I just checked the size

Um.. yeah. I've been really busy so it's kind of hard to keep up. Especially when several people are posting against you and then they post repeated times. Anyway, I'm just going to make this short.

I don't speak for the entire church. When I have refered to the church's opinion it is what I think the church's opinion is, and not, in fact, a complete representation of the church. I'm sorry if I have mislead you to believe that I speak for the church or Christians as a whole. On that note, Marc used the term Christian rather liberally by bringing up the point that Christians started cross burning. First, that was a select group of very radical individuals of which I, nor the church I attend has anything to do with so take your own advice and don't make generalizations. Secondly, who said cross burning (I may eat this because I probably said it but oh well) was meant to directly intimidate Christians. I think that it can be used to intimidate many groups of people, and in all cases its wrong.

Finally, I would just like to point out that I am not ignorant Marc. What makes you the expert on the source of homosexuality? What makes me wrong and you right? There are studies to back up the theory that it is a choice, and there are studies to back up the genetic theory. Given that I don't see how you can refer to me as ignorant. And no, I don't condone killing, discriminating, or otherwise inflicting any harm to homosexuals. I still don't see where you all get the idea that I do endorse this behavior. It seems to me that if someone kills a homosexual for his/her beliefs they should be tried for murder. What other chrage would you like that will supercede murder? I just don't get how special laws for gays are going to do anything but waste time trying to get passed.

This went longer than I expected. Oh well. I'm completely sorry if I've offended anyone in this discussion, and for some reason people get the impression that I hate gays (which I don't). I guess neither side is going to understand the other. However, I would like to thank Marc for finally presenting factual information for the left...it was about time someone did.

Fiend, I didn't go to church, I worked all day too. Even had two church folk come up to me and tell me how bad it was that I wasn't at church and that I was working. That's when people take it too far, when they try to impose their beleifs on me and tell me how I'm doing thier religion a wrong. And Justin, you're right, no one is going to understand the other. We might understand the other sides views, but that is nothing if we don't truly believe what the other person is saying, which I think none of us will achieve.

jsut watching Fox News, right now, and two ladies are going at each other's throat talking about aborition rights and etc. Quite amusing, although the pro-choice is getting mad and defensive, she's using the same argument, woman's body, over and over. The Pro-lifer is satying calm and using many debates. This is fun to watch. Just thought I'd comment on that while i was online.

lol...please don't get us started on abortion. I think that issue has been talked enough already.

Ok, what happened to a new post every twenty minutes or so?? We need another heated argument to start.

heh, i felt as if i got in a cheap shot there since no one responded.

It seems as though the whole cross burning bit was dropped a ways back, but as someone who has read the whole 50-something page court case regarding the issue, I feel like I should offer a bit of explanation on it.

So, yes, the Supreme Court did say that a Virginia statute which criminalized cross burning with the intent to intimidate was constitutional, *but* they went on to say that the provision of the statute, what's called a prima facie clause, which says that any cross burning which occurs is (in and of itself) evidence of an intent to intimidate, was unconstitutional. That's because, like it or not, when the Klan gets together on private property to celebrate their views and ends the ceremony with a cross burning, they are fully within their 1st amendment rights.

The reason the Court ruled the way they did was not so much to protect the Klan's right to do that, but to avoid what is called the "chilling" of free speech. For example, if a cross is burned in a theater for a play, it's rather unfair to charge the cast and crew of the play with burning a cross with the intent to intimidate. You could make the argument that such a protection against the "chilling" of free speech is unnecessary as no reasonable prosecutor would actually pursue a case against a theater, but that's just the way the law works.

--Christine

yeah, i understand. I agree with the way that the Supreme Court ruled saying that if it was with the intent to intimidate. I just feel that most times that cross burning is used to intimidate but your example provides for a reasonable explanation as to why the law should be written the way it was.

Since there is nothing else to discuss, lets talk about Jlew the pimp. Two girls, two proms, all in two days, and they're both good friends with eachother at Assumption. Now, despite all my warnings about Assumption girls he still goes and does it. Kudos, my friend, kudos. Assume the position.

