Blank

Camas, Washington. http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=45588546&x=-12...82&z=17&l=0&m=h This next picture is a little farther out: http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=45823057&x=-12...z=9&l=0&m=s&v=1 I live in the populated area above the sharper bend in the river. I can see two of those mountains from my house. The one directly north is Mt. St. Helens, and has been known to excite scientists with its volcanic activity. Within the past year, there was some ash that the blew out of the top, but the more well-known, actual eruption of this mountain was back in 1980. You can Wiki it if you want. I am originally from Tuscon, Arizona. I visited this Air Museum as a kid: http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=32138818&x=-11...69&z=17&l=0&m=h

My brother gets a bunch of his friends from school to go online with Halo 2 and they form a private game, where only people who are invited can play. It's basically like having the guys in the room over when you overhear them in their headsets screaming after you kill them. When Halo for Xbox first came out, I don't remember much else like it. You could tool around in levels for long periods of time with a buddy on co-op, accumulating all the grenades in the level into one spot, then sticking a vehicle next to it all, and it is all beside a rock and an overshield, and then grabbing the overshield and blowing up the pile while your friend watches you fly away. Good times. We would take the warthog into places it wasn't meant to go (note: they fall through elevator lifts). We would just play through the level really quickly and mow down everything. Distracting an enemy while your buddy runs up behind him and breaks his neck. Multiplayer was just 16 player Lan parties, made easier for everyone because it is on a console that has the same specs as everyone, and you just plug them in to a hub and go. I am not saying it was the best game, but Halo, when it first came out, was great. Gameplay is still fun too. If you like FPS's, Halo and Halo 2 are at least average, and the multiplayer aspects make it last for as long as you and your friends still enjoy killing each other. Sure, other games allowed you to do this, but for Xbox, this was all we had, and we loved it.

That's why I always go places 30 minutes early, so when I get there, I can unscrew my driver's seat and take it with me.

Awesome...whered you get that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I scoured the deviantART postings and thought, "This is exactly what I want my desktop pic to be." It was the right size and the right color, so bam it was on my desktop. Here it is on deviantART if you want to see more about it.

I played Risk with some friends. I took over the US, central America, Canada, and Greenland, then the guy who was controlling the Europe area got wiped out, and the others decided I was next. Fortunately, we ended the game before then.

Oh, uhm.... Happy birthday Sucky.

Crazy Ivan voice from red alert 2: "Happy BIRTHDAY!"

*Shoves a pitchfork down Hades' throat* Heh, that was the right pocket.

Right, but people use the cars even now that we know the harmful effects. Heck, the case is about the harmful effects, and about compensating the Californian people, so the people sueing know that in driving to the court, they are contributing to harm themselves. Based on the reality that people still drive cars, nobody seriously cares that they are harming the environment. To put the blame solely on the car makers is flawed, in that, they didn't drive the car, they only provided it. Secondary, but now considered a bad side-effect. People know that the side-effect is there, but they don't stop driving the cars. How is the car maker guilty for continuing to provide something that people want regardless of the toll on the environment, which they know of now? Agreed, it would be hard to make a case against car-makers. I see my points are a little poopy on the edges, but I was just trying to think of some easy defense ideas against the rather absurd lawsuit. Your idea (quoted directly above) is probably better than mine are :"> Oh, and I forgot to add the complimentary

This is like sueing companies that make guns because people get shot to death with them. The company makes it, sells it, but is not liable as to what people do with it. That's like sueing a maker of a programming language because people wrote harmful code with it. People smoke cigarettes, which are harmful to them, but they still do it, because they obviously like it. Should cigarette companies stop making cigarettes because people are harmed by them? People accept the side-effects. And based on the fact that everyone is driving a car around with reckless abandon as to the environment (even while they know the damage is being done), I make a claim that people are willingly negligent about the effects their driving has on the environment, and that they accept the effects as a cigarette smoker does. If I were defending the car makers, I would present these types of cases.

For example, my accomplices in the game went in to slash the enemy. I stayed back at a safe distance, firing arrows. After the battle, I examined my buddies and they had more of my arrows sticking out of them than the dead corpse did. Then I tried going in to slash the enemy with my sword. I would hold the trigger and wait for it to power-up, but by that time, my buddy jumped in front of me, and I dealt him a massive blow to the back.

