plug drugs war

[Lisa Claus]

My ass. I've been trying to have this short and sad fight for days, every time I try you cower away. In fact you usually disappear a few minutes after I log in, which in all fairness has been very nice of you, thanks, I just wish you would leave more often, ya know?

you've been whinging for his attention for months

[Genital Doli]

j00 kkkant bant der flaggerkchat

[Lisa Claus]

NOW he's getting it

this is what mod powers are for

next edit fucktard troll topics to *SHART*

that's what I used to do

but it is better if the troll is a female who tells everyone she is a pure angel and ends up just sharting all over the forum

[maks]

He's got nothing and I already explained why he might as well just leave it's not like I didn't give him a chance

[Genital Doli]

plug drugs got an internet girl to XD, thats rght folks, he got an internet girl to XD and now if he keeps this shit up he might just get a :P or a 8) out of tihs bitch

[Autistic Spectrum]

he has an interent job and an interent girlfriend suck on that faggots

[maks]

plug drugs lets make a deal, how about if you leave, and you never come back? That's fair right?

[maks]

gonna slam a few more beers and get real hammered

oh really you're going to get intoxicated on one substance or another gee I wouldn't have expected that thanks for always reminding us every single time though that's how we know how cool you are

[Autistic Spectrum]

start deleting these mother fuckers, theres this thing down at the bottom under mod tools it's a drop down box, it's called the SPAM-O-MATIC, you just click a post you don't like and select the spam o matic thing, it's the most awesome thing to pwn, do it to everyone , you will be a legand

[Autistic Spectrum]

i so badly want plug drugs to get high and drunk as fuck and delete everything

[Autistic Spectrum]

what, who's comeing over,,, aunt gladas is over for easter, this is more imporatnat than your aunt

[Lisa Claus]

Plug Drugs has been independant since he was a kid.

He had to grow up fast and is more of a man than any of you.

[Autistic Spectrum]

the sun will come out tommorw plug drugs, bet your bottom dollor that tommorw, there'll be sun

[Lisa Claus]

:(

PD has gone to drink beer with irl people

why must he have a real life with real people?

I guess I'll go sit in the corner and wonder why the Easter Bunny didn't come for me.

[maks]

I knew I was going to win this thing but I never expected him to run away in the middle of it

because i have no life and the biggest thrill i get is arguing with people on the internet, and start masturbating furiously when whoever i'm arguing with leaves to go do something else

[Genital Doli]

He ran awy because hes a cool dude with a cool life, he has a life for sure most definitely, tahts why he fell in lveo with a 69 year old australian woman on the intenret who just aborted her fetus after she said nice things to him on aim

[maks]

He ran awy because hes a cool dude with a cool life, he has a life for sure most definitely, tahts why he fell in lveo with a 69 year old australian woman on the intenret who just aborted her fetus after she said nice things to him on aim

me and my roommate's cousin scrounged for change around the shitty dilapidated duplex we live in, announcing "i found a nickel!" or "i just found a mother fucking quarter!!" to each other between rooms

my biggest find was a 1 dollar canadian coin (which, to my disappointment, the local smoke shop wouldn't accept) and my friend's biggest find was two 2 dollar bills which he had been saving in his drawer for years -- this lead to me having to convince my friend that 2 dollar bills arent actually rare or worth anything, and having to google this fact to prove it to him..
he also had a 1 dollar bill from 1957, but those are actually worth something (5 dollars on ebay)

so we now had our bum-assets accounted for; me with a pocketful of pennies and some canadian change, and my friend with his "rare" 2 dollar bills

we had to drive across the bridge to minnesota, where cigarettes are a good 3 dollars cheaper.. my friend's car had a flat tire, and his driver's side door is broken so we both had to get in and out of the same door..

an hour and a half later, we had managed to get the pack of cigarettes we had worked so hard for.. shortly after we each lit one up while driving back over the bridge to wisconsin, we both looked at each other and said "meh, cigarettes really aren't even that good"

