A new report from international agency Oxfam today reveals that 45 million more children will die needlessly by 2015, because rich countries are failing to provide the necessary resources to overcome poverty.

The report, Paying the Price, also calculates that 97 million more children will be out of school by 2015 unless urgent action is taken. Oxfam finds that rich countries’ aid budgets are half what they were in 1960 and poor countries are paying back a staggering $100 million a day in debt repayments.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam Director, said: “As rich countries get richer, they’re giving less and less. This is a scandal that must stop. The world’s poorest children are paying for rich countries’ policies on aid and debt with their lives. 2005 offers the chance of an historic breakthrough, but unless world leaders act now, the year will end in shameful failure.”

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/110234592548.htm)

hurray we're still ****ed. most people will probably brush it off as liberal bs though. :)

We're too busy invading countries and ****.

Death is always horrible, but I balk at the use of the term "die needlessly". Death is a natural process and it doesn't conform to human standards, it is neither "needful" nor "needless", ever. No more than sea-water is "needless", or aardvarks are "needless".

And I hate to be the ogre to say this, but we do have a population problem. If we start eradicating death by disease, famine and poverty, we'll overrun what's left of the planet and ALL die.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I hate to be the ogre to say this, but we do have a population problem. If we start eradicating death by disease, famine and poverty, we'll overrun what's left of the planet and ALL die. I actually think most of us agree with that, as much as we'd like not to.

Bah I don't believe in those kinds of apocalyptic predictions. Humans will always find a way even if it means wasting what's left of the world's ressources.

The question here is should we let them die? Remember one great fact here. Kids in those countries who do survive are sometimes turned into terrorists or soldiers for who knows which dictator.

A great dilema. Save them and risk overpopulation? Or kill some of them so the survivors can waste other people?

Humans will always find a way Platitude without basis in fact. We're a relatively young species, dominant for a relatively short time. What exactly makes you so sure that we're indestructible?

Originally posted by Spider AL
Platitude without basis in fact. We're a relatively young species, dominant for a relatively short time. What exactly makes you so sure that we're indestructible? god. ;)

The reason Homo sapiens survive while homo neerdantalis(spl?) went extinct was our ability to adapt.
Look at the dinosaurs. Though a hypothesis only, they could not adapt. They were stuck in a certain environment, a certain way of life. However, mammals could. They did and we(mammals) are still here the dinosaurs.

Humans will find a way to adapt. It's not like somekind of meteor will blow us all away so easily. Some will die, some will survive through adaptation.

I personally believe we'll be our own ending. Mankind will destroy mankind. Not through overpopulation but through nuclear war.

The reason Homo sapiens survive while homo neerdantalis(spl?) went extinct was our ability to adapt.
Look at the dinosaurs.All successful species have the ability to adapt, that's why they're successful. Didn't stop them from going extinct, largely. ;)

And yes, let's look at the dinosaurs. They were magnificently well engineered for the Earth's environment, just as we are. THEY STILL DIED OUT. Just as we may do.

It's not like somekind of meteor will blow us all away so easily.Oh? Exactly how will enough of us survive to repopulate the species in the event of a catastrophic meteor strike. We couldn't possibly build a bunker deep enough. :D Let alone the fact that we are not yet self-sufficient enough to survive indefinitely outside the planet's ecosystem. Forget all that nonsense America peddles about terraforming Mars, we're years and years away from even the first steps.

I personally believe we'll be our own ending.A definite possibility, but precognition is counter-productive at this stage. We should try to prepare for EVERY eventuality.

i really hate having to mention this, but your all assuming the theory of evolution as fact. creation is just as much a viable theory. sorry, but it had to be said.

of course, now you guys are going to respond to me by saying that creation is not a viable theory because its religiously based and so on and so forth. sorry, but it takes just as much faith for me to believe we all came from monkeys some 24,000 years ago as for me to believe that God intelligently designed creation.

and so you know, there is no way that i'll start believing in evolution until i see some concrete evidence that it occured. so far, that hasn't happened.

to get back on topic: if you want to know what i believe will happen to mankind, read the book of Revelations and Ezekiel 38-39 in the Bible. since we're all coming up with theories, this one works just as well. granted, you actually have to believe this stuff as fact first. :)

