Sayonara

Quoted for emphasis.

You could just not look at the page, like you said you weren't going to (twice), instead of being Texan.

I meant the game YT was describing.

If you are dealing with speeds approaching c, the difference is a lot more than 0.000000000001 miles. I think that was the point.

Sounds like Othello (aka Reversi) to me.

Bit hostile aren't we? What does "block this URL" mean exactly? I'm not saying you don't have a right to privacy; I'm just saying that if you post an on-topic response to a thread in a public forum - and plainly state yourself that the view is right wing - you have to expect a bit of interrogation.

I don't see how the reasoning behind your view on the first post is off-topic.

I'm just curious to know what led you to these conclusions.

Granted, but still - is that a valid comparison? 1) Not all hetero copulation produces offspring, 2) Not all reproductive events are carried out in a conventional manner anyway (surrogacy & IVF, sperm donation, egg donation, caesarian sections and what have you).

I think he meant suicide, dirty blike.

If you were the sort of person who might find themselves in that position, surely it's unlikely you'd have these views?

Is that where you keep your undies? Sorry I thought you meant you were wearing them at the time.

Filthy filthy MrL. /me calls RSPCA

Servers are a lot warmer.

Let's not overcomplicate it that far Gavin's on it.

If your desert island had a palm tree on it, you could make a solar calendar. But it'd take you almost 2 years to calibrate it properly.

In any case, speedos don't measure velocity.

Everyone loves getting scurvy :up:

So you're saying that being gay is unnatural, because if it were natural there'd be... like... gay people in the human population? Nice reasoning there. I have NEVER heard anyone call homosexuality "the third sex", and it's not like I'm never in a position where I might hear that cropping up. I wouldn't credit that as an argument for either side, because it's just rhetoric. Furthermore, you are oh so very wrong: 1 - There is nothing stopping homosexual men in general from reproducing whatsoever, other than choice. Many gay men do reproduce, 2 - Your model of the world does not account for lesbians, who can and do reproduce, 3 - Your model of the world does not account for bisexuals, who can and do reproduce.

I love the future tense.

You didn't understand then. If it was as obvious as you claim I would not need to ask. Time and time again you have read and written "evidence your claims" on this forum. This claim of yours isn't magically immune. You're assuming that: a) I have some kind of ranking system for my closest friends, (which I don't), b) I apportion emotional response inequally according to some artificial system, (which I don't), c) Whatever you (and therefore "everyone else", naturally) would do is what I would do, (which it clearly isn't), d) My "best mate" - if we could figure out who that might be - is going to be male, (which is by no means certain), e) That the only reason I'd marry is for love, (which is unlikely), f) That I would not enter a loveless marriage, (unlikely I would but still an assumption), g) That I would want to marry anyone at all. I'm sure there are more, but I have to go now as I have a lift home. L8rs.

Who promoted atm? I assume the continuation of logical discussion is ok by you.

As I said, "getting in the sack" as you put it is not a requirement for love. You have yet to explain why "hetero man loves male" is different to "homo man loves male". 'Deviant' and 'perverse' don't even apply, and even if you could force them to your application of both words is horribly flawed (by your definitions a pipe-smoker is a deviant, and a cig-smoker is a pervert - even though both states are contradictory).

It was a question, not a statement. And it's based on your predication, not mine.

I really meant "up to that point". As if Win is going to collapse without WMP.