Ginger_Warrior

That really doesn't make sense though.. How would a deaf person hear the phone ringing in the first place :lol: Tell them you need to go do something and you'll be back in two minutes... and then don't go back. They'll eventually hang up and it's cost them loads for the phone call in the process. They won't ring again anytime soon. ;)

The success of Anarchy depends on people taking responsibility for their own actions instead of the state having to do it for them. I'd take a stab and say 95% of people wouldn't do that.

It is not reckless if the parents have the common sense to actually hammer the safety rules into their skulls and never let them have a gun without adult supervision, and it is the parents fault for the lack of teaching the kid common sense. Kids these days would probably do less stupid [cabbage] if parents would start using physical punishment, aka smack their kids [wagon] once in a while. Teach kids right from wrong by using violence against them. I like it! :roll:

I supports it twice over. I'll describe my situation. I have a 1M connection, and my Wii runs on Wi-Fi while being literally surrounded by metal. I live in Europe. I've played Americans and, yeah, my Wii's telling me my connection is bad but there's no real lag (except for when I play Alex).

I don't know. Did you expect we would be able to read her mind sitting across the Internet better than you can while reading body language? She's quite clearly precarious. So just stop trying for a while and see what she wants to do.

I agree. A lack of foreign experience shouldn't carry weight. However, when one of these two situations applies, it does: A) You accuse your opposing candidate of having no experience, and from this, say he is unfit for Presidency. B) You try and say your own VP does have foreign experience, only to change your mind later when you realise people aren't falling for it. As for mudslinging... really, what do you expect? That's the problem when you're voting for individuals rather than ideals. The whole business of what they'll actually do and what they stand for becomes forgotten in a personality contest.

I've not actually heard anything about him - the press has been overwhelmed about Palin's history and personality. (Not that, given the news coming out, I actually mind...)

Here is my awesome advice: Talk to her!!! If she's shy, then start off with just a few sentences between each other. Slowly, she'll start to open up and let you in a bit more if she's interested in getting to know you. Then conversation should start to develop from there if there's anything worth chasing. More often than not with shy people, it's not that they don't want to talk (she works in a supermarket, where she has to talk to people), it's that they're scared the people hearing them are judging them for what they're saying and how they're saying it, hence the preferred option is to not speak at all so people don't have the opportunity to judge them, resulting in their shy traits. Obviously being judged is not something many people find all that comforting, so give off the impression you're not judging her. Part of that involves not judging others, so look for something else to talk about. Perhaps something more personal, like a hobby (or hers), or what music you like. The only concern I have for you is your attitude seems to be that you're getting a girlfriend for the sake of getting a girlfriend. I realise you're at the age where you're curious about relationships, but it's worth waiting to find someone who truly does go well with you rather than trying to pull the nearest girl going. I'll tell you what. Most 17-year-old girls I know would give cuddles to friends, if what you'r really after is some comforting. It's not necessarily a sign of sexual attraction, but affection. If you don't feel confident going alone (which I can fully understand), try and get your mates to mingle with her mates. Then you can start socialising and seeing if there's something more there. That said, and don't take this the wrong way but... you're 14. Relationships at that age don't really mean a lot. Even if it doesn't work out, just by happy about being friends. Talking to girls and having girl friends (note the space there) will help you be more confident and understanding about girls in the future.

lol (I didn't actually find that funny :S) MSN convos stink in general. I only use it to stay in touch with friends. But really, is saying "lol" on the Internet any different to real life? I mean, in real life, when you're with someone and they crack a joke that just isn't funny, don't you pretend to laugh because you don't want to rude? People always seem to say I have a good sense of humour, but to be perfectly honest, I just want to be polite and get along with them. :? Isn't that the equivalent of "lol"ing? By that reasoning, we've been "lol"ing for thousands of years before the Internet came along. It's still annoying though when someone tries talking to you and they reply with it. Like when someone asks how you are, and you say how you feel, then they go "lol"...

