Leonardo

Hot Rod is a man of taste!

RicOlie_2 said:

I never have, do not, and never will watch porn...

 Roughly three years ago I used to say the same thing, and now I'm into the weirdest crap. I'm not saying you're on the same path, just remember: never say never.

JEDIT: As an aside, I was raised roman catholic too. We tend to turn up pretty fucked up in terms of sex, in many different ways. Some are incredibly perverted, some are incredibly repressed, and some are both.

Jetrell Fo said:

Leonardo said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I am not in to incest because it's nasty like anal sex

 Of course, what constitutes "nasty" always varies from person to person.

Maybe dangerous or harmful are more politically correct terms. 

 Dangerous? Harmful? Who have you been dating, sister?

Seriously, that's like saying you don't like pudding, despite never having tried it, because you think it tastes like excrement.

Ridiculous.

From a medical perspective, the anus is a designated exit, not an entrance to a pleasure cave

from a medical perspective the appendix was designated to digest grass...

  And since I am not a sister or gay I fail to see the relevance of your colorful comparison.  If you like it, great .... that's your choice.  It doesn't have to be mine just because you say I need to try it before knocking it.

My, you really are humourless and as bland as a puffed rice cake. I'm not saying you should necessarily try it. But if the people who practice it say it's pleasurable, and you've never done it and you say it's painful... well guess what I think my comparison still stands. Maybe little Billy doesn't like Brussels sprouts, maybe he's allergic to them or something. But if he just goes "eww" and doesn't touch his plate I don't think his judgement should be marked as anything but balderdash.

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I am not in to incest because it's nasty like anal sex

 Of course, what constitutes "nasty" always varies from person to person.

Maybe dangerous or harmful are more politically correct terms. 

 Dangerous? Harmful? Who have you been dating, sister?

Seriously, that's like saying you don't like pudding, despite never having tried it, because you think it tastes like excrement.

Ridiculous.

Well, the thing is, the Special Edition's soundtrack was redone from scratch, IIRC, so it's not technically original, even if you somehow eliminate the SE additions.

For a minute I thought Mr. Brown was talking about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6606EfhzmU

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFByTlzYFAM

Actually, I just tried another pc and it made an ISO file without complaining once. I'm uploading it now.

you finally said something else other than *sigh*... I'm stunned.

Well played, sir.

Yes.

I think I'll just upload the individual vob files on my GoogleDrive tomorrow. It should be the same thing, right?

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

[arche?]

I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.

Sorry, science has already debunked all of them as hoaxes or mass hysteria. So called pre-mortem experiences have already been reproduced outside of life-threatening situations, with the use of drugs. If there are scientists who say "it's a miracle", they're theists.

 

 I am curious as to what the scientific explanation for incorruptibles is. As far as I am aware, there isn't one, but if you can prove me wrong, go for it.

 A really interesting article I just found:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4126

with a few examples.

tl;dr Science's verdict? No such thing.

RicOlie_2 said:

What I meant is that I disagree with those atheists (it is an atheist and perhaps agnostic viewpoint, though not all--and maybe only the minority--hold it) who believe that morals evolve over time. I believe they are fixed from the beginning. Those who believe in moral subjectivity don't believe that there is such thing as right and wrong. I am aware that this doesn't mean that they can't distinguish between the two, but they deny its existence.

In case I didn't make it any clearer, I am not of the opinion that atheists have no concept of right and wrong at all, but I am condemning moral subjectivity or evolution.

You disagree with morals evolving over time. Yet if you read the Old Testament you'll find plenty of things that people thought were perfectly acceptable, nay, sometimes necessary, and we don't. Stoning women, for one. Stoning women was once right.

the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god

I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you, because you come from the postulate "there is a god". But I assure you, it is not unreasonable. And I do understand the merits and reasons of theism.

Again, my choice of words was perhaps unclear. I don't mean that atheism is less reasonable, but just that it is not more reasonable. I don't necessarily believe that it is any less resonable either.

Ok, I misunderstood. But, IMHO, the notion of a physical world "no more, no less", does not seem as reasonable to the notion of a physical world created by a methaphysical being. Why? Because to me that equals to having the notion that pets have the gift of language, but only when we do not see them. We never see them speak, yet we are sure they do. Just when we're not around. It's taking the common notion of cats and dogs (possibly living together) and adding something totally absurd, just to maybe explain the almost-human looks our animal friends give us.

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

[arche?]

I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.

Sorry, science has already debunked all of them as hoaxes or mass hysteria. So called pre-mortem experiences have already been reproduced outside of life-threatening situations, with the use of drugs. If there are scientists who say "it's a miracle", they're theists.

