ToadMan

Yes... but I also don't take him as the kind of guy who would out right lie. I mean you've either tried it or not. I wouldn't think he would lie if he's dabbled in it. By the way, I have never dabbled in drugs. Peace

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html I think it is a Razor because it cuts through theory's. Technically Murph's law is not a physical law. A physical law requires meticulous proof that it is true for all cases. I like Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''. Peace

;) Would the real MG please stand up, please stand up Sorry it had to be done. Given its come up in another thread I would like to ask Matt if he's into, or has ever been into drugs. I would also love to hear whether the rumor that the MGB broke up as a result of "Dave being into drugs, and getting Ian into them to" is actually true. Peace p.s. Thanks Dan

I'm sure Matt made a statement on his blog awhile back about drugs. I can't seem to find it, but I remember him explicitly saying that he had never been party to that kind of thing. Peace

You have to take away the reason. You have to stop practicing in policies that systematically destroy the Islamic world. Peace

Ockham's Razor: "The simplest solution is normally the correct one" Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong it will" Silvermans' Paradox: "If Murphy's law can go wrong it will" Peace

Toadman has no comment regarding kat's post. But I guess she knew that already. Anyway!! *awkward cough* I would like to second Dan's question, since I has been lost on this thread by recent events: Peace

I've only ever seen Trainspotting so I don't feel I'm that qualified. Peace

This is outrageous. This post is so far from topic that I couldn't even get back on a jumbo jet. Peace

Wow, turn down the furnace it's getting hot in here. To intervene the ellipsis notation in not a sign of idiocy, it's a sign of pause or trailing off. i.e. I that happens I will... And let's not be pedantic about spelling shall we. Now I've hit both of you. ---- I haven't posted on a board with MG as a member, but I would expect the same level of post as his blog. Given he works on a Mac, with any text field spell checking, spelling errors are unlikely. To follow that talk to Anton, since he has far more information about Jack than the rest of us. Peace.

I agree with you. I think sometimes it's all to easy to simply dismiss the act as the work of a madman. It takes far more guts to look at yourself critically and admit that you are the cause of the problem. I don't like sounding like a Bin Laden sympathizer either. I disagree with his choice of actions entirely. However, unlike a large part of the American populace, I disagree with most acts of war. A though occurs to me. Is it that the American people lack a sense of empathy, or is it that they truly believe that they are helping these people. Bush believes the world is better because of the war in Iraq. He believes that Afghanistan is better off since they conducted there war there (which is partial true, since the Taliban was responsible for many human right atrocities. However, the US removed the government, and then left the country war torn. They are governed regionally by who ever has the firepower. It not the greatest improvement). I mean do they believe that the people in the middle east are blind to the fact that US intervention doesn't come unless the US is getting something out of the deal? Why do you think the US hasn't gone into Dafur? There's not oil there. The US is conducting a war on terror. But you can't end terrorism by destroying its leaders. Terrorism exists as an ideology. It is a hydra. You can cut off its head, but a new one will grow in. To win against terrorism you must eliminate the reasons for terrorism. You must do your best to make amends for all of the tension you have caused. You can't win the war on terror with guns an armies. Your enemy will only become stronger. Peace

Very early in the morning... walking to my car after school... a lot of time well I'm doing other menial tasks. I gotta study for some midterms though, so my posting will be sporadic. Peace

Thank you Dan, you are also a gentleman and scholar. Peace

Well to be honest I'm trying to steer the conversation away from that implication as to not anger the moderating staff. Peace

I had the opportunity to see a brief news report today on the recent Osama Bin Laden tape. Now to state a fact I disagree with terrorist actions. I do however find some of the things Bin Laden said (or what they where translated to) to be interesting. For an article not as good as the news report, but with some info: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...tape/index.html "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." This is a statement we have heard repeatedly, that the 9/11 attacks where not cause be an outright hate of western values and life, but that they where the result of the constant intervention and meddling conducted by the US. Despite the fact that in the tape Bin Laden clearly identifies his motives, the response of the US president was that "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country." What I find interesting is that Neither Bush nor Kerry address the underling statement, both used rhetoric about stopping the terrorist but neither suggested a method to ease the root cause. I find it disgusting that the most powerful country in the world has leaders who willingly use and abuse other nations for there own gains. I find it more disgusting that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the cries for change (or at least those cries which are conducted in a peaceful way), and simply dismiss the entire problem on one, however grievous, act. Why is it possible to just discount the reason, to just attribute it to fundamentalism. To in essence demonize an entire religion for the sake of not admitting that the US has in past, and will in future use these people like resources. Admit not responsibility for the attacks, but responsibility for the reason. If the US wants to make any head way against terrorism they must first remove its reasons, not its perpetrators. If the US eases tensions between itself and certain middle eastern countries. If they stop using and manipulating the entire region for there own gains. They will make the world a safer place. What I'm trying to say here is: Why do I see these facts so clearly, yet the American people seem to be blind to them. Why do I see that every action they take in the middle east, if it was taken against them would infuriate them. Why do I see them pulling the strings and making the puppet dance, and wondering why the puppet doesn't want to play anymore. Food for though. Peace