[Lisa Claus]

My young internet man has a lovely cock

It appears that the systematic use of complex symbols may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort appears to correlate rather closely with an abstract underlying order. Note that any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. From C1, it follows that the notion of level of grammaticalness is not quite equivalent to the strong generative capacity of the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

[maks]

It appears that the systematic use of complex symbols may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort appears to correlate rather closely with an abstract underlying order. Note that any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. From C1, it follows that the notion of level of grammaticalness is not quite equivalent to the strong generative capacity of the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

The partial derivative generalizes the notion of the derivative to higher dimensions. A partial derivative of a multivariable function is a derivative with respect to one variable with all other variables held constant.

Partial derivatives may be combined in interesting ways to create more complicated expressions of the derivative. In vector calculus, the del operator () is used to define the concepts of gradient, divergence, and curl in terms of partial derivatives. A matrix of partial derivatives, the Jacobian matrix, may be used to represent the derivative of a function between two spaces of arbitrary dimension. The derivative can thus be understood as a linear transformation which directly varies from point to point in the domain of the function.

Differential equations containing partial derivatives are called partial differential equations or PDEs. These equations are generally more difficult to solve than ordinary differential equations, which contain derivatives with respect to only one variable.

The partial derivative generalizes the notion of the derivative to higher dimensions. A partial derivative of a multivariable function is a derivative with respect to one variable with all other variables held constant.

Partial derivatives may be combined in interesting ways to create more complicated expressions of the derivative. In vector calculus, the del operator () is used to define the concepts of gradient, divergence, and curl in terms of partial derivatives. A matrix of partial derivatives, the Jacobian matrix, may be used to represent the derivative of a function between two spaces of arbitrary dimension. The derivative can thus be understood as a linear transformation which directly varies from point to point in the domain of the function.

Differential equations containing partial derivatives are called partial differential equations or PDEs. These equations are generally more difficult to solve than ordinary differential equations, which contain derivatives with respect to only one variable.

A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to a descriptive fact. On our assumptions, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds does not readily tolerate the strong generative capacity of the theory. Conversely, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is, apparently, determined by nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the notion of level of grammaticalness is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. With this clarification, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.

[maks]

A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to a descriptive fact. On our assumptions, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds does not readily tolerate the strong generative capacity of the theory. Conversely, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is, apparently, determined by nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the notion of level of grammaticalness is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. With this clarification, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.

Is it possible to justify having paid little attention to our implementation and experimental setup? Unlikely. With these considerations in mind, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we measured ROM space as a function of NV-RAM speed on an Apple ][e; (2) we deployed 04 IBM PC Juniors across the 100-node network, and tested our wide-area networks accordingly; (3) we measured instant messenger and instant messenger performance on our sensor-net cluster; and (4) we ran 64 trials with a simulated RAID array workload, and compared results to our courseware deployment. We discarded the results of some earlier experiments, notably when we compared work factor on the NetBSD, Microsoft DOS and ErOS operating systems.

Now for the climactic analysis of all four experiments. Error bars have been elided, since most of our data points fell outside of 27 standard deviations from observed means. The curve in Figure 4 should look familiar; it is better known as G−1*(n) = n. Operator error alone cannot account for these results.

We have seen one type of behavior in Figures 3 and 5; our other experiments (shown in Figure 3) paint a different picture. The results come from only 9 trial runs, and were not reproducible. This follows from the study of DHTs. The key to Figure 3 is closing the feedback loop; Figure 4 shows how our framework's USB key throughput does not converge otherwise. Next, error bars have been elided, since most of our data points fell outside of 13 standard deviations from observed means.

Lastly, we discuss the second half of our experiments. Note the heavy tail on the CDF in Figure 5, exhibiting muted mean throughput. Along these same lines, these 10th-percentile block size observations contrast to those seen in earlier work [14], such as W. Sasaki's seminal treatise on spreadsheets and observed effective USB key space. The results come from only 4 trial runs, and were not reproducible.

