|
No explanation needed.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
FINALLY some sense[^] in this discussion! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Link fail?
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
LOL - The hamsters are at it again. Seems there are some problems with the link cut and paste functionality here on CP. Good to know - Up until now, I had attributed it to other peoples sloppiness. Now that it has happened to me, it MUST be a bug! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
oh now you blame the hamsters, that's a risky thing to do they have long memories and are very vindictive
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
I think as long as you leave his Debbie collection alone, you can do anything
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Swap Justin Beiber for Jeremy Clarkson?
We win!
|
|
|
|
|
nah stay with Beiber that's one no one can disagree with Clarkson is just a prat not the devil incarnate like Beiber
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That seems to be the simplest solution.
No ter'r'rism = no ter'r'rist resistant doors, therefore no pilot lock-out.
It could solve a lot of other problems, too, particularly in the behaviour of airport ("aeroport"?) staff...
... Nah. Some things are just too resistant to change.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
has terrorism ever been legal?
isn't it by definition a banned activity?
maybe we should legalise it then it would go away (least that's what the drug lot say)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, people seem to think that banning privacy will stop ter'r'rism, which is obviously ridiculous, as it is likely to lead to more.
So we have empirical proof that we won't need to convince these credulous types that banning things works, and, if they believe it, that will make it true -- because that's how belief works, don'tcha know (ask any religious leader).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I bow to your expertise in the area of believing without evidence
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've studied various religions, so I know a bit about it, and it's usually a good idea to listen to people who have experience in a field, before going off and jumping to conclusions.
For example: I learned that apologists and blind-worshippers believe that the objects of their adoration do not need to obey the law; that they can do no wrong; that should be allowed to do anything they like, with no repercussions.
Hell, I heard of a case recently, where some guy punched one of his work colleagues, and a million thralls signed a petition saying that the law of the land was less important than their beloved one.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's true.
I feel sorry for those people. What sad lives they must live, if they need to adore other normal humans that way.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
and yet I have heard of others who demand the heads of people they regard of doing wrong despite this being an over reaction to the actual crime
I see that despite studying you have learned little
Should the punishment be as you decide and not based on any other criteria?
would you point out the post I said that he should not be punished? or are you committing the sin you are condemning?
I feel sorry for those who must hate beyond reason and demand their pound of flesh.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: and yet I have heard of others who demand the heads of people they regard of doing wrong despite this being an over reaction to the actual crime
Really?
Where have you heard this?
Not in CP. No-one in CP has talked that way, to my knowledge.
Take me, for example: I have tried very hard to tell someone here that being violent to colleagues is unacceptable, but he refuses to believe that the object of his celeb affection should be subject to that rule.
However, that is the only thing I have said. He, on the other hand, has talked of hate, and all manner of other things that have got nothing to do with what I had to keep repeating.
Here, I'll repeat it again:
No-one is allowed to get violent with colleagues (unless their job-description requires it), and anyone who does is subject to instant dismissal (I very much doubt that there's an employment contract that doesn't include a clause on this).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
no you assumed that I was saying he should not be punished and I asked where you got this from?
go on point to the post I say he should not be punished
I will say that no company will instantly dismiss an employee for striking another and the terms on employment does not say they have to, what it does say and if you read your own term it will confirm this, that It is GROUNDS for instant dismissal note that word GROUNDS it means that should the company decide that the offence deserve it they CAN dismiss the person not that they HAVE to, they may look at the offence and decide that the situation is not severe enough for such a draconian result
but hey you have your mind made up and that's is that
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: has terrorism ever been legal?
Yes.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: isn't it by definition a banned activity?
No.
Terrorism is simply scaring the sh*t out of civilians for some sort of goal, usually religious, political, or ideological.
Lots of that goes on perfectly legally.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
is that terrorism or just religion? I thought terrorism was to inflict terror by acts of violence
oh I see your point
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Violence, or threats of violence.
The term originated to describe the acts of a state (the French) against it's own people.
States practice plenty of terrorism against their own people, or others.
For example nuking a city so that other cities will be scared you will nuke them in the hope that the country those cities are in will give up the war they are engaged in against you.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: has terrorism ever been legal?
Well, it was invented by Americans, so we can assume that it has been legal there.
An awful lot of what a lot of countries do and have done could be described as ter'r'rism, and I'm sure that they're calling their actions legal.
But if you really think that this thread was intended for a serious discussion of the words in the OP, you must have your glasses on backward.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I asked a question is that not allowed in your world?
oh and as another posted kindly posted the term originally referred to the French not the merkins
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: No ter'r'rism = no ter'r'rist resistant doors, therefore no pilot lock-out.
<rant>
<sarcasm>Now why didn't anyone think of that before?</sarcasm>
This used to be the policy of a certain small middle-eastern country. Unfortunately, every attempt to apply it met with (almost) universal condemnation. Even the events of 2001-09-11 did not cause the world to wake up. 
</rant>
(I suggest that any further discussion of this subject take place in the Soapbox)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: (I suggest that any further discussion of this subject take place in the Soapbox)
Erm, only if anyone takes it seriously (which would be a fruitless thing to do, anyway).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
