891 Forum Posts by "Taxman2A"
At 5/30/06 04:21 AM, Bunzi wrote:At 5/30/06 04:20 AM, Taxman2A wrote:I thought ET only came out for atari... anyways I kind of liked it.Made by Atari for the NES I believe.
Sorry. I meant to reply to this post. The game only came out for Atari.
At 5/30/06 04:20 AM, Taxman2A wrote:At 5/29/06 10:39 PM, CementSocks wrote: E.T. for the NES.... hard times. One time I chased my friend around the house with it. When I touched him with the cartridge, it burned his skin. He cried from 5 hours straight, and then killed himself :(I thought ET only came out for atari... anyways I kind of liked it.
No. It was only out on Atari. Sorry for taking a while to follow up.
At 12/3/10 02:22 AM, KillerGoose wrote: No, it's all a dream, and you'll soon awaken from it.
Even still I'll take it. It beats my normal dreams.
Nice... I don't think I've been here in 4 years or so. Great to see the site is still working and my account is still active.
At 5/29/06 10:39 PM, CementSocks wrote: E.T. for the NES.... hard times. One time I chased my friend around the house with it. When I touched him with the cartridge, it burned his skin. He cried from 5 hours straight, and then killed himself :(
I thought ET only came out for atari... anyways I kind of liked it.
At 5/29/06 09:54 PM, The_Chronic wrote: Swordquest Earthworld,Fireworld and Waterworld
KISS Pinball
State Of Emergency
You are right... those old swordquest games really did suck ass... I've been thinking that for near 20 years now, and I'm glad someone else brought it up. I mean seriously... you just walk around from room to room, I could never figure out the point.
At 4/29/06 02:25 PM, Shifty55 wrote:At 1/24/06 12:34 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:I like your ideas. Oh, and does it ever seem to you that junior officers should actually be outranked by senior NCOs? I'm sure that the NCOs have more experience, at least, not necessarily academic, but technical for sure.It's more of an understanding of the rank, if some 2nd lieutenant in the army ordered a CSM around he would have hell to pay, in a sence, it is mainly a balance of power
It should be a relationship of mutual respect. An Officer should always respect and learn from his troops. This includes everyone from senior enlisted to privates . At the same time, junior and senior enlisted alike should respect the officer's position, rank, and responsibility.
At 1/24/06 12:34 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:
I like your ideas. Oh, and does it ever seem to you that junior officers should actually be outranked by senior NCOs? I'm sure that the NCOs have more experience, at least, not necessarily academic, but technical for sure.
No... doesn't seem to me that should be the case.
At 1/7/06 12:38 AM, Itachi-kun wrote: Almost finished my ROTC program. Im gonna go with the marines and be posted in Korea. Rumor is theres gonna be another one there in about 2-8 years so im gonna stick around there for a while or maybe transfer to a hot spot in the middle east.
Just where are you hanging out that you hear these "rumors" that there will be a Korean war will break out? Also you if you are finishing ROTC you don't even know what your MOS is yet, let alone have orders to Korea. Furthermore as a Marine you won't get "posted" to Korea, only the army does that, you can get posted to Okinawa and possibly be part of an exercise at Korea... but in the end you will go exactly where the monitor sends you. Don't think for a second that you will have much choice in the matter.
I'm a Marine currently serving in Iraq. I have had many interesting experiences while in country. I lead over 30 men here and I have learned more about myself and more about leadership and more about my Marines than I ever would have learned if I hadn't chosen this path. I'm not sure if I'll make this a career, but even on the bad days (and yes there are many bad days) I'm glad I'm here.
As a Marine Officer, I am very much against this idea. The Marine Corps, and the military in general is NOT for everyone. The purpose of the military is to defend the nation and it's ideals- freedom being one of them.
At 11/12/05 07:40 PM, Leap wrote:At 11/12/05 07:33 PM, Taxman2A wrote: This is a rediculous subject... The internet is nothing more than a series of computers (and some big computers called servers) connected by routers and switches... The internet is not a resource that one person can own more of than another.Thank you for coming in and just posting without reading the entire thread (it's less than a single you lazy fuck) I hearby declare you a
The rest of the thread does nothing to disprove what I said. You might as well debate over who owns the sky.