SOMEONE just comment on that or something else, I'm bored and I have no life, so I come to thespork for moral support or something like that. When no one updates my life becomes a bleak shell! I need updates.

long time no post on my part. i feel like i dropped the ball. all apologies.

speaking of which, i feel like i should start with an apology or two. i know i probably offended some people (justin and bigg dawg) with my comments, so for that i apologize. im sure i weakened my argument by attacking individuals. i also didnt intend to attack anyones "faith." which i think is a pretty loaded word in that context- i didnt question you believed what you said. i was questioning your religion- what you said. also dont make yourself out to be too much of a victim of attacks- most people agree with your belief structure im sure.

i never "bashed" christianity, i dont think. i cant even figure out what youre referring to, but i do think youre using an argument thats worked in the past- that youre being persecuted because of your beliefs, which is ludicrous. i tried to defend the christians who are often lumped into the religious right because they have a common faith, even if they have different views on the issue of gays (or what have you). so religion- i dont like discussing my own beliefs this publicly. suffice it to say that what ... dismays me concerning christianity is the arrogance and moral haughtiness that often accompany it.

so back to gay people. have you ever met a gay person who thinks its a choice? in all seriousness, have you ever had a drawn out discussion about this with a homosexual? because if you havent, its a good idea. look, gay people say they are who they are, and, being a trusting person, im inclined to believe them. why not believe them? we have nothing to lose. that should end the argument, but i know it wont.

the problem isnt, justin, that you act to harm gays, its that you act to create the environment in which they arent accepted and seen as equals. you think gay kids (among whom the suicide rate is considerably higher) would kill themselves in a society that accepts them and their homosexuality? of course not. so its the people who perpetuate these beliefs who make the culture in which homosexuals a)arent accepted, and b) cant accept themselves.

(brief interlude- something i shared with john. i found especially poignant the story of a gay kid who was the son of a baptist minister, who every night prayed not for acceptance, but to cease to be gay. im just disgusted by the idea that anyone should have to live like that, especially when millions of homosexuals and a good number of studies say its not something a person can control.)

next- why to protect homosexuals. justin- i think you really dont get why you have no credibility on this. you cant honestly believe youve gotten to where you are based on your own hard work. you cant tell me that you dont have access to just about anything a reasonable person could ever want. your needs have all been provided for, and thats simply luck that your parents were successful (which, lets be honest, is partially because theyre straight white american christians). i come from basically the same background as you, and trust me, nothing is hard for us. at all. and i think we should look out for people who dont have the same benefits we share, and who are victimized by a close-minded society. if heterosexuals were being discriminated against, id feel like we should protect them.

forgive me for beating the issue to death, but i felt like i should clarify my remarks.

-Marc

Unlike you Marc, I dont have any scientific reasoning or research to back up my arguments. My opinions come from my religion. Do I want to see homosexuals get persecuted and beat up and etc? No, not at all. But I still do not accept the life style. Nor do I accept it as permanent. I quoted that biblical passage already, so you know what I'm talking about. Is it easy, NO!!! I'm sorry if I made it sound like that. I know it can't be easy. There are things in my life, sins, that I pray daily for the strength to quit, and I still do them. It is tough. But, I still do not believe that it is permanent.

Maybe I'm wrong. But in reading your comments, Marc, you make it sound like anyone who does not accept homosexuals AND their lifestyle are intolerate religios bigots. I'm probably wrong, but that's the impression that I get.

Your argument on protection sounds more like you're arguing for the protection of lower class society than you are about homosexuals. There are many wealthy and successful homosexuals. I'm all for aiding people who are less fortunate, but are willing to work and earn a living. There is a completely new discussion in that, and I'll just leave it to Jordan to pick up and run with.

I don't know what else to say without jsut saying the same thing over and over again. To recap my position: I'm against the life style, I believe that a person can change, and I do accept the person and do not want them to suffer.

The question I would pose to you, Marc, is this...how is passing laws going to change people's minds? Society accepts and rejects people based on the opinions of the members of that society, not based on laws. Just because you pass laws doesn't mean that people won't continue to hate gays and even commit crimes against them. I just don't feel it is a justifiable cause to spend tax dollars to pass and upkeep laws that are specifically for gays. If someone murders somone for being gay I think that murder 1 is a just charge, what more do you want to waste money on? It just seems to me that you create an unequal society by the laws you pass because you are protecting someone and making them seem more important than someone else who does not have special laws for them. I am nto saying that we shouldn't have passed laws for minorities, etc. But I think the discrimination is (a) not as widespread as civil rights causes (this reason alone doesn't make it any less important) and (b) not to the extent and degree that it was against blacks.

