The Director Posted July 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Fine then..... What unpersonal things did the Director do after he escaped the tunnel. Interestingly enough, everything he did after he escaped the tunnel was personal. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SykoWolf Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Why is facial hair associated with manliness ?What is Brisbane?This is a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Why is facial hair associated with manliness ? What is Brisbane? This is a question? 1. Because the human male on average grows more facial hair than the human female. Most females don't even have to shave their face to appear to not have facial hair. The majority of men, on the other hand, have to frequently shave to avoid having facial hair. That's why it's associated with manliness. 2. Unless you are talking about something else, it's the capital of Queensland, Australia. 3. This is an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose The Ace Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 What did the Director not do when he escaped the tunnel ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderWombat Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 How is life in Idaho? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 What did the Director not do when he escaped the tunnel ? He didn't not do anything. How is life in Idaho? It's alright. Kind of hot. Boring. You know, stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderWombat Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 It's alright. Kind of hot. Boring. You know, stuff like that. Funny story, but that is exactly what I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-38 Boss Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Let's have a mind tickler then. There are three animals. A snake, a lion, and a goat. You have a raft that can only carry two at a time. Assuming the following: The lion would eat the goat The goat would trample the snake The snake would poison the lion What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Let's have a mind tickler then. There are three animals. A snake, a lion, and a goat. You have a raft that can only carry two at a time. Assuming the following: The lion would eat the goat The goat would trample the snake The snake would poison the lion What do you do? Why would I take any of the animals with me on the raft in the first place? That's dangerous. The lion might eat me, the goat might kick me off the raft, and the snake might poison me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-38 Boss Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Why would I take any of the animals with me on the raft in the first place? That's dangerous. The lion might eat me, the goat might kick me off the raft, and the snake might poison me. We have a winner. Here's your prize: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Is not JL Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 We have a winner. I don't......believe anybody with an ounce of rational thought would have given any answer other than that one. * * * Stuff have half lives. The particles that make up an object radiate away. So why doesn't this seem to affect humans, and other animals etc.? Is it because the half life is so long? Even then, many, many particles that make us up are still being radiated away; what are the consequences? Why do they seem to not exist? Isn't it dangerous if, say, a particle that made up Deoxyribonucleic acid radiated away? Such a small change could have a drastic impact on our lives so why doesn't it happen? Or what of a baby? Even a single-celled organism within a female's uterus would radiate particles away; why doesn't this seem to affect the baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-38 Boss Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 I don't......believe anybody with an ounce of rational thought would have given any answer other than that one. That's nice, Pumpkin. Top three Superhero movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 How do you feel about all these imposter threads? Well, at first I was a bit peeved. Then I decided to take it in the "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" way. I don't......believe anybody with an ounce of rational thought would have given any answer other than that one. * * * Stuff have half lives. The particles that make up an object radiate away. So why doesn't this seem to affect humans, and other animals etc.? Is it because the half life is so long? Even then, many, many particles that make us up are still being radiated away; what are the consequences? Why do they seem to not exist? Isn't it dangerous if, say, a particle that made up Deoxyribonucleic acid radiated away? Such a small change could have a drastic impact on our lives so why doesn't it happen? Or what of a baby? Even a single-celled organism within a female's uterus would radiate particles away; why doesn't this seem to affect the baby? Well, short answer is that we have several trillion atoms within us. Even single celled organisms have trillions of atoms. Now, when an atom degrades in our body the atom is generally replaced with another one. Whether this be by eating or drinking or from a chemical reaction within our own cells is completely dependent on the atom that is degrading. Our bodies compensate for not only the loss of the atom but for the radiation itself and any damage caused by it. Which means that the negative effect of losing an atom is infinitesimal. Even in single celled organisms. Now, if you're asking it in a "doesn't the radiation itself hurt us" type of way, in short no. Again, we have several trillion atoms. The effect of a single atom's radiation is once again infinitesimal. Even in embryos. If the radiation is too much for us, we die or develop a disease. While you are correct that a tiny thing can have a drastic impact on us, the tiny thing is usually immediately proceeded by other tiny things that correct the tiny thing. That's nice, Pumpkin. Top three Superhero movies? 