>> ^brycewi19:

On another note, I just realized that the 11th Doctor doesn't use the psychic paper any more.
What gives?

I think the psychic paper has been used a few times. Once at least in his first episode when the jailor on the other side of the crack in the wall beamed a message to it. Not as much as the previous Doctor of course, but still around. Anybody else remember another example?

This was great! This would most definitely be my grandmother were she still around and had to deal with this.

The media plays a big roll in who the average Joe pays attention to. Most people just don't want to bother at this point when there are so many people in the running so they take a wait and see approach. Whoever is still around and getting the most news coverage is usually who they get behind.

Back in 2007 Ron Paul raised $4.2 million in 24 hours without the help of the media. Before Obama had been ordained by the media as the front runner his supporters tried to duplicate what Ron Paul accomplished. They raised $4,650 from 72 people.

Yeah, Doom and Quake are sort of their own thing. They are being updated as other games. Doom is still around in the form of Serious Sam and Painkiller. Quake multiplayer is around... currently I play TF2 for the kind of fix I used to get from Quake I/II/III.

And I'm playing BFBC2 at 2560x1600 right now... I task-switched out because I'm so ADD lately. 4XMSAA still helps improve the image a bit if you look close. I could probably turn it up more but yeah it's just not necessary beyond a certain point.

>> ^Pprt:

DerHasisttot, I fear you've been totally consumed by two particularly devious and masochistic mental afflictions, counterproductive critical theory and cultural Marxism.
I have just read someone who honestly believes that a lowly bird is worth protection but would not lift a finger to defend human culture because "all cultures are equal and none is more worthwhile than another". Correspondingly, it does not matter if one of them disappears or if all of them disappear. Effectively, you believe in everything and nothing at the same time.
You are a destroyer of nations because you do not believe in nations.
My only advice is that you realize that we live in a world where Europeans are the ONLY people who are affected by these social ills. No other culture is masochistic, they are proud of themselves for who they are.. for better or for worse.
I can only hope that, through time and personal experience, you may come to realize that your own culture (and every culture) is worthy of conservation.
That's if it's still around you in old age.


You have not understood how I thoroughly deconstructed your premise. Cultures are inconservable. I never said that all cultures are equal. I said they are enhancing each other. The best things stay, the others fall away.

You are either a troll or an enormous, racist ideological (maybe even Nazi) -asshole whose life would be best spend scrubbing sewers so your brainfarts do not stink up the place. I will not respond to you anymore.

DerHasisttot, I fear you've been totally consumed by two particularly devious and masochistic mental afflictions, counterproductive critical theory and cultural Marxism.

I have just read someone who honestly believes that a lowly bird is worth protection but would not lift a finger to defend human culture because "all cultures are equal and none is more worthwhile than another". Correspondingly, it does not matter if one of them disappears or if all of them disappear. Effectively, you believe in everything and nothing at the same time.

You are a destroyer of nations because you do not believe in nations.

My only advice is that you realize that we live in a world where Europeans are the ONLY people who are affected by these social ills. No other culture is masochistic, they are proud of themselves for who they are.. for better or for worse.

I can only hope that, through time and personal experience, you may come to realize that your own culture (and every culture) is worthy of conservation.

That's if it's still around you in old age.

Thank you...that was really fun....:)


In reply to this comment by notarobot:
Hey G-Mom, you still around? I thought you might like this one.

http://videosift.com/video/Sesame-street-Born-to-Add-Bruce-Springsteen

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was *allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/

*they are still around today.seventh day adventists

I'm still around, but currently living in the forest with limited access to the internet. That said I would happily give up control of my channel to a loving new owner.

>> ^bareboards2:

But was he still effectively a threat against America? Wasn't he essentially hobbled already? Holed up, unable to communicate?
Arvana is right, I think -- it is revenge not justice.
However, if I am wrong, if he has been actively and effectively planning attacks against others in the world, then yes, attempt to capture him and if he dies in the attempt, fine with me.
I wish Obama had been stronger in stating that there was an attempt to capture him.

Al Qaeda is still around, still planning and carrying out attacks, and as far as I've ever heard, Osama bin Laden was still their leader. Certainly he was a heroic figure that they used for recruitment, and was a symbol of the success they've had in hurting us and then escaping from us unharmed.

For all the disgust I've had with how the US has responded after 9/11, I'm perfectly okay with us killing Osama bin Laden.

When creating my proposed channel, I came across the message:
"Not available - subdomain is reserved or belongs to another member."

I asked Lucky if I could 'have' it. He said that "Yes, member death only showed up the day he/she signed up and has never returned so there's no problem." (Although, I don't know how they created a channel on the same day they joined, I probably misunderstood that)
Happily, Lucky was gracious enough to let me have a shot. However, I think Hybrid has an excellent idea, let's have a sift channel yard sale!


>> ^Hybrid:

For the last 363 star points I could have created a channel.
Are all the channel moderators/owners still around? Perhaps inactive channel owners should have their channels put up for grabs by active members who are willing to invest time in them?

For the last 363 star points I could have created a channel.

Are all the channel moderators/owners still around? Perhaps inactive channel owners should have their channels put up for grabs by active members who are willing to invest time in them?

>> ^spaceisbig:

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.


Too late! You're in the discussion now, pal! No backing out! (<-- winkey smiley face means I kid)

I agree that a lot of what defined Lincoln is what also currently defines a modern Democratic politician. But mostly in terms of a large, centralized federal government versus a union of states with their own individual and self-defined rights. He did, however, suspend habeas corpus and locked up US citizens without trial for sedition. Mainly people in the free press he deemed 'Confederate Sympathizers'.

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.