Small niggling annoyances.

[MidnightViper88]

FUCKING EAS

It's ruining my TV like the occasional outbreak of herpes

[swingdjted]

[UNINFORMED, STUPID-ASS MOFO]
EAS? Not sure what it stands for... Wikipedia was no help.
[/UNINFORMED, STUPID-ASS MOFO]

[MidnightViper88]

Emergency Alert System

And you know what's even more annoying than the test interruptions? The beeping...ERRRRRR~...ERRRRRR~...

Dead air static is far less annoying; I could almost have orgasms over that compared to an EAS test...

[swingdjted]

Ahh, ok. I hate hearing that when I'm listening to the tuner while driving.

[ElChevelle]

It's even overdone on XM....ARGHhhhhhhhh

[thinktink]

1) Webmasters/hostmasters/forum designers that don't fully understand and appreciate the width of the left scrollbar found in most (gasp!) if not all web browsers.

2) Taxis

3) Taxes (federal, state, or local)

4) Websites that think desktop width is always the same as screen width

5) Same as #4 but heights.

6) People that label other people political hacks just because they don't compromise their own political beliefs with "bi-partisanship"

7) Being labeled a racist just because I was born white through no fault of my own

8) People that bow down and worship at the Altar of Obama

9) People that don't know how to park their friggin gigantic a** SUV.

10) People that think an SUV can actually fit in a parking spot clearly marked as "Compact"

11) People that pass you on the right-hand side and then suddenly go 20 miles slower than the posted speed limit (is actually illegal in most U.S. territories, it's called "impeding the normal and reasonable flow of traffic" but sadly is never enforced by the Policy Enforcers (ie: Police.))

12) Steve Jobs

13) People that write bad programs/drivers FOR Windows and then blame Bill Gates for not making a fault tolerant OS.

14) A.C.O.R.N holes (sound it out)

15) People that believe that just because you have a slightly above normal I.Q. that you're supposed to know LINUX and all the "popular" free software for it like the back of your bloody hand. >.<

16) People that believe that all software should be open source and free. I mean come'on, wtf, people consume time, money, personal energy, and sometimes personal resources to write software, holy **** let them earn a living, damn'it you jack-***es!

17) Communism

18) People that believe Christianity and Catholicism are the exact same Religion that worship the exact same God

18) Socialism

19) Scientists that use the argument that they are smarter than you and so you should automatically believe them when they say that the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven true beyond all shadow of a doubt

20) People that try to logically explain God into non-existence. Seriously, that's really annoying. To be able to [prove] that God doesn't exist you would have to be in all places, all dimensions, all times, and all universes at the same time.

21) People that believe that the second amendment should only apply to governments run by elitists. The purpose of the second amendment is so that The People can defend themselves from a corrupted Government (which is what I believe has already happened >.<)

22) The New World Order

23) Property taxes (Government rent)

24) People with large teeth and small gums

25) People with small teeth and large gums *shivers*

26) Small $50+ electronic devices that fall apart into a zillion pieces 5 days after you got it from the store

27) Real Money Traders (people/organizations that sell/buy virtual/in-game currency for real money)

28) Communist China

29) JP ONRY! (if you don't play MMORPG(s), ignore this one)

30) People that purposely seek out government hand-outs

[Paul_Bags]

Long arse posts

When the nozzle of the sauce bottle gets slightly clogged, causing it to spray in an unintended direction.

[thinktink]

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
Long arse posts

lol, touche

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
When the nozzle of the sauce bottle gets slightly clogged, causing it to spray in an unintended direction.

I've never had that happen to me before but I do hate it when the cheap ketchup/mustard you find in most convenience stores has separated and for a good 30 seconds all you get is watery condiment that soaks the bread that's already stale.

[Paul_Bags]

I shake the bottle

[thinktink]

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
I shake the bottle

31) People with overly simple solutions

32) People that complain about "long arse posts"

j/k

[ElChevelle]

People who try to get camera time during live events, thereby making total jackasses of themselves. I wish they'd all just die and leave the world's IQ average a tad bit higher.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by thinktink
18) People that believe Christianity and Catholicism are the exact same Religion that worship the exact same God

I can one-up you: People that don't know the difference between a religion and a religious denomination...

