Ginger_Warrior

Too inconsistent this year I think. Beating team 6-0 one week and dropping points to Hull and Sunderland the next. Exactly. People shouldn't even be comparing Arsenal & Liverpool to Man Utd & Chelsea. All four can score three or four goals a game. Two of them, however, kept clean sheets. There's the difference, and that's why this year will still go down to United and Chelsea, because Liverpool and Arsenal can't keep that up all year.

So is Bush, and he won twice. No, there's a difference. Bush was deliberately a bad speaker, deep down, he knew exactly what he was saying. It was part of his charisma that allowed voters to relate to him, even if his policies were coo-coo.

Unbelievable, Liverpool get out of jail yet again. Not that I'm suggesting all they do is fluke their way to success. -.-

For those who use proper English: Why stop at the Internet? You can say that for real life. :P

Why, when there's a free alternative that harms no one and works just as well? :|

Depends what you're using it for. If it's just to check emails, then bad - you're paying for way more than you need to. If you're asking me though, I'd say that's just better than average in terms of speed.

You're missing the point jack (again). Your personal opinion, and mine for that matter, doesn't impact on the polls. What does impact, and what the point of that whole post was, is how McCain is running his campaign. Constant negative attacks, angry expressions and nothing but disdain for Obama, all the while whilst trying to distance himself from Bush to appeal to independent voters and still keep a hold of the Right of the Republican Party. He's running his campaign in two completely different directions. If he carries on, he will lose. He needs to start appealing to a bigger picture, a vision, of what America would be like under his leadership. In other words, something positive rather than these constant smear campaigns which are frankly not fooling enough people.

If there was ever any doubt about why McCain is currently losing this election, then this should surely be the final nail in the blinkered coffin. Is it just me who believes these out-of-control scare tactics, endorsed in name by McCain and the Republicans, are hurting McCain more than it's damaging Obama's credibility? You needn't answer that question as it's rhetorical - the polls speak for themselves. McCain has already said Obama is not a terrorist. His activists linking the man to terrorism, even if subtly, seems to be typical of McCain's campaign as a whole - unorganised, incoherent, and apparently pertaining to a momentum outside of even McCain's control. Obama's campaign on the other hand seems well-oiled and effective, targeting specific groups who previously have had no interest in politics. That is why out of all the battleground states, McCain is currently polling higher in none, even states which he realistically has to keep hold of such as North Carolina and Florida. I think everyone expects the polls to get tighter as November draws in, but for McCain, it's either change tactics now, or lose this election.

Oh, what the hell... :roll: Paranoid: High Schizoid: Moderate Schizotypal: Very High Antisocial: Low Borderline: Very High Histrionic: High Narcissistic: High Avoidant: Very High Dependent: High Obsessive-Compulsive: High

Science is not the same as religion. The Burden of Proof fallacy is fairly easy to understand. If I make statement X, you say prove it with evidence X, I can't then tell you to make evidence Y against the initial statement. Why? Because if my assertion is "correct" (without having provided evidence X), there's no evidence for you to produce, so you just have two arguments, neither of which have evidence. Just reverse the roles, and that's you and venomai. You may as well both be shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at each other, and see who can say it the most times. A scientific theory and a religious belief are different. A theory is only made after a sizeable amount of empirical evidence has been collected which places a strong argument to suggest the theory's accuracy. Anything else is a prediction, and is (rightly) disregarded by just about anyone who has actually studied the scientific method.

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to. Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is. Since when did disagreeing with someone's perception of the world equate to labelling them a madman or a liar? I merely stated I believe a man called Jesus probably did exist around that time, just as I'm sure a man called Muhammed existed around the time Islam was founded. That doesn't mean I have to believe in every word they both said, though. If you're telling me God exists because Jesus was literally right in absolutely everything he said in the Bible, I can smash a big hole in your argument by telling you there is no way you can feed masses of people with two fish and five loaves of bread, unless of course, he performed a miracle, for which there is no conclusive proof, and thus we return to the Burden of Proof fallacy. The fact is, I don't know if Jesus was the Son of God or not. That lack of information is not sufficient enough for me to go "God exists", though.

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

I think a more pertinent question is: "Would PvP worlds even exist if the RuneScape community hadn't reacted so badly to the removal of the Wildy?"

