shits that thought they were being epic. Anon has moved away from illegal activities to non vilent protest.
At 3/17/08 08:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote: "as a scientologist i know i'm the only one who can help" if the person has been in a fucking accident they need medical treatment not spiritual bullshit. fucking hell.
Indeed!
"I am the only one who can help you! Here, grip these two cans. Oh wait, one of your arms is missing. Oh well looks like youre screwed"
At 3/17/08 07:28 PM, FeargusMcDuff wrote: Just curious - what did Scientology ever do to Anonymous? Bomb threats and death threats, for what? They allegedly killed some woman some time ago that went completely unnoticed by all authorities, and are taking pictures of people when they move nearby church property?
Who cares? Some people want faith in their lives, who is anyone to say that they can't?
Believe that aliens fly about the galaxy in DC10s all you want. If it makes you happy go for it.
It is the practices of Scientology that are being attacked. NOT the faith.
And any news on future raids? Im having a hard time trawling through the main Chanology site.
At 3/1/08 06:48 PM, RabidSquirrelStudios wrote: All I can say is...none of the people who oppose Scientology bother to look at what Scientologists have to say. If you want to research take both sides into account, there'll always be shit out about any religion...Scientology more than others.
So far as I can tell Anon have no issue with the beliefs of scientology; believe what you want. Its the methods and practices of the organization as a whole that are being condemned.
has to be said Im sorry I missed any one of the UK raids.
At 3/15/08 09:40 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:At 3/15/08 12:44 AM, 0peth wrote:At 3/14/08 11:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:The jail-mates hate the pedos too so usually end up beating and raping them to death. Sorry, ninjas don't kill pedos, although, it is an amusing thought.Why? What kind of morality do they honestly need to demonstrate?
I dont think killing a child molester in prison has much to do with morality. The kind of thugs that you get in jail who are willing to kill a guy see child abuse like that as sick and wrong. They dont give a second thought to the mental health angle and violently lash out.
At 3/11/08 08:50 PM, Al6200 wrote: Might the rounding hurt the economy though, since things will cost, say $3.95 as opposed to $3.99 and businesses will lose a small amount of money.
Businesses will also loose the gimmick of pricing things at X.99. They either have to be honest ans say, well its actually X.00 or loose 4p. Not a lot per individual customer, but it adds up on low value items.
At 3/11/08 06:41 AM, Al6200 wrote: Why don't they just change the penny from meaning 1 cent to meaning 1 dollar. Gives it a unique role, and they can advertise it so people don't get swindled.
Cause then people with big jars / tins of collected change suddenly become uber rich?
At 3/10/08 03:34 PM, FBIpolux wrote:At 3/10/08 03:30 PM, Boltrig wrote:Now go back and read the first post again, I believe you missed the point.
Sheep.
I didnt miss the point. The point is that you want everyone to buy into your vison that were all controlled and manipulated by a secret society. You want us to believe this based on no proof and ambiguous claims.
And putting "this is fact" at the bottom of your post doesnt constitue proof.
At 3/10/08 03:27 PM, FBIpolux wrote: I pity the ones who's brain has already been corrupted.
These people are the finest example of why's this conspiracy working so well.
You and any others whose "eyes have been opened to the conspiracy" are a minority for a reason. Most people have common sense. I mean for fuck sake "the triangle is a secret symbol" It is also a stable, strong structure and is therefore likely to be everywhere. Would you and the other 'illuminated ones' please please just fuck off and talk amonst yourselves.
At 3/10/08 12:32 AM, GriffinLancer wrote: Nuclear energy is a no-no.
I have to disagree. As has been said, most renewable sources arent viable for providing 100% of the power needed by the population yet, and nuclear could be an effective stopgap. So long as research into alternative fules continues, why not use Nuclear to take up the slack and ease pressure on coal oil and gas plants.
The radioactive waste products could be stored (and I do mean stored, not abandoned) in underground fortified bunkers in uninhabited / uninhabitable locations pending discovery of an adequate disposal method.
