Phi for All

Not bad for going down to the corner grocery. The flamethrower would be better aimed behind you, since zombies are chasers and you don't want to drive through flames in front of you (very bad for night vision and sensitive skin). I like that the transportation is electric and the weapon is petroleum based. Should about even out your carbon footprint.

Nice lift kit on the Hyundai, but if you keep saying "inch" when meaning "foot", this vehicle could start to look weird. No, no, they're NOT! Let's stop even joking like that, OK? I'm reporting the next post that doesn't respect the lasers.

Happy Birthday, SFN! And thanks for a decade of smart. I was told you'd be here earlier. When there was cake.

I think, by law, women should have to take an aspirin if they ever use the "I've-got-a-headache" excuse. Either their headache will go away, or they'll suddenly want to have sex, or both. Win-win-win.

You need to pick up the pace, sir. While the light saber is effective, it also attracts zombies like a bug zapper. If you don't start swinging like your life depended on it, you'll be overwhelmed in no time. By the time we're through, the cupholders and the sun visors will be the only stock Hyundai items on the vehicle. And who needs sun visors on a vehicle that only hunts at night? Since Moontanman is doing the lift kit, why don't we have one of John's mowers on the undercarriage and a larger one on top that extends over the sides? Sort of a trim 'n mulch package.

I gave iNow a -1 rep for that. Dude, what were you thinking?

The new Hyundai Bonesaw. A new family vehicle for a new type of family. Now with more lasers!

1. George Bush II And I'm glad to hear Jesus is a person again. I had a hard time with the whole deity thing.

I'm thinking of a top rack add-on option that not only makes those spotlights integral (with mesh) to the body design, but also lets you rig multiple blades like a Schick razor sticking out from the sides along the roof. The first blade grabs the zombie while the second blade trims the stubble above his shoulders. A set on passenger and driver sides turns the car into a mower, and a swerve into an artform. The rack could also have more lasers.

Rookie mistake having the lights up there that high. If the zombies don't get impaled, the plow tosses them up right into your expensive 100w CFLs. There's not even any mesh to protect your green investment. And I agree with CaptainPanic. Why spike 'em and take 'em with you? Isn't the idea to leave 'em where they fall after you take their heads off? Too much seems aimed at knee-level, and I've seen a paraplegic zombie pull himself across 5 miles of pavement with just the stumps of his arms to pay back someone who just took out his legs with a bat. It sure would be nice to see Hyundai offer a decap option on next year's model.

Wow, you've really gone round the Horn on that one. You realize, I hope, that when you put quotes around "being fucked", you're quoting yourself, because no one else in this thread used those words at all. You've taken a reference to your conception, a device used to imply something that had been around as long as you have ("It was all part of a big secret conspiracy we formed when your mom got knocked up") and blown it up so you're quoting it as iNow talking about fucking your dead mother. You had to completely change the meaning of what was said to you in order to justify your indignation. This could be part of your reputation problem. People like it when you listen to them. They don't like it when you quite obviously shut off your speakers and dial up your microphone.

So what are you listening to right now?

Well, he responded in that thread that the comment about your mom was not a personal attack, it was referencing when he joked that the Reputation System conspiracy against you had started, right after you were conceived. It wasn't even an attempt at a "yo-mama" joke, it was just a time reference. You are taking it way too personally. iNow knows how to insult people. If he wanted to insult you, he wouldn't go after your dead mother, that would make him seem monstrous. You're taking this the wrong way, trust me. Next time, you should use the Report feature that's at the bottom left corner of everyone's posts. That's the best way to bring Posts to the staff's attention. So, are you saying the Reputation System is meaningful in this instance?

Report the message, or report your post and paste in the messages you're getting. We'll stop any threats.

Communication, specifically for mating purposes.

If they sell the bottles separately, I'd get red and blue, or just red. I'd stay away from the little 4-color-pack, since you won't use half of it, and may not have enough red to do what you want.

I like this part a lot. Can I put it in my signature?

I think, in general, Americans have come to react best to short, emotional pitches that seem easy to stand behind, sort of a convenience approach to morality. Average Americans rarely want to think beyond to what ramifications may happen. The life-begins-at-conception pitch is an easy sell to moral convenience. It offers clear guidelines and seems to cherish all life. It also ignores the rights of the host mother (in total contrast to most conservative stances), to say nothing of the legal morass it would create for every pregnant woman who has a miscarriage. The religious right seems to love moral convenience. A couple of years ago, Florida greatly increased the distance registered sex offenders could live from a school. Sounded great, sounded right, but it effectively meant that RSOs couldn't live in ANY populated area, since the overlap of school districts cancelled out available homes and apartments. RSOs (which included those who'd been caught urinating in public and charged with indecent exposure) had to join the ranks of the homeless (iirc, they couldn't leave the state either), living under bridges at the city outskirts. These were people who had already gone to prison and been released, with their debt to society supposedly paid up.