[gaekwad2]

I don't think that's what he meant.
(note the worship the same God part)

[thinktink]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
I don't think that's what he meant.
(note the worship the same God part)

Not entirely what I meant either but that is a [very] interesing tract. I did not know that I.H.S meant Isis, Horus, and Seb. The annoyance I was referring to is when atheists and ignorant tards try to link the Christian believers of today (whether they are Protestant or not) with the attrocities commited by the Roman Catholic Church of the past in their rediculous anti-religous-establishment arguments. It's hard to argue with your sociallist tree-hugging profesor about the finer points of the severe difference between actual Christianity in class w/out getting lynched by your fellow Catholic students after class in southern California. (Take note that I have specified a region which invariably has a [certain] demographic, *hint hint wink wink nudge nudge*)

[Paul_Bags]

Your scared of lynchings, yet atheists have ridiculous arguments? "Yes, I fear certain people who are aligned to a particular religion, yet that same argument against religion coming from an atheist is ridiculous." Thats what I just read.

[EDIT]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
I don't think that's what he meant.
(note the worship the same God part)

http://www.purplepussy.net/d/20021113.html

[gaekwad2]

Paul_Bags, why do you hate freedom?

[Paul_Bags]

Without freedom I couldn't argue shit on the net, play devils advocate, and post a 7 year old comic making fun of some religious nuts website. Why would I hate it?

[thinktink]

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
Your scared of lynchings, yet atheists have ridiculous arguments?

What does not wanting to be physically injured have to do with ridiculous arguments?

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
"...yet that same argument against religion coming from an atheist is ridiculous."

To which other [same] argument do you refer? It also seems like you are accusing me of being a hypocrite. Was this personal attack intentional?

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
http://www.purplepussy.net/d/20021113.html

What does this fake tract have to do with the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Catholicism? It appears (at least to me) to be entirely out of place and completely irrelevant to the specific points I made about fearing physical injury for explaining the forementioned fundamental doctrinal differences in the presence of others who would wish physical injury upon me for voicing those beliefs. I am confused at this point, please clarify.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...yet atheists have ridiculous arguments?

It seems you are referring to an over-arching generalization that I believe simply does not exist or at least does not appear readily apparent after rereading my own post with regards to wishing to not be physically violated. If there is one, would you care to elaborate?

[Paul_Bags]

You say it's ridiculous to compare current Christianity/Catholicism with past atrocities, yet said past atrocities probably arose from the very same adherence to doctrine/intolerance of deviance that any violence towards you speaking out in class would come from. That it is this quality and potential for atrocity that atheists and ignorant tards decry, not simply the past but the fact that religion almost by definition does not actually learn from it's past mistakes and so will most probably repeat them. Including violence, say, to someone who holds different beliefs. And they'll certainly continue their anti-science agendas (creationism taught in the class room), and their unfettered bigotry (proposition 8).

Also, how many non-christians know the difference between Anglican/Protestant/Catholic/etc(?). To most non-christians, at least that I know, 'Christian' is an umbrella term. And people who call themselves christian without being able to give a denomination are laughed at as frauds. Unfortunately for you catholics are christian just as much as you are, so when people criticize christians while thinking of catholics they are technically generalizing, but still correct. You can point that out to them if you like.


And come on, in says right there in your post "in their rediculous anti-religous-establishment arguments".

[swingdjted]

[offtopic but on thread title topic]
The sound of snack bags, especially potato chip/crisp bags when I'm trying to watch/listen to a quiet part of a movie really bugs me, especially when someone is fumbling around in the bag for more than a minute just to get half a handful of chips/crisps. The crackling of the bag drives me INSANE. It makes me want to pause the movie and crank death metal as punishment to the person with the bag. Because I'm a nice guy, I just get a bowl and pour the snack in it (and yet I still get a mean look for it sometimes).
[/offtopic but on thread title topic]

[skryingbreath]

Just rip it open fast and loud. The slower you go, the more unbearable it is. (that's what she said)

[swingdjted]

More on the other topic, I was taught in Catholic schools that "Christian" means nothing more than a religion that believes in the story of Christ (basically any religion that includes the "New Testament" of the Bible).

So, based on what I was taught, "Christian" includes Catholicism and all Protestant denominations, and any comments about "Christians" would refer to all mentioned.

Catholics do (although seldom) learn from "past mistakes". Just look at the Second Vatican Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
Although it's not necessarily "learning from mistakes" to most people, I would loosely define it as that.

[edit] @ Skry - lol...
I'd like to just rip it open for them and throw it in a bowl, but I'm treated like I'm some kind of maniac if I do.

[thinktink]

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
You say it's ridiculous to compare current Christianity/Catholicism with past atrocities,...

Right there, you are still vehemently associating Catholicism with Christianity yet I have repeatedly contended that Catholicism is not Christian at all...

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...yet said past atrocities probably arose from the very same adherence to doctrine/intolerance of deviance that any violence towards you speaking out in class would come from.