Originally posted by Spider AL
A definite possibility, but precognition is counter-productive at this stage. We should try to prepare for EVERY eventuality. true. But I personally could care less how we meet our end. *shrugs*

we could attempt to try to solve the problem overpopulation, but it will solve on it's own, one or another way. and i don't think it will necessarily kill us all. of course we could find a way, but only within limitations. and i doubt without any loss of human life.
if humans don't make it in general, i am almost sure, nature has some other species to offer. saying that, i have to add, time is a big factor here, and regarding the terms of evolution, time on this planet and in this solar system is definitly running out.
so humans are not most important. LIFE is most important.
so IF we fail, then life will find a way, hopefully (if it hasn't yet). maybe we see the end coming and decide to put some bacterias into a couple of boxes and shoot them up to whoknowswhere. on the other hand wouldn't it be like taking toads over to australia? but then again.. is it impossible that the toad could have made it on her own some day?

Stinger, for the penultimate time evolution is a more viable theory than creationism simply because it fits the available facts better than the skydaddy option.

And frankly, nobody with any sense cares about creationism or the opinions of creationists anyway. ;)

true. But I personally could care less how we meet our end. *shrugs*Really? Why is that?

Originally posted by Spider AL
Really? Why is that? Death is inevitable. I'm fine with that. And I know that I have limited time to do whatever the hell I'm here for. So each day I just try my best to make everyone happy along with succeeding in my goals for life. The day I die I'll know I did what I could to bring some good to peoples lives. :)

Population growth can level off. It doesn't have to be some spastic, exponential growth rate. Take the US and some European states for example, countries which also have decent food supplies. With a higher standard of living you wouldn't need to produce as many children to bring a survival level of income into your family.

And while this planet does have a certain carrying capacity, we're not quite yet on its bleeding edge. Obviously if the human species ballooned to 10 billion+ overnight and every individual lived like an upper-middle-class American there might be some problems with certain resources (petroleum comes to mind), but better technologies can help to combat some of the effects our ravenous consumption would invariably produce.

Originally posted by Spider AL
And frankly, nobody with any sense cares about creationism or the opinions of creationists anyway. ;)


Frankly, there seem to be more people that care about the opinions of creationists, than those that care about your opinion. Lemme know when a book based on your ideas surpasses the sales figures of the Bible. Until then, you're opinion seems to be not very important. You care about creationist opinion, or you wouldn't constantly talk about it. That makes you a person with "sense" I suppose...I can't follow your logic.

how could that happen, with 2000 years "advantage"?

Originally posted by InsaneSith
I know that I have limited time to do whatever the hell I'm here for.
we all are 'here' for .. nothing. we just are. like everything else.

Originally posted by RayJones


we all are 'here' for .. nothing. we just are. like everything else.

Agreed.

And while this planet does have a certain carrying capacity, we're not quite yet on its bleeding edge.I beg to differ Loopster. Our current population consumes more of the world's resources than it can naturally replenish, thus we are PAST the bleeding edge. A greater population can only consume more, unless we all go massively green and THAT ain't gonna happen, not with America around.

Frankly, there seem to be more people that care about the opinions of creationists, than those that care about your opinion.Sorry Colostomy, but if you're a creationist... I think I already pointed out... that I don't care what you think. And if not... I still don't. :)

Lemme know when a book based on your ideas surpasses the sales figures of the Bible. Lol. Just a pointer: The bible isn't based on the ideas of creationists, the ideas of creationists are BASED on, note- BASED on, not directly drawn from, the bible.

right... of to one of the many evolution vs creation threads with all of you!!! :mad:

Hasn't it been shown that as income, education and standards of living improve, the birth rate goes down?

Many western countires aren't even producing enough kids to maintain their population. It is the population explosions in the developing world that is causing the huge overall population growth.

I actually saw an issue of the west wing on friday which was about foriegn aid... (fictional account follows) where the majority of the population thought too much aid was given, and it should be cut. Eventually they lost and it was. But a journalist asked why the democrats had fought the issue on "helping people" when they should have fought it on issues of national security... it being in the US's interests to help and educate people in those countries as a way to prevent the spread of rogue states, dictators and terrorist recruitment.
Of course, that was all fictionalised. but I still think it would be a better way to defeat terror, and hatred of the west and spread democracy to write off all their depts. After all, countries that spend all their income paying back interest on debts that they will never repay are hardly likely to be very fond of those who are loan-sharking them...

Many western countires aren't even producing enough kids to maintain their population. It is the population explosions in the developing world that is causing the huge overall population growth. It's arguable that because developed countries consume huge quantities of "disposable" goods, their population, rising, falling or static, contributes prominently to the depletion of the planet's resources.

