213374U

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet. Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal. Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong. Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc...

I love neat sounding quotes. They are an awesome resource for when one has nothing original to say, and they can make you look real smart when delivered well and coupled with a good use of the eyebrows. A few off the top of my head: "When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be" - Lao Tzu "Stop quoting the laws, we have swords" - Pompey "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" - Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord "No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training... what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned. This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.

In fact, during the Middle Ages, Muslims and non-Muslims (Christians included), lived in peace and harmony in what have been arguably some of the most tolerant and progressive regimes of the time: the Caliphates. Characterized by a respect of individual rights (including, but not limited to, freedom of religion and freedom of expression), and an adherence to an early form of the rule of law, different peoples coexisted and worked together to bring about the "Golden Age" of Islam -- one of the most bright periods of Islamic history and comparable to the European Renaissance period in scope. So, no. It was merely the Pope and those who relied on him for validation of their authority that "hated Muslims", and only because back then the Muslim world was the dominant power. Free speech cannot lead to the polarisation you warn against -- that's the role of ignorance, to which suppression of free speech is conducive.

Talk about clumsy trolling. I edited the post, even if you don't really deserve it. So far your contributions to this thread have amounted to calling everyone an ignorant, claiming that any opinions different from your own are irrelevant, and accusing me of being wrong without actually substantiating such claims. This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie. We are not your mommy. And yeah, hurt as your pride may be, you are a total n00b at trolling. Not subtle, not funny, not even snobbish enough. Simply... weak. edit: I wouldn't bother, Wals. He's clearly not interested in the link, or even facts that disagree with his prefab opinions. If he was, he would have read it by now, only to have an idea of what the thread is about, don't you think?

"uh... buh... wha... that can't be, you wrong!" Yeah, Obbie. I know it hurts. Why don't you leave the grownups to their grownup discussions? It's obvious that you have no grasp of the science you insist on patronizing about, and by extension, the topic at hand. But that's not nearly as bad (it can be blamed on lazy teachers), as your lack of capacity to form your own opinions and your unwillingness to learn.

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter. I recommend you start reading the link posted by Walsingham in the first post, then, if all you need are basic reading comprehension skills. Right, because who needs critical thinking anyway? <snip> I may have misused the word "theory", in a strictly scientific sense. Let me rephrase: what we have are a bunch of models. But those are even weaker than a theory, as far as establishing a basis for what is known goes. Models are used to simulate systems for convenience of observations sake, but they don't actually explain anything and are at the complete mercy of the assumptions of the scientists that built them. The "theory" that this increase in temperature is a result of human activity is in no way scientific... it's more like guesswork. Further, the ability to read and "basic knowledge" of the workings of science will get you nowhere (or rather, it will get you where others want you to be), as this issue is one of the most complex topics tackled by science, ever. I speak on a regular basis with actual scientists... you know, folks that advance science for a living. And a common theme among them is ignorance of the details and technical aspects involved. This is hardly surprising, as scientists don't do "general science", and most don't have the time nor the inclination to go through specialized literature and journals in their spare time, just for the hell of it. <snip>

I take usurpation very seriously, thank you very much.

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me. edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

is just as bigoted and short-sighted as a Muslim that might get incontinently angry about the issue and yell "burn the cartoonist" - effectively you've got people in the Western world who are so blindly devoted to the idol of freedom of speech, so that rather than truly understanding its (very positive) role in society, they just worship it. How is this different from.... Uh, so because people don't understand what free speech is about (your insult example is a perfect example of this), free speech is suddenly at the same level as divine revelation? Really? The problem is that you cannot codify people's sensibilities and make that into a law that will be fair for everyone, because "offense" is not only unfalsifiable, but also completely subjective. Therefore, restricting free speech (a fundamental human right) just to whatever doesn't cause offense is bound to fail. While I think your stance in questioning everything, free speech included, is appropriate, I don't think you are being very thorough about it, as you seem to be confusing (or at least placing at the same level) dogma and empirical reasoning. Things like free speech and the secularisation of the state have been discussed for centuries now... and people were eventually convinced (by means of reason) that it was best. Revisiting these discussions is undoubtedly healthy, so as to avoid the blind worship problem you speak about, but let's try not to lose perspective. I'd genuinely like to hear your arguments against free speech, as I worship nothing myself, but I did notice you didn't actually make any.

Sorry sir, but that's bull. Free speech doesn't end where the sensibilities of group X begin. That is NOT free speech, you see -- self-censorship is still censorship. You make an interesting point: we do respect your culture/religion, as long as it doesn't conflict with the foundations of OUR culture. Because, unlike in other cultures, those foundations aren't untouchable since they were given to us by God Almighty directly (through a convenient intermediary). Systematically oppressing women and homosexuals should be acceptable because "there are no barbarians, just other cultures"? Where did this idea that irreconcilable differences don't exist come from? I'm not calling for open warfare here, but exemption from criticism? PC overdrive much?