...so this point is completely moot.

And furthermore...

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
"...probably arose from... ...That it is this quality and potential for atrocity that atheists and ignorant tards decry..."

...is not proof or fact and is more akin to a generalization that all religious people have a propensity for physical violence against deviant people. This is a [clear] generalization on your part and implies an accusation on your part that the believers of today are just as guilty for those past atrocities as those that actually committed them (guilt by association.) If you will note, I have never seen Pat Robertson bash a gay guy with a baseball bat (but then again you might argue that just because nobody has ever seen Pat Robertson bash a gay guy with a baseball bat doesn't mean he never did but then you would be arguing from the negative.)

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...[by definition] does not actually learn from it's past...

Orly? Where in the Bible or any other spiritualistic canon does it literally state that it's followers/believers are not allowed to learn from their mistakes? Do you intend to state that because of the absolute truths of right and wrong believers are bound by those truths to commit atrocities in the name of quelling deviancy? This is utter nonsense!

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...and so will most probably repeat them.

Again, another clear and blatant generalization on your part...

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...their anti-science agendas...

...and yet again, another clear and blatant generalization on your part. Truth is truth and that truth includes the sciences. Any true religion would [have] to include the sciences in order to maintain any coherence in a Creationist model. Have you ever heard of Kent Hovind? He believes as do I the current theoretical models for "how we got here" (i.e.: Evolution) are better explained scientifically through the world wide flood scenario found in most religions.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...and their unfettered bigotry (proposition 8)

Oh here we go. I believe the real reason the entire movement to label people who are against homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual deviances as "bigots" is so that those unproductive (pun intended ) and anti-social behaviors be included in the falluc Equal Protection clauses by fiat. I call them falluc because the original Constitution already had an inherent equal protection clause and this movement is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to subvert the will and vote of the people.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
And come on, in says right there in your post "in their rediculous anti-religous-establishment arguments".

That was stated within the context that the generalization that all religious people of today will commit the same atrocities committed in the past is the reason why there should be an anti-religous-establishment movement is ridiculous! The "separation of church and state" statement was taken completely out of context. That statement was intended as a "one way wall" where The Government was restricted from directly subverting the churches but that people of faith could most certainly influence The Government in the lawful discharge of public office as I believe as many others do was the foundation of The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This belief is not unreasonable nor unheard of.

http://www.wall-of-separation.com/

[EDIT]: And I don't believe you answered any of my questions in my previous post, although, I admit, I could be wrong because you went off on alot of tangents and was hard to follow and I'm a bit tired at the moment.

[Paul_Bags]

Originally posted by thinktink
Right there, you are still vehemently associating Catholicism with Christianity yet I have repeatedly contended that Catholicism is not Christian at all...

And I contended that it is. Poor choice of word, anybody could contended anything, doesn't make it fact.

Originally posted by thinktink
This is a [clear] generalization on your part and implies an accusation on your part that the believers of today are just as guilty for those past atrocities as those that actually committed them (guilt by association.)

My point is that a+a=b, and will always =b until the equation is changed. The equation is doctrine, and if it doesn't change it will still =b. It's accusing of following old doctrines, that will likely lead to old conclusions.

Originally posted by thinktink
Orly? Where in the Bible or any other spiritualistic canon does it literally state that it's followers/believers are not allowed to learn from their mistakes?

Social reprisals from old methods might cause a change of methods, but the aim still stays the same. Thats doctrine. Unless the doctrines changed. In the past homosexuals would probably just have been stoned to death (or even smited from the heavens), now the game is changing legislation to deny them freedoms and rights and even trying to persuade them not to be gay with fucked up head games. Or simply persecution through continued hatred.

Originally posted by thinktink
Have you ever heard of Kent Hovind? He believes as do I the current theoretical models for "how we got here" (i.e.: Evolution) are better explained scientifically through the world wide flood scenario found in most religions.

So you believe that a scientific theory with hundreds of years of scientific evidence and scrutiny is inferior to an old story about a flood? And you somehow believe that that is scientific?

Originally posted by thinktink
Oh here we go. I believe the real reason the entire movement to label people who are against homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual deviances as "bigots" is so that those unproductive (pun intended ) and anti-social behaviors be included in the falluc Equal Protection clauses by fiat. I call them falluc because the original Constitution already had an inherent equal protection clause and this movement is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to subvert the will and vote of the people.

