Piccolo

Competitveness whats the positive side of it? Whats the negative side? In my personal expirience being competitive makes me try harder to win than the average person. But this could be misunderstood by people.

Still not as AWSOME AS MIKE AWSOME!

Come on people lets talk about some Aliens up in this !@# thats why I posted this thread lol.

Well I dont know the rules behind that

Well but why do they shoot at us? Because if it just for fun then its a litte hard to blieve.

Ok then why doesent the US attack? I mean it is clearly a reason to attack back right, unless their is a reason why they do this.

For anyone who might ask what is the purpose ofthis or that meaning dseases, they are simply mutations, in other words something went wrong.

Who do you defy as Iraq lets be serious. I defy Iraq when it comes to war as the Gov of Iraq like the soldiers and the Dictator, not the people. And if their people are attacking at our aircrafts then we need to make it known to teir Gov. But you see its a Catch-22 if teir people are doing it. For all we know Saddam probbably supports it but denies it to the US, and probbably says he cant control them. If we see proof of him doing something about it and not working then we go and help( if we want) If we dont see proof of him doing anythin about it then we threaten him as simple as that.

Well if the IRaqi military attacks US citizens on their soil or our soil thats attacking that we must retaliate. If a Iraqi citizen not soldier attacks an American thats different cause they are no the GOV. When the US Soldiers that were drunk killed the innocent people in Korea I think it was i accidental but something that needed an apology. I dont know if I made sense what I mean is if a country stands by their attack then the other country has the option to figt back. If it was the Iraqi military that attacked the US aircraft the yes we should do something. Their is nothing wrong with fighting back harder but to start something in my book is wrong.

No when he attacks us we attack back lol Well we go to war I guess that makes us tough guys lol lets see how tough you look fearing for your life against terrorist attacks. And I never said to not go to war against terrorists when Saddam shows us he is part of that then we should kill him. But lets not go around getting mad at the world cause they wont get involved with our problems.

Clearing things up. Nobody said or insinuated making deals with Al-Quaeda. They are the terrorists they attacked the US that day not Saddam and I was talking about the war we are entering with Saddam. And like I said before even if Saddam is with the terrorists tough cookies we need proof.

Ok then what is your arguement because you wrote above I hope we dont go to war but the way you write seems like you do. and I will say this it doesent take a rocket scientist to to at least think of the possibility that saddam is working with the terrorists. But I think at the point we are in the sooner we attack them the sooner we get attacked simple. So I would go by doing things undercover(bay of pigs style lol but better). And iLL be dammed if I wanna live my life like an Israeli( watching out for suicide bombers) so no I dont wan war in other words Bush should shake hands(not saying he should like it) with Saddam because we dont need Jihad in US soil. no this doesent mean I will pay your neighbor Mastermold lol

Ok I just have to answer this one. So you say if Diplomacy was in office during SEP 11 they would see people die lol what the hell do think bush is about to do. And what if Bush was around during the Bosnia thing Im sure he would have handled it the right way lol right after snorting a line of some bolivian marching powder.

Does anyone know what gass the russians used against the rebels in the recent hostage situation in a opera? Im curious. I didnt want to post a thread just for this question.

Yes but then was then. Back in the good all days when war was war I mean when it was over it was over. terrorism is not the same. I think I have already explained myself. and terrorism mixed with religion doesent help anymore.

He enden his term with the biggest surplus that bush later took to shit by giving it to the rich just spreading it out to the big companies. And may I say the economy went to shit as well.

Two things in ww2 we didnt fight a religious war second we didnt fight terrosism. its a whole nother ball game.

Well lets be realistic here Bill was one of the best Presidents this country ever had and smartest. Bush on the other hand is the opposite and more.

As far as I know the worst type of war there is is a religious type like in Israel because they dont stop until one or the other dosent exist. And if the Us goes to war with Iraq its been said it will be a Jihad it doesent matter if it aint in the Us point of view but it will be in The muslims point of view. And terrorist attacks could threaten America like they threaten Israel after war.