Having made that point, it's irrelevant which countries have population explosions and which don't. The point is that we as a SPECIES are overpopulating the planet, and consuming it's resources. Eradicating death by disease and natural disaster will only WORSEN this problem.

Yes, it may seem harsh, but I think our FIRST responsibility is to maintain the planet for our children and other species, and when we're all living green, THEN we can focus on eradicating disease.

Make no mistake, most of the research into curing disease is destined to be merely a moneymaking exercise anyway.

Originally posted by RayJones
we all are 'here' for .. nothing. we just are. like everything else.
ok, then lets just all go do whatever the heck we want. since all of life has no meaning, why bother with rules that were made by other meaningless lives??? then, we can all just **** the consequences and go die somewhere tommorrow. [/sarcasm]

and you people wonder why i believe the way i do....:rolleyes:

that's not the point. the point is we have no meaning, life has no meaning, it's just something that happens somewhere in the universe. it is not of importance that it exists. it just does. it exists like countless stars, planets, atoms, quarks and whatever is "out there".

of course we as humans are part of life and life's only "goal" is to spread. everywhere where it is not already. and to "reach" that goal there are some things necessary, like for instance the "urge" to survive (read: keep the species alive). that makes ****ing the consequences impossible for any lifeform, except it's for surviving of the species or the certain lifeform does not know the concept of consequences. and even then it wouldn't.

and after all the universe existed without this whole planet and will exist without it. from a certain point of view it already exists without earth, since the days of our whole solar system are counted since its genesis.

why you believe the way you do? hm. maybe i don't know. but maybe you need a meaning for whatever to feel comfortable with your existance.

..


meh. i don't know. ;D

Stinger, yourself and Ray have one quality in common... you like to present your dubious opinions as if they are fact.

I do not believe in the jehovaspankage of Judeo-christian theism, I do not believe that creationism can compete as a scientific theory with evolution...

But nor do I believe that we are evolved enough to decide whether there's a "point" to life or not. The question of whether there's a meaning to life is a deep and unfathomable one, and while we must try to plumb its depths, we must not start declaring the matter closed as Ray is doing. Our brains are too small and simian to warrant such arrogance.

Originally posted by Spider AL
1)All successful species have the ability to adapt, that's why they're successful. Didn't stop them from going extinct, largely. ;)

2)And yes, let's look at the dinosaurs. They were magnificently well engineered for the Earth's environment, just as we are. THEY STILL DIED OUT. Just as we may do.

3)Oh? Exactly how will enough of us survive to repopulate the species in the event of a catastrophic meteor strike. We couldn't possibly build a bunker deep enough. :D Let alone the fact that we are not yet self-sufficient enough to survive indefinitely outside the planet's ecosystem. Forget all that nonsense America peddles about terraforming Mars, we're years and years away from even the first steps.

1-Wrong. The most succesful specie, ever, has not gone extinct yet and probably never will. It's the most adaptive of them all, more then humans , more then otehr creatures. Long live roaches.

2-You didn't get the point. They were adapted for a single environment and could not adapt to any climatic changes. Which is why they got wiped out by whatever happened. Most widely accepted theory explained below.

3-:dozey: Hollywood got to your brain. Unless the meteor is horribly large and we screwed our protective layers in the earth's atmosphere to such a point that we're already dead anyway, a meteor isn't exactly a nuke. Well, it's close but still very different.
The current theory about the dissapearance of the dinosaurs is a meteor hitting the earth, creating a gigantic cloud of dust that changed the climate radically in a short amount of time. Dinosaurs, too adapted to their environment, could not change.
Mammals however, were able to adapt to the climatic changes and survive.
This is why homo neerdantalis(I really should check the spelling of this word) went extinct. Homo sapien could adapt to the changes.
When something in their environment changed, homo neerdantalis could not change his way of life in order to adapt to the new situation resulting in their extinction.





I think the only way to counter any risk of overpopulation is mass genocide of all non-western countries or poor underdevelopped countries.

