prev <-> next
[2001-03-26 18:25:00] - What? No, I'm saying it is very difficult for parents to control what their children get exposed to on television, so this board helps block lots of the material which they would find objectionable - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:25:00] - The interesting thing about a jury is that it governs cases where one person's actions allegedly harmed another person. These boards are different. They govern cases where an action causes no harm. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:25:00] - there is a difference between deciding whether someone is a criminal and deciding what people can watch on tv
[2001-03-26 18:24:00] - By having such a board, you've asserted that parents have no rights of sovereignty over the raising of their children. Is this your argument? -logan
[2001-03-26 18:24:00] - What if you find that you strongly disagree with a jury? Should we just not have laws then? Let criminals decide themselves, whether or not they should go to jail? - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:23:00] - So who is on this jury? The intellectual elite? Politicians? Psychiatrists? -paul
[2001-03-26 18:23:00] - such a board is unconstitutional. - mig
[2001-03-26 18:23:00] - I didn't say %50, I said there's a board of people who vote, just like a jury or anything else of importance - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:23:00] - I find I disagree strongly with that board of people. Am I simply wrong? -logan
[2001-03-26 18:22:00] - what gives that board the right to judge what i can or cannot see on t.v.? - mig
[2001-03-26 18:22:00] - If these people actually think that pokemon is that offensive, then they should take it up with the board of T.V-show rating people - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:22:00] - So we should only censor what over 50% of the population finds obscene? -paul
[2001-03-26 18:22:00] - There is a board of people who rate the material they find in T.V. shows based on the age groups they think it is suitable for - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:22:00] - The problem is that people treat children like non-humans. They try to brainwash them into becoming whatever they think they should be, without giving thought to maybe letting the child develop into whatever he or she wants to be. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:21:00] - Why, because a small minority of the population thinks that it is obscene? I would say no. - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:21:00] - Aaron: A lot of ultra-conservative christians find pokemon obscene because it teaches cult stuff to kids, should the government ban it from the airwaves then? -paul
[2001-03-26 18:20:00] - How long do you think it takes to learn to make informed decisions, miguel? I thought that was what childhood was for - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:19:00] - If that's my choice, it's my right. I'd like to see you try to stop me. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:19:00] - and the reality of the situation is that a parent cannot be there to monitor a kid 24-7, but it's their job to educate their child so that they can make a informed decision when the parents aren't around. - mig
[2001-03-26 18:18:00] - You mean like by showing 4-year-old kids ultra-violence instead of sesame street? - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:18:00] - Why do parents need government to protect their children from stuff? -paul
[2001-03-26 18:17:00] - It is impossible if the government intervenes as well. All you do is strip parents of their rights and ability to raise their children. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:17:00] - then too bad. maybe instead of shielding kids from reality those parents should educate. - mig
[2001-03-26 18:17:00] - Mental retardation changes most things, exceptions would have to be made I suppose -paul
[2001-03-26 18:16:00] - And once again, it is impossible for parents to prevent children from being exposed from something unless the government (or some other enormous entity) intervenes - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:16:00] - actually the stance is "fuck the parents who rely on the government as a baby-sitter". i'm sorry if i didn't make that clear a while ago. -mig
[2001-03-26 18:15:00] - Yet another question is, if an 8-year-old child has the same mental capacity as a 20-year-old man, should they have the same rights? - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:15:00] - They had the mental capacity to make the decision to start, that's what matters -paul
[2001-03-26 18:14:00] - once again, this is a responsiblity issue. if a parent does not want their to be exposed to something, they are the ones responsible to make sure of it, not me, not you, and not the government. - mig
[2001-03-26 18:14:00] - Another question is, does an addict have the mental capacity to make the decision to smoke or not - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:14:00] - From an earlier argument with Miguel, I believe his stance was, "fuck the parents" but I could be wrong - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:13:00] - The question is, does the child have the mental capacity to make the decision to smoke or not. -paul
[2001-03-26 18:13:00] - minors is a touchy subject. but please don't make this into a "we must protect the children". - mig
[2001-03-26 18:12:00] - I think that minors should have the same rights as adults, if their parents choose to grant them those rights. If I want to allow my child to smoke cigarettes, my child is going to be allowed. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:11:00] - With prohibition, you must get your drugs from a black market. You have no idea what you are getting. Drugs on the black market are very impure, and that's a major cause of overdosage. -logan
