Meso

Definitely one of the earlier episodes- Where Peter found out he was mentally retarded... I think the episode was called 'Petarded'

You reinforced my point that any book, regardless of nature has equal rights to be burned as the next. And that it's value depends entirely on an individual and that there is no line when it comes to the freedom involved in burning a book. Either you can support the freedom to burn any book regardless of it's significance or you can go against burning any book that may be offensive to anyone. You can include comic books into that if you want. Otherwise one just has double standards.

Who is one to say one piece of religious text is of more importance or validity than another. Christian scriptures, Qur`an, Scientology teachings, book of Mormon- they're all the same in my eyes. Only difference being that some are older than others. But at one stage all religious text was new and looked at as crazy by people of that time. BUT, I think one is free to burn whatever they so God damn please. We can't start regulating things depending on how people take offence to it. If you want to burn a book go ahead. It's a book, you have the right to do with it as you please. Just as one should have the right to burn a flag. If you're one who gets all butthurt over someone disrespecting your religion then you're the one with the problem, not them. It's not THEIR religion, they should have no obligation to respect it in any way. All religions are equally as retarded.

From the few images I've seen through my years of excessive internet trawling- it's been anything but a cocktail weenie. More like a third arm :| Just saying...

Food for thought... Where's the father ;)

From the latter part I was hoping there wouldn't be need for a tissue.

Shhh you're ruining the ambience of the mood.

I see. I shall speak to Psmarais about the possibilities of adding one in the top right next to the help.

There should be a log out button on all the forum pages :o Or at least that's how I understand it, and that's how it is on mine. Unless I misunderstand the question :) EDIT: Attachment added.

Which is a whole different issue, which I feel the same about. It's 17 in the US with parental agreement and 18 without as far as I know. And before that was 16, if I'm not mistaken. Definitely a big problem when you're old enough to kill and be killed but not old enough to consume alcohol. I don't support alcohol consumption but when one can be a kid at war but not that, something is wrong. For the same reason too, many 18 year olds are definitely not mature enough to be behind a gun. Especially when the "yeah I wanna kill shit" ignorant attitude is present in many still (not to say that doesn't go away with time in some). Without meaning to offend, the reason I believe the age is so young with military enlistment is because it's far easier to manipulate teenage boys into enrolling. Just throw them a patriotic speech and talk about how girls love it and you're basically done. Though since you live in S.A too, you may have even been forced to join as it was compulsary back in the day if I'm not mistaken.

I actually support the possession of firearms, but 18? God damn that's young. You're not allowed to drink until 21, but you may carry a gun? That makes very little sense to me. The reason for alcohol restriction is because the feeling is by 18 people aren't mature enough to know how to control themselves with the liquor, what makes them mature enough to know how to behave with a gun? Here in South Africa the minimum age is 21, which seems about right to me. While there is not a huge gap in common sense in those 3 years there is definitely an increase. At 18 many people are still trying to be bad ass to impress their peers.

Animal abuse is one line that if you cross, I hope that you suffer the most painful death imaginable. I would state what I urge people to do that know of someone who abuses animals, but that may be grounds for some kind of criminal case for inciting violence or something. Anybody that would defend an animal abuser should also suffer a painful death. Equal to at least 10x as bad as whatever the animal had to endure. It doesn't matter where you're from though, if you are too stupid and unevolved to realize that animals suffer the same way humans do then you don't deserve to be alive either. There should be some sort of organization that seeks out these kinds of people and swiftly crushes their faces against street curbs and proceeds to dissect them while they watch... Being shot is definitely too good of a way for these kinds of people to go out... Only the most horrific, painful and gory ways would do justice. -calm thoughts, calm thoughts-

People should have the right to burn whatever they please. Whether it be their countries flag, a religious book or a science book. While it may be in bad taste, one should always be allowed to do it. I believe in science, and while I think that a mass burning of science books would be utterly retarded- people should have the right to do it. People need to stop getting butthurt over things others do. So what if they don't respect your religion, get over it. People are always just looking for 1 more thing to fight about, and everyone always wants to get the last word in. I should be able to burn the American flag, the Bible, the Qur'an and anything else I so desire without being targeted in any way. Respect in my eyes needs to be earned, and if I deem something not worthy of respect I should have the right to display it. You're definitely not free if you're not able to show your feelings on a certain subject... Note that burning bibles would be saying 'fuck Christianity', not 'fuck Christians'. Attack any faith or ideal, that's fine. Just don't attack the people who follow it. That way you get to express opinion without invading others rights to have theirs.

That is up to the family though, the law shouldn't be able to regulate family situations like that. The reason for AoC is not for that reason. Most people still live with their parents when they turn 18 and it will always become the families problem, until you've graduated college and gotten a decent paying job and are able to sustain yours and your child's life. Being pregnant at 16, 17, 18 or 19 for the most part will have the same effects. Unless by some miracle the person in question managed to get a great paying job to pay for both their college, rent, living expenses etc. And there is nothing valid about anything religious, again that's their own families problems if they choose to be religious, not something the government should try to take care of with laws.

