No. There's something faintly hideous about endlessly celebrating a child who will finally reach his ultimate purpose in life when his Pop's heart ceases to beat 50, 60 or so years from now.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
JoinedPosts by Las Malvinas son Argentinas
-
74
Do You Care About "The Royal Baby"?
by minimus ini don't get it.
(and i don't care about america's "royalty" either)..
-
-
-
3
How Scientology Changed the internet - BBC article
by HB inthought some of you might be interested in this bbc article dealing with the ways that scientology has tried to prevent ex members spreading negative information about their church on the internet.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23273109#.
the various battles between digital rights acticivist and the church of scientology are covered, particularly in relation to google and you tube.
this was quite funny in retrospect:.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
They're still trying though. Wikipedia has to blacklist certain IPs from editing their Scientology pages. It got so bad that all negative information about Hubbard, Scientology, and Miscavige was deleted, and positively cultish nonsense put in their place. Now Wikipedia must approve all edits about Scientology and their history.
-
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Skittles and Iced Tea...
Also happen to be ingredients in what is known as:
Sizzurp... lean... syrup... drank... Texas Tea...
Purple Drank
-
10
Why can't they go back to the old way of charging for the magazines
by joe134cd ini'm just curious, and i know i always end up with an answer.. but why can't the society go back to its old way of charging for the magazines.
i know this is probably easier said than done.
but if they were keeping a float in the past but are sinking now on the donation model, then is seems obvious charging for the mags was the better way to go.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
A bureaucratic nightmare to say the least. Plus I think the 'sales' automatically decline once people are forced to pay a fixed amount for literature.
-
14
Disney's The Lone Ranger - This movie is awful - DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas ini never really liked the 'pirates' movies that much, so i don't know how i was talked into this one.
it's a shame because johnny depp is much better than these quirky roles he is now assigned to play.
just hope he puts a few million of this payday in his kid's college fund.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I just didn't get what the big deal was.
-
14
Disney's The Lone Ranger - This movie is awful - DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas ini never really liked the 'pirates' movies that much, so i don't know how i was talked into this one.
it's a shame because johnny depp is much better than these quirky roles he is now assigned to play.
just hope he puts a few million of this payday in his kid's college fund.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I never really liked the 'Pirates' movies that much, so I don't know how I was talked into this one. It's a shame because Johnny Depp is much better than these quirky roles he is now assigned to play. Just hope he puts a few million of this payday in his kid's college fund. The movie is pointless and tries to jump on the back of Depp to steer it. That is hardly any substitute for good story-telling and filmmaking.
-
314
If you were on the Zimmerman jury, how would you vote? 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or innocent?
by UnConfused in -
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Well, I'm not impressed with people who tell me that they wont respond to me anymore, and then go back to edit an existing post of theirs in order to not give a chronological impression of them responding. You lied to me!
You 'gave insight into a personal opinion', but you never 'expressed an opinion on the subject matter'? Do you realise what you just said in front of everyone? Since you are so into semantics, please explain how giving insight into your personal opinion is not expressing an opinion on the subject? I guess that's the same reasoning coming from someone who brazenly informs someone they are not responding to them, and then edits it to respond to them after the fact. Who's being dishonest here?
So you are saying that you refuse to offer a 'verdict' on the matter as a hypothetical juror, but will offer a little insight into your thinking on the matter, which is your own clever way of skirting your original contention of how people who haven't heard the entire case as a juror shouldn't have any basis to offer commentary on it. You did that yourself, and that is not misrepresentation by any means.
-
314
If you were on the Zimmerman jury, how would you vote? 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or innocent?
by UnConfused in -
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Still not understanding why no one else but you can get away with expressing an opinion about the verdict? After all, as you noted, that was the question this thread asked. Don't worry, no one is going to follow you and we'll leave you alone as you exit the discussion. We'll get back to the speculating on this thread without you, since you have already have done your own speculating.
-
314
If you were on the Zimmerman jury, how would you vote? 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or innocent?
by UnConfused in -
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
You have a fragile ego, don't you? I was only pointing out the contradictions in your post. Allow me to provide a useful edit to you, since I did grasp your point about not providing speculation when you are not on the jury.
Unless you watched the entire trial, you have no basis to express an opinion on how you would have voted if you had been on the jury. From the evidence I am aware of, it looks like he's guily of voluntary manslaughter. But like everyone else here who hasn't seen the entire trial, I have no basis to express an opinoin as to how I would vote if I were on the Zimmerman jury. It is quite possible I would vote to acquit him if I heard all the evidence.
Don't worry, you can repost that without giving me any credit. I just got the contradictory stuff out of it for you. You can say you didn't 'admonish' all you want, but the fact remains that you informed people that they have no basis to express an opinion, and then expressed yours anyway. Unless you are just jumping in afterwards because everyone else did so? Either express the opinion, or stick to your initial premise of no one here having the basis to express an opinion in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
-
314
If you were on the Zimmerman jury, how would you vote? 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or innocent?
by UnConfused in -
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I did read your comment, no need to re-read it. What you did was piously lecture us about providing speculation as to what we think would be the result, and then provided two hypotethical verdicts of your own, taking positions on both sides. I understand your point of not knowing all the facts, and that this was purely speculation. What I didn't understand was you contributing two of your own speculations to the mix after admonishing others to not speculate.