If the risk of MUF is too great, tighten security in plant and in convoy. Meltdowns and reactor scares I dont really see as a massive threat. IIRC it only takes about 10 seconds to completely shut down the fission reaction in an emergency situation.
I think theres so much opposition to nuclear because people see the steam rising from nuclear cooling stacks and think "OMFG T3H RADIOATIVZ IS IN T3H AIR!". If you actually explained to folk that thats steam, nothing more nothing less but steam, theyd probably calm down.
Drakim for so much win!
Sensible disporving all the nonsense and a good few lulz to boot!
Thankyou, sir.
At 3/8/08 12:13 PM, Earfetish wrote:At 3/8/08 12:06 PM, Boltrig wrote: Itd be bloody stupid. Smokers arent a completely innocent group that are being repressed for no reason. Theyre being hassled by legislation because their hobby killd people that dont even indulge in it.Life is dangerous. Stay in the non-smoking areas. And if you're getting a job in a smoky bar, be aware that whatever the minor risks of passive smoking are are applying to you at work before you get the job, just like if you're getting a job as a welder, expect to get burnt occasionally.
Smokers arent smoking all the time. So therefore they can go to non smoking bars and nip out for a fag when they like. Non smokers (by the above logic) are restricted to non smoking bars because they cant nip outside to breathe unpolluted air. And smoke isnt noted for its respect of the smoking / non smoking boundary.
Im actually fairly glad all the new laws came in. Its nice to go to a bar and not come home smelling like an ashtray.Go to non-smoking bars. You don't need the government to decide what happens in other people's businesses. Walk around the bars in Rochdale in Manchester, England and everyone is standing outside having a cigarette - as many people outside as inside, the business didn't want the change, and the government forced it upon them. Some family bar might opt for a non-smoking policy; indeed many did, and if a bar knows its customers want it non-smoking then they'll make it non-smoking, and everybody wins. That's the joy of the market economy - that's the whole point of it.
Yes. Ill go to Manchester for a pint. I was only able to drink in smoky bars for a short time before the anti smoking laws kicked in in Scotland. During the time when you were still allowed to smoke indoors i did not come across one non smoking bar in the whole city. even if there was one that I knew nothing about, Id be forced to sit there listening to whatever bubblegum crap was in the charts at the moment rather than in a rock bar where Id rather be.
I dont get the fuss about having to walk all of 20 feet to have a cigarette.
Itd be bloody stupid. Smokers arent a completely innocent group that are being repressed for no reason. Theyre being hassled by legislation because their hobby killd people that dont even indulge in it. Im actually fairly glad all the new laws came in. Its nice to go to a bar and not come home smelling like an ashtray.
At 3/8/08 10:40 AM, JackBz wrote: An atheist could argue that Christians can get away with doing anything and then repent for their sins and they'll go to heaven.
Thats another one. The old "repent and it will be forgiven" chestnut. So you kill someone. Say accidentally in a fight that gets out of hand. A Christian by that logic is immediately absolved because he's sorry he did it, thus alleviating his guilt. Theretically theres nothing to stop serial killers getting into heaven if they feel bad after every kill. And its not that unlikely.
An atheist however, kills a person (in the accidental fight) and feels crushing guilt for it. Threres no reward of the celestial grandad in the sky giving you a hug and saying "its all right. no harm done". You need to live with your actions with no reprieve.
Also, whats with all the mud slinging. I used to post on the politics forum a lot and it seems like the insults fly a lot more thickly now!
Not that Im advocating total Police / Government control, but if everyones so law abiding why are you all so afraid?
So some hack sees me flying about humping the girl of my dreams? fap away, portly sir, I get more than you anyway!
In realistic terms however, how do you reckon any government is going to get MRI scanners for every person in the worl d passed. it would never work. People would just sleep on the sofa!
