Anesthesia

That isn't really a valid argument for it considering that they wouldn't be injured had you not been sport fishing in the first place. What you were doing was inevitable. You were fishing for food but they were inadequate - it is the intention that sets it aside. One couldn't go out sport fishing then claim they were better off alive than dead though, since they wouldn't be in that position had the sport fisher not caught them with no intention of eating them. When I was fishing I wouldn't throw small fish back; I'd use them as bait.

It's all very well claiming I don't know anything about the subject but you haven't shown what I'm saying to be untrue, nor have you explained this supposedly solid foundation. What's more, the very fact that someone's birth is a long drawn out procedure is more evidence that this is simple quackery. Why doesn't it kick in at the time of conception? Does the womb shield you from the astrological magic? What about the fact that birth certificates aren't necessarily completed at the exact time of birth (whenever you determine that to be within the many minutes it is actually taking place). Astrology originated around 600BC. At this time astrologers knew about 6 planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. They did not have telescopes, which were invented in 1608, to see the others. When the other planets were discovered they magically started having an effect on astrological calculations, as though they'd known about them all along. What about the fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet? Pray, tell us how stellar bodies magically affect our lives? If you want to pretend astrology is a science then it has to play by the rules of science. The force must have a measured and predictable effect. It must be testable. No astrologer predicted any of the outer planets based on the forces they must have been exerting on us. What about the fact that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto's names were decided by a vote? That their names have nothing to do with their 'characters'? I prefer the science of voodoo dolls.

You haven't really provided any counters to my points though have you, kelem_ryu?

Surely poaching is, by definition, the taking of fish or game from another person's property? Throwing it back wouldn't be poaching.

This is a topic created to be about the ethics of hunting/fishing for entertainment and not for food. Instead of arguing about whether eating meat is right or not, which is not the issue in question, would anyone care to share their views about hunting/fishing for sport?

Wow, a whole year? That's impressive. We are meant to eat meat; it is natural. Ooh look, it's from a vegetarian source as well. Can we bring this back on topic? This is not about the ethics of eating meat, it is about the ethics of hunting/fishing for entertainment.

Yes. Killing animals for sustenance is morally right.

I can't resist mentioning that you're wrong. The world has been populated with animals which kill each other for millions of years and we're completely fine. It is right.

When I was younger I used to go fishing a lot. Whenever we were at my grandmother's house, which is by the Northwest coast of Scotland, we'd fish off piers and boats for Mackerel. I enjoyed it, we sometimes caught over 25 in a trip, but one thing was for sure - we always ate them. What really grinds my gears is people who catch fish which is good to eat but then throw it back, injured and having been suffocated for a couple of minutes. It is a waste and it is cruel. It is cruel simply because there is no decent reason for doing it - much like bullfighting and bear baiting. If you catch a fish with a hook, gut it then fry it then something came of it's suffering (namely a good meal). If you catch a fish, parade it around for a couple of minutes, posing for some photos then throw it back you have harmed it for nothing but a quick thrill. You may have seen me posting in other topics about meat - in which you'll see I am an avid meat eater, someone who'd love to go hunting given the opportunity and someone who doesn't ethically object to veal or foie gras. The reason for this is that we're humans and we eat meat. I consider my eating something pleasant more important than the life of an animal and that is nature's way. This was on my mind because yesterday I saw a TV show in which some Australians were fishing for some manner of large fish (may have been a swordfish) and then just chucking them back in. I'm sure they would have made an excellent meal.

Cruiser is anything but a noob when it comes to computing issues.

To be honest I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or argue with you. I was just trying to make sure people knew that the guy is a fraudster, a criminal and a crackpot. Anyone who might potentially watch those videos.

Evidently so.

From your original post it sounds a lot like you were taking them as fact, or at least considering him a credible source. Therefore I considered it important that you know a bit about the guy who is spouting that sputum. Also, your original post isn't just trying to get links to the other videos - it is recommending others watch the videos. Therefore I was well entitled to recommend the contrary, along with providing evidence why the man is a crackpot.

