Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-06-19 at 00:39:32
That quote is from his essay. That would be circular reasoning, so no it's not enough. Sorry. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2006-06-19 at 00:55:32
QUOTE(Mr.Camo @ Jun 16 2006, 08:27 PM)
Ear drums rupturing vs. not having them rupture? Hmm..
[right][snapback]507901[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]507901[/snapback][/right]
Remember... Snitches get stitches.
As for the ringtone, it's a pretty stupid idea... I think I'll stick with vibrate.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2006-06-19 at 01:36:18
I don't believe people are born gay. I never said I did, because I think it's bull.
People have preferences, and preference are not thing you choose. It's just that simple, do-0dan, you need to give up. You are defending a senseless and frankly stupid stance biased only by your own bigotry, something you have previously admitted to. The only reason you hold your current opinions, despite constant evidence to the contrary, is because of irrational fear.
By the way, estrogen and testerone have NOTHING to do with sexual preference: those body chemicals simply have a big effect on secondary sexual characteristcs such as body hair, breasts, and the body shape of women. It annoys me when people spout out pseudo-knowledge. Please research what you're saying.
People have preferences, and preference are not thing you choose. It's just that simple, do-0dan, you need to give up. You are defending a senseless and frankly stupid stance biased only by your own bigotry, something you have previously admitted to. The only reason you hold your current opinions, despite constant evidence to the contrary, is because of irrational fear.
By the way, estrogen and testerone have NOTHING to do with sexual preference: those body chemicals simply have a big effect on secondary sexual characteristcs such as body hair, breasts, and the body shape of women. It annoys me when people spout out pseudo-knowledge. Please research what you're saying.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-06-19 at 01:44:48
QUOTE
Them pushing their beliefs is the only way for them to get their rights because activism usually leads to drastic changes. Look at other civil rights movements in the past. They were only possible through activism.
The gays had their rights. Now, they don't. They just need to argue that it's not necessary to remove the rights.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2006-06-19 at 02:01:19
I'll be damned if I'm going to see two homosexuals kissing or engaging in sexual activities in public, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to try to rub this gay rights BS in my face. If you're a homosexual, that's fine, but I don't want to see or hear about it, period.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-06-19 at 02:14:08
QUOTE(Wilhelm @ Jun 18 2006, 11:35 PM)
By the way, estrogen and testerone have NOTHING to do with sexual preference: those body chemicals simply have a big effect on secondary sexual characteristcs such as body hair, breasts, and the body shape of women. It annoys me when people spout out pseudo-knowledge. Please research what you're saying.
[right][snapback]509339[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]509339[/snapback][/right]
Not necessarily in every case. Yes, chemicals may not be any cause of a preference for somebody, but it may for another.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (U)Bolt_Head on 2006-06-19 at 03:09:16
QUOTE(l)ark_13 @ Jun 17 2006, 12:02 AM)
Catholic church has nothing against gays
they dont want them to have sex though; they're against gays having sex
sex is a way to procreate, between a male and a female
gay's cannot procreate, thus the church does not accept this behavior
[right][snapback]508010[/snapback][/right]
they dont want them to have sex though; they're against gays having sex
sex is a way to procreate, between a male and a female
gay's cannot procreate, thus the church does not accept this behavior
[right][snapback]508010[/snapback][/right]
So if sex is just a way to procreate doesn't that mean that gays are incapable of having sex? If thats the case, whats the problem?
QUOTE(wesmic da pimp @ Jun 19 2006, 01:00 AM)
I'll be damned if I'm going to see two homosexuals kissing or engaging in sexual activities in public, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to try to rub this gay rights BS in my face. If you're a homosexual, that's fine, but I don't want to see or hear about it, period.
[right][snapback]509353[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]509353[/snapback][/right]
I agree with you to an extent that, I personally don’t want to see homosexuals kissing each other in public. But then again they have just as much right as heterosexuals do to show affection in public. Heterosexuals don’t just go around performing “sexual activates” in public.
As far as kissing hand holding or whatever forms of affection people choose to show each other, everyone’s tolerance level is different. Most people don’t want to see two people making out in public homosexual or not. Society has shown us that it is normal for heterosexuals to show affection. We are not used to seeing homosexual affection is thus we are discomforted by it. Part of the gay rights movement in my opinion is educating the public saying “we are here get used to it”. Example: if you grew up with gay parents you probably wouldn’t bat and eye to homosexuals kissing in public, not anymore than you would with two heterosexuals.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-06-19 at 04:14:12
I think homosexuals have the right to be like that, and have their preferences.
