If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:

Channing Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remake

Twist ending. He is a reverse merman.

https://i.sli.mg/iA0laC.jpg

CommanderTuvok wrote:

InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:

Channing Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remake

Sounds like a typical Hollywood fad of producing movies on a theme.

K9, Turner and Hooch....
Big, Vice Versa....
Armageddon, Deep Impact

It will pass.

The idea is usually to follow a successful formula. There's a reason we didn't get a bunch of Heaven's Gate or Dune rip-offs.

jimhabegger wrote:

Hunt wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:I have a question about Carrier, just out of curiosity. I suspect that Carrier has never raised any of the questions and objections about men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, but I don't know enough about his history, to say that with confidence. I'd like to know if he can point to any examples, himself, of when he has raised *any* of these questions and objections, when other men were being denounced by Myers' faction. I might ask him myself, if I can find some way to do that and get a response. Is there anyone who can ask him directly, and possibly get an answer? I'm curious to know what he might say to that.

Carrier's case is very similar to the one against Shermer, as noted on Carrier's own blog by Bill Ligertwood. Carrier has been spared some of the more overt accusations of rape, probably because he's still considered quasi-in group, isn't Libertarian, is somewhat younger than Shermer, and hasn't had an accuser seriously hint that she was raped. But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.

Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

CommanderTuvok wrote: No doubt, although I was not even in my teens when Militant was dominant. But, when you get the infestation of the trots and SWP types, you can't help but think of Militant. The main difference is, is that Corbyn's lot are more metropolitan, whereas Militant was more of a working class socialist thing. I think.

Yup. Seems I'm not the only one noticing this. As I tweeted a little while ago:

Militant Tendency: Some bloke called Reg in a donkey jacket.
Momentum: Some bird called Regina who identifies as donkey-kin.

jimhabegger wrote:

Hunt wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:I have a question about Carrier, just out of curiosity. I suspect that Carrier has never raised any of the questions and objections about men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, but I don't know enough about his history, to say that with confidence. I'd like to know if he can point to any examples, himself, of when he has raised *any* of these questions and objections, when other men were being denounced by Myers' faction. I might ask him myself, if I can find some way to do that and get a response. Is there anyone who can ask him directly, and possibly get an answer? I'm curious to know what he might say to that.

Carrier's case is very similar to the one against Shermer, as noted on Carrier's own blog by Bill Ligertwood. Carrier has been spared some of the more overt accusations of rape, probably because he's still considered quasi-in group, isn't Libertarian, is somewhat younger than Shermer, and hasn't had an accuser seriously hint that she was raped. But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.

Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.

Hunt wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:

Hunt wrote:... But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.

Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

:lol: I'm not.

Brive1987 wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.

I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.

Damon's carry on Carrier was a full load to the face.

http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... stemology/

jimhabegger wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.

I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.

Bwahhaha. Of course he hasn't. He was SJ clear until they fried him.

Read Damion's blog I linked to above.

jimhabegger wrote:

Malky wrote:

jimhabegger wrote: In case it matters to anyone, I'm not the one saying that I'm a Muslim. I say that I'm not.

Do you mean, as a person who calls Muhammad an authentic prophet of God, and the Quran the word of God?

Yes but to my mind that would make you a Muslim - why would you not call yourself one?

Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.

So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".

Should I see the doctor.....?

jimhabegger wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.

Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.

I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.

The best kinds of uncomfortable questions are the ones asked by sincere, if naive, people. That's why children are so good at unintentionally embarrassing hypocrites.

Ask away, Jim. I actually think that it's not impossible that Carrier might answer, since he likes any kind of attention, and his answers are bound to be pretty interesting.

This is an amusing summary of some stuff that happened over the last year or so

[youtube]UL5qZNpVCaI[/youtube]


Enjoy.

The first page of google results for Carrier are looking pretty good.

http://i.imgur.com/1y9QFtK.png

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".

Should I see the doctor.....?

Only if they have a doctorate in psychology.

Dave wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:

Malky wrote:[.quote="jimhabegger"]
In case it matters to anyone, I'm not the one saying that I'm a Muslim. I say that I'm not.

Do you mean, as a person who calls Muhammad an authentic prophet of God, and the Quran the word of God?[./quote]

Yes but to my mind that would make you a Muslim - why would you not call yourself one?

Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.

So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

jet_lagg wrote:The first page of google results for Carrier are looking pretty good.

http://i.imgur.com/1y9QFtK.png

I feel very bad for world-famous historian Richard Carrier PhD, an Assistant Professor of History at the Royal Military College of Canada.

https://www.rmcc-cmrc.ca/en/history/ric ... -professor

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

Don't know if we've had this already:
One day a Muslim fanatic will criticise Ghostbusters and the worm will finally turn.

