Ginger_Warrior

Oh please. One Imam told Bin Laden that? That's like saying Obama's old pastor is mainstream Christianity. Totally ridiculous. Who decides that? The fact many of them have already broken the fundamental principle of jihad, as the rest of that paragraph explained.

The whole of my last post was taken straight from common Islamic interpretation of the Qur'an - no other religious text concerned. Where was the "strawman"? IF, jack, IF. There's nothing to suggest even 1% of Muslims believe in such romantic political idealism, and even if they did, that they would have the desire or capability to launch a terrorist attack. The vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists are not Muslims by definition. This "jihad" that currently occupies the War on Terror is not even justified by the Qur'an itself under the concept of a "just war". The 9/11 attacks themselves broke the terms of Islamic jihad, on the grounds they destroyed non-human life, as well as innocent humans who were armless, and quite clearly were not acts of self-defence. That's not just my opinion either. The attacks were condemned by Muslims across the world. You act as though you oppose everything the man says, but you seem to have been bought into this false jihad nonsense Osama Bin Laden talks about just as much the extremists themselves are.

Why? There are already standards in place that have to be checked before someone can adopt. The Length of the parents' relationship is one such standard. If those standards are met, why do they also have to be in a union? Lets be realistic, anyone looking to adopt kids should be in stable union of some kind. If anything just because it ensures both parents will at least have to pay child support if they break up. If the couple was just together and breaks up the kid is left with one parent and not other support edit--not sure about U.K. law so if that is innaccurate for britain and they go after delinquent parents, but requiring marriage/union of some kind for adoption is needed in the USA Relationships end. Marriage doesn't change that. Relationships can fall apart at any moment, it doesn't matter how long the relationship has lasted. Not least because one of the parents may die. Is it really logical to put a married couple who've been together only two years over a homosexual couple who have opted not to enter a union, but have been together for five? I accept that a union is perhaps an indicator of how close two people are, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all and it certainly doesn't mean relationships without a union are in a status of permanent crisis.

What is your favorite game in the series? The Wind Waker, closely followed by Ocarina of Time Why? Both of them were huge and had so many things to do outside of the main story line. There must have been about 25 islands you didn't actually need to visit on Wind Waker - exploring each of them and trying to work out the puzzle on each one was fantastic. Twilight Princess just felt like you were on a treadmill and you couldn't get off to do whatever you wanted to do. :? What are you looking forward too in the series? A sequel to Wind Waker (a proper one), hopefully one with a 10x10 map grid.

There have been Catholic groups going for centuries that have tried to explain Evolution through the Bible. Many of them accept Evolution exists. Not all Christians are like Sarah Palin, you know. This really is not news to me.

Its not conveniently glossing over violence in other religions at all. This is a thread on islam not "violence in religions". I disagree with all religions equally as much as I do islam I have no bias about not liking a particular religion more than another. However the koran is the literal word of god unlike the bible which was wirtten by many people. The text in the koran is supposed to be exactly as written by allah though muhammad himself and such it is supposed to be infaliable. Everything that is written is "fact" and not up for interpretation and thats what makes it so disturbing. To challenge the text in the koran is a direct challenge to allah. Firstly, there is never a "factual" interpretation of a religious book, since by its very nature, an interpretation may as well be an opinion on what the book means. I find that a common misunderstanding with Atheists. You seem to argue a religious book means literally what it says on the page when not even its followers do. Unless you're saying that each and every Muslim follows the exact same religious regime (which they don't - there are many sects just as there are in the broader Christian community), then to say the Qur'an has only one literal interpretation is plainly wrong. Secondly, your background knowledge about Islam is wrong at the most basic level. Allah, according to the Islamic faith, sent 124,000 messengers into the world, five of whom were noted for their perseverance and devotion towards Allah despite great suffering as a result. Muhammad is one of these five prophets. Your statement that Allah gave all his messages in the Qur'an through Muhammad and Muhammad alone is wrong. Thirdly, it seems strange you would argue about Muhammad, and fail to mention in particular each of the twenty prophets' stance on idolatry and paganism, both of which were common features of barbarianism, thus running counter to your initial statement that it is a "barbaric" religion.

You're trying to argue 100 million Muslims want to kill you because one complete nutjob does, and he happens to use some twisted interpretation of the Qu'ran in justification? Frankly, I wonder to myself how many of these Islamist Extremists even abide by sawm during Ramadan, while they're training to wage war against the west. Half of them relate nothing to spiritual Islam. Terrorists are despicable. But to suggest each and every Muslim wants to kill you is just plain crazy, it really is.

