danielsangeo

Asahina, who is Gordon's former Girlfriend, Saw Gordon with his brother John, eating space brownies with headcrab zombie icing, and she was pissed at God for not making her beautiful enough for him, instead he chose Jessica, who was John Freeman's wife! John Freeman fucked Gordon up because he didn't have the money to get a crowbar, instead buying teletubbies which caused Gordon to jump on top of lung and use wepon against zombie ghosts! Then Captain Tightpants, surprisingly pantless today, had an epiphany "Kaylee was right next to bees that were angry and shooting lazoooors!" Captain Tightpants said "UGH BOOGA BIM" and Gordon Freeman replied "Ma lazoooor!" and everything exploded, headcrab zombie Icing and cake was seriously friggin' everywhere. Gordon felt guilty and John started crying a pond. Just then an antelope crashed through to the surface from the land called "Under the Surface". All of a sudden there was a huge rift and Asahina disappeared. Someone said something about the Combine attacking John Freeman by kidnapping Asahina, John Freeman frowned and said, "Avast!" He then got his grappling hook stuck in an asshole of a vortigant who said "Why, thanks, John!". The Vortigant started hovering over a giant headcrab that looked suspiciously like Wallace Breen. Earlier, Breen had been smelling coke off a monkey's ass when Duke Nukem arrived negotiating with him using a crowbar. Gordon Freeman was confused by Duke's arguments. He get wepon from goast which was actually his grandmother. She decided to kill the joke by starting this over.

Grappling hook, pulls and closes the gap.

http://www.physorg.com/news121446759.html http://www.umich.edu/stemcell/faq/ http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080128/embryos-discarded-during-ivf-create-stem-cell-lines.htm I have more from the first page of Google for "ivf embryos discarded". If you want more, I can provide more, though.

I think it's fine the way it is. "Cinco dinero" to me, is "five money"....which doesn't really make sense to me...so translating it wouldn't work for me. Also, it's funnier if it remains untranslated. I'm also not 100% sure that I got the right words (I don't speak Spanish, though I know a few words). If the words are incorrect, could someone please let me know?

*cough* They don't keep aborting children to get the cells for most of the research. That's just flat out incorrect. When IVF happens, they create multiple embryos because it's still an inexact science, so they create a bunch and then try to implant a couple to see if they'll 'take' (which leads to fun stuff as multiples when more than one 'takes'.) When that happens, there are excess embryos which are then either 'put on ice' or discarded. Why can't we take stem cells from those that are, for all intents and purposes, dead anyway?

Michael Archer: You recently stated, "Corporations are human beings. All of corporation is is a collection of human beings." Do you feel this way about a union? How about a government? Are they people? Do you believe that people should be allowed to own other people?

I believe that this will be some kind of "other" video....such as maybe something like Galaxy Gulp or that Halo thing or something. I don't think it'll be FM or CP.

It's me again with subtitles for the latest Freeman's Mind. There's a scene where Gordon/Ross talks over a scientist and I had a bit of trouble with the timing on that and trying to keep it sane for the subtitling. Hope it works out for you. Enjoy! (If you see any issues with these subtitles, please let me know! Thanks!)

That video is clearly problematic with too many illogical assumptions. Like what, for instance? Please explain.

Ross Scott: The missile has an in-universe explanation. The Resonance Cascade opened up a spacetime rip or dimensional rip or something like that, allowing aliens from Xen, the borderworld, to teleport in. The storyline states that launching the missile will send a satellite into orbit that will close the dimensional rip. It probably does, but you end up going to Xen and destroying Nihilanth, freeing the Vortigaunts from bondage and unleashing random "portal storms" on Earth, alerting the Combine of our presence, and allowing them to take over the world. Then, two humans, Mike and Dave join Civil Protection....

I didn't read the whole thread (just the first page) and here's my thoughts on the Gordon Freeman thing: I like the idea of Gordon being a sort of "bumbling know-it-all". "Did somebody fix this?" "I just launched a missile!" and so on. It makes the eventual messiah-hood (the "One Free Man") of Gordon Freeman just that much funnier. They're all following someone who throws grenades at nitroglycerin boxes while thinking about Doritos ("Sometimes, I dream about nachos.").

