anonimu

I don't really remember... Since everyday I act stupid at least once, I tend to repress my memories of every day...

"*laughter*" or "Finally..." or "All your base are belong to us!" or "I can see the future; someone close to you is going to kill you in your sleep..." or "I was just about to get a killing spree!" or "You stole my kill!" or "When I respawn I'll get the sniper and pwn you!" or "Dude, throw a grenade! SMG him! Grab my magnum!" or "Grab my shotgun and get him!" or "Goddamn it! I was reloading!" or "Who freaking splattered me? I was going to get the rocker launcher!" or etc.

You forgot Wolfenstein 3D and ROTT

Yes, you are depressed. Anyone who posts on a forum asking if they're depressed is probably depressed. I'm depressed too... I actually like it a bit since I don't have to care about what I do...

I actually lolled in on that. And as many people have already pointed out, selling cabbages there wouldn't be the wisest idea.

CAD, I think early 2006 or late 2005. I would prefer leather boots if I still played RS...

If I don't know the game, I start it on easy on third-hardest. Then I switch to hard. If I know the game, I do hard.

Are you sure? I didn't say I do (or don't) play, but I stopped playing a while ago. So if you're assuming that if someone doesn't mention Runescape in their post that they still play, don't. :o! You made my heart cry :cry: . Umm, I just skimmed through the first two pages... I guess I read the wrong posts...sorry...

I use the forums for more than an hour each day. I first look at General, P2P, and Rants and laugh at all the stupid people on the web, then go to Off-Topic and attempt to disprove or prove things. I'm surprised that most people who posted on this thread still play RS.

Ok, first off, have you ever taken biology, molecular chemistry or physics? Once you begin looking at matter at an atomic level, you begin to realize how complicated this universe of ours really is. 1. How do you propose that a huge explosions occures at just the right temperature, pressure, and position, that our universe would end up not collapsing in on itself? Second, if you look at the variety of life (from archebacteria to protista to animlia) you begin to find evolution hard to belive... For even the most basic of cells to form, you have to have at least 12 different components come together in the right order, within a certain time frame, and in the correct place. The odds of this happening are approximatly 12 trillion to one... The odds of this evolving into modern life forms makes this grow exponentialy. 3. Finally, we have the problem of the law of conservation of matter; if we belive this law (that states matter is neither created nor destroyed) then the orgin's of the universe theory is smashed to pieces. I belive that the big bang, evolution, etc, did occur, but they only occured due to the intervention of God. I have no hard evidence (this is where faith comes in), that God exsist, and I will never be able to prove this, due to the fact that God rules, he can choose how he appears and we can't just step away from him and view him under a microscope. 4. Laugh if you will, you will never be able to prove me wrong... 1. First of all, the universe includes an infinite amount of time-lines, so instead of "our universe" you should've said "our time-line." The chances of our time-line forming are more than 0. There's an infinite number of time-lines. Therefore there are more than 0 time-lines in which the big bang did not go wrong. 2. Link (This was posted on the thread about the Jesus tomb documentary. 3. How is the theory smashed to pieces? Think about black holes. They have an almost infinite mass compressed together in a space whose volume is almost 0. Our time-line's space could've originally been a singularity. Also, it's not the law of conservation of matter anymore. Since the theory of relativity (which may be slightly off if the speed of light is not constant) states that E=Mc^2, or M=E/c^2, it's the law of conservation of mass or energy. (Nuclear reactions don't conserve matter.) 4. Why would anyone laugh? One can prove neither God's existence nor His non-existence. Normal people would only laugh at/pity you when you start acting like korskin was on the Jesus tomb documentary thread.

I think that life is just like a cruel experiment. There's absolutely nothing to live for. But our natural instincts and society's rules say that dying is bad if there's anything you can do about it, killing others is bad, putting the whole human race out of its misery is bad, life isn't pointless, etc. If we could override our instincts, we'd all commit mass suicide (and probably kill all animals too so that in the future they won't be tortured like us).

In my opinion, all religions simply state the set of rules that their society needed to have to survive at the point in time when the religion was created. Religions are just like sets of laws, but they talk about fictional gods (omnipotent judges) and heavens (rewards) and hells (punishment) so that those who can't figure out that those laws are good will be scared into submission. If everyone follows the same laws, society thrives. I think that only people with metal problems or people who have been taught that modern society is bad need religion.

-edit- nvm...

Wasn't the big dupe bug because somebody figured out the variables for drag meds, pink phats, etc. and changed the variables of other things into those, effectively turning it into a drag med or pink phat.. whatever it was? No... they figured out the variables and created identical items (the new items had the same variable as the old one... Jagex didn't delete the copies because they'd already been traded a lot of times by the time Jagex figured it out...)