Originally posted by Spider AL
The question of whether there's a meaning to life is a deep and unfathomable one, and while we must try to plumb its depths, we must not start declaring the matter closed as Ray is doing. Our brains are too small and simian to warrant such arrogance. [/B]

not even on mars does it matter if we are here. we're nothing special, not more worth than any other lifeform, that's all i'm saying. who cares if our species dies? the only "sad" thing would be when life "dies".

btw, you think to boxish, al. and i don't present my opinions as fact. and i don't claim to be right. i just state them "loud and *cough* clearly". and dubious is what you do if you call my opinion dubious. objectivity is not your style, i suppose.

lukeiamyourdad:

Wrong.Negative, RIGHT. You didn't read properly. I said "largely" extinct.

2-You didn't get the point. They were adapted for a single environment and could not adapt to any climatic changes.Oh, I got the point just fine. What you don't seem to get is that climactic changes of sufficient severity would wipe us out, as well.

Unless the meteor is horribly largeOnce again, I must presume you didn't read the line in which I said "catastrophic" meteor strike... we have smaller rocks falling on our shell all the time, naturally.

And finally, your low opinion of the dinosaurs' adaptability is unfounded. You don't get to be dominant and/or at the top of the food chain, without being incredibly adaptable. Of course they had their weak spot, but the fact that we ALL have weak spots, isn't up for debate.

RayJones:

i don't present my opinions as fact.Oh really? What about this:

not even on mars does it matter if we are here. we're nothing special, not more worth than any other lifeform, that's all i'm saying.Sounds like it's being presented as fact to me... after all you're not even trying to provide us with your reasoning, you're just reeling off your opinion as if it's the truth.

i just "reel off" my opinion. my thoughts. maybe because i'd like to hear what others think about this. not to "convince" others it's the truth or fact. conversation, exchange, babey. :rolleyes: and instead of your useless blah-blah you could have presented what you think about this "theory" of mine. in other words: you are way too destructive for a constructive exchange of thoughts. oh, you don't get it, ranarana. oh, well it is so, because i say it! what do you say? i don't get the point? NEVER.
uiuiui. don't behave like a [attention skinwalker] ad hominem remark. tsk.

oh, and reasoning? i don't think i said things that need much reasoning.

Why did the Dinosaurs Disappear?

This question has been hotly debated in recent years, and, despite very confident claims, particularly on behalf of the meteorite-catastrophe theory, is still not decisively resolved. There are in fact many theories which have attempted to explain a phenomenon which, both because of its spectacular appearance and because of its implications for the emergence of our own species, has captured the popular imagination in a unique way. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remind ourselves that this was not a unique event in the chain of evolution. It was not the only mass extinction, or the biggest, or necessarily the one with the most far-reaching evolutionary consequences.

The theory which currently enjoys most support and which certainly has been given the most sensational publicity is based on the assertion that the impact of a huge meteorite falling somewhere on the earth’s surface caused an effect rather similar to the "nuclear winter" which would follow a major nuclear war. If the impact were sufficiently large, it would throw great quantities of dust and debris into the atmosphere. The dense clouds thus formed would prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the earth’s surface, resulting in a prolonged period of darkness and falling temperatures.

There is empirical evidence to suggest that some kind of explosion took place, which may have been caused by a meteorite. The theory has gained ground in recent years with the discovery of a thin layer of clay amongst fossil remains, which would be consistent with the effect of dust produced by such a large impact. The idea has, for example, seemingly been accepted by Stephen J. Gould. Nevertheless, there are questions which have still to be answered. First of all, the dinosaurs did not disappear overnight, or even in a few years. In fact, the extinction occurred over several million years—a very short time in geological terms, but sufficiently long to cast some doubt on the idea of a meteoric catastrophe.

While the meteorite hypothesis cannot be ruled out, it has one major disadvantage. As we have pointed out, there have been many mass extinctions along the evolutionary road. How is this to be explained? Do we really have to resort to an external phenomenon such as a sudden meteor impact to do so? Or does the rise and fall of species have something to do with tendencies that are inherent within the process of evolution itself? Even at the present time, we can observe the phenomenon of the rise and fall of animal populations. Only recently have we come close to understanding the laws which govern this complex process. By looking for explanations that lie outside the given phenomenon, we run the risk of abandoning the search for a real understanding. Moreover, a solution which seems attractive because it removes all difficulties at a stroke can create even greater difficulties than the ones it was alleged to have solved.