Way I see it... 16 seems about right for sex given that the age for making pornography is 18. There is a big difference between having sex with someone and having DVDs made of you having sex, to turn on others and become a project of lust. I see no sense in having the age of consent the same as the age to produce pornography. It doesn't matter about the age of consent when it comes to minors, they will do it anyway. I also believe in implying what some countries use, where if the offender of a statutory rape case is within 3 years of age, it's not the same as say a 40 year old doing it. AoC laws are there so that children aren't manipulated by older men into having sex against their will. And considering most teens are drinking and smoking by 16, I don't see why 16 would be too low of an age. If I'm not mistaken the minimum age to join the Army is 17, and there is no logical reason for the age of consent to be higher or even the same as that- and apparently it was recently raised from 16. As for the countries where it's 12 and 13, that's dangerous for children's well-being, at 12 years old you definitely easily manipulated. I do believe though if a 16 year old girl/boy wants to have sex, that's up to them and no government should be allowed to decide for them. Physically, for the most part girls at 16 are quite matured, and as for mentally, that's different from case to case but many of them are just as mature as their 18 year old counterparts. Sex is not the end of the world, but thanks to religion it has become so. "oh my god! SEX!! NO YOU MUST MAKE IT SPECIAL"... That's entirely that persons choice, if you understand the risks, you should be able to have it with whomever you want and however you want. And at 16 the general population is well aware of the risks of sex. There are millions of unwanted pregnancies from teens, but there's also millions from adults. Sex is not that big of a deal, only irresponsible sex is (which people from all ages sometimes enter into). As for homosexual sex, again- it's not a big deal. And all up to the person involved. I think it should be exactly the same as heterosexual sex. And if it's not, then again it's purely a religion based ideal. Joining the army is far more dangerous and far more of a big decision than having sex.

Nah, I think it's those wallhacks and aimbots you're using that triggered the ban. Better be 1.6 and not CSS.

The is possibly the most awesome thing I've ever heard.

I doubt many here would enjoy my music, but bands on my ipod at the moment: From Ashes Rise The Misfits Have Heart Crime in Stereo Verse The Cramps Koffin Kats Basically just psychobilly and hardcore punk.

In regards to black violence and crime. Of course it's higher, it would take someone of extreme ignorance to conclude otherwise. But the thing is most people don't ask the question 'why', or if they do they then ignore the answers if it's anything they don't want to hear. It's not a colour issue it's a cultural issue, and that culture was created by oppression and racism. You think most criminals steal and sell drugs because they want to? If you do, you're an idiot. The majority do it because they've got to survive. It's something that will likely sort itself out over time, but that time is a long way away. The reason why black families tend to be more torn apart is because historically African American families HAVE BEEN torn apart. If you wanted to, you could trace this right down to slavery. They would split families up and children would grow up not knowing their parents, then when slavery ended you have the blacks oppressed by blatantly racist governments and societies. And because of this oppression blacks were not given equal opportunity, and thus had to resort to crime to survive. Then from this initial crime caused by racism, you'd end up with black men being arrested often, for these crimes they committed to survive, and their children too began to grow up without fathers. Over 100 years of this will tend to have an impact on the way people think. You have to be really short sighted to think that an increase in crime because of ones skin colour is determined by anything other than social situations. Of course it's very easy as an average white guy to go on about how it's their own faults. And I am against the idea of whites feelings guilty for things their ancestors did, but I'm also against idiots who can't see that what they did had a huge impact on society, especially a black society. I agree that there should be strong promotion of fathering a child if you have one. As if you do not, you're simply keeping that old cog of negative social values going on, and thus increasing the crime rate. Although again this comes down to shitty governments, and the way none of them are willing to take a proactive approach in completely cleaning up the so-called 'ghettos', which would resolve much of the crime problems. Instead of going out and arresting the father who is selling crack, hold workshops on how to make money by other means... Increase opportunities for young black men. I'm not saying it will solve all crime problems, but the whole war on drugs bullshit money could be more effective put into different means. If only Governments put as much effort into solving poverty and the cause of crimes as much as they did into going to war. Or other useless issues. It's no secret that poverty causes a HUGE increase in crime. So the logic would be to solve the problem of poverty wouldn't it? Or at least try help to solve it. Which is why I'm so anti-conservative. Instead of trying to stem the cause of the problem, they're far more likely to let the problem continue and then try to stop the action caused by the problem. Probably because it gives them something to complain about. If you have a leak in the roof do you just put a bucket under it each time it rains and then bitch about the dripping or do you attempt to find the leak and clog it. You can have it your way if you disagree, but then things will never change and never have a chance to, but you can enjoy complaining about them.

Intercept hurricane at landfall or capture a shot of a photogenic tornado under a picture perfect supercell.

Holy mother of bumps :|

I quite like this chap... Or at least his view points on stopping the populating of the vile parasitic human species. Maybe I'm just united in misanthrope. To add: He is an idiot for being inspired by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth though. I support his ideals but mostly on a non-global warming/conservation level.

Thanks for the information, we've added the Skylark products to the gear database

Hi, Thanks for the heads-up, looked for a changed URL on the destination site but couldn't see one, so my assumption is the item was taken down. I have removed the article entry.

Correct. The idea of blocking people's posts in a forum environment is not a very common one, and for such reasons. It ends up becoming a white elephant piece of technology. You'll create it, the few people will use it, then they will notice that the forums make no sense anymore because of the replies to users they have blocked. So to get up to speed they will go and unblock them and eventually just realize that it doesn't work. Personally I don't see the issue in the first place, if you don't like what someone writes, don't read his post, scroll down to the next one. One possible feature would be to have an auto-hide feature that will hide all posts made by any person 'blocked'. Then if the one whom has that person blocked still wants to read that post there can be a small "show post" button which expands that 1 post. That would be the most practical way to skip over a certain users posts without destroying all sense in the forum. Though not sure how realistic to implement. Overall I can support the idea of blocking users from PM contacts, but there doesn't seem to be a very effective way of achieving users ability to block another users forum posts.