I believe you have your terminology mixed up. In this case the word woman, or womon or women or waman or wamen or wamon or weman or wemon or wemen or succubus hive queen ticking time bomb baby popper dumpster dumper, is pronounced "cow". In a sentence: "Your wife can't fit into her wedding dress because she's a cow."

You're worried about a cow when they're forcing a cephalopod out a hole the size of a cat? Size of a cat probably sounds familiar. Does it feel that way? The size of the hole.

Sorry, am I wrong? I get some mammals confused. Hairy, fat, overly sensitive chew toys, right?

VILE +9000

I thought he was running to the bathroom to check how hairy his junk was.

That some ugly wet hairy yellow toofed wood gnawin beaver, would keep all barky columns away.

Agnostic: Someone who does not want to commit and has the philosophy, it doesn't matter.

Agnostic 2: A pussy. Hairy, pussy.

Agnostic 3: Says the rules of science might not matter because a God could potentially render them useless. (See De Tyson)

OMG on my screen he looks like a less hairy version of the Language Professors Hate Him ad just to the right of the video!

Heck, maybe he invented that amazing language-learning mechanism too!

I bet it's just as effective!!!

Currently live in Thailand and have lived many other places in Southeast Asia. Not only do cars not try to block you or get annoyed by this behavior, but refusing to do this will just piss all the other motorcyclists off. I've never ridden a motorcycle in the US, but you do have to be hyper-aware of everything around you in this kind of situation. Actually, Bangkok isn't too bad, but in smaller cities there are tons of random things jumping out from the side of the road (bicycle taxis, food carts, animals) that make it even more hairy. That being said, once you are comfortable with it, it can be exhilarating and definitely time efficient.

Easy. I could extend my list to a hundred for a sentence this long. I was prepping for the shortest sentence in the english language: Go.

1.You are clearly biased towards the English language. I guess people who don't speak English are shit out of luck, right Shepppard?

2. You are clearly biased towards standard contemporary western sentence structure. E.E. Cummings need not apply.

3.You are clearly biased towards whimsy, completely excluding seriousness from the debate. When you are ready to take the lampshade off your head, let me know.

4. You are biased towards making yourself the subject of the sentence. ME. ME. ME. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

5. You are biased in favor of commas and periods I see. You've relegated poor Mr. exclamation point to just a parenthetical afterthought, while poor Mr. Question mark is nowhere to be seen.

6. You are biased in favor of writing about animals. SPECIES TRAITOR!

7. Your are biased in favor of using the word fuzzy as an adjective to describe said animals, when furry, fluffy, frizzy, nappy, wooly, hairy or hirsute would have sufficed.

8. You are biased in favor of using the words 'not fuzzy' to describe said animals, when not furry,not fluffy,not frizzy,not nappy,not wooly,not hairy or unhirsute would have sufficed.

9. You are biased in favor of using compound sentences when a simple sentence would have worked just as well, which would have saved us all a lot of time, which we could have used to do important things like cure cancer and sift videos, but now that time is gone thanks to your overly, overly, overly, overly, overly, overly long compound sentence.

10. Lastly, you are biased in favor of writing sentences in response to absurd challenges from strange persons on the internet trying to make the point that every action you take is subtle prejudice against all of the other actions you didn't take. Every word you chose to use in your sentence shows bias against the words you didn't choose to use. The precise moment that you hit submit on your comment was an inadvertent disenfranchisement of the many other moments that might have appreciated the honor of time stamping your achievement.

It's biases all the way down.

How about run a Mormon against Obama? That way, the Christian contingent who regard Mormonism as a cult will vote with their conscience and choose Obama. It will appear as though there is a "choice" while in reality, BOTH of these putties can do the damage intended. If we can dupe the GP for one more election cycle then by the time 2016 rolls around, we predict the voting populous to be completely bat-shit fucking stupid, we can run a fucking chimpanzee and tell em it's a tiny hairy man!!

*wilhem @1:03
Interesting political commentary...
The giant woman is Tarja Halonen, president of Finland.
The giant man is Andrus Ansip, prime minister of Estonia.

lol at hairy armpits.

So google searches are never pertinent in case of this type? Only for those case by which the computer is instrumental? No exceptions? I wonder if there is a principle which can be drawn.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.
Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.
So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.
Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.
Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.
Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.
Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.
I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.

Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.

So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.

Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.

Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.

Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.

Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.

I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

>> ^Kofi:

I get the feeling that if you grew up with the Harry Potter paradigm then she was someone you had a crush on. Now that she is grown up it's legitimate to sexualize her. No doubt she is pretty but she still seems like a 12 year old to me. Cute, yes. Sexy? Nope.

I didn't grow up with it--I lived through the entire 80s and 90s. I have never seen a single Harry Potter anything and I have no desire to do so. I don't find her "sexy" or "attractive" or "cute" or anything like that, and suggesting that someone would dig on underage chicks says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're accusing of such a thing.

>> ^Quboid:


I think she's very hot (and I haven't seen any Harry Potter films and don't have any weird under-age mental images) but the 'net's opinion of her seems nutty. Why do people think she's any less vacuous or self centred than anyone else? I can't help but feel that it's at least 90% because they find her attractive, which is ironically vacuous.

She is slightly pretty, but hot? I'll have to disagree with you there. Her hairy upper lip doesn't really do it for me. I find her rather average. Maybe it's the "girl next door" thing she has going on that get some guys feeling all tingly. No idea.

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me?

Alright, Ill answer your "refutations" then:

"Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change?"

If you read my post, I explained why : Because there is no evidence that suggest it is changing, and no known physical mechanisms that can produce such change. The moon could suddenly start orbiting the other direction relative to earth tomorrow, but there is no signs, no evidence, that suggests or implies that it will, and also physics dont allow it unless it is pushed or pulled by some very large force etc.
Bottom line, change in the decay rate is an assumption of something for which there is no evidence. Thats why scientists dont waste their time suspecting this.

As for the line "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". Well thats a poetic thing and all, but its not really true when you think about it for a little bit: for the most part, this is how we exclude things from our reality, and separate what is real or not. It is perfectly consistent to say "I really dont think this thing exist" while remaining, in principle, open minded. There might be green hairy monsters hiding under my bed, I can never know for absolute certain, but I dont THINK so, the absense of evidence convinces me there are none.

The same is true in say, particle physics, there may be thousands of different "higgs-bosons" of different kinds doing all sorts of crazy shit in physics, but again, in the absense of evidence... you cant just build your ideas around fantasies.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality?
Are you alking about illustrations of the geologic column? Then yeah, I'm aware that it doesnt look like that in real-life, but the term is definately real, and yes, erosion and things like that can expose old layers to fresh air, this is of course well know in biology and geology. When I say fossils are layed down in order, I dont mean that they are all physically on top of eachother, but that the dating of the layers match with the kind of animals found in that era. IE: there are no "fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as one biologist replied when asked what would truly disprove evolution.


Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Hahaha, if that was said by an actual molecular biologist capable of finding his own ass, I'll eat my hat. This is so obviously Creo-speak from here on to hell. The first thing an actual biologist would do would be to question the use of the word "information" (I'm assuming he's asking about the information contained in DNA) in this context. Because we refer to DNA as a language and "it contains all the information needed to assemble a human" and so on, Creationists think of DNA as some sort of literary masterpiece, it seems. The truth is of course that its 4 acids spelling 95% repetetive gibberish intersped with some interesting bits that code for proteins and do actual useful stuff.

They also seems to think that (perhaps because they believe it themselves) humans existed from the get-go, and that DNA somehow evolved inside us or some shit like that. (Like one creationist who asked Richard Dawkins how we humans peed before our penises and vaginas evolved..) Anyway, like our penises, our DNA is of course much older than humans themselves, We are simply the latest iterations of a nearly endless line of attemps by nucleic acids to clone themselves by way of making an animal that does the reproduction.

I highly suspect that interview was faked by creationists , but even if it wasnt, it'd just mean that there's a molecular biologist out there who doesnt know fuck all about molecular biology and hold some strange beliefs, and he's wrong. Simple as that.


You then have the obligatory list of quotations, and what can I say?.. I can see how you think these are somehow indicating a plot or something against creationist, but honestly this is just plain quotemining.

Tit humor? Real mature, guys. When will the Sift ever grow hairy balls and be an adult about shit.

>> ^davidraine:

This was exactly as horrifying as I expected.


We aim to [dis]please ... with love from, Yer Playhouse Pals =o)