Lateralus

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. You were trying to prove that fate is nonexistent because of the fact that I chose to believe it. Well, go further back than that. What led me to choose to believe it? Fate. The question wasn't loaded, I was just interested. I don't believe in fate but I can hardly be expected to argue with you if I don't know why you believe in it. Socrates and all that.

How about once more with a little sincerity?

For anyone who believes in fate, how did you come to that conclusion?

It's beautiful, I think that's enough to make it important. Still, I don't like it when people start going on about it.

Just a flashback to early teenage belligerence I suppose. Nice to get it out every once in a while.

Nor the lack of eloquence.

Which is what it should be boiled down to when talking about equality. I mean seriously. When it comes to technicalities, it would be "equal" to make every channel on television just like the BET channel since everyone is still entitled to watching it. Of course, but you can't deny the logic in the post. I said he was right on a technical level. Your analogies are awful, by the way.

You can't be serious. You completely left out the part where gay guys don't want to marry women. It's like saying bringing Steelers fans to a non-Steeler game is as fair as bringing Patriots fans to a Patriot game. Technically he's right - A gay person can do anything a straight person can, unless you boil the distinction down to marrying the person they love. It's right in a very strict sense, but not a particularly strong point.

I was just trying to avoid any bureaucracy because I didn't think it was necessary.

I put the first line in as a buffer so I could possibly get some kind of lenience from mods when they read it, because I know it's the kind of thing the staff prefer to keep in PM's, but like I said that would be of no use to me. I'm not bringing Powman into anything - He's already posted on the thread, where I spoke to him perfectly respectfully and he even seems to agree with me now. You're the one that's making a personal issue about this, in much the same way Powman nearly did until I said I wasn't pointing the finger. It was just sort of a 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation. You and Powman just happened to be involved in the case that made me finally want to address it. As for the last thing you said, I think it's sort of an odd extrapolation you're making, but I can sort of see why. The original poster gets credit for starting the discussion of course, and you'll still be able to tell who the good posters are without giving them any control over the threads they create. I would just like to see locks used as worst case scenarios. By this I don't mean that mods should be more liberal about enforcing the rules, just that it would be nice if threads were only locked if it's actually required.

Silly silly, how could you possibly know that? I don't pay much attention who locks a thread. This is directed at you as much as it is directed at powman - Meaning you two were involved in the last instance before I posted this, but you're hardly the single cause for it. Anyway, what would be the point in PMing you specifically if you were just following regulations? I certainly didn't know what the procedure was until I posted this, and now I do. I was suggesting that the procedure be altered, not that some mods tighten up. What's the point in locking a thread just because someone has the advice they need? I don't see any need to actively prevent further posts just because someone is satisfied. Like I said earlier, it's not their thread. Once it's been posted it belongs to the forum. If I had a problem with you specifically I would have mentioned you, alright? I don't do passive aggressive. EDIT to respond to your edit: It only made sense for me to post this, a PM wouldn't have been very useful at all - It would just have been my opinion. By doing this I got some weight behind it. Mods and admins have been through this topic without locking it, I suppose because they can see this is the only sensible way of bringing something like this up.

The locking of your thread just brought it to the front of my mind - I didn't mean it in any kind of spiteful way. If I was a different way inclined I could easily see why you locked it, and the reasons you did are quite obvious, but it would have been just as easy to either ignore the argument or just post and say you wouldn't be responding to it further. I just don't see the necessity of the lock (and ideally locks should be due to necessity).You sacrificed the prospect of any further advice when you got the thread locked.

Sorry, I didn't mean to place the blame squarely on the mods. It would be nice if people didn't feel the need to even ask for a lock.

Firstly, I'm not PMing this to a staff member because this way I might get a little bit more weight behind this, assuming it's not just my opinion. Does it bother anyone else when you see "locked under request of author" as a reason for a lock? The only control I'd like to see an author have over a discussion is in the original post, and even then it's pretty minimal. Once the thread is out there, it's not really yours anymore. I'm sure at sometime someone has had a discussion killed because the author decided the conversation was over, and I can imagine that's pretty annoying. Of course there's got to be extreme circumstances where it'll happen, but I think mods could be a little more selective about allowing this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=10jbJUFVF6Y Roxette will make everything better.

Well that idea is an adaption of the Daft Hands video, which is infinitely cooler.

Your room looks huge, and that couch is excellent. I've been staying in the spare room at my mother's house for a few months until the lease on my new flat starts, but here it is anyway: I'm not a very tidy person. It's starting to look like a book mobile crashed into a crackhouse.

Probably meth or possibly heroin. Proably meth though. Much easier to get your hands on. Talk about assuming the worst. I would have started at hash and worked my way up from there.

Southern hemisphere is opposite land.

All basses bow down to the Rickenbacker 4001, with the ugly pickup cover removed of course. That's a stereo pickup under there, and the bass has two output jacks to run to left and right channels for that fat Ricky sound.

I don't think anyone would be as bold as to say that, there's just not much basis for the assumption either. That kind of argument would be better suited to Einstein or Spinoza's god than it would be to Christianity's.

http://interstateparanormal.com/forum/i ... topic=26.0 Just some crazy guy apparently. The website link is hardly any kind of bulletproof evidence, it's just the first hit that came up when I googled it.

Hmm, I'm not at all interested in public nudity. There's places where people can go and be naked outdoors if they want to, and that seems like it should be good enough to me. The "born naked, die naked" argument isn't a very strong one either. It's difficult to appeal to that kind of animalistic point of view, considering we've made ourselves into so much more than that. EDIT: Not to mention the obvious practicalities of clothes (Public benches etc are already filthy in lots of cases, and don't require any help in the form of possibly hundreds of sets of bare genitalia per day)

The system is designed so it's more convenient for the customer. If there's a queue, a thirsty customer doesn't have to wait 5 mins just to refill soda/water, instead, they can go refill it at any time they wish themselves at no extra charge. The company obviously takes losses from this. The company takes losses? LOL, Companies are all about PROFITS, if you think they were dumb enough to put something out there to LOSE money and help the customers, is really all a joke. Have you seen what the prices are of "tap water + syrup" before saying the company is taking losses? Depends what way you look at it, and what kind of jargon you use. Potential profit - loss of drink revenue = Actual profit.

How old are you? Your parents are just looking out for your best interests, intrusive as it may be. I draw the line at going through your belongings, but just finding out where you're going and what you're doing seems perfectly reasonable. I suppose this is another example of how lucky I was when I was younger. My mother wouldn't even go in my room.