Since I want to bang Sheryl Crow, I’m going to make an argument on her behalf :
I’m pretty sure she means women should use only 1 sheet after doing #1, not after taking a dump.
In which case, remind to ask her to douche before I go down on her…
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
WEll, pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist on the entire earth would disagree [/quote]
There was also a time when pretty well every respected scientist said that the world was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth. It was only a few who believed else wise and challenged that train of thought.
Just because scientists say something and most of them agree, doesn’t mean that they are right, what you need to do is not just listen to what they say, but read the studies yourself and draw your own conclusions. And not just read the ones that support what you think but also read the ones that go against your thought process.
After reading many studies on the global warming issue, I came to the thought that yes we are just in a natural cycle, which we may possibly be affecting to make it more severe or speeding it up, but we are not the cause of it. I could be wrong, but from what I have read this what I have concluded.
[quote]dre wrote:
Toilet paper? Who still uses toilet paper? Flushable wet wipes are where it’s at!
Wipe your ass with toilet paper and when you are done, use a wet wipe. You’ll be amazed at how much sh*t the wet wipe cleans up. And that’s after you clean with toilet paper.
Try’em, your ass will thank you.[/quote]
Agree 100%. Would never go back to toilet paper. Imagine that you’re full of mud someone gives you a dry paper towel or a wet facecloth to clean up…which one is going to do a better job? No contest in my opinion.
I was one of those people (forgive me Sheryl) who looked like I was wearing a toilet tissue mitten, I’d ball so much on my hand before wiping, and still wouldn’t feel clean…or else I’d have to wipe so much that I’d be rubbed raw. With the wet wipes…one…two at a maximum…and I’m squeaky clean.
I can’t actually believe I posted this…LOL!!
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
WEll, pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist on the entire earth would disagree [/quote]
Well, here are two articles from Time and Newsweek, who are now currently leading the charge into the global warming fray. In the 1970’s pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist believed that the earth was headed to a significant cooling period. As headhunter and rainjack both said, its basically mumbo-jumbo. The earth will continue on with or without us.
Time - 1974
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
Newsweek - 1975
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
Most of us are alive today because of capitalism. Capitalists need someone to sell things to. They therefore employ people to produce those things, since you can’t sell things you don’t have. Everyone benefits.
Capitalism is humanity at its best!!!
[/quote]
Lets not start this argument here. Capitalism does not benefit the majority because there isn’t enough resources on the planet to go around. Capitalists rely on poverty in certain parts of the world so that they can keep extracting resources cheaply. Capitalism benefite me most certainly. To say it benefits EVERYONE is just not true. Capitalist are going to learn how to share but that will never happen because it sounds too much like communism and we all know that is just plain evil.
[quote]moeity wrote:
kroby wrote:
WHAT? The past four volcanic eruptions have loosed more “greenhouse” gasses than all of human history.
Where are you getting this from? According to the USGS:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992).
This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
[ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
from http://tinyurl.com/3hasm
or Understanding volcanic hazards can save lives | U.S. Geological Survey
I was wrong. because of this, I did a little research on the Earth’s atmosphere. Simple. Wikipedia.
Once upon a time, there was no Oxygen, as it was bound by, you guessed it, CO2. Cyanobacteria consumed this stuff, thus releasing O2. Today, photosynthesizing plants act in the same manner. Eventually, there was too much O2, and a mass extinction resulted. Oh, the horror of it all! "Both (O2 and CO2) are maintained by biological productivity and geological forces seemingly working hand-in-hand to maintain reasonably steady levels over millions of years " That is all.
There is no scientist willing to state 100% that the end of the world is near. It’s career suicide. A real scientist deals in proving falsehoods. No one know what is. Many know what is NOT.
May we be the impetus of our own extinction? You betcha. Take your pick: nuclear war; biologic plague… global warming is hardly in the same devastating category. Will Earth continue? Yes. Can we become extinct from extraterrestrial radiation? Yup.
Can humanity adapt with a rising temperature? I would hazard a guess pro-humans. We’re amazingly adaptive. Looking at the genetic makeup of the mitochondria (an intra cellular organelle) as a generational marker, we’re all classified as a bottleneck species. That means, once upon a time, nearly all humanity was wiped out, except for a few thousand. Wow. Near extinction. Without global warming!
None of this denies a responsibility for management and stewardship of our resources. But “The End Is Near” crowd sure makes it hard for the more stable voices to be taken seriously.
Why is there no “consensus” about the speed of light? Why is there no “consensus” about the size of the Sun?
Science is not democracy. I don’t give a flying shit if every single scientist of the face of the Earth claims that we’re all going to die if they can’t back it up with REAL science.
Real science involves
1.) Forming a testable hypothesis.