What the Hell does that mean? If you're going to argue with someone, I find understanding their argument to be a fundamental skill. We're pro-choice. No one here is honestly suggesting we go around to all pregnant women and encourage them to have an abortion No, actually, you will lose. You'll be hard pressed to find too many biologists who don't argue that life begins at conception. The problem you have is that you argue life doesn't begin at conception, yet you provide 1.) no concrete period as to which you believe life begins and 2.) no basis upon which you can rationally define life without it being arbitrary (It'd be like me arguing that a 3-month old isn't alive yet a 4-month old is based on nothing other than my own opinions). Well since you're such an expert of the definition of a living organism, you might want to tell me how a bunch of cells about the size of a baked bean can reproduce into another organism? Being put on a life support machine doesn't necessarily equate to being non-viable. Again, you're using a term which means different things depending on its context, and muddling it up into an objective term. When talking about a fertilised egg, you are talking in a different context than a fully grown adult on life support. Surely the point as far as Medicine is concerned is this - you cannot apply a rule to every case. Each case in Medicine is its own case, and should be treat as such. If having a baby is going to endanger the mother, or if the level of suffering that baby will be put into once born is too extreme (through disability, a lack of parenthood or a poor standard of living etc.), it becomes justified to have an abortion on the grounds that it is the lesser of two evils. That's what people like you forget - an abortion isn't something you can just have. It requires the consent of not just your own GP, but another GP before the procedure goes ahead. It is one of the most regulated treatments provided by a GP, and with good reason. So I'd watch it when trying to argue Medicine is against the concept of abortion. define:conscious "knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts; "remained conscious during the operation"; "conscious of his faults"; "became conscious that he was being followed"" Can a 2-year-old feel pain? Yes. Is pain a sensation? Yes. Therefore, it is conscious. Again, stop using biological points when your knowledge is so clearly lacking. When have I ever used the word "sentience". Stick to what I'm actually saying, rather than ranting in complete irrelevance. See above. Try reading what people are saying rather than lecturing us constantly about what the definition of life ought to be. I've never even said that. Life is not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. It's not like... Astrophysics or something :| You're quite right. We should turn all cases concerning Medicine into simple, basic understanding. Forget the mother's condition, forget the mother's capacity to bring up a child, forget the fact there are too many children needing adoption already - the only thing that really matters is an unborn foetus which has no rights prior to consciousness in law. I'm bored with arguing with people who use subjective arguments based on complete ignorance to the individual case, as objective matters of principle. As baron so rightly put it, I object to living in a country which refuses its citizens the right to do with their own bodies as they please.

Put in some triangles. If you think about it, the only way to distort the shape of a triangle is to break it altogether. That's why supports for buildings whose foundations are slipping are triangular shaped.

I know... I mean since paramedics now have teleport it should be instantaneous, right? :twss: I've never used that smiley before, but your post deserved it.

I find it spooky when I go outside, turn on my iPod, put it on shuffle, and the song that matches perfectly with the way I'm feeling comes on. I remember being in an RE lesson about the use of religion in popular culture, and the song that came on when I got outside was "When You Were Young" by the Killers. That was just plain weird.

I'll ignore the silly comment. By now I'm used to you disregarding anything partial to your own view of the world so it really means nothing. If you want to go into the biological definition of "life" then you're going into an argument you will lose, I can assure you of that much. This is an ethical question, not a biological one. You have your definition. I have mine. It's an argument that goes round in circles because to create a set definition for abortion you also have to create a set philosophical definition for "life", which is impossible since this definition is subjective depending on whether you regard independence to live for yourself and quality of life as factors. "Life" quite clearly is not the simple matter of whether something is alive or not, but you seem to persist in demanding everyone reduce it to such a basic level like you do. Just a question though: say a child is born with a disability which renders them incapable of work later on in life. There is no way for that person to fend for themselves, and they need someone else's money (i.e., the state's) in order to survive on basic security. Would you agree to raise taxes in order to provide for people in that situation; or is your pro-life stance so profoundly strong you still feel they need to provide for themselves?

