rf_ucsd

I always wondered if noogies leads to balding. Somebody: start a research study.

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant: "I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... " I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you. You said that you couldn't believe what I posted & made it sound that you thought I was ignorant (before) and then on the other post you said "No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point" I was in disbelief about your manner, not your knowledge level. You misinterpreted that despite the fact that I said I was not concerned with the pro- or con-war stance vis a vis that particular comment of mine. I really don't see where you're getting this. Oh now you say "manner"? After saying you were commenting on how I chose to show my ignorance or knowledge and you still say " I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge" You weren't making a comment of my ignorance or knowledge, but you do comment on how I chose to show it.... This is incorrect bordering on lying. Here is the original post quoted. I don't use the word ignorant. i don't use the word ignorance. I don't use the word knowledge: "I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch(sic) you went about arguing your point(?) ... " Where are you getting this stuff? Are you reacting like this because of an inner fear of being perceived as ignorant? Is a defensiveness for writing up a strong feelng that you don't feel comfortable defending or don't feel you should have to defend? Or perhaps you know that my comment didn't address ignorance or knowledge, but you've gotten yourself this deep into the discussion and now don't feel comfortable backing out?

Yes, but you live in the country of one of the co-stars!

chills, they're multiplying. And I'm losing control.

"the only difference here is our countries blemish will be gone this time next year. " Maybe.

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant: "I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... " I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you. You said that you couldn't believe what I posted & made it sound that you thought I was ignorant (before) and then on the other post you said "No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point" I was in disbelief about your manner, not your knowledge level. You misinterpreted that despite the fact that I said I was not concerned with the pro- or con-war stance vis a vis that particular comment of mine. I really don't see where you're getting this.

Awesome avatar :)

I'm listening to Gang Starr's The Ownerz, and it is very, very good.

15 ... well on your way to a strong porn career.

"Lifestyle" was nothing but a huge meat market anyway :)

not slept since Monday.

I can't believe you just said this :o But from what I read this is gonna be a never ending story and I am very upset right now, so I'll just let at that...and yes you were calling me ignorant I'm going to quote my original response, add caps and bolding to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT calling you ignorant: "I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but JUST THE MANNER IN WHCH (sic) YOU WANT ABOUT ARGUING YOUR POINT(?) ... " I never called you naive or said you didn't know what you were talking about. I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with it. I can't respect you miscontruing my comments to be a label of ignorance for you.

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ... Wow.[/img] What? You think I'm ignorant? :rolleyes: And if you don't get the point; I feel sorry for you. Just knowing the fact that you are older than me and for you to still don't get what I'm trying to say here it's kinda sad, don't you think? No, I wasn't making a comment as to your ignorance or knowledge. I was commenting on the manner by which you chose to show your ignorance or knowledge. Evoking a sexual metaphor is probably not the most endearing way to go about arguing your point.

Why was I against going to war in Iraq? Why would anybody support one country going against the almost unanimous decision of the international community and acting unilaterally in support of its isolated beliefs? The U.S. did this because it felt it was in the right, but being part of an international community carries with it a responsibility to adhere to a group's decision. But let's be real: The United States has never felt itself part of a community, going all the way back to the League of Nations. The Bush Administration has pulled us out of Kyoto, out of the ABM, and taken us to war in Iraq, thus undermining the UN. It's clear the United States doesn't consider itself part of any community, and if I were an EU member nation I would be reluctant to trust the United States in any endevour, be it military (see Iraq), trade (see steel tariffs), treaties (see ABM), or the environment (see Kyoto). Going to Iraq wasn't about 9-1-1. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this and as of a few months ago President Bush admitted there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the towers. Because the U.S. has not been able to demonstrate an eminent treat, the decision to go to Iraq only looks good from a humanitarian perspective, justification enough to go to war were it the reason the troops were sent there. LiquidSky's evokation of 9-11 as a justification for what the U.S. has done fails to acknowledge that terrorism happens all around the world: Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc. The United States is the only nation who has used this as a reason to undermine international authorities. If you argue that the U.S. can do this because of the scope of the attack (3,000 people) or the fact that it was a civilian target, I have two counterpoints: Hiroshima. Nagasaki. So do I find it ironic that the whole world loved us after 9-11 and now are in conflict with us? Only in the same way that I find reason ironic.

I can't believe you posted this. This is not what I would have expected from you. It's not that I would have expected you to be pro- or con-war, but just the manner in whch you went about arguing your point(?) ... Wow.[/img]

It was really, really good. I went in expecting the best movie I'd ever seen, and while it didn't live up to that lofty standard it was still worth an all-nighter. The end DOES drag, but it can be forgiven and I can't wait to see it a couple more times in the theatre ... ... and I can't wait for the Special Edition DVD so I can play all three movies with additional footage back-to-back-to-back. Well worth the eight pounds (or however much a movie costs in Surrey, I was totally guessing).

I just saw it! It's 4am my time and I just got out of the theatre! Yay Richard! :)

so he and his ass are both "homophob," but separately? like, they're not part of one big "homophob," but they're two, distinct "homophob?" Homophob are weird.

O-Town got dropped from their label earlier this year. And I too, like and see a place int he market for Beyonce and Justin. I don't like 50 Cent, but I also see a place out there for him. I don't see why they should go away. OK, some of my opinions: Madonna. Madonna should go away and let me remember her really good contributions: Borderline, et al. Britney should probably go away. She's transcended music ... and unfortunately, appears to have forgotten about it. Fred Durst. Do I need to explain why I feel Fred should go away. The Osbournes. It was funny ... at first. Metallica. Waged war on fans. Album was OK but tredding on their past. Celine Dion. I'm not against adult contemporary, but she seems to take herself a little toos eriously and her former mainstream appeal has her lingering a bit long.

I thought pretty weird that his story didn´t have an ending... I was hoping that laura linney and him could stay together.... But it´s such a lovely movie... That was the major problem with the movie. They were just trying to juggle too many story lines. It's as if they decided some of them (like the two body doubles meeting on the movie set) weren't interesting enough to make the movie, yet they didn't want to hurt the actors' feelings by cutting them entirely. That is a major problem. But it is more than offset by the fact that it's a really charming movie that, as lng as you don't overanalyze it, should make ya' feel real good.

They're a Lew Pearlman band ... the same "genius" that helped bring us N'SYNC, Backstreet, LFO, O-Town, et al.

Even if there is a link, there's no way at this point of knowing if it's true or not ... not at this point.

fine! :)

Correct :) Well Richard. Please drink a better more superior beer to Coors Light :) Can't afford it :(