Collective

You only waited 3 minutes. This is a forum, not an instant messenger. Both anti-virus and anti-spyware software normally go after keyloggers, although some keyloggers that need to be installed locally are not classified as either spyware or viruses and hence are not caught. You can get antri-virus software for free, read the stickies.

That might be what your definition of hell is, but I doubt it's his. Although he hasn't actually said what his vision of hell is I'm willing to bet it has a large amount of fire and brimstone in it. After all, his definition of heaven is largely material, not spiritual, I'd expect his definition of hell to be the same and opposite (if you get my meaning). I'd like to be wrong.

How about you start attacking people's logic rather than their choice of words, then maybe you can expect to be afforded the same respect. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Maybe I'm a "half-wit", as you said to the other person. How am I not refuting logic? In your case, you picked only one part out of my whole argument that was really irrelevent and picked on that - in my case, his entire logic is based on that. Calling him "sick" is not refuting his logic, it's attacking his choice of language. That is the exact same thing you're complaining about me doing. If you don't realise that then yes, you are a halfwit.

So if you got cancer you would refuse treatment? Sex isn't always consensual, halfwit. For the sake of your reputation don't respond to this topic again until you have read it. Your ludicrous ideas have been ripped to shreds multiple times already.

That's not an answer, it's a cop-out. Even most creationists have realised this and have decided to start spreading lies as "proof" over the internet, in schools and in churches. I would never follow a god who was so evil he would punish someone for using their intellect or believing in another faith that they have probably been brought up to follow from birth. I will not accept a fascist as my savior, sorry. Why should I believe your faith over any other?

When I said alcohol could have beneficial health effects I was answering claims that it was terribly unhealthy. I was not claiming that it was the best way of keeping your heart healthy. I was claiming drinking alcohol is not anything like as bad as the original poster (who I even quoted in my reply) seemed to believe. With that in mind, I couldn't care less if a Hershey's bar is better than alcohol for the health for your heart, it has nothing to do with the point I was making. I honestly didn't think my point was too hard to comprehend. Obviously I was wrong, since it went straight over your head (or is that normal?).

How about you start attacking people's logic rather than their choice of words, then maybe you can expect to be afforded the same respect. If you were using a calculator as a frisbee it is reasonably safe to assume that your main purpose for that calculator would be as a frisbee and not mathmatics. My point is that what an object/action's "main purpose" is depends entirely on the individual that's using/doing it. Example: An AOL disc. You would argue its main purpose is to give people trials of the AOL internet service. I'd argue its main purpose was as a coaster. Edit: Fixed constant apostrophising of "it's"

Here's a source that says about 103,000 people died in America in 2000 due to alcohol consumption. This includes everything from cirrhosis of the liver to falling to death when trying to climb a building (or something else). Driving a car won't kill you. Crossing the road won't kill you. However, plenty of people die doing both. If you want to play semantics you're welcome to, but please don't involve me when you're doing it.

And taking anti-oxident tablets would be even better than a Hershey's bar. What's your point? This post isn't about alcohol vs Hershey's bars vs anti-oxident tablets. Alcohol is good for your heart. That is a fact. Just because it doesn't support whatever inane and uniformed point of view you've decided to take this time does not make it "crap". Your post, however, is crap.

Drinking alcohol won't kill you. Infact, drinking every now and again can (debatably) be healthy for your heart. Drinking relaxes you and enhances experiences (for better or for worse). It can also give you a confidence boost. To sum up: people drink because they enjoy it.

Google found a couple of suggestions answers easily. Have you tried any of them (or anything else)? More information, such as what web browser you are using, would be nice. Google says: - Reinstall Windows Media Player - Update DirectX: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/directx/default.aspx

Where did he say anything about "worst thing in the world"? Answer: He didn't. Perhaps this is because I live in the real world, but I wouldn't equate falling over, or driving into the back of the car infront, to be "the worst thing in the world." Shocking news: People don't always want kids. This doesn't make them "sick". Pathetic attempts at emotionalism most definitely 'for the lose.' What gives you that idea? Even if you argued "that's what God made it for" it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny: even if something was created with purpose X in mind it does not mean that that will be the primary purpose of it for every user, or even for the original creator. Sex, like all things, only has the purpose each person gives to it. Some people have come to the amazing conclusion that sex is fun, and hence decide to have sex for fun. The primary purpose of their sexual activity is to have fun, not to reproduce. The primary purpose of sex is only to reproduce if reproduction is what you're doing it for most of the time. Most of the time I walk to get somewhere, not because I want to try to not fall over for as long as possible. Like sex, however, walking's purpose is given to it by the person doing the walking. Most of the time you walk to get somewhere. Sometimes you walk to get fit. Sometimes you walk to relax. The 'primary purpose' of walking is the differs in all three cases. I'd of thought it was reasonably obvious that that is not the parallel he's trying to draw. More like: I want to have sex because it's fun, but I don't want a baby in 9 months. (I should use protection) I want drive because I want to go somewhere, but I don't want my insurance premiums to rise. (I should drive carefully) I want to eat a curry because it tastes nice, but I don't want heartburn. (I should keep Gaviscon in my kitchen cupboard)

How many children were born before the great flood doesn't matter...because the great flood killed all but 8 of them! Have you even read your own holy book, or just been trawling Christian Science websites? Not only do you completely ignore rational thought and reasoning, in favour of a fairy tale, but you don't even understand the fairy tale.

Since when were the Big Bang Theory and the 'God theory' (for want of a better name) mutually exclusive? Let me save you a headache and give you the answer: They aren't mutually exclusive, and they never were.

