THANK YOU.

I wasn't trusting my own experience and my own eyes.

Ah, the tyranny of the tag!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^bareboards2:

marinespeak
Is the shoe melting or is the road melting?

The road. Tar is much more sensitive to heat than a boot. They would be sticking to the ground otherwise.

>> ^bareboards2:

marinespeak
Is the shoe melting or is the road melting?

The road. Tar is much more sensitive to heat than a boot. They would be sticking to the ground otherwise.

Newer, fresh tar will melt pretty easy until it gets some grit and dirt in it.

Will get soft around 95-100 degrees in direct sunlight. Really annoying in the summer when they are filling cracks and it sticks to your car tire when you stop or slow down and then your car pulls it up in a big strip and wraps around your wheel.

It's worse if they use the wrong mixture of tar....lot of people think you can use roof tar to fill cracks in your driveway. Don't do that. Roof tar melts really easy and is meant to so it'll flow and fill in places where water might leak in....much lower melting temp. They often pump it from the ground to the roof....

>> ^rkone:

It's not their shoes that are melting - there's just a layer of tar on the road they're walking on. At 0:15 you can clearly see that the front guy is no longer on the tar and is not leaving any tracks.
Tar easily melts and becomes tacky like you see in the video. I know this from experience and I live in Canada!


Yup, I've had this happen in Australia, definitely the road and not their shoes melting...

It's not their shoes that are melting - there's just a layer of tar on the road they're walking on. At 0:15 you can clearly see that the front guy is no longer on the tar and is not leaving any tracks.

Tar easily melts and becomes tacky like you see in the video. I know this from experience and I live in Canada!

I hear they add way too much oil to their asphalt recipe. The roads are slick as shit and you will crash if you drive fast. It makes the roads less tar sands and more light sweet crude. No kidding!

>> ^lurgee:

The origanal series had way better scripts. I gave up on the newer stuff after Tasha Tar vanished.


Pity, because TNG really didn't get good until the 2nd season (i.e. just after you stopped watching). I'd argue that the TNG at it's best was the best Star Trek ever made. But I don't really consider myself a trekkie, so YMMV.

The origanal series had way better scripts. I gave up on the newer stuff after Tasha Tar vanished.

Poor porky just came in for a wax-job.

Fake eggs, fake grapes and tar pigs...I'm glad at least my food doesn't come from China, sheesh.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

I could be wrong on that I'm looking into it but "Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet" As shown in the following graph. You'll notice tobacco is significantly higher on the scale. Graph Here

[edit] ok there are about 100 chemical compounds in cannabis however most of them are responsible for the fragrance/aroma of the plant they're also naturally occurring and not additives. When I was talking about the chemicals in cigarettes I was mainly referring to additive chemicals and known poisons that are added in for supposed flavor, like ammonia and cyanide.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Auger8:
Cigarettes have something like 300 chemicals in them that's where the cancer causing agents come from not the tar, marijuana has like 3 THC, Chlorophyll(planet matter), and actually that's all I can think of so I guess it's just 2. Anyway I'd choose marijuana any day over something that has cyanide in it to give it flavor wouldn't you?

complete bullshit. Cannabis has hundreds of cannabinoids/chemicals in it.

>> ^Auger8:

Cigarettes have something like 300 chemicals in them that's where the cancer causing agents come from not the tar, marijuana has like 3 THC, Chlorophyll(planet matter), and actually that's all I can think of so I guess it's just 2. Anyway I'd choose marijuana any day over something that has cyanide in it to give it flavor wouldn't you?


complete bullshit. Cannabis has hundreds of cannabinoids/chemicals in it.