Please let's keep this as a topic about why Dr. Dino is wrong; not a general evolution vs. creationism debate - there are plenty of those already.

Reasons Kent Hovind is stupid: [*:38hyxxn0]His 'Ph.D' is from an unaccredited university, and is in religious education [*:38hyxxn0]He's currently charged with 58 federal crimes [*:38hyxxn0]He has been found guilty on all charges of tax evasion against him [*:38hyxxn0]He's been caught lying in his debates, papers and to the IRS [*:38hyxxn0]He fraudulently declared himself bankrupt, lying about his possessions and income [*:38hyxxn0]He's currently in prison, awaiting sentencing on January the 9th 2007 [*:38hyxxn0]He thinks democracy is evil and contrary to god's law [*:38hyxxn0]Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy. [*:38hyxxn0]His supposed $250,000 offer is logically flawed, and his definition of evolution is not the scientific one Hell, even plenty of creationists despise him for undermining their cause with such flawed arguments. For more info on why you shouldn't listen to him: http://www.kent-hovind.com (contains counters to pretty much ALL of his crackpot arguments) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind#Legal_problems The bottom line: He's a crackpot who, when presented with proof that he is wrong, ignores it. Much like Xplsvbam.

I enjoy the original Trivial Pursuit, but I can't stand the stupid modern media versions for people with no general knowledge.

Do you know what vague means? It means 'can apply to everyone' in this context. That means that I could give a horoscope like this: "Has two arms, two legs, hair growing out of the head, two eyes, likes eating, enjoys the intake of fluids" - that can apply to 99% of people. It is still vague though. Understand yet? There is a difference between freedom and independence. Please don't confuse yourself. You know a very small minority of guys then. It is still painfully vague. Because there is no method to it. It is a case of providing vague statements to which people who believe in the magic of astrology can say "oh that applies to me!" It is BS because you have said that people of different zodiac signs can have traits from others. That is like my speculating about the appearance of someone whom I've never met saying "he could have brown hair, but it may also be black, blonde or red - he may also be a woman." Gotcha! :P That's why horoscopes is still believable, not 100%, but still to a certain extent. When someone who believes in something self-reports then it is not evidence of success. They are biased and can easily interpret your vague statements so that they apply to themselves - that is not accuracy; it is being vague and open ended.

So any horoscope can have traits of any other horoscope? And there was me thinking things couldn't get any vaguer. As said before, everyone will want this (well, far more than 90%). You might as well chuck some other clever deductions in there too, like "has hair" or "walks on 2 legs". Heh, certainly not true. Isn't that a contradiction? Again, you just described everyone in the entire world. This doesn't even deserve to be called a pseudoscience. I am honestly surprised you take these things seriously - just LOOK at what you've said; even you have expressed how anything can apply to anyone. There is no method to this.

A teacher who teaches the subject of "IT" (no specialisation) at secondary school or below.

An IT teacher knows no more about computing than an average 12 year old.

I'm absolutely positive it is really that way round. You just need to disable autocomplete if that's the only thing you want rid of. That is not really covering your tracks though.

Some do, but that's another depraved story.

Hah. Weapons: crowbar, sledge hammer, catchphrases Defence: tree-sized woodchipper to push them into Hiding place: shopping mall - outdoor equipment shop (plenty of ice axes to hand) Technique: stab with the end of the crowbar, like in Rockstar's Manhunt Music: Send More Paramedics - Zombic Sweetheart (music by zombies, about zombies)

You didn't answer my question: Is it true that you believe the approx. 500,000,000 people worldwide born between December the 22nd and January the 20th all have the same personality? 500,000,000 people having the same personality traits simply determined by what time period they were born in? I'm trying to think of what word best describes this... Oh yeah - Quackery. So that you aren't simply doing a cold reading (based on peoples' posting styles), how about giving the analysis of my father? Born on the 24th of September.

Exactly, even in the text of mine that you quoted I said port - not emulate.