Well I don't know much about laws specific to the USA. I do know that denying consenting adults from doing what they want in private based on an arbitrary characteristic is bigoted. The "will and vote of the people" is all well and good, but when your talking about the majority controlling and restricting a minority who are in no way impacting upon or restricting the majority themselves your talking about some perverse distortion of justice. As far as "unproductive and anti-social" goes, well, anything anyone does in their off hours is unproductive. And anti-social, well, your simply wrong. And that was just the very first site google gives for 'anti-social behaviour'.

Originally posted by thinktink
That was stated within the context that the generalization that all religious people of today will commit the same atrocities committed in the past is the reason why there should be an anti-religous-establishment movement is ridiculous!

Your right, that is ridiculous. However, you said "...when atheists ... try to link the Christian believers of today ... with the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church of the past in their ridiculous anti-religious-establishment arguments", implying that you already thought their arguments were ridiculous, further implying you were just trying to find some hole to pick at in their arguments.

Originally posted by thinktink
The "separation of church and state" statement was taken completely out of context. That statement was intended as a "one way wall" where The Government was restricted from directly subverting the churches but that people of faith could most certainly influence The Government in the lawful discharge of public office...

The point is to stop subversion in both directions. Religion is supposed to stick to religion and politics is supposed to stick to politics, each leaving the other to function unimpeded. Maybe it doesn't work that way, shrug.

Originally posted by thinktink
[EDIT]: And I don't believe you answered any of my questions in my previous post,

I merely meant that on the one hand you criticized atheists for suggesting the religious could be as violent as they once were in the past, and on the other hand your are scared of violence from a religious group. Yes, this seems hypocritical to me.

Originally posted by thinktink
although, I admit, I could be wrong because you went off on alot of tangents and was hard to follow and I'm a bit tired at the moment.

I'll admit I'm no wordsmith.

[Paul_Bags]

[ontopic]
Spending an hour or two going through a long post and trying to come up with clear counter-argument. I can pick up a tool and a device that both look alien and figure it out in a few minutes, but I can take 20 to form a coherent sentence. Heck, I can take 30 just trying to remember the relevant points and facts so that I can argue them. THATS annoying.

[edit]
And remembering that my flatmate is baby sitting tonight, so now I have to try not to creep out/wake up children as I walk around the house.

[ElChevelle]

Posts that ramble on or are more than one paragraph.

[thinktink]

I'll try to make this brief. I got other things to do too.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
And I contended that it is. Poor choice of word, anybody could contended anything, doesn't make it fact.

I would agree but my point was that the distinction between what you stated and what I stated you misinterpreted and therefore your after-point was moot.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
My point is that a+a=b, and will always =b until the equation is changed. The equation is doctrine, and if it doesn't change it will still =b. It's accusing of following old doctrines, that will likely lead to old conclusions.

On this I guess we will just have to disagree (yuk.)

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
Social reprisals from old methods might cause a change of methods, but the aim still stays the same. Thats doctrine. Unless the doctrines changed. In the past homosexuals would probably just have been stoned to death (or even smited from the heavens), now the game is changing legislation to deny them freedoms and rights and even trying to persuade them not to be gay with fucked up head games. Or simply persecution through continued hatred.

Um,... ...I haven't seen the Police, FBI, CIA, government legislator, or any other public official or office-affiliated-thereof break down the door of a private residence and arrest 1, 2, or more private citizens engaging in a mutually consentual act. And the accusation you made that all religious people [hate] people who perform such fore-mentioned acts is completely wrong and again another generalization. Any such action or desire to "convert" people who engage in said acts should be done from love and anybody who does otherwise is misguided.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
So you believe that a scientific theory with hundreds of years of scientific evidence and scrutiny is inferior to an old story about a flood? And you somehow believe that that is scientific?

Hell yes and I would advise that you actually do at least a small amount research on the topic before arguing this point again. For example, the "geologic column" is better explained by stratification during a worldwide flood than by the proposed Evolutionist modal (i.e.: where the hell are the soil layers between all these "ages"?) It is geo-physically impossible that the Grand Canyon was carved by the Colorado River over millions of years. The Grand Canyon is a washed out spillway by a sudden rush of water during a flood. I could state more examples but I don't want to make an already long post longer. I'm at a disadvantage to you as I'm not allowed to cite URL references. The reason why you don't hear about any of this is because there [is] no scientific scrutiny. Evolutionism is a dead religion continually funded by the government and shoved down our throats in public schools, other educational institutions, and the mass media outlets.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
Well I don't know much about laws specific to the USA. I do know that denying consenting adults from doing what they want in private based on an arbitrary characteristic is bigoted...

I do not hate, nor do I personally know or knowingly associate with other religious people that hate homosexuals. You are generalizing again.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
...However, you said "...when atheists ... try to link the Christian believers of today ... with the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church of the past in their ridiculous anti-religious-establishment arguments", implying that you already thought their arguments were ridiculous, further implying...