There are a few points for you to bash me on...so have fun.

1) "My success rate is as good as, or better than, my profession's efforts to treat any other psychological disorders...By success I mean I've been able to help a homosexual become a heterosexual."
- Dr. Charles Socarides, attending psyshiatrist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

2) Male homosexuals often have a dominant, supportive mother and a weak, remote or hostile father.[46] Lesbians may have had a dysfunctional mother-daughter relationship. This view has been popularised by Elisabeth Moberly who believes that homosexual orientation is the result of unmet same sex-love needs in childhood.[47]

Martin Hallett, Director and Counsellor at True Freedom Trust, has found that the majority of male homosexuals counselled identified very much with this lack of intimate bonding with the father or any other male role model.[48] The heterosexual identity is not established and the unaffirmed child later suffers from a lack of confidence and fear of failure in heterosexual contacts. He tries to meet his unmet same-sex needs through sexual relationships. Sara Lawton,[49] a Christian counsellor specialising in lesbianism and sex-abuse, sees the root of female homosexuality as an unmet need for mother love which becomes sexualised in the adult and may be compounded by repressed trauma such as adoption and sexual abuse.

The parent-child relationship can also be disturbed through death or divorce. Saghir and Robins found that 18% of homosexual men and 35% of lesbians had lost their father through death or divorce by the age of ten. The figures for heterosexuals were 9% and 4% respectively.[50] Up to 70% of homosexual adults describe themselves as having been 'sissies' or 'tomboys' as children;[51] still, most adult homosexuals do not fit the effeminate male or masculine female stereotype.

3) Bancroft stated (British Journal of Psychiatry), 'It is difficult, on scientific grounds, to avoid the conclusion that the uniquely human phenomenon of sexual orientation is a consequence of a multifactorial developmental process in which biological factors play a part but in which psychosocial factors remain crucially important'.[52]

"My success rate is as good as, or better than, my profession's efforts to treat any other psychological disorders...By success I mean I've been able to help a homosexual become a heterosexual."
- Dr. Charles Socarides, attending psyshiatrist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

That just scares me. Anyone who sees success in changing a homosexual into a heterosexual is very blind to any form of homosexual lifestyle. Justin, would you feel like a more accomplished person if you changed a homosexual into a heterosexual? I can't imagine even trying to do that, nor would i ever want anyone to ever want to change my lifestyle. I don't want to drop names because I'm not sure if this person would want me too, but someone at our school had a person of the same sex right them a letter indicating their love (or lust) towards that person. To the greatest degree, it scared them because they are very heterosexual. The same would apply to someone who is openly gay receiving letters from the opposite sex indicating their love. I still can't beleive that someone sees success in changing the lifestyle of someone else.

I can send a link to that persons website if you're really interested in reading what they have to say. Just IM me or something.

I know who it is. And you shouldn't make a big deal about the word success. It simply means the ability to treat a psychological disorder, in this case, homosexuality.

I actually would like to say something. While I've been on both sides of this argument so far, and Marc and I have carried this discussion out in fair detail separate from the website, I'd like to clarify one thing Justin just said.

"It simply means the ability to treat a psychological disorder, in this case, homosexuality."

I'm not making a comment on discrimination, I just want to make sure that everyone here agrees that homosexuality is in fact a disorder of sorts, either biological or psychological (sometimes both). You can't honestly sit there and say you think it's perfectly normal and not a disorder. Our bodies were made specifically for procreation with the opposite sex; since the beginning of time males and females get together and the guy rogers the girl. HOWEVER, this is not saying it is a disease (disease has a negative connotation), this does not mean we should discriminate in any way, this does not mean they are less human, this also does not mean we necessarily need to give them ultimate preference in the job market because of affirmative action laws.

I just somehow was foreseeing some sort of JLew bashing over this comment, and I wanted to prevent it.