Mepsi: Blue cat people! How can you go wrong? Seriously, though. Avatar was a good flick with awesome special effects. The hokey, corny aspects such as "unobtanium" and the recycled storyline didn't really detract for me. I hear that they're going to make a couple sequels and I can't wait. On-topic, off the top of my head, I will list my favorite movies in no particular order (except for the order in which they pop into my head): Time Bandits Back to the Future Trilogy Indiana Jones Trilogy Neverending Story Enemy Mine 1776 Wall-E Happy Feet Toy Story Trilogy Incredibles Finding Nemo Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs Tangled Poltergeist Shining Exorcist Robin Hood: Men in Tights Spaceballs History of the World, Pt 1 There are more and I will add them to my list as I think of them.

No more than "denying the existence of leprechauns" or "denying the existence of polka dotted Motown-singing Dorito chips wearing tophats and driving FTL spaceships". The implication in "denying the existence of X" is that "X" exists and you're just denying that it does. If you deny vortigaunts because you have reasoned to the lack of their existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

It's about giving me as much -rep as possible because I'm against abortion being an option if the mother won't die if she bears the child all the way through birth... There might be a reason for this. You are telling others what they can and can't do based on your opinions. If I was of the opinion, for example, that Christians should not go to church, would it be right for me to have this passed into law and force Christians to not go to church?

Why is is far fetched and problematic? Watch this video: It's pretty simple if you understand basic biology.

Two episodes of the original series and one in the new series: Original series: A Stop at Willoughby -- Harried man keeps waking up at a train station in idyllic Willoughby only to be thrust back into his stressful world less than a minute later. A Game of Pool -- A billiards-fanatic's dream to play better than the late 'Fats Brown', the greatest pool player of all time, is answered when the ghost of Fats Brown shows up in the pool hall to challenge him to a game. The stakes: Life or death. New series: The Monsters Are on Maple Street -- After an unexplained power outage and no electronics are found to be working, including watches, the members of a community begin to suspect that the new neighbors aren't all that they seem. I felt that the new series version was better than the original ("The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"). And then there's the 1983 movie. In order for what I like the best to the least: 1. Prologue (Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd! Yay!) 2. Kick the Can (so touching yet so sad) -- Segment 2 3. It's a Good Life (what if a cartoons- and video games-obsessed child had the power to alter reality?) -- Segment 3 4. Nightmare at 20,000 Feet and Epilogue (There's something on the wing!) -- Segment 4 5. Time-Out (An angry bigot finds himself in the jumping into bodies of those that he hates the most) -- Segment 1

Atheism is just the lack of belief in deities (lack of theism). Anything more than that, even for self-admitted atheists, is something beyond atheism. If you "believe there's no god", that's not atheism. If you "believe in science", that's not atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. End of story. Atheists, on the other hand, have a wide and varied belief structure about many different topics and have many different philosophies. A Ouija board is simply an ideomotor response from those touching the planchette. They may believe that they're not moving the planchette and will insist that they're not moving it, but they are. Me or the other Dan?

The other function of Ouija boards is props for horror movies bringing about special effects makeup on human beings that play demons and sometimes buckets of red-colored Karo syrup to simulate blood done to make a bunch of cash.

Pepsi is best, no matter what you saying.

^that Atheism isn't philosophically redundant because it's not a philosophy.

