Barihawk

So spam it up, why don't ya! :( 1. What is your job? Substitute teacher and Graduate Student (looking for a permanent teaching job in the area) 2. Do you have any nicknames? No 3. What famous celebrity/fictional character do you look like? Scott Glenn with body fat 4. What famous celebrity/fictional character do you want to most look like? Happy with the way I look. 5. What are you most proud of in life? My life with Christ. 6. What do you regret most in life? Not fully committing myself to a relationship five years ago that would have been a great one now. 7. Pancakes or waffles? Waffles. 8. Favorite cookie flavor? Anything without nuts. 9. What is the most expensive thing you have bought? A car 10. What is the most expensive thing you have broken? When I was little I had a bad habit of taking things apart with tools, so a Game Gear 11. What is the funniest thing you've seen? More like what I've heard but that's none of your business 12. What's your dream meal (appetizer, entree, and dessert)? Chili con Queso w/chips, a nice Ribeye, and Cheesecake (no sauce) 13. If you could go back in time, what year would you go to and why? Probably 1860. 14. Pizza, yeeeeeeaaaaahhhh or naaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh? I used to love it and it got me seventy pounds overweight. Now that I am only 30 pounds overweight and dropping I can say that I enjoy it in moderation.

The reason your posts were being deleted were because you were likely presenting them in a manner that was considered trolling. Saying "banning religion" would be trolling. Saying what you did in the second line of the replied post is perfect and well written. It's a very fine line between a serious criticism of religion and trolling it, just make sure you present some kind of support to your claim (like you did above). While the Christian in me disagrees, the rest of me agrees with your statement. Hence why I'm a moderate (while most of you for some reason think I'm some right wing fascist :o). As for smoking, I am for an "inside" ban as smoking not only effects you, but those around you. Even if not for health reasons, it infringes on their rights to clean air. Smoking outdoors or in your own home? Whatever. Although you are going to be stuck with a foul smelling house nobody will want to visit. And yes, I agree with Nadril. I retract my "mandatory classes on religion before criticism" (although it was universally agreed to be good) because it's worth it to destroy all 4chan and memes.

I believe it's blown extremely out of proportion. However, there's no reason we shouldn't be striving to reduce our pollution and energy footprints for pure reasons like cost efficiency and health. I'm also proud to live in Texas of which 1/3 all energy used by the state is wind powered (and growing), where over 10,000 households are completely solar powered, and where clean-air processes for oil production were pioneered. Also, Earth is a big planet. I think we're full of ourselves saying that we will destroy it considering that even if we were to annilhate ourselves with nuclear warfare this planet will thrive. The Earth is not getting any warmer than it should be, we are only fearful of the perceived threat against our civilization.

I was a fan of physics as chemistry was just too beyond me and biology just not fun. Physics means you get to mess with things, which is a great deal of fun, and usually involves tools. Hurrah tools.

Yeah, I'm glad we have clothes. A lot of kids say it would be cool if everyone came to school naked one day, but they only have the hot girls in mind. What about the guys? The unattractive girls? The teachers? :o ^^^Britains pretty obese too...I was watching BBC America, You Are What You Eat, and for christs sake, these people eat more food in a week than I do in Six months... But Nigella Lawson is the good kind of big! :( But yeah, to say obesity is an American thing ONLY is pretty silly. Most first world nations have high obesity rates compared to the rest of the world. It's a sign of prosperity, sadly.

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

You have never heard of terrorists? The higher grade ones steal high-grade military products from smaller and corrupt nations like candy, it would be easy for them to get a nuke if they really needed one. While I hate nukes, I would rather they be legal. They create a balance of power that if one nation has one, nobody else will use theirs. That's what keeps us safe.

Can you give me a chapter/verse or something? Surely Paul would realize the needs to repopulate, or he was providing an illustration and you took it out of context. I'm fairly sure the Bible does not say "don't get married and don't have sex, ever" as there wouldn't be very many Christians at all today. I have no doubt he might have said it, but a piece of the puzzle is missing. Here's the site I used to refresh my memory: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christi ... x.aspx?p=1 There's a couple example verses in the first paragraph. I think I already said this, but Paul actually didn't realize there was a need to repopulate. He thought the Rapture, his master's promise, was going to come soon, in their lifetime's. That's a large part of the reason he preached that sex was not necessary; besides that devotion to God is the priority above all else, what's the need to procreate if the end of the world is coming in a decade or two? Ah, I see and read up, and read that article. Which, by the way, should answer your question. This is Paul's personal opinion of which he is being asked of by the Corinthian church. He was utterly convinced that Christ would come in his lifetime (despite the day and hour being unknown...Paul was not present when Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount) and believed that the Corinthians should be more focused on building up their Church than getting married and having sex (again, just answering a question they had sent to him). From his viewpoint, this actually makes sense. However, he was wrong in his estimate of when Christ would return, and the early Christians absolutely had to reproduce. Remember that the Bible was not available in this time (aside from the Old Testament, and then only parts of it) so that Paul could have read the Sermon on the Mount (with his conversion coming after the death of Christ).

