AngusThermopyle

When its all you've got you just give it the old College try anyway.

Yep, you're right, you response is sheer nonsense. Countless experiments have had the potential of profound detrimental impacts on life on this planet yet we've still performed them and as a result reaped the rewards of doing so. I repeat, if what you said is to be taken seriously we'd still be putting leaches all over ourselves. You may deny being or may not be a luddite but you skirt very close to being one with that no progress attitude your comment indicates. So, was all the alarmist bullcrap being spouted justified? In one word, NO.

Sorry I don't have time to answe your entire post so we'll just look at this for now. You are 100% incorrect in the statement you posted. Every time a Carrier group sails anywhere the US is projecting its power. Projecting power should not be confused with fighting a war.

If we followed that line of reasoning we'd all still be living in hide or dirt huts and using rendered animal fat to light them at night.

Yeah Bob! The story was good but the period writing style was a bit tedious and overbearing. Also read all of Dickens, Dafoe, Shakespear etc. etc. My parents believed their children should be versed in all the classics. Not to say I've read all the classics, just quite a few.

Being kinda a car guy I can tell you right now that those rusted hulks on the reserves are not a gold mine in parts. First take into account that many of them are things such as Mavericks or Pacers or Biscaynes, not too many resto nuts falling all over themselves for those babies. Next is the fact that many of them are beyond salvage, hell, in our yard at work here we have a few, including a 52 Ford pickup that isn't in the worst shape. We've had people look at it but they all concluded the same thing I did, not worth the trouble. So they aren't some canny business investment, they're rusted out worthless hulks. Much cheaper, faster and easier to just buy reproduction parts. These hulks just haven't been cleaned up and carted off to the junkyard. Also, what about all the derelict old trailers and campers? What about the piles of garbage and trash, or the old never to float again boats? Are resto guys hunting those down as well? are they getting excited shouting "hey look, an old Hienz beans can, I can restore it and it'll be worth a fortune". Are they also part of some mysterious and even more canny business plan? As for ritual sacrifice, I never said that no one else practiced it. What I said was that your contention that it was a fashionable way to die was nonsense. Do you suppose that, because it was fashionable people were lining up waving their hands in the air shouting "pick me pick me"? The simple fact is that the majority of such sacrifices were performed on captives who I am sure were not looking for a "fashionable" death at all, they most likely would have preferred to live given the choice. Now your last point. I'm not sure what it is. Obviously everyone who dies without procreating deprives the future of the possibility of those who would have been descendants. So what? I see no relationship between killing many Buffalo and leaving carcasses to rot and not having children, maybe I'm just a little obtuse today though.

Air Supply, a truly terrible and insipid song. Has to be just about the whiniest song ever played, even worse than I've Got A Brand New Roller Skate. Now, back on topic. I wouldn't consider myself to be a convert, I've held my beliefs in the scientific method for many years. With me it was a rejection of religion based upon the many implausibilities and contradictions inherent in any religion. Couple that with the fact that the whole god thing makes no sense at all on several levels and you have an aetheist. Science on the other hand is logically structured and relies upon observable measurable phenomena in order to bolster the postulations put forth. With time and the use of the scientific method these postulations will become fact if they are valid. If not valid then they will be debunked, and no scientist will stand there and tell you the impossible is possible because some mythical creature told him so.

I'm positive that I've mentioned this before but I will do so again. All politicians lie, its part of the job. I know you don't want to hear this Topaz but the Liberals lied a lot, a shit load actually. Given that all politicians lie one has to base their vote on factors such as: which politicians have the most sound ideas? At this point the Liberals appear to have a campaign composed of lots of fluff and insubstantial ideas, not much to vote for there. Especially since their "leader" is about the farthest thing from an actual leader that you could find. As for scandals, well you must have a very short memory if you've forgotten all the Liberal ones. I haven't seen Harpers people "lose" a billion dollars or so yet, have you? As for behaviour in parliament, have you ever watched these bozo's In action? All I can say is that they're all a bunch of overgrown ill behaved kids.

Okay, I'll admit it (even though I hate to). My Fair Lady wasn't that bad. Perhaps because I had a really beautifull woman watching it with me and getting closer during the "more moving" scenes. Tommy has always left me cold, even though I like the Who. Speaking of concert/rock movies Live Rust has always been a favourite of mine, also Peter Gabriel Secret World Live.

I really enjoyed Cat's Cradle when I first read it a long time ago (I think I was about 12 at the time), slaughterhouse was another I enjoyed, actually I liked most of his work that I read. Pynchon is far from being a poor writer, the opposite in fact his style just doesn't suit my taste. I found he tends to be obsessive. Using paragraphs and even pages to describe what could be considered an insignificant detail. Perhaps if I revisited his works I might discover a new found appreciation for his writings. It just seems like I don't have very much time anymore for reading.

This is a question that I'm really curious about. My family are devout Catholics and never once have I heard that Jesus rejected Judaism, not from family members, not from priests, not from nuns. Actually never before this from anyone. So I'm curious as to the answer, although I suspect that I already know what it will consist of.

More unfounded fantastical and unprovable assertions from the usual source. Go ahead show us some links and sites that prove reality changes as your perceptions of it change. Some peer reviewed articles on the subject would be nice too. Oh, thats right, you can't because its just more of your made up crap. Ones perception of reality may change however that does not mean reality changes to suit your perception. This is a fundamental truth that you appear unable to comprehend. Thats your problem not mine, self delusion is not a discipline I aspire to. More power to you though. Care to explain how pointing out the fact that Gully was using specious logical fallacies is trolling? Darn! I forgot! Anything that does not support your POV is considered trolling by you. You really are an insignificant one trick pony aren't you.