Peopel sometimes don't want to accept thing they've never seen before, or any new things - they seem strange. When did homosexuals feeling free to explain themelves to the community ? -With the celebration of "Democracy" and "Human rights". In other words, we see what we see becawse of tolerance that we should have, but still don't. We say "Oh yes, we should all have the same rights to live peacefully", but when we say two gays kissing eachother, we may say to ourselves "Those damn **** are spreading their BS again !".
We made up those "Human rights", but don't follow them ourselves.
Peopel sometimes don't want to accept thing they've never seen before, or any new things - they seem strange. When did homosexuals feeling free to explain themelves to the community ? -With the celebration of "Democracy" and "Human rights". In other words, we see what we see becawse of tolerance that we should have, but still don't. We say "Oh yes, we should all have the same rights to live peacefully", but when we say two gays kissing eachother, we may say to ourselves "Those damn **** are spreading their BS again !".
We made up those "Human rights", but don't follow them ourselves.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-06-19 at 04:59:10
Great ! Now I must learn to use EUD conditions. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by empty on 2006-06-19 at 05:12:54
For all you intellectual people who have all this smart crap to say about this, I'll put it nice and easy for you.
God made sex to have babies. Not pleasure. But the media is currently trying to change that belief.
God made sex to have babies. Not pleasure. But the media is currently trying to change that belief.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Red2Blue on 2006-06-19 at 08:48:06
I thought god loved everyone. Meaning he loves men. 
Joking...
But honestly. What's wrong with shunning someone from loving the same sex? The bible shouldn't restrict something like that. I also agree... the bible contradicts itself too much to make a point. I think it's just there to be something that symbolizes the whole spirit of the relgion, rather than dictating it.
ADDITION:
Are you inferring that the only motive of humans is to mindlessly "do" each other for the very sole purpose of survival? And that pleasure is pointless and unnecessary? Cause if this is what you are saying, you might as well say that everything else that we do should not be done either because it is for pleasure. Do we need to buy huge houses? Do we need to have slumpin' SUV's? Do we need to have solid gold jewelry? From what you say... we don't need all of this cause it's pleasure.
What's wrong with pleasure? Is it a crime to have sex for enjoyment?
I bet... your whole incentive on this idea will change after you have sex...
Joking...
But honestly. What's wrong with shunning someone from loving the same sex? The bible shouldn't restrict something like that. I also agree... the bible contradicts itself too much to make a point. I think it's just there to be something that symbolizes the whole spirit of the relgion, rather than dictating it.
ADDITION:
QUOTE
For all you intellectual people who have all this smart crap to say about this, I'll put it nice and easy for you.
God made sex to have babies. Not pleasure. But the media is currently trying to change that belief.
God made sex to have babies. Not pleasure. But the media is currently trying to change that belief.
Are you inferring that the only motive of humans is to mindlessly "do" each other for the very sole purpose of survival? And that pleasure is pointless and unnecessary? Cause if this is what you are saying, you might as well say that everything else that we do should not be done either because it is for pleasure. Do we need to buy huge houses? Do we need to have slumpin' SUV's? Do we need to have solid gold jewelry? From what you say... we don't need all of this cause it's pleasure.
What's wrong with pleasure? Is it a crime to have sex for enjoyment?
I bet... your whole incentive on this idea will change after you have sex...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Red2Blue on 2006-06-19 at 08:52:44
"To exist is to create a legacy."
A friend once told me. Don't exist for yourself, exist for the future. The future of mankind. Sure the sun will go supernova and destroy the entire world... but im sure mankind will find a way to survive, it's like 3 million earth years from now.... ehem...
Ever hear of micro technology? they are inventing some micro computers that will live inside someone's body that continually regenerates the cells within their body. By doing this prolonging life. Read read! It's the key to power.
"Learn as though you were going to live forever, live as though you were going to die tomorrow."
A friend once told me. Don't exist for yourself, exist for the future. The future of mankind. Sure the sun will go supernova and destroy the entire world... but im sure mankind will find a way to survive, it's like 3 million earth years from now.... ehem...
Ever hear of micro technology? they are inventing some micro computers that will live inside someone's body that continually regenerates the cells within their body. By doing this prolonging life. Read read! It's the key to power.
"Learn as though you were going to live forever, live as though you were going to die tomorrow."
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-06-19 at 10:07:28
QUOTE(Red2Blue @ Jun 19 2006, 08:52 AM)
"Learn as though you were going to live forever, live as though you were going to die tomorrow."
Mahatma Gahndi said this, for the record... an example of legacy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DiscipleOfAdun on 2006-06-19 at 12:18:11
QUOTE(SuperToast @ Jun 18 2006, 09:34 PM)
Blizzard doesn't care about us at all, plus or minus. They only patched EUD actions to protect themselves since supposedly you could make "viruses" (which I'm still not beleiving is entirely true).