That's probably the case but in the UK from all the different newspapers opinions, you get different reports. For example, the BBC say "400+ citizens" But people don't realise thats Hamas aswell.. People trust newspapers? They will print anything that sells. Like I said earlier, they are trying to avoid civilian casualties but that is almost impossible when you are dealing with regimes like Hamas, who will place civilians at strategic sites and God knows convince those very civilians that they should be honored to be human shields. I saw a report that the Hamas leader had been killed in an airstrike, is this true?

Not only that, but internet access and cable television as well. Prison is a chance to reform, but in most cases those who face the death penalty have committed terrible crimes and show no remorse or intent to reform their actions. And to be completely honest from a logistical standpoint, would you rather receive a painless death or spend your entire life until the grave inside a 5x5 cell? As for the public executions, THAT was the deterrant against crime. Not getting fed excellent meals in relative comfort with a very quick and near painless death. Nothing like a hangman's noose to give a young criminal a reality check. Now, I am completely against such barbaric methods today, but the idea is there.

No, he preached for celebacy outside of marriage and preached against marriage. Hence no sex. Can you give me a chapter/verse or something? Surely Paul would realize the needs to repopulate, or he was providing an illustration and you took it out of context. I'm fairly sure the Bible does not say "don't get married and don't have sex, ever" as there wouldn't be very many Christians at all today. I have no doubt he might have said it, but a piece of the puzzle is missing.

Good theory, but realize that Runescape content and Mechscape content are 100% independant. They have a completely different staff working on each game. Mechscape might take a little testing priority over Runescape, but the content developers are all there. To be honest, we need this. Why worry about constant new development when the old game needs work?

It's likely that Andrew has moved on to supervise the new MMO this year, likely Mechscape.

Celibacy outside of marriage, yes. It was assumed that sex outside of marriage was motivated simply by lust rather than romance and love, the same wrong that Sodom had committed.

Shows how much you've read the Bible. Sex is a gift from God between two people who love one another. The book, Song of Solomon, is an entire book of the Bible devoted to loving sex (loving as in tender, not as in "I love sex"). The Bible advises that sex remain until after marriage for a reason. The abstinence between the couple during courting and engagement builds up sexual tension that leads to extremely passionate sex after marriage (Oh my God, there's a reason for abstinence!). Marriage itself is simply a ritual of bonding. The Bible does not condemn sex, it condones it. But only in the way that God wants it to be experienced (as an act of pure passion and devotion). Sex was only bad if it was being practiced out of pure lust and desire with no room for love (as in Sodom). That's the Biblical standpoint, anyways.

I actually have an "emergency kit" in my car with antiperspirant, hairgel, some fresh nice clothes, razor & foam, and toothbrush/paste. It's wise to be prepared. As for the shirt argument, stop. Outdoors, shirts prevent UV rays from directly hitting your skin, which makes you cooler. It's actually cooler to wear a jacket outdoors on a bright sunny day than to be shirtless. Indoors the amount of airflow is insignifigant. And if you sweat enough from basic activities to stain your shirt, you need to work on something or lose some weight. That takes some serious effort. I don't even sweat that much in the upper stacks of the library here on a 110F day without air conditioning.

It's just societal norms, now. Hardly any "influence," it's just the way the world has worked for thousands of years. Tell me this, are those of you arguing for public nudity (aside from on designated beaches, that's fine) actually willing to excercise your rights, or are you just hoping for some member of the opposite sex to exercise theirs? Clothing serves a very practical purpose. At first it was simply for protection and privacy (but then again it was simple loincloths) but clothing has evolved to fill important roles aside from modesty. It still serves as protection but then again also as comfort. Even in normal weather (your body constantly sweats. Do you want this crap crusting up on you or in your clothing (which was designed to wick it off) which you can simply remove and wash? Uh, no? You sweat either way. You feel a little cooler with the shirt off because of the airflow playing off the moisture on your skin. You still sweat the same amount either way (unless you are wearing wool or other heavy material, of course). Cotton is very breathable in it's own right. Also, it's called antiperspirant. At your age you should have looked it up by now. May I recommend Gillette, it does wonders.

To be completely honest and with no disrespect, the vast majority of people look better with clothes on than off. Wrong, you still sweat, it's just very uncomfortable. The shirt helps by wicking away the moisture away from your body and therefore making it more comfortable. To be honest, that's the actual reason why shirts were invented :P.

There is nothing wrong with alcohol, provided you do not get intoxicated. Unfortunately, a huge number of people feel it's "fun" to drink for the express purpose of getting drunk and this usually ends up in really crappy things happening to them or those around them. The reason we have a drinking age is because most people who are under that age are not responsible enough to handle the responsibility of alcohol. Before you go off attacking me for this, look at college students. These guys are just below to well above the drinking age, yet are TERRIBLE with how they drink alcohol. Some die from overdrinking, some die because others were overdrinking, and a LOT of them do really stupid things to ruin theirs or someone else's lives. Working as an RA I had to deal with a lot of guys and gals who screwed themselves or someone else over (sometimes literally) due to the effects of alcohol. Unfortunately like every law, the drinking age can be easily circumvented. That being said, aside from binge drinking there is not much wrong with alcohol. I myself really dislike wine because I don't like the taste of alcohol. I prefer beverages like margaritas, Baileys, and Guinness where the alcohol is masked by something else. I also drink in extreme moderation. Brandy and champagne are something I don't mind at the occasional social function. Beer aside from Guinness tastes like what it is, fermented grass.

