Originally Posted By DAF
are you for real??

come on....

cum doesn't taste much if the guy is clean and don't eat spicy shit all the time. It's a little salty but that's it

so since it doesn't taste much, but the man loves it when the girl swallow it, why the fuck not? no need to pay, damn, only the desire to please the one you love

+ it is pretty normal for a guy to have taste his own cum. From what i heard, alot of man does it to make sure their cum doesn't taste nasty before asking the pretty lady to eat it all

and tasting it doesn't mean drinking a glass of it, you know, you can just be curious and try with a drop

Originally Posted By ENAIRA
And cum tastes like its owner.

Originally Posted By CORRUPTER
voulez-vous ben me dire cé quoi le trippe de parler d'avalage de sperme icitte ??

On n'est pas dans un site porno criss .... gang d'étchoeurant d'caliss

Originally Posted By KISHMAY_PINAS
I don't know, nor do I want to, but I tell you one thing, posting up private MSN conversations for public scrutiny is about as lame as you can get

For the record, I am *NOT* talking about Noah's.

Noah says (3:15 PM):
bah i've tasted my own cum
it's not that bad

Fred says (3:12 PM):
that shit tastes fucking nasty.

Originally Posted By DRNYARLATHOTEP

Originally Posted By WIZDUMB
little known fact: the definition of fagot comes after use of the sticks they used to burn people at the stake and since back in the day, that's what they did to homosexuals. hence the reasons why both brits call cigarettes fags and well why that term was coined for the erm... fags

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD
Ian O'Shaughnessy
350 Rue Prince-Arthur O Apt 901
Montreal , QC , CA
H2X 3R4

+1.5148362742

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD
id toss you down the stairs for your stupid arrogance.

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD

Originally Posted By UFOT
and? good? bad? ugly?

Ufot-review or no review

Originally Posted By BASDINI
ahh but see aren't you admitting then that you believe in a statement which can't be proven namely "god does not exist", which if i remember correctly is the very thing your railing agianst religious people for beliving in something without being able to prove it.

GOTCHA THERE NEOFORM!!!!

Originally Posted By BLISSS
Is that what god told you?

Which means he exists and you talk to him

Bingo

Originally Posted By PURESEXMEGS
My boyfriend has adhd he finally went on meds after fighting it his entire life.
He went from a 2.75 gpa to a 4.0

I dont think it was a plecebo effect it was the drugs

Originally Posted By SPARKLZ
I won't hate you, it's your opinion. Everybody's entitled to theirs. I kind of agree with you in the sense that I find doctors hand out prescriptions a little too easily. Like all the kids on Ritalin that supposedly have ADD...A kid is supposed to be hyper as fuck, get over it! But, then again, some need it. Its a fine line.
And some people need to be medicated and locked the fuck up. Like that dude that decapitated that kid on the bus and ATE HIS EYES!!!! *shudders*
And all I was trying to say before is be careful when you fuck around with drugs cause you might snap!

Originally Posted By ZARUEN
Hate me if you want, but in my opinion , Psychiatry is fake, and so are alot of mental disorders... who the fuck needs medication because they are a bit more energetic than whats accepted by society. Its pretty much saying, that because one person has more mood swings than another, hes mentally disabled, which is not true at all.... we just created standards that 90% of people cant even keep up with. Remember i said psychiatry is fake, not psychology, therefore psychological disorders are not fake.. such as in the movie I am Sam.

Originally Posted By BLISSS
Mike, the banana is a much easier explanation

Its simple and makes sense

I don't need to read some fucking crackpot essays to know that

Originally Posted By BLISSS
Yeah but you can't prove it can you?

The banana sold me, unless you can come up with something better

like how can you deny the banana man?

I’ve heard people tell me that god is a mighty and all powerful being that has (according to them) limitless powers, that lay claim to the universe and everything. This claim has several logical problems; and while there are those who will simply use the blanket statement that god is ineffable, that is a completely baseless claim for which there is no possible evidence nor is there a way to prove it.

