i88gerbils

I still say that, but I've always just used "woot" or "woot!"

There are signatures?

I haven't used Winamp passed version 3. What's so special about it? It plays music... it's skinnable... whatever.

mplayer and xine (totem or kaffeine are good for xine too) work fine as well as xmms. Avidemux2 is better nowadays and is nice for a/v encoding.

We're also not supposed to eat pork, but that was for health reasons back in the ancient to dark age eras. My good friend, who is not for gay marraige, is an up and coming Methodist minister tries to tell me all about the bible's advice as just being smart for the ancient era. Much of these "rules" were simply advice that was best taken to remain healthy. With modern health practices some of these don't make any sense. Simply existing is not spreading heresy. If you believe what the Vatican used to believe in until 1972 then all Jews should burn in !@#$%^&* for something their ancestors may have done thousands of years ago simply for existing. It also leads down the line of thinking that justified the holocaust (no I'm not envoking that stupid law and if you think I am you're dumb). Additionally, don't misquote me if you're only going to snip at one point, which is my opinion of a good friend of mine. That's pretty much absurd right there. Though I'm glad the rest of my argument makes sense. :-) It's off to Sri Lanka.

Gays who want to "marry" religiously can freely do so. There is no reason why religious reasons should enter into the "gay marraige debate". It is purely a legal issue. The reason why religion plays no part is that we have something called "freedom of religion". If you want to prohibit gays from romantically forming partnerships, caring for each other, and raising families based on the fact that it is against some Christian morals, then that is denying someone a right to practice what they believe in. I know a lesbian priest and there's no indication that she's a devil worshipper nor would not be able to lead a congregation towards the path of the Christian god. So if we already have that, then there's no reason why religion should enter into this debate except to deny other people's religious values. I mean the only religions that are banned are those that are fanatical cults or abuse substances (Rastafarianism). So now that we cannot use religion in this debate we must focus on the legal reason not to legalize gay marraige. Hey now, there's another argument. Legalize. That means government condoned and/or promoted. Not religious-condoned. Throws that religious argument out the window again. However, governments are not likely to promote legal benefits for gay marraiges because they get no benefit in return. Why should the government get less income tax? But wait a second, why should the government get less income tax for any marraige? What's so special about all marraiges? There is nothing special about a legal marraige. It's just a do!@#$%^&*ent, and a man & woman can live together and enjoy the legal benefits of this union. Nothing special or beneficial to government in that. The only time government benefits from marraiges is with family. A union bonds together two people, and when they create a family this provides growth. This is good economically. So the only thing that governments should be restricting is whether or not people live together as a family unit. So I ask you, do heterosexual or homosexual marraiges provide the government with this family unit that is beneficial to the government and thus the country? If it isn't, then there is no reason to have any marraige benefits, and save benefits for family living. This in effect "privatizes" marraige and marraige ceremony to the sole arena of religion. Any religion can stipulate what it believes in, and some religious communities can bear witness to the validity of a marraige regardless of sexual preference (as long as the partners are sentient). Until gay couples realize what power they actually do have they don't need to be arguing about "marraige", just the legal benefits.

lawl.

This is going to suck. I fly out of London in a week (and another week). Guess I won't be bringing my laptop as I'm not going to let it go through the checked luggage scanners.

Some players tried to create policies to limit players' freedoms, and failed to produce a netban policy.

Additionally, if a zone or network owner refuses to tell you what you have done wrong, then another person needs to look up the ban id & comment. If there is no comment, then there is no reason for someone to be group banned.

SeveR, you're incorrect about the Republican party. The Republican party is composed of two parties. There are the social conservatives who believe in upholding a strict set of values and there are economic libertarians that support the conservative approach to business. A friend of mine theorizes that the Libertarian party will gain significant gains if the latter half of the Republican party ever splits. Now interestingly, yet derailing, the Democratic party has its own circles such as blind hypocrites like Senator Hilary Clinton whose approach is similar to the social conservatives of the Republican party. Your definition of patriotism is as flawed as Mecbot's was years ago. Only those U.S. citizens who hold apathy towards political, social, and economic change are unpatriotic and dare I use the word Unamerican (HUAC ). Okay, back to your discussion.

Never heard of those programs, but I can verify that most software that has some sort of tcp/ip, netbios, udp, etc ... connection has trouble if any software virus/worm/firewall is not configured appropriately. You can usually turn these off by going into Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services. If I had to make an educated guess I would say that Kaspersky Security Suite may cause issues, while the regular Anti-Virus portion should not. PeerGuardian2 shouldn't cause any trouble if it is just fancy hosts.deny functionality. If you do have the security suite hopefully Kaspersky allows you to manually configure "allowed" programs. If not, then you'll want to disable it completely using the method above.