[right][snapback]509304[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]509304[/snapback][/right]
It was very true. Originally, most of us thought that it wasn't possible, until we found where you could easily overwrite and include a virus in a map.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2006-06-19 at 13:17:11
Oh well thats too bad.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2006-06-19 at 14:35:52
I thought the subject was that someone finally found out how to protect against OSMap... I already knew about the EUD conditions.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lyon on 2006-06-19 at 14:37:14
I Have no reason to live my darling.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-06-19 at 14:52:01
QUOTE(Red2Blue @ Jun 19 2006, 06:47 AM)
I thought god loved everyone. Meaning he loves men.
Joking...
But honestly. What's wrong with shunning someone from loving the same sex? The bible shouldn't restrict something like that. I also agree... the bible contradicts itself too much to make a point. I think it's just there to be something that symbolizes the whole spirit of the relgion, rather than dictating it.
ADDITION:
Are you inferring that the only motive of humans is to mindlessly "do" each other for the very sole purpose of survival? And that pleasure is pointless and unnecessary? Cause if this is what you are saying, you might as well say that everything else that we do should not be done either because it is for pleasure. Do we need to buy huge houses? Do we need to have slumpin' SUV's? Do we need to have solid gold jewelry? From what you say... we don't need all of this cause it's pleasure.
What's wrong with pleasure? Is it a crime to have sex for enjoyment?
I bet... your whole incentive on this idea will change after you have sex...
[right][snapback]509418[/snapback][/right]
Joking...
But honestly. What's wrong with shunning someone from loving the same sex? The bible shouldn't restrict something like that. I also agree... the bible contradicts itself too much to make a point. I think it's just there to be something that symbolizes the whole spirit of the relgion, rather than dictating it.
ADDITION:
Are you inferring that the only motive of humans is to mindlessly "do" each other for the very sole purpose of survival? And that pleasure is pointless and unnecessary? Cause if this is what you are saying, you might as well say that everything else that we do should not be done either because it is for pleasure. Do we need to buy huge houses? Do we need to have slumpin' SUV's? Do we need to have solid gold jewelry? From what you say... we don't need all of this cause it's pleasure.
What's wrong with pleasure? Is it a crime to have sex for enjoyment?
I bet... your whole incentive on this idea will change after you have sex...
[right][snapback]509418[/snapback][/right]
How does the Bible contradict itself?
I agree with the point, but more so than possessions, if emp[t]y's case is true, what is the purpose of our emotions?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-06-19 at 15:25:26
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Jun 18 2006, 09:15 PM)
Blizzard doesn't have a reason to patch EUD conditions.
[right][snapback]509240[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]509240[/snapback][/right]
They why do they get scrambled during patches?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodle77(MM) on 2006-06-19 at 15:35:58
I have actually known EUDs still worked since 1 day after 1.13f came out. I just couldnt use them because MemCalc was broke. I knew because my bro's old key conditions map still reacted slightly to the keys.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-06-19 at 16:30:03
QUOTE(Syphon @ Jun 17 2006, 04:51 PM)
1)Could YOU hear it?
[right][snapback]508401[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]508401[/snapback][/right]
Yes, I could hear the tone.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HorroR on 2006-06-19 at 17:09:40
QUOTE(Killer_Kow(MM) @ Jun 18 2006, 05:47 PM)
EUD actions will not likely return, and if they do they will be patched. People found ways to load viruses with them, and blizzard patched them.
[right][snapback]509114[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]509114[/snapback][/right]
Urmom and I just used the downgrader and downgraded to 1.12b and connected to Games Podolsk. Poof, EUD Actions.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-06-19 at 17:11:25
Yea, its awsome using EUD Actions again.
Maybe Uberation should be fixed to support actions again for people who downgrade.
Maybe Uberation should be fixed to support actions again for people who downgrade.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-06-19 at 17:18:09
i suppose, I havent posted on sen for like 3 or 4 days
the person below me is wondering why this was revived
the person below me is wondering why this was revived
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-06-19 at 17:23:57
Has anyone here seen the movie The Island?
This is not how clonhing should be looked at!
Because when you clone someone it would come out as a baby and have the same traits as it grew to be older.
Am I right, or am I completely going insane!
If someone was cloned would they be the same age in like a year? same size and crap or a baby?
This is not how clonhing should be looked at!
Because when you clone someone it would come out as a baby and have the same traits as it grew to be older.
Am I right, or am I completely going insane!
If someone was cloned would they be the same age in like a year? same size and crap or a baby?