Crap Throwing Monkey

You're not worth much more. Are you going to share your views on race with us again anytime soon, or do we have to go to find back issues of Der Stuermer for it?

At least you're sober enough to talk. It's a big step for you.

Hey, the calculus proof is a HARD proof, not just crap. It'll stand up to any criticism you want to throw at it. Degrees in astronomy and physics, m'boy...I'm not the world's greatest mathematician, but I ain't no slouch, either...

Nothing wrong with that if you're a weasel.

That would be a HUGE step for you.

Actually, the limit as B -> 0 of B/2B is half of B/B as B -> 0...is 1/2. It doesn't diverge to infinity because, to put it colloquially, the B's cancel. The cancellation of terms between numerator and denominator doesn't suddenly stop at 0. Or if you want to get fancy, take the derivitave of x/x with respect to x: (d/dx)(x/x) = 1/x - (x/x^2) = 1/x - 1/x = 0. That says the slope of the curve is zero - it's flat. Which means evaluating the equation (x/x) at any point a gives you the same value as at any point b...ergo, if b is non-zero, b/b is 1, and a/a = b/b = 1 even if a is zero. QED. And that's no "subtract the current time from twice the current time, and you get the current time!" mathematical trick. That's straightforward Calc 101.

Yep. That's why I'm boycotting football until they let them play with medieval battle axes and maces..

You're a jarhead. You'd hit anything once.

I don't see anyone here claiming their attitude is a proper Christian one. See Debbie. See Debbie overgeneralize the attitude of a vocal few to an entire country. Overgeneralize, Debbie, overgeneralize!

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant. The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights. The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission. Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent. Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades. And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post. Why change now?

If you multiply it by 0, it'll go away... If, on the other hand, you add 2 to it, multiply it by 300, divide it by 10, subtract 30, multiply it by 2, subtract 60, and then divide by 60, you'll still have it.

Something tells me these bozos were never going to grow up to be aerospace engineers, anyway...

If that really is Winslow, he's a friggin' moron. If it's not...well, he's STILL a friggin' moron.

Actually, his Pulitzer-winning stuff is pretty damned good. Since, though, it seems he's less concerned with pointing out the absurdity of our culture and politics, and more concerned with pointing out the absurdity of that half our culture and politics he disagrees with.

Question: what do you think of the judicial elite's to push their liberal campaign of marital genocide, by which they're undermining the purity of the different subspecies of humanity, to the degree where the intermingling of Homo Sapiens Africanus and Homo Sapiens Europeansis will become so pronounced that there will be no more blonde people in the world by 2200? I ask, only because it was a question that came up some time back...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it...

"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." Do recruits at Parris Island still have the right to call "time out, I'm stressed" when the DI's yelling at them? Or did they finally ditch that BS?

You were a moron as KurtGodel77, you're still one as Pac_Man.

Seriously...I don't know where you're getting that from. I just reread the third and fourth Conventions last night, and it looked pretty clear to me. Members of a civilian militia of a signatory of the Convention regularly and openly carrying arms are covered. Al Qaeda doesn't fit that definition, as they are extra-national (hence not represented by a signator), and the Taleban arguably aren't covered because they never signed the damned thing (though I'll admit, I don't know if the Afghan government previous to the Soviet invasion signed or not, and I don't know that that commitment would or should carry over to the Taleban if they did.) I don't take issue with that, either. Strikes me as a smart thing to do, and a very small investment for potentially great returns in demonstrating that the war is against terrorism and not Islam. Of course, for some here the war IS against Islam...

<further note for sensitive, kind people> When JSP talks about culling humans via natural selection, he's most likely talking about you anyway. </further note for sensitive, kind people>

Because (A+B)(A-B) = A^2 - B^2, and since A^2 = AB, A^2 - B^2 = AB-BB = B(A-B). Ergo, A+B = B.

You can divide by zero, but only in the manner of f(x)/y in the limit of y going to 0. Ergo, if you're dividing y/y in that limit, you reach the conclusion that 0/0 = 1. And technically, 2 times infinity does equal one times infinity. The only mathematical operation you can perform on infinity is raising it to the power of infinity...which gives you a different "kind" of infinity.

That's just a complicated way of saying "multiply the first three digits of your phone number by 10000 (80*250/2), then add the last four digits (twice, then divide by 2)". The whole deal of adding one and subtracting 250 just obfuscates things. Bottom line: it's lame, and anyone with an 8th grade math education should be suitably unimpressed by it.

Or not even. The simple fact is that war is about the application of violence in what is at best barely controlled chaos. And when you start putting that much deadly sh-- in the air, some of it is bound to go where you didn't intend it to, regardless of your level of training or communications.

According to the convention. Non-signatories of the convention - such as trans-national terrorist groups not openly armed - aren't protected by it. The convention's definition of who's coverd is very broad but very specific, and terrorist groups aren't in there. As far as the convention's concerned, such people can be subject to torture and execution. And if you read the Convention...the prisoners at Gitmo are provided a surprising amount of right within the Covention, and not denied all that many. What they're denied is principally the freedom to communicate with the outside, for what I think are obvious reasons.

France?