2.) Running experiments that gather data to support or refute hypothesis.
3.) Repeat experiments to verify or rebut the initial experiments.
4.) Interpret the data.
Global warming alarmists have skipped steps 1-3 and have gone straight to step 4.
They have NOT formed hypotheses; they have NOT done repeatable and verifiable experiments; they have NOT done real science.
Computer models do not count. Humans made them, and humans currently haven’t the foggiest idea how the Earth’s climate works. How the heck do you think we made computer models to model the climate when we don’t even know how the climate works?
How does that work?
Science is NOT democracy; consensus means NOTHING!
bangs head against wall
GW alarmists are NOT doing REAL SCIENCE! They are guessing and making things up!
bangs head against wall
They are trying to make major changes to federal policies that affect me and my wallet based on fictional ‘theories’!
bangs head against wall
AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!
[quote]DW wrote:
Toilet paper is repulsive. You’re just smearing around the poo when you wipe with it. Don’t kid yourself into thinking you’re getting clean. I’m glad that I live in a country where people wash their asses.
When faced with a toilet paper only facility wet the paper and apply a little soap if possible.You’re girlfriend/boyfriend will thank you.[/quote]
Yeah same here. In Asia, everyone washes their asses with a water dipper, making it your ass clean instead of smearing it around and getting little “dingleberries” little balls of toilet paper stuck in your ass hairs!
The more prominent households have a hand held, or a stationary bidet installed. I cant think of any other way to clean yourself after a good movement.
This is why I shave my asshole. It’s really not that hard and saves oh so much time on wiping.
Anyway we’re all missing the big picture. Sharyl Crow can use one square because girls don’t poop. Now allow me to rest easy in my childish delusions.
[quote]lantzcaper wrote:
dre wrote:
Toilet paper? Who still uses toilet paper? Flushable wet wipes are where it’s at!
Wipe your ass with toilet paper and when you are done, use a wet wipe. You’ll be amazed at how much sh*t the wet wipe cleans up. And that’s after you clean with toilet paper.
Try’em, your ass will thank you.
Agree 100%. Would never go back to toilet paper. Imagine that you’re full of mud someone gives you a dry paper towel or a wet facecloth to clean up…which one is going to do a better job? No contest in my opinion.
I was one of those people (forgive me Sheryl) who looked like I was wearing a toilet tissue mitten, I’d ball so much on my hand before wiping, and still wouldn’t feel clean…or else I’d have to wipe so much that I’d be rubbed raw. With the wet wipes…one…two at a maximum…and I’m squeaky clean.
I can’t actually believe I posted this…LOL!!
[/quote]
How can one gain access these wet wipes? Are they available over the counter? Are they competetively priced?
Confuscius say, “Man who use one square of toilet paper going to have a break through”
She also said her brother suggested taking it a step further by washing and reusing the square. I bet he was joking and she didn’t even get it.
Has anyone else seen that tp made out of cotton that is $4-$5 for four rolls. When the Al Gore liberal celebrity communist utopia is created we should all be made to use one square only of cotton toilet paper. Good for the environment plus it’s made and sold by American Indians.
[quote]dre wrote:
Toilet paper? Who still uses toilet paper? Flushable wet wipes are where it’s at!
Wipe your ass with toilet paper and when you are done, use a wet wipe. You’ll be amazed at how much sh*t the wet wipe cleans up. And that’s after you clean with toilet paper.[/quote]
Or you can just spit on your toilet paper, like I do. Voila! - instant wet wipes.
And Taquito’s got it right: shave your ass.
[quote]Sonny S wrote:
Since I want to bang Sheryl Crow, I’m going to make an argument on her behalf :
I’m pretty sure she means women should use only 1 sheet after doing #1, not after taking a dump.[/quote]
Good catch. I think you’re right. It’s easy to forget that girls don’t just shake the drops off their peepee after they tinkle, like boys do.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
Most of us are alive today because of capitalism. Capitalists need someone to sell things to. They therefore employ people to produce those things, since you can’t sell things you don’t have. Everyone benefits.
Capitalism is humanity at its best!!!
Lets not start this argument here. Capitalism does not benefit the majority because there isn’t enough resources on the planet to go around. Capitalists rely on poverty in certain parts of the world so that they can keep extracting resources cheaply. Capitalism benefite me most certainly. To say it benefits EVERYONE is just not true. Capitalist are going to learn how to share but that will never happen because it sounds too much like communism and we all know that is just plain evil.[/quote]
So what.
We allways have the asteroid belt. Lack of resources will hardly be a problem.
[quote]escot4 wrote:
How many sheets can we use for masturbation?[/quote]
Use cloth handkerchiefs and wash out after each session. The earth and Sheryl Crow will thank you.
