I'd suggest scania get a hobby, but I think suggesting improvements is his hobby 
Yeah I know, that was a bit naive of me wasn't it? 
I think the devs should post be a sticky thread on the front page about third-party content. I know, noone would actually read it, but at least people could then just post a link to it instead of repeating the standard "devs aren't interested" response ad infinitum ... it must get tiring
First you post about a cheater, then you ask for his cheating tool? Nice
Doesn't anyone just race anymore?
Both barrels Kev, don't be shy.
Your avatar's breasts scare me - they bounce any higher she'll give herself concussion 
Multi-marriages aren't intrinsically wrong imho, as long as everyone's a consenting adult - not my problem if a handful of halfwits want to dilute the gene pool or spend the rest of their lives wondering "does he/she love me more than the others?". What's wrong is when certain groups get special treatment and exemptions from the law for religious reasons. Everyone in a nation should follow the same laws and be penalised in the same way for breaking them.
So, either no polygyny for anybody for any reason, or: everyone gets to do it, regardless of religious beliefs, and every wife has to be of legal age, entering into it by choice. These Fundy Mormons in the states with their 15-year old wives make me sick.
Obviously, going by your avatar
So, either no polygyny for anybody for any reason, or: everyone gets to do it, regardless of religious beliefs, and every wife has to be of legal age, entering into it by choice. These Fundy Mormons in the states with their 15-year old wives make me sick.
Obviously, going by your avatar
Whores FTMFW.
I blame work - there's not enough to keep me from slacking off and my boss is as slack as I am.
I blame work - there's not enough to keep me from slacking off and my boss is as slack as I am.
Bah, Veyron. It was never meant as a race car, or even a serious road car.
It's a gigantic, expensive wank.
It's the 21st century - of course a 400+ kmh car is possible. Of course you can go really effing fast with a quad-turbo W16. After all, twin-turbo V8s go like a shower of shit - why not multiply that by two? The 400 km/h barrier wasn't a problem that needed to be solved, it was a point that someone wanted to prove. Where in the world has enough room for you to actually go 400 km/h? An enormous test track with only the barest hint of a corner. Anywhere else, the Veyron is a colossal, gimmicky, really bloody expensive DICK to wave around that doesn't even handle all that well. There are probably hundreds of sports cars one-tenth the price that can beat it around your average circuit. Hell, I'd race it around Mallala in my friend's tweaked S15 - if he hadn't already backed it into an embankment on a club cruise. Damned fool. I told him not to hang around with those ricer bogans.
It's not that I don't like pointless exercises done for the sheer hell of it, but the Veyron isn't a race car, was never intended to be one and doesn't belong in a race sim. Most of them will end up in private collections or auto museums and spend eternity being looked at. The Veyron is a museum piece. A million-pound paper-weight.
It's a gigantic, expensive wank.
It's the 21st century - of course a 400+ kmh car is possible. Of course you can go really effing fast with a quad-turbo W16. After all, twin-turbo V8s go like a shower of shit - why not multiply that by two? The 400 km/h barrier wasn't a problem that needed to be solved, it was a point that someone wanted to prove. Where in the world has enough room for you to actually go 400 km/h? An enormous test track with only the barest hint of a corner. Anywhere else, the Veyron is a colossal, gimmicky, really bloody expensive DICK to wave around that doesn't even handle all that well. There are probably hundreds of sports cars one-tenth the price that can beat it around your average circuit. Hell, I'd race it around Mallala in my friend's tweaked S15 - if he hadn't already backed it into an embankment on a club cruise. Damned fool. I told him not to hang around with those ricer bogans.
It's not that I don't like pointless exercises done for the sheer hell of it, but the Veyron isn't a race car, was never intended to be one and doesn't belong in a race sim. Most of them will end up in private collections or auto museums and spend eternity being looked at. The Veyron is a museum piece. A million-pound paper-weight.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Probably a good idea, that way people will concentrate on the content of someone's post and not get upset by a sig. I've not seen a great deal of potentially offensive sigs myself, but that's not to say they're not out there.
I think that's a commandment everyone can agree on:
1. Thou shalt not be an arse.
2. Um, that's it. Carry on.
1. Thou shalt not be an arse.
2. Um, that's it. Carry on.
They might be pistachios. Mmm...
In any event, the words of the bible, whether spoken by god, Jesus or men, are meant to be the truth. The question still stands: why leave bits of the truth out? And why do the bits of truth that are left so frequently contradict each other?
