Ginger_Warrior

United didn't play badly either (except Neville). Sometimes you just have to accept it's not your day. Can someone explain to me what Carrick got booked for though? Coming within 2 feet of the goalkeeper, perhaps? :roll: Still only 5 points behind Liverpool and Chelsea with the Christmas fixtures to come. If you count a win against Fulham, we're still ahead of Arsenal too.

I realise this is a generalisation but women look for different things in a game than men do. I'm not saying all women look for the same thing, or all men for that matter, but it's about the way we perceive the world around us, and the games we play. This is shown in the case of NDS. Its ratio of female:male gamers is huge compared to the other consoles. One may argue that's because the games are distinguishably different from games on other consoles, like the XBox 360, which are more clearly based on violence and precise, one-minded details, rather than some NDS games which are based around creativity and constructiveness. There is quite clearly a difference between what women look for in a game, and what men look for. The thing about RPGs is that they are more idealistic by nature, so they will appeal to a broader range of people, both male and female. As for the questions: ~Are you male or female? Male ~How long have you been playing MMORPG's for? About 2 years, but no longer ~Where do you live? (Canada, Australia, America, England, etc) England

I know, but it was fairly obvious he was mocking what I said. Actually, no I wasn't. I was mocking the [developmentally delayed]ed forms of justification some Christians on this thread use for their views. The fact that Sly hasn't come up with one valid reason why homosexuals can't be married yet is evidential. All he's doing is persisting they don't have that right (in spite of contradictory Supreme Court rulings, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights), while failing to put forward even a single strong argument against homosexual marriage. In fact, implicitly what he's arguing is that because marriage is a social institution, and homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, homosexuals are detrimental to society. You, on the other hand, have plenty of justification for saying they can be married. See the point?

I didn't mind the uniform. It wasn't that bad, and made everyone "look the same". People were genuinely judged for the content of their character, rather than the style or cost of the clothes they wore. When you're 11-16, that's gotta really help against bullying. The only argument I can think of is the sheer cost of uniforms. Thankfully my high school had plastic jumpers, not blazers...

Yes, but as we all know, Atheists are more likely to commit suicide as a result of a divorce, stupid. Just accept marriage and homosexuality is wrong 'coz God says so. It makes perfect sense. If you say otherwise, you're just persecuting people who follow God.

Even if that were true (which it's not), what would be so bad about it? I'm not going to argue until you've elaborated on exactly why that's bad, given US unemployment rates are now at a 14 year high, and October was the tenth month in a row in which jobs were lost from the US economy. I just get the feeling you've heard the Republicans say "Socialist!" and you've gone "OH NOEZ WTF?!". What would be so bad about it? Eh, it's all opinion I guess. And, ta-da! Welfare does not fix unemployment, but worsens it. And I concede that he is not a socialist, but what is he then? Surely not a capitalist. Sorry, where was the word "welfare" in my post? I'm not seeing it personally... Nor was welfare even designed to fix unemployment anyway.

Tetris. If you have no Tetris, modern gaming doesn't exist. And the background music is great. :

I appreciate tone can often be misunderstood over the Internet (hence why people should still socialise in real life, to be perfectly honest), but if one has to explain a joke, it usually isn't funny. Can you imagine a comic standing up on a stage and going, "Oh, by the way guys, this is a joke comin' up. Just warnin' ya so you don't get offended, kay?" Anyways, this is going way OT...

Neither. New Pork's a banned stage. ;)

See, that's weird from where I'm sitting. People don't just insult people when they get pissy and turn up the next day and pretend everything's fine. You need to have some confidence in the other person that they won't take it the wrong way to get away with it. That should tell you something about how she trusts you with a wider range of her emotions. Whether or not she likes you is another matter. I'm not a mind-reader, especially not over the Internet. Clearly you missed the radical new buzzword around here - CONFIDENCE!!!

I second. He also has a suspicious body odour that carries through to his posts, and his username is a bit strange. Okay, while I can understand that this user has annoyed the both of you... I can't understand the both of you dropping to such an insulting and childish level of behavior... Sure, maybe you're trying to make a point through example of rudeness and sarcasm, but it ends up feeling and sounding like an outright flame post. Sure, you're upset, but you don't need to lash like this. Heck, it makes me sad that you both did this. :cry: Here's irony. It's flying right over your head.

It is postworthy. Indeed, there is already a whole thread for the EMAs in the music board. Also, there was about 3 people in the audience last night who applauded him. The Awards were in Liverpool, Astley comes from Merseyside. Clearly, he's very popular outside the Internet. :roll:

Even if that were true (which it's not), what would be so bad about it? I'm not going to argue until you've elaborated on exactly why that's bad, given US unemployment rates are now at a 14 year high, and October was the tenth month in a row in which jobs were lost from the US economy. I just get the feeling you've heard the Republicans say "Socialist!" and you've gone "OH NOEZ WTF?!".

I know. It's not like people are mentioning it in their signatures or anything subliminal like that.

Ironically, you don't know what the meaning of "irony" is. :P Anyways, I think certain vaccines should be mandatory. I think there are certain diseases which are so highly contagious I think it would be a danger not to vaccinate. Indeed, some vaccinations are given compulsory over here at birth and civil liberties groups haven't said anything about it. I think the line is drawn with diseases like Hep B though. As someone entering Medical School, I'm currently having a course of Hep B vaccinations. I need those vaccinations before dealing with any member of the public, even as just a student. That's right, but not all people need the immunity so otherwise the Hep B vaccine shouldn't be mandatory.