Official Nintendo Magazine

In other words you didn't even read the sources I posted after you criticized me for not posting any. This is not how one gains respect in an argument, and is a lot less fun than simply calling people names - you should pick one or the other, not neither. I've gained more than enough respect in arguments in my time here, and it's not what I come here for either. Indeed, I actually like running against the grain. I read your sources, and I'm telling you they're nothing more than implicit remarks regarding the supposed 'correlation' between two frequencies. Stats will tell you whatever you want to believe. Yeah, it's not like they can scan pages for words automatically or anything. Seriously, destroy your credibility more, it's funny. I don't care for credibility. This is apparently something you have yet to understand. My e-penis would be fine at the tiny size of an inch. The idea that you think any government aside from China would ban this website from being viewed is just hysterical. By all accounts that's how the internet already is and has been since it's inception. Last I checked the sky hadn't fallen. Yes, but things can be changed. If infrastructure didn't change, we'd still picking wild berries for food whilst kneeling down to paganism. Internet usage can be monitored now, it's just not automatically filtered. Yet here I am, freely expressing my opinions. Speaks volumes for your conspiracy that governments would use this to oppress free speech more than they use watchdogs and regulations to restrict tabloid newspapers. Seriously, your fear of government and its intentions is just ridiculous to the max. I asked one real question in that post and the answer was 'China'. You made several statements about my character when you clearly had absolutely no idea. I suppose a better proverb would be don't leap into the unknown. The fact there are people like you who cannot possibly accept a government might actually need more power to do what is right to keep people safe is equally as depressing for me, I assure you. I've made my point clear, and I've had enough of this aimless titfortat. Aside from mere rambling about an "apparent" invasion of free speech, I've yet to see one conclusive argument against this apart from its cost. If you're not doing anything illegal, I don't see where the problem is.

It's an NoE thing. We gain 'stars' to buy stuff on the website when we buy Nintendo games. In all honesty, you'd be better off on the ONM forums. I doubt many people here will have some. I'm saving mine for the new music vouchers. :P

No, but do I think my personal attacks are accurate? Hell yes. You're a dolt, and as if to prove it you post the notion that a digital firewall is going to stop real people abusing real children. In reality the opposite may even be true [1][2]. These people are sick but it's not the porn that's causing it. No, my good sir, you are the dolt who cannot understand the difference between correlation and causation. Could it not also be argued that the rate of rape is going down because of more effective policing, and better awareness amongst the public (additional awareness to date rape drugs and alcohol, for example)? Porn, particularly Western porn, gives an incredibly twisted portrayal of sex which, yes, does lead to the idea a woman can be 'controlled'. It usually depicts the woman giving the male pleasure, and seldom the other way round. If you can't see how that portrayal of sex can lead to the idea that rape is "not as bad" as others make it, then you're just being ignorant. Hell, we've gone this far and not even touched the other problems porn has... By your logic, let's just gives drug addicts more drugs. Can't hurt. I mean, they're sick, but it's not the drugs causing it. -.- [*:2yimzp4f] Child porn was being distributed in encrypted form as early as 2001 [3]. The fact you're not aware of this speaks to your credibility, not mine. I'm sorry, where did I say it's not transmitted in encrypted form? There are websites who don't operate through encryption however. Particularly far-Eastern websites where the age of consent is as low as 14, meaning porn movies can be made there with girls below the age of 18 which is the legal age in this country, and uploaded to the Internet with little resistance. If this filter were to block those sites, good. Loopholes between national laws cannot be allowed to be looked over while people are viewing abusive content. This post is on this website, correct? It would be logistically impossible to monitor each and every opinion on the Internet, especially given the pace at which it's growing. Congratulations - you spotted a typo. Here's a medal! Again, where did I mention I love the government? Stop asking questions you don't know the answer to. Using a measure which prevents the downloading of illegal content is a "sweeping grab for power"? If you want the Internet to become this anarchic place where terrorists can meet up to organise plots, where they can gain information on how to make explosive bombs which can kill dozens, where they can spread vicious ideologies to corrupt young minds, where paedophiles are allowed to just willy nilly trade pictures with each other, where the masses can steal copyrighted data through programs like LimeWire, then by all means, we'll go for your model. I mean, don't let common sense get in the way of your fight against the government, please. :roll: This firewall is barely anywhere near as extreme as China's. I'm sure people in Australia will still be able to view the Liberals' website under a Labour government. Same can't be said for China. You're comparing chalk and cheese.