;) I'm not sure how that is: a) pertinent B) appropriate to the thread topic or c) nice in anyway Peace

They don't use the Rorschach Test anymore. The original Rorschach test allowed the subjects an infinite period of time to responded, and the ability to change there answers. The new version (the Stanford-Berkley Rorschach test I believe, but don't quote me) standardizes the time frames and number of responses as to place a measure of control on the test. I tried a couple of slang dictionaries for "dimed" but could find nothing. I must have something to being disconnected (given it's context). Peace

You people gamble very ambitiously... I mean do you have any way of knowing. I had a chat with Anton, and he has some opinions, but his are based of some solid facts that he has access to since he is the administrator. I have to say that even though I may not be personally be convinced, there is no evidence to suggest that Jack is not who he claims to be. I think what we need to take from the post is: that why would our proposed question for Matt all be demands? It is a good question that deserves some consideration. Matt has posted in his blog that he is often embarrassed at the quality of fans he attracts, and we must constantly ask ourselves have we become those fans? For the most part the core community of this board is reasonably articulate and responsible. The core community has for the most part had intelligent debates regarding world issues, and politics. Now despite how I have tried to remain nonjudgmental I will say that is would be disappointing if the entire community was judged on only this singular thread, on the actions of a few. One must also admit that some of the posts this thread are particularly demanding are also done in jest. Now that is all I have to comment. Peace

Yo welcome to the board. You gotta watch-out with sound checks, they don't let people in (remember the regina incident a few years back)... but as I understand it, the whole band has to be there so the sound tech's can set the levels and such. Peace

As I said, I would prefer to stay as a mere mortal. Firstly the board already has a full staff. Secondly, even if the board needed another mod, I just wouldn't have the time to be a good mod. I would have to read every post (or I would fell obliged to). But that aside, this is about searching, and I was just exercising the extent of my abilities to attempt to invoke change. Peace

That's a load. Matt has better stage presents that 95% of all other performers I have ever seen. I mean sure he's distant, but that's cause he's so into the music it takes him somewhere else. Whatever. Peace

You know, if you want I have some dirty laundry that needs washing to. I don't believe is just whining about a problem so I made an effort to fix it. Reasons to search: Some polls have been done a number of times. i.e. the how old are you poll / thread appears 4 times on this board. If any of those people had searched for the poll before posting theirs, then they would have there answer. Why do you not want to start from the 5th page. Maybe you should read the whole thread and see where it went first. Maybe your idea has already been played out to it's fullest. If your asking a question, has it been done before? Say you want to know about Matt's wife, would you start a new thread, when an existing thread spans 5 pages, and might already answer your question? I believe that you should search, and then post because otherwise we will have the same pedantic polls and questions every time a new person joins the board. And just as a matter of interest, if you have a filing cabinet, and you get a new bill say telephone, do you put it in with the other telephone bills, or do you start a new file for that bill. Of course you file it with the others, and that's all I would like to see, is people filing there posts on threads that already exist, that make sense with there post. And that graphic rocks, it's going to be my avatar as soon as I photo shop it to fit. Peace

No, I would prefer to stay a mere mortal. Sorry if the post was fiascoes, I wrote it at 4am, and I'm a little annoyed that people cant figure out how to use searching.

Since I have said a number of times that people starting new threads when one already existed, is one of my personal annoyances. I though it pertinent to put up a searching 101. A number of you report that the search function does not work for you. Although I cannot comment on your personal set up I am sure that it will work on any web-browser (php is a server side script, and only requires that your browser understand html). Alright on to the tutorial. 1) know where search it: Search is located at on the top menu (way up, very top) it is between Rules, and Gallery. 3rd from the left, 8th from the right. 2) know what your looking for: All that is necessary is that you type a key word for your search. For instance, if you wanted a thread on "Alert Status Red" type "Alert Status Red" in as your keyword. There is a 4 character minimum on searches. Note: the search seems to only like keywords that occur in sequence, i.e. searching "Status Alert Red" will turn up nothing. 3) define your search: For the purpose of checking if a thread has already been done or not. You should define your search to be: a) In all forums, or if you know that the search will be in a certain forum, that forum. For the ASR search, Music will suffice. B) Search posts from: any date c) Search where: entire post For locating a specific thread, or a time dependent thread, then you may wish to specify the post to be new than, or older than a certain age. You also may wish to specify a user name to search for. http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/index....lert+status+red above is the link to the trail search I did during this little 101... for those of you with NF lounge privlages, this is a thread I wanted to look up of mine (which is long since dead): http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/index....hlite=asr+video Hopefully this is helpful for you. If you still have problems, I would like to hear about them. If there is a real problem with the search, I'm sure Anton will do his best to fix it... but he has to know, so make sure your search problem reports are as detailed as possible. Peace

Though I would pass this on: I dunno if I caused the change, but doing it felt good. Peace