Give her some space to herself. She needs to figure things out in her head first before she can honestly make any rational attempt to work things out with you. My only concern is you deliberately ignoring her will reinforce the idea you want to be completely away from her. I'd give it about a week, and then get back in touch in a friends kind of way. Also, you're gonna need to tell her exactly why you felt the need to split up with her. Explain that it's not about her, it's about how you feel about yourself. Maybe you can actually work on your own personality. If you balance spending more time with your friends, where you're under no pretences, rather than spending as much time with her at the moment, maybe you can feel like you're being yourself more rather than just being her boyfriend.

The Democrats have been supporting the idea of a retreat. Unlike Republicans, they don't see this war is either being "won" or "lost", which itself is an attitude some commanders in the UK forces are starting to take caution with. The surge may eventually be making this war at least partially fruitful. It evades the point however - we shouldn't be there, if not now, then definitely not in two years, five years, ten years or a hundred years time. Such an analysis completely fails to take into account the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and Afghanistan itself too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of a retreat hasn't even been discussed. How can you say it's therefore wrong, if it's never been tried out?

Why? There are already standards in place that have to be checked before someone can adopt. The Length of the parents' relationship is one such standard. If those standards are met, why do they also have to be in a union?

Exactly. If the trade limit hadn't been introduced (I find the PKing a bit of a non-issue in the context of this debate), would people still use a GE which forces them to accept certain prices? Or would they be using the forums and mass 'marketplaces' to buy things for whatever price they want, even if that means taking thirty minutes out. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, RuneScape is meant to be a form of escapism, but the GE makes it very restricting and therefore removes the whole 'free' concept of the game.

I don't get it... have you never spoken to each other face-to-face before? Well, if you wanna get to know her as a friend, that's always a good start. So just act like you would around your friends. Talk about your interests with her. Write out a list and brainstorm all the things you find interesting and why. Surely you'll be able to find common ground in a few of those interests, but if you're lucky, some differences too. Debate is often the most provocative form of dialog between two people, and often brings people closer when talking about their differences. So long as it doesn't roll into an argument, there's no problem with it, so don't feel a need to agree blindly with everything she says. She's going to Paris, I've been there too. It's a fantastic place, so talk about how she felt about it. Listening to someone always gives off an aura that you're laid back, polite, helpful and not aggressive - generally speaking, a good companion. That's the conversation sorted. Now find something to do, even if it's just a walk in a park or shopping, or going for a night out or something. There's nothing more awkward than sitting on a bench with someone while no one's talking and you're doing nothing. Hence, don't take her to the pictures. That's my advice. If it doesn't help, tell me what's wrong and I'll try and focus on it.

I've got the latest versions of Messenger and iTunes and running XP and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Do you use Last.fm? Just checking the settings on my client and it sends a notification to Messenger when a new track starts, so it's possible that it's overriding any issues that Messenger and iTunes might be having. Beyond that I can't really help you, sorry. I downloaded Last.fm and it's working like a dream now. Cheers. : Prove it. Prove to me that iPods are overpriced. Get some real statistics and prove it. I'm sick of you kids saying they're overpriced because you can't afford them or some other unknown reason. They are not overpriced. I'm sick of people born with a silver spoon in their mouths telling others that items are not 'overpriced'. When iTunes have what is tantamount to a monopoly over the digital downloads market, and don't even allow companies to sell items for the price they want to sell it for, yes, it's overpriced. I've had to spend a good £250 on my iPod + songs. If the market was broken up to allow competition, I have a feeling I'd only have had to pay half of that.

If you want to improve, don't train on CPUs. Ever. Go on a standard Brawl like you normally would on an offline match, but at the top left, click the "Standard Brawl". It'll turn into Team Brawl. I do improve. i get owned so hard im forced to use my dodge and rolls efficiently, and my timing gets more precise. The myth that CPUs are bad is.. just a myth. they're just stupid. like me. Perhaps I'd agree with you there (not on the stupid bit :lol:). Yours is a growing attitude. There's some Smash Elitists who are sick to death of everyone going crazy about amateurs learning the ATs by watching YouTube videos, when they haven't learned the basics of dodging, spacing, timing or coordination first. You gotta walk before you can run. CPUs are good for the basics. But as a general rule, use the FF. You can usually tell from someone's profile whether they're good or not. If you get owned, it's all part of the learning process.

Ermm... yay for us? I wouldn't give any advice on such a thread anyway.