Do you think the personal attacks make you look smart? I like how you say it will block so few without any sort of credibility or source to back it up. The fact is, if it's gonna stop even 1% of these sick bastards from abusing children, I'm for it. I don't care about connection speed because the Internet's fast enough as it is. I'm sorry, I don't buy into the Daily Mail's "government's trying to control free will" crap either. Why would a government block this website? You can access al-Qaeda sites in this country with near contemptuous ease. I can even learn how to make a napalm. Hardly my idea of "book-burning". The Western World supports freedom of expression and thought, and they use it that for ammo every year against the Chinese, just as they used to against the USSR. No chance of them getting rid of that stance any time soon. You're just hung up because your little toy's being restricted. The way you lambasted me for supporting this ban speaks volumes about your ulterior motives in this.

1) Are you for real? Online gaming doesn't require a super fast connection. ISPs and routers probably count for more connection issues than the speed of the connection. 2) No... you can still download things it just takes a little longer. Only impatient people would seriously complain about the speed issue. As said, most things on the Internet do not require a fast connection, it's just more convenient. 3) That's simply ridiculous. Dial-up is notriously slow anyway. Take 80% of 56K, and you're still talking fractions of the bigger picture. Over half the population is now on broadband, and that figure will rise sharply in the coming years. Then there's libraries, Internet cafés... so many places where you can get broadband. I'd have thought, with a way to take out a large chunk of paedophilia on the Internet, people would jump for joy. You oppose it because "it means no more online gaming". I think your principles are a bit out of whack.

Just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean it is right either, even if you choose to believe in it. There is no conclusive evidence in the Bible to suggest aliens do not exist, just an interpretation that God made the Earth the only place capable of sustaining life. The Bible has no proof. Scientists don't have proof. Therefore there is a vacuum of knowledge, and neither side can make a positive assertion. Hence, "Aliens do/don't exist" is a stupid statement to make. What scientists do know however is the basic necessities of life, and they are coming closer and closer to finding these necessities on other planets. Hence, it is probable there is life out there, no matter how primitive, but we have no evidence to confirm that.

Sure, but whats to stop them from blocking those aswell? Porn is being blocked to protect children apparently. I'm not expert on the Australian legal system, but: If porn isn't illegal to watch in Australia, I can't see why they'd put porn as "illegal" on the separate adult list. Again, I don't know the law for Australia, but I know in America it's illegal to view porn below a certain age, however, so if it is illegal to view porn under aged in Australia, it should be on the child's list. I think the fact of the matter is this: if it's illegal stuff, you shouldn't be downloading it. So what have you to worry about if it's auto-blocked?

Happy birthday. Hope you had a good one. =D>

People with learning disabilities are already given a psychological report before a sentence is passed so I've no idea where you're going with that. I'd rather not live in a society where emotions are placed higher than rational thinking when deciding a punishment. What percentage of teenagers actually do that anyway? It seems to me you're just pulling at heartstrings. I think there's a difference between murdering someone and committing some petty crime (minor vandelism, shoplifting about £1's worth of items, that sort of thing). A fourteen year old should know that murdering is wrong, and merely being a confused teenager doesn't make much sense as an excuse. Yes, they should be punished like an adult, although I also agree it's absurd we regard "taking responsibility" to mean locking them away for 25 years and hoping they've learnt their lesson. Shoplifting because of peer pressure though? Please, it's not even comparable to a fully grown adult who does the crime by himself with no outside influence.

If they were so secure themselves, they wouldn't be fighting on the border of a safe zone they can just pop into when times are getting bad for them. ;)

I didn't say you annoyed me. -.- I don't understand though. You've brought up an example where a person wants to live to spend more time with their family. Where's the euthanasia? I think it pretty much stands to reason that if a person wants to live we should let him. If them being alive will cause medical difficulties, and if they are at the point where they can't convey their thoughts to their family, what is stopping the family from euthanising them? The person is just a burden, and the family might even say, "If he was conscious, he would want this." The man gets euthanised against his will, when in fact he would have enjoyed being with his family for a few more years/months, etc. Well then perhaps you've worded things a bit wrong there. You seemed to imply the man in that case has conveyed his express intentions not to die because he wants to spend time with his family. The fact of the matter is, we can't know the man's will in that situation, so it should be left up to doctors to make the decision, with the family's permission, as is the current practice. Other people can't decide whether or not you want to be euthanised. They might suggest you would want it but they can't make the call.