Can someone honestly look at this list of winners and tell me this wasn't a publicity stunt? Just like getting Katy Perry to present, calling Katie White a witch, appealing to Internet culture, the MySpace charts on MTV2... I really can't stick MTV. It's awful.

Correction. The only thing you can be logically sure of by the existence of this debate is that you exist in some reality, not laura or any of the rest of us. How are you to know this isn't just some figment of your imagination, from which you will wake up in an empty room with no one else?

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't? No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality. Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far... Yes, yes I have: [/hide] Sorry my youtube doesn't work :wall: Why stop at monkeys? Evolution has nothing to do with homosexuality. Saying it is "unnatural" due to a lack of procreation is a totally redundant point.

Kinda ironic too, given they spent so much of their time stopping Hillary from becoming the first female president.

Uno momento. :wall: *See above* Traditional marriages involve one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Now are you gonna' try to redefine what a traditional marriage is by what actions are taken once two people are married? 'Cuz, if you are, I'll just ignore you as that's not what the term traditional marriage is referring to. Just who is married, not what roles they take once they are married. Get it? I'm not talking about "traditional" marriage. None of the rest of us are. It seems to be a tangent you persist in following on your own. Marriage means different things to different people. If you think there's one set meaning of marriage, and that meaning applies to every single married person, then I regard you an incredibly narrow-minded being. Irony <_< Do you see me sat here saying "No gays should be allowed to marry"? I'm more than happy to leave that decision to the state, given they have to make legislation based on common sense rather than blatant homophobia.

I think all youngsters should experience a good month or two of solid work combined during their high school years. Currently, we only do ten days. Some people don't enjoy academic education, and will be more successful by working their way up than by going to get A Levels. Make youngsters gain some experience working, even if it's just waiting or pot-washing, and it's something to talk about on their CV when applying for jobs later. A big problem with people looking for jobs in this country is a lack of experience on their CV making it impossible to get an interview. The solution to me seems simple: make them receive that experience before leaving secondary education.

I've news for you hun. My mum died when I was 9. I had to help bring up my younger brother and sister while my Dad went to work for £20 a week just so we could survive. I also thought, at the age of 16, that made me responsible and mature enough to handle a committed and sustained relationship - a "proper" relationship, was the way I saw it. I was completely wrong. I got three months into the relationship and I couldn't tell black from white when it came to how I felt. I felt incredibly insecure and started acting irrationally. Put simply, I was in over my head. Me and that girl were totally honest with each other and we were also incredibly close friends. We no longer speak to each other (I doubt we ever will, that's how bad it got), and the relationship had an impact on both of us. I'm not telling you what to think. What you're feeling is totally normal, I accept that as someone who has felt the same way (albeit with someone my own age, not older). I'm personally telling you though - this is not a good idea.

There's no battle to be had with a set definition. I would think someone supposedly studying a science would understand that. All you're proving is that you have absolutely no idea what the word "historical" actually means, and instead of addressing perfectly constructed points made against you, you'd rather mess around with definitions to make it seem like you have a point. Anyways, now we've established that, basically your argument is this: Marriage is only marriage because I say so. The concept of subjectivity flew out the window when you were born, amirite? If we accept that marriage is more than just a contract between two people and a ring, marriage becomes something completely different depending on the person you are and the person you're in wedlock with. Some marriages may involve the woman sitting at home doing housework. Others (thankfully these days, I'm glad to say, the majority) consist of both partners agreeing to each others life choices in relation to the interests of the whole family. You have no right to decide what does and does not constitute a marriage. I don't, the Church doesn't, God doesn't, only the state can legislate. End of.

He just has to make sure not to go Down South :D . /halfkidding Or go to a theatre...

The point of high school is to equip us for daily life, not get us set up on the road to university. I feel our education system is far too weighted towards getting half our population into unversity, and all this does is: a) Make 50% of the population lose out on actually learning basic life skills (maturity, budgeting, applying for jobs etc.) B) Water down the quality of a degree. I'd do two things. Firstly, I'd scrap "citizenship" and reintroduce PSHE back into the syllabus, with an increased emphasis on creative thinking, independent thought, life skills (first aid, applying for jobs, work experience, budgeting, basic health awareness, that sorta thing) and emotional intelligence. If we're gonna be piling half our young people straight into university at the age of 18, let's at least give them the skills they miss out on by not living off a wage for a couple of years beforehand. Secondly, I'd totally reform FE colleges. They're a joke as they currently stand, effectively a continuation of high school but quite getting teenagers ready for university life. My Dad had to phone me into my college as sick, even though legally he has no right to know my medical history! They need to be tougher, and making exams harder is one part of that. When 20% of the student population are earning the top grade at A Level, something is seriously wrong, especially when so many of them turn up to university unable to write an essay, or cook, or wash-up... I suppose that comes from personal reflection. My college years were the most miserable of my life. Trying to balance the pressures of getting high grades, homework and coursework with the normal teenage pressures of a social life, anxiety and my own personal hobbies was not pleasent to say the least.