[2001-03-26 18:07:00] - And miguel, is your viewpoint still an open-pornography open-syringe policy for minors? because if so I don't see much point in arguing - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:06:00] - Without prohibition, more people will use drugs, but people will be less afraid about contacting hospitals when someone OD's - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:06:00] - drugs can be consumed just as safely with prohibition as they can without prohibition, logan - aaron
[2001-03-26 18:01:00] - and if the netherlands is able to do it, why the hell can't we? - mig
[2001-03-26 18:00:00] - and aaron, if you don't legalize drugs now because it *could* more safer not to, when are you going to? This is a problem that gets worse if you just ignore it. -mig
[2001-03-26 17:58:00] - well, that too. but even if they were all purely hedonistic, they should still be legal. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:56:00] - And some drugs have legitimate uses, too, beyond the purely hedonistic. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:55:00] - if you make drugs legal, people won't be afraid to admit that they do have a problem, and they will get the help they need, and the people who use drugs responsibly will be left alone. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:55:00] - Yes. People can also drink irresponsibly, as long as their actions do not harm others directly. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:54:00] - and not only that, if a person has a drinking problem he can go to the aa or something, if a drug addict admit he has a problem, he risks getting arrested. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:53:00] - people can use drugs responsibly just as someone can drink responsibly. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:53:00] - I'm for allowing it. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:52:00] - I think suicide should be legal. And I think by prohibiting drugs, the government makes drug usage inherently unsafe. Without prohibition, drugs could be consumed very safely. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:52:00] - no one is *for* drug abuse. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:52:00] - see, the problem that most people think is that people against the drug war are for all out abuse of drugs and such - mig
[2001-03-26 17:50:00] - and it's definitely not safer to just "leave things alone". people have been saying that for years while things get worse and worse. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:49:00] - see, the problem with that statement aaron though is that doing drugs != suicide. - mig
[2001-03-26 17:41:00] - isn't suicide illegal? i think killing yourself with drugs would be akin to suicide
[2001-03-26 17:35:00] - You can look at it as the government giving the people a new right, or as the government ridding themselves of a responsibility - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:31:00] - Okay. But legalization is basically saying, "If you want to kill yourself with drugs, that's OK with us". I mean whether it's right or not, it still sounds a little mean. - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:30:00] - I don't see why the latter part of that statement is necessary. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:22:00] - I'm saying, that's one reason the government has, for not changing their mind and saying, "We were wrong, sorry, now go coke up and die or whatever" - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:21:00] - There is good reason to believe that it will help, I understand, but it is still safer just to leave things alone - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:18:00] - Prohibiting drugs made society more dangerous. That's a pretty good reason to believe that removing the prohibitions and propaganda will bring us back to a safer level. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:10:00] - I don't know, look at places like the Netherlands. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:06:00] - Yes there is. Just look at the number of people that die from overdoses, and consider how many of those overdoses could be prevented by a legitimate market for drugs. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:06:00] - Maybe they could, like, legalize drugs in Hawaii or something and see if it works, then if so, they could do it on a national scale - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:06:00] - It doesn't seem like it would affect much but the truth is, you never really know until you do it - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:05:00] - Yes yes. It sounds great to legalize drugs but there's no refuting that it is safer, at least in the short term, not to. - aaron
[2001-03-26 17:03:00] - Drug use was prevalent before the 1900s, yet it caused no wide-scale problems. Compare to today. -logan
[2001-03-26 17:02:00] - The economics page is interesting. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:59:00] - I don't know why people drink caffeinated sodas. I just drink Sprite.
-logan[2001-03-26 16:59:00] - It's just a relative comparison. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:59:00] - Caffeine! That's an interesting comparison. Does it actually make the sodas taste better? Is it integral to carbonation or something? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:57:00] - Oh okay I see now
[2001-03-26 16:57:00] - I don't understand the chart on the addictive properties of popular drugs - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:56:00] - Oh, most definitely, in the case of heroin. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/heroin.htm -logan
[2001-03-26 16:55:00] - Hmm, these drug war facts are very informative. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:55:00] - Yes, I meant before the 20th century.