[quote]Raimisch wrote:
CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
WEll, pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist on the entire earth would disagree
There was also a time when pretty well every respected scientist said that the world was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth. It was only a few who believed else wise and challenged that train of thought.
Just because scientists say something and most of them agree, doesn’t mean that they are right, what you need to do is not just listen to what they say, but read the studies yourself and draw your own conclusions. And not just read the ones that support what you think but also read the ones that go against your thought process.
After reading many studies on the global warming issue, I came to the thought that yes we are just in a natural cycle, which we may possibly be affecting to make it more severe or speeding it up, but we are not the cause of it. I could be wrong, but from what I have read this what I have concluded.[/quote]
I have looked at the science myself and I agree that GW is a real and man made threat.
By the way, your assertion that just becuase the scientists were wrong hundreds of years ago is not really a valid reason to assert that GW doesnt exist. It is completely irrelevant that they were wrong before.
Fact is, the vast weight of scientific data, opinion and evidence falls in favor of GW. Fact is, the reasons for believing that man-made GW exists are FAR FAR stronger than the reasons to believe it does not exist.
Have scientists been wrong before?? Yes. but do you really wanna stake the fate of the planet on the fact that scientists have been wrong before so are wrong again?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Why is there no “consensus” about the speed of light? Why is there no “consensus” about the size of the Sun?
Science is not democracy. I don’t give a flying shit if every single scientist of the face of the Earth claims that we’re all going to die if they can’t back it up with REAL science.
Real science involves
1.) Forming a testable hypothesis.
2.) Running experiments that gather data to support or refute hypothesis.
3.) Repeat experiments to verify or rebut the initial experiments.
4.) Interpret the data.
Global warming alarmists have skipped steps 1-3 and have gone straight to step 4.
They have NOT formed hypotheses; they have NOT done repeatable and verifiable experiments; they have NOT done real science.
Computer models do not count. Humans made them, and humans currently haven’t the foggiest idea how the Earth’s climate works. How the heck do you think we made computer models to model the climate when we don’t even know how the climate works?
How does that work?
Science is NOT democracy; consensus means NOTHING!
bangs head against wall
GW alarmists are NOT doing REAL SCIENCE! They are guessing and making things up!
bangs head against wall
They are trying to make major changes to federal policies that affect me and my wallet based on fictional ‘theories’!
bangs head against wall
AAAAGGGGHHHH!!![/quote]
The only thing that is possible to do when considering GW is analyse and interpret the data, run computer models and make assertions based on scientific observation. This is not “guessing”…it is very educated analysation and interpretation of data.
Like I said, science can’t “prove” GW exists…not at the moment anyway. Fact is, it is only beginning to happen so it has not yet fully manifested itself and thus, the experiments that you seek are not yet possible. Science, in this case, is making educated predictions, analysations and interpretations…the closest we can get to proving it. By the time we have “proved” GW exists, it will have already happened and we would be in a lot of shit.
the consensus on these predictions is extremely strong…the data supporing GW is extremely strong and there is a massive consensus in the interpretation of this data…this is as strong as the case for GW can possibly be.
it is up to us to pre-emptively try to limit the damage.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
Most of us are alive today because of capitalism. Capitalists need someone to sell things to. They therefore employ people to produce those things, since you can’t sell things you don’t have. Everyone benefits.
GW is the public face of the Anti-Industrial Revolution, which the elites of the world want. They want to be medieval kings and barons. They introduce socialism and communism into societies to enslave the society. Who wants a bunch of employed people or small businessmen who aren’t dependent on the government? They can’t be easily ruled.
Do you think that socialism and communism were introduced to benefit the common man? LMAO!!!
Capitalism is humanity at its best!!!
[/quote]
George BUsh supported the findings of the IPCC report.
That would make him a communist, correct?
Ohio humor:
How do you know when you’ve crossed into West Virginia?
You see toilet paper hung out to dry.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
Most of us are alive today because of capitalism. Capitalists need someone to sell things to. They therefore employ people to produce those things, since you can’t sell things you don’t have. Everyone benefits.
Capitalism is humanity at its best!!!
Lets not start this argument here. Capitalism does not benefit the majority because there isn’t enough resources on the planet to go around. Capitalists rely on poverty in certain parts of the world so that they can keep extracting resources cheaply. Capitalism benefite me most certainly. To say it benefits EVERYONE is just not true. Capitalist are going to learn how to share but that will never happen because it sounds too much like communism and we all know that is just plain evil.[/quote]
Under Capitalism, you have a chance to earn an honest living or to become rich without exploiting others (unless you call employing someone exploitation). Name another system where this is possible.
You can’t. Other systems rely on governmental theft and extortion. Those systems rely on whatever shred of productivity slaves have left and then robs them. Sweden is an excellent ex of this.