Not even if god came down and flexed his mighty muscle could he possibly prove his powers without first giving his witnesses the ability to see this, since he has supposedly ineffable powers that could not possibly be explained in mere words to us lowly morals.

This is a specious claim since I could equally claim that I myself have ineffable powers and never have to prove it since my abilities would be beyond words themselves; but I wont try to delude you with such claims since I don’t actually believe I have any such capacity.

I think Christopher Hitchens said it best, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.

What I will point out however is the flaws in the claims that the personal, loving god described in religious books that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. While there are parts of this claim that do work, it also creates a number of contradictions.

If you were omnipotent for example, you would have all the power in the universe; this power would be boundless, bound - not even by the universe its self.

This would give you the power to exist everywhere, which is how the omnipresence is possible, one would only assume you’d want to do so should you have such limitless powers.

The omnipotence would also make it possible to know everything since your power would enable you to know everything you could possibly want.

This all works out quite nicely, until you take the concepts a little deeper.

With omnipresence, the implication is not that you choose to exist in any location you want, but instead that you are unequivocally existing everywhere. This is a state that cannot be changed, and if it is, then you are no longer omnipresent. Omnipresence implies a lack of power, since there is no choice in the state of existence, instead you are simply everywhere at all times (and as a result, will always be there, past, present and future).

This shows a lack of power, which means you are not omnipotent.

Of course you could simply claim that omnipotence implies the ability to reduce your own powers in order to pacify this quagmire, but doing so would create a new one, you would no longer be omnipotent, not to mention the problem with reducing your limitless power would then make you limited in power, never to regain those powers again. Having the ability to regain said powers would imply you never actually lost them in the first place; you cannot simply shunt them for a short while only to have them returned at a later time.

Then there is omniscience, which implies a complete and utter lack of ignorance. There is nothing that is not known to you. Absolutely (when dealing with this sort of power, absolutes are the only means) nothing is left to chance and instead nothing comes to a surprise to you since you have seen everything that has happened, is happening and will ever happen, which is a rather depressing thought, to realize your existence will never bring anything new, since you’ve already seen it all.

Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence. If you were omnipotent, you would be able to, through your limitless powers, be able to create something unknown to yourself, dismissing your omniscience. By the same token you could also create a location that you have never been or even create something that even you don’t have control over, which would dismiss your omnipresence.

Clearly, the most problematic of powers is without doubt is omnipotence, since it (besides being in conflict with its self) is incompatible with omniscience and omnipresence.

If you were however to dismiss these problems and instead focus on this limitless power instead, you run into another interesting issue. Omnipotence is all encompassing. That is to say omnipotence implies complete and utter power, bar nothing. Even a single quark is not beyond your control. As a result there is no power that you do not have. This power is exclusive and cannot be shared, because if you did, you would no longer be the controller of the power, some other would be wielding it and not yourself. This cannot happen, instead the power must be consolidated and never shared which is a problem; it shows a lack of power to be unable to do something like sharing.

You can draw one conclusion from all this: if you did in fact have omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, you would not be the loving god floating around in the heavens, but instead you would be the universe its self.

Originally Posted By TREY
holding grudge is not good for the soul

Originally Posted By ZARUEN
God Exists, just not in the way we would all expect, god does not have a physical form or a physical plane in which to walk , but what we can not see does not mean it does not exist. Take Molecules for example.

Originally Posted By BLISSS
Prove it

A Bakersfield father is accused of biting out one of the eyes of his small child and similarly mutilating the other eye, leaving the child blind.

After attacking the child, 34-year-old Angel Vidal Mendoza Sr. quickly left his apartment in a wheelchair, entered a backyard of a nearby vacant home and attacked his own legs with an ax, severely injuring himself, Bakersfield police reported.

The child, 4-year-old Angelo Mendoza Jr., later told police, "My daddy ate my eyes."

Doctors at Mercy Hospital said it is unknown whether the child will regain vision in his right eye.

Child Protective Services cannot discuss the case, CPS program director Brian Parnell said. But in cases of serious abuse, the child is taken into protective custody, he said.

Some foster homes have specialized medical training, but more such people are needed, he said.