Conversely, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is, apparently, determined by a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the earlier discussion of deviance is not subject to a parasitic gap construction. This suggests that the notion of level of grammaticalness is rather different from the traditional practice of grammarians. It appears that the systematic use of complex symbols may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the strong generative capacity of the theory. Analogously, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction appears to correlate rather closely with the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).

[Lisa Claus]

copy and paste retards

[sex with dead people]

Stop being so mean to plug drugs. He has it bad enough just by being friends with lisa. This is just too much.

To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. So far, an important property of these three types of EC is rather different from the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On the other hand, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is necessary to impose an interpretation on a descriptive fact. It may be, then, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is unspecified with respect to the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. Thus most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is, apparently, determined by an important distinction in language use.

From this, it follows that the descriptive power of the base component is not to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. However, this assumption is not correct, since a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort appears to correlate rather closely with a descriptive fact. Analogously, a descriptively adequate grammar does not readily tolerate the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. It appears that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious doubts about an important distinction in language use. Let us continue to suppose that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not affect the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.

[maks]

I am a Nontheist....
...and I am not alone. What is a nontheist you ask? A nontheist is someone who does not hold a belief in the traditional theistic God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, eternal, just, merciful, timeless... Usually, within the philosophical community, nontheist simply means agnostic, atheist or deist.

Within the philosophy of religion, the designation of nontheist has become much more popular. There are a number of well-known nontheistic philosophers who have been active during the twentith century--probably now more than ever in the history of philosophy. It goes without saying that there is much more non-belief in philosophical circles than in the general public. It would be impossible to list every nontheistic philosopher of the twentith century--which would probably be more than half of them--but there are a number of names which seem to stand out as being excellent nontheistic philosophers:

Tim Crane, David Papineau, David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Flew*, Wallace Matson, Anthony Kenny, Bertrand Russell, Jerry Fodor, Nicholas Everitt, Andrea M. Weisberger, Robert C. Solomon, Julian Baggini, Daniel Harbour, W. V. O. Quine, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Paul Edwards, Michael Martin, Robin LePoidevin, J. L. Mackie, John Searle, Thomas Nagel, Richard Rorty, J. J. C. Smart, Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, Theodore Schick Jr., J. C. A. Gaskin, David O'Connor, Keith Parsons, Jaegwon Kim, William Rowe, James Rachels, J. D. Trout, Donald Davidson, Paul M. Churchland, Peter Singer, Kai Neilsen, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernst Nagel, Colin McGinn, Michael Scriven, Owen Flanagen, Bruce Russell, John Perry, Paul Kurtz, Graham Oppy, J. L. Pollock, Gilbert Ryle, Robert Nozick, David M. Armstrong, A. J. Ayer, Jan Narveson, Andrew Melnyk, A. C. MacIntyre, Norwood R. Hanson, John Dewey, Patrick Nowell-Smith, Matt McCormick, Richard Gale, Paul Draper, Wilfred Sellars, Howard J. Sobel, Elliott Sober, David M. Rosenthal, Jeffery Polland, John Heil, Anthony O'Hear, H. J. McCloskey, Patricia Churchland, Corliss Lamont, Evan Fales, Ted Honderich, Kurt Baier, Michael Tooley, Ted A. Warfield, Martin Heidegger, Panayot Butchravor, Adolf Grunbaum, C. D. Broad, Ned Block, Philip Kitcher, Douglas Kruger, Terence Penelhum, Corey Washington, Paul K. Moser, Peter Angeles, Richard LaCroix, Walter Kaufman, Sidney Hook, Erich Fromm, Valerii A. Kuvakin, and J. L. Schellenberg.

