warri0r45

Wow, awesome pics, Phil. Glad you liked Aus and our meat pies. :P I'd love to do something similar some day.

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable. I just spent like 15 minutes trying to track down that organization and the video and after I read this article, it seems to me like an overly conservative Christian group is just bored and needs a hobby to fill their time. After I watched the video, I realized I was right. There was about 2 seconds of SpongeBob, and one probably wouldn't even notice him if they weren't looking. And I was searching for some kind of hidden message to turn kids gay, but I didn't find one. TBH, I think the only "despicable" one here is you. Damn, I had no idea. You're absolutely right, the only despicable people here are Agunimon and "Focus on the Family" for making a big issue out of absolutely nothing. Seriously, the idea that you can get a pro-gay agenda from that video is just insane. And as for the question of would I support homosexuality if it was a choice, yes. The idea that this private act between consenting adults is a choice is not something that concerns me morally.

Damn. I don't know whether to thank you or what, Jack. That video of the 3 men trapped at the top of WTC2 on the phone to 911 is absolutely chilling.

How does having a memorial add to fear? And just on another point (not necessarily directed at you, TheTrueNoob) why are people saying that Americans should "move on"? I think it's fairly obvious that Americans, including New Yorkers, have moved on with their lives. One memorial day a year doesn't stop people from moving on from 9/11 any more than one memorial day a year in Australia (Anzac Day) stops us from moving on as a nation.

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable. Not where I'm from. But that does sound over the top.

I think the reason that a lot of people oppose gayness is religious instruction. But I suppose your reason could have been why religious teachings picked up on the whole anti-gay thing earlier on. Religious beliefs that appeal to the supernatural are just an excellent artifice for spreading the particular views in question, unfortunately. Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality. Since when has being black or gay been classified as an action? To be fair, I think the action in question is anal sex. Or sex between two males or two females. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My opinion on homosexuality and homosexuals has always been that it doesn't bother me in the slightest. The don't choose to be gay, though that's not the only reason why they shouldn't be discriminated against. They're human beings and want nothing more to be left in peace, so I do.

Listen to music, play music (guitar) and drink coffee. Iced coffee exclusively. I think it's come to the point where I'd be stressed purely by not having my coffee hit. Well, I'd have a headache, at least.

I hardly think it's arrogance on behalf of the Americans, and I'm not one of them either. I think the reason that 9/11 is remembered every year is that it was such a devastating single event (or series of events) on a completely civilian target. It was also utterly unexpected and unprecedented. In the case of the WTC towers, it was two of the biggest skyscrapers in the world demolished by two massive commercial air liners hijacked by fundamentalist crazies. Tons upon tons of concrete and steel rising over 400 meters into the sky demolished in a single attack. The very image of that demands an imprint on your brain; if it doesn't, then there's something wrong with you as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to war, yes, it is tragic, and if I remember correctly over half of the casualties in WW2 were civilian, so you'd have an argument on the numbers alone. Hell, you'd probably have an argument with the numbers on a single event; I'm sure you could find some skirmish in WW2 where thousands of civilian lives were exterminated. Speaking of extermination, obviously the Holocaust comes to mind. But as I said, I think the reason why it's such a revered date is the sheer image of those two buildings falling, i.e. there's probably an element of psychological imprint on top of the obvious tragedy.

Just because I thought you said it before I had to double take, I reccomend meshuggah. Probably a bit niche in terms of tatse, but still a great band.

"Lost soul" would be an idiom. It's a form of figurative langage where the meaning can't be deduced from the literal meanings of the words alone. For example, when it's "raining cats and dogs", cats and dogs aren't literally falling from the sky. I'm pretty sure the entire phrase taken together is a metaphor, as Zonorhc said.

Not that I'd really tell them, but I kind of watch over any lab partner I have to make sure they're doing it right (biochemistry/molecular biology/microbiology/etc). In that sense I'm picky and a bit of a control freak but I make it as discrete as absolutely possible. I don't hog the tasks, though, and I try not to be bossy. I try my best to always offer my lab partner to do half the work, though I do often take the lead and control what we're doing collectively. The thing is, most of the time this is irrational (i.e. they're quite competent to do the work themselves), but it's just in my nature to want to have control over a lab project that I'm doing. I want to be able to account for everything.

LOL Racist much? #-o and speaking of racism... People who say that your racist when you say something that's not even offensive #-o I find that really annoying too. Saying anything vaguely offensive to some people is taken as racist, no matter how racially neutral it actually is. They're just feeding on the politically correct BS perpetuated by certain sects of society to continue the victim mentality.

Coincidentally, I watched a doco about WTC7 on TV last night. As many may know, WTC7 (World Trade Center 7) was one of the buildings that collapsed on sept. 11, 2001. There were some questions over what caused WTC7 to collapse that day as no other cases of a skyscraper falling due to fire are known, however the doco pretty much dispelled the idea that it had to be a controlled demolition or government conspiracy. That's right down there on the plausibility stakes, anyway. Of course the true believer types are quick to point out who's in on the cover up so they can wash their hands of actually coming up with a coherent explanation.

