4merper4mer

I thought it was too soon for a "see I told you so". The time will arrive for that but my comments will be less about Luck and more about people blindly following the herd.

Literally stolen from Arrested Development. Will it work? Shirley.

They have Fuller V; maybe they want Sills V.

Season 2 was good but why did Wayne Williams talk like Tim Meadows' ladies man?

Never in any of these threads have I said Andrew Luck was a bad dude in any way. Contrary to what some may think, I have always liked him. I feel really bad for him having to retire. He pretty much said he has lost the love of the game. He isn't the first and won't be the last. He deserves a lot of credit for not milking paychecks which he clearly could have done. He said his love waned as he continuously battled injuries. I have no doubt that was part of it. The lifelong grooming and overblown expectations couldn't have helped either. He will probably do very well in some profession whether inside football or not.

Ever heard of a bag?

If we strip any of those 9 we won't be able to unsee it.

That kid is tremendous. I doubt the laziness surrounding this team the last few years will suck the life out of his game like it has done to most of the roster.

There are these things called fingerprints.

That was the song about the Kennedy assasination.

There you go.

It's sad that people spit on graves before the occupant even arrives.

It was also very obviously false and made incomprehensible leaps in logic. Q has also been called "news" and also made incomprehensible leaps in logic. You mocked one and felt the other was credible enough to entitle your thread the way you chose. Look, it's totally fine to dislike Trump and get disappointed that Katy Perry's favorite candidate lost. We should all support each other's right to choose what we choose when it comes to politics. One doesn't need to explain the reasons behind any such decision. If they do, the reasons needn't be good or logical. If I vote for Trump because I like his hair or the absurd length of his ties, that is ultimately my right even if it deserves mockery. We should also own our mistakes. In the early part of this thread you argued for pages about the word "hacking" which you were wrong about. Trump also used the word and he was also wrong. At least own that. You're a smart dude without question. It's also clear that you think others are dumb. Spoiler alert:. Lots aren't.

The original point of the thread is for a little goofy speculation and specifically asked for people who haven't been mentioned. You have mentioned Trump over and over again in other threads. It also said no one from the black book. And you mentioned the black book.

It was it the news and it was very obviously a hoax. You entitled the thread, not me or anyone else. You never supported the Trump/Russia theory? You created a thread called "Trump and Russia.". Why not "Trump and Russia?"? Why not "Russian Meddling"?

Its hard to prove long diatribes with no specifics wrong. You point that out in the Q thread often. In the above you are more than willing to accept them or at least demand proof of a negative. You chose a title for this thread. Even if the above is all true and more than a Facebook page with a Jesus v Satan epic arm wrestling throw down; why would you have chosen that title? Why not: Truman Dewey Kennedy Johnson Nixon Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Obama Trump and Russia?

Dude think about what you just wrote. The yellow dot and the mysteriously advanced technology. Would this technology magically erase all the previous signals emanating from their origin?

Dude I'm not asking you to read my mind. Go back a page or so and watch the Kurzweil video.

Think.

Try thinking from multiple points of view, not just one.

I know full well what the Goldilocks zone represents. I lol'ed it because it means very little and that has been proven. It's like saying you can't make a supercollider without aluminum and then saying you're almost done because you bought a roll of Reynolds wrap.

I used the word and you misunderstood or changed its meaning.

I'm not putting words in your mouth so please don't do that to me. By inconsequential I mean: never to be found never to have any impact on humanity in any way so pretty much the same as non-existent The Goldilocks zone? Shirley you can't be serious.

I've acknowledged that I left out other dimensions and that I think there is a bit of a case for parallel universes. If I were close minded, would those things be true? So I'll give you this:. At the absolute most; in a highly unlikely scenario, there could be an Earth twin,triplet or quadruplets out there, but if so they are are as inconsequential as a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it. It is pointless to look for such a thing and any thought about it has been proven to be a wasted thought. There is a very high likelihood that if even a very few of these actually existed, we would already know.

I'll take people who will die soon for $1000.