sling.com seems to be *dead.

So you quote the convo to add something to one of your response lines even after I have been proven he is wearing regular shoes. You're pathetic. In the words of 4chan/b "Kindly, kill yourself."


>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Bloodscourge:
You're obviously not familiar with things like momentum and weight shifting on your feet, no matter how I break it down to you. I guess you can't teach stupid people new things.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Bloodscourge:
Um, not really. I don't know what kind of skates you have ever used, but you don't "wind up" skate wheels. What he is doing at the beginning is getting his step right before he launches backward. Like I said, it's a controlled fall. The end with him stumbling is due to his aforementioned backward momentum, slick shoes and a slick wet surface. Also, if they were wheels, you wouldn't hear the scraping of shoe tread on the ground as he did this either. By you'r logic, when I do my foot glides (and I stumble), then I'm wearing wheels. There actually is an art to doing this right, and it's supposed to look like you're on wheels when done correctly; otherwise, it's not a glide. This is just an extremely exaggerated glide.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Bloodscourge:
As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.
From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.
Hope this helps the blown brains.

Definitely wheels...You can even see him winding them up at the start before suddenly taking off. And watch again, because his "stumble" at the end is not just his momentum, you can clearly see him skating. I'm surprised people cannot see it.


"There are none so blind as those who will not see." What you claim he is doing with just shoes is, literally, impossible. As i stated, my kids have these wheeled shoes. Never mind though, I give up trying to make you open your eyes. Oh, and btw, I have a few card tricks you will believe are magic too.
Clearly you can, because you have taught yourself that physics can be denied. I'm done.

You're obviously not familiar with things like momentum and weight shifting on your feet, no matter how I break it down to you. I guess you can't teach stupid people new things.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Bloodscourge:
Um, not really. I don't know what kind of skates you have ever used, but you don't "wind up" skate wheels. What he is doing at the beginning is getting his step right before he launches backward. Like I said, it's a controlled fall. The end with him stumbling is due to his aforementioned backward momentum, slick shoes and a slick wet surface. Also, if they were wheels, you wouldn't hear the scraping of shoe tread on the ground as he did this either. By you'r logic, when I do my foot glides (and I stumble), then I'm wearing wheels. There actually is an art to doing this right, and it's supposed to look like you're on wheels when done correctly; otherwise, it's not a glide. This is just an extremely exaggerated glide.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Bloodscourge:
As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.
From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.
Hope this helps the blown brains.

Definitely wheels...You can even see him winding them up at the start before suddenly taking off. And watch again, because his "stumble" at the end is not just his momentum, you can clearly see him skating. I'm surprised people cannot see it.


"There are none so blind as those who will not see." What you claim he is doing with just shoes is, literally, impossible. As i stated, my kids have these wheeled shoes. Never mind though, I give up trying to make you open your eyes. Oh, and btw, I have a few card tricks you will believe are magic too.

>> ^Bloodscourge:

Um, not really. I don't know what kind of skates you have ever used, but you don't "wind up" skate wheels. What he is doing at the beginning is getting his step right before he launches backward. Like I said, it's a controlled fall. The end with him stumbling is due to his aforementioned backward momentum, slick shoes and a slick wet surface. Also, if they were wheels, you wouldn't hear the scraping of shoe tread on the ground as he did this either. By you'r logic, when I do my foot glides (and I stumble), then I'm wearing wheels. There actually is an art to doing this right, and it's supposed to look like you're on wheels when done correctly; otherwise, it's not a glide. This is just an extremely exaggerated glide.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Bloodscourge:
As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.
From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.
Hope this helps the blown brains.

Definitely wheels...You can even see him winding them up at the start before suddenly taking off. And watch again, because his "stumble" at the end is not just his momentum, you can clearly see him skating. I'm surprised people cannot see it.


"There are none so blind as those who will not see." What you claim he is doing with just shoes is, literally, impossible. As i stated, my kids have these wheeled shoes. Never mind though, I give up trying to make you open your eyes. Oh, and btw, I have a few card tricks you will believe are magic too.

Um, not really. I don't know what kind of skates you have ever used, but you don't "wind up" skate wheels. What he is doing at the beginning is getting his step right before he launches backward. Like I said, it's a controlled fall. The end with him stumbling is due to his aforementioned backward momentum, slick shoes and a slick wet surface. Also, if they were wheels, you wouldn't hear the scraping of shoe tread on the ground as he did this either. By you'r logic, when I do my foot glides (and I stumble), then I'm wearing wheels. There actually is an art to doing this right, and it's supposed to look like you're on wheels when done correctly; otherwise, it's not a glide. This is just an extremely exaggerated glide.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Bloodscourge:
As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.
From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.
Hope this helps the blown brains.

Definitely wheels...You can even see him winding them up at the start before suddenly taking off. And watch again, because his "stumble" at the end is not just his momentum, you can clearly see him skating. I'm surprised people cannot see it.

>> ^Bloodscourge:

As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.
From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.
Hope this helps the blown brains.


Definitely wheels...You can even see him winding them up at the start before suddenly taking off. And watch again, because his "stumble" at the end is not just his momentum, you can clearly see him skating. I'm surprised people cannot see it.

As a person who has a lot of footwork focus when I dance, I can explain this.

