Zierro

Ehh, I wouldn't waste the time. KD is actually pretty simple to increase overall, as long as you know what strategies to use on each level which comes with experience. I didn't give a [cabbage] about deaths and my KD was a just a tad higher than 1.0, but then I got sick of giving noobs the satisfaction of getting kills on me and so I started using survivalist tactics instead of pure assault. Now I'm about 20k-15k, with tons of goof-around matches in between. I will never prioritize KD over winning the match though, unless it's already hopeless due to having 3 or more Helen Kellers on your team.

It sure was. Took me all night to come up with.

Basically this. Sure, I have some pretty strong opinions on gun laws, economy, human rights, and such, but I've yet to see a single modern-day politician or party that connects with me. Maybe if George Washington were still alive. How will you know which is truly the greater evil until they had their shot in office? Maybe Bachmann might be perceived as the greater evil at the time because she is a nutcase, but maybe if Obama was reelected he would [bleep] America over well beyond her capabilities. The safest way out is to vote for nobody.

I think all babies are ugly. Some are uglier than others, but each and every one of them disgust me.

Lol. It is a completely separate community but nothing will change the fact that the game is what caused us all to congregate here. You can't run/escape from your past.

Nerds got balls.

+10 Strength Exp

You seem to be disregarding the fact that everyone is different. Maybe the people who want to learn more languages have excelled in other fields and didn't have enough spare time to prioritize a second language. Also, some people are just naturally bad or good at certain things. I can write essays like no tomorrow, but I lose concentration too easily and my mind wanders off when it comes to mathematics. Einstein said something along the lines of, "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's life thinking it is stupid." As for me, I want to be more physically fit, but based on my genetic composition it's a lot harder and even dangerous to put my body through certain exercises. I'm content with every other aspect.

And we have learned a lot from those experiences. But based on the Casey, OJ, and plenty of other unpopular trials, I think there is a lot more we need to learn about ourselves as flawed human beings that are striving for "the best" and the system we're using. You seem to take the conservative approach when it comes to the court, but the thing that keeps government alive and flowing is learning from past mistakes, learning from past triumphs, and essentially just not giving up fighting for what you believe would be a better system. It's a never-ending battle, but progress can always be made. If we just bit our tongues and didn't take the "idealistic approach" we probably would have maintained the medieval-style trials.

I'm morbidly skinny and I take mine off because it feels better have your anatomy be free and unrestricted while you're inebriated.

Good point. I will just post what I said in the last thread: Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can. If humans are inherently flawed, then the systems of government, laws, and courts humans create must also be inherently flawed. Of course, but it's just foolish to go "Well it will never be perfect, so let's not even attempt to alleviate any mistakes." Remember Miranda Rights? A man confesses he is guilty of murder, but cannot be convicted simply due to the fact that he was arrested without being read his rights since it was a new thing at the time. There are too many loopholes screwing innocent people over and letting murderers walk free, as well as the media basically dictating what society needs to focus on. What does "outlandish" mean? What does "reasonable doubt" mean? No matter what the evidence points to, people will still have the ability to say "Well maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it!" The definition of terms like "realistic", "reasonable", and even "possible" really do differ from person to person, so I don't see the "Unbiased Lady Justice" thing to be such a great analogy of the jurors. They are just as likely to be flawed and biased as any other human being who forms opinions about the case. There just isn't any way around our inherent mortal flaws, whether you're an official or a couch potato. That's what I think of our current system: I agree that it will never be perfect, but it sure as hell needs more work.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. My confessions suck.

Good times, good times :P I feel like OT has been a little dull lately :( Not enough arguments, trolls, or drugs. Sorry, but we just can't work under these conditions.

Confession: I wish Pokemon were real.

Yeah, I just remember a lot of people accusing you of trolling. I don't think I've seen many of your posts, but I sure heard your name mentioned a lot lolz.

I, Zierro, am still here after all this time, but I have evolved.

I have a MAJOR problem with teams too. Get it? :-P But seriously I'm thinking of going on a Halo forum and finding a decent team. Although I'm going to hate it, I hate these [bleep]ing people that spent hundreds of dollars just to stare at a wall while I'm out there consistently fighting 1 on 3 battles more.

Good point. I will just post what I said in the last thread: Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can.

That's the part where you lie about having a job and that it closed for business so there is no way they can contact them. I don't understand how some people expect you to start from scratch when you literally can't. EDIT: These are the only times I condone lying.

Unless there is something they're hiding from us, we've been presented with the same evidence. We are just as likely to be biased because of our news sources as the jurors are to be biased because Casey is a white female. There's no way around bias when it comes to stuff like this, so I don't see why officials are an exception.

BoB - Beast Mode I [bleep]ing hate rap, especially the modern day crap like Lil Wayne, but for some reason this one sticks with me.

Cracker - Low

I know, and I was saying that depending on what jury you get (luck of the draw), they will either see stories like that as suspicious or they will see it as something that the FSM could have possibly been responsible for.

Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". You may be seeing the dumber side of Facebook that's shouting about wanting her blood, but there are far more convincing arguments out there on the internet that what we saw on television today was [cabbage]. And keep note that my point is not about her guilt or innocence - only that the current court system is even more fallacious than I perceived it to be as a youthful revolt who was too uninterested in doing the research. All depends on who your jury is. Some have been accused guilty when they've committed FAR LESS acts of suspicion. On the other hand, there are people like OJ Simpson. We should just expunge the word "precedent" from whatever dictionary the courts are using. I don't know, but the amount of intelligent people in support of our current court system (*cough* namely Florida's *big cough*) is not an easy sight to see. Wait until you see that one case that changes the way you view human beings. You'll [cabbage] bricks.

And they damn well should be an overly-critical rowdy bunch of nitpickers, otherwise there's no standard for how we allow authority to run things. Well sure, but when it's like 12 year old kids, do you really need to fight every call? Haha, my response was more about the authority thing. In a voluntary children's sports game, it isn't such a big deal. But in government, authority is a whole new ballpark - it's essential that everybody gets the opportunity to judge the system that judges everybody, makes life altering choices for everybody, protects everybody, and so on... for everybody. The tug-o-war effect is the very thing that keeps systems like that alive.