While this is shocking (another indicator to me that adults in Government are increasingly becoming left behind in the ICT world), I would point out Google probably store information about you than the government does, and they have very little restrictions placed on them at all. I'm not saying the Government is any better in this situation, but the point I'm making is data protection needs to be improved across the whole board. I resent the fact that for the privilege of voting, I have several credit lenders spamming me with mail every week because they've bought the information off the Electoral Register (I know it's from the Register because the morons misspelt my name).

Sounds a lot like the numerous popular theories about the universe's origin to me, only this one's been in use for longer than civilization's existence. You're assuming I actually believe the Big Bang is the be-all-and-end-all of explaining the universe's origin. I don't. The beauty of science is that it is continuous. We could work out what started the universe, but that would lead to another question, "What was before the Big Bang?". Religion is too absolute - there is God, then there is a world, then He made life. No one seems to think "Well, what made God?". Much as the theist argument goes "Big Bang? You can't make something out of nothing" - and they're right to say that because of the laws of conservation of mass - I look at religion and think "God? He can't have appeared from nowhere". With science, there is a method to answering that question. Religion seems to conveniently brush the question to one side and say, "Don't ask it again, or you'll be sentenced to eternal damnation in Hell!".

It's nothing to do with the game. I can just about maybe understand the "need" for a family to have a gun in the house... perhaps. What was an 11 year old doing with his own rifle though? In fact, forget that - what the hell could an 11 year old actually do with a gun if someone did break into his house? Why was the magazine kept in a separate place, but the gun was kept loaded? It's the parent's stupidity that's the only cause of this. They'd be prosecuted for manslaughter here on grounds of negligence.

Friend Finder is... your friend. If you wanna game, I'll come on now.

I regard life as beginning when a foetus has a chance of surviving on its own as well as when it gains the ability to feel pain/suffering. Without referring to your own beliefs, what exactly is wrong with that reasoning? By your logic, you may as well diagnose cancer as a lifeform of its own, and since you're pro-life, protect it with rights. Cancerous cells do have a different genetic make-up than the normal cells of the person concerned, and therefore have their own independent life after all. If someone tries to remove cancer, we can just reply with "You went into the sunlight, it's your own stupid fault", which is essentially the same logic some pro-life demonstrators use. Not that I'm suggesting far Right-wing politics follows double standards... That has got to be the most moronic reasoning I've seen yet in this debate. If you're calling for an even distribution of food so the world can sustain more people (i.e., rationing), I'm all for it. Maybe I'm being judgemental, but I can't see you as the Communist type though. ...and? Was there a point in there that I've missed?

If only:

I'm gonna say Smooth Criminal... but I don't know if that's because I'm really rating AAF's cover version.

What happens if it rains...? :-k

Right, so abortion would be outlawed in one state and not in the state next to it... can't you see the futile nature of that situation? :? ...It's not really something you talk to your friends about. Seriously. Just trust me on that one... I don't think there's a person here who would disagree. But these pills will not always work, and if a woman is traumatised following a rape, she may very well not have the confidence to get the pills. Hence the option of abortion should always be open, but sex education in schools (which is currently substandard) needs to nail it into people's heads that regardless of your ethical view on abortion, it is not a form of contraception. We did exactly that only 4 months ago [link]. A reduction from 24wks to 20wks was deemed to have no evidence to back up its claim that survival rates were improving, and was defeated 332 to 190 in a free vote. No. The fair comparison would be Barack Obama having stood at his candidacy launch in Illinois and shouted "Vote for me - I know what it's like to be black!". As mentioned by flipflop, if they were playing that sort of politics, Hillary would have been a better choice anyway. The daft thing is her position on half of those issues is exactly what makes her the darling of the Right.

You alright? I've stopped fighting and SD'ed once to make up for your SD.

There's a room ready, four-stock eight minutes no items. Standard rules really. Doesn't matter who comes in, the more the merrier.