> Darkmatt wrote:
> so has anyone gone out and got a girl to join yet? <

Preliminary Report:

They don't like to be called girls, so no.

> Metrex wrote:

> damn i knew those! <

And you still got them wrong...

People still watch this crap? I stopped at BB2.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> >>[No Russia didn't, just like the USA didn't "start" the Iraq invasion; It was the regions fault for harbouring terrorists who were attacking decent, upstanding, and innocent citizens.
(I love how the USA is mad at Russia for doing little more than follow an example)]<<
Baloney. Russia invaded a neighbor and took territory. <

The only difference between Russia/Georgia and America/Iraq is that the USA had to travel to Iraq.

> We should have fought over that one.  If we'd flown our VTOLs in and started shredding Russian tanks not a damn thing they could do about it. <

Start ANOTHER war right before an election? I can't help but notice that all of your solutions (to almost any problem) would have handed the country to the Democrats.
Those tactics haven't worked since the inception of the internet... it's not the 80's anymore, people don't just blindly accept the news, or even pretend to.

>>> "And that's the problem for you isn't it? You know how to deal with every mindset in the world, apart from your own."
If you mean not being to handle the whiny pussies who oppose wars we win, I'm not allowed to handle them.
Our Founding Fathers knew what to do: round up 150 gun owners, however drunk, declare them a Vigilance Committee, and let them restore Liberty and Order.  That would finish Code Pink and Greenpeace. <
[So did you genuinely not understand my statement or are you hoping noone will notice your avoidance?<<<
I thought that was your point. 
What was your point? <

That when people start thinking like America (Touch our citizens and we'll [play with your children]), acting like America (It may be your country but that's our pipeline carrying our oil), fighting like America (Massive supressive fire), you can't handle it, can't understand it, and honestly can't see the irony of your complaining. The people on the outside can.

Apparently I've had it.
It came up in an appointment with my doctor and I asked what the syptoms are, and he said "Have you had the flu in the last month?" Which I have, and he said "Chances are that was it".

Quite frankly I'm dissapointed.

Ooh, sorry, you're out of time.

The correct answers were; Crisps, Dustbin, and Chips, the beer has too much head on it, meaning you're getting less than the pint you paid for, and yes, because being in Belgium gives you plausible deniability. And she's attractive. And she's not english and therefore isn't trying to look like Kate Moss.

> And the various economical and medical benefits. <

Has anyone else noticed how Avogadro is avoiding this part of the discussion like it's a rapist?

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> >>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? <<
You mentioned people killing themselves over angst about their sexuality.

[That's not angst, that is conflict caused by a strong desire to confrom.]

>>Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<
Yes
so's mine

[So how old were you when you 'chose' heterosexuality? How did you make this monumental, life altering decision? Seriously, I think we could all benfit from this. No, really, I want to know... sorry if I sound like a crank.]
__________
__________

> Blind Guardian wrote:

>>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<

I think it is a mental disorder. Many brilliant and accomplished (even famous) psychologists agree with me. I'm not saying this proves my position--I'm merely saying that getting a majority of publishers to not publish this opinion today doesn't prove your case to any extent either. And I prefer the psychologists on this questions over the publishers. This does not fall under the category of "choice," but still does not afford it the equality you ask this question to demand.<

[I love talking to you: pure honesty, no bullshit games. Usually
Technically you are right; the cause of 'sexual deviance' (you like that?) is in the brain itself, some form of physical difference that can only be properly studied after death. For example m-to-f Transsexuals have been proven to have physically female brains.
Although we technically agree I am baffles as to how something that is not choice should lead to a denial of basic equality.]

>>So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals?<<

The question is on what grounts do you compare the color of a man's skin not determining his inherent dignity with the claim that differences in functionality are not differences in functionality? There is no comparison and your attempt is only insulting to every minority who has ever had to fight for his/her rights. You have made no case against the objections and questions I and many others have raised. You attack straw men and make odd meaningless comparisons and claim outrage at an injustice against homosexuals. All without responding to our questions or objections. <

[A difference in sexual functionality is reason to deny dignity? So where do you draw the line? Do you think those guys who can't get it up unless the woman is built like a brick shit-house should also be denied? What about guys who can't get it up unless their wife wears rubber?
See, the reason you are getting shoddy, non-specific answers that you are happy with is that your reasons for denial, and there for your questions, are equally so: "I don't care if you've been together for 50 years, you can't have the same rights as me and my wife, because you take it up the bum, and my wife doesn't."]

>>When a straight couple (in the UK) are together for five unbroken years or more they are deemed to be in a common law marriage and get the same financial benefits as a church wedded couple.
Homosexuals do not get these same benefits, no matter how long they are together, they don't even have the right to visit their partner in hospital because they're not family.<<

I have no objection to visitation rights and some tax benefits. I agree that visitation rights ought be granted just as they are with heterosexual couples. Live and let live; it's none of my business who your mate is and who you want visiting you. Taxes are more complicated because the benefit to society is not equal. Even in the case of childless couples, that's a matter of coincidence not form.<

[Sweet! That's all *I* want, too... I guess that means that this part of the discussion is over. ]

>>Homosexuals are better for the economy.<<

Made up.
[you wish]

Pointing out that some parents are really awful parents does not make homosexual couples ideal parents.
[when did I say that? quote me exactly]

It does not mean that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples.
[I'm not saying that homosexuals make better parents just because they're homosexual, and you know it.]

Rather than make your case all I've seen is the claim that, since heterosexual couples can be bad parents, then anyone better than a trashy child-molester must therefore be given adoption rights.
[Again: When did make such a claim?]

Aditionally, I've never busted a nut inside a girl without a condom (without her using birth control) by accident.
[Not surprised to hear that]

[...] but the fact is that most heterosexual couples do NOT have their children by "accident."
[So you have incontrovertible proof that heterosexuals never ever ever ever ever ever have children by accident? I seriously doubt that.]

You guys sound retarded acting like the benefit of planning makes homosexuals advantageous over heterosexuals. Maybe you're all just virgins so this whole conversation is all foreign to you.

Planning makes EVERYONE better.... christ alive you're thick sometimes... X(

Deep-fried Tarantula is very nice.... kinda like Crab but without the messing about.

Sad story. But. What kind of spanner gives a woman (or their bitch for that matter) free access to their money?

> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> Frenzy the day your boss holds you out as an example of a fubar loser to your coworkers, is a day you should think about leaving on your terms <

Supervisors aren't allowed to do that any more, it's "disempowering". []ing stupid californian management fads...

_________
_________

> Blind Guardian wrote:

> >>but others like "doing the right thing" are for fools.<<

Further revealing your lack of real world leadership experience. You cannot maintain genuinely strong relationships with people who think you're a real, deep-down, asshole. Someone can always pay more, but nobody can outbid you for real respect.

Keep offering advice you know nothing about but what you've read in some silly academic's failed writing or made up. It's funny. <

Here we have a classic example of someone voicing their lost respect. And now I will join them:
Real men do what's right, like the Germans who refused service in Hitler's Nazi army, knowing such an action was a death sentence.