Dru

I don't know but probably not as many as you assume. [chestbeat]I know I was "establishing" 5.8s with death fall potential when I was a 5.8 climber. [/chestbeat] They better not get retrobolted either!

Them or you

and we never heard from him again

run!!!

Dominated their support? You mean like an athletic support? That's kinky.

La Maudite...

who fuses the loops with no illusions? Automator, defies the laws of nature electronic monolith throw the jam upon a disc

Because you spelled snaffle wrong.

high gas prices now are related to a refining bottleneck, not to production or consumption per se.

and yes, all women have a bit of bitch in them. some more than others! A bit of the pup?

But hey, it only takes about 5 drinks and a 7-layer burrito to PUKE a rainbow

yes catfight catfightseat

I TOLD YOU SO

I'mmmmmmm mmmmeeelllllltttingggggggggggg!!!!

Somebody just got a high-score! bottom

My friend has had 8 resoles on his Moccasyms. I myself had about 6 or 7 on a pair of Aces.

Maybe you guys need a Nodder Catcher.

Immortality is sterility.

The Bible is full of killing and fornication but that doesn't make them Christian.

I am still looking for The Nodder.

Since when have I been unwilling to rebut someone's arguments, Dru? Spewing B.S. and diverting the subject like trying to rebut my argument here with an attack on "moderators" is for sure a sign of weakness. You've had offwhite celebrate the brilliance of your dazzling spray, and I'm not questionning that recognition which you very much deserve -- but don't push it. Apparently you need a little refresher: Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. Examples: (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive) (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial) (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial) (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque) Proof: Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended. 2) and 3) are the relevant issues here. You claim that anonymity somehow makes a person untrustworthy. Bullshit because ALL information on the internet is inherently untrustworthy. The value of unknown avatars is that you cannot discount their arguments ad homionem so it forces you to examine the content of what they say. The only relevance is the content of posts and since you have nothing to go on with respect to content, because you keep recycling the same stale arguments thast your opponents do, you ask for identity so you can choose to reject a person's ethical argument ad hominem. Lets not forget this discussion is about ethics and anonymity is just a sideshow.

The act of destruction is also a creative act. If nothing died, there would be no rebirth.

....unlike those anonymous MODERATORS, minx, off white, Peter Puget...the list goes on. Focussing on someone's anonymity is just a weak left jab when you can't rebut their arguments with a solid right.

it's just a boulder problem you wankers pfffft