Mentally Blind by Death. From a great album called Individual Thought Patterns.

I don't believe in satan. It seems to me that it's a concept made up to use as a scapegoat for what's considered morally wrong, i.e. sinful. Sin in this context meaning something seen as socially wrong or taboo.

I don't ever seem to notice many coincidences.

Chuck Schuldiner from Death is fast becoming one of my favourites. Great guitarist technically, helped innovate how the instrument is played (in the death metal sub-genre, at least) and wrote some great music, too.

Individual Thought Patterns by Death. Very, very good. Shuldiner and co. at their best. Better than Human. Edit: Also ordered a couple today: Kill by Cannibal Corpse Unquestionable Presence by Atheist.

Unquestionable Presence by Atheist.

Been in the same house for my 19 year existence. There's no chance of me moving house until it comes time to actually move out. I'm pretty content with things at the moment, though. I've got more education to plough through yet.

I agree with jack. It's not at all cool when some poor bastard gets knocked out by a king hit and they die or go into a coma when they hit their head on hard concrete. It's not at all cool when a group of people gang up on you and bash you absolutely senseless, leaving you in hospital for weeks, possibly leaving you brain dead. There's almost no such thing as a one-on-one fight these days unless it's completely staged. I mean seriously, I know what many of you guys are talking about seems harmless enough and some of you are having a joke about it, but the few cases that go wrong aren't pretty at all. Some are downright tragic and senseless.

First and foremost drug programs should give accurate information. When it comes to the time that kids realise they haven't died from an ecstasy tablet on the weekend, they're going to think they've been lied to. If they doubt some information they've been given, they'll doubt all of it and might not pay attention to some of the real risks. In this way, that kind of over-the-top propaganda approach doesn't help anyone. As for the drug trade, it isn't going away any time soon. Drug lords know they can make a ridiculous amount of money from illegal drugs because they can dictate the prices and they pay no tax. I think that some sort of regulation would be more beneficial. It would ensure that we know what's in your pot/ecstasy/speed/whatever. Another result of regulation is that the drugs could be taxed, and the money could go into drug education and rehabilitation programs. In this way you could steadily put the drug lords out of business. Think about it - what are you more likely to buy? A bag of pot from a street dealer, or a bag of pot, probably cheaper, from a chemist? An important point about regulation is that it's not decriminalization. I'm no expert on economics (other opinions welcome), but keeping street dealing illegal and allowing the legal sale of drugs through a chemist would mean street dealing prices would remain high due to risk whereas legally bought drugs could remain at market prices.

It's not a bad idea, and it's hard to play something that doesn't exist. ;) No, we don't "know enough about science". The search for truth is one of the noblest ideals, and science, as far as we know, is the best way to pursue truth about our universe. Who is going to benefit? Who knows? The ramifications in terms of technology for the average person probably won't be felt for a very long time, but even if it never brings anything useful, who cares? Like I said, it will give us a better understanding of the universe, and that knowledge alone is worth the money. Ok I know that you're in the right. I've been arguing with my dad about this for a few days and I know I'm in the wrong, and yet I still think it's just a bad idea... Couldn't we have spent 4 billion on something that would benefit the world for certain, rather than hanging hopes on this? I see your point, but the same could be argued for research into smallpox, for example. We didn't know for certain that we would find something of any pragmatic use then, but the only way we would get anything of use was to do the research in the first place. Today, smallpox has been eradicated entirely (well, except for two labs in the world - one in America and one in Russia if I remember correctly). The point is that we can only come to the advanced level of today by delving into the unknown and chancing our arm a bit. I suppose it just depends on what point of view you look at it from.

From what I've read it's very unlikely that the doomsayers are at all correct. I'm not worried at all. As for the benefits of this kind of research, it's not only a question of the beginning of the universe, it's a question of the fundamental nature of matter. Now that is useful to mankind.

It's pretty stupid to say 40-60 year olds shouldn't have sex because they'll die from pregnancy. If you agree with that then don't drive a car, because you could die doing that too. People usually don't immediately stop doing something because there's a risk of death. Just wear a condom and use the pill. Hell, get a vasectomy. That should eliminate 99%+ of the risk of pregnancy, and by extention the risk of maternal mortality. Besides, if they do get pregnant, there's always the option of cesarean, which is often used if there's going to be serious harm to either the mother or baby. I mean really, in this day and age using maternal death from pregnancy as an excuse not to have sex over 40 is just plain nuts. If there are 9 maternal deaths per 100,000 pregancies in the developed world**, then even if all of those 9 are from people over 40, it's still an incredibly low risk. ** pg. 23