death666bl00ms

9/10 update sig fool =D>

That was uncalled for. :shame: Can't believe 1 rating could cause so much discussion though. Its not. Its the arrogance and hypocriticalness that accompanies said rating that is causing the discussion. Jordan, I have seen you rate people 8/10 and higher for having a rare worth less then the 225k pure ess is worth. And now you come on to here to say that "18m is nothing, anyone can get it". You also make a point to say "Noone cares what you have banked." Hrm. Perhaps we should inform tip.it so they can change the name of this forum? Drops, achievements, and No banks....Sounds good. OT: 7/10. Good start, lets see you finish!

mmmm, Xmas list! :lol: 1. Hrm, Bandos boots 2. Infinity boots (I like boots >.<) 3. Dragon 2h

Sir Spamalot?

Thanks for the rates guys And no, my sperm only goes to my gf....so'z.

Got Spiritual Mage's as a slayer task, and figured I would camp there a bit. Loaded up, spent a couple hours, and here is the result:

+1

It's from the song Bleak :D Yup yup...Blackwater Park is my fav. album by far. Also looove Deliverance Do you like Damnation? I thought it was decent at first, but it has grown on me sooo much now. I absolutely love it now. Of course, Opeth is by far my favorite death metal group, so I pretty much love all their albums :lol:

9/10 for levels...+1 for your avatar...= 10/10 *points to siggy*

1) The proper way to word your last post would have been: "I'm still curious as to why we can't delete our own posts honestly." I don't usually correct grammar related stuff, but what you said was that you wanted the ability to delete/edit OTHER people's posts. i had never said that, i was referring to posts of the owners. i do not see why we cannot be granted "special rights" over our own posts. but we cant. 2)Somehow that doesn't surprise me... Here's what I did: In response to your post, I posted something that seemed false, offering no proof to support what I said. Sort of like what you did when you said my comparissons were "clearly innacurate". If you can't back up what you say with some sort of logic/proof, then don't bother posting it because it will have all the impact of calling someone a watermelon now see what I did? how is it i was supposed to support that? its incorrect, and all i did was state that if you wanted a discussion of it, start a thread. 3)The bouncers/bars were seperate examples. What I meant by them was that the bouncer can say that person A can get into the club while person B can't, and as such different rules apply to person A (is allowed to enter) and person B (who is not allowed to enter). The bar example sees person A (who is of legal drinking age) who is allowed to enter/drink while person B (who is underage) cannot. This is the exact same concept as forum mods getting to break certain rules. Rules are rarely the same from person to person, and special roles/status allow you to follow a different set of rules. what bouncers any more? seriously? and yes, people are kept out of bars for legal reason otherwise i have never seen a bar completely deny someone As for the gun thing, I'm canadian, no guns allowed :( ah, yes i recall that now that you mention it. canada is such a tranquil place. i do hope to go some day. My 21st b-day I walked into a liquor store, and attempted to buy some Bacardi. Unfortunately, my girlfriend was with me at the time. I was denied sale, as she was 20. (Underage). The person in front of me walked in with his son (I am assuming it was his son) His son looked to be around 12. He was not denied sale. In conclusion: Shut up Jessy

Ok, this is starting to annoy me. The odds are a lot higher....Sorry, Highlanders, I'm going to pick on you (nothing personal, I assure you). The odds are higher? Did you compile data, map it, find the mean? FInd the standard deviance? Figure out if it was normal bell shaped? Found your Z value or T value? Look up the probability using a Z chart, T chart, or Chi Sq chart? I highly doubt it. So stop using made up facts. Another person on this thread did the same thing with his "3 percent" crap. OT: (Sorta) I have an old school Pker that I don't play on whose name is "laaag".

Of course...I should have known 2a. Thats like, common sense :oops: 2c, however, I was going off of what was said in the book and on the slides. However, looking back, it says that is for steady state. How did you come up with square root of 12/100?

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell. How can you say He is imposing limitations? Yes, the 10 C's are "law" in some sense. Yes, you break them, you are going to Hell. But, He is not forcing us to follow them by ANY means. Your dad tells you to turn off the light and go to bed. Is he forcing you to do that? No. You still have the choice to defy him. My argument is that it's counter intuitive to make us with 'free will' but then impose limitations, which include genocide, to keep us in line with god's will. If we have free will, why is he trying to fix our sinful ways? Why make us with sinful propensities in the first place? I understand your argument, but this goes back to what I was saying with "take it how you will". This will not be resolved, and frankly, there is nothing to be resolved. It is a question of beliefs, which, no matter what religion you belong to, will always be individual. Let me get this straight. You believe it's sensible that god should intend to make us with 'free will' only to impose limitations when we stray from what he deems acceptable, including a world wide flood that kills all but 8 people? Why make free will in the first place or why impose the limitations? God seems to want to have it both ways - he made us with 'free will' but dosen't like it when we stray from common lines in which case he deems it acceptable to bypass everyone having their own free will and impose his own will. Kind of like god's little footnote - "you have free will*" *unless I really really don't like what you do If you don't want to continue I won't hammer the point after this post but I just can't see the sense in the almighty's approach on this issue. One thing before I call it quits...(otherwise there will be no end to it, there never is in these types of discussions) I am not someone who takes the Bible literally. By any means. World Wide Flood? Psh. More like a flash flood. (It was actually proved several years ago that a major flooding of the Dead Sea occurred around the time Noah was said to have lived.)

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell. How can you say He is imposing limitations? Yes, the 10 C's are "law" in some sense. Yes, you break them, you are going to Hell. But, He is not forcing us to follow them by ANY means. Your dad tells you to turn off the light and go to bed. Is he forcing you to do that? No. You still have the choice to defy him. My argument is that it's counter intuitive to make us with 'free will' but then impose limitations, which include genocide, to keep us in line with god's will. If we have free will, why is he trying to fix our sinful ways? Why make us with sinful propensities in the first place? I understand your argument, but this goes back to what I was saying with "take it how you will". This will not be resolved, and frankly, there is nothing to be resolved. It is a question of beliefs, which, no matter what religion you belong to, will always be individual.

LOL. Right. Its just a coincidence that danofilth2 is close to Dani Filth, lead singer of Cradle of Filth, who developed a shirt with a picture of a nun on the front pleasuring herself with a crucifix, and the words "Jesus is a [bleep]" on the back? Idiot F1[/b]5.jpg please remove that, as there are some kids that go to tip.it and we dont wanna mess up their minds, yet... Done

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell. How can you say He is imposing limitations? Yes, the 10 C's are "law" in some sense. Yes, you break them, you are going to Hell. But, He is not forcing us to follow them by ANY means. Your dad tells you to turn off the light and go to bed. Is he forcing you to do that? No. You still have the choice to defy him.

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now?

I did. My apologies. It should be K^(1/3).

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this?

Run, Forrest!

LOL. Yes, I also notice .com. You used a .com site as a cite for a definition. Hehehehe, Here's your sign....

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T.

Considering you have yet to come up with a counter argument, and you made up your own false little definition of a word, I don't think you have much room to talk.

Yes sir. I was referring to the apostle's lack of faith in the N.T. Your brought up stoning, which was punishment prior to the 10 commandments, in the O.T. This was PRIOR TO MOSES' COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.

Stone a woman for not being a virgin? Deut. 22:13-21 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâI took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ 15 then the girlÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girlÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girlÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s father shall say to the elders, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâI gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughterÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s virginity.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girlÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her fatherÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her fatherÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13). Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. The above verses were written 3000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today, and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin. In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was was representative of the fathers ability to raise her according to the laws God. Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated. Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one. http://www.carm.org/diff/Deut22_13.htm