It seems you are looking for something that isn't there just so you can argue against a point I did not make.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
The point is to stop subversion in both directions. Religion is supposed to stick to religion and politics is supposed to stick to politics, each leaving the other to function unimpeded. Maybe it doesn't work that way, shrug.

Again on this I guess we will just have to disagree (yuk x2.)

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
I merely meant that on the one hand you criticized atheists for suggesting the religious could be as violent as they once were in the past, and on the other hand your are scared of violence from a religious group. Yes, this seems hypocritical to me.

No, wrong, completely wrong. I was not accusing Catholics in general of wanting to injure me for stating my beliefs, just the ones that happened to be surrounding me at this particular instance in the very same classroom I was arguing with an atheist professor in. Those two facts are completely unrelated. I had no choice but to hold my tongue in an environment that would have become hostile had I continued to argue with my professor within earshot of my classmates. Any other implication was completely unintentional and I believe I made that clear by stating the geographical region in which the incident occurred in. Again it seems you are arguing against a supposed point that simply doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
Yes, this seems hypocritical to me.

Atheists [are] religious. They [believe] God does not exist. So, therefore, using your logic, they are just as guilty of past atrocities and are doomed to the agenda of shoving Evolutionism and Paganism and Atheism down my throat in the public schools (run, funded, and controlled by the government elitists) and mass media outlets and that there needs to be a separation of [your] [church] (Evolution is a religion with it's "scientific" canons) and state.

Originally posted by Paul_Bags
I'll admit I'm no wordsmith.

I agree, it feels like I'm writing a bloody term paper. Stimulating ain't it?! *gag*

[ElChevelle]

lol

If I have to scroll more than once to read a post, I skip it.








Unless, it has boobies.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Unless, it has boobies.

You know what annoys me? I can't stare at a woman's boobies, especially if she has nice boobies, without her giving me some retaliatory staredown like I'm a complete pervert...

Fuckin' A

[skryingbreath]

Sunglasses.

[swingdjted]

and yet they wear clothes that "ask" you to stare...

[thinktink]

Originally posted by swingdjted
and yet they wear clothes that "ask" you to stare...

Yeah that gets me too. Some1 once said "If you're not in the business, don't advertise.", forgot who.

[Paul_Bags]

I was sitting on the bus the other day, you know how buses have those seat that face backwards, and I could see right down this chicks top in the reflection on the window. No direct line of sight = deniability. The bumpy roads were good that day.

I'm at a disadvantage to you as I'm not allowed to cite URL references.

You can, people can click quote or reply to see your URLs, and when you have enough posts your urls will show up. It's an anti spam mechanism.

And as for the argument: it doesn't matter. We believe in different things, and the rest of my argument was pretty weak anyway. Also, I've been reminded that I'd rather spend my time in front of the computer looking at boobies.

[k_rock923]

Adobe Acrobat. So fucking bloated.

[ryan]

Those last few crumbs at the bottom of every bag of doritos.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
Sunglasses.

I can't see shit

norly...Unlike Ray Charles, I can't see anything without my glasses, since I'm incredibly near-sighted...

*Transitions Lenses

[swingdjted]

@ k_r ~ 7 megs just for the updater (not even the real program)? [larger font than forums will allow]BLOAT[/larger font than forums will allow]

@ ryan - I tear the bag open and lick the motherfuckers out. Yes, even in front of company. No shame.

@ tt - Paul is right about the links. If you want I can quote the link parts of your posts to display them (since they're not meant as spam), and others in the discussion can too, and you'll have link posting privileges soon anyway.

[QOAL]

Those bloody foreign call centres;
I don't want to be woken up at 5am on a Sunday by a cold calling, data harvesting, call centre that is so far away it's almost amusing how long the delay is.
No idea what they said after 'hello', my brain zoned out and hung up.

[thinktink]

Originally posted by thinktink
Yeah that gets me too. Some1 once said "If you're not in the business, don't advertise.", forgot who.

lol, I just remembered, it was Kent Hovind quoting his father.

[MidnightViper88]

Well, fuck this; I was looking forward to watching Red Eye tonight, especially since Jim Norton was going to be a guest, but wouldn't you know, it got preempted by continuous all-night coverage on the death of Michael Jackson...

And with Congress voting on Cap and Trade tomorrow, I'll bet they'll use that as an excuse not to let people in on the tax secret...

And should I just roll my eyes one more time at the general annoyance of continuous coverage of a single subject on practically all cable news networks, even if I don't watch them?