Rebdragon

ITS OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAANDDDDDDDD :XD: Great series... 'kay guys, this thread's obviously spam, it'd probably be best just to wait until it's locked :-$ .

The "scientific" reason for his opinion is that he uses aliens as a form of [outside] observer to us who "see everything upside down". He thinks that aliens would think we're spider people, 'cause apparently his logic lead him to think we walk upside down too (however relative that is) since we flip the visual data as it goes to our occipital lobe in the back of our head. Walking upside down=spider people. Or spider pig, whatever. So ya, that's his logic.

There is so much about that post that confuses me? He's talking about how our retinas (or whatever part of the eye, learned this months ago...) flip the visual information to make it coherent, but that's only after it's already been flipped just from viewing it. So it's like unflipping a flip really. So ya, he probably was going around Wiki, read it, and didn't think about it too much :| .

Really? If so, I'm pretty sure that's only a weekend thing at best- don't see how you can forget the story after less than 24 hours :P . As I've already said, I greatly prefer the "one-a-day" routine. It keeps Misfile a part of my daily (or rather, morning) routine, keeping me intrigued about what's going to happen the next day. If all of a sudden it moved to five new pages every Friday, I would forget everything between each viewing, and not only would I spend less than a minute more on it (five pages doesn't take that long to read), but I'd lose touch with the comic due to all the waiting. Basically, a webcomic's not like an anime show that you wait all week to watch a new episode on Saturday- the pages are too short to get enough information to keep the viewer thinking until next week (because that's comparing 30 minutes of viewing to 30 seconds of it). Thus, waiting a week for each five page installment would actually cause you to be far more forgetful of the comics plot than having one per day. Also, since scenes can range anywhere from 1 to 15 pages, that method would include cut-offs in the middle of scenes, making it even more tedious to follow the plot >_<. So, I still stand in my case that the one-a-day method is by far the best :) .

Bleh. Juvenile faith in karma.

What is this Ori? :-k Post edited : '. It's a hyperbolaic (or maybe not o_O) analogy for how vast this cult has grown at Tip.it :-w .

Oi. You're going in the wrong direction buddeh. That, or you're trying to end the proof right there, which is exactly the problem- the proof should end there (using your step, reaching 0=0) for it to abide by mathematical laws, but it doesn't. By dividing by 0 and continuing to "2=1", the proof is at fault.

:wall: :

Guess I'll answer this question seriously now :-k . 1) Solving a math problem that I've been working on and messing up for half an hour. Same goes for a java program that I've been screwing up on a lot. 2) Being a R-tarded newb artist, whenever I make a sketch that doesn't have any obvious flaws (or portrays what I was imagining well) I get a good feeling. 3) All the female relationship and helping crud already mentioned. 4) Landing a Tricking move that's been giving me a sore back for the past week. 5) Succeeding at bluffing in Texas Hold 'Em :-w . Free moneyz!

Heh, lag is the only person on this page without a link in his sig :-w . I really think we're pissing off the Ori now :-k . Watch out for this thread, they might divert their attention from the Ancients and attack us soon o_O. And watch out for any Priors coming to your front door... :ohnoes: .

b(a-B) == b*a-b No, b(a-B) = b*a-b*b :-s . Yes :-s (rendering the product 0), but you can't divide by 0. You can't do 1/0, 20/0, 0/0, infinity/0, x/0, a/0, anything. Mathematical laws require that you not divide by 0. Thus, this is the illegal step:

You divided by (a-B), which is equivalent to 0. Big no-no.

Everyone is meant to find their own. There is no set "meaning of life" that everyone can use; everyone's is different. Ya, just read Man's Search for Meaning, 200 pages about answering that exact question :-w .

Next they'll be expelling people for breathing :-s .

He already said the answer to that. Not helpful. At all. As asked before, what's your age and gender? Any reasons for these feelings :-s ? And I don't think this has been suggested yet... but it'd probably help to get back in school :| .

[trapical's fault] Un-expected. :-# Well, the avvy should've given it away :P . New page is up. Vashiel's got another weird power o_O. Based on the page, it's hard to say whether this scene will continue or whether another scene will commence tomorrow, based on the last panel. Oh well, at least they're done shopping :-w .

Couldn't be any worse than what we've already got.

Cookies. Lots and lots of cookies.

No, no... it's pretty much accepted that we can't reach 0k :-s . Really? I haven't really heard anything about Absolute Zero outside this thread for awhile, but last I heard there were still people trying? 0K is the absense of any and all heat energy (it's very different from 0 Celsius or 0 Farenheit), and you can't reach it because there's always at least a little heat energy in the area. If you read back through the thread it's explained pretty well, I believe :P .