Thanks.

S.

Good call Spork. One question though, do nuns have a disorder as well since they vow a life of virtue and solitude without sex? They are not procreating as our bodies were made to do. BTW, I think that's my new favorite word: roger. ;)

*emerges from the depths of websites that don't descriminate against relgion, only to find that spork only hates on philip....*

Wait, how can homosexuality be an alternative lifestyle AND a genetic disorder? I mean, mental retardation is a genetic disorder, and i wouldn't choose THAT as an alternative lifestyle. Now if gays would just STRAIGHTEN up their act, and decide whether they are retarded or insane, it'd be an easier subject to discuss...

But seriously, if it's a genetic defect, we shouldn't encouage homosexuality by giving job benefits. I mean, those no real way to test it since they haven't picked out the gay-gene yet... And if they did, if you want to claim gay in the work place, you'd have to give a urine sample for drugs, then a dna sample for gayness... Then what about the people who are gay because they're parents died, they were sexually abused, and their dad wasn't a good father figure? Huh? They don't have the advantage of a "gay-gene."

So I am very much convinced it's a choice. Not a choice like when you order a pizza and decide between pepperoni and ham... But a subconsoius choice... Like how you prefer action movies over dramas (or vice versa). I mean, who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what, i LIKE action movies more than any other type of movie!" It's a tendancy you lean towards through experience.

And that's why christians get uptight about homosexuality. Gay-sex is as much of a sin as murder, adultry, stealing, cheating and lying. But those i listed are one tiem events, homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE. I am very much against the lifestyle. But very much in favor of the person coming to know God.

Everyone has their struggles. Some just choose to give in when others don't. And then soem go as far as to blame genetics... whatever boats your float.

And you know what else? I think HOMOSEXUALS DESCRIMINATE! Those gay pride marches, they totally leave out all the other sinners! I think we should form a "sinner's pride" march, so we can all take pride in the terrible things we do towards man and God... It's all in the name of tolerance...

See Grant, I knew I wouldn't be the only one to use the pizza argument. Me, Grant, and Bigg Dawg were talking at lunch and I did the same comparison as you, Chef, the choice of a lifestyle to the choice of choosing pizza toppings. Needless to say, I got chewed out by both of them.

Philip: since when do I hate on you? I haven't said a thing anti-religious yet, as far as I know. Jlew? back me up?

Jordan: You can't make that comparison with nuns, my point with the "procreation" was that our bodies were made for sex with the opposite gender. And our bodies were made with hormones and such that make us attracted to the opposite sex SO THAT when we were cavemen we'd know to have sex in order to advance our population. It's the fact that the "disorder" of homosexuality makes us instead attracted to the same sex which is not correct, biologically, because we weren't made to be attracted to the same sex. Hence the disorder. Nuns dont' have a disorder, that's just plain retarded.

Spork.

I'm not aware of any time that Spork has been "hating" on Philip, at least in this discussion.

all they are asking is for fairness. nothing more. nothing less.

Marian

so tell me what's fair about spending tax dollars to write laws that work one way, and some that don't work at all...

I was just wonderin Spork, not tryin to raise any kind of hell. I needed some clarification cause I'm a wee bit slower then the rest of us allll.

Here's a story for you guys. There's a man who decides to write a religious story, and post it on a familiar website to test the waters and get feeback. Then the administrator decides it's TOO religious and decides to create a seperation of church and his website; even though the administrator shares the same views. The adminstrator is not a fan of reaching the lost...or so it seems! Then recently the administrator's website has people taking christian points of view, and he doesn't say a word.

I am that man, and thespork.com is that website...and JOHN is that administrator...

In defence of John/Spork/Adminitrator... (anyone like the use of British spelling?)

I fail to remember vividly the story you posted here, however I will say this. Religion was brought into this arguement as a point, not the point. This, in its basis, is a political discussion. John may not want his site to endorse Christianity, and he may not want it to be used as a facilitator for converting non-belivers. I think in this arguement we have not envoked religion in order to convert non-Christians, but as a cause for our logic on this political discussion.