1. The Amazing Spiderman (because so far it's the only Spiderman movie to actually follow the lore set down by it's predecessor [the TV show]) 2. Iron Man 3. The Avengers If there were a Deadpool movie it would take the top slot and push The Avengers off the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-38 Boss Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Follow up: Who would you want to play Dead Pool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Follow up: Who would you want to play Dead Pool? Ryan Reynolds of course. The guy can take any role and add funny to it. If he has a proper script for Deadpool, he will more than represent the character. He'll make everyone believe that he was born for the role. In X-Men Origins the only reason that some people could disagree with Reynolds playing Deadpool was because of bad writing. If they had invested a bit more into Deadpool's character, Reynolds would have more than adequately played the role. #RyanReynoldsforDeadpoolesident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrhuntington Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Are Light and Darkness eternal? Does Nothing go on forever too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Are Light and Darkness eternal? Does Nothing go on forever too? Hypothetically speaking, darkness is eternal because it is the natural state of the universe. It is the absence of light, so if you were to remove all planets, stars, and life there would be nothing left except darkness. Light, on the other hand, is also hypothetically eternal. Light is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed. This is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So it should also be considered eternal. Now "nothing" on the other hand. There have been many recent discoveries that change our view of "nothing". We used to think that the vacuum of space contained nothing, but now we know that it's full of things such as electrons, neutrinos, radio waves, etc. As a matter of fact, we haven't found a true example of "nothing" yet. We have tons of hypothetical examples, but nothing concrete. So out of the three things you have mentioned, only two seem to be eternal as the third may not exist at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaulting♥Frog Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Assuming the following statement is true: 1+1=3 What is 2+2=? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Assuming the following statement is true: 1+1=3 What is 2+2=? Oh my. Okay, so there are about a thousand answers to this. One of which: +=3 This turns the equation from addition to multiplication. In other words, it would be 1*+*1=3 making +=3 So the next equation would be 2*+*2=12 Another one would be: 2+2=5 because 1+1=3 Which would mean that you add another 1 to the answer of the equation. Another one: 1+1=3 so 2+2=6 Which would mean that you add the number that is being added (1 in the first equation, 2 in the second) to the normal answer to the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Is not JL Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 What do you think of people who complain about complainers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 What do you think of people who complain about complainers? I believe they are guilty of the same thing they are accusing others of. Thus, making them hypocritical. Overall, I think that complaining about something that's actually relevant leads to topics of discussion rather than unnecessary negativity. However, irrelevant complaints only lead to negativity. An example of a relevant complaint, "I dislike the way that "A" handles and I think we should make it better." An example of an irrelevant complaint, "I dislike how people keep killing me in a gametype that is designed for people to kill each other and I have no suggestions to fix this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose The Ace Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 What do you direct ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 What do you direct ? Everything. Some assume that they are unaffected by my direction, but that is simply because I want them to assume that. Some know that they are under my direction, and that is again because I want them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeckoningZebra1 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 What's the difference in illegal and unlawful? Or is there a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 What's the difference in illegal and unlawful? Or is there a difference? To some people there is a difference, but even so not much of one. They take illegal to mean forbidden by law and unlawful to mean not conforming to the law. As a matter of fact, Oxford Dictionary only recently changed it's definition of the two words to match this. Now, let's take a look at the two words themselves. illegal broken down into roots is il legal. Unlawful broken down is un law ful. By the root words in each we get this: il=not legal=permitted by law un=not law=system of rules ful=full So by their basic premise they are meant to be used interchangeably. Unlawful = not following the system of rules and illegal = not permitted by law(system of rules). In other words, jaywalking would be unlawful. It would also be illegal. Murdering someone is unlawful and illegal. There are people who split hairs on it's usage, saying that unlawful is used in a different way because of it's definition. For instance here's what the British & World Oxford Dictionary describes as the difference. Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. U wot m8? Does soccer not have a system of rules? It does? That means that doing something like playing with your hands is against that system of rules, right? Which is the root word definition and the most commonly used form of the word illegal, right? Yes. Now you're probably asking, "How did things go so askew?!?!?!" It's pretty simple. Lawyers trying to look smart. One lawyer created a law dictionary that had a couple of usage definitions for the two words (which implied that they were not synonyms), and the other lawyers were like, "omguh I'mma luk dum yo" and followed suit. Of course, no one actually used the words separately. It's actually not possible to use them separately while using them correctly. Anything you say is illegal is also unlawful. Anything you say is unlawful is also illegal. /rant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now