unreality

PLASM QUEST

CROSS

see my edit

Use the Force, you have credit as being the most hardcore libertarian I've ever met I guess my own views are sort of a blend of libertarianism and socialism (which is weird because of their inherently opposite nature). Basically I would call myself a 'minimalist'. Trying to limit the government as much as possible (especially the people working for it - cut as many lawmakers as possible, and go as "direct" a democracy as reason can permit). And of course getting rid of many government programs. I still believe in using taxes and yes I would be ethically okay with stealing a car from Bill Gates haha. That is if it was just some car and replaceable (not if it was some ancient relic he'd been working on every day in one of his garages or something). Not that I would steal a car in the first place but you know what I mean - to a hypothetical someone that makes 10 million dollars a year, money has become just a number. It's not stealing as much as it is reduction of an enormous savings. So yes taxes do "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Robin Hood was the ultimate socialist. But I'm okay with it for many government programs i consider important and/or necessary, such as the education system, the welfare, the infrastructure, the national defense (but again it should be one of the smallest recipients of funds and extremely limited in anything except actual defending the nation). But many more things can be privatized... for example, the space industry. And some aspects of health care and retirement funding. Partial welfare. Among other things. And other things can be sliced altogether. So I would describe myself as a 'minimalist'. I have no problem paying taxes when I know it's going toward a certain set of programs that help people that can't help themselves. Of course I think welfare recipients should be more regulated so people can't "leech" off the system as Use the Force has described. I dont know how that's possible though. But at the current way that taxes are bloated and redirected and stolen for personal gain, I think it's terrible. Hence the minimalization

if you want to sign up, add your name to the roster like so: Hosts: Unreality & Frost 1) Filly 2) Golfjunkie 3) Framm 4) Molly Mae 5) Blablah 6) Izzy 7) yuiop 8) MissKitten 9) JarZe (unconfirmed) 10) Klose 11) JS 12) Kat 13) GMaster479 14) dawh 15) nashville 1998 Backup: 1) LJ thanks for joining

yeah we're working on it

I hope you have a good life hambone playing golf and believing in The One True God. I know that none of our attempts to reason with you or get you to even think about other religions or lacks thereof have had any effect; any amount more will do nothing. Our philosophies are so different that there really is no common ground to discuss something of this matter.

take CHASE-1 CHOSE-1 means the A->O didn't drop the 1, so the third letter isnt A or O PHASE-1 means that C->P changed nothing, hence first letter isnt C or P MOVIE-0 means last letter isn't E leaving H and S (from CHASE & PHASE & CHOSE): *H*S* now PISSY shares the initial 'IS' with AISLE which got 0, and we know the first letter isn't C or P, leaving ***SY so we have *H*S* and ***SY with PROSE, we already know it's not the P, and the OSE is shared with CHOSE, whose C is also not it, hence the only change from CHOSE to PROSE is actually the H->R in the second letter, which did not cause a drop in number. Hence the second letter is not H or R first letter: not C or P second letter: not H or R third letter: not A or O fifth letter: not E so with the H struck out of *H*S*, it means that we've got ***S*, then this also satisfies the ***SY from PISSY, leaving ***S* SO: FOURTH LETTER = S

PROSE

who says we'll have parties in the first place? The two party system is corrupt and accomplishes nothing, both pushed toward intermediancy by catering to as large a base population. Instead we can have a direct democracy via the internet. Or at least independent candidates without the party megapowers

CHASE

phase

agree with all except: 16 (wtf? If they're illegal then they haven't been caught haha. Thus can't be forced into the military) 19 (I agree a sliding scale. 1% or less for very poor people moving up to like 10-15% at the most) 20 (don't tell me what i should do to get money haha. We shouldn't *require* anything, just encourage) 21 (maybe we should just ban cigarettes and only sell tobacco as in the PLANT) 26 (what?) 28 (again, what?)

hmm we have a missing host situation

As much as I think the government should be limited, there are things it has to do, things it has to require the people to do, in order to protect the common good. For example, with everyone looking out for themselves, it can be hard to make a huge positive impact on the environment. That's why we should require people to have rain barrels, solar panels, compost piles, and recycling. The little bit that each helps can add up to a lot. A lot of help.

I like the way you think EDM. You're fusing your faith with the reality of the situation; God planning the process of evolution seems like the most elegant and 'godly' way to 'design' everything if I was a god. Some times I consider myself a deist, which means that a god set in motion the universe but then had no further interaction with it. Its only interaction was to initially create it, you might say. Then again the whole point is that that doesn't matter. Still an atheist/agnostic at core. But i'm not anti-theist. I think it's reasonable for a religious person to conclude that god set in motion the natural processes. (As long as you don't think the earth is 6k years old i'm cool with you :lol: ) agreed. Sure you can look at all this fascinating complexity (billions of years to reach this point in evolutionary history - some people don't get how long that really is, how long it takes for these things to happen) and just write it off "prometheus crafted me out of clay" or "god designed me from dirt" or whatever religion you follow. OR, you can actually try to explain them. To figure out how these emergent complexities can occur. Chaos from order. It's a fascinating subject again your ignorance of other religions astounds me. You have very little knowledge of what it actually means to be Muslim, let alone Buddhist or any other. By the way have you heard of 'Buddha Boy'? It's pretty cool stuff. But I'm sure you'll cast it away as a "fabricated miracle", not real. And of course it probably is. But then don't be surprised when stuff you think of as "miracles" turn out to be just as fabricated