I'm considered to be a well-learned intelligent person and I have a very happy perspective on life. Then again, I also have religion to brighten my aspect as well. But still, life is good. You have to accept that bad things happen in the world and it's beyond your means to solve it yourself.

Then I agree with your post. But regardless, Israel is not going to stop until the rocket attacks stop. Permamently. Both sides are to blame for this state of affairs. I am just sick of people who claim that Israel is the only party to blame and that Palestine is within it's rights to attack civilians.

I'll itemize this to avoid massive quote train. 1) They don't specifically target civilians. They do admit that they might kill them in the mission. They are not saying "Oh look, civilians" and kill them. They admit that their target requires innocent lives to be lost. In comparison to rocket attacks against purely civilian targets, this is damn civil. 2) Both sides need to work together. Which is never going to happen if one side is constantly attacking the others. However, who's been firing the first shots? 3) Trying to mince words, much? It does not matter whether they are using cruise missiles or slingshots, it's still violence. Are you saying that Israel should allow their civilians to die because a few shoddy rockets aren't worth a full scale military action? That's like saying that the WTC destruction didn't justify the total military mobilization against Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Then again, what do you propose? Aside from peace, which is not going to happen in the next week? 4) The reason Israel is so adamant is the constant threat against it's people. When Hamas stops launching attacks, then they can be convinced to stop being beligerant. And again, America is the answer to everything. Why doesn't another nation with no vested interest in either party come in to settle this? Like France or Germany. If the US intervenes, everyone will complain about us protecting our interests in Zionist Israel.

FYI, not all propaganda are lies. Much propaganda has been truth or half-truth blown out of proportion. And even some not.

Let's get a few things cleared up. 1. Hamas started this conflict, fired the first shots, and reject permament peace. Despite being the one to constantly petition the UN for peace, their very charter is centered on destroying Israel. Even after making peace, they were the first to fire again and again. 2. It's Israel's land, fair and square. It's not the common Israeli's fault that Palestinian leaders sold their country, in a land where warlords stripped of their power now turned to aggression to gain it back using religion as motivation. 3. The Israelis were willing to coexist in the nation the entire time. They even tried it, and were pretty charitable to give Palestinians some land in Gaza back. It is the leadership of Palestine that has refused to live in peace. 4. What began as random rocket attacks is turning into much more serious threats. This is a SCUD missile. It's not homemade, it's not random, it has a longer range, and it can level a city block. Hamas have been firing these for several months. 5. Hamas is targetting schools. One was destroyed Wednesday. Imagine if the children had not gotten out in time. This was with one of the new guided rockets so we can assume that it's destruction was intentional. Now, I am hearing lots of boo-hooing about Israel's "disproportionate response." That's just bullcrap. Israel has been launching precision military raids, with the minimum of civilian casualties. Sixty civilians may sound like a lot, but many more Israelis have died from those rocket attacks. Surgical strikes vs random (or premediated with the new rockets) attacks sounds fair to me. Israel is not seeking the destruction of Palestine and all those in it, only the Hamas leadership that is behind these attacks. And Ginger, civilian casualties are inevitable. Many dictatorial regimes make it a point to PLACE civilians (either workers or families) near or in military sites hoping that the person on the other side calling the shots would be hesitant to pull the trigger. An oil refinery is a perfectly legitimate military target, despite the fact it may be manned by civilians. That's the sucky thing about war, people DIE. The good thing about war is that every time it happens fewer civilians die but we haven't gotten to the point of ZERO yet. As for the "peace process," it's simply been a sham by Palestinian leadership to rebuild, judging by the return of sponsored attacks again and again. You think it's fair that Palestine uses cease-fires to rebuild and attack again, but Israel can not begin a contingency plan during peacetime? Contingency plans and prepared military assaults are nothing new. Most modern nations have plans prepared to move against each other should the worst happen. It's not like the generals get together on the first day after declaring war and start planning things. Let's face it, I am not a fan of this violence. But to be completely honest, Israel is fully justified in their actions. They are working very hard to ensure that very few innocents die in this assault. [bleep]ing about what kind of weapons they use is just silly. Should they degrade down to slingshots and cap pistols (or to be more serious light weaponry to match Hamas) just so that so-called intellectuals in other nations can sleep better at night? Peace requires two parties, no more and no less. Peace without sincerity leads to conflict. Peace thrust upon you by a third party requires no obligation between the two original states (the peace process is placed upon the third party).

Half-Life: Source actually used Half Life graphics. They for some wierd reason ported it to the Source engine with no updates other than to give it HL2 water. People got pissed and claimed it deserved the HL2 overhaul. Black Mesa was the answer to that, with now five years of effort being put in. They moved to Episode 2 recently due to high demand and were shocked at how many options were now open to them and practically began to remake the game.