That's not my experience with them, and I did have one.
Sharp...yes. Stinky breath... also yes. Unwashable oily stank, not mine. He washed up nicely. EDIT: Maybe the oily stink is why the goat keeps licking?!?
True enough, like with most smart dogs, most of them are owned by people that never work them, and that makes for a neurotic dog. When given a job they understand they can be great, loyal, patient, and loving. Great for farms and ranches, not so good for apartments and lazy people. So, "never see the full potential of in the U.S." is an exaggeration, "rarely" would be a better word to use.

As for your look, what I'm looking for is removal of the insulting, vilifying, often outrageous and vulgar additions to your point. They make it difficult if not impossible to actually consider your point because it's obscured by attack and nastiness. Because you have gone so far overboard with that in the past, many of us here have little tolerance for it from you now, and may even read it into your posts at times. That means to avoid the attacks back, you need to make an effort to not antagonize others for no reason. Try reading your posts before posting them, and consider how you would react if they were written about you or yours. Also, perhaps consider that your mother may read your posts and act accordingly, that alone would probably make you look incredibly better to all, and make discussions with you more positive....at least I would hope so.
Your response here was a good example of what I'm looking for, you disagreed, but did so relatively respectfully....thank you. If you could do that regularly, without devolving into 'flapping your sloppy c*nt lips' types of descriptions of others and their ideas, I would never complain, and many others would be grateful.
Being nasty doesn't help your argument and doesn't make your post clever or interesting, it detracts from it and eventually from yourself and only makes you look bad, at least that's my feeling about it in a nut shell....thanks for asking!

what if, beyond all negativity, they DO keep it true to elder scrolls? kinda like an ultima online system. Ultima Online was more like elder scrolls in its execution with no levels and only skills. so it could very well work. and if its just skyrim multiplayer. so what! i wished i could go online and raid towns with a buddy. or dungeons if thats your thing

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:

The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.
There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.
There's no consensus? yeah, right....
>> ^coolhund:
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."
This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.
But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.

>> ^coolhund:
This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "
The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.
You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.


And that doesnt change a thing.

Of course, nobody is denying that climate change isnt happening, because climate has always changed.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!". That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue. Again: Climate science doesnt even know properly how clouds are created. And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

This is so thick of an political and economical part of our society already, that, even if you had 100% undeniable facts, people would still not believe you. Its sad that youre one of them. Again: This is not science anymore. Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC). I dont know why you are so ignorant and and stupid to support a new religion, but it makes me very sad every time I am confronted with so much ignorance. I know this last part has nothing to do with the issue, its just my own feelings, since ignorance has been the sole cause of problems on this earth. I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then. I am seriously excited.

Oh yeah about your last link:
It proves that you dont understand how things work: The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW. Thats like me putting up an organization that claims that computers, like they are right now, kill us all and I'm getting paid by several governments to say that. I have enough money to buy people and studies that support my claims. But not only that, my idea is that good, I will get support from the economy, because my view is opening MANY new ways to make new profit, because many things will have to change. I will also get the mass media on my side, because being a friend of the bad computers that kill cant be good. People who criticize my views will be bad people and part of the bad computer industry that only wants money. Perfect propaganda material.

However, its prolly funny for you (worth to ignore I mean) to see that the bad oil companies are part of the climate change lobbies. They make lots of money off the AGW hype too. The high energy prices alone, that are part caused by this hype, lets them laugh themselves into sleep every night.

As I said, the system is far more complicated than the simple picture you posted there. And thats why it is so easy to keep the true agenda hidden. And no, its no conspiracy. Its the way this system works. You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life. No more need to scrounge up supporters every month to get your fundings for your studies. Its what everyone wants. And if youre one of those guys who actually believes in AGW, which is quite common these days due to Al Gores indoctrination movie and the mass media following it, its even more straight forward.

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

Here's a lot of information on the subject for those interested (UN 2006 World Population Prospects report): http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

The most "optimistic" (that is lowest fertility) seems to indicate world population plateauing around 2040, not saying that or anything in the report for that matter will come true, but if you are wondering where the numbers are coming from, my guess would be from there.

What ponceleon says is true, but we have also seen that well educated and well developed countries stop reproducing at a high rate (even going into decline). So that seems to speak against any long term overpopulation problem IF we manage to raise the education level and standard of living across the world at a decent rate, which has been happening so far.

[EDIT] According to their website (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth) that is indeed where they got their numbers: "Where are you getting these numbers? U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database. (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)"

Goofball, I hate to be the one with the bad news, but whetstones indeed sharpen knives and not just hone them. A typical whet stone is simply oiled or watered for lube, you then grinde on the rough side, then work your way turning the stone to finer grits. Finally you have sharpened the edge, you then use a steel to get and keep a true edge.

While djsunkid may be blowing the whole thing out of proportion, he is right about the whetstone.