No, no... it's pretty much accepted that we can't reach 0k :-s .

No, if you read the rest of my post you'll see I was responding to your post in it's entirety. I merely singled that half-sentence out because of the absurdity of it. As anyone could tell, we have very clear cut ways of life. I for one live by the morals of my creator which were set out in the Bible. I for one don't create my morals upon a society full of sin. You can, but I don't. But you're forgeting one thing when you make that statement, form that belief: the morals of humankind didn't stem from Christianity, no, it's the other way around. Christianity's morals stemmed from the morals of society. I suppose our difference lies in the fact that I don't consider a book written by men to be the Word of God. Society isn't as bad as you think it is Eels- though people often make decisions against the general moral code, they do so in knowing the good moral code set by society, a moral code that shifts and adapts to new times and occurances in the world. That's the problem I have with living by the morals of a book thousands of years old- the ethics imbedded into it are for a time long before ours. And for that matter, having a dogmatic opinion that your belief is the truth is a dangerous path to follow. Don't accept the morals that are given to you blindly, even if they are from Christianity. Think for yourself, think of how those morals fit into society, think how they affect the world. Be willing to admit that you can be wrong. That's the problem I've got with discriminating against homosexuality based on religion. The foundations of religion are thousands of years old, and they are not capable of adapting to new events if they dogmatically stay static in their morals. That's why we're asking you this question: why is it that you are against homosexuality, other than your religion? Morality requires that you think for yourself. What about homosexuality is wrong and sinful to you? Yeah stop growing in a negative direction. So if society decides that abortion is a legible thing to do, I should change my morals about murder and believe that its ok to have an abortion up until birth? Just because society is accepting of it? If society started accepting the killing of whales for scientific research, should I therefore not be against such an act, because society thinks its ok? I'm glad not everybody in society has the same views as you, and some people actually have a backbone and stand by what they believe, because if they didn't I couldn't imagine the sinful, wicked society we'd live in. Oh please :roll: . Society isn't composed of barbaric tribes nowadays Eels. We have a good foundation of morality that you can easily learn much from. Is some pastor feeding you this crud that Christianity is the only moral thing in the world, and that everywhere else people are raw evil? C'mon dude, you know better than that. Almost everyone who's "pro-choice" sets a limit on abortion around three months after conception, or less. The legalization of abortion won't allow the killing of viable infants. In that scenario, that's why I ask that you think for yourself- if you find something wrong with a new moral code that seems to be permeating through society, protest, fight for what you believe is right, but only after carefully examining the situation. For example, if someday in the future all species except whales and humans were to become extinct (don't ask how, it's hypothetical) and they were our only form of available nutrition, I'd be fine with hunting and eating any part of them that's usable for our bodies. Or, if scientifically examining and possibly killing half-a-dozen whales would guarentee finding the cure to AIDS, I would be an advocate for it. Times changes, the world changes, so why shouldn't your morals ever change? Seriously, have more faith in society. It'll do you some good once you get off the computer and into the real world.

It's just a simpler way of explaining it when getting into very small or very big numbers. It's kind of irrelevant to try and complicate things with pointless details when you can get the same point across just by talking in magnitudes of 10.

Wow wow wow. No, stop right there. The moment you stop wishing to change your morals is the moment you stop growing. Cliche, but true. If you went by that credo your entire life, well, you'd still be in Stage One stuck with the morals of a infant. And hey, as a naturally born stone cold pessimist I believe human beings are collectively dumber than a rock way much more than the next guy, but just because I don't have faith in mankind (hyperbolically of course) doesn't mean I'm not going to try and form morals in the only society I've got. Look past people's faults and try and learn a little, it'll do you some good in life.

No one likes a condescending post Eel. Chill. We're not saying it's a benefit (no matter how much better fashion is nowadays :P ), we're just wondering why you think it's detrimental. As warri0r said, a lot of us have trouble understanding how something can be considered wrong just because it's written in the Bible. Why else do you think it is harmful to society? We're talking small scales of course, considering the fact that that's how it is in reality. :| We've gone over this. Give me a sec, I'll be right back with a post that explains it (biologically). EDIT: [warri0r, hope you don't mind me quoting you :P ] http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html Or perhaps it's society who has the misconception of what it is homosexuals feel. Society has an ideal that men like women and vice versa when it's clear that some just grow up being confused. Confused, but by nothing more than those around them espousing views that what they feel is unnatural or somehow a choice, and, one which should always result in heterosexuality. Anyways, instead of blatantly saying "stop trying to prove me wrong", do you have some counterarguments for the previously posted points that support the fact that ones orientation is set before they are capable of choosing it?