3,729 Forum Posts by "capn-g"
At 2/27/07 04:23 PM, Shuko wrote:
:: Get over yourself. Any American who knows proper history should know that if the British hadn't had to cross a vast ocean to get here, their troops wouldn't have been nearly as tired and travel-worn, and the battle might have turned in their favor.
They should also be aware of just how much they owe the french for occupying the majority of the British fleet and just how tenuous their little revolution really was.
Your eye colour can change slightly depending on your health. My eyes are blue-grey but they appear more blue when I'm in better health and more grey in poorer health. Also exposure to sunlight can affect their colour as well (melanin content affects eye colour).
At 2/13/07 10:26 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I can't spell any of the following words: esteem, wrists or therapists. I also can't take anyone saying anything negative about my precious country (espescially when it's true) because my penis is microscopic and chest thumping and flag waving makes it feel bigger.
Uber-fixed.
At 2/16/07 12:13 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: *sigh* such the predictable answer, I think that one has passed "old" and is now heading dangerously close to the area of "lame"
I concur. It is a good example of why NG is so angry, though.
A) Decide you really, REALLY want to do this
B) Figure out if you want to be on the art side or the programming side
C) Get to work. Start reading up, go to school, learn your craft.
D) Apply and pray.
At 2/13/07 09:22 PM, Pre-K-Prostitute wrote: Of course they'd keep the proper spelling because they're a highly intelligent nation, unlike us, who removed U's from words for no apparent reason and started reffering to zed as "zee". I guess we just wanted to be different... like a five year old holding it's breath to get noticed.
Fixed.
At 2/13/07 09:41 PM, lastgriprules wrote: is that a problem?
It depends on how much taller and how big her tits are...
What you have displayed here, in this thread and in your post is a level of ignorance that is simply staggering and wholey unacceptable in the year 2007.
At 2/10/07 11:29 PM, Purple-Slurpie wrote: If she gets elected... me and about 15 other guys that I know are moving to Canada.
And canada sucks
Then go somewhere else, crybaby, we don't need your kind up here.
Hillary's baaaaaaaaad news. WTF is wrong with people? 8 years of Bush's nonsense doesn't whitewash whitewater!!
At 2/9/07 09:48 PM, Sentio wrote: We do need to start doing something. I totally agree and haven't tried to say otherwise. I'm just sceptical about all these dooms day predictions of 20 foot sea rises in 50 years etc.
Frankly so am I but I'd rather not trust to luck. Mind you, I'd wind up with some kick ass costal property...
The second article I sited before shows how glaciers are shrinking in some places, but growing in others.
Some isn't all though. By a vast majority the arctic ice cap has shrunk and continues to shrink at an alarming rate.
There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that a rise in temperature would disrupt the gulf stream, and create an ice age in northern Europe. Sea levels wouldn't increase if that was the case, or at least not significantly.
Indeed sea levels would retreat somewhat but I would hardly call it an ideal scenario. Nor should the key point be overlooked that it was an increase in temperature that would have thrown the earth's ecosphere out of whack so quickly and so far ahead of schedule (next ice age isn't naturally due for what, 10,000 years?).
Agriculture in the USA and across Northern and Central Europe would benefit enormously from an increase in temperatures, and in fact it may actually be to out benefit for temperatures to increase.
Farmers in Canada's prarie provinces who've endured some of the worst growing seasons in 100 years (the government won't call it a "drought", too negative) might disagree with this supposition, to say nothing of the already brutal droughts in africa and parts of asia.
The planet is colder right now than it has been for much of it's history.
Can't argue there. Clearly when it was a seething ball of magma 4 billion years ago it's was considerably warmer but that's not really the point. The fact the earth's climate changes over time is not at issue, the speed of that change is.
At 2/9/07 08:09 PM, Sentio wrote: The majority isn't necessarily right, or more informed than the minority.
Only true in the case of the populace, not so in the case of the scientific community. Science is ruled by concensus.
Most likely the majority are just those people influenced by what the media says. There is no doubt that the media claims that Global warming is going to kill us all- that doesn't make it true, it just means it is a story that sells.