That's great, man, but I wasn't insulting anybody, I was pointing out your flawed logic, that is, because one is around people with a lower IQ does not mean their IQ will lower. I cannot make my statements any clearer, but know that if you think I am insulting you, then you are misinterpreting what I say, as that is not what I am saying. You didn't make any analogies. Also, I don't think your analogies, if made, are any worse than mine are from an abstract perspective that they all suck at symbolizing reality. When I said you are focusing on the analogy too much, I meant that you took the analogy and broke it apart by its peculiarities, when the reason that I posted it was to get you to think about voting. Truthfully, I don't know much about Turkish politics. My point was that your reaction to the people in the analogy should've simulated your reaction to governmental bodies. USA citizens don't feel forced. We have less than 50% of the population voting. That is the pityness: our country's opinion as a people is not being counted, only half of it. So the person we might actually want isn't being chosen. And in my experience and knowledge of history, there will never be a "good" choice. One choice will be a better choice, but a president always has his/her drawbacks, something that makes him/her "not good" in the sight of someone. You are focusing on others' actions as a response to the question that was directed at you. I am asking you what you are doing that is so much more righteous than everyone else, who are being manipulated by mind control. If we are in bondage over here, how are you helping me? How do you know people aren't mind controlling you, persuading you not to vote, so that only a few people vote for the bad guy, and the bad guy wins? I am not annoyed by anything you've posted. I am saddened that you believe things that cannot be verified. How can I, let alone you, verify the truth that your websites offer?

One friend of mine works with mentally handicapped people. My friend is a really smart person, and her IQ has not dropped because of her interaction with people who have a low IQ. Your theory is faulty. You are focusing on the analogy too much. That's the bad thing about analogies. My point is, if your solution in dealing with these types of people is leaving, look at your own country. Your government hasn't always made the best decisions. And if I am not mistaken, they supported the "war on terror". Why aren't you leaving the likes of them? Somebody evil will get elected. If you vote, that won't change, if you don't vote, that won't change. You choose the less evil option, because an evil option is getting chosen no matter what. So are you just sitting around, not voting, gaining courage in reality, or are you just hypothetically dealing with these matters online? If you are not getting courage to start a revolution by not voting, what are you doing to help your nation by not voting? How do you know you are not the mind controlled one? How do you know that your government has not planted the thoughts in my mind? And don't link me to more websites. They hold no empirical truths, they don't even describe their tests so that I can recreate them. If it can't be recreated, it ain't the scientific method. Good point, but I don't nod it, and you don't nod it, so what are you getting at?

I just felt that it deserved an honourable mention amongst the final candidates.

1) 1 2) 7 3) 9 4) 3 5) 2 6) 16 7) 5 10 9)

Right, my friend was showing me his cell-phone that had the newest Nvidia chipset and a dual-core CPU from intel, 200 mb of RAM also.

That's really ingenious actually. A cheap way that bypasses the government's work on preventing ELF shields. How do you suggest combating the chemicals? I was thinking avoiding tap water and looking for deals on foreign bottled.

That's pretty scary stuff. I was looking online at aluminum foil, which brand would best. You have to be careful when buying in the US, since the governments has payed the companies with our tax money to add plastics in Aluminum Foil products so your shield is less effective. Also, I have a headphone on that is kind of broken, and I have a wireless keyboard, and whenever I type a letter, I can hear some feedback in my headphone. Obviously if this simple keyboard can affect headphones, then our minds really are suceptible!

I love you guys.

Also, Metadigital is in the UK, not the US, and he seems to have a similar mindset to some people in the US. Is the UK affected also? More importantly, how aren't you being affected? (So I can not be affected with you)

Right, it was easy to pretend because we all enjoyed it anyway. I vote Pixies for Online Campaign CEO.

noone may make me vote if it shall cause the death of an innocent baby. if noone votes, revolutions occur and even a revolution is better if it shall not cause the death of innocent babies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe this would be explained easier with an analogy. It won't be perfect, but analogies aren't. Pretend that you were amongst a group of people, say 20, and they walk around and do things that they collectively decide to do. Then pretend that some of them decide they want to kill an innocent person. Will turning away and not giving your opinion help the innocent person? There are many other factors in elections of course, they are more complex. But you should choose the least evil of the options, not because you want that person to be in office, but because you prefer them over the others. Innocent babies are gonna die no matter what, so you vote for fewer babies to die, see? Now as for your revolution thing, they don't occur simply because people don't vote. You have to start them somehow, and the not-voting part is one of the effects of the revolution, not the cause. If the average US citizen felt oppressed, I have no doubt that there would be a revolution. We aren't all fools ya know. I know many beautiful minds that would stand up in the face of egregious oppression and create their own government if necessary. It hasn't even come to that though, so nobody cares much right now. It might be gradually slipping, but the government won't have too much power before the citizens can do something about it (at this point in time). There's always the danger of a dystopia though, so we keep mindful of that and continue on for now with our easy lives where the most oppressing thing is rising gas prices.

Right, but I didn't pay for it, so it was a pleasant bonus to my NWN collection.

I think it is time we told you the truth. Behind your back we decided to attempt the ultimate role-playing challenge: to pretend that we enjoyed it. We knew that if you were crazy enough to make up threads like that, then you were unstable, volatile, and any opposition would do irreparable damage to your mind.