nice I didn't know it was acceptable to put multiple carats next to each other for other hyper operators (for example google won't accept 3^^2 in its calculator ) But more seriously, nice job! Here's a question though. If we did "proper notation" for 9!!!!!!...etc and wrapped it in parentheses: 9!)!)!)!)!)!)!).. with an appropriate number in the beginning, do you think that still beats the other submissions (though not 9<98>9 i'm sure) 1 + x + 2x = 100 1 + 3x = 100 x = 33 If i did that right, it means the proper version of my original submission would be 9 factorialized 33 times (instead of 99). Wait! We don't need outer parentheses! So we can save two more digits on the 33rd factorial 9!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)! that's 9 followed by 32 "!)" units and a "!". Hence 1 + 32*2 + 1 = 66 plus the 32 more opening parentheses that need to go in front = 98 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)! the above is 98 characters and represents a 9 factorialized 33 times. But we still have 2 extra characterse It would be a waste to package another set of parentheses because that would use up what we have left and not change anything. We can't get any more factorial signs out of this. So the only thing I can think to do is: ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((999!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!)! of course 9 to 999 is no substitute for another factorial, but it's not possible with all the parentheses. So the largest number creatable with just factorials is 999 factorialized 33 times edit: a better option (but it goes down the slippery slope of the exponents and might as well say "change it all to exponents") but it is to do 9^9 instead of 999 because 9^9 = 387 420 489 but since the next char is "!", does that mean 9^9!.. is that 9 raised to the power of 9! or 9^9 factorialized?

Evolution is tied in - almost entirely integrated - in modern biology

didn't know what? That they are the vessel for the next generation? Oh i know. It's all about the potential. That week thing was just an attempt to make a compromise with you and gvg We're inventing a government system here - that includes saying what has rights. It IS alive, by the way. Or will be, if you let nature play its course. they're zygotes until they meet up -then they're a person. It's not a unique person until conception happens, IMO. I don't know,I just don't know

As for (2), I'm not equipped to explain evolution. There are others who are: - dawh - octopuppy - ADParker I can't do it justice

sometimes I think about stuff like this and it's all so fantastic, so improbable (or is it?), so cleverly designed (or so it seems) that I'm with you. I really am. But, there are two problems: (1) problem of recursion - surely if all these interlocking creatures and body parts were designed instead of co-evolved, it would take an _incredible_ mind to do the designing. Would you agree? A mind more complex (or as it is claimed, INFINITELY more complex) than the human brain, than the liver, than a honeycomb. If this designing mind is so much more complex than ours; and ours require designing BECAUSE they are so complex, than wouldn't this overmind (GOD) requiring an even greater designer? a typical response here is "God is infinitely more complex than the complex human mind, yes; but the human mind needs designing whereas God just is", but do you realize how empty that is. "God just is" For the sake of the argument why don't we extend it to the whole universe and everything in it. The universe, the galaxy, the solar system, Earth, plants, humans, animals, the complexity of Life. You say that its complexity requires being designed. But you also say that God is infinitely more complex. Then when asked "Okay so WHO designed GOD?" you reply "God does not need designing, he just IS" ... then why not cut out the middleman and just accept that The Universe can "just BE"? In terms of complexity: God > Universe your argument: Universe is too complex to just be, God must have designed it counterargument: then if God is more complex, where did He come from? your argument: he just is. PARADOX! Don't you see the paradox? The only possible way to avoid is to say that God is LESS complex than the universe in terms of having-to-be-designed. In fact you would have to say that God was LESS complex than the human mind. It just doesn't compute. The only other resolution is to say that there were an infinite chain of gods. But isn't it just simpler to concede then that the Universe just exists? Why can't you let it be?

how about no abortions at all? Because if you kill it in the first trimester, it could have easily looked like a baby 5 months later. That's a terrible excuse. Izzy just because religious people think abortion is bad for another reason doesn't mean you have to think it's good. It's like murder - they think it's bad because they'll go to hell. You think it's bad because it's wrong in your moral sense. To me, it's the same with abortion. It's an act of extreme selfishness to kill your own child, even if you don't think you're ready for it- there are other people that are ready for one and can't find it. The excuse of "there are unwanted children in the world so we should do abortions" is just cruel. Would you rather be alive and unwanted, or dead? And the argument "women will just get them anyway, they'll go to more dangerous back-alley abortions" is a valid one but I think that will actually deter women from doing that unless they really are desperate enough to do that. How about a compromise and having like a first-week-only "post facto birth control" option? But it has to come with counseling and other support. And we'll boost support for orphanages, adoption agencies, women who have to give birth, etc.

I counted 24 for the host: Unreality - 264 Izzy - 212 t8t8t8 - 158 Framm - 157 Plainglazed - 109 Glycereine - 73 Dawh - 66 woon - 20 Abhisk - 20 Prince Marth - 15 DudleyDude - 15 yuiop - 5 and woon I guess RELIC

there's an ambiguity in the phrase "marking it with a line". The 'it' could refer to the 'hole' or the 'piece of paper'. I still stick by the answer I gave though. I'm probably wrong though