I have never read nor watching anything by Michael Moore. I think back when he did "Bowling For Columbine" people were all excited about it. I did not think any of his movies would entertain me so I simply have ignored him. From all the hullaboo about whatever liberalism he spouts I think of one thing - people must be pretty dumb. That is all.

Religious Undertones? HA HA HA HA HA HA That my friend is a piece of Christian Literature with Christian morals, values, and a message (albeit unitarian universalist if you want to try and argue that). The Ottoman Empire is interesting. Remember you have turks ruling over much of the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire started to decline after European interests & money moved to direct trade with Asia. I'd place the decline of influence on economic reasons while the eventual should be place on international pressure by Britain (Lawrence of Arabia?) and cultural differences between middle east culture & Turkish culture. An example of this cultural tension is the current Kurdish dilemna. Both Turks & Kurds are muslim, but they don't really like each other do they?

Does anyone remember the "good" ol' days? Good being subjective of course. EMBED got Gravitron so pissed he started using it & got banned. In reality, embed tags in signatures is a bad idea because if you have multiple posters with embed tags things may get really screwy. However, this isn't a problem for those posting embed tags in posts as anyone who actively hijacks another's embed tag should get banned (see Gravitron above).

.. and just when i thought life was getting better. >_<

I haven't had a problem with the EMBED tag in posts. In fact, that's why I posted at FHQ.COM several years back.

There was no manual. Rincewind's strategy guide w/ JeffP's comments were included with the SubSpace box along with a keyboard cutout. Unless I'm not remembering something from my box (in storage). In any case, Rincewind's strategy guide can be said to be the manual.

This. Changes. Everything. It's been ... so long.

Wait. How did you get music?

Is it offensive? Yep. Is it okay to boycott/opine about it? Yep. Is it free speech? Yep. Now if the Prophet Mohammed, Joshua Ben Joseph, etc etc ... we're alive Today that might be considered libel. But anyone can consider religion to be a "myth" or legend.

They can easily turn images off if they think they will be offended by anything. That's what I do. Mainly because most players' seem to post utter crap images that I don't want to see anyway.

Let us all burn in !@#$%^&* together fellow non-moslems! http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm

Freedom of speech. However more often than not speech can be tied to actions. If I stepped outside my apartment complex on a bright and sunny day & said "!@#$%^&* You ASSS" I'd probably earn a whole lot of disrespect in various ways. If I said "!@#$%^&* You ASSS" and refused to sell african-americans food/pharmaceuticals/etc ... then I should be fired for discrimination & racism. It's the samething regarding those anti-abortion pharmicists. So there is a careful line to tread. That our opinions on one subject will lead us to rationalize discrimination based off of racist thoughts. Can we be sure we're not crossing it? I don't think so. That's why we need to always be aware of ourselves. Take a step out of your own shoes and step into someone else's. Having friends who can watch out for one another helps too. We don't have to be perfect, but that's not an excuse for ignorance. On an artistic note - That picture reminds me of Daruma. Edit - thanks for the troll. I didn't see that headline back in September. Pictures of the prophet? Funnily enough Larry Gonick (Cartoon History of the Universe) even caved to not offending muslims by not drawing Mohamed. Though he drew most of the rest of religious characters/prophets in some sort of silly way. My respect for him dropped that day.

The point I tried to make a page or so ago was that Entropy is defined for one condition. It is conditional. In the environment of the Nucleus of a cell DNA is stable as a double-helix. However if you change the environment to include a certain chemical process DNA begins to unravel. The chemical process creates a RNA strand to produce a protein. This is not to say that scientifically DNA modifying enzymes are intelligent designers. They could be, but that is not Science. If I wanted to say that it is possible that a DNA modifying enzyme is an intelligent designer I would be discussing philosophy. How can I prove scientifically that a DNA modifying enzyme is intelligent? I cannot, but it is possible to philosophize such a conclusion by looking at rational thinkers such as Nietzsche and Chuang Tzu. Let's continue on with this concept of condition or known in humanities as context. The condition for the development of life is not certain. It is theorized that there was possibly a "soup" or a "sandwich" (open-faced). These scientific theories approach the development of life through the scientific method i.e. research trying to simulate the condition of pre-historic Earth. Does intelligent design have this type of scientific research? No. Intelligent Design "lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive." This is agreed upon by ID proponents. Their answer: we must change the definition of Science to include God. So if we let Intelligent Design be a scientific theory then the whole basis for reliable scientific research is crushed. Supernatural and unexplainable concepts will become valid just because someone says so. That really doesn't work does it? Once again we come to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is not a Science. However it should be taught as a Philosophy of the origin of life.