Part of the difficulty here is perception. You "firmly believe that" something extraordinary is true, while the people you think are being close-minded are offering legitimate, rational, supported observations for what they trust is the best explanation. Who has really closed their mind off in this instance?

Personally, I have no real problem with tax-exemption under non-profit status for churches. But currently they're getting special treatment that allows them to profit in ways they shouldn't under the status definitions. Either we should let churches be treated as non-profit charities or start treating them as for-profit businesses, but not give them the best bits of both, and especially not with taxpayer funds.

I'd add some powdered milk to that recipe to thicken it a bit more, or maybe some cheap maple syrup instead of the cola. For quick shots in movies, fake blood can be a bit runnier, but for a staged scene like TransformerRobot wants to set up, you need more... coagulation.

Coerce is too pejorative to describe how taxes are administered. The US has a lower tax burden than most first-world countries, but our real problems in that area are what those funds are spent on, not necessarily the system that collects them. Only a conservative would get hung up on what an unjust exemption is called. Then why aren't you arguing to keep the separation between church and state clean and well-defined? Why are you going on about what the exemptions are called rather than agreeing that Faith-based Initiatives are using taxpayer funds to support religious agendas? The pendulum swings both ways, you know. By the way, the church goers deduct their donations to their church from those taxes they pay, so that money is getting double exemptions. And whether or not those who use this tax-exempt religious non-profit pay their own taxes, this particular type of non-profit has leaders who pay nothing, not even property tax on the homes purchased with that tax exempt revenue.

It's fine on the grass. It's just going to stain anything porous, like your concrete. You could even eat this version.

OK, you need a non-toxic recipe since it's going to be accessible to animals and such. Take 1 part water and mix it with 3 parts corn syrup in a non-porous bowl. Then start adding drops of red food coloring (don't get those crappy little 4-color packs from the grocery, go someplace that will sell you a good-size bottle of just red, Costco or Sam's Club maybe?). Add the coloring gradually, you can always add more but you can't remove any once you've overdone it. Add some chocolate syrup (again, a bit at a time) to give it more of a dark, opaque color, since real blood isn't going to maintain that bright red color out in the open. This will also help to thicken the blood to the right consistency, not too runny and not too thick. When the color looks right, let it sit for about fifteen minutes at room temperature (or a bit warmer). You can use a bit of corn starch or regular flour if your mix is too transparent or runny. Add small amounts and mix thoroughly. Blue food coloring can be added sparingly to darken the blood instead of chocolate syrup, but avoid going purple. Don't get any on your driveway, though, since it'll stain it. Same with clothing you want to keep, especially if it's white. Clear plastic tubing is great for simulating spatter; just suck some up from your bowl into the tube and then blow it out for realistic droplet patterns. Apply the blood to bones or rawhide with a stick or a Q-tip, don't just dribble or blow it on, that's not realistic. Remember, less is more when it comes to the bones. If you want them to look chewed on, then too much blood on them will look fake. Most of the blood should be around the area, with a nice big pool directly underneath.

I don't feel taxes on income, the ones we're discussing in this thread, are coercive at all. They could perhaps be more productively and effectively spent, but in general the concept of income tax is a societal requirement for any country that wishes to prosper as a whole, imo. That they are mandatory doesn't make them coercive; it simply means they are a societal necessity. If we gained no roads or libraries or schools or other public works from these taxes, I could see your point, but we do. I don't see the connection. Again, I can agree that giving churches an exemption on income taxes helps keep a separation between them and the State, but I don't see how taxing them would ever inhibit the exercise of those religions. Indeed, it might actually help them by giving them eligibility for government assistance or justifiable contracts and grants from the government. Paying their fair share for the roads their parishioners use to get to church would hardly harm their beliefs, and a church should be able to participate in normal free market transactions if they give up their tax exemptions. What I object to most is that churches are now getting both tax exemptions AND the ability to gain taxpayer funding through grants and contracts. This is not separating church and state, this is having your cake and eating it too.