Transfer complete. Hardware used: Panasonic NV FS200 HQ, SAMSUNG DVDR119.

One problem, though. IMGBurn won't rip the image. If I try to do a straight dump, it says the disc has multiple sessions. It tells me to use the "build image" mode and select the folder. I do just that, and the program fails while reading the first vob file.

Will try again later.

Re: SnowWhite Eclecta, the italian bootleg tape. I'm recording it on my DVD-R right now. There's some tape damage (I've played this same VHS countless times throughout my childhood), and in some parts the movie looks much murkier than I remembered. Who knows how many generations down the line this tape is. On the other hand, beneath all that damage, I see a rich, warm colour palette, lots of saturated blues and yellows, many shades of brown and red. And to prove its autenticity, you can hear audio splices, and there's cue marks.

I can't wait to upload it.

Very well said Frink.

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

[...]

Atheism:

 What Jaiteia said, if you make a list and write "religions", atheism doesn't belong there. But I'm sure this is merely an oversight.

The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it;

You say that like there's a 50/50 chance that an individual without the moral compass of the bible might turn out a criminal. In reality most people have what's called common sense, and don't steal or kill or [insert dangerous act] because 1) they're worried about the consequences (pissing someone off) and 2) it would be a dick thing to do. What we really have is a much higher percentage of people that act like behaved citizens and don't steal their neighbours' car etc, and another percentage of people we call "criminals" that clearly do not understand the consequences of their actions. And let me remind you again, that in the real world not all of these criminals are atheists.

the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god

I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you, because you come from the postulate "there is a god". But I assure you, it is not unreasonable. And I do understand the merits and reasons of theism.

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

If you're talking about the Arche, then neither science nor atheism are supposed to explain that (even though science started out that way). It's interesting to think that we could find a first cause, and it would sound like common sense that it should be an entity, and individual. Just like when we're children we ask "why is the sky blue?", the quest for knowledge is an enchanting and elightening one. But some questions may be wrong in the first place. And by wrong I mean "syntax error" kind of wrong. We look at the origin of the cosmos and ask "Who?". Maybe we're asking the wrong question.

As someone who does not need theism, I don't feel like I'm using "my superior intellect versus a primitive mind" cause I'll be the first to admit, I am a moron. I'll just say, try to look beyond your postulates. It ain't so bad.

I'm sorry Warb, I cannot keep my mind on the game, I'm no good at this. I declare my defeat and sorry if I kept you waiting.

Hold it! Hold it!! HOOOLD IT!!!

Take it to the new thread thread.

That's supposed to be IB? Looks really faded. Is it supposed to fade like that? Or do you suppose it is just the backlight used to scan that frame?

Good. I could upload the DVD5 ISO to Google Drive, and then somebody else'll have to share it on the spleen on my behalf, since I lost my access when my hard drive went bye bye.

I'll get started right now, let me look for the tape...

Warbler said:

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

for many being Christian, is what they are.

[my thoughts on this are censored because there's no way to write them without someone getting offended]

Leonardo said:

Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 I can think of at least one person who got banned from tv because of blasphemy. You can argue I live in a country that culturally is still in the dark ages, and you would be right.

could you please name this person?  link?

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8261932/Italian-Big-Brother-removes-contestants-for-blasphemy.html

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 I can think of at least one person who got banned from tv because of blasphemy. You can argue I live in a country that culturally is still in the dark ages, and you would be right.

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

would you show disrespect to a black gentleman?

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

so what? you don't lose any of your faith do you? so what's it to you?

So, yesterday Christmas came early, my best friend brought me the greatest gift I've got in years:

Complete with 2 controllers, Light Gun and two MarioBros/DuckHunt carts.

I couldn't be happier. I just needed to clean up the cartridges and the gamepads with a little alcohol and a q-tip, fix the 72 pin connector by bending the pins back in place, and it's now working perfectly like it's 1986.

Now to save up a little money to buy a few cartridges. Or, if I'm lucky, get them cheap at the local flea market.

Cuttlefish is a good friend. That's why I'm getting him SF2T for the SNES plus another controller. :)

...That is, if the postal service works. I was supposed to receive the packages several days ago.

SilverWook said:

Droid armies are nothing new in Star Wars.

I don't see how it could be done in the new films without reminding people of the prequel battle droids though. Maybe if they were absolutely terrifying?

The use of droid armies seemed to have fallen out of favor by the OT, as the Empire didn't use them.

 hang on a second, is that a crystal skull????

lol :)

Actually, it is possible. Follow this link.

Let me know if it worked.