-logan[2001-03-26 16:54:00] - So you think that if heroin were legal, that there would be less overdoses? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:53:00] - I'm starting with marijuana because it's the most obvious to argue. My reasons for opposing drug prohibition have nothing to do with marijuana. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:53:00] - I assume you mean until last century but OK
[2001-03-26 16:52:00] - The illegitimacy of heroin usage causes far more people to die from overdoses than if it were legal. The heroin is unsafe, because it comes from the black market, and no one will call an ambulance because they fear the government. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:51:00] - Until this century, there was no war on drugs. And there never were any social problems. The consequences were constrained to those that took part in those activities. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:51:00] - You seem to think that because the government made a mistake about marijuana that they should not be allowed to make any more decisions regarding drug restriction - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:50:00] - Yes, yes, I understand, marijuana is good. You've pounded that point into the ground, thank you. - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:49:00] - Yes, I do. Every day innocent people are killed, or their property is taken or destroyed. Non-harmful users become criminals. There is a black market which holds a monopoly, charging outrageous prices, leading to violent crimes. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:48:00] - And if there were rhyme or reason to which drugs the government bans, marijuana would not be illegal, because it is patently non-harmful. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:48:00] - So you still think that, in many cases, the costs of prohibition are greater than the costs of tolerance, for other drugs like heroin or crack or whatever? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:48:00] - There isn't for me. Either you have a right to do with your body as you please, or you do not. I've yet to see convincing arguments for the latter. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:46:00] - there's a massive difference in my mind between deciding marijuana is okay and legalizing all drug use - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:46:00] - I meant all drugs. There is also the matter of rights lost by non-drug users. Things like asset forfeiture. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:46:00] - The government doesn't ban all drugs, they ban the ones they think are harmful - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:45:00] - I didn't say marijuana, I said all drugs - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:45:00] - Yes, I believe that we would be more prosperous, there would be less conflict (and fewer violent crimes), and we would be more free. I know many people that are positively helped by marijuana. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:44:00] - This looks informative: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ -logan
[2001-03-26 16:43:00] - .... or at least the U.S would be a more livable place? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:43:00] - http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n575/a06.html -logan
[2001-03-26 16:43:00] - Yeah that's true. But are you saying that you think the world would be a more livable place if all drugs were legal? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:42:00] - I'm admitting that you might find a weak correlation, but that it would mean nothing. The reasons a person would have for not smoking marijuana would very likely be the same reasons they would have for not doing other drugs. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:41:00] - Oh okay, so you're saying that if all drugs were legal, then my little statement would be true - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:41:00] - In any case, there is no causitive attribute of marijuana that leads to other drug use. If anything, it's a causitive attribute of the person. I don't see how prohibiting marijuana addresses that. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:39:00] - Absent of government prohibitions, yes, that is true. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:39:00] - Okay, if not difficult, then risky. - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:39:00] - So you're saying people who use marijuana are just as likely to use other drugs as people who do not? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:38:00] - No, drugs are not difficult to obtain. Particularly if a dealer wishes to get you started on the habit. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:37:00] - That "gateway" nonsense is just government propaganda. There is no evidence of marijuana usage leading to usage of other drugs. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:36:00] - Well part of the reason that only a small minority of people are injecting themselves is because drugs are difficult to obtain - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:36:00] - I know of few cases where somking marijuana is a bad thing (outside of what the government will do to you if it catches you). -logan