This is a rediculous subject... The internet is nothing more than a series of computers (and some big computers called servers) connected by routers and switches... The internet is not a resource that one person can own more of than another.
At 5/29/05 02:14 PM, DjStikMan wrote:At 5/29/05 02:11 PM, Taxman2A wrote: On the flash "Born in the 80s" that's currently on the front page... does anyone know the name of the song on the menu screen? It's not in the credits and I've been trying to add that song to my MP3 collection for a while now.Beverly Hills Cop theme
Thanks.
You are the fucking man.
On the flash "Born in the 80s" that's currently on the front page... does anyone know the name of the song on the menu screen? It's not in the credits and I've been trying to add that song to my MP3 collection for a while now.
Thanks.
At 9/24/04 09:19 PM, darth_wader wrote: Nobody cares what you think of mamas boys. If they are happy then leave them be, theres nothing you can do about it, so maybe you should grow up and stop whining.
you are the biggest fucking faggot I have ever seen.
At 2/6/05 12:18 PM, Johnper wrote: <SIMCITY 1 !
You are freaking awesome for mentioning SIMCITY!
I'd say
SIMCITY
Legend of Zelda: ALTTP
Final Fight
The SNES was awesome... god damn forward progress has brought us technologically superior systems with shitty games that can't hold a candle to the SNES and NES games of old.
At 1/17/05 04:57 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:At 1/17/05 04:38 PM, Taxman2A wrote: You made the claim that I did not read my own source. Making this claim is a pretty straight-forward implication that my source was not well posted to support my point. If you were not implying it was a bad source, then what other reason would you have for accusing me of not reading it?For the third time --- the exact quote you posted from your source was argued against in the same exact source. What do you fail to understand? It wasn't so much "evolution is more than just a hypothesis" as it was "there is really more than one hypothesis about evolution", and that is my only point to you. A seemingly minor point, yes, BUT out of anything you could have chose to post from that link, you basically posted the wrong piece. But hey, you only looking two-sentences deep, what else would I expect.
So then, right after giving a long winded post about how you never acused me of using a bad source, you turn right around and accuse me of using a bad source again.
And right on cue, you still fail to grasp the original point made in my first rebuttal. This quote did not need to be defending for the reasons given in my above post.
Let's paraphrase your arguments so far, shall we?
If you trim away all your pretentious condescending banter, you are left with:
Your first post: "You didn't read your own source"
Your Next Post: "You had no reason to think that I had a problem with your source"
Your Next Post: "Your source was bad"
Quite the thinker you are. Since taking the time to read my second post would have sufficiently refuted your most recent attempt at a good argument, I will cut and paste it below. Please, read it several times through if you are having problems, it may prevent you from making an ass out of yourself again.
The article I posted is good for several reasons.
First- It immediately shows the pope quote that I posted.
Second- For the same reason you seem to think it's a bad source- because it shows that catholics, and the pope are accepting of evolution, but it may still be hazy as to what extent is accepted. As you can see by reading the article, there are a couple schools of thought- The first believing that the Pope believes evolution is the correct line of thinking without a doubt, the second believing that Pope sees evolution as an unproven hypothesis.
Let's see where you are having a problem here:
- Remember, this started when the burning liberal said that the church thinks evolution is an asisine theory which deserves little thought. This a key concept here, and if you haven't mastered it yet you aren't ready to move on.
- I basically said "What are you talking about? The Pope believes in evolution", and I posted the hyperlink which has caused you much distress to this point.
In the source I posted, there is indeed a debate, and the various schools of thought about the Pope and evolution are broken down. AT NO POINT however, is the idea that evolution is an asinine theory ever brought up.
I'm sorry this has caused you much tribulation to date. If it's any consolation, I have no doubt your ineptitude will assure you another 8,000 posts in Newgrounds BBS glory.
At 1/17/05 03:17 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:At 1/17/05 01:20 PM, Taxman2A wrote:
Yes, I read the article. I tried to bring to your attention what Professor Giertych had to say about the Pope's statement, but you somehow decided to take that as me saying "oh no that's not a good source"
You made the claim that I did not read my own source. Making this claim is a pretty straight-forward implication that my source was not well posted to support my point. If you were not implying it was a bad source, then what other reason would you have for accusing me of not reading it?
Reading and critical thinking DO help...perhaps try it out some time.