The boy's mother, Desirae Marie Bermudez, 23, was not present during the incident. There is a $15,000 warrant for her arrest for failing to complete a drug treatment program in late 2008, court documents say.

A search warrant report said the father "was displaying symptoms of being under the influence of PCP."

Both he and Bermudez were charged with being under the influence of PCP in a 2006 criminal case. Both pleaded no contest to child endangerment charges in that case, records say.

So why was the boy still living with the father?

CPS officials say there has to pretty much be serious physical abuse -- major bruises or broken bones -- before a child is taken away from his parents automatically.

In cases where parents are using drugs, CPS will definitely check on the child, Parnell said. But they won't necessarily remove the child. That all depends on the extent of the drug abuse or the availability of other care -- relatives or neighbors -- for the children, he said.

The incident happened in the early evening of April 28 at the apartment the father and son share at 422 Ohio Drive near Terrace Way and Madison Street in southeast Bakersfield.

Police and search warrant reports say:

On the morning of April 28, Mendoza asked neighbor Elizabeth Rodriguez, 36, for a ride to a work-related appointment later in the day.

At 6 p.m., she sent her 12-year-old son to get Mendoza. The boy said Mendoza opened his door slightly and looked nervous, but didn't let him in. Mendoza said he would be right out.

But a few minutes later, Rodriguez saw Mendoza rolling his wheelchair quickly away.

The 12-year-old boy and another neighbor went to Mendoza's apartment and discovered the child on the floor.

Meanwhile, witnesses told police a man was yelling and screaming in a wheelchair from the backyard and hitting his legs with an ax.

Mendoza, who remains in custody in lieu of $1 million bail, is charged with mayhem, torture, child cruelty and inflicting an injury to a child.

He's scheduled for a May 20 hearing.

His criminal history dates back to 1998 and includes convictions for drugs, battery, check forgery and a misdemeanor child endangerment.

Originally Posted By MOLOCH
Peut tu rephraser en utilisant un syntaxte decodable?

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD
makes me laugh how that lamer that posted before you basdini seems to thinks hes aware on the subject.

hes talking about ONE engine of the whole ordeal of name resolution, and thats for the machine to translate ip to name. AND THATS IT. a lot of PROTOCOLS ARENT EVEN TOUCHING THAT FILE AND SO AS I , I blanked my hostfile , my whole farm is called from direct ips not even the host file. THE HOST FILE IS CONSIDERED OLD AND SHOULDN BE USED . i learned that in '98. ITS BEEN SUPERCEDED.

(troll)you dont poke much in your /var it shows. and i wouldnt beleive you if you told me you custom build your kernel from scratch. cause your a stock idiot.

resolv.conf while your at it. for an retard calling idiot you exceed pretty good at it (guy above, not you basdini)

for the 4th time, can you acknowledge your puny security has flaws, or you still have that diploma shoved too far up your ass ?

im can see it from here , you watched that 2 guy one mac commercial , and you tought they were trying to save you from evil ibm & microsoft.

name calling is what they were doing , and you picked up the nasty habbit quite quickly. koodos, troll idiot.

if anything you could be the host of a battery of active/dormant code and you woudlt know it cause your like a blind beleiver in god or something...

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD
troll guy, im shure you conundrum much.

you'd tell me youd rap , i wouldnt even listen.

Originally Posted By CUTTERHEAD
AHAHAHAHAHA THE HOST FILE HOW FUCKING XENIX 1982 ... hem ..

for the troll idiot that posted just before me , this is the 3rd time im prooving him wrong.

[ en.wikipedia.org ]
...
As of 2006[update], there are relatively few security exploits targeting Mac OS X (with a Unix-based file system and kernel).[17] The number of viruses for the older Apple operating systems, known as Mac OS Classic, varies greatly from source to source, with Apple stating that there are only four known viruses, and independent sources stating there are as many as 63 viruses. Virus vulnerability between Macs and Windows is a chief selling point, one that Apple uses in their Get a Mac advertising.[18] In January 2009, Symantec announced discovery of a trojan that targets Macs.[19] This discovery did not gain much coverage until April 2009.[19]
..