Dark Moth

My hair used to be a very light brown, almost blonde. Now it's a very dark brown, it almost looks black in dim lighting.

This reminds me of a joke about a Preist, a Pastor, and a Rabbi who tried to convert a bear in the woods. Lesson learned by the rabbi: circumcision isn't really the best way to start out.

You mean Kung Pow? Hilarious, just with its random stupidity. And I liked Unbreakable too. There are lots of underlying philosphical themes in the movie along with references to superhero comics.

Translation: "I sucked at it bigtime."

Not yet.

I'm guessing it's a lot of factors, though I'm not sure if I believe it's not genetic at all. Because I know that in some families for instance, premature grayness is common. I know a lot of thinks like hormones, diet, are big ones. There are certain foods that will cause you to age faster than normal if consumed heavily. I couldn't tell you if black hair is caused by one single gene or not, but I'd be willing to bet it is. Then again, hair color can change as someone gets older, like going from almost blonde to brown.

I shall sleep better at night knowing this little factoid. "

Then why in ****ing hell do you keep posting??? Oh, I forgot, YOU DESPERATELY NEED THE ATTENTION. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you're making half this stuff up.

I see, using the good old 'fight hatred with hatred' tactic. While I know every Christian in the US, me included, is a bigot and condemn others for their beliefs, you still should maybe rethink your strategy. Anyway, this little chat is pointless and OT, so I'm going to stop lest this thread face certain doom. (though that may be exactly what it needs)

Yeah I know, I've heard all about it. You seem to be the only one around here who has that sort of problem. (except maybe Dark Raven) So you're trying to say your bigotry is justified, right?

I think it's sadly ironic, the way he bashes specific groups of people for the same bigotry he shows others. Worst part is I think he realizes it but just doesn't care. But no, it doesn't bug me in the slightest. For it to bug me would be showing that I take him seriously.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge

I never misquoted you. Make fun of, yes. Misquote, no.

The only thing I added were the smilies. " The quote itself is unaltered. Going back to your statement, the way you phrased it was very vague and easy to misinterpret. You made it sound like the U.S. and Israel were the only bad guys acting in the ME. Then you vaguely, yet slyly seem to make a connection between the US/Israel and punks and killers. Is that what you intended? You of course were so quick to bring shame upon the western nations and Israel while disregarding the actions of the enemies they face. You completely ignored the thousands of rockets fired by Hizbollah into Israeli civilian simply in wake of the past few weeks, not counting the many years Hizbollah's been fighting Israel. Not also forgetting the car bombs and suicide bombers blowing themselves up in market places. And don't ever forget it wasn't Israel who provoked this war. Meanwhile you seem to be living in a neo-hippy fantasy where these problems are easily solved. You make these Arab nations look like poor victims who are constantly bullied and exploited by the big bad US and its sidekick Israel. If that is not what you intended, please clarify this and correct me. The article you quoted actually has little bearing on my original point itself. Meanwhile, remember that this is a war. Despite the hundreds of history books you claim to have read, you seem to have very little understanding of what is going on in the ME. Those bridges and airfields you mentioned are used to fight Israel, not just 'cultural development'. In times of war, things like that are dealt with. One bridge destroyed might mean more Israeli lives saved. Where can one draw the line? It's never changed, the same thing applied in WWII. Like it or not, Israel needs to do whatever it can to defend itself. This is defense. Ever since its foundation Israel has had to constantly defend itself from enemies just for its survival. This conflict is literally hundreds of years old and has its roots very deep in ethnic hatred that has existed even before the foundation of Israel. It, unfortunately, is not something so easily solved. While I as much as any would like to see peace come to that war-struck region, merely extending an olive branch won't help. The Gaza pullout was hailed as a huge step toward the peace process, and what good did it too? The terrorists merely claimed it as a victory for Islam and used the new territory as a base for launching attacks deeper into Israel. Those figurative bridges you mentioned have been attempted to be built in the past. But it has met little success. Why? Whether you'll admit it or not, Israel is surrounded by enemies who will not be satisfied until one thing is achieved - it being the complete and utter destruction of Israel itself, and nothing less. They won't be satisfied until every Jew lies dead in the streets and Israel is no more. Sad, but true. If you doubt me, just look at what these people say yourself. Just look at their actions, or look in one of those history books you claim to have read.

I know. We moral nutters just keep letting those darn facts get in the way of things, don't we? Of course I'd say a nutter would be more prone to make a statement like this: Oh, I added your smilies for you.

One of you hasn't. And I don't think it's alanschu.

Post a link. Even still, Israel was not the one who provoked this war. And to be honest, if you think Iran's the big victim in all this, you're either seriously misinformed or worse. Who the hell do you think finances Hizbollah in the first place? Who's their biggest sponsor? Gee, I wonder who it is. Don't fool yourself. Iran is no victim here. It can easily be argued their also responsible for provoking this war. Last time I also checked, Iran stated before that one of their goals is the destruction of Israel. Not that that implies anything, no sir. No, Israel has nothing to fear from Iran. Wow. The utter veracity of your statement boggles my mind. After all, the US and Israel just periodically blow up bridges and factories for no reason, even in times peace. That is in no way biased or misinformed opinion. No sir.

That's 70's music? Ah well... I like it ALOT... just didn't expected it to be that old. My mistake, it isn't 70's. Close, but not quite. Still great music though. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Higher Ground

Currently on a 70's music swing.

You fail to realize there's a lot higher chance of Iran striking Israel first than vice-versa, unless perhaps if Iran continues and broadens its aggressive support of terrorist groups in the ME.

*a.k.a. the alternate Wizard of Oz soundtrack.

So she is! [Good for her!] Anyway, I say we just don't find another mod to replace DR. We have enough already, and Feng will just [mess] everything up.

First of all, if a country has to resort to nukes just to 'defend' themselves, then there's something horribly wrong with the picture. Secondly, it's not so much about Iran just being able to defend itself. It's about letting a theocratical state run by a madman (who also finances terrorist groups, like Hezbollah) obtain the technology to further one of its stated goals, which is 'wiping out Israel'. Yes, the US has more of a right to harbor nukes then Iran does. We are a democracy, and for that reason alone we'd be less likely to use nukes off the bat just for that reason alone. However, if Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided one day he wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, he wouldn't have anyone from his own population to answer to. Don't forget that we're also dealing with a society run by a theocratical government that still lives in the Dark Ages and whose goal is not merely 'defending itself', but wiping America, Israel, and all infidels off the face of the earth. You saying you'd feel safe with someone like that having nukes? And before you say it, Bush may not be a great leader, but he and the administration would not be quick to use nuclear weapons in any situation. Whether you admit it or not, the BA is on a higher moral platform than those currently running Iran.

Good to see the old Hades is still alive and well.

As you pointed out, it's not 'all or nothing' when it comes to taking the Bible literally. Some parts are meant to be taken literally, others symbolically. For example, the Bible is quite literal when it says that Jesus was crucified. Howevever, anyone with half a brain can tell there won't literally be a beast with 'seven heads and ten horns' coming out of the sea at the end times. Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Calvinists are a few huge examples. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BTW, you're wrong about that too. The RCC, Lutherans, and Calvinists do not teach that sex in general is a sin. Calvinists I'm not so sure about, but the priests and people in the mainstream RCC's clerical heirarchy might have to take a vow of celibacy, but that does not mean sex itself is sinful, especially for the average Joe in the congregation. Lutherans do not even require such practices, and they certainly don't say sex is a sin. I should know, I am one. Honestly, make sure you have your facts straight before making statements.