You should take your own advice, maybe then it wouldn't take 3, 4... possibly more posts to get simple ideas through to you... No wonder you have 8,000 posts!
At 1/17/05 11:00 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:At 1/17/05 04:41 AM, Taxman2A wrote: As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, made this statement on October 23, 1996: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.""For God's sake", try actually reading your own source next time.
Source
For God's sake, please do not speak without knowing what you are talking about.
"For God's sake", try actually applying some critical thinking skills.
The article I posted is good for several reasons.
First- It immediately shows the pope quote that I posted.
Second- For the same reason you seem to think it's a bad source- because it shows that catholics, and the pope are accepting of evolution, but it may still be hazy as to what extent is accepted. As you can see by reading the article, there are a couple schools of thought- The first believing that the Pope believes evolution is the correct line of thinking without a doubt, the second believing that Pope sees evolution as an unproven hypothesis.
You may notice that the first school of thought is even more accepting of evolution than the scientific community at large. The second school of thought puts the Pope at about the same place as the scientific community, saying that evolution is still a theory. In any event the article shoots down the burning liberal's random claims that the Catholic church completely rejects evolution.
If you are going to try and claim that I didn't read my own source, it's first necessary for you to not only cut and paste my article, but to also read the article and consider the implications of the source. Really, it would have saved me the time of not having to type out this post defending a source that didn't need defending in the first place.
At 1/16/05 01:31 PM, theburningliberal wrote: First, I think Catholic schools are going to be more likely to teach creationism, not evolution. The Catholic church generally treats evolution as an asinide theory not even worthy of mentioning.
Where did you get this from? Catholics are NOT fundamentalists, and do not have hardlined beliefs about creation. You are mistaking Catholics for fundamentalist protestants. The catholic position basically states that mankind and the universe may have evolved from previous forms, but that it was because of God's guidance that they did evolve. This is, of course, in contrast to the fundamentalists who believe god literally created the world in 7 days, made the first man (Adam) out of clay, etc.
As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, made this statement on October 23, 1996: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."
For God's sake, please do not speak without knowing what you are talking about.
At 1/16/05 05:36 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:At 1/16/05 04:53 AM, Taxman2A wrote: It doesn't matter how the "troops were thinking", all that matters was how his chain of command chose to deal with the situation. If the command would have pursued it, he would have gone to Iraq, it's that simple.The chain of command didn't pursue it, and it might have been for the reason you gave, and it might not have been, you don't know for sure, unless you're an officer that makes those kinds of decisions, if you are then I will unquestionably believe you because you're the person that makes the decision, but until then your suggestion remains as a "what if" statement.
Although I don't mention it that often, I am a Marine Officer who is in charge of a communications platoon. Every platoon has a few people that try stunts like what Reiper did. Noone goes into a combat situation without being scared. Not many people want to go into combat or be deployed, especially amongst those that are married. At times, the cowardly way out looks appealing to everyone, and people have different reasons for not taking it. If nothing else stops you from sliming your way out of it, the fact that you will be screwing over the guys to your left and right should prevent it.
Im most likely going to miss the birth of my first daughter so that I can take care of my Marines. You think I want to deploy? You think there are any Marines Wives who don't cry for days when their husband is in a war zone?
What did Reiper accomplish through his actions?
Did he make headlines as a dissenting Marine? No.
Did he serve as a martyr for the pacifist cause by sitting in a brig instead of deploying? No.
Did he cause anyone else around him to question their actions they had performed so blindly? No... he just sat around and checked fucking ID's.
But Hey! That's good to go! Just as long as he didn't have to do anything remotely dangerous.
Even if it did mean that the people he worked with had to work twice as hard to pull his weight. Even if it made the work of the Marines around him much harder, and more dangerous, hey, at least he didn't miss any new episodes of South Park.
For people on the outside of the military, it's easy to not fully understand the way people like Reiper work, and I suppose it's possible to make the mistake of thinking that he was brave for what he did... Marines, Soldiers, and anyone else in the military though can immediately identify his behaviour as pure cowardice.
At 1/16/05 05:23 AM, mr_putter wrote: Ok... still no-ones answered my second question.
Actually, not only should they stop making simpsons episodes, but they should build a time machine, and travel time back to 2000 when the show started to suck in the first place.
