Deadly_Nightshade

Why? A telescopic baton with appropriate training would probably be one of the best instruments (reach, light, non-lethal), but entertainingly, the punishment for carrying one here is greater than for carrying a knife. It's the same here, knives, provided they are not of the particular types that are illegal, are fine but telescoping batons and the like are not (unless the law has changed since I last looked at it).

Uh...For what? I've got a collection, albeit a small one for now, of knives/swords - most for are for display and some for every day carry or defensive carry. Obviously the bayonet, once it's cleaned up - there is a bit of rust on the handle and, unfortunately, a few spots on the blade itself-, will be for display and not for carrying around (unless it's for a costume or something like that, because it's rather impractical to haul around otherwise). For carrying I normally go with a shorter fixed-blade or larger folding-blade (see the pictures for some examples of the sort of knives I'm talking about). And, before someone asks, I currently live in a state with no length limit as far as knives go so, yes, all of the pictured blades -and some larger ones that I didn't grab for the example (for instance, a 6" version of the folding stiletto seen there)- are legal to carry.

I got a French 1878 "Gras" Sword Bayonet.

R00fles! Sure you are Mr. Dagon, and I bet you have a moon-base on Io that's run by little-green-men as well.

R00fles!

That's odd, since the game has been out for years. I take it you are playing the new free 2 play stuff? Yes, that is correct.

Even though I use Steam for somethings, I am, in general opposed to it and get non-Steam hardcopies when possible. This is because, frankly, Steam is one of the more restrictive DRM schemes out there - nor is it that great of a product either.

The Lord of the Rings Online Beta - it's been fun so far. That's really about all I can say since testers are technically under a NDA.

Not necessarily, once-in-a-trillion-years odds do not preclude something happening more than once, or not at all, in that time-frame (although I'm almost positive that you're being sarcastic, I'd thought I would mention that anyways).

R00fles!

You know, it's funny that you did was to either ignore them or sit with your fingers in your ears and yell "waahhhh this would make me wrong so it cannot be correct". But whatever, I've got to get going so I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense when I get back.

That's odd, I'm fairly sure there's been numerous examples posted. Sorry, but that's flawed - as I said in an earlier post, just because something has a one-in-a-trillion-year-chance of happening does not mean that this thing cannot happen more than once in that time-frame. Please actually learn the math you're talking about.

By unique I mean pre-selected before he's won anything. I have a question; how exactly are you saying this person per-determined until they won that second lottery? Your statement seems to be rather useless unless until you clarify what makes someone per-determined (not that it's necessarily useful anyways).

You'd not expect to see it but that doesn't mean that it could not happen.

And, again, why is this? I don't think you ever said that...

Youve said this a few times now, and not to get too OT, but arent all sperm the same? Basically they are identical vessels used to carry and deposit the same DNA that all the sperm are carrying. There isnt multiple different versions of sperm, afaik, so he would always be "him", no? I believe you're incorrect, some sperm's genetic information has slight mutations that might not appear in other sperm - fairly sure that this is the case and not the "all sperm are created equal and with identical genetics" version you're suggesting. But this is drifting off topic (I'd be glad to discuss it with you though if you want to make another thread).

Well there's an obvious issue there unless you actually meant "someone in the world who also plays that particular lottery" - you did mean that, right?

Woosh! And there you have it, the point just flew over Dagon's head!

I have a question; how exactly are you saying this person per-determined until they won that second lottery? Your statement seems to be rather useless unless until you clarify what makes someone per-determined (not that it's necessarily useful anyways).

Ohhh, getting testy are we? Well there's many to choose from but the entire "this has low odds thus it is impossible" argument seems to be your biggest one so far.

Since you've ignored it I'll bump this post from Calax as well (not sure if you've got him on ignore or simply decided not to respond).

Nope. It doesn't work that way at all. When I called your beliefs/statements asinine I said nothing about you other than that your beliefs/statements were asinine. The comment was directed at those and not yourself and thus it is not an example of an ad hominem attack. Please go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200 (in other words, you failed once again).

Sorry, but that's not an ad hominem attack - mainly because, obviously, it was not directed against you but at your statements. You might want to look up the meaning of that along with the maths.

So he's like you, you don't know math but still know of it.

And when, exactly, did I do that?