Lastly, I would say that this is John's website, and he has the right to do whatever the hell he wants. It seems many people visit because they like the site, or like what the site has to offer. I am sorry you feel differently.

sorry chef, JLew is right. Religion is being used as a reason and/or point for some political stances. And, this IS John's website. Just calm down a little Chef, there's no persecutionn of Christians going on by thespork.com

Where's the sense of humor here??

Anonymous posting...that's not cool.

you probably don't remember the post because it's one of the few (if not ONLY) post ever deleted. All i'm saying is any christian who halfway believes what jesus said would not try to hinder anyone following the great commission.

My issue is that he deleted it for no reason whatsoever... He was afraid it might offend someone. But then even the athiest was like, "No, I like to read that kind of stuff." But john deleted it. Maybe he's jsut a fan of watching the lsot go to hell... i dunno... but nay way you cut, i am, and always will be offended by his poor decision. Hence the reason i have avoided this site. I mean, John is still a great guy. I love him! but i piss on his site. *watches as his posting rights are visciously ripped away*

here's an interesting fact about STDs: The walls of the rectum are easily damaged, hence the reason it was so easy for Gay's to get AIDS. They would damage the rectum wall, and when they released their fluids, they transmitted what became so fondly known as "the gay cancer." I mean seriously. If i was hurting other people for my pleasure, would people try to protect my alternative lifestyle, or send me to jail?
All i'm saying is that the anus is a one way street. Gays look at the "do not enter" sign, and say "screw it." Litterally.

Obviously you do not love John. Otherwise you would not have said what you said. "Maybe he's jsut a fan of watching the lsot go to hell." I, personally, would be greatly offended by such a comment and I am sure that John does not appreciate it either.

And by the way, if you hate the site so much, why are you here now? I thought so.

here's an interesting fact about STDs: The walls of the rectum are easily damaged, hence the reason it was so easy for Gay's to get AIDS. They would damage the rectum wall, and when they released their fluids, they transmitted what became so fondly known as "the gay cancer."

what the hell?

i'm not even going into the other topics. you people frighten me.

You can offend someone and still love them. I love my mother very much but I offend her by telling her that her cooking sucks. Although that offends her it doesn't mean I don't love her. Chef can list the faults he sees in John or this site and it doesn't mean he doesn't love John in any way.

And by using the word love I am just reffering to prior posts. I am not reffering to any real lovin going on here.

Hey hey, "the athiest"? I may not believe, but I've still got a name over here... ;)

--Fiend

Jordan, what I'm saying is that Phil was not being very loving in his comments to John. Why is it that he is saying that no one should stop him from carrying out the great commission, and later he is not showing love towards John?

Plain and simple, his comments are accusing John of damning people to hell, which I am sure that John would not do. Just because John doesn't want his site to be a facilitator for converting non-Christians, I don't think it is appropriate to bestow upon him the burden of damning people to hell.

And he's here to speak for himself.

Philip, I love you too man, but I am a little bewildered that you would accuse me of these things. I certainly believe in Jesus's word and I certainly believe in our religion and its spread, but (1) I don't want to look like the Jehovah's witnesses and (2) I just didn't think my site was the place for your post. It was not for "no reason at all" or because I figured people would get offended. Nay, instead I gave these reasons for taking it down, which I hope you read back when I posted it.

To continue the arguments in that letter written so long ago, look at it this way: If you tuned into ESPN, you're going to be expecting sports, right? Well what if you tuned in and there was oprah reviewing her new movie. Is that sports? no. And you're going to be like "hey, where's my sports and why do I have to take this damned feminazi crap." And if this happens more and more, you're going to think "why do I watch this channel for sports if they keep putting this channel o crap on?

Now I more than certainly am not a fan of the lost going to hell, and again I'm bewildered by this comment. Also, this partly goes to joanna ... Iain holds the record for the most deleted posts, because for a while he was the one always making random one line posts whose relevance usually expired a few days later. But actually, looking at some of his posts (fiend, care to clarify?) some of them I don't remember deleting, so maybe he did actually.

And I don't ever recall ripping your posting rights away either. Now come on man, I don't see how I deserve all this.

John.

With so much drama in the LBC, its kinda hard being Snoop D O double G.

