assassin_696

Yeah, steer clear of the booze. Don't want to sound patronising, but there's no way a load of 14 year olds would be able to handle a party with alcohol without it just getting silly and most people laying on the floor vomiting. I speak from experience. I don't know about party ideas, I think you should just keep it simple, in the summer I don't think you can beat a barbecue, but maybe for 60 or so people you'd need a heck of a lot of steak. :P

Dave Grohl's great, such a funny guy, and I love the Foo Fighters so i'll definitely be getting this album. : My sister got tickets to go see them a year or so ago and never went, I wish she'd given them to me

Meh, I wouldn't call it 'wasting' five or so hours, some of the best laughs i've had in a while :)

Yeah, the Bose-Einstein condensate phenomenen is a fascinating one, a friend pointed me towards it a while ago and I wasted a good lunch hour reading all about it. As has been said, what basically happens is a big clump of atoms that will normally exist seperate from each other collapse into the lowest available energy state, so they all kind of merge to form a point, a new state of matter. The stuff about particle-wave duality applies to any particle, what makes the BEC special is that this kind of quantum phenomena are suddenly directly observable on a macroscopic scale. It's also very interesting how they cool stuff down to that kind of temperature using very advanced lasers, I remember watching a fun tutorial on it a while ago but I can't find the link. Nuclear fusion reactions :) The Sun smacks two hydrogen atoms together to form one helium atom, but one helium atom is a little bit lighter than two hydrogen atoms, so the extra mass has to go somewhere right? Well, since E=mc^2, the little bit of mass is converted into quite a lot of energy, and that's what fuels pretty much all stars (heavier stars can fuse heavier elements, and dying stars can fuse very heavy elements, which is why we know that we're a second generation star system).

I couldn't really put it much better myself, but i'll just elaborate a bit on my thoughts. I'm completely pro-choice, but for me the difficult distinction is where to draw the line as to when you can have an abortion. I think the current law in the UK puts the limit up to 24 weeks, and i'm inclined to agree. I tend to draw the line when the foetus is capable of being supported outside of the mother's womb, i.e. is not dependent on the mother. I believe the current record for a premature baby is about 20 weeks. The problem (if it can be called that) is that medical science is rightly advancing all the time, so the limit is shrinking, perhaps to the point where the mother is almost made redundant. But, I still believe people should have the choice, so here I think it's best to apply situation ethics to it, a concept Jesus emphasised (but did not create), so i'm surprised more Christians don't pick up on it. I think in some situations the most loving thing is to have an abortion, rape victims are a no-brainer, but if the child is going to suffer, other children are going to suffer, or the mother's mental health would be affected then an abortion should be readily available. That's actually the three main prerequisites for getting an abortion in the UK (plus getting two doctors to agree). Here's the official guidelines for the 1967 abortion act, which I think work very well: * To save the woman's life * To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health * Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman * Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren) * If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped I don't particularly like the thought of abortions being used as a kind of advanced morning-after pill, but ultimately it's down to the individual. I do think the mother's decision should always take precedence though. To all the pro-life lot, I'll say this. On the face of it, your opinion may seem right, but I emplore you to consider this. No matter what the law is, people will always seek abortions. And if abortions are illegal these abortions will turn into back-alley abortions, which can be very dangerous. Like with a lot of things, if you make aboriton illegal you'll suffer the consequences by driving it underground, and you won't stop it.

Looks like Gibson ES, not sure of the model number off the top of my head, but i'll look it up. I'd say it was the most popular model, the 335, but it could be anything really. What kind of pickups are they? Single coil or humbuckers? Also, it looks like the one nearest the next is missing? What does it say on the headstock? Edit: Yeah, looking at the fretboard that would fit with a 335, if it's genuine.

Jimmy The Exploder - The White Stripes

Ease off any cardio stuff you're doing. Obviously you need to keep it up, because keeping your heart healthy is way more important than any short term weight gains at the moment, but don't overdo it. Find a local gym, get yourself a muscle building program and stick to it. Low reps, high weights. Eat, a lot. But don't eat a lot of junk, try and eat lots of smaller meals a day instead of three big ones to keep your body ticking over.

Beat me to it :P I've read most, if not all of his stuff. It's hard to say which is my favourite, they're all so gripping, especially those last few hundred pages. For popular science, i'd say Richard Dawkins and Roger Penrose are two of my favourites. Penrose can be a bit baffling at times but it's worth it for those rare moments where it all clicks and he makes you feel like a genius. For "children's" fiction I still Philip Pullman is the best out there, his books have a depth that blows Rowling out of the water. I enjoyed Garth Nix's books as well. I haven't read that many classics yet, but of the ones I have, [bleep]ens appeals to me most. Does Shakespeare count? He's more of a playwright to me. And of course, Tolkien.