If you want to improve, don't train on CPUs. Ever. Go on a standard Brawl like you normally would on an offline match, but at the top left, click the "Standard Brawl". It'll turn into Team Brawl.

This is probably the most stinging attack I've yet read on Palin, probably since this time, it's not actually from a Democrat so the Republicans can't simply dismiss it as "sexist" or something. It's certainly caused a stir on the BBC website - it's currently Most Read as I'm writing this.

Hmm... that's weird. SWF is being redirected to GameBattles. The only thing is, GameBattles don't seem to know anything about it, and neither does the Smash Wiki.

I'm having a hard time how you can compare that to waging a war, but OK It's the same principle. You can't accuse Islam of being bad because it was founded on violence, and then conveniently gloss over the fact Jesus used violence himself.

Do you know how Islam was founded? I'm not trying to cheaply insult Islam here, but Muhammad was basically kicked out of his city for being such a nut. He went to Medina and tried to recruit more people there. And then you know what he did? He waged war on Mecca (city he was kicked out of) and conquered it. Pretty much killing whoever stood against him. *That* was disturbing. Because unlike other things which could be considered a metaphor that could mean something else, this was actually documented. The basis of Islam is WAR. That's why it's so disturbing. Maybe Jesus was teaching the wrong thing after all huh If we're talking about religion and violence, maybe we could move on to the story about Jesus in the temple? Oh no, that's right, Islam bans gambling (how barbaric), so such a situation would never have existed anyway.

Awesome. DS games typically cost $25 and Wii cost $50 Your analytical thinking at work again This coming from a man whose analytical thinking extends to "It's different from normal... lol!" At least I could provide like-for-like examples, despite supposedly being analytically impaired. :roll:

Capitalism did exist before America went all anti-Communist, you know. How is defending government intervention, and then blasting unrestricted free enterprise ironic? Seems pretty consistent in my eyes.

When you get out of Student-land where everything gets payed for you and start living in the real world, maybe you'll start to understand these things. Nationalising them is a better option than letting them collapse while other banks have got money invested in them. Understand what? That the government disregarded all the signs of these collapses for two years and now bail them out with money they don't have? Of course bailing out an insurance company which nearly everyone in the US are leaning on is better than letting it collapse, but they could have prevented it. It's easy to recommend with hindsight. I'll agree, regulations should have been stricter and regulated tighter, but that's the nature of a capitalist economy. Free enterprise. If someone makes a terrible idea, and enough people follow it, the economy suffers as a result, and those who have no net wealth of their own and have to borrow in order to afford a house (i.e., us) are hit hardest. Stop attacking groups personally and I may listen. Frankly, your attitude should be one of more concern. If the government is having to bail out these financial groups, it means it has less money to afford to send half its population to university. Hence, bye bye students. ;)

What exactly is disturbing about Qu'ran in principle, any more disturbing than any other mainstream religion that is? It basically says, "This religion is right, all others are wrong, if other religions attack your one, you may react with force". Really doesn't sound that different to Christianity, Sikhism or Judaism, if you take their literal meanings. On another note, Islamic Baghdad had twelve hospitals about 500 years before London got its first. Not exactly the epitome of barbarianism you and Matt would be lead to believe.

I don't know about social security in America but in the UK child benefits are treat as separate to their parental situation and any other benefits being given. The rationale is that the money is being given for the child, not the child's parents to do whatever they like with, but also the child has the same basic needs be they born into aristocracy, or in some run-down suburb of Birmingham (with respect to people from Birmingham :P). Really, if you're saying only married couples, or those in civil partnerships, should receive benefits from the state, you're going back 50 years into the past. Marriage isn't the only indicator of a strong relationship, and most certainly isn't a measure of a person's ability as a parent. I have no idea whether married couples receive tax breaks for the sake of being married (I don't think they do since the very nature of being in a secure relationship improves your financial stability in general), but I would say tax breaks are given to married couples, those in civil partnerships and those who have been living together for a certain amount of time (but can't or won't enter an official union) in order to promote the rather vague term of "social cohesion". It's common sense to promote strong relationships, however, that doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage. Moreover, what about a gay couple who decide to adopt? You surely cannot deny them to adopt on the grounds they're gay, but you're only providing benefits to married couples, and gays cannot be married. Finally, the first line in that post - are you saying somehow that religion can decide what is and isn't a loving bond, but the state can't? I'd say neither is any more qualified than the other, both from an ideological and legislative point of view.