[2001-03-26 16:35:00] - For example Marijuana can be a gateway to other drugs, and obviously other drugs can kill you - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:35:00] - The government expends far more resources, and kills far more people, and violates far more rights, than a small minority of people injecting themselves into oblivion ever could. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:35:00] - In many cases, the costs of tolerance are greater than the costs of prohibition. - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:34:00] - And if the government is right about which decisions are stupid? For instance, in many many cases, smoking marijuana is a bad thing - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:32:00] - In many cases, the costs of prohibition are greater than the costs of tolerance. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:31:00] - And if the government is wrong about which decisions are stupid? For instance, in many many cases, smoking marijuana is a good thing. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:24:00] - I still think it's the government's responsibility to try and protect people from making stupid decisions. Education is one way, illegalization is another. All means to the same end - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:22:00] - Through anti-drug programs, or illegalization, or I don't know. Electric shock therapy, drug education in schools, whatever - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:22:00] - okay, fine. congrats to logan for mucho buzzwordage there. I still think it's a good thing to try and prevent drug addiction though - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:19:00] - At whatever age you deign to give a person sovereignty. In other words, once they reach majority age. Before then, it is the decision of their parent or guardian. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:18:00] - At what age? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:16:00] - I'm saying it should be okay to choose to become addicted. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:14:00] - So you're saying that it should be okay to participate in the activity if they can keep from being addicted - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:13:00] - Now everyone must either not play tennis, or they must play tennis? How mean of me! - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:13:00] - You've taken it upon yourself to make the decision for people. It applies to something as addictive as heroin to something as harmless as marijuana. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:13:00] - I don't understand. I think people can also either play tennis, or they can not play tennis. Does that mean I have made that choice for them too? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:12:00] - You seem to be making a choice for people. They can either refrain from an activity, or they can participate in that activity, and as a result be forced to continue participating in that activity. You've shifted the decision to yourself. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:12:00] - Okay..... What about Heroin? - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:11:00] - You are incorrect. Addiction doesn't quite work that way, nor is marijuana anywhere near as addictive as you imply. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:10:00] - Someone addicted to marijuana has just as little choice regarding drugs as someone who is forced to go through a dealer for drugs - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:08:00] - Suppose someone is faced with the choice of debilitating pain or smoking marijuana to alleviate that pain and carry on a normal life. -logan
[2001-03-26 16:07:00] - How is it not contradictory? -logan
[2001-03-26 16:04:00] - - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:03:00] - If the earth dies, all people die. It's the same reason why a slice of cake is less important than a whole cake.
[2001-03-26 16:03:00] - The earth? I don't know. It was here first. And more things are dependant on the earth than are dependant on people.
[2001-03-26 16:03:00] - I guess their freedom of choice. I know that sounds contradictory to my viewpoint, but it's not really. - aaron
[2001-03-26 16:01:00] - And what makes the earth more important than people? -logan
[2001-03-26 16:01:00] - What is it about people that must be protected from drugs? -logan
[2001-03-26 15:58:00] - What do you mean? Above like caterpillars and buildings and books, yes. Above earth, um, no. That's a silly question, I don't think I grasp what you're getting at. - aaron
[2001-03-26 15:58:00] - And people must be protected, above all else? -logan
[2001-03-26 15:53:00] - And as for my opinion on the drug war, I think the government needs to protect people from drugs, because apparently not all people are smart enough to protect themselves - aaron
[2001-03-26 15:51:00] - Who is Nemo? Do I know Nemo? - aaron
[2001-03-26 13:53:00] - stupid drug war. - mig
[2001-03-26 13:38:00] - I believe prisons are a pretty big industry. You can thank the drug war for that. -logan
[2001-03-26 13:07:00] - i changed the size of a data element in the main index. it didn't need to be so big. ~a
[2001-03-26 12:14:00] - but i have no intention of arguing right now, i was just wondering about "private ownership" of prisons. - mig
[2001-03-26 12:13:00] - yes, i can't really argue with you there. - mig
[2001-03-26 12:02:00] - Hmm, the "main index size" shrank. -logan
[2001-03-26 11:58:00] - If you argue with me enough you'll come to realize that almost everything can be privately run.
-logan[2001-03-26 11:57:00] - They'd charge the government for the prisoners (just like a hotel charges you for use of a room). -logan
[2001-03-26 11:45:00] - it wouldn't make much sense for the jail ownership to be private though. if it was, wouldn't they be the ones picking up the bill for maintenence instead of the gov? - mig
[2001-03-26 11:39:00] - I know they contract with private companies to build them, at least (just as with roads). -logan
[2001-03-26 11:34:00] - technically the government owns the prisons, don't they? - mig
[2001-03-26 11:34:00] - private jails? i don't think that sort of thing is allowed? - mig
[2001-03-26 09:42:00] - http://www.prolefeed.com/lists/lucky-charms.html - katie
[2001-03-26 09:27:00] - on a somewhat-related note, private jail owners make very good money. - katie
[2001-03-26 07:31:00] - http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010325/ts/crime_prison_dc_1.html more evidence that we need to end the war on drugs.