Lol at Reb's sig :P

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man. Ah, so this is what it comes down to: it's wrong because the Bible says so. Besides, I can't see how diseases will be spread any more by homosexuals if they use protection than heterosexuals. Unprotected sex should always be restricted to some kind of stable relationship IMO.

Damn straight, I just read the entire thing in practically one sitting :

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented? I don't think that was the point, obviously marriage is a beneficial kind of union, it's just it's not something that occurs in nature, life-partners yes, but formal rituals and ceremonies no. On a side note, i've never been hit on by a gay guy, unless that gay who kept... :P

The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy Bought them on DVD, wanted to rewatch them again before seeing the third. I'd forgotten how good these films were.

My bad, I thought it was like $100 :oops:

I haven't got much left to say here, the facts about the matter have been put forward by others and to some extent, myself. People who are continually ignoring the facts are just burying their heads in the sand, and I have no time for that kind of attitude. @Korskin, your whole argument falls down on the premise that homosexuality is a danger to society based on the fact that "it spreads disease", when in fact it could only ever spread disease to other homosexual men, and in reality far more disease is spread by heterosexuals, and as Satenza said, with more far reaching consequences. I just wanna say this as well; I always find it hilarious how many homophobes are worried that homosexuals will start hitting on them at the first possible chance. Seriously, stop flattering yourselves.

How on earth does that logic work? There's a myth that all homosexuals have and spread AIDS, when in fact it's more common among heterosexual people. And how are they going to spread them to anybody except fellow homosexuals? Do you know what has spread more disease than all homosexuals combined? The Vatican's simple condemnation of condoms, most of Africa is so terrified to use condoms in case they burn in hell. It sounds like you're advocating social Darwinism, i.e. encouraging anything that propogates the species and discouraging anything that doesn't. Are you saying that we should procreate as much as possible? I think we're a little beyond that now. What's so wrong with seeking personal pleasures? I'm sure you do it all the time. Besides, this world is overpopulated enough, babies are only "good" if they can be brought up in a loving family with support and care. Cheating, harming, stealing and raping all damage society. Homosexuality doesn't. "Go figure". Homosexuality has only ever been a sin because of religion, it has no detriment to society. I take it all the species of animal in which homosexuality has been observed are "rebelling" against God as well then? Except they can't, because they don't have free will to choose to rebel. Stop being so ignorant and look into the science of the matter, it's not a deliberate choice. Besides, God didn't create anything. A fair point.

Wikipedia it, not all homosexuals are born that way, a lot of them develop through upbringing and psychological experiences. But there are theories that some people are simply born that way as well.

Surfs up dudes?

ZOMG DEFINITIVE PROOF OF GHOSTS

Big, man.

I think it's often quite sad, since usually neither the mother or father want a baby at such an early stage in their life. If they decide to try and raise it, good for them.

(1) Why have sex wearing a condom? It's not going to (for the most part) create a baby. We're to the point in society where sex is not mostly for pleasure and intimacy rather than impregnation. (2) So you find it sick because it's not natural? How would you react if I said that a concept such as marriage is sick because it's not natural? You'd think I'm nuts. We should be rutting around spreading our seed with as many women as possible if we want to be a sucessful species. It's just that a concept such as marriage is socially accepted where as homosexuality, for the most part, is not. It's got nothing to do with being natural or not. That's just an excuse to deny two consenting adults consent to a private act which doesn't harm you in any way. And to add to your point warri0r, dwarfdude, saying that homosexuality "isn't natural" is just plain ignorant, homosexuality has been observed in many animal species. There's often a silly misinterpretation of Darwinism that anything that doesn't propogate your genes as fast as possible is bad for the species, when in reality it's far from that simple.

Yeah, i'd do it, and I think it's fairly obvious what next...

I've said it before and i'll say it again, homosexuality is a private act between two consenting adults, and only religion could find a problem with that. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I do find people who talk about homosexuality as if it's some grave moral sin as mildy disgusting. What gives you the right to judge them? @Goddess: Forgive me if i'm gravely misinterpretating Freud here, but wouldn't the conclusion therefore be that homosexuality is somehow the desired state? What I mean is, if a lot of homosexuals developed that way because they didn't go suppressed by their father, and spent a lot of time with their mother (as they desire) and hence develop her characteristics isn't that what they want? Or is it that they simply crave someone like their mother to have a relationship with in future life, and hence heterosexuality is the desired state?