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.

But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death. Are we to believe that they were accurately remembered after all that time, and not tampered with or added to? Only a religious person would be gullible enough to fall for that. Someone like jimhabeggar.

Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.

Dr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.

http://archive.is/GBsPw

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

A child-raping mass-murdering psycho?

Git wrote:

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:[.quote="Dave"]
So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?[./quote]

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

A child-raping mass-murdering psycho?

Ogvorbis?

Shatterface wrote:Don't know if we've had this already:

One day a Muslim fanatic will criticise Ghostbusters and the worm will finally turn.

Clearly that's Sacha Baron Cohen.

Katie Hopkins has a run-in with our old friend Godfrey Elfwick
Godfrey is also trying to end the racial strife in the United States.

Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.

Dr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.

http://archive.is/GBsPw

His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.

Dave wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.

So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

Yes. Baha'is recognize two revelations after the Quran and superseding it, starting in 1944.

jimhabegger wrote: Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.

If someone says they are a Muslim, then as far as I am concerned that person is a Muslim. I am in agreement with the Murjites on this and unlike the arrogant such as the Salafi/Wahhabi and others I do not make takfir on anyone.

Likewise if someone says they are not a Muslim I am fine with that also.

*shrug*

YMMV

Sidney Winston? What kinda name is that?

Anyhows, still amused so many keep falling for Godfrey Elfwick 2.0.

jimhabegger wrote:

Dave wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.

So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?

Yes. Baha'is recognize two revelations after the Quran and superseding it, starting in 1944.

And you are one of the idiots who believe in that rubbish, right? There's a sucker born every minute. Some become Baha'is, some don't.

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.

But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death. Are we to believe that they were accurately remembered after all that time, and not tampered with or added to? Only a religious person would be gullible enough to fall for that. Someone like jimhabeggar.

My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.

AndrewV69 wrote:If someone says they are a Muslim, then as far as I am concerned that person is a Muslim. ... Likewise if someone says they are not a Muslim I am fine with that also.

When I use identity labels, I'm usually referring to people who label themselves that way, with some possible exceptions like Muscato for example. Even with him, I would probably call him a woman, and use feminine pronouns, in conversations with him or with other people who prefer that.

Jan Steen wrote:

Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.

Dr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.

http://archive.is/GBsPw

His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.

"Male tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the frothing was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Dick."

I suggest that every Undead Thread stream end at page 666 -- to underscore what an evil entity the Pit is.

Someone stop me before I Patheos again!

Scrumming with YA numbskull who believes in multiple sexes:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/jane ... 2817208997

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote:[.quote="Jan Steen"]

More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.[./quote]

Ahhh, but in my experience many Morons Mormons do believe they are Christians.

Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.

But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death. Are we to believe that they were accurately remembered after all that time, and not tampered with or added to? Only a religious person would be gullible enough to fall for that. Someone like jimhabeggar.

My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.

That the rantings were written down that early may well be Muslim propaganda. It is probably not healthy for a scholar to apply skepticism to this claim. Even a fucking BBC website states that the Q'uran was revealed to Muhammad by God. So much for trustworthy reporting. The cowardly fuckers.

It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.

Dave wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Dave wrote: Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.

But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death.

My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things.

I'm intrigued by the hypothesis of Robert Eisenman and others, who trace the origins of Islam back through the Sabeans and Mandeans of the Tigris-Euprates delta, to the radical, 1st century AD Ebionite sect of judaism. That would explain the rabid moslem obsession with dietary restrictions, ritual purification, and taking on the entire rest of the world with a view to killing them all as infidels.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:

Fucking glorious.

I know this is a joke but can some one soellmit out for me?

As it's page 666 now it's the best time to link to the real satan, Anita of "Gamerz are Males, Boo", not a real feminist.

firestarter:

https://i.gyazo.com/db126872458d4d805a2 ... e393ab.png

Original tweet beeleted.

thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1256562

Shatterface wrote:Don't know if we've had this already:

One day a Muslim fanatic will criticise Ghostbusters and the worm will finally turn.

From the article:

A hardline Cardiff imam suspected of radicalising three young men, has told teenage worshippers that having sex slaves is "permissible in Islam". An undercover reporter recorded Ali Hammuda, a cleric who organises halaqas (religious study circles) at the Al-Manar mosque was recorded telling children as young as 13 that the world is "close to the end of time".

There is nothing "radical" and Hammuda is entirely correct:

Pretty much everyone cites sūrat l-nisāa as justification but there are also other passages that allow sex with your slaves such as in sūrat l-mu'minūn and in sūrat l-aḥzāb.