I have no idea what posts I've made that have been deleted, or which ones I've deleted myself. But hey, I hold a record for something? cool. :)

--Fiend

::taps playing in the backgroud::

It has been about 3 days since this post has seen any life. I do believe that this discussion/argument is dead. Unless someone can birng it to life.

It was a good conversation between all, it will be missed ::sniff sniff::

Noooooooooooo

LETS BURN THE GAYS AND THE CHRISTIANS AND THE JEWS AND THE HEATHENS AND LEAVE THE WORLD TO THE WHALES!!!!!!!!!!1

Discuss.

go ahead and kill me, i dont care. Just get to my home quicker.

Bigg Dawg

**Death is under-rated

How the hell can you leave the world to the whales you english hobo?!? You must be insane! What logic and proof do you have to back that up, that whales are capable of ruling the world? I say leave it to the orangutangs, 'the most dangerous creatures on the planet'. By the way, the English can go first, actually second, behind the French.

I second this notion (english second behind french)

no no no. don't bring the french into this. this is between sporkers, the whales, and england. don't try to bring the french in as a distraction. keep your focus.

--danielle

I second my own notion to burn Danielle for defending the French. She always did support those bottom licking ameobas.

the french are neither amoebas NOR bottom-lickers (not that they leave bottoms completely alone ::cough::). alas, there is no licking.

and as much as everyone is bitchin' about the french lately, i still don't completely understand why. it can't be because of the war because they obviously never needed france's help.

so yeah, be civil to the frenchies or i'll have to go all asian on yo ass (i would've said 'go all french on yo ass,' but we all know how effective that would be...)*.

*not actually a frenchie insult, but something i just couldn't resist. you know how it is. and the asian thing is a compliment to the asian community, for if i wanted to kick someone's ass, i wouldn't pick any other race for inspiration but the asians. yay asians! so don't kill me, jo. please.

--danielle (politically correct and so much more)

I dunno what JLew thinks, but I think most of Danielle's comments could easily be deemed racist. I'd like Justin's opinion on that one. Because I definitely think by Makinde's standards ya'll are a bunch of racists.

Oh, and why aren't you logging in Danielle? I'll mark the posts as DChil if it's you, but are you some OTHER Danielle I don't know?

Spork.

Ok, so they're not ameobas nor bottom-lickers. But they ARE smelly, ugly, and hairy. And no, that is not a sterotype. I've been to France, seen the old hairy ladies. I've had a French foreign exchange student who took one shower the entire week, and I had to drag him to the bathroom and point to the shower for him to even get in it. And the Metro is the smelliest place I've ever been to in my life, very raunchy.

JLew concurs with Spork.

actually... i forgot to save my password and stuff... so yeah, completely forgot it. the same ole d-chil :-D ::coughMORONcough::

ok, i've been to france too, and frankly, i never smell anything. and believe me, i have sensitive and easily-offended nostrils. it's better in france than a tarc bus.

i remember your frenchie, jordan, and he was kinda gross. but ya know, they're not all like that. and for christ's sake they really are not that hairy.

grrr... when i go back to paris in june, i'll take picture of just how not smelly, hairy, and dirty they are.

--danielle (wondering why she's the only one who supports the french... starting to feel a bit like justin and his conservatism...)

you're just jealous because they're prettier than you...

ha, that's a joke ... french people are not that pretty ... sure, they've got their hotties, but so does every country. I'm not saying we're necessarily full of hotties either, but let's all look at Sweden for instance. There's a bunch of hotties, and according to Andrew Kline (forgive the probably very likely event that I just butchered the spelling of his last name) supposedly Swedish chicks are (and I quote) "very horny."

Spork.

julie yoder is part swedish.

And yes, our generation of frenchies is not hairy, but that's only because they strive to be like us, and we don't want hairy women! And I like John's comparison of French women to Swedish women, all though he would have gotten the point across if he compared French woman to, say, Ethiopian women.

french women and ethiopian women... oh no you didn't...

isn't the chick from "amelie" the hottest ever? i mean, chicks aren't really my thing, but hell, she's so adorable! swedish women are not nearly as hot as "amelie" despite their rabid promiscuous horniness.

i actually think i argued against myself on that one.

can't we talk about european men? i know much much more about that...