From a stand he leans forward and slings one leg back very quickly. While the momentum is still carrying him backwards, he has to immediately bring the back leg forward, and the front leg back to keep himself moving. From that point he is pretty much in a constant falling state where the foot coming forward catching himself since the other foot must be thrown back to maintain momentum. Notice his back foot is barely getting underneath in time while the other foot has already started to be flung out. His timing is just cray good. This is also why you see him stumble at the end. His foot-speed countered momentum stopped so he ended up falling forward from his counter balance.

Hope this helps the blown brains.

Even McCain put the kabosh on the deluded extremists in his party.

ProTip: we'd pay attention if you weren't literally just making this stuff up. We get it, you like republicans more than democrats. You want your guy in the oval office and the democrats want their guy in.

But the whole "The other guy is the devil/like hitler/committing treason/hiding a vast conspiracy" just gets a little old ok? This myth that the other guy is a mustache twirling villain that has a damsel in distress tied to the train tracks is just a tad bit absurd isn't it? We know the news loves it's drama and will amplify anything that is the least bit ratings worthy, but really? Treason? with nothing to back it up? Try harder ok?

There is a whole TWO other branches of government out there responsible for the shit we're in. Yet all the attention goes to the president. If you had actual evidence instead of just slinging accusations around to see what sticks, but you don't. The only thing you're slinging is mud. The worst accusation that the left came up with against Bush was the false justification of the Iraq War. But hey, there's actual evidence to back that up

Take a step back please

Human sling-shot fail? Awkward =o)

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

According to the word of God, you are a sinner. According to the word of God, I am a sinner. The difference between you and me is, I have asked God to forgive me, and have chosen to serve Him the rest of my days. I'm not on a powertrip; I'm no better than you are, or anyone else. God doesn't show partiality between persons. Whether you admit to being a sinner or not, you have done what is called sin. It doesn't make you any less guilty if you acknowledge or not.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters. The reason fornication is wrong, among other things, is because sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. When you join together with someone, you become one flesh. God designed sex to be between married couples only. God isn't against pleasure; my point was is that you do what makes you feel good; that is your priority. That is an inherently selfish mindset. Also, moral relativism is essentially nihilism.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

You would love to know God, that is, if He didn't require anything of you. It is because He requires you to modify your behavior that you don't know Him. God makes His existence plain to everything; you reject God because you don't want to know Him. You are suppressing the truth.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

Your idea of truth is something we can never really know for sure. In a word, relativism. Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it.

The word of God is inexaustible. There is more truth there than any person could discover in many lifetimes. Neither am I trying to bend the world to make it fit scripture. Scripture perfectly describes the condition of man, the nature of reality, and the spiritual realm. The world is only comprehensible through scripture.

You say I have the nerve to state what I believe to be true, yet you feel free to tell me I am wrong. You've made your unprovable assertion, the presupposition that there is no God, and from there you dismiss every claim to the contrary, with no evidence; there is nothing there except pathological skepticism.

We're all bad people, because we have all sinned. You think I am pointing the finger at you, which isn't true. All human beings have fallen short of the grace of God. I'm no different. I preach the gospel because I care what happens to you, and everyone else who doesn't know the Lord. You perceive it, incorrectly, as an attack (because the message convicts you), but they are actually the words that lead to life.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.

I absolutely believe Jesus Christ is God, that is true, and why do you think this is something I need to apologize for? You don't believe God is real, but I know that He is, and those who know Him of course will absolutely attest to the fact that He exists and that He loves you and has a plan for your life. You accuse me of not being humble when you are basing your criticism on your own presupposition, that there is no God. According to your own definition of humility, that is a very arrogant thing for you to say.

Your issue is that you believe the truth is some kind of unknowable morass and no one really knows what is going on. That's because your comprehension of the truth is that it's unknowable morass and you don't know what's really going on. Atheism is a religion for people who have no experience with God. The truth is knowable, and you could know God today, if you would serve Him. The fact that you won't is the reason you don't know Him. You regard your personal autonomy as more valuable than what is actually true; you prefer an illusion of control.

>> ^messenger:

Baaaaaa Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I saw an email notification that @shinyblurry had put that post referring to mine and thought 'Bah, I'm sick of responding to his bullshit attempts to turn everything into a religious slinging match'.

And yet look what happened. Others took the bait and ran.

Also, @alien_concept, this bit may be comedy, but his discussion with Marc on WTF isn't so much, and you really do get the feeling his views towards women were fucked up. Sad, but true. He always looked on them as having ulterior motives, always looked on relationships as a game to be played... he never got to the point of being comfortable in a relationship, feeling like a partnership at all. It was him trying to keep his ranking within the man-woman dynamic.

Sad.

Shiny... hats off to you sir to being able to stir the shit so well. I am past getting pissed off at your ranting because I know there is no reasoning, no true conversing with you. So now I watch on with amusement and don't even really read what goes on in these slinging matches. The ones where the religious side falls back on 'There is a God, I am right, my book says so.' as the only argument are not fun to talk to.

I'm with you all the way about other people's frameworks. I love --LOVE-- talking to people who are figuring the truth out by any means, especially by means that are different from mine, or that seem opposed to mine. In fact, I love it so much that I've spent probably around 10,000 words (not an exaggeration) around the Sift in dialogue just with Shinyblurry alone --most of it very civil, and the majority of it (around 7,000 words) in this one vid's comment thread-- so I'd say that I have given him more than a fair shake.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.>> ^heropsycho:

I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

@Ornthoron

Being out slinging the death blade, I see. Got yerself a new badge.

Congrats on the level one!