To record sounds being played by programs on your computer do the following: Goto Start -> Run -> "sndvol32 -R" -> OK. This should open the Recording Control window. Click Settings, choose Properties and make sure "Wave" is checked. Click OK and check Select under "Wave". Now recording software (including MSN) should record sounds played by other software. Note that "Wave" may be called something different, depending on your sound drivers. I guess it's possible for it not to exist at all, but I haven't seen that yet.

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but how, exactly, are Jagex supposed to do anything about things like this? If the guy killed himself over losing money in RS then, to be honest, I don't think it would of been that long before something else pushed him over the edge anyway. The best way to stop depressed people killing themselves is people looking after them and helping them when they feel low. Jagex isn't a counseling service, nor is it their job to replace parents and carers.

Well, in response to that: *cough*Adam*cough* You're the first Christian I've ever heard of who believed Adam was related to modern animals. How exactly did he spread his genes to my pet cat? I dread to think. You're also the first Christian I've heard of to claim mankind has found life on Mars that disproves evolution and then claim he loves "science in the fields of astronomy, physics, and geography". To whoever cares: I edited my previous post, because it was poor, and noone had replied to it anyway Edit: "say claim" -> "claim"

..and many of them do. Not all do, but I never said "all" (infact I won't even say that 'most' do, see below). To clarify: driving causes accidents, but it doesn't follow that all people who drive will have an accident. Similarly it is possible for people to be religious and not have any of the traits I listed. I won't say 'most' religious people hold these traits because I have no evidence to prove it (or disprove it, for that matter). I'm not a fan of religious polls, since they tend to be biased and misleading. Obviously I still maintain the view that there would be fewer occurrences of these traits if there were fewer religious people. Short answer is 'no', long answer is 'maybe'. I do not think that the use of a religion to justify a 'morally wrong' act necessarily reflects on that religion. Likewise I don't think that the use of a country's constitution to justify such an act necessarily reflects on that constitution. I do see both (mis)interpretations has having a common cause; religion and nationalism can both instill the "them and us" mentality I mentioned. Having said that, there are religious texts that I would consider morally objectionable*. I did not mean that the interpretation is irrelevant, what is irrelevant is whether or not the interpretation is a 'correct' one. To me, why people are interpreting things in this way and the results of these interpretations are far more concerning than whether they are valid or not. * I have no intention of posting them, you can guess the sort of thing I'm referring to and ultimately such conversations ultimately turn into an arguement about context and semantics (a conversation which I'm not interested in starting) Edits: Decided I'd been unclear - rewrote since noone had replied.

No, but it is more likely to kill more people in the end. Nuclear weapons aren't dangerous until they're launched. To be launched someone needs a damn good reason to launch them. In this day and age I doubt that territorial disputes and political arguments aren't going to cut it as an excuse to use nukes. Religion, on the other hand is a fantastic excuse to cause a bloodbath. To be clear, if Iran built and launched a nuclear missile at Israel, I wouldn't blame the nuke, I'd blame religion. I never said all religious people were any of the things you just said. I face that (infact I never denied it). Having said that, though, I do believe that far less people would be homophobic if they weren't taught to be from birth and didn't have "the word of God" to run to every time they were challenged on it. No I'm not. I believe that at very least religions promote a "them and us" mentality. While this mentality is intrinsic to human nature, I think religion makes it considerably worse. I have no interest in prodding around a Bible to prove that Christianity is homophobic, or the Qur'an to prove that Islam is a hateful religion. Those aren't my arguments. My argument is that religion as a concept causes the problems, whether this be through correct intepretation of texts or incorrect interpretion of texts is inconsequential.

I do not believe in God. What I do believe is that religion is the most harmful thing that man has ever invented, more destructive than the nuclear weapon ever could be. Religion is a virus. Just to be clear: when I say religion is harmful, here's what I see it as causing: - Arrogance (I'm better than you because I am of religion X) - Bigotry (You will be cast into a lake of fire because you are not of religion X) - Violence (You do not believe as I do. I must ingratiate myself with God, so I will now kill you!) - Ignorance (This Xtian Science website says evolution is wrong, so it is) - More ignorance (Evolution is wrong because we found life on Mars!) - Sheepism (One of my religious leaders said I should do X, so I'm off to do X right now!) There are also issues with racism, homophobism and sexism. Edit: Spelling mistake

Try: - Clearing your Temporary Internet Files: ...- In Internet Explorer goto Tools -> Internet Options -> Delete Files -> OK. ...- In Firefox goto Tools -> Clear Private Data -> Tick "Cache" -> OK. - Clearing your DNS cache: Start -> Run -> ipconfig /flushdns

Obviously with the threat of being shot this may not seem like the best idea to him, but.. He should put the site back up. Odds are this is someone's idea of funny and '1337', I doubt he's going to be shot for owning a website about trains.

It's a Korean(?) pop video..with a reasonably good looking woman/girl in it. With her clothes on. The site doesn't render well in Firefox (unless it's just me).

I know perfectly well that they are fighting for their religion, but that doesn't make what they're doing right. I could go on a arson spree and claim it was in defence of my religion, but it wouldn't make it right. I apologise if you're not a Muslim, but I'd be genuinely suprised if you weren't. Just like you seemed to assume I was Christian and would care if some insulted Jesus. Edit: Changed they're -> their

No, I expect them to be civilized and take it on the chin. I've been insulted in the past, but I haven't burned anyone's house down. They are using violence to try to indimidate people into doing what you want (i.e. apologise). That is terrorism, the fact you're doing it for your religion has nothing to do with it. When I say Islamic papers I mean news papers owned, run and written by Muslims. You knew that, you're just trying to look intelligent (and failing miserably). I honestly couldn't care less - I'm not Christian. Most (all) Christians I know wouldn't care either. I never said Jihad. I am not negative towards all Muslims, I am negative towards Muslim fanatics like you. For the record, I'm not a fan of Christian fanatics either, but this post isn't about them.