1
Technology & Information / Re: Steam Deck
« on: August 09, 2022, 08:00:33 AM »Which model did you get?512GB. It should be getting here any day now!!1!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Which model did you get?512GB. It should be getting here any day now!!1!
Fixed the title for U guyzzzz.
SARCASM!!!!If you post like this once more in PR&S or other upper fora, it's off to the shadow realm with you.
Maybe you just went to a really shitty school?It doesn't take that much effort to find an American sporting a "BACK-TO-BACK WORLD WAR WINNERS!!1!!!" t-shirt with a bald eagle carrying 5 guns in the background. They sell them at WalMart, and cheaply.
It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.
In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all. Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible? Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.
You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!
So yes, it was obviously written by humans but the Christian belief is that it was inspired by God.How would you, personally, describe this "inspiration"? Is it a Qu'ranic kinda deal where the supposed deity dictated it word for word? Or is it something more relaxed? To what extent do you think humans may have corrupted the intended message?
It doesn’t. That’s humans you’re thinking ofYou've lost me. Who, in your opinion, wrote the Bible?
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free.Yes. Anything else would just result in repeating the problem.
But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.Personally, I don't know how you'd be able to establish whether the problem is widespread. I know people say voter fraud is not a widespread issue, but it genuinely stumps me how you could conclude that.
So how would such a person vote? Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.
Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?Granted, it's a notable exception that I only have occasional issues with.
The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream.Of course not. There is nothing about them being mainstream that automatically makes them full of lies. There is no direct causation here. However, it just so happens that the mainstream-est of media are utterly full of lies. The media that haven't completely gone down the gutter are hardly mainstream. Some of them are notable, but that's where realising that the Guardian (not a perfect newspaper, but at least somewhat rooted in reality) has 10% of the circulation of any of the Big Bads comes into play.
Counterpoint, no he doesn't.But he says something about things that actually happened, so he's basically telling the truth. 🤷♂️
Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times.As I said immediately after your quote ends, your "clarification" is an obvious attempt at copping out. If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine. Until then, you suffer the social consequences of your own actions, frustrating as you may find them.
I suspect it's the latter.Evidently. Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true". As long as it says "something about" a thing that happened, it's "basically true". And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".
Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth.That's not all you've said, no. Perhaps that's all you meant, and I'm happy to accept that you're stepping down, but what you said was:
It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true.
How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absoluteThat's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. Sure, you gave some half-arsed excuse about how you would be happy if people weren't aligned but you personally received updates on their attempts to align. I hope we can agree that it doesn't merit a serious response. You cannot be made happy, because you've already decided that you're going to disagree with those people, regardless of what they do. And that's dumb.