- aba[2001-03-26 03:15:00] - http://aporter.dhs.org/?a=4&d=%73%6f
[2001-03-26 01:46:00] - mewmewmew
[2001-03-26 01:01:00] - *laughs* - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:57:00] - 37% of your base are belong to IRS - katie
[2001-03-26 00:48:00] - interesting ps2 game "silent hill 2" --> http://tvmedia.ign.com/media/sh2_all.mov -jdb
[2001-03-26 00:31:00] - Bye -paul
[2001-03-26 00:31:00] - Okay... I'm going to jet - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:30:00] - Just me? sigh - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:28:00] - you -paul
[2001-03-26 00:28:00] - Sooooo... who is left? - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:26:00] - Again... me - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:25:00] - Spanish isn't as fun as German or Russian, but I am limited in what I can take here.
[2001-03-26 00:24:00] - Anyway, since paul and adrian are otherwise occupied I think I'll adjourn to my Physics. Ta. ORO! -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:24:00] - Good for her. I'll refrain from commenting my opinions on the spainish language, as I know that would offend some people -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:23:00] - I like how an umlaut was explained to me... it's a colon that got drunk and fell over. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:22:00] - Kate is nearly fluent in spanish if not fluent. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:22:00] - Yeah, I'd have to do cut and pasting, since when I tried to get an umlaut by key-entry it messed up. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:21:00] - *grins* Not if I brought Kate in here... besides German has Umlouts... and I know I spelt that wrong. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:21:00] - Damn keys - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:21:00] - Aw. But fair enough, though I could top you in German alone. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:21:00] - I'm suprised at many of the new words that pop up when I talk. = nemo
[2001-03-26 00:20:00] - Yeah but the french don't count... I could babble in spanish and get lots of new words. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:19:00] - Cool, three new words for that post. And they were all spelled right. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:18:00] - Haha, dubbing, reminds me of French Stewart's film for E! "Zut Alores!" hehe. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:18:00] - Really? That's pretty funny -paul
[2001-03-26 00:17:00] - Have you ever seen the hercules movie with Arnold? They dubbed over his voice - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:16:00] - ah... since I just have room I just don't have a TV. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:16:00] - "Bah! A giant fish... in my face." -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:16:00] - Bah, no TV in my computer's room -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:15:00] - Conan is funny (o'brien that is) -paul
[2001-03-26 00:15:00] - Pimp Bot 2000 *chuckles* - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:14:00] - And not Conan O'brien, I meant the barbarian -paul
[2001-03-26 00:14:00] - Conan is on! -paul
[2001-03-26 00:14:00] - Yes... you can run faster then me. But I have a car... and you have to come back sometimes - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:13:00] - Space ghost is cool... I love the add for super hero and talk show host license renewal - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:13:00] - I'd like to see you try. I know I can run a helluva lot faster than you can. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:13:00] - 51!!! ~a
[2001-03-26 00:12:00] - Why hasn't there been a new Pokey in months? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:12:00] - Don't make me light you on fire oh cousin of mine. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:12:00] - What channel Adrian? -paul
[2001-03-26 00:12:00] - I never thought I would ever hear anyone say that nick had good tastes. Ugh. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:11:00] - space ghost!!! ~a
[2001-03-26 00:11:00] - You have good taste Nemo
-paul[2001-03-26 00:11:00] - I have Physics to do, I cannot be bother to watch TV -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:10:00] - space ghost is on right now! watch it! ~a
[2001-03-26 00:10:00] - I could put rogue's lips to other uses then speaking lines, and I'll leave it at that. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:10:00] - Alright everyone, let's unanimously reject this absurd notion -paul
[2001-03-26 00:10:00] - Oh god no, the worst part was storm by far -paul