Old Simpsons > New Simpsons
At 1/16/05 04:47 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:At 1/16/05 03:50 AM, Taxman2A wrote: Oh yeah, and the reason your shop didn't want to pursue the charges wasn't because they were afraid of losing 7 other Marines, it was because they didn't want the liability of a dirtbag when the lead started flying. Trust me, if they would have pursued it you would have been in the sandbox, far away from your cushy ID checking job.Ok, we trust you as a figure of authority when it comes to predicting people's reactions and your experience with psychoanalysis. Yes you have a doctorate that certifies you for sure to know that's exactly the way the troops were thinking, there's no questioning your logic, no way no how. Not in this, or any of your other statements, you didn't jump the gun a single time and make an assumption, no sir.
This has nothing to do with psychology, this has to do with knowledge of the Marine Corps, and the way a unit functions. What the hell are you even talking about? " the way the troops were thinking?" wtf?
It doesn't matter how the "troops were thinking", all that matters was how his chain of command chose to deal with the situation. If the command would have pursued it, he would have gone to Iraq, it's that simple.
At 1/16/05 04:05 AM, Taxman2A wrote: Anyone who says they signed the contract is either abysmally stupid, or is lying (most likely the latter, but I wouldn't rule anything out).
Edit: I wanted to say, ANyone who says they signed the contract WITHOUT KNOWING ABOUT THE IRR ...
Oh well, funny typo at least
At 1/16/05 03:34 AM, Jimsween wrote: Contractual Obligation.
But there should be a way out of the contract, just like any, such as paying back all wages and stuff like that.
Also, they should really make it more clear in the contract what they can do, I was told that making them go out for a second term isn't even in the contract, it's just summarized as subnot j125 or something like that, so they have to go look it up to find out what it is.
Um... well all members of the US military are actually contracted for 8 years... generally 4 of them on active duty, then 4 in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). In the IRR, you can be called back up at any time in the event that you are needed. This is very clearly explained to you, if not at the recruiters office, then when you sign your contract. Anyone who says they signed the contract is either abysmally stupid, or is lying (most likely the latter, but I wouldn't rule anything out).
At 1/13/05 03:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: I copped out of my duties... etc.
Wait... so you decided to protest the US government's involvement in Iraq- not by protesting, not by refusing orders and accepting court martial- but rather by trying to pull some lame unrelated excuse, and screwing over your buddies by making them pull your extra weight in a war zone?
Losing faith in your country? Understandable in times such as these...
Losing faith in your Corps? Hey, not everyone buys all that oohrah stuff...
But screwing over the kid next to you who is just as scared so that you could stay home? That's just pathetic.
You can say what you want, but it's clear that this was just a cowardly act.
If you actually wanted to do this in an uncowardly way, you could have stated your honest opinion and reason for dissenting, and accepted court martial.
Oh yeah, and the reason your shop didn't want to pursue the charges wasn't because they were afraid of losing 7 other Marines, it was because they didn't want the liability of a dirtbag when the lead started flying. Trust me, if they would have pursued it you would have been in the sandbox, far away from your cushy ID checking job.
BWS is right, this test really is quite politically biased- here's an example, right in the very first question.
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Come on, who would really put the interests of "trans-national corporations" over humanity? Thats rediculous, and written with a left minded viewpoint. Even the word "trans-national corporation" is written using words to appear to make the conservative answer as dark and evil as possible, rather than using more neutral words like "company" or "business".
At 11/20/04 01:40 AM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: I am one of the 49% ppl of the USA who didn't vote for bush, please don't hate me.
Were SORRY!
As for the south, fuck it. My aunt got this in an email....so please read it.....
Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people... blah blah blah a bunch of hypocritical bullshit
This has to be the stupidest letter I've ever read... to paraphrase then, it says that all the real americans are from northeastern states and people in the south aren't real americans because most of America's early history happened in the new england area. What a complete crock of shit. I'd also like to mention that I'm not a southerner (even though I currently live in Virginia, which also happens to be one of the first 13 states our moronic letter writer seems to care so much about). Whoever wrote this letter is a complete fucking moron.
At 10/28/04 03:39 PM, ReiperX wrote:
Join the marines as a Grunt and requests MEUs <name has changed recently but people still will know what you're talking abuot>
Since when did they stop calling MEUs MEUs?