When I saw the show Personally it looked serious but everybody knows the third party never wins. And I dont think jerry would be a democrat or republican.

I was watching cross fire the show on cnn today and to my surprise Jerry springer was on, he talked about wanting to run for president. I would like to know peoples opinion on this issue personally how bad could it be.

True its good to maintain a healthy mind it helps. But some people cant do that because they have a chemical imbalance.

Seriously I dont know what the hell happened but this article was supposed to be on the news column.

I dont think the Aliens care what Country we are from we all have the same organs to them. We are to Aliens as cattle is to us.

Press Release Contact: Teresa S. Thomas, Carnegie Mellon (412) 268-3580 For immediate release: August 13, 2001 The Medium and the Message: Eyes and Ears Understand Differently Carnegie Mellon Scientists Report in the Journal Human Brain Mapping PITTSBURGH–A new study by Carnegie Mellon University scientists shows that because of the way the brain works, we understand spoken and written language differently, something that has potential implications in the workplace and in education, among many other areas. In the first imaging study that directly compares reading and listening activity in the human brain, Carnegie Mellon scientists discovered that the same information produces systematically different brain activation. And knowing what parts of the brain fire during reading or listening comprehension affects the answer to one of the classic questions about language comprehension: whether the means of delivery through eyes or ears makes a difference. "The brain constructs the message, and it does so differently for reading and listening. The pragmatic implication is that the medium is part of the message. Listening to an audio book leaves a different set of memories than reading does. A newscast heard on the radio is processed differently from the same words read in a newspaper," said Carnegie Mellon Psychology Professor Marcel Just, co_author of the report that appears in this month's issue of the journal Human Brain Mapping. Just said that the most recent methods of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) were applied to measure brain activity during these high_level conceptual processes. Rather than examining the processing of single digits or words, his group is applying brain imaging to societal, workplace, and instructional issues. "We can now see how cell_phone use can affect driving, how reading differs from listening, and how visual thinking is integrated with verbal thinking," Just said. Using the non_invasive fMRI, scientists were able to measure the amount of activity in each of 20,000 peppercorn_sized regions of the brain every three seconds and create visual maps of how the mental work of thinking was allocated throughout the brain from moment to moment. To the scientists' surprise, there were two big differences in the brain activity patterns while participants were reading or listening to identical sentences, even at the conceptual level of understanding the meaning of a sentence. First, during reading, the right hemisphere was not as active as anticipated, which opens the possibility that there were qualitative differences in the nature of the comprehension we experience in reading versus listening. Second, while listening was taking place, there was more activation in the left_hemisphere brain region called the pars triangularis (the triangular section), a part of Broca's area that usually activates when there is language processing to be done or there is a requirement to maintain some verbal information in an active state (sometimes called verbal working memory). The greater amount of activation in Broca's area suggests that there is more semantic processing and working memory storage in listening comprehension than in reading. Because spoken language is so temporary, each sound hanging in the air for a fraction of a second, the brain is forced to immediately process or store the various parts of a spoken sentence in order to be able to mentally glue them back together in a conceptual frame that makes sense. "By contrast," Just said, "written language provides an "external memory" where information can be re_read if necessary. But to re_play spoken language, you need a mental play_back loop, (called the articulatory_phonological loop) conveniently provided in part by Broca's area." The study doesn't attempt to suggest that one means of delivering information is better than another, Just said. "Is comprehension better in listening or in reading? It depends on the person, the content of the text, and the purpose of the comprehension. In terms of persons, some people are more skilled at one form of comprehension and typically exercise a preference for their more skilled form where possible. It may be that because of their experience and biology they are better and more comfortable in listening or reading," he explained. Just carries out his research on the human brain through the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon (http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu). The language comprehension project is funded by the National Institutes of Health.