Boo fucking hoo. Us religious folk are sad of being made fun of! We wanna FRIENDS

Everyone has to get a start somewhere, I suppose.

At 2/16/08 09:08 AM, Racoonmario wrote: As far as I know that was in Germany I think not far away from my city.
The Muslims then got mad in turkey when they heard that.

I am muslim btw.

Nope, it was in Africa. I believe, to be specific, Sudan. They wanted to execute her. I don't know what ever became of it.

At 4/8/08 08:02 PM, Achilles2 wrote: NO U!

Is this working? Cause if it is, then I'll say I was being sarcastic.

Fair enough. Sarcasm is difficult to detect on intrawebs unless it's cleverly written usually. My apologies.

At 4/8/08 08:03 PM, DragonsGrief wrote: What the fuck is this supposed to be/

It's an ancient slate where heiroglyphics are written and is used by archaeologists to decipher other ancient Egyptian writings.

At 4/8/08 07:59 PM, Achilles2 wrote: THAT...is pretty racist.

But it's 'k comes I'm black and I allow it.

It's racist finding a human to be similar looking to another human? You are the racist one, assuming everything that has to do with a black person is racist. Racist.

At 4/8/08 07:55 PM, TropicalParadise wrote: Come to Nova Scotia in Autumn, it's the most beautiful place in the world.

I hear you sister. New England and Nova Scotia are very similar, geographically, and that's where I'm from. So beautiful.

Is it just me, or does this look obscenely similar to Tay Zonday (albeit a bit younger)?

Er war vor dem Baum

Atheism is a faith? So the thought that there is no god is faith? It requires no faith to think such a thing.

Boxers, no doubt. My boys need room to breathe.

At 3/25/08 09:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Nothing illegal.

Agreed.

Immoral and hypocritical (as they are supposedly the party of the people), but not illegal.

At 3/21/08 03:13 PM, Al6200 wrote: I don't seem to see a lot of strong answers from the democrats, although I trust that both Clinton and Obama would be sensible enough to only leave if we know that such will be a good policy.

Yeah, from what I've heard from Obama, he's not afraid to get the job done. I feel like he and McCain are saying essentially the same things, except they are twisting them to appease their audiences. McCain says that we will stay in as long as we need to get the job done, even if it's 100 years (an exaggeration of course, but his point is clear.) Obama says that we will begin pulling out soon after he takes presidency, but he doesn't say that it's a complete withdrawal. This isn't too different from what we are doing now, as we are already pulling troops out.

Also, I have a lot of hope in Obama. His stance on a few issues is regrettable to me (I'm a Republican), but I still think that he's going to do a good job.

I'm with you. I'm neither Republican or Democrat, but I do agree. It's good to vote for the person, not the party.

At 3/21/08 10:58 AM, Al6200 wrote: Nah, you just didn't give it long enough.

It took two days for my first response, haha.

I watched it, and I was interested in the neutrality and detail of the reporters. The gritty information that CNN doesn't show.

Especially that most Reuters reporters have died from US attacks, not insurgents.

I guess there's not much else I can say. The US should have never entered in the first place, but now that we're there we have to stay in place until Iraq is stable.

That's my opinion too.

Well, I suppose I see your point, BBS.

Enjoy the information if you choose.

At 3/20/08 09:52 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/20/08 01:48 AM, Tancrisism wrote:
Absolutely. If you presented proof and evidence that a god exists, I will immediately bow down to it (if that's what it desires). But we can be quite confident that won't happen, so until that day I will remain an atheist.

What if I were to say that God is just matter. He's not really sentient, but he does make up the universe, with his matter.

Then, according to your definition of God, it probably exists (as there is matter in the universe). But that's not the standard definition of God.

At 3/19/08 09:29 PM, Malachy wrote: Isn't drinking alone one of the signs of alcoholism?

It worked for George Thorogood.

Here is the link to Reuters' history of the Iraq War. It has interesting profiles of three reporters/photographers heavily involved in the war, and then a fantastic timeline (well outlined, with videos and photographs) of what has gone on.

It's a good resource, but it is very gritty. Be warned that there are many images that aren't particularly pleasant to view (such as ridiculously large pools of blood). I've noticed that a lot of people haven't had an extremely clear picture of the war, and though it's true that perhaps viewing the actual scenes of war is not a good way to develop a clear opinion of the war (as it biases us towards emotions as opposed to fact) it's a very good resource to some insight as to what our boys are facing (and what they have caused, if you'll take that route).

At 3/20/08 01:24 AM, Elfer wrote: Of course agnostics are just a subset of atheists, but lots of people are too dumb to understand that atheists are open to the possibility of god.

Absolutely. If you presented proof and evidence that a god exists, I will immediately bow down to it (if that's what it desires). But we can be quite confident that won't happen, so until that day I will remain an atheist.

But yeah, we haven't "stopped wondering". That's a load of shit. We are just leaning more towards the conclusion that no matter what is provided, a "god" is not what the answer would be if we could actually get answers. Capice?

At 3/19/08 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 147

hi

I guess it's right, what Isaac Asimov said was right, "You're too damn educated, I knew you couldn't be very smart."

It's also important to note some things. For instance, in China, I highly doubt the farmers who hardly have electricity are going to be able to take the SAT tests, whereas in the US everybody has the chance to. And in developing countries, whoever found the SAT average for Sudan should be awarded some sort of prize.

You've got to realize, Cellardoor, that in the case of the US and people's views of it, the more you argue the more you lose.

And, in turn, the more we lose.

Honestly, I should post in here more regularly. I am just not on NG enough, truly.

*Pat on the shoulder

At 3/17/08 02:19 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 3/16/08 08:50 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

"But but but, what if the shooter wants to surrender (seemingly after killing people)?"

Actually, I'd say that's a legitimate question.

It's also one with a quite easy answer; then he can surrender. If, after committing a rampage, one wants to set a new president and go down peacefully, then he can drop his gun far from his body, lie down, put his hands behind his head, and wait a few hours for the police to come.

Absolutely, but that is entirely up to the judgement of those who are witnessing his massacre. If someone starts shooting people in a school, they are forfeiting their rights to certainty; if the people around deem him unsafe while he is trying to surrender, they have all the right in the world to incapacitate him. They could at least shoot out his arms and legs so the bastard can't do anything but breathe (and hopefully moan).

But anyway, it's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if I'd feel any safer with everyone having guns as with no one having guns, but I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Statistics say it should help.

Why can't we all just get along?

I found another reason to be pro-Obama:

http://www.wayofthemind.org/2008/02/21/o bama-on-religion/

The most moderate religious statement I've heard from any politician ever.

Probably, from games I've played consistantly, either Civ III (largest map; complete global conquest) on the 4th difficulty setting at about 8 months, or Medieval Total War (complete gobal conquest) on the normal difficulty (at about 8-9 months too).

I still have a picture of it, actually. I was the French. It took 175 turns, which, if you know the game, is a rather long amount of time.

When the thing first came out it was definitely a landmark in Flash. That's like saying you hate Goldeneye; it shows that you have no sense of value.

At 3/15/08 04:43 PM, TheBlackDahliaMurder wrote: Actually, the SATs do not at all test on how much you have learned. Apparently, it only tests up to 3rd grade math, and that it's really about application.

That's not entirely true. A lot of it is logic, but most of it is based around highschool geometry.

I did pretty well on them, although I will agree, the 6 hours I spent in total concerning the SATs I will never get back.

I'll probably just come and go like I do until I finally forget to come back.

There is a god!!