Rep. This thread is for you.
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
Rep. This thread is for you.
I figured since you never respond to posts within threads, you might respond to a thread with your name in the title:
so:
there are at least three areas where I'm still awaiting a response from you:
1) stuff about your quote that claimed the existence of clinical studies that showed that meat causes cancer
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ans#128954
2) stuff about the speed reading
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... eck#127930
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ion#127951
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ion#128938
3) stuff about modulating pitch and the bush mp3
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ant#125087
I'm taking your silence on these posts as equivalent to you saying:
"Yes you make good points. I see what you mean and i can't argue with them. Therefore I'm going to remain silent"
so:
there are at least three areas where I'm still awaiting a response from you:
1) stuff about your quote that claimed the existence of clinical studies that showed that meat causes cancer
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ans#128954
2) stuff about the speed reading
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... eck#127930
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ion#127951
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ion#128938
3) stuff about modulating pitch and the bush mp3
http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... ant#125087
I'm taking your silence on these posts as equivalent to you saying:
"Yes you make good points. I see what you mean and i can't argue with them. Therefore I'm going to remain silent"
-
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:12 pm
Re: Rep. This thread is for you.
your mastery of the force is evident; follow the path.
-
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
The joint research center of leading players in telecom business and science in Austria.
[url=http://www.marxists.org/][img]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3050/avatarmy7.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1736/leninzbp5.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1076/modulestalinat6.jpg[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9239/cheds1.jpg[/img][/url]
Re: Rep. This thread is for you.
Or maybe your words don't hold much of interest to me to warrant my reading of everything you say? The King can only hold so many jesters in one court.[xeno]Julios wrote:"Yes you make good points. I see what you mean and i can't argue with them. Therefore I'm going to remain silent"
I'll make your day and address some of what is sure to be trash.
Probably not. As long as the formant remained in tact, it would sound like he was actually singing it. It wouldn't chipmunk or sound unnatural.[xeno]Julios wrote:My main point is that if the artist were to tweak the original pitch intonations, which bush's mind generated, then we'd lose that information.
Not at all.[xeno]Julios wrote:Therefore, speaking is a kind of singing
That's not a great gain. Most people almost double their reading speed with the first few sessions. I'm not to the 1200 words per minute level, but when I am I surmise that I would in fact be missing some of the information, however at half that speed I would find a comfortable speed where I have full comprehension of everything my eyes scan. The human body naturally doesn't lift much more than 200 pounds, but when super athletes are conditioned to power lift weights in excess of that, 200 seems like a peanut. Understand?[xeno]Julios wrote:so i tried the demo - went from 403 to 477, but i didn't get the full meaning of either passages, since i was reading so fast.
Because it doesn't make sense. Because I have thought of that. You're like, "Maybe the next apple you bite into will taste like an orange." Sorry, I'm right and you're wrong.[xeno]Julios wrote:Not once have I ever seen you say:
"Ah ok that makes sense"
or
"wow cool never thought of that"
or
"perhaps, but what about this?"
Are you a cock?[xeno]Julios wrote:So, my question is: where are these clinical studies - not saying they don't exist - i'd just like to review them.
What a cock.The Mayo Clinic, the World's Leading Medical Facility wrote:A vegetarian diet generally contains less total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol and includes more dietary fiber. And vegetarians have lower rates of some cancers, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.
Last edited by rep on Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
[url=http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=89AFCCB3-E1F7-4541-9A90745760BAA899]Are you out of your mind?
If people who don't eat meat are less likely to get cancer, then what does that say about people who do eat meat?
You're a first class dipshit.[/url]
If people who don't eat meat are less likely to get cancer, then what does that say about people who do eat meat?
You're a first class dipshit.[/url]
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
You're devoid of a even a smattering of logical thought. First of all, you're attributing something to the Mayo Clinic without citing the actual article in which it was published. Then you're making a broad generalization about two different diets with the implication that ONE SINGLE component is the root cause of alleged lower cancer rates.
I'm not saying that vegan diets are fundamentally unhealthy or that all meat in any amount is good for you. I'm simply stating that you're not proving your case(s) and that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
I'm not saying that vegan diets are fundamentally unhealthy or that all meat in any amount is good for you. I'm simply stating that you're not proving your case(s) and that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
Why don't you check the above link, you fucking imbecile. Then read these.Nightshade wrote:You're devoid of a even a smattering of logical thought. First of all, you're attributing something to the Mayo Clinic without citing the actual article in which it was published. Then you're making a broad generalization about two different diets with the implication that ONE SINGLE component is the root cause of alleged lower cancer rates.
I'm not saying that vegan diets are fundamentally unhealthy or that all meat in any amount is good for you. I'm simply stating that you're not proving your case(s) and that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/83/ ... genumber=2
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Preventive_M ... ntion.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?ob ... 5760BAA899
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
:lol: HAHAHAHAH :lol:rep wrote:[url=http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=89AFCCB3-E1F7-4541-9A90745760BAA899]Are you out of your mind?
If people who don't eat meat are less likely to get cancer, then what does that say about people who do eat meat?
You're a first class dipshit.[/url]
Funniest thing I've heard all day.
I really like your logic Rep. You're a grade A retard. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
There was no reference whatsoever to cancer in the first link you posted, you fucking mongoloid. None.rep wrote:
Why don't you check the above link, you fucking imbecile. Then read these.
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/83/ ... genumber=2
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Preventive_M ... ntion.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?ob ... 5760BAA899
I'll look through the above links later, and while they may show some supporting evidence, YOUR argument is shot full of holes.
Consider the following:
Now, we all know heroin is bad, but is it THE deciding factor in deaths of bank robbing junkies? You can't say. YOU think you can, but that's because you're retarded.The Institute of Dumbfuckery wrote:People who shoot heroin and rob banks are more likely die prematurely than nerds like rep that attend Star Trek conventions on a regular basis. Therefore, drug use is immediately fatal.