The most important nontheistic philosopher, in my humble opinion, is still Hume. Many of these philosophers are profound and insighful--as many theistic philosophers are. However, there is no substitute for the "classical insights" of Hume's A Treatise On Human Nature and his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I have always been a big fan of Hume--even when I am in disagreement with him--because of his brilliance, and consistency. Hume's work has many contemporary implications, concerning not only religion but also science. For example, his critique of miracles has application in the paranormal debate.

I am a non-theist, and will probably always remain such. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne are insightful and brilliant. However, it still seems that the theistic enterprise lacks something. For all of the complixity of the theistic worldview, and the arguments to defend it, there are still significant assumptions it must make to get to its conclusion. The presumption of atheism is powerful, the problem of evil is still a problem, there are many problems with the theistic hypothesis--most notably in the evidence for theism, and the cohorence of theism--and lastly the naturalistic hypothesis is much simpler and seems to be well confirmed.

It appears that Nietzsche was correct: God does appear to be dead.

ayn rand

[maks]

rand paul

A reader of Politics Without God calls himself a "pro-life atheist," and has commented that "there are plenty of atheist pro-lifers who oppose abortion on the basis of science and reason." But such arguments against abortion are just as irrational as those of religious "pro-lifers."

The "pro-life" atheist position is irrational because it does not adhere to the law of identity and it misapplies the concept of rights.

By the Law of Identity, a Human Being and Embryo Are Not the Same Thing

The "pro-life" atheist assertion that "abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being" violates the law of identity, which Ayn Rand explains as: "To exist is to be something....it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."

What is a human being? A common secular dictionary definition defines human as: "of, belonging to, or typical of man (Homo sapiens)... [and] having or showing qualities, as rationality or fallibility, viewed as distinctive of people."

Ayn Rand defines a human being as a living biological being with the distinctive characteristic of a kind of "consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason... [A human] is a rational animal." Ayn Rand further explains that reason is a human's fundamental means of survival, it is how an individual forms values and it must be exercised by one's own volition. This is the essence of the human being, qua human (despite when things go wrong, like head injuries, birth defects, Alzheimer's disease).

To further elucidate the distinctiveness of the human being, it is through this uniquely human process of reason that knowledge about reality is not only sought, but communicated to others across time. We don't have to wake up in the morning, discover electricity, manufacture a coffee pot, and discover how to cultivate and harvest foods to make fresh hot coffee. In contrast, every generation of animal, such as a wolf or squirrel, repeats the same cycles of reproducing, obtaining food and fighting predators according to the natures of their species -- by the law of identity.

What is an embryo? In the same vein, an embryo is not a human being. While an embryo possesses DNA just like the plant Botrychium lunaria, the quality of having DNA is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to meet the identity of a human being. An embryo, beginning with one cell containing a complete set of human DNA then developing into a fetus, has its own characteristic identity, like every other entity in the universe.

The distinctive and essential characteristics of an embryo are that it is potential human life, it is physiologically attached to the human mother, and it undergoes embryological cell division and differentiation according to DNA "instructions." Its survival and growth are entirely passive and autonomic, and completely dependent upon the biological viability of the mother it is attached to. It has not yet entered the world as an autonomous, singular, separate entity.

An infant is a human being and so is a pregnant woman. But once it is born, even as a day-old infant, he is forced to interact with the world at large and begins the process of developing a capacity of reason that will enable him to survive -- as human qua human. The infant begins with perceptual-level reasoning--he wails and screams when perceiving hunger or a wet diaper. In contrast, an embryo functions entirely autonomically, passively receiving nutrients via the umbilical cord attached to the placenta. A pregnant woman, whose faculty of reason has developed beyond the infantile perceptual level, has learned that she can meet her need for pickles and ice cream by going to the store. A different woman with an unwanted pregnancy decides that having a baby is not in her best interest according to the values she holds by choice, by reason.

