warri0r45

I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. So do you think something should be banned if you don't like it? Are we going to ban the people in MM&T who say "rap is stupid", too? It just so happens that some people, for whatever reason, think those things. Hell, I might cringe everytime I see a completely incoherent post from someone saying "God sucks, lol" or "rap is stupid", etc. I'm sorry, but I'm really not the kind of person who wants to dictate censorship of opinions because I personally don't like them, especially not when there are a million forums out there and people can choose the crowd they're with.

We shouldn't make rules against calling things stupid, no matter what those things are. This is supposed to be somewhere where we can talk about anything PG-13 and give our opinions on them. Inevitably people will hold opinions which offend others. If people want a place where religion is held up on a holy pedestal where it's not criticised or called stupid in some way, then they should go to a religiously minded forum.

Dark Recollections by Carnage. Some very cool oldschool death metal.

Ordered Symbolic by Death the other day: I'm looking forward to it.

Which in itself should tell you something about their beliefs. They won't sue for copyright infringement of something they don't own. To adress the topic, the official line that Scientologists give you is easily accessible on their website. I can't remember exactly their official beliefs, but they were basically a mix of philosophical notions, ethics, and beliefs about the nature of humans and spirituality. Totally forgettable stuff, in my opinion. http://www.scientology.org/

Butcher the Weak by Devourment.

Criminally Insane by Slayer

I'm not really sure about the specs. The website probably has them. Edit: this might help. [hide=Interface at daytime][/hide] [hide=Interface at night][/hide] [hide=M83 Galaxy, pre zoom][/hide] [hide=M83 Galaxy, post zoom][/hide] [hide=Moon landscape][/hide] [hide=Mars landscape][/hide] [hide=Saturn seen from Europa][/hide] [hide=Eagle nebula][/hide]

http://www.stellarium.org/ Stellarium is a free astronomy program which is basically a virtual planatarium with which you can search the universe from a given vantage point. You can search for the planets of the solar system, other galaxies and nebulae, stars and star clusters. The time is compltely plastic, so you can keep it in real time or speed it up to show the rotation of planets, etc. You can choose where you view the universe from - earth, the moon, mars, another planet, titan, etc - and you can choose the landscape on which you stand. There are a few earth-based landscapes and one from each the moon and mars (real photos). Search tips: * left click on what you want to look at or search with the search tool * use foreward slash and backslash (/ and \) for quick zoom buttons when you have something highlighted * use page up and page down for a more controlled zoom * hit space to center on an object and track it * try searching for some of the Messier objects ("M1", "M2", etc) Have you ever used this program? Show us what you find and tell us what it is. I might upload a photo or two later. On a broader note, are you interested in or have you ever studied astronomy? What do you think about it?

Zero Tolerance by Death

Maybe if you tried them more than once you would understand. There's a little code my friends and I like to use. It goes a little something like this: First time-Nothing. Second time-You don't understand what you're feeling. Third time- You embrace it and feel bliss. I could go ahead and post a bunch of military tactics that I found online, but since I've never really experienced any type of war or battle, I would just be blowing smoke. Until you start blowing smoke more often (in the literal sense), you're just blowing smoke when you post facts about marijuana, because to any user, you obviously have not experienced it enough to rag it. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that he's "blowing smoke" when talking about the effects of marijuana simply because he's not used it (despite the fact I'm pretty sure venomai has, correct me if I'm wrong, mate). Seriously, if you haven't experienced something, you can still easily know something about it. I've never been in zero gravity, but I can still read up about it's effects on the human body (e.g. many people vomit the first time because their brain is tricked into believing that the body is experiencing free fall). I'd say you can know the effects. I wouldn't say you totally understand them until you've felt it for yourself. I've read about what people see on acid trips, but I don't feel I totally understand it nor will I understand it until I feel it for myself. Maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about.. It's late and I'm tired lol Venomai was talking about the clinical aspects of the drug like the likelihood of risks of long-term use, etc. That's where it seems there's misunderstanding here. He's not talking about individual perceptions of the drug or personal experience, he's talking about the potential health hazards of it's use. If that's the case (he can speak for himself and correct me if needed), then I can only see responding to that by bringing up arguments about personal use as non-sequitur.