At 3/7/08 09:34 PM, KennyD wrote: Is being athiest a way of not being responsible for your actions? I mean being a christian myself, what we belive in basically boils down to if you live a responsible, honest life, you will be rewarded with Heaven the place of eternal bliss, if not then you are punished in Hell, the eternal place of agony. However being athiest, there is no consequences for your actions on earth. No matter how good or bad you are, once you die, thats it.
I'm not trying to start a christian vs. athiest hate-fest, I'm just wanting to know if this is in fact, one of the reasons for being an athiest?
So you live your life by the theological Carrot and Stick? How can you have free will when youve already decided that if you go slightly wrong youre going to burn for all eternity. I really want to see an acceptance of the satnce that Morality =/= Religion.
im an agnostic. Ill concede that this is all a pretty big coincidence, but so far thats all it is to me. Prove / convince me otherwose and ill gladly become reigious, but dont label me as a thief / adulterer / murderer just because i dont believe in a non specific god deity.
Atheists and agnostics are plenty moral due to an inbuilt sense of whats right and wrong. We dont all need the threat of hell to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Should experimental drugs for animals be given to animals?
If no then youre saying that animals suffering from a treatable disease should either continue to suffer or die. Doesnt seem to be very fair to the animal. Continuing its suffering because you want to withold drug testing.
If yes then youre saying that there is at least one exception to the no testing rule. The drugs are given to one sick animal and the benefits passed on to the greater animal population.
I realise that a similar analogy would be giving experimental human drugs to sick humans, but the point Im trying to get across is that there is at least one hole in the no testing POV.
Thoughts?
At 2/26/08 06:09 AM, fli wrote: People can explain sex to children without getting into the mechanics.
I suppose thats true. You could drill it into their heads that its sepcial and not to be taken lightly and what have you.
Well males of any species tend to be quite agressive and will fight for territory / food etc. You can put humans into a civilisation but then they just set about 'civilising' the fighting.
Id say the latent agression inherint in humans makes us hardwired for fighting. War is something else though; its more than carnal one on one fighting. Individuals probably arent wired to war, but nations and collectives are.
Double post.
This what youre on about?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/
2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html
At 2/25/08 03:07 PM, Proteas wrote:At 2/23/08 09:44 AM, Humbucker740 wrote: The shoes being too big represent her... In a role where she can't fulfill it... Whats the problem?Oh I don't know, perhaps the fact that they dressed her up and designed her proportions to fit that of a small child from the 60's rights movement during that "caricature?" The fact that they made her look like a 300 pounds muscle mass in military fatigues in that other "caricature?"
Either you have a very broad definition of what defines a caricature, or you need your eyes checked. I'm guessing it's more the latter than anything.
"A caricature is either a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing..."
The essence of one role is that she is standing in shoes she cant fill, where the 300 lb bruiser would look stupid, and the other is showing a satirisation saying that America presents itself as quite agressive to the world.
Different political points require different features from the caricature.
Has to be said I agree with Humbucker740. I dont see that caricature of Rice as racist; its just how caricatures are. They exaggerate promenent features. Like Tony Blairs ones always had a HUGE grin. Prince Charles always has massive ears. Dubyah has tiny eyes.
The one of Rice is exaggerating personal features, not putting in the stereotypical black caricature features.
At 2/24/08 07:35 PM, AnOldMan94 wrote: Well, does anyone know all the "war crimes"?
Any violation of a War Law
At 2/20/08 06:58 PM, fahrenheit wrote:At 2/20/08 02:38 PM, Tomsan wrote: The discussion is mostly about whether guy couples raising a child is ethically responsible.That kind of brings up the point that if gay men raising a child is wrong, then how is a single man or single mother any different?
Because thats the society we have today. Single parenting is becoming more and more acceptable.
Plus the situation is different bacuse (presumably) the missing parent was the opposite sex to the remaining one. Therefore its a broken hetro relationship, not a homosexual one.
The whole debate is a bit complex for me. Sure its not natural, but neither is surviving cancer, going to the moon, shaving.....