[2001-03-26 00:09:00] - It's a lost cause... but at least you should back me up when I say that Jennifer Connelly is simply the hottest woman on the face of the planet -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:09:00] - Nah... rogue wasn't the worst... I hated the way they did toad... and Saber Tooth - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:09:00] - 'OHH Her... she was nice... - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:09:00] - X-men the movie, Rogue, the worst part in the movie was played by Anna Paquin, capiche? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:09:00] - What you said before that is
-paul[2001-03-26 00:08:00] - I agree with that Nemo -paul
[2001-03-26 00:08:00] - I don't know what paul is talking about so I will simply smiles and nod - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:07:00] - And I insist that she is attractive, did you even see her at the end? -paul
[2001-03-26 00:07:00] - Ok, I'll grant that it may not have been her fault-- but man the scriptwriter really blew it on Rogue. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:07:00] - Simples... there is attractive I want to date and marry and then there is attractive I want to do things to her that would make god blush - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:07:00] - Does that make sense to anyone? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:07:00] - I think she did a great job, despite the fact she was overshadowed by heavyweights like Stewart, McKellen and Jackman -paul
[2001-03-26 00:06:00] - Yes... Or she should simply get into molders kitchen and start making little mulders - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:06:00] - hey, that's funny. i think katie's last name is scully. ~a
[2001-03-26 00:06:00] - Anna Paquin couldn't even act a very simple part, how can she possibly be attractive? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:06:00] - *watches as jdb's head melts into a small puddle* - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - Scully is too close-minded, she should listen to Mulder -paul
[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - No we are just related. Is there something wrong with that? - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - No, he's just my cousin. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - too many posts! -jdb
[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - Hey don't rank on Scully...
Chasey Lain is nice too. - nemo[2001-03-26 00:05:00] - Anna Paquin is hot also!
-paul[2001-03-26 00:04:00] - xpovos & nemo ~a
[2001-03-26 00:04:00] - Are who two married? -paul
[2001-03-26 00:04:00] - huh? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:04:00] - Gillian Anderson? Pffftt -paul
[2001-03-26 00:03:00] - are you two married? ~a
[2001-03-26 00:03:00] - Natalie Portman is, but Anna Paquin is not -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:03:00] - Hmmmm Okay... Hot women... Ummm Gilian Anderson is okay... But I really like that red head who played Lexx in the first season... yummy - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:02:00] - You chose two things you know I hate just to try and provoke an argument, or at least that's how it looks -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:02:00] - I think Natalie Portman is hot. -paul
[2001-03-26 00:02:00] - what's not fair, andrew? ~a
[2001-03-26 00:01:00] - What do you think about the interplay of instinct and concious thought Adrian? - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:01:00] - http://aporter.dhs.org/?a=4&d=psych+and+bio+paul%3F ~a
[2001-03-26 00:01:00] - I could call that entrapment even -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:01:00] - Pysch and bio? Um.... not sure, are these classes that I am suppose to be taking? -paul
[2001-03-26 00:00:00] - If it makes that much of a difference sure. - nemo
[2001-03-26 00:00:00] - That's not fair, adrian -- Xpovos
[2001-03-26 00:00:00] - so what do you think of psych and bio paul? ~a
[2001-03-26 00:00:00] - just hit reload ~a
[2001-03-25 23:59:00] - To see if there are any new posts... why? - nemo
[2001-03-25 23:59:00] - Welll what do you all want to talk about then? I'm flexible... - nemo
[2001-03-25 23:59:00] - Alrighty then, what about Adrian? -paul
[2001-03-25 23:59:00] - and nemo, why do you keep hitting enter into the input box? ~a
[2001-03-25 23:58:00] - no kidding. let's start a new conversation, paul. ~a
[2001-03-25 23:57:00] - You've never seen some of my conversations with myself, then, paul. -- Xpovos
[2001-03-25 23:57:00] - I think this is the most inane conversation I have ever seen on this message board
-paul[2001-03-25 23:57:00] - They are kinda like puppies... except not as edible. - nemo
[2001-03-25 23:55:00] - Aww it is a lurker... how cute - nemo
[2001-03-25 23:54:00] - auto-sign -- lurker -- Xpovos
[2001-03-25 23:54:00] - I'm just talking... waiting for the wind to blow my words conversations wards. - nemo
prev <-> next