Search results

i know! that "iraq has a secular government" excuse never held any water anyway... hadn't these people ever listened to those long tv appearance tirades saddam makes from time to time, where he invokes every islamic justification for his stance he can find?

yeah, i can understand that. i was getting a little tired of vinny's shortboy misrepresentations too. i guess now that shortboy's been officially exposed rock can come back.

"LOL"? ooh yeah, FU - NNEE

skeptic, some people just seem genetically predisposed to abhor war; nothing will ever be justification enough in their eyes. (unless it's some che guevarra wannabe overthrowing the 'evil establishment') some people simply cannot fathom that a politician might be acting for the general good...

i'm not sure about that, but some users here were definitely born ignoramouses...

fruity, i agree that a state leader shouldn't infuse national policy with personal (or even broadly societal) religious ideas. then again, when i look through the annals of history, i'm not sure that there's ever been a more effective call to arms than religion.

he does go to great lengths to justify risks per trade of >10% doesn't he? personally, i just cannot justify taking that much risk on a trade, regardless of whether or not i am 'maximizing' my strategy's performance.

:shaking head: the "street cred" article would be the most outrageously hysterical piece of junk i've read all year (and i read "chit chat", so that's saying something). tragically, that BS is actually taken seriously by some (young) people. whatever it is that irks you about kobe...

whoa! eliminate number of posts? NO WAY! it's fun seeing how many posts someone has... it surely doesn't do anybody any harm.. let's just eliminate counting chit chat posts and we'll be fine. and don't listen to candle about it "measuring participation" BS. it's been explained...

hahahaha! you're a classic 556! i would have levelled exactly the same criticism against YOUR side! (and some more on top for YOU in particular!) too funny! :D

well rich, i'm very much a glass half full guy, so i don't really see a whole heap of 'problems'.. just things that common sense suggests could be a little better.... and if that makes me 'sphincter retentive', so be it...

but WHY? why should it be that if we can't fix ALL problems, that we shouldn't fix ANY?

spoilt for choice weren't you max...

candle, candle. i never presented this as the PERFECT SOLUTION to all of ET's problems. ( i recall specifically stating that) the point is, it is an IMPROVEMENT. sure, we will never weed out ALL the irrelevant posts. but by weeding out the counting of posts made in a forum that was...

exactly. pure simplicity! what say thee candle?

but of course we can. who in their right mind wouldn't agree that a post consisting of ":D" is worth far less than one of Traden4alpha's episodic attacks on his journal? we'd call the former a pretty worthless post right? ie "less valuable" (regardless of which forum it was posted in)...

but we could have the membership status show the current memebership (as it does now) and only fix the post number? problem solved!

you know what would be a good idea? if each post 'froze' the post count at that post.. ie, when you make your 100th post, the post where you made it will show 100. and that won't change. the post where you made your 120th, will always show 120. follow me? whaddya think? a winner...

i can't believe they got away with don ciccio... what kind of weak ass defences did this schmuk have! sheesh. hard to imagine how a bozo like that ever became a don....

ok candle. i guess we can call this the First Post defence.... so it doesn't matter that the subsequant 350 consisted of demonizing ever aspect of us foreign policy for the past 100 years...it's the first post that counts. gotcha