As I recall a few years ago Salwa al-Mutair (female policital activist in Kuwait) was advocating making an official institution once more for sex slaves. Some were not amused, including Mona Eltahawy but the objections were more along the lines like "you are embarrassing us" rather than "this is haram".

Basically, there is no controversy. Everyone knows that Islam allows sex slaves. Daesh is doing nothing wrong and is entirely correct as far as Islam is concerned with their sex slaves.

Dave wrote: My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.

I believe that when the Koran was finally codified (by the Ummayads I think) they burnt 1200 false copies so there is no doubt that what we gave has been tampered with.

Dave wrote: My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.

I believe that when the Koran was finally codified (by the Ummayads I think) they burnt 1200 false copies so there is no doubt that what we gave has been tampered with.

Who started Jim off again on his magical-sky-fairy-chatting-warmongering-pedophilic-horndog of a prophet? Don't do that. Ever.

Malky wrote:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

Ape+lust wrote:

Fucking glorious.

I know this is a joke but can some one soellmit out for me?

Spell it out!

I like the FA, I really do. Even with I disagree with him I find him to be pretty even toned. I also think he is a good spokespeople for A/S.

But Trump has turned him into a complete idiot.
The only helpful thing about this is the people in the comments that don't understand the anything about evolution.

Tigzy wrote:It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.

And then dictate such mind-boggling nonsense as this:

"Those who put away their wives (by saying they are as their mothers) and afterward would go back on that which they have said, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. Unto this ye are exhorted; and Allah is Informed of what ye do."

This is an actual semi-random quotation. There is a lot more where this came from. I'm sure jimhabegger thinks it's all wonderful. :lol:

I'd earlier mentioned that Neil Godfrey had stabbed his erstwhile Bayesian Butt Buddy, Dicky Carrier, nine times in the back. It was only six:

http://vridar.org/2016/08/02/questionin ... ectations/

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".

Should I see the doctor.....?

Have you been inoculated against Teh Gay in the last 5 years?

Give 'em enough rope -- the immensely narcissistic, histrionic, and science-illiterate Lady_Black, after throughly bolloxing biology, ends up nullifying her own basic argument for unfettered abortion rights:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thed ... 2817376620


Okay, I'm going to do some chores now, I swear.

Jan Steen wrote:

Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.

Dr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.

http://archive.is/GBsPw

His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.

Is my pattern recognition lobe working overtime or is 'Sidney Winston' a reference to the 'Siege of Sydney Street' and Winston Churchill's involvement in it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'd earlier mentioned that Neil Godfrey had stabbed his erstwhile Bayesian Butt Buddy, Dicky Carrier, nine times in the back. It was only six:

http://vridar.org/2016/08/02/questionin ... ectations/

Looks like Neil is on the spectrum too (I mean, besides Sticky Dicky).

free thoughtpolice wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".

Should I see the doctor.....?

Have you been inoculated against Teh Gay in the last 5 years?

So it turns out a judge in the UK has said that the NHS can pay for a preventative HIV aimed mainly at gay men. It apparently prevents HIV from multiplying, and costs around UKL400 per month.

The NHS argues that local councils have the responsibility for preventative health.

Tigzy wrote:It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.

And then those prayer times, based on sunset and sunrise... priceless

/dude from Scandinavia

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'm intrigued by the hypothesis of Robert Eisenman and others, who trace the origins of Islam back through the Sabeans and Mandeans of the Tigris-Euprates delta, to the radical, 1st century AD Ebionite sect of judaism. That would explain the rabid moslem obsession with dietary restrictions, ritual purification, and taking on the entire rest of the world with a view to killing them all as infidels.

And the circumcision of boys.

Ugh. Just heard an NPR critic rake some HBO executive over the coals about their shows depictions of violence against women. SJW cant was heavily featured. I really wish the executive had said something like: "If you don't like the show, then don't watch it." All indications are that they'll kowtow.

katamari Damassi wrote:Ugh. Just heard an NPR critic rake some HBO executive over the coals about their shows depictions of violence against women. SJW cant was heavily featured. I really wish the executive had said something like: "If you don't like the show, then don't watch it." All indications are that they'll kowtow.

What's that about violence against women on HBO?

[youtube]Bvp45eE5dSM[/youtube]

Well, if early reviews are anything to go by, looks like Suicide Squad hasn't broken the trend of shitty DC adaptations (Nolan's Bats excepted). Bah!

Oh well...

I did enjoy one recent movie

[youtube]eLEhGWIdWag[/youtube]

Tigzy wrote:Well, if early reviews are anything to go by, looks like Suicide Squad hasn't broken the trend of shitty DC adaptations (Nolan's Bats excepted). Bah!

Fuck, what a shitty summer for movies.