Ok, Amelie was cute, but as John said, every country has to have at least one. And there's Frances.

I certainly have to agree ... Audrey Tautou (as those of us close to her like to call her, instead of her character name amelie from the movie "Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le" as it is called in france ... wait a sec, side tangent ... see that's why we hate the french, what kind of title is "Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le" anyway? but back to the point) is amazingly gorgeous, but yes, as jordan so appropriately pointed out, I did say that every country has their one.

so... EUROPEAN MEN. nice, prominent noses. i like that in a man.

therefore, the french are better.

check this one out: the french--always a nose ahead.

EE

one of the victoria's secret models is french... i can't remember her name. does she count?

and spork... it's "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain." The way you said it would be the equivalent of saying "Wizard of Oz, The." Therefore, not so stupid.

actually, I can't think of a seriously good looking model. Although I dont watch many fashion shows or look at those pop magazines. But most of the models I see are as skinny as a rail. Like they eat one meal a day and only somtimes keep those down. When did being able to see someone's bones become sexy? Sorry for the tangent, but I seriously want to know if all models are that skinny. Do other guys seriously find that attractive? Or am I just wierd in what I like in woman? Jordan will testify to that, as in what he likes I dont (reference to a few lunch conversations).

Hooray, I got the discussion going again. Yay me.

Lets see... french women suck. Why? because you pay them. *rimshot*
No, but seriously now, I'm British, and I hate the French. Why? I mean, come on, we're all trying to be alone on our nice secluded island and they're all like, "HAW HAW HAW, zee petit angleterrians are beeeeing secluuuuuded! we shall deeeeg a tunnell towards their general direction! HAW HAW!" Or something like that. I mean, damn, we kicked your ass back when Napoleon was in power, just leave us alone already.

Yeah, European men... dead sexy, let me tell you. ;)

Swedish girls are seriously like... hot. I mean, every one I've ever seen has been. Well, maybe not Jyo, but she's only PART swedish. :-P

So yeah, Frenchies suck, and just because they've got some decent lookers doesn't change the fact.

Now, why the whales? Because whales are cool, man. And besides, who knows how many humans are living IN the whales, waiting for all of us to die so they can take over the planet. Whales get the water, humans get the sea. Booyeah.

None of this makes any sense... I've got homework to do... skinny models are ugly, get some meat on them bones... I'm out, peace.

--Fiend

awww... i'm tellin' j-yo...

aren't whales suppost to be the second smartest creatures in the universe? next to mice. I haven't read much of "Truckers Guide to the Universe" lately. So correct me if I'm wrong.

dang, what was I smoking? I was laying in bed when I realized I said "Trucker's Guide To The Universe"!!!!!!!! I think it's really more along the lines of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". I seriously dont know what happened.

Heh, I was about to call you out on that one, Bigg Dawg... but anyway, it's dolphins that are the second smartest.

--Fiend

Let's not forget Koko the ape that can use sign language. What dolphin in its right mind can sign?? Oh, that's right, they have fins! Until they make a movie with Charlton Heston in it saying Damn Dirty Dolphins, I'm gonna have to go with chimps/monkeys as second smartest, unless of course everyone is including them with us and I'm just retarded.

here's a thought: Suppose there was a big war, and all of America's military was rendered destroyed. Enemy forced have landed on both coasts in an atempt to take over main land America. Which state would muster the best militia? Which state would be the first and the last to fall? Why? When I say militia I mean anything from another organized army to minute men sitting on their porches.

oh come on: don't mess with texas. but i don't really have any opinion on this one. i'm just posting to give props to john for the "not made in france" thing on the page title. even i have a sense of humor.

so yeah, rock on, spork.

Would someone please look through the yearbook and find my baby ad. I think they left it out! Not even my bro, who's on yearbook can find it. Grrrr.

I can't see it either, Jordan, sorry.