Huh. If a single anonymous post can raise reasonable doubts, then perhaps the foundations of this theory aren't quite as solid as you'd like to think. I'm really in no mood to dig up a bazillon links that show that this "consensus" is not only irrelevant, but also not as complete as you claim. Use the search function if you're interested. Been there done that, etc.

Been playing it for a while now. Apparently no russian gun shoots straight; except for the bad's guys. Overall is like Fallout but Russian and uglier and without character progression; but the guns are nice. STALKER is ****ing awesome. Atmospheric like no other shooter I've played. Go hunt some bloodsuckers at dusk, or explore an old underground lab -- Fallout 3 is like Sesame Street in comparison. Vanilla gunplay is not very good unfortunately, which is unforgivable in a FPS. The stealth component is a bit off as well, but the game is extremely easy to mod, so these shortcomings aren't such a big deal. I recommend getting a few basic mods, even if it's your first game -- a ballistics mod and one that gives the guns their real names are good places to start, but there are also some texture mods that make the game easier on the eye. Or go all the way and get the excellent Oblivion Lost. (warning: your saves won't be compatible with that one!) edit: I just realized you were talking about Fallout in general, not FO3 specifically. The point stands, though.

Heh, AGW doesn't need to exist for it to be used as a political pretext. Remember those Iraqi WMDs? Yes, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat at the moment. Also, you have claimed to be a scientist. You should know that consensus isn't part of the scientific method. The fact that you don't know which way to decide probably has to do with you not being part of the multidisciplinary teams that work on this for a living. Too much PR and hearsay, too little actual science. Most scientists actually need this thing explained to them in detail, and even then, they would need to defer to other scientists' expertise in matters that are outside of their field (mathematicians don't need to be experts on the role the oceans play in this...). This reminds me of that one time I read how some guy who "held a degree in Biology", assured the audience how the people in some pictures had been killed with WP ordnance. Scientists are, ironically, the priests of our time.

Hmm. Well, I can't argue with that. I think it's implied, however, that the "PlayDate" is very much a living person?

Discriminating against fat people now, are we? Tsk, tsk. Shame on you. Anyway, they really need some sort of staff approval for profiles: http://join.gamecrush.com/index.php?option...0&Itemid=56 http://join.gamecrush.com/index.php?option...9&Itemid=56 http://join.gamecrush.com/index.php?option...0&Itemid=56 http://join.gamecrush.com/index.php?option...7&Itemid=56 Otherwise this will accomplish little other than being an even bigger lol mine than it already is...

To be fair, that's not safe for anywhere. No point in flagging it, really. More \o/

There is no such thing as a "closed system", much less when we are discussing monetary transactions. I mean, if the charge $8 for 6-10 minutes of CONVERSATION with a girl you'll NEVER get to ****, can you imagine the economic repercussions elsewhere? Can you!? edit: oh, camgirl websites. But at least they show you the goods, if nothing else.

To you it may be sad... after some number crunching, to me, it's quick and effective! At any rate, you can't pay for DLC with social skills and a nice smile! Take that, suckas!

I don't like where this is headed.

Can you explain this a bit more in detail? Can this bill really force people to get a private medical insurance? And, not being American myself, I have no idea of the extent to which the Supreme Court allows its rulings to be influenced by (partisan) politics and public opinion. If it's not mostly unaffected by that, what's the point of having such an organ to begin with, and by extension, a Constitution? Imagine if they put forward a bill that forces Americans to own a gun... Yeah, cool. You do realize that if the US start enacting huge cuts on their defense budget, it's not the US that will no longer benefit from their defense umbrella, right? Actually, having each rep be answerable to his electors directly is WAY more "democratic" than having MPs vote en masse one way or the other because they only have to worry about the party's official line. Read the votes as you will.

So, Israel's latest secret weapon is a "lard impregnated Muslim exploder", huh?

Didn't horse armour at least make horses tougher? Other than making them look retarded (ze goggles!), I doubt this will have any actual in-game effect. Maybe it makes enemies more likely to fire at your squadmates instead of you? I know I would...

I tried this in my last go, and after comparing I think he's the best choice. Anderson obviously can't fill a councilor's shoes, and seems to have trouble getting anything done -- the man's a stiffneck and inexperienced to boot. On top of everything, he doesn't seem to be particularly thrilled by his new job. Udina on the other hand is extremely conservative and cautious, but I remember hearing that he actually gets things done no matter the amount of people aliens he pisses in the process. And he's clearly a political animal... edit: me fail English? That's unpossible!

No, because this is an extension of an existing mechanism. Add a few terms and shazaam. And frankly nuts to your point about hypothetical newbies. I contend there are constantly new people here, and if there aren't then Obs may as well pack the whole thing in. We fail. The existing mechanism is in place overwhelmingly for smileys, and not to enforce a certain posting style. Further, it's optional, and in the cases it's not, it causes problems (auto-substitution of (r) for ®, for instance). I don't see the point of a gimmick that's bound to cause more headaches to both users and admin than it will actually help prevent.