Callipygous

you do realize creationism is not some horrible plague on the planet, right? you realize its impossible to find any evidence AGAINST creationism, right? the scientific community can be so stupid sometimes... were all supposed to be focussed on factual information, things that can be backed up, if not proven... you CANT prove creationism is wrong. i know they go on annoying crusades a lot too, but do we really need to keep trying to change other peoples beliefs?

and yet we would still KNOW that it is not the same glass of water. if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound? YES!!!!! for the love of christ YES. there is no discussion about this. human perception does not alter the facts of the universe...

fine... i really dont care all that much. the point is i think the definition of TERRORism should include something about tactics specifically designed to incite fear as opposed to achieving some military goal.

sigh.... god bless symantics. will changing that to "act of violence" remove such problems?

nothing was done about those because a monkey with a keyboard would be able to tell that they were generalized statements, not direct assualts on you.

http://www.diamond-guide.com/Color_Stone_Guide/Rubies/ruby_synthetic.html apparently its not terribly simple. they mention a couple tests proffesionals can do, they also say that if your experienced you can just tell the difference by color, size, the cut, or a bunch of other things that just dont fit. they also mention some things like under magnification glass fakes often have bubbles where as rubies dont, and apparently the sides can have grooves like a record if its fake. i didnt finish it, they may have easier methods : P

what do the last nine posts have to do with avatars or SNs?

a whole pineapple huh? YOU'RE SHORT AND WRINKLY AND GREEN. your making me feel bad... your taller than me but your short? now i feel like a midget : ( meh. at least im skin colored and smoothe.

id go with honest, but who knows. it could be that they are a tube for pumping blood. sorry i dont normally point out spelling, but i liked that one. (vain)

depends on what it is... im not saying i could tell what a persons name and avatar mean about them, just that it does mean something. youd have to ask them. for example, AP's avatar probably means shes a big starwars fan... just guessing.

its against the law to murder someone. we cant stop people from murdering other people. by your definition that would make it a bad law, since we cant enforce it. those are police who deserve to be shot, yet again. bad apples. if you can hold someones eyelids open they are already under control... morons... when police gather in a line its to deal with a disruptive crowd, such circumstances often turn violent toward the cops. i have no problem with them doing whatever they need to to ensure the safety of their team when dealing with stuff like that. dissenting against popular opinion is fine. blocking roads because your stupid hippy ass doesnt understand that the things our govt. does are done to support the way of life you cherish so much, and that not everything can be settled by sitting down and talking, is not. (RANT, sorry im fine with expressing your opinion but when you start to muck with other peoples daily lives to get YOUR OPINIONS out i have a big problem with that) yet again, im sure there are plenty of times when police have used violence when it wasnt necessary. however, the majority of cops are not clubbing people over the head for non-violent demonstration.

hahaha. yes. i am the reincarnation of jesus christ. its a combo. partially because i really like dogma, and specifically their buddy christ, partially because if i were going to believe in any version of Jesus it would be much closer to the version represented in Dogma and my favorite book "lamb: the gospel according to biff" than anything the church or bible puts forth.

yes. of course. everything you do says something about you. this is a step above that. your username and avatar are the things you have chosen to represent you to group of people. how could that not say something about you?

i know what your trying to say, but your wrong. the reason people under 21 arent allowed to drink in the US is because your decision making skills are still developing. you know, the skills you use when deciding whether your sober enough to drive or if its worth the risk... anyone who wants to kill someone can head down to wallmart and buy a 22 and then shoot someone before anyone has a chance to react. does that mean thats a bad law too? anyone who doesnt accept police authority should live in the 13th century. no, it just means that since you live in this country you have to either follow that decision until it changes or accept the consequences for not doing so. while were talking about prejudice.... yet again, your personal experiences do not mean that the system is bad. there are bad cops out there, plenty of them im sure. there are also bad priests. there are bad mothers and bad teachers. as youve been arguing this whole time, a few bad apples are not something you should judge an entire group on. putting up a curfew isnt judging the entire group, its going with the lesser of two evils. i understand this may be more of a matter of principle, but is it really that big of a deal to have to be off the streets by 9pm when your 15?

again, thats just bad science. see my last post.

thats just bad science. being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crime, living in a slum does. if you want to put up a curfew for that group of people put a curfew on the slum, not blacks. teenagers have that higher tendancy because they are teenagers, so the group you put the curfew on is teenagers. i would argue that the main purpose of curfew laws is to prevent vandalism, not violence. you have arrests, court, and jail to fight violence. that is appropriate to the level of the crime; you hurt someone, you go to jail. curfew laws are there to fight vandalism. its a lesser crime, they are trying to find a more appropriate way of fighting it. teenagers are more likely to commit vandalism so they put a curfew on teenagers.

i dont like that definition of terrorism much... i would define terrorism as any act of war that is designed to incite fear as opposed to achieving a military goal. bombing the subway isnt going to help this group take over england. it was just meant to incite fear in the people and send a message. i say its terrorism.

no, it isnt. i think there may be some confusion on what i meant in my last post. a teenager has actual, biological causes for being more likely to commit vandalism. being black does not cause a person to want to rape or murder someone more than if they were white. thats just a coincidence based on, as you mentioned, social and economic circumstances. more minorities live in slums than non-minorities (yeah, i know, WHITES). if a black person is raised in a neighborhood that doesnt have those circumstances that probability doesnt apply to him. if a white person lives in those circumstances he has that higher likelyhood for crime too. the only way to make that probability not apply to a teenager is to have him not be a teenager.

cheapest would be to get a hotmail or yahoo account and mail everything to yourself. easiest would be the flashdrive capn refsmmat mentioned.

thats because being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crimes. being a teenager does. during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street. that is a tad strange... maybe because sending a 20-25 year old home doenst put them under control where as bringing a teenager home is putting them back under the judgement of their parents? i dont know : P

not sure if that was intentional, but your quoting two different people there. your parents are legally responsible for you and your actions. if you break something they are the ones who end up paying for it. they are the ones who bail you out of jail, they are the ones who pay the fine, they are the ones who have to deal with all that crap for something they didnt even do.

when writing a research paper you have to cite any facts that ARENT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. it is definately common knowledge that teenage years usually involve rebellious stages often with minor acts of vandalism. it doesnt have to be "most people under 18." just a higher frequency with people in that age range than in others i read your edit. just because you got shafted by having crappy parents doesnt mean the system is bad. you were unlucky. that doesnt mean laws that apply to underage people arent a good idea. it just means you were adversely affected by it. you got the short end of the stick, that happens to someone with pretty much every law. double jeopardy prevents rapists and murderers who were found not guilty from being tried again even if we find more evidence. but the law keeps people from having their lives unfairly disturbed by spending months in court when they have already been proven innocent.

prejudice requires it to be unreasonable or without consideration of the facts. this is the opposite. the fact is many teenagers wreak havok. all of your examples are different situations because race does not determine things like that. age very often does. people go through rebellious stages in life, mainly during their teenage years. its not unreasonable or prejudiced to think that a group of people with a higher crime rate might be more likely to commit crimes.