jeff-
thats why i gave you the link.
(edited because that page i embedded was probably inappropriate for this forum...oops).
Edited by - dubla on 6 February 2003 13:11:20
jeff-
thats why i gave you the link.
(edited because that page i embedded was probably inappropriate for this forum...oops).
Edited by - dubla on 6 February 2003 13:11:20
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
xander-
i see you sidestepped my questions. ill repeat them for you:
should we start selling guns to prison inmates? how about the severely mentally ill? known murderers?
if you honestly feel the answer to these questions is "yes", as you are implying, then i think most of us will realize the futility of discussing this issue with you further.
aa
jefft-
heres an article on female ejaculation for you >>> http://www.very-koi.net/tutor/female/female.htm
i just typed it into a search engine....was that what you were getting at six? lol.
aa
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
xander-
you keep belaboring this point about us having nukes, therefore everyone should have them, and your point is not valid. its like saying that EVERYONE has a right to defend themselves with guns just because some do. do you believe that? should we start selling guns to prison inmates? how about the severely mentally ill? known murderers?
aa
amazing with all the coverage of 'what went wrong', etc, no one has bothered to ask what columbia's mission was.. here is an article put up after the launch but before the disaster:.
http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterid=4411.
tidbits:.
heathen-
and i suggest you pay my links a visit as well. it has been PROVEN that the ozone hole SHRANK considerably from 2001-2002. that was my only point, and its right there in black and white (i gave you three different links that all said the same thing).
aa
after watching powell today, i'm more convinced than ever.
i think that those oppossed to the war will not be swayed at all, but i also think that most of those who were trully sitting on the fence will be convinced.
convinced of saddam's violation of un resolution 1441, and convinced of saddam's connection with terrorism.
just how much more damning information has to be "unearthed" before people can see that Saddam is in breach of the UN resolution and is playing the world's leaders as fools.
hey, there are quite a few posters on this forum that think saddam is so harmless he wouldnt hurt a flea, and that we shouldnt even be over there trying to see that he complies with the u.n. resolution, so go figure.
aa
lb-
my bigf is turned off by the thought of two men together as well. shes not against gay men, she just doesnt find it attractive to look at, nor do i. i think its pretty simple....women have sexier bodies, and they look sexy together.....whereas most people will tell you a mans body, no matter how "in shape" it is cannot possibly be considered as sexy or provocative as a womans. im sure some would disagree with me, but id guess the majority see it that way.
aa
my gf is bisexual......and i am very, er, supportive of it, to say the least.
aa
just wondering, all you non-canucks(canadians) on this forum.
what do you think of canada, and canadians?
be honest, good or bad or in between, it'd be neat to read what impression non-canadians have of us canuckastanis (thanks pat buchanan).
mary-
are you from the western part of canada by chance?
aa
amazing with all the coverage of 'what went wrong', etc, no one has bothered to ask what columbia's mission was.. here is an article put up after the launch but before the disaster:.
http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterid=4411.
tidbits:.
xander (and heathen)-
The facts are that the hole in the ozone is getting biggerThat is exactly the only thing you said in your thread that is correct.
actually, that part of heathens thread was also incorrect. the ozone hole is not getting bigger at all, rather quite the opposite, its shrinking....at least from 2001-2002. the shrinkage was mostly due to warmer than normal weather patterns (hmmm, i thought shrinkage came from colder temps?), so its quite possible that it will begin to grow again.
>>> http://www.newschannel7online.com/news/weather/ozone_hole.shtml
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
>>> http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2002/11/20/news10.html
aa
Edited by - dubla on 5 February 2003 10:15:14