But hey, at least your name is spelled correctly under your senior picture. Unlike some people. *cough*

--Fiend

at least they didn't screw up your senior quote... your MONTY PYTHON senior quote at that. ::cough::

we should get sean cooper to post on here ... but yeah, they mispelled my name on one of the pages ... they spelled it with a w instead of a u

umm, daniel ... what's wrong with your monty python quote?

it's supposed to be "black knight."

oh, night = knight ... i read your quote over and over and couldn't find anything wrong with it, didn't catch the spelling mistake

I have a grievance as well. As far as I can remember, I have never been in a random picture. Usually, it is becuase I have not done anything worthy enough to be noticed in the yearbook. However, this year I cooked breakfast in the parking lot. I mean I had eggs, cheese, coffee, all being cooked on a camper style stove in the middle of the parking lot. Pictures were taken and I was hoping to finally get a random picture, having done something special. Did I get that? NO!!!! Arg! sorry, had to vent. Peace!

Go see Matrix Reloaded. My eyes are still wide. Very good movie. Grant had trouble getting up it seemed after the movie ended. Quite amusing. So did I. Very good. Talking in paraphrases. Leaving Now.

OH MY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Matrix..... It's been a few hours since I saw it, and my hands are still shaking a little. The action sequences, the philosophy, the action sequences, the graphics, the action sequences. Like Jordan, I can't say more. just WOW

I was kind of pissed off. It didn't work at all as a movie by itself, it more than certainly required the first movie to see it, and it more than certainly requires the third movie. The first movie worked totally by itself as a film. This one was entirely reliant on the other two. And I'm pissed off cause I need to see the third to answer all my questions.

It was decent. The CG was really good, but they still haven't gotten the full body CG rendering replacements right. Like the scene with thirty million Smiths. Also, they spent so long making sure every smith looked real and looked like smith, but Neo the whole time looked kind of fake.

Finaly, I was never much of a fan of the first one. I thought it was a good flick with nice action, but I always thought it was overrated. This is definitely my opinion of the second one. Far too overrated.

Spork.

Wow, so it took me about 80 posts to finally find where the new posting was going on, and only because John told me on the Belle trip. Damn, so much I missed. I like how it has all calmed down on here though.
Anyway, as far as hot girls from other countries go, Czechoslovakian (Czech Republic now) girls kick everyone else's tooshies. And no, I am not just saying that because I am one...really...
Whales? Hmm...I'd have to go with dolphins on this one, they are much faster and can do the whole salt water and fresh water thing (two seperate species).
The Matrix Reloaded...still good, though I can't stand Keanu Reeves as an actor. He sucks, but it's not like he's doing a whole lot of acting in those two movies anyway...explosions, fight scene, chase scene, sex, explosions, minor plot development, sex, sex, fight scene, plot development, roll credits. THE END.
As for senior pictures, yeah, I didn't pick a quote and they messed up the color on mine. I look all yellow...ick. It's still ok lookin I guess, but still. I wish I knew who all these people with LJ names were so I could know who's talking about what...::ahem ahem::
Does anyone else feel like they aren't going to get all their work done in time to graduate??? AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

~Krista

Back to the girl discussion, when you said Whales Krista I thought you were talking about girls from Wales. Now see here, there are two types of girls in Wales. They either come beautiful or ugly. No inbetween, no 'oh shes cute'. They are either georgous or downright ugly. Hell, the same applies with all of Great Britain. And I'm not talking about those hippies that live in America and call themselves English coughIaincough. Sorry guys, I've got a cold.

Hey, I ain't no hippie anymore. ;)

--Fiend

I know, and it scares me more then when u were a hippie. A change like this hasn't occured since Albright cut the tail freshmen year.

What about when Pat L. cut all his hair off last year? Or the Michael guy cut off his dreds?

--Fiend

Didn't think Michaels was all that amazing, but yes, when Pat cut his hair, that was.....classic. I completely forgot about that since I havn't talked to Pat in about a year. The way I see it, the next move will be made by that Ricky guy (aka the mullet man.) If he cuts the mullet, I will be happy.

Everyone should go check out this right now.

www.livejournal.com/users/joesquotebook

The name should be fairly self-explanatory.

-Joe

So what are everyone's thoughts on the end of the year? Happy? Sad? Don't give a damn? Please share.
Krista

I'm a little tea pot, short and stout. Here is my handle, here is my spout. Tip me over and pour me out. I'm a little tea pot, short and stout.

I think the post is dead...
Krista