They had to. Imagine all those horses running around and damaging the resale value of all the rusted out hulks of cars they anticipated owning, can't have that now can we. Seriously gully, so far in this thread alone your rationalizations have turned polluting rusted out cars into a sound business investment, ritual sacrifice into a fashionable way to die or enact population control and leaving hundreds of carcasses to rot as being environmentally responsible. How far will your specious rationalizations go in order to spin the truth? You don't by any chance believe that reality can be changed to suit your perceptions because you desire it to be so do you? I only ask because I'm curious as to whether you are a member of a very exclusive club, so far theres only one member to date.

Sorry, but you just don't know what it took to make that sacrifice. Henry Higgins raving in demented fashion about the English language, and marbles! It was worth it, it became clear to me that it was all part of her plan. I love it when they have a plan.

Actually maybe you should be more honest and explain that I have no patience for the new age crap you love to attempt to pass as fact. Or your pompous attitude when discussing subjects of which you have either no knowledge or the most rudimentary understanding of. Subjects such as science...or math...not so hot at that, remember? Further to that I find the whole subject of god and the soul to be a waste of time. Being an atheist who does not subscribe to any ancient myths such as polytheism, pantheism, monotheism or any of the host of other theisms man has concocted over the ages I find the whole topic to be drivel. Arguing about the existence of such mythical constructs is pointless and a circular pursuit at best when one considers that no proof can or will ever be offered. You may not agree with me CR but I really couldn't give a sh*t what you think, about anything. I thought I'd made that clear to you already. Now, cue the big colorful font and the demented claims of violence, you may continue.

This is a logical fallacy. Although true some animals are known to seek out certain plants in order to consume them for the therapeutic and beneficial properties they contain they do this instinctivelly. In no way have they learned except in the broadest sense of the word. The trait of using these substances is one far more evolutionary in nature than it is the result of learning in the accepted sense. Being evolutionary in nature without the advantage of reasoned though and all the benefits that acrue with such thought it will always remain instinctive. This instinctive knowledge is confined to rudimentary substances found in nature. Although mans medical knowledge may have started in the same fashion it is far from that point now and is continually growing and evolving. No longer is it instinctive and rudimentary. It is the cumulative result of aeons of discovery and reasoned thought. Even so the pace of development was slow until recent times. Now the accrued knowledge of mankind has reached a point where the growth of such knowledge has increased with dramatic swiftness. On the other hand animals use of medicinal substances will remain instinctive and will not evolve any further, a number of factors ensure this. Animals are not about to start performing open hart surgery on each other. In contrast man is now delving into the building blocks of life and applying the knowledge garnered to the lives of everyone on the planet. Given the above factors I'm sure you can see why I believe your statement to be without the benefit of reasoned thought.

As I mentioned in another thread, I had to sit through My Fair Lady this weekend. Being someone who doesn't like musicals it was an ordeal, but ultimately it was well worth the effort. One thing I will mention though is the fact that Audrey Hepburn was a very beautifull woman. That made it a bit easier to pretend to enjoy the movie.

It appears that Francis is refuting the idea of a disembodied soul. That would contradict the old idea of a soul, in fact it appears that the concept of "soul" is intimately tied to our corporeal existence. Further to that he found the cells responsible for our sense of self, not some nebulous mystical force embodied in each of us. Therefore to use the word "soul" in this context is simply playing fast and loose with the definition of the word. So, I now go back to my original premise, you can do better than that. Never mixing science with mysticism is a good place to start. No, not in other words, in your words. That would place the whole statement in the territory of opinion and as such not to be taken seriously.

That seems appropriate when you consider the entire premise the thread is based upon is nothing more than "drivel".

Oh c'mon man, you can do better than that. Just because you assert the existence of an unseen, unidentified, unproven and most likely non existent "thing" (for lack of a better word) does not make it fact. At this point you are starting to sound like someone else on this forum who only ever offers opinion and never backs it up with facts. You don't want to be classed as a member of that small club do you?

Actually what I read stated "nothing affects the powers of the GG, including the power to dissolve parliament at the GG's discretion". This may not be correct however given other debates that I've heard on this topic it would appear to be true. That being the case then Harper has broken no laws at all. Complaining about his methods is rather silly, he's a politician, none of that breed are honest.

Jeeze, someones firing out their arse as usual. So how about you tell us how we should do this? In a sensible manner, not just cut and run. I'm sure that even you would agree that just haulin ass out of there would not be acceptable.

What a twit. Pee Wee Herman's got nothing on you.

Well I don't have to date myself but I make greater sacrifices in other ways, even though I'm single. For instance this Saturday my "friend" came to visit. I actually sat through My Fair Lady, and pretended to enjoy it. My friend is a very beautifull woman, so it just goes to show there are some things worth making such sacrifices for. (Oh yes, She isn't old, only 32, she just likes Musicals, go figure).

So just exactly what kind of person is White Doors? C'mon, just exercise your usual infallible psychic abilities. After all, you are the resident expert on "people like you", you know more than they do themselves about other people, so just go ahead and tell us. Or you could just keep your unfounded opinions about others to yourself, thats the better option actually.