Several other suggestions have been put forward. The period under consideration was characterised by widespread volcanic activity. This, and not a meteorite impact, could well have caused a change in the climate which the dinosaurs were unable to cope with. It has also been suggested that the disappearance of the dinosaurs was connected with competition from the mammals. There is a parallel here with the disappearance of most of the original marsupial population of South America under pressure from the mammals from the North. Indeed, it is possible that the extinction of these creatures was the result of a combination of these circumstances—volcanic activity, destruction of the existing environment, excessive specialisation, and competition for reduced food resources by a species better-equipped to cope with the changed conditions. It is unlikely that this particular controversy will be resolved in the near future. What is not in dispute is that, at the end of the Mesozoic some fundamental change ended the domination of the dinosaurs. The main thing is that it is not necessary to introduce external factor to explain this phenomenon:

"‘You don’t have to look for sunspots, climatic upheavals or any other weird explanation to account for the disappearance of the dinosaurs,’ said Lovejoy. ‘They did fine as long as they had the world to themselves, as long as there was no better reproductive strategy around. They lasted more than a hundred million years; humans should as well. But once a breakthrough adaption was made, once dinosaurs were confronted by animals that could reproduce successfully three or four times as fast as they could, they were through.’" (28)

http://www.marxist.com/science/revolutionarybirthofman.html#Why%20did%20the%20Din) osaurs%20Disappear?

Originally posted by Spider AL
Stinger, yourself and Ray have one quality in common... you like to present your dubious opinions as if they are fact.

umm, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of debating?? presenting your views that contradict someone elses???

besides, my point was that if life has no meaning,as ray has stated, then why bother going through the struggles of daily life??? ray didn't offer any explanation for that, and my biblically based views give an explanation.

i never said that you have to believe the way i do, but it will take a lot for me to quit believing the way i do. :)

Originally posted by stingerhs
umm, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of debating?? presenting your views that contradict someone elses???

it's also showing facts that support your claims.

Originally posted by stingerhs
besides, my point was that if life has no meaning,as ray has stated, then why bother going through the struggles of daily life??? ray didn't offer any explanation for that, and my biblically based views give an explanation.

uhmm... because being mean is bad, and causing others to hurt isn't good. :x not that hard, doesn't really need an explanation. It's common sense.


Originally posted by stingerhs
i never said that you have to believe the way i do, but it will take a lot for me to quit believing the way i do. :) noones telling you to stop believing what you believe. We're just saying you can't use unfounded beliefs as facts. Same goes for ray and anyone else. An opinion is just that, an opinion.

Originally posted by InsaneSith

uhmm... because being mean is bad, and causing others to hurt isn't good. :x not that hard, doesn't really need an explanation. It's common sense.
says who??? if your life is just as meaningless as anyone elses, then why is your definition of morality valid??? same goes with everyone else on this planet, assuming that life has no meaning.

well, i have no certain explanaintion. and i can't. i just think it's the best fitting way to see the world i live in. i just can't "imagine" it makes a "huge" difference in 485 million lightyears distance if we are or life in general is here or not. why should it?

and due to observations humans made, stars "die", and in conclusion our sun will "die". so in further conclusion, earth will disappear, too. and the only "human task" i can think of is to "save" out species (and therewith life, besides the possibility there is life somewhere else) from disappearing.

so in my opinion the "real and only meaning" of our lifes is maximum that of every other lifeform existing: to survive as species. we live for nothing else. as a result of that, we developed several ways to managed our everyday life in our environment. including "mental strategies" to make us feel "comfortable" during "bad times" or to organise the social together like a goal or meaning for all that.

but i think i stated some of that already.

and i am well aware of the fact that there are other people thinking otherwise. and i totally accept that. welcome to the world of opinions. ^^

[edit]
Originally posted by InsaneSith
We're just saying you can't use unfounded beliefs as facts. Same goes for ray and anyone else. An opinion is just that, an opinion.
yes, and cannot see that i have said "it is fact" nor that i suggested it. i was in fact really only stating my views to recieve a "feedback" how "common" my views would be. maybe someone offers some good point to make me rethink my views. i don't deny possibility that anything of what i thought could be a good theory might be wrong nor that ANYONE of us is wrong and everything runs complete different.

..

so.. err.. not that you think i "want to state facts" .. how wrong am i with my views? ;

Originally posted by stingerhs
says who??? if your life is just as meaningless as anyone elses, then why is your definition of morality valid??? same goes with everyone else on this planet, assuming that life has no meaning. even if life has no meaning, you should be nice to others, why? because of consequences. You're mean to someone, they'll react, sometimes you'll even end up dead. Common sense. Not a definition of morality.

