Rebdragon

Great wife. Cultured, good looking, super-extroverted, compatible, ...etc. I think Bi would be a nice addition to that list too. Guess I'll figure out the rest later. Oh, and a WaveRunner. No, wait, TWO WaveRunners :D .

Then I may get the chance to go to Hell and make sure Pascal dies a SECOND time.

For me, reading about other people's talents brings out my talent :lol: .

I have the fantastic ability to get annoyed by someone within three seconds of contact. Does that count?

The problem, though, with his logic is one of human limitations; that is, we are not equipped to be able to comprehend and expound upon the concept of infinity. To say something never was created or destroyed... a human can act like they can understand the idea of it, but in reality it is beyond comprehension. Thus, to say, using extremely basic logic, that you have grasped the idea of unending existence and can thus explain it, is, in my mind, ludicrous. Maybe it's my arrogance or pessimism, but I can't accept someone acting like they can actually prove God exists by these means. Think of it this way: If our universe didn't always exist [by his argument, Cyclic model is a possibility in my eyes], then consequently there must be something outside of the universe that supplied the energy to create our universe. Scientists often call this the "multiverse". In the multiverse, there are possibly infinite universes, each with their own laws. Now, there's an important thing to note about the laws in our universe: if you tweaked the right one, even just a little, it is generally likely that it would be impossible for life to exist in our universe. From that logic, it could very well be true that only a small percentage of the universes in this multiverse could sustain life. That would mean that the order in our universe is not because of some sentient beings construction of it, but because this universe was just one of the lucky ones that got the nice kind of order that could allow for life. But again, this is the problem I have with debating this: it's infinity, and it's very hypothetical. No matter how much basic logic you use, realistically we aren't justified to make conclusions about it.

Care to share why? I am not familiar of your beliefs, which is why I am asking a general question. I think it'd be interesting to know, that is all. :) Not his logic, if that's what you're wondering. It's sound more or less, just seems to jump to conclusions a little too fast. What I didn't like was the general Fundy rhetoric- essentially taking at least a second out of every sentence to, in bold caps, make sure that the atheists know he thinks they're idiots and treats said belief as absolute law. It's typical obnoxious behavior, and completely intolerable to deal with.

I'm glad I don't know the guy who posted that video, and I pray to God that I'll never meet him.

That's 'cause Runescape is about being better than everyone else, not about being skillful or having fun :o.

If you're not correlating difficulty with level of respect on a one-to-one basis, get rid of the idiocy tumor stuck in your cerebellum. Let it get any bigger and removal will be impossible. Flaunting three days worth of work is not something to expect others to respect you for. A Skill cape should be obtained for two, and only two things: either a) a love of the skill, or B) a cape with higher defense capabilities than any currently available to said player. If, as is the case for the majority of the owners of some capes, a skill cape is obtained for a main reason neither of those two, that player is an attention-seeker. Respecting this type of person for reasons that are, relatively speaking, not worthy any realistically tangible level of respect, is not wise and should be avoided. You are feeding their ego's and making them weaker psychologically than they already are. Sadly, differentiation between an attention-seeker and a true lover of a skill is difficult at first glance, and, although, attention-seekers make up a large majority of "easy skill cape" owners, generalizations and stereotypes should be avoided. Subsequently, unless given logical reason to praise such people [the possibility that they are not an attention-seeker is reasonably high, they are your friend, etc.] laudation is unnecessary and unadvised.

You see, when stated without anecdotal justification, saying this just makes you look like an arrogant jack**s. You need to realize that while there ARE good people in the world, they are alarmingly few. Hey, I'm a pessimist too man, but going that far is amazingly arrogant and foolish, and, albeit, typical for a recluse. Don't get my wrong, I'd be the first to say humans are stupid, but to both generalize the human race and to assume you are in the top 10% morally and intellectually [unless you wish to be a victim of this mass murder which you so disturbingly desire] are not wise things to do my friend. There's a phrase I remember hearing once or twice, what was it.... ah, yes, "high horse". Get off it.

You see, when stated without anecdotal justification, saying this just makes you look like an arrogant jack**s.

Tell us them, please. If you can't get a job this may not be as easy as you want it to be.

Damn. Blunt introduction but you really justified it man. Interesting story.

I looked at porn for the first time because I was finally allowed to!

Wow. That is one really obnoxious class you've got there.

Is he at least somewhat tall, or at least average height? I'm inclined to agree on the former.

Dude, I've got to be frank with you- I stopped reading as soon as I saw the acronym "PUA" :? .

I can't tell what's sadder: that I lost a thousand posts or that I can't think of any among them worth saving :lol: . Well, good job and all. Guess it really sucks how many people in this world are scum -_-.

And here I was thinking a rollback might actually make War Junky look like less of an idiot. Ah well. [EDIT]

I'm glad I've never met you and never will. You're pretentious obsessiveness over your grades is disturbing, to say the least. You, sir, are nowhere near ready for the real world if you can't handle a 78% and you gauge yourself merely on your ability to get a good grade. It's like Twain always said: Don't let booklearnin' get in the way of your education. Here, it seems it has, as you fail to see the lesson from this and immediately jump to gradegrubbing. Pathetic. You can't survive in the real world, hell, you can barely survive a B- with out freaking out. Weakling. I would reference Einstein as an example for why one can be great at science and math and yet fail LA, but you'd probably skip the analogy and assume it was flattery, which is the last thing an arrogant prat like you needs or deserves. So, I won't. Example: You can fail (<70%) the National AP Bio Exam and still get a 5 on it :lol: . Weird, eh?

Buckyball, the third form of pure carbon besides graphite and diamond. Didn't know that had anything to do with nanotechnology though :-k .

Eat a cookie. A chocolate chip cookie.

0/10.

reaper, research the topic which you choose to discuss before posting, okay? If you had done even the smallest amount of research, you would have come to find [at least] two pieces of data that completely render your entire post incorrect, to say the least: 1) The income tax, which you so willingly attack for being mean to the poor and good for the rich, is progressive. The rich do pay more. Here's a table that'll hopefully explain it to you better than words [note where your hypothetical people fall and redo your math]: 2) The poor don't even pay taxes. Read Bari's posts if you don't believe meh. As a side-note, I really don't get where you were going with that hypothetical. You're choice of words ['paltry', etc.], combined with the fact that you chose a scenario where one rich person pays magnitudes more than 5,000 average workers combined, serves to do little more than provide a counterargument for your own point. Where exactly were you going with that?

^You sick minded demon :ohnoes: .