I think it was don't press the red button.

Haha, that reminds me... Not really a paradox, but still nice to think about.. What happens when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object? Scary, I know. :uhh: Umm... Let's hope that doesn't happen anytime soon. Wait nvm, let's hope that does happen and the universe gets wiped out.

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what would happen according to the Chaos Theory. An infinite number means there is an infinite number of good, and infinite number of bad consequences. If there are both an infinite number of good and bad, then that cancels out rendering it completely pointless to discuss the possibility. You're wrong... If I wouldn't have picked up an eraser one milisecond ago, there is no way that something on the other side of the universe would've blown up because of that. The number of possibilities varies with the amount of time passed, and as more time passes, the number of possibilities approaches infinity. And it's not about what could've happened, it's about what would've happened. You can't say that if I hadn't picked up that eraser I would've had a heart attack and not had a heart attack at the same time. There isn't an infinite number of time lines that would've resulted, there's an infinite number of time lines that could've resulted. We know that an infinite number of time lines could've resulted from Stalin not being born, but only one of those time lines would've resulted from that. And since we don't know which time line that is, we have no way of knowing whetever they were bad or not. Anyway... this is getting kinda off-topic. We should stop... Abbysalwhip, have you even seen any movies about Stalin. Some Russian people would say that Stalin was worse by far and tell us to go watch some movies. You only think that Hitler was worse because you live in a country where everyone else also thinks that Hitler was worse. And because Hitler came after Stalin and more people told their children about Hitler than about Stalin. (I heard that Stalin would send people to Siberia, where they would slowly starve and freeze to death with no way of escaping. Hitler sent people to camps where they actually used the prisoners as a work force. Therefore more of Hitler's prisoners lived. I might be wrong though...)

Because he's a Christian :P I'd love to see how Carlin would bat that little paradox away, most likely '[omg] any1 hu nos wat 'omnizipunt' meenz iz lik gona go 2 hell coz dey dunt belif in God' Un-Biased View The existance of such a being would that would have created the world, it's forces and dimensions, and invariably, time itself, would not be confined by the forces it created, and would therefore be outside of time itself. Catholic View God is more powerful than the forces, time included, that he created. You have a point there... But maybe that being was sent here from another time line... IMO, that sounds more plausible than the religious theory of God just "being."

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad. If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.) But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad. It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not. I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that. Right. But it also could have been better. The problem with discussing it under your theory is the chances of it being better are equal to the chances of it being worse, therefore, those two chances cancel each other out and we are left discussing what actually happened. Not would've, could've, should've. The problem with your theory is that you don't know if the chances cancel out. It's called Chaos theory for a reason. You don't really know what would've happened, so you don't know whetever what they did was good or bad. (Using a supercomputer that knows everything that happened within at least 100lyrs of Earth (this includes the number of bacteria that replicated on Pluto) in about 1920, one could calculate the effects of their absence... But we don't have the technology to do that yet.)

I would use all the non-renewable fuels that I'd have and make laws so that using polluting fuels is easier than not. I'd also try to detonate a nuke under Yellowstone and wipe out everything in the world... Lionheart, you're wrong. E=Mc^2, and M=E/c^2. Mass is energy. That's how nuclear reactions work (they turn subatomic particles into energy; since there's a lot of particles that get converted to energy, a lot of energy is produced, even though the particles' mass is around 1/c). E is measured in J, mass is measured in kg, and c is measured in m/s...

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad. If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.) But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad. It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not. I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that.

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad. If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

Good one. If you killed your parents (back in time), that would be like killing yourself before you were born!!! Both of you look at "John Titor" on wikipedia. If those theories are right, going back in time would send you into a slightly different time-line (but if the theoretical time machine "John" was talking about was improved, one could arrive in an identical time line (you create a new time line by going back into yours and changing it... ). So even if you go back into your original time line and do something, it will have no effect on you, since by changing your time line, you've split it in two.).

My point on the first page was that according to the Chaos Theory, if Stalin or Hitler wouldn't have acted like that, today we could be all dead from nuclear explosions and radiations, we could still have no man-made objects in outer space, we could be dead due to extreme global warming, we could be all united under one peaceful democratic government, we could be all united under one really bad autocracy, etc. Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

That's pretty sweet :-k . Maybe I should Wikipedia more, that's pretty interesting... ... :lol: Wiki's wrong :^o :-w . I dunno, I think might be feeling nostalgia looking at that statement... How is it wrong? Paradox: Two hands draw each other into existence at the same time. (Salvador Dali)