metadigital

I'm a moderator, I can't ignore ANYONE ... I have to ensure everyone is playing nice.

I'm interested to know how you would see this working in practice. If the mother wants an abortion and the father does not, what happens? How about if the father wants an abortion and the mother does not? Where does the casting vote fall? You suggest that the mother cannot have full say in what to do with the baby, yet at the moment that's exactly how UK law stands (I don't know if US law is different). A woman is under no obligation even to inform the foetus' father that she's having an abortion, let alone get his permission. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can't use his genetic material without consent to start a pregnancy with a previously created and stored embryo, either ...

Oh, all of a sudden the ignore function doesn't work? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What?

In the society that he doesn't want to be a part of! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And your point? Why would I want to be around those who yell at me, force their religion in my face, and expect me to follow their two faced morality? I don't force anyone to do any thing. Checkpoint, you have the option to hit ignore so you won't have to read my bothersome posts. You can't do that when a person is less than a foot away yelling that you are going to hell. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that you seem very keen to foist your own opinion on this society that you want no part of. That's called hypocrisy.

Actually, now that you mention it, I recall dismembering Simons.

I can see it now: Marvel villains take on DC heroes!

The exact percentage is irrelevant, though I thank you for this added piece of information. 3% of the population are not "normal" heights (both too short or too tall). Are these people not "normal"? Who is deciding what is "normal"? Why isn't 2-3% a norm? Is there an oppression by the majority? How many different ways can we categorise people? I'm sure if we carry on long enough, we'll come across some metric whereby you (or me and any/everyone) aren't "normal". It's a pointless distinction to make in this argument, and is logical fallacy appealing to probability. The whole "normal" argument is fallacious: argumentum ad consequentiam (e.g. the gay wolf-pack, vide supra[<{POST_SNAPBACK}>]), with argumentum ad populum overtones.

Tell me everything. /Lex Luthor

Now I feel like re-installing and trying to beat Deus Ex again. :D Anyone avoided killing: Navarre Gunther, or Walter Simons? Don't make me play it again ... :D

The Fallouts are all on DVD.

No. Not really. I think that's the one with the snow skidoo, isn't it? I uninstalled it without finishing it (even with the walk-thru). Though, I'm really enjoying the first one (on my second-hand PSone: swapped ten videos for the entire package!) :D

The expansion is available from stores now.

You forgot "turn-based" and the fact that they don't rely on player skills (like reflexes), merely on the characters skills.

You need to be careful, you are making a lot of swingeing generalisations from single incidents: a fallacy. The incidence of homosexuality has ALWAYS been (throughout human and other animals) approximately 10% of the population. Also, your three-arm example completely ignores evolution (one of your favourite concepts!). For example, look at your toes immediately adjacent to your big toes. If these toes are LONGER than the big toe, then you have a MUTATION. This is also a dominant genetic mutation, meaning that only one copy in the inherited pair needs to be a mutant for the person to express the gene (and carry it, obviously). Please note that I am not suggesting that homosexuality is an evolutionary mutation (you naughty pranksters!). This is just to assist you in your logical analysis of the genetic and/or environmental factors. (I won't touch on the barefaced silliness of your wolf-pack analogy.)

In the society that he doesn't want to be a part of!

So we can create an army of Hulks, with blood transfusions? What a stupid concept. Not to mention the overly-ethical Banner just happens to "infect" a FAMILY MEMBER, no less, with his own tragic affliction. ... Maybe there was some sexual tension, after all ... :D

I was blonde as a child, probably from the sun and living on the beach ... until I schooled in England, when it went dark brown. Now it tends to lighten in Summer (highlights) ... but I would be happier to just shave it all off. Stupid stuff. I'll wear a hat if I want to stop my head losing heat. Can't stand spending ANY time on preparing a coiffure.

I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed. I am a Jedi, like my father. I think they should change elections: only women can vote (in a secret ballot, of course). :D

I didn't say athletes were good at competition, I said that true competition is with oneself. Buddhist style. PS I think you mean Michael Jordon?

There is a mistaken belief that smoking gives alleviation from stress ... but clinical evidence gives lie to this. Still, if people get some sort of placebo effect from it, who are we to tell them to stop? (Until they actually fall ill ...)

It[']s more right for me and the only person I have to live with is myself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hades, meet society, society, meet Hades.

It was just not a good movie. I'm sure the book is brilliant, but there are some things that just don't translate well. I was trying not to yawn through most of the film, although I almost laughed out loud once or twice. I think it's more trying to provide some insight into paranoia (or perception illnesses, perhaps) rather than being an entertainment. (I laughed at the extreme paranoid rantings of Downey and Harrelson.) Trying to help explain what, for those who know: no explanation is necessary; and for those who don't: no explanation is possible. Mind you, I can see this joining the ranks of The Wall, Brazil, etc as eseential film experiences for university students.

Motherhood and age-cognitive correlations