Again, understand that when I say "the majority" I mean that "of the scientific community", not the general populace. They may not agree on things like the severity, the degree of influence or the course to take but upon two points they are solidily agreed:
A) Global warming is real
and
B) Human industry has contributed to it
And I don't deny there is evidence supporting global warming as well- what annoys me is that the counter argument is never given. It isn't 100% either way.
No, but it's about 90% agree- 10% disagree, I'd say that's close enough. And if the counter arguments held any weight, oil companies wouldn't be offering $10,000 bribes to scientists who can come up with ANY soild evidence to counter the recent symposium of over 2000 experts from around the globe who declared "Yes, it's true and yes, it's our fault".
But just for the sake of argument, assume for a moment global warming IS real. So humanity embarks on a quest to "save the planet" (in reality a quest to maintain comfortable living conditions for ourselves but hey, why split hairs?). So we spend decades researching alternative energy sources, ramp up recycling and waste management processes, clamp down on heavy polluting industries, conserve, maintain and protect our resources to an Nth degree. We struggle and fight but ultimately we make the difference between what we take out of the earth and what we put back almost negligable.
Now suppose it turns out global warming was just an climatological abberation. Holy shit, we coulda been driving around in Hummers for 3000 years without making a lick of difference! Except of course that as a result of those efforts, we'd be living on a cleaner, better managed, more efficient planet. Now, explain to me how that's a bad thing?
BOTTOM LINE: Global warming is pretty much a given but even if it's not we should start living like it IS. Better safe than fucking incinerated by our own arrogance.
Yes... because WE'RE going to solve the global climate issue... here... on the NG BBS... right...
News flash: it didn't get this way overnight and we can't fix it overnight. We're just going to have to suck it up for the next two hundred years or so.
Oh and a note to global warming deniers: THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANET IS AGAINST YOU. Hubris and denial; last resort of the desperate...
At 2/9/07 12:02 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:At 2/8/07 11:48 PM, Genocide wrote: I simply believe in god because it seems logicalIf it's logical to believe in your god; is it logical to believe in any other form of god?
The words "logical" and "god" should never be uttered in the same sentence, they're mutually exclusive concepts (just read Hitch-hiker's guide).
So... should I feel a little sad now when I jerk off to her pre-fatness photos?
At 2/5/07 01:10 AM, StarF68 wrote: Why is it that some of the smartest things are said by comedians?
Because they ARE philosophers. At least the ones you listed are. Their mainstay is observational humour, ie they take an example of human stupidity and fully explain what makes it stupid. We laugh because a) it's true and b) it prevents us from crying... unless we're just laughing that hard
At 2/5/07 12:29 AM, CrimsonEdge wrote:At 2/5/07 12:17 AM, capn-g wrote: 1- The BIble was written by men, not GodRight. So why do the contents of the Bible take it as the word of God?
2- The true nature of God is unknowable
3- Don't open your mouth until you've fully grasped 1 and 2
See point 3
1- The BIble was written by men, not God
2- The true nature of God is unknowable
3- Don't open your mount until you've fully grasped 1 and 2
I'll tell you what it WILL cause if excessively consumed: kidney stones. And dude, trust me, you don't want one.
No. If ever come across someone who deos, I will hit them. Repeatedly.
Not around the house but if I go out somewhere, I feel naked without one.
"The reason it's called 'the American dream' is because Americans... are asleep."- Lewis Black
At 1/30/07 04:44 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: Just like to say that capn-g is an over cautious afraid little man who tries to act like a father but comes off as a dick.
I'd just like to say fuck you. When you know some one who died as a result of drug use, then you can talk some shit. I've known two.
At 1/31/07 12:18 AM, Genocide wrote: Tis not for a fap, >=(
Your response is a tissue of lies, sir! Speaking of tissue...
fappity fap fap!
Dude, those are seriously sweet and I WOULD totally buy one off you except:
A) Don't wear jewlery.