Originally posted by RayJones
yes, and cannot see that i have said "it is fact" nor that i suggested it. i was in fact really only stating my views to recieve a "feedback" how "common" my views would be. maybe someone offers some good point to make me rethink my views. i don't deny possibility that anything of what i thought could be a good theory might be wrong nor that ANYONE of us is wrong and everything runs complete different.

..

so.. err.. not that you think i "want to state facts" .. how wrong am i with my views? ; sorry, I was just using you as an example that I'm not singling him out.

yeah, i thought that when you said "everyone else" .. and on the other hand you are right. it goes for me and everyone else..

and it might be that i tried to extend that to "enlight" al about my "real intentions". ;D

Originally posted by stingerhs
i really hate having to mention this, but your all assuming the theory of evolution as fact. creation is just as much a viable theory. sorry, but it had to be said.

Saying it doesn't make it true. "Creation" isn't a theory. Period. Evolutionary theory is fact. There is a preponderance of evidence that life on the planet is the result of millions of years of adaptation and mutation and absolutely zeror evidence of creation by any deity or pantheon of deities.

Sorry to post off the topic, but if you've ever read my posts in other threads, you know I'm a bit passionate about people popping out with creation mythology being more valid than the solid science that evolutionary theory is based upon.

To discuss further, visit one of these threads:

Georgia wants to remove "evolution" from the curricula (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122513&highlight=evolution)

Evolution thread (not a Creation/God thread) (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=127849&highlight=evolution)

Is "Creation Science" really science? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117600&highlight=evolution)

Creation -vs- Evolution (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111166&highlight=evolution)

Adaptation vs. Evolution (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108388&highlight=evolution)

Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99670&highlight=evolution)


Originally posted by stingerhs
and so you know, there is no way that i'll start believing in evolution until i see some concrete evidence that it occured. so far, that hasn't happened.

You won't see or understand the evidence unless you allow yourself to get an education that includes it.

All the more reason to develop the space program...

And while we're at it, let's build some floating/underwater cities.

Otherwise, who's going to decide who lives and who...

http://strategy.jediknight.net/dr_strangelove.jpg)

Ach! Vat did you say Mr. President?!

One would think that limiting our population size through sterilisation and/or abstinence is a more current solution...

..and others might argue that way for oral sex practices and "gay people"

I still like my free condom and encouraged use of them idea. *shrugs*

..and others might argue that way for oral sex practices and "gay people"What? I do wish you'd quote what you're replying to, if you're going to continue to be unfathomably obtuse in your responses.

and maybe you should be smart enough to recognize that there is no need to quote if i reply to the previous post. especially if it's one spectacular deep oneliner.

"Spectacular" isn't a word I'd use. And once again you're missing the point: If you're going to post unfathomable gibberish, at least provide a quote as an indication of the context that your posts are otherwise lacking. :rolleyes:

Just stop it, Al. You're repeating yourself. And you start to sound boring.

And again you didn't listen to what i said: " in reply to the previous post." And as you may have noticed, you ended your post with three dots and i started mine with (only) two, but the intention is obvious. To continue, or better said, to carry on what you have said.

Maybe, before playing the wiseass, it is a good idea to know these forum's guidelines.
An excerpt from the "Senate Chambers Rules & Guidelines (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135103)"): Quoted Material: This is another departure from the LF General Rules-Set that I'd like to point out. In the Senate Chambers its considered bad form to quote more than you post. Especially if you are quoting a post on the same page and particularly if it is just above your own. Quoting an entire post of several paragraphs, then making a quick line or three in response is the worst.
And before we're going through the whole stuff again and again.. *sigh* and again.
Originally posted by Spider AL
One would think that limiting our population size through sterilisation and/or abstinence is a more current solution...Oh, that is a funny thing you mention here, directly in that post that will appear before mine, but i will quote it for you or you might miss it, SpiderAL. I could imagine that other people might argue the same way pro oral sex practices and "gay people". It decreases the increasing rate of earth's population. It's at least what "institutions of faith" tend to state.

And now, Mister Al, if you have any further problems with my posts or furthermore continue to refuse to think at least a bit for yourself, or in other words, are unable to recognize the obvious, feel free to ignore me, my posts or even to put me on the "ignore list" in your user settings. If not, then please, if you don't understand something, and before getting unconstructive, simply ask for more details, otherwise your behaviour is more than lacking.


Thank you, move along.