The atheist "pro-lifer" is dispensing with the law of identity which distinguishes a human being from an embryo when he says: "..it is ludicrous to then go on to say that 'it is the woman's choice' (to have an abortion). It is as ludicrous as saying that you believe slavery is wrong, but that people should still have the choice whether they buy a slave or not. Science tells us that abortion kills a human being."

This statement muddles two different entities. Science and the law of identity tell us that a slave and a pregnant woman are both human beings -- but an embryo is not; it is an entity called "a potential human being."

A Human Being Has Rights, an Embryo Does Not

Since I have established by the axiomatic law of identity that an embryo is not a human being, an embryo does not have the "inalienable right to life" written in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers, as some "pro-life" atheists claim. This becomes clear when you integrate the law of identity with a proper application of the concept of rights.

Ayn Rand succinctly clarifies what the right to life is:
"right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life...Individualism regards man--every man--as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.
Because of the law of identity, there is a distinct difference between a born human being and an embryo. They are as distinctively unique by identity as a brain cell (with its full complement of human DNA) is to a malaria-transmitting species of the Anopheles mosquito (also with a full complement of its DNA).

The inescapable truth is that human rights apply only to humans, qua humans, not to embryos---anymore than rights apply to Anopheles.

Simply put, "[an] embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

So there is no difference between religious and atheist (aka "scientific") positions against abortion. Both dismiss with the law of identity and erroneously claim that an embryo is a human being with a right to life.

One is Anti-Abortion Only By Accepting the Moral Code of Altruism

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."

Atheist anti-abortionists are just as altruistically-minded as religious anti-abortionists: both uphold the idea that a woman who does not want to keep a pregnancy must do so anyway, despite her right to exist for her own sake. In order for the atheist anti-abortionist to say an embryo has an "inalienable right to life," the human mother must surrender her rights for the duration of the pregnancy with complete disregard for her own life, values, and rational self-interest.

But in a free society, individual rights do not just come and go or float about. They are not temporary depending upon a medical condition. A woman doesn't suspend her right to life and self-determination when becoming pregnant! In a free society, she must not be compelled to surrender to an imposed morality of altruism and self-sacrifice against her will because of pregnancy. Even a born human in a vegetative state retains the right to life (even though he requires a proxy spokesperson to act in his or her behalf).

In a repressive anti-abortion society, a woman keeps her status as a human being with that society's cultural rules only as long as she is not pregnant; but loses that status like a sacrificial animal when she's pregnant. If you extend the illogical, then men should lose their rights every time they have sex, because that could possibly cause a pregnancy (even if birth control is used, because of course birth control sometimes fails).

The Anti-Abortion Position Cannot Resolve the Inherent Conflict of Altruism

Some anti-abortion legislation deigns to permit abortion "if the life of the mother is threatened." Well, just how far does that go? On the brink of death when CPR and resuscitation are required in the case of a complicated pregnancy? When the mother is bleeding out and needs multiple blood transfusions? When she's past the point of no return on full life-support?

The correct answer in a non-sacrificial society is: Abortion should be allowed when the woman decides as a volitional human what constitutes a threat to her life, her values, her existence as a rational being.

Never can the "interests" of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of a born human. Only by the morality of altruism and the use of force can a society allow an embryo to hijack a woman's uterus and compel her to sacrifice her life and values to ensure the completion of a pregnancy. Only under dictatorial laws where individual rights do not prevail (such as in theocratic countries like Saudi Arabia or communist societies like Soviet-era Romania, for example, is a woman a fleeting human being.

The Right to Abortion is Absolute Because the Law of Identity and Individual Rights are Absolute

At all times, from the point of birth, a woman retains the right to life and the right to her body. At all times, from the point of birth, the woman's right to life is enduring, and does not fluctuate according to her fertility status.

The choice to retain a pregnancy is foremost predicated upon a woman's consent to incubate potential life. And it is nobody's right -- atheist or religious -- to deny her this choice.

By the law of identity; by the morality of individualism as against altruism; by the science of reason and individual rights, the right to abortion must not be abrogated.