I apologize for going backwards a bit (I got busy with other stuff!) because I want to touch on this. So far, so good. Whoa...hold up. What? This is "Argument from Ignorance"....combined with a little misrepresentation. EDIT: Expanding on this part a lot more: It's not quite as random as you are led to believe by "creationalists". Sure, the mutations and such are random, but the survival and propagation of "good" or "neutral" mutations and elimination of deleterious mutations are reliant on most-assuredly NON-RANDOM sources....ie: Natural selection. Think about it this way, for a completely NON-organic example: A bar magnet has a "north" and "south" side. The "north" side is attracted to the "south" side of another magnet and repulsed by the "north" side. Natural attractors and repulsors. So, take a bunch of bar magnets and put them in a bag. Shake the bag up and down, then pour out the contents. Completely "random", right? But then, why are so many magnets sticking to each other, every single one that sticks to the other is connected north-south. Because of the natural attractors and repulsors inherent in a bar magnet. Life is similar. Complexity can come from simple removal of "bad code" and duplication/mutation of "good/neutral code". Eventually, complexity from simplicity. For example, let's take the English alphabet as an analogy. It's a collection of 26 letters. Letters can attach to each other to form "words". However, these 'words' may or may not survive the natural selection process. Before a word can even survive to birth (assuming that words are living things), the following rules must be in place: 1. Words must have a vowel (AEIOU and perhaps sometimes W and Y) in them to survive. 2. The letter Q and the letter U naturally attract one another. 3. More than two letters of a single kind cannot attach together (In other words, you can't have three Ls together). So, let's take a group of letters, throw them on the floor, and let them arrange haphazardly. KJFEF EOQUYE PFOW FIWOPER FKQUOARFJ Nothing, right? But they are 'born', live, and die....without finding a suitable mate and cannot procreate. So, let's keep doing this hundreds of thousands of times. Eventually, you'll get something like: KEJF PRWEJQUOT ROAD PFR A PRETEXT Suddenly, there are three words that procreate. Three other words die without being able to procreate. We now have a surviving group of organisms: ROAD A PRETEXT. These words survive and thrive. Let's keep doing that. Hundreds of thousands of throws later, with ROAD, A, and PRETEXT surviving with each throw. Eventually more words begin popping up because these words are attractive to other words...such as two ROADs and two PRETEXTs getting it on. And new words are popping up. CAT, BLOCK, CAN, SPEAKER, QUEEN. And so forth. Finally, something happens. CAN mutates and its genetic code duplicates. It is now CANCAN. It survives because it's a word, so in each of the subsequent throws, CANCAN continues to survive. Later, CANCAN mutates again, two of the letters changing into other letters, and one letter dropping off. Now CANCAN produces CANDY. But, the word CAN also continues to survive (The CANCAN/CANDY mutation doesn't eliminate the parent organism CAN). See where I'm going with this? Now, let's say that different words become attracted to each other and they produce two word combinations. FIRE TRUCK. GARDEN HOSE. Words of one type (which we'll call "adjectives") are attracted to words of another type (which we'll call "nouns"). BLUE BALL. LOUD NOISE. WHITE HOUSE. And so on. And now these word groups get together with other word groups, such as a type of word we'll call a "verb". Now we have "A BLUE BALL ROLLS DOWN HILL". Suddenly, these groups of words are what we'll call a "sentence". And sentences like to get together and form multi-sentence groups that we'll call a "paragraph". And so on. And so on. Until English language books are being created. From single group of 26 letters with natural attractors/repulsors. (Now, this is oversimplified and life is a bit different, but you get the general idea.) Yup. Why not? No, it's not. As for that Satan webpage, red on black is hard on the eyes but I red (hehe) some of it.... I'm not sure how this is different from a fiction book, to be honest. Except fiction books are generally better written...

Just because the coccyx still does something doesn't mean that it's not evidence of a tail. Remember, things just don't "turn on" or "turn off" simply because something is "being created" or "is vanishing". Everything still has a use for that particular creature as it's vanishing or coming into being. Vestigial =/= Useless But, I am biased and I admit it. I am biased to facts and evidence. It's going to take a lot to make me believe otherwise. About as much as what made me believe in this in the first place.

Maybe they shouldn't start over with a shorter sentence, it takes a lot more dakka to derka things.

Actually, mine is an opinion supported not only by most scientists, but also evidence. We can watch the morphology of certain species change throughout the fossil record (from older fossils to newer fossils) and can deduce that one leads to another. And before anyone complains about morphological observations (that is, looking at how things are shaped), let me remind you that YOU can deduce certain things from morphological observations. For example, what animal is this? http://www.xmission.com/~emailbox/images/208.jpg I'm sure that everyone knows what that is. And, there you go. Understanding an animal via its morphology. Just as those evil "evilutionists" do. This is how they get evidence of evolution.

A creationist believes that God (or some other intelligent force) created all the animals on Earth as they are today and, therefore, no evolution. I would love for one of these folks to explain the coccyx.