Shaun

I think there are some posts missing though.

Exactly! At least if by "with no movement" you mean "with some movement" and by "anyones" you mean "VaKo's". http://www.hak5.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5908

You know brunet and brunette have different meanings. You just said you find males with dark hair hot, I don't know whether you meant that or not.

You can convince your girlfriend to have a threesome with a shemale midget and a goat while taking golden shower? If not how is she possibly an adequate substitute for porn?

IE6 is and always has been a broken browser.

It's one of the most misused, words that's for certain. Another one that I don't really understand is people using 'literally' right before using a metaphor.

That's not ironic. Ironic doesn't mean stupid. Well, irony is the difference between expectation and result, or at least cosmic irony is. Nobody would EXPECT someone to throw a rock at a panther they don't know is dead, hence that's where the irony comes in. A man throwing a rock at a possibly alive panther is not cosmic irony. To be cosmic irony it has to be as though the gods are playing with us to give us hope or belief in something and then something happening contrary to that (hence the cosmic part). If he had thrown the rock at the panther to confirm it was dead, carefully walked up to the panther and once he believed he was safe was pounced on by another panther behind him it might be cosmic irony. In this case there is nothing that leads us to believe be wouldn't have thrown a rock at a panther, and in this case throwing the rock is hardly a result or outcome anyway.

Because he threw a rock at a panther he didn't know was dead; it it wasn't I bet the panther woulda been on him before he could get a shot off. That's not ironic. Ironic doesn't mean stupid.

Wear a mask and run away while he's still writhing on the ground.

Why is that ironic?

Well maybe I was a little over assertive without doing proper research first, however the first line of the historicity section of that article does say "The historicity of the Trojan War is still subject to debate.", along with some statements in favour of its historicity like "Today many scholars agree that the Trojan War is based on a historical core of a Greek expedition against the city of Troy, but few would argue that the Homeric poems faithfully represent the actual events of the war." but the point is there is nothing like as much evidence to support the Trojan war as the other two. What I should have said is there's a lot less certainty as to whether it happened or not. Edit: Also I didn't realise there was a film called Alexander which is why I was a bit confused, I don't remember ever seeing it advertised athough it was only 2004 according to IMDB.

You can also put this in your head section: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="image_name.png" /> The image can be any type of image which the browser supports, but remember to chage the type. It isn't against W3C standards unlike's the Microsoft invented favicon.ico system (I think Microsoft's favourite pastime is breaking web standards. Most browsers support this, but IE 6 doesn't. IE 7 might.

I don't think that's too valid an example. To start with it's kind of loaded because no one likes the Nazis and we know it isn't true for a fact. And even if that's a valid argument surely then it's wrong to make any film based on any war between two countries, because the victor will obviously have twisted things to make them look like the good guys and their enemies the evil guys? It is a historical event and even if we don't know all the circumstances, how often do we know all the circumstances of something that happened a long time ago? Should we never make films based on those things because we don't always have both sides' story? And the suggestion that this is an anti-Iranian propaganda film seem a bit far fetched to me. To start with I doubt the average person even knows that Iran is Persia and I don't think the average 5th century BCE Persian would have had a lot in common with a modern Iranian anyway - they spoke a different language and the Muslims wouldn't invade Persia for another thousand years (in fact Islam and Christianity didn't even exist). It seems so loosely connected to Iran to me. It's like suggesting making a film about Joan of Arc is an anti-English film because the English are occupying France and kill Joan in it 500 years ago. Actually, World War 2 films are made all the time from an Allied Forces perspective, but no sensible person suggests Saving Private Ryan was designed as propaganda against modern day Germany, regardless of the fact that the German state back then did such inhumane things and it wasn't even that long ago.

Well, not really. There is no evidence to indicated the Trojan War ever happened, it's part of Greek mythology (although most myths have at least a bit of basis in reality). I'm not sure what you are referring to by Alexandor, if you mean Alexander the Great he was a real historical figure who we know really existed, but there are a lot of Greek myths with him as the hero. The Battle of Thermopylae really did happen (although the sizes of the armies were probably far for what the Greeks recorded - history is written by the victors and all that) so it can be said to be as historically accurate as Alexander the Great in that we know they existed but not sure accurate the historical details are, but I don't see how it can be said to be anything like Greek mythology. Also Iran's government is completely retarded, like all theocratic regimes.

I've largely stopped snacking on junk food and now often snack on bananas instead. Sometimes I like to deep throat them first.

Uh, I don't know why that is happening. DST never started in the same time in the EU as it did in the US, so something is wrong if it changed for you and you haven't told the computer you are in the US.

Vim (or GVim). As long as you have enough RAM it'll load pretty much any file, although it might take 20-30 seconds to load. It'll load faster if you turn off line numbering, the swap file and syntax highlighting before you try to open it.

So medical sites should be .xxx then? How about sites with artistic nudes? Do you think it would be simple come come up with a clear line between what is porn and what isn't for an international medium like the Internet? Apart from that what happens if I want to post an image that could be considered porn on my personal site not host on a .xxx (regardless for what reason)? Does my site get taken down? Whose job is it to police the entire the non-.xxx web for porn?

Knock on the door and when he answers kick him in the crotch.

http://www.google.com/search?q=proxy+server Second result is Squid. http://www.squid-cache.org/ You can't have Googled very hard (assuming you are after a HTTP proxy and not socks or something).

And you think requiring all content that someone arbitrarily decides is mature content to be on the .xxx TLD is a good thing do you? Don't see any problems arising there with classification or enforcement? If I say cunt is that mature content? Would this site have to move to .xxx now because it has mature content on it? If it isn't mandatory it's useless.

There are some good arguments against it. More than there are for it anyway.

Do you get the "mysql won't run" error message? No way that can be fixed, better just take to your hard drive with a sledge hammer.

Hah! 15 seconds too slow.

Boot the recovery console from the windows disc.