Maybe if you tried them more than once you would understand. There's a little code my friends and I like to use. It goes a little something like this: First time-Nothing. Second time-You don't understand what you're feeling. Third time- You embrace it and feel bliss. I could go ahead and post a bunch of military tactics that I found online, but since I've never really experienced any type of war or battle, I would just be blowing smoke. Until you start blowing smoke more often (in the literal sense), you're just blowing smoke when you post facts about marijuana, because to any user, you obviously have not experienced it enough to rag it. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that he's "blowing smoke" when talking about the effects of marijuana simply because he's not used it (despite the fact I'm pretty sure venomai has, correct me if I'm wrong, mate). Seriously, if you haven't experienced something, you can still easily know something about it. I've never been in zero gravity, but I can still read up about it's effects on the human body (e.g. many people vomit the first time because their brain is tricked into believing that the body is experiencing free fall).

That's a huge stretch, Range. You can't seriously compare an editorial piece to the interpretation of evidence gathered for a literature review. You can spin the semantics to make yourself feel better about it but really, there's a significant difference between the two. The idea that there is a personal agenda here is conspiracy theory garbage. Really, that kind of jumping to conclusions is laughable. By that logic, any review of the effects of a drug could have a personal agenda because they comment on the need to warn people about it. To end, read the quote again. It said that "there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life", not no evidence. It's as if you read something completely different. Added, they didn't even say that they "felt the need" to do anything, so please don't make it seem as if they did by "quoting" that phrase. My underlying point is that you shouldn't get information from special interest groups and present it as fact without thinking about it critically first. You clearly haven't done that here, because a quick search of The Lancet finds material that questions that editorial's fundamental claim. You should at least pause and question what's going on here before jumping to a conclusion.

Do you know what an editorial is? It's an opinion piece witten by the editor of a publication. This is the editorial you're talking about. It's clearly not a scientific study and it cites no scientific studies. I wouldn't really expect that of an editorial. This is a scientific study. It has some quesion it's trying to answer and methods of answering it (in this case looking through journals to find evidence of the mental health outcomes of cannabis use). It also has a conclusion, one which isn't based on opinion but rather on the analysis undertaken. An editorial shouldn't be confused with a study review. It's pretty characteristic of special interest groups to do this kind of thing to support their agenda.

No, that was Trapical. As for the thread in general, it just goes to show how common cancer is for people. When you consider the stats, cancer is right up there among the leading causes of death in the world. All the more reason to try and find a cure. Cancer rates aren't really skyrocketing. More people are getting cancer these days just because people are living longer. Just wanted to clarify that for some people thinking it's speading like ebola in the jungle. :geek: I didn't say cancer rates were skyrocketing, only that cancer is one of the leading causes of death.

No, that was Trapical. As for the thread in general, it just goes to show how common cancer is for people. When you consider the stats, cancer is right up there among the leading causes of death in the world. All the more reason to try and find a cure.

Cause of Death by Obituary. Excellent song.

I like the second one there Lenin. Genious. I remember doing something similar to Lordjake in biology back in school, except mine was just different concentrations of salt from memory. Then I think I did something similar except with different volumes of water. It sounds so boring in retrospect. I suppose those kind of things were just a simple excercise in scientific experimentation by keeping variables in check while changing one.

Australian news is fairly unbiased on the whole. I'd say the ABC (the Aussie equivalent of the BBC) is the best bet for no nonsense, fact based news. Having said that, it's always critical to get news from multiple sources. A search on google news usually comes up with multiple sources for the same story, so you can browse at your leisure to find where the truth lies.

Blackest Eyes by Porcupine Tree.

Nihility by Decapitated.

Intriguing, try Malevolent Creation for some solid death metal. I've not yet picked up any of their material but I've heard their first two albums on youtube and they're great. First album - The Ten Commandments Second album - Retribution

Injected Sufferage by Malevolent Creation. I'm seriously loving this band.

Coronation Of Our Domain by Malevolent Creation. This song is crunchy as hell. Love it.

i dont know how accurate it is when doctors say that. they told me aunt she had a few months left, but she lived 7 years...then slipped into a coma and died before she was even 30. Maybe they don't want to give people false hope in case they do die earlier then expected? I'm just guessing here but I could see how upset a family would be if a doctor said 5 years and their loved one died a few months later.