GTAVercetti

Just so you know, men who powder their privates are not getting a blow job. Just so you know. rl I don't powder my privates. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

You say that now. Wait till you have to work long hours again! Just kidding. Congrats. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Um, even if true, ...how..do..you..happen..to..know..this? No, no, no, I mean the enema thing? Hwo do I know it is not edited? I have seen scenes with this type of thing in it. No, no, no, I mean the enema thingie? Oh. There is a movie that Tristan taormino, who is a sex columnist, put out. She wanted to dispel the notion that anal sex is bad so she got a bunch of porn stars together to talk about it (and of course perform). It was definitely porn but also had a lot of discussion. She showed one girl getting one. No, they did not show anything AFTER the tube was taken out. Thank God. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. main character name - Tommy Vercetti. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Um, even if true, ...how..do..you..happen..to..know..this? Hwo do I know it is not edited? I have seen scenes with this type of thing in it. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Yes, but sex doesn't come with enemas in real life. Though sometimes, I'm sure we wish it did. I fixed it for ya. But it also gives the statement the possibility of being untrue. Even with an enema beforehand, you're still dealing with unfriendly bacteria. rl Yeah, I know but that was not the point. In porn, there is not usual an edit done in that type of....ahem...manuever. They try to compensate with enemas instead. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Here ya go. The Auto response navigation: http://paulenglish.com/ivr/ Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Dude, I am right there with ya. Typing PM Sent is stupid. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

http://www.reason.com/0512/bagge.shtml Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Yes, but sex doesn't come with enemas in real life. Though sometimes, I'm sure we wish it did. I fixed it for ya. But it also gives the statement the possibility of being untrue. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Just a short article, but I have even more respect for him. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634 Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I have to throw my vote for best thread to: "I am a Christian...and proud of it!" Through hundreds of pages, it has rangeed from nasty to clever to silly to stupid to funny to intelligent and back again...multiple times. But most of all, it should get best of 2005 for being so damn long. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

According to a relocation calculator, if I made 100K in the DC area (where I am), I would only need 85K to live in San Diego. LA: 89K. Orange: 77K . Not a check of everywhere in SoCal, but a few of the root areas. Even Brentwood I would need 10K less. So, it would appear that the cost of living here is greater than most of there. And I can CERTAINLY live here just fine on 47K. Hell, I survived here AND went through the student program on less. So, if you are struggling in SoCal on 64K, you may want to reevaluate your budget. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Intelligent design debate A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate. This debate has not taken place in scientific circles, but in the cultural and political realms. The intelligent design debate centers on three issues: 1. Whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer 2. Whether the evidence supports such theories 3. Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public education Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[34] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[35] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[36] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive [37] explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes. Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.[38][39][40] According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and that it is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[41] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[42] Even if evolution could not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)[43] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[44][45] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Many people, while religious, do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and therefore desire some compromise between the two. [edit] ID as science The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[46] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be: * Consistent (internally and externally) * Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) * Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability) * Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments * Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered) * Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) * Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[47] violates the principle of parsimony,[48] is not falsifiable,[49] is not empirically testable,[50] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[51] In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[52] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[53] Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are: * The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified. * The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal. * There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results. * The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[54] source: same as above Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, that will learn ya. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, you better get a National language for us then. Cause we ain't got one. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Did you mean to type 'not equal'? Do you mean laws cannot bestow rights? The referendums voted on in so many states were attempts to legalize same sex marriage (to make it a 'right' by passing a law specifically allowing it), and they failed. Rights can be from the Bill of Rights, the Consitution (which can be changed by voters and their elected representatives), and by normal laws. I understand that it is frustrating for liberals to be out of power, it was frustrating for conservatives also. A law is not meant to GIVE a right. A law must be formed such that it protects those rights already in place. In the same notion, the Bill of Rights does not GIVE rights. It details what rights the Government may not infringe upon. and != is programming syntax for 'not equal'. or ne would also have been acceptable. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I second that. Football sucks. Unless it is Australian rules football. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

So after reading that debate I posted I did more looking. One of the main proponents of ID is William Dembski. He is a mathematician, philosopher, and a theologian. The trifecta of good science right there (math is sure, but I am going to stick with the trifecta joke

Nuh-uh - you posted what it really says in Koran 9.11, as well as refuting the original paragraph. Therefore your post was informative, not idiotic. I concur with this assessment. It shall be in my next annual report. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Here is a nice debate on ID: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html As can be seen, the ID argument is not over how fast something became complex, but that a given item is just too complex to have evolved. You can also notice that some of the ID people seem to be refuting Darwin a bit, while the evolution people say that many things used now are beyond what Darwin did so that argument is moot. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, isn't that the nature of science? One does the best one can, then later one does better with new discoveries and tools. Your example of a theory that's later supplanted by new fossil discoveries is hardly sufficient to discredit an entire approach. If that were the standard then every field of science would have been "disproven" thousands of times over. The problem lies in that too often those that tout ID fall back to simply "God did it." There may indeed be a scientific method to some of it, but that is not used nearly enough. Nearly all of the creation sites which attempt to use science use as reference OTHER creation sites or scientists. And they seem to rely on one or two studies to draw their conclusions. And on this whole "complexity of random mutations" idea. If you don't BELIEVE in evoultion and the idea of random mutation that goes along with it, how exactly does one go around to defining how long something SHOULD take to randomly become more complex? That is, if the driving force of your action is the premise "Someone created this as is" how would you them measure the (as they would believe) non-existent change in that item? What data would you use to make your models if you don't think the item evolved its complexity to begin with? This is not a joke post. I am serious about wanting to know (man, i find I have to type that more and more often these days.

Your planet has been scheduled for demolition to make way for an intergalactic expressway. Happy Holidays! And a Merry Chrismakwanzakah to you! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

so what exactly would you call it whenever you simply type "Bwwwhaaaaaaaaa" in response to someone? I would say the typing equivelent of laughing in someone's face is insulting. And you do it ALL THE TIME. And I say Happy Holidays to you on whatever planet you're living on, assuming your tinfoil hat will not block out well wishes. These days I stay on small planet in the vicinity of Betelguese. The commute is a fucking bitch. But I have the hat to talk to. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Actually yeah: AC - " the last bit is fiction (koran quote) " second post.