B) Couldn't afford it, money's just too damn tight right now
C) I catagorically refuse to do anything that could in any way, shape or form been seen as support, promoting or otherwise endorsing Michael Bay's clusterfuck ass-raping of the transformers franchise. That movie's gonna suck harder than a vietnamese whore in the executive lounge.
I think I was mildly traumatized by this movie when I first saw it around age 5.
When I say akward, I mean not as fluid as would be spoken by nartural born english speakers. Let's have a look:
At 1/28/07 11:15 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Read my post history and tell me, is my English grammar any good and do you think there is room for improvement or is it just fine as it currently is? Do I often repeat identical words I used in the past and is this noticeable?
Phrased more naturally, it would read:
Read THROUGH my post history and tell me, is my English grammar any good? (Run on sentence, new sentence needed) Do you think there is room for improvement or is it just fine as it (currently- unecessary word) is? Do I often repeat (identical- redundant, something MUST be identical for it to be repeated) words (I used in the past- again redundant, if they're repeated, obviously you've already used them) and is this noticeable?
At 1/30/07 03:16 AM, Rabid-Echidna wrote: the stereotypical "Talking to trees" thing only happens when the person taking those drugs doesn't put forth any effort to keep their normal thought patterns, and simply lets their minds drift through whatever random thoughts begin entering their head in its new, more creative state.
Roughly 50% of my observations of my friends fell in that catagory, the other 50% in the more controlled vein. I don't see the value of pursuing the latter by risking the former.
I'm curious as to what price you're talking about.
Er.. the literal one. You know, cash money? I wasn't making a moral objection.
You can't just take the stance that every single altered state of mind is strictly neutral.
I wasn't, I was saying MINE were.
It stuns me that all the physical detriment caused by these drugs, ideas that are widely accepted, always turn out to be false after actually researching the subject matter.
They cannot simply be myth, hard data must exist somewhere.
This isn't an issue of purity.
How can it not be? To whit:
There's an issue of trust there. The only drug that's really notorious for its impurity is ecstacy, in which case unless you go to the trouble of getting a testing kit, could be filled with PCP, meth, heroin derivatives or whatever the maker decided to put in it.
Sounds like a point of concern to me.
If someone does give you bad drugs, you never buy from them ever again.
Assuming you survive. Look gentlemen, we could go on all night but I'm quite tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. So, go forth enjoy whatever it is you enjoy, just be cautious. Then be a little more cautious. Couldn't hurt.
At 1/30/07 02:03 AM, Rabid-Echidna wrote: External, perhaps. They could make some attempt to explain it, but since certain drugs produce sensations that you've never felt before, there aren't any words to get the message across.
Given their behaviour, I doubt I'd be interested. While I'm sure my friend had some fascinating rationale going on in his head at the time, to me watching a guy stand in front of a wall with his hand on it to make sure it's not moving doesn't really seem worth whatever price he paid for whatever he was on.
True that you can alter your conciousness without the aid of drugs, but those altered states always end up being something along the lines of delerium caused by disease, or lucid dreaming at its best instance.
Both of which would qualify in my own experiences. Neither of which were either positive or negative.
Nearly every activity you can think of has its risks, and it's up to the individual to take the precautionary steps required to avoid any possible negative outcomes. The same could be said in this case, only there's a greater chance for something to go wrong.
Which is why it strikes me as so odd anyone bothers in the first place. Not to mention the unknown potential of long term side-effects.
That's probably the easiest comparison as well, and I'd regard the ability to think rationally about the situation to be the most important mental aspect of taking any drugs. If the substance renders you unable to think normally and you lose your head, that's where the danger sets in.
But wait a minute, you're INTENTIONALLY affecting your ability to think normally. You can call it whatever you like, enhanced, altered, increased, whatever, the fact remains your dicking around with brain chemistry. You literally have no idea what "dangerous" is, you're operating under the assumption that since it didn't hurt you last time, it won't this time. Protest if you like but the truth is you have no idea of the origins of the drugs you're taking (unless you grew or prepared them yourself) and thus no possible guage of the ACTUAL potential for injury, illness or death. How then can you consider any such action to be governed by "rational" thought?