For the peanut gallery:
It was similar for me Sam. I wasn't raised as a Christian (I'm still not 100% as to my parents' beliefs actually - I think my retired biology teacher Dad is probably as hellbound as me, though perhaps ma's something of a deist, which is practically the same) but I was exposed to it a lot at school, youth group, sunday school (until ma removed my brothers and I because they were teaching the awful Hell doctrine to little kids) etc. I really wanted to be a good Christian. I believed (or wanted to believe - or believed I believed
) the gospels and prayed and honestly thought I was doing the right thing. That is, until I started thinking about it objectively, which was the complete undoing of my Christianity. I didn't leave religion by conscious choice, the same way a person leaves home or breaks up with someone - I just couldn't argue with myself and my observations of the world anymore. I discovered that arguing with me is a frustrating exercise and I gave in to reason David33, I get intensely frustrated when creationists cast evolution in such a simplistic and naive way. "We came from monkeys" is like saying "gravity sucks stuff together" sums up Newton's theory of gravity. I just wish creationists would attempt to understand what evolution actually says before attempting to cut it down, instead of parroting the same old strawman arguments trotted out by the hacks from creationist think-tanks like Answers In Genesis, the Discovery Institute, Uncommon Descent or whatever other anti-science propaganda they're getting them from.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
It has been mentioned many times before and, from what I saw, everyone pretty much agreed with it all those other times too. More cars with more cylinders ... I doubt you'd get any objections around here
Really? I thought that was the whole point - it was when I was a follower. Even stranger, then, that people place so much stock in the words of mere humans 
I think the very fact that the New Testament was assembled from existing gospels to begin with - with many of them left out - speaks volumes. Surely the inerrant, absolutely true word of god wouldn't need any editing. Any decision made to leave any gospels out was necessarily made by humans, for human reasons. From a Christian viewpoint, who is any human to be omitting some words of god's truth and including others, much less a Roman emperor looking primarily to consolidate his power and unite his split empire?
Or am I just being cynical & suspicious as always? If I am, what's wrong with that? What really is wrong with asking tough questions about this stuff? The way I see it, if you're going to base your life (and after-life) on anything, be it a sacred text or a funny feeling in your stomach or the conviction that everything does have, will have or at least could have a reasonable explanation (and that maybe you won't live to see it - but you should be okay with that), you should try and find out all you can about it, and satisfy your personal standards of evidence.
Or am I just being cynical & suspicious as always? If I am, what's wrong with that? What really is wrong with asking tough questions about this stuff? The way I see it, if you're going to base your life (and after-life) on anything, be it a sacred text or a funny feeling in your stomach or the conviction that everything does have, will have or at least could have a reasonable explanation (and that maybe you won't live to see it - but you should be okay with that), you should try and find out all you can about it, and satisfy your personal standards of evidence.
Watch less TV! Or just mute when the ads come on, it makes it easier to ignore them
There aren't that many ads which don't insult the viewer's intelligence in some way - in fact, annoying and retarded as car ads often are, I find ads for razors, tampons and toothbrushes a lot more retarded and annoying.
There aren't that many ads which don't insult the viewer's intelligence in some way - in fact, annoying and retarded as car ads often are, I find ads for razors, tampons and toothbrushes a lot more retarded and annoying.
I love you too man. With buckets of hetero man-love!
But love don't pay for international postage. You're a looong way from Melbourne
But love don't pay for international postage. You're a looong way from Melbourne
Sheesh, that's some mighty fine pasting.
OK, I'll send you a download link when the album's ready, a la Radiohead - but no CD unless you cough up some crispy Canadian dollars
OK, I'll send you a download link when the album's ready, a la Radiohead - but no CD unless you cough up some crispy Canadian dollars
You should've known I couldn't keep out of this one Jeff It started when I was asleep so I missed the first few pages
It started when I was asleep so I missed the first few pages I don't and I dislike when other people do. In my experience, the flip side is true: the pitying, condescending "you don't like God because you don't understand the bible properly" attitude is prevalent, even in my relatively secular, fundie-free country.
Wrong. You simply say/assume/wish these attributes can't be explained. You don't know they can't be and you can't know they won't be. Neither do I, but I'm not placing any stock in theories that can't even come close to reality - which is my entire point.
I.e. we can make them up or choose explanations that make us feel good, or smart, or smarter than other people.
As I've already stated, the absence of a natural explanation doesn't automatically mean one isn't possible. The absence of an equation/theory/concrete reason for something doesn't imply leprechauns, gods or intelligent designers did it.
There used to be a lot of things science couldn't explain, such as why we look like our parents, why the sky is blue, what the stars are made of and where they are, what exactly is sound, light, wind. Based on humanity's long, long history of assuming gods were responsible for everything that didn't yet have an explanation but later being proven conslusively wrong, I'm happy to hold out.
I'm not trying to deconvert anyone (that would be very hypocritical of me), I just want everyone to think a little bit harder about why they believe what they do, find some things out themselves and not simply assume the things they've been told are the hard truth.
That, friends, Romans, countrymen, is the very soul of science & the very reason people use it every single day to confirm or disprove theories, hypotheses and any idle thoughts on any subject. Science is not, as some seem to believe, a philosophy or dogma or some tenet to live by: it is a TOOL to be used for discovery & explanation. Science is as much a tool as a wrench, computer, pen, chainsaw or your own brain. Science is dispassionate - it's about finding what's true, about observing the world and explaining the observations. It's not about proving scientists right - history has shown that any scientists fudging their numbers or publishing bogus research quickly get shown up as frauds. Science is dispassionately about truth and is self-regulating as far as weeding out liars and cheats goes. There's no such thing as a good liar in science, the results will always give them up. This is the principle reason why "Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Design" proponents always get shown up as having nothing to contribute to scientific discussion and are viewed as hacks and wishful-thinkers by the scientific community: it's because they literally have nothing relevant to say on the subjects they're entering into, not because of their religious views.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
1. The world is a lot older than 6000 years. Bit over 4 billion years at last count. Do some research and you'll learn how people find stuff like that out.
2. Tell me why Darwin's idea was wrong. And tell me what he got right.
3. The Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution is NOT an all-encompassing theory of the entire universe. It only explains the diversity of life. Stop confusing the two.
4. I didn't know that
5. As long as you're a decent, honest person it doesn't matter which set of words you follow
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG