It does and it is possible--or not actually. In hypotheticals we can consider both. Nevertheless, you still have not shown where knowledge equals determination.



It is going to be easy to do that since we are arguing hypothetical philosophy [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.]. I understand where you are coming from. If space-time is a continuum and you are from t3h FUUUTURE [Cue Criswell Predicts!--Ed.] then you can look back and see the past like Booth and Caligula.

Yet, at the time of the present, there is nothing influencing your choice other than you--not the future watcher.

The conundrum is understandable. The thing is knowing is not the same as determining.



No it is not. It is knowledge of the choice, not the actual choice or determination of the choice.

May seem like semantics, but the difference is significant.



No, that is a fiction. Show me the device.



Actually we do to remain relevant.



Once you propose a deity with the ability to "snuff out" the sun, aside from leaving reality, you then cause other problems with what we know about reality and your free will argument.

[quoet]And going back to your "if I drop this glass, it will shatter", sure. But isn't it possible, however unlikely, that it may not? I'm not talking about throwing out the laws of physics and reality...I'm talking much more mundane means, like switching out your glass for plastic that doesn't shatter.[/quote]

Looks around. . . .

You are not here, and I stated that the glass would fall and strike the floor.

So your analogy does not really apply. You have to come up with a way of canceling gravity.

--J.D.

I agree with the ole Doctor 100% on this.

You grow in wisdom!

--J.D.

I can't, I'd have to claim to know everything about space and time to do so.

I can't say with 100% certainty that the sun will not explode tomorrow because I cannot claim to know all the physics that govern the suns behavior, especially at its core, nor can I claim with certainty that there doesn't exist other species more advanced than our own that would have means to destroy the sun.

In order to say with 100% certainty that the sun will not explode tomorrow, you have to have absolute knowledge of the above and PROVE you have absolute knowledge of the above; you bear the burden of proof, not me, not Tarot.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

You grow in wisdom!

all I see are lines.. more lines

You grow in post count!

And I clearly disagree...but I'm not sure where we're losing each other.

_________________

You aren't losing each other, at least it doesn't look like it. Everyone on this thread has their own ideas of what is required in order to make something determined, you two simply disagree on what those requirements are.

My opinion is that an entity simply knowing every decision you will make throughout your life is not enough to claim that your choices were determined by an outside force. In order for that to happen, the entity would have to force you to make a choice other than what you would have.

I somewhat agree here. I think there has to be a destination/end point/reason that hinders on your making that determined decision for it to be predetermined. If the decision is just known but not required there wouldn't be a need to have an outside influence on the decision, hence you are free to make your own choice.

Not sure why I typed the word hinder. Let's try the word relies.

I have asked for the evidence otherwise since Tarot--and now you--claim it can.

Demonstrate that it can.

You claim you cannot but point to the possibility of "knowledge" we do not know about that might make it possible. That is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

In the rain.

--J.D.

No, I claim it is possible.



I showed one scenario which is possible.



Sorry I claim I cannot what? Not clear on that. Oh show you the bomb, it's based on what we know. It should be possible. Is there a chance it might not be for a variety of reasons? Sure, as it's theoretical...no one has dark matter sitting around in a lab, not even CERN.

However I think you'd agree that an impact event (such as a very large astroid or partial planatoid) slamming into earth would be theoretically an extinction level event. I believe it's in the (interesting to me, and I think I posted it elsewhere once upon a time) list of 10 ways the earth (or more specifically humanity) could be destroyed. Do you accept that is possible, or would I have to produce the object on a collision course before you would say that it's even possible?

I'm sure it's not your intention, but I have the impression from my POV that you're moving goalposts. I do not have to demonstrate that the sun can be destroyed by...destroying it. I merely had to demonstrate that it was possible. Which, I have.

Wouldn't your position that the sun will rise tomorrow because it cannot be destroyed be argument from ignorance? I did rather well in fallacies, though I tend to take too literal a view. I don't do well with the grey areas unfortunately *sigh*...but I did get an 'A' (yay me!). Anyway again, I think that I have demonstrated that it *is* possible, however unlikely. Additionally without knowing all the factors, I don't think one can make an absolute statement. I also recall (humourously enough) the statement about the sun rising tomorrow in discussing fallacies. That because it has always risen, doesn't mean that we can assume it always will. It's not a fact that the sun has risen, until it does. There is a chance, even if so remote as to not deserve serious scrutiny or concern, that it might not. We certainly know stars can end. Of course what we also know about it is that it takes a very long time and the 'natural' death of our star will happen long after you and I are dust. Yet even if we currently didn't have the ability to observe the death of stars (if we could not see stars in the sky), we couldn't say the sun was eternal because it's "always" been there by our observations. Not only would that not be true (as we know) but it's simply not a statement we can make because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

==================

Back to the root of the disagreement though. Am I understanding your position (you will of course correct me if I'm wrong! )

Your position is: That any entity having knowledge of what will happen does not necessarily (or does not at all?) cause predetermination. Mere knowledge is not enough. (Bolding that as I think it's the crux). In order for predetermination to take place, there would have to be some interference, some overt act.

Is that correct?

If so, here's what I'm saying, because I feel like I'm not explaining it well enough. If you simply disagree, that's fine, I just want to be sure you understand what I'm saying.

If there is knowledge of what will happen in the future, and if that prediction is absolutely perfect (cannot be wrong) then there is predetermination of the future and no free will. The ability of exercising choice, which is free will, requires that there be actual choices.

If the future is known, and is absolute, then there simply IS NOT A CHOICE. There is only the highly convincing illusion of choice. If A is 100%, and therefore all other options 0%, those other "options" are not options at all. It cannot be anything but A. Therefore while we have the convincing illusion that it was our choice to pick A...the other options were never possibilities, the probability was 0%.

Is that clear, I hope? I don't mind disagreeing, we certainly have in the past on a few things, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding your argument, and that you're understanding mine. I'm not convinced I do understand your argument though, because I don't 'get' why you think your conclusion is accurate. Again, don't care if I disagree with it...I'm just not seeing the logic of it even, and I'm certain it's there because neither you or Eckert are slouches, IE I'm certain you're not going with it 'cause it 'feels' that way, there's logical reasons. I'm just not seeing 'em.





If you clear it up for me, I'll send you a private NBL picture you'll like...in the rain~

_________________

I understand where you are comming from Tarot and can see where you are comming to your conclusion, but as the Doctor has mentioned how your getting there is what is lacking in evidence. Everyone here agrees that once a choice has been made, it is done. 100% fact. The discussion on if an entity could allow free will and know what is going to happen in the future is all comming down to interference. If the entity doesn't interfere at all with people then they are allowed to make all their own decisions. He may know what they are going to do, but he isn't forcing them to make the choices.

We could even consider ourselves the entity when we go back to the Booth/Lincoln example. We being in the future know what choices he will make. You have been saying that since the entity knows the future, then everything that is done is just an illusion of free will. Somehow free will is lost and people can't make their own decisions.

Preknowledge



We in the future know what decision he made. But we are unable to go back and influence his decison. We can't go back and force him not to do it. He made his choice and we know exactly what it was. But as you said so yourself, Booth made a choice. He had free will. If we went back in time and did nothing then we simply have preknowledge. Predetermination would be if we decided that we didn't like the choice he made and at that instant we interfered. We used our preknowledge of his actions to determine if we thought it was a good or bad decision.

Your card trick example doesn't eliminate free will as well.


You have 3 cards from which to choose. You can pick any of them at all. You still have free will. Now here is where you would get into predetermination. The magician know's where he wants your choice to be. He has predetermined what his actions will be according to your choice. You never lost free will. He didn't force you to pick the card that he wanted. He manipulated your answers but never forced you in order to get the result he wanted.

I understand when you are using pretermined in refrence to knowing the future and knowing what choices will be made. Your discription of predetermined is the one we are using as preknowledge. I belive that the discription of predetermined that the rest of us are using would be that you lost control and someone else made the decision for you. You were going to pick chocolate, but someone took control of your body and chose vanilla for you because that is what they wanted you to pick.

Curses. I see that you have made another post while I was writing this.

The question I have then is since we know through history the actions of the past, does that make all of them automotons, and remove their ability to make choices? Because that is exatly the same situation that we are discribing for the entity in this situation.

DoctorX: (Premise) It is not possible that the sun could be destroyed tomorrow. [Source]
DoctorX: You cannot prove the premise is false, therefore it is true ('Show me the mechanism').

Doesn't get more cut and dry than that; take your own medicine, you're appealing to ignorance, not me.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

It might come down to definitions again, but even if there is a 100 percent chance of A happening and 0 percent chance for B and C, there still seem to be choices present. There may be zero likelihood of them happening, but that doesn't mean a choice wasn't made. I think that's where a connection needs to be shown: how do we arrive at the conclusion that there is no choice out of the sole fact that we knew what the choice would be beforehand?

We are free to choose what we want, in a sense, but it's already known what will happen.

One exception to this *might* be if YOU yourself know what's going to happen, and try to willfully go against what's said will already happen. Even then, by some chain of events perhaps you still have free will but still end up making the same choice freely. I don't think that possible exception though necessarily leads to the automatic "well extending that, if ANYONE knows then there is no free will" because if you don't know but someone else knows, there's still plenty of potential for a free choice on your own part without outside influence on the decision.

Above being said I concede the argument is on thin ice as it is, and admittedly I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. I'd still hesitate to rule it out completely though based on the above.

(Damn that's a long post cooldown timer, how many spammers we got on here anyway?)

Same thing--"can" meaning "able to happen."



No you did not. You showed a science or "speculative" fiction. Where is the evidence that this is happening NOW to make "tomorrow" possible?



Not towards you, towards Argrax.



But it does not exist. Therefore it has no bearing on tomorrow.

My compliments, you have argued for my objection most persuasively.



Quod erat demonstrandum.



Yet there would be evidences--thanks [Stop that.--Ed.]--of said astroid NOW.

Where is it?

Remember, you claimed that it was possible that the sun would not rise "tomorrow."

Just securing the goal posts.



So far so good.



And your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

You have to show how knowledge determines.



Choices are still there.



Only when you are wrong [Stop that!--Ed.]. As above, one of the problems with these philosophical arguments is they become sophomoric in the real world: you cannot prove determinism. Nor, frankly, can I one way or the other. People like to think rational argument means if the evidence is understood by all all would agree to the same conclusion--wait . . . does that mean stupid people mean we have free will? Anyways, we just do not know. Sometimes there is not enough evidence.

Back to Greene, it is "possible" that quantum is deterministic. Physicists just do not know yet. We can all argue how "reasonable" it is one way or the other, but until someone completes the work, it is just speculation.

That is different from real world. Not to bring in OTHER FORUMS [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] but recall the [CENSORED--Ed.], whom I now now refer to as "Betty"--proposing all sorts of places for "Lemuria" to have existed.

Neat!

Problem is that if such a continent existed it would have affected the region as another poster demonstrated. Like a Planet X--if such exists, you have gravitational effects and bad television shows. Same with the elephant in the trousers. Sometimes "absence of evidence" is evidence of absence.

Same with the "asteroid" that is going to take out the planet tomorrow. They are just not that fast they could not be notices before tomorrow!





--J.D.

Helps if one actually reads and quotes posts accurately. "Let us review the catechism!"

Claim the First:

Claim the Second:

Claim the Third:

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

Perhaps Tarot's point isn't the knowledge determines, but that if perfect knowledge exists then the "choice" must be predetermined in some way. If there is perfect knowledge, then there must be some kind of predetermination. The determination doesn't necessarily have to come from the knowledge or the entity that possesses the knowledge. If the "choice" isn't predetermined in some way, then perfect knowledge is an impossibility.

BTW, if any of you still participating in this discussion seriously want Doctor to see that above paragraph, you'll probably have to quote it. I believe I'm one of the folks on his "MORE LINES!" list :p.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. The choice is still made at by the person at the time of the choice. Absolute knowledge of that choice doesn't change the fact that it was made by the person responsible and not by the entity. Again, just pretend that the entity is outside of time and it's very easy. All the choices are made by the individuals who have free will and the entity is watching, but knows what the people have chosen and will choose. He doesn't interfere, because that alone would compromise free will.

Indeed, that is basically it.

Of course, mine had Latin stuff and dancing cats. . . .

--J.D.

But "pretending" to be outside of time doesn't relate to reality, which Doctor has insisted must be a part of any argument.

The time of the perfect knowledge is always important to the discussion; I have perfect knowledge of the choice my students made this morning in class, but of course that doesn't imply predeterminism. But if I have any kind of perfect knowledge of their choices tomorrow then it seems by our definition of perfect knowledge it is impossible to have that choice; something somewhere predetermined it. In fact, perhaps it is a misnomer to even call it a choice.

Nice rebuttal, really. Please point out explicitly where I misquoted you and how you're not appealing to ignorance rather than responding with your typical ambiguous/inane reply.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Well, pretending the entity is outside of time is really just a convenient way to explain it. It makes it easier to wrap your head around, because you don't get hung up on the timeline.

An entity with "perfect knowledge" is rather outside the realm of reality in the first place though.

I guess in the strictest sense, choices would be "predetermined" if there was absolute knowledge of them, because it is prior to the choice. I don't really have a problem reconciling the choices being made at the instant that they're applicable, yet being "watched" from the past by an entity that can see all time at once. You could say that, technically, before they're made, it's "pre" determination, but it feels like debating semantics to me. The crux of the issue is who makes the choice, IMO.

Noblesse oblige.



See the correct quotes of who actually made claims above.





If they cannot bother to read a thread responsibly, then fail again when the relevant material is quoted back at them. . . .

--J.D.

Ala Greene above, such an Entity [Tm.--Ed.] would be outside the space-time of you in order to be able "view" your past and future.

An entity with "perfect knowledge" is rather outside the realm of reality in the first place though.



But not in your reference frame. Wwwwwwoooooooo . . .

Wish I could draw a picture of that. You have to picture space and time moving on two axes, which gives you, like, wow, a volume like a loaf of bread THESE AREN'T MY CRAYONS! Each "present" is a "slice" in this "loaf" of space-time.

"You" are moving forward like a slice in space-time. In your reference frame, choices in your future do not exist. The Entity [Now with olestra!--Ed.] is able to view any "slice" in this "loaf" of space-time and "see" your past. IF he is also outside your time frame--his time relative to your time--he can see what is your future or, even weirder, what your future is while you viewing what your past is.

In no case is he determining what is happening anywhere along your space-time.

--J.D.

One would think you would have broken the habit of simply repeating yourself when people ask for further clarification, it's bad form and extremely tiresome.

The claim that Tarot made was that there's an infinitesimally small possibility that the Sun will not rise tomorrow based on a myriad of unknown factors that exist, this is an absolutely true statement in every way, shape and form; this is the position the 'reasonable man' would take, alleviates the burden of proof from her and therefore not an Appeal to Ignorance.

You, on the other hand, state that it's absolutely impossible for the sun to not rise tomorrow on the basis that you simply can't prove definitively otherwise, that is an Appeal to Ignorance.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Careful, sir, if you get his dander up then ALL HE WILL SEE IS LINES!

I can't believe you fools are still playing into this asshats game. What's even more funny is acting surprised when he gives you the same run-around condescending bullshit he's been shoving down your throats for 18 pages.

Stomping your feet and demanding proof when your arguement is purely semantic is fucking bush league.

So does hell exist or not?

I think this thread proves that Hell is other people.
In, as they say, the rain.

Shrug...

It's an 18 page thread that I actually click the boards to look at pretty much every day. Whatever you might have to say about the participants, it's been more thought provoking than anything else I've read here in a long time. I just ignore the stretches where people do nothing but sling insults.


If you want to find something worthwhile, you will. If you don't, you won't. Pretty simple.

shut up dummy

Depends. . . .

--J.D.

WOOHOO DR X! RACER X WITH AFUCKING MEDICAL LICENSE HECK YEAH!



Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.



Heh, what utterly pitiful drivel. Let me reiterate my point once more: ugjjsalk



The problem with predeterminism is that it is merely a human concept and has no base in reality. There is no such thing as time, only the ability for the things to change and the ability to witness this change. Anything outside of the present simply does not exist. It is impossible to know something which does not exist, only to hold a concept of it and therefore true knowledge of the past and the future simply cannot exist.

While all events are influenced by those which have preceded them, the preceding events place no limits on the events of the present. It can be observed that preceding events are the basis for current events, yet there is always potential for a rogue seed which will effect the process of current events and makes the knowledge of succeding events unknowable. Change is the nature of reality, and it is change that necessitates the existence of rogue seeds to sprout and corrupt the possibility of a knowable future.



Error: entity [Tm.--Ed.] not found (0)



Refer to my last quote please, imbecile.



I am just wondering if this drx guy is the same guy that tarot brought onto the ezboard forums and then got laughed off the board because no one liked him?



What really baffles me about DOCTOR X is that he is so persistant in accomplishing nothing. It's like he's punching a brick wall really hard and is convinced that sooner or later he will end up breaking it. He doesn't really enjoy it. but he has to keep on going or he won't be able to justify all the previous times he punched the wall. Eventually a sense of pride grows, because he was able to keep punching the wall while everyone else just walked by as they went about their lives as normal. That in itself is an accomplishment, a way of rising above the herd. And, you know, I bet the wall will crumble in another couple of hits anyways.

Also, are there messageboards out there on the internet where there are like a hundred DR. X's and they all post like him and argue about stuff? That would be some wacky stuff.

--The guy on scrubs on comedy central at 6pm central time when nothing else is on TV and I really hate how it has the dumb naming scheme for every episode.

_________________

Check and mate.

Givin, Shareef, and myself having been thinking the exact same thing since she invited this douche here.



Dr X is the King of Message Boards, if he isn't right or someone isn't sucking his cock while nodding their heads in agreement at his posts, he simply puts them on ignore...then pretends he's still King of the forum. Sort of like how he's up to 231 posts on this thread and still he insists anyone but his fanbois (or fangirl) really think he's welcome here.

ps...Doctor X, Your Highness, MORE LINES!!!

_________________

droma

I saw this and thought of DrX

(trying to embed again...)


LINK

I am sorry, I thought I heard a child crying.

No . . . my mistake.

Just lines.

--J.D.

I'm sorry, I thought I heard a fat pathetic loser who spends his whole day posting on the internet trying to be witty.

No...my mistake.

Just lines.

--J.H.

_________________

You've seen more lines than Charlie Sheen and Robert Downey Jr. put together.

I think everyone should fully qote the person before them so that docx has an opportunity to read what others say. I am not saying that he will, just give him the opportunity. Or he can have everyone on ignore and have a conversation with only the people he likes - himself.

How did I fail at youtubeing?

[youtube]qxUZUnRwH7s[/youtube]

You just need to put the video id (qxUZUnRwH7s in this case) in between the [youtube] [/youtube] things.

How the fuck did dr. x get 275 posts this quickly? We're all pretty far removed from the original board "purpose" at this point, but while I actually completely agree with your basic ideas/principles/arguments on this thread I don't I understand why you're still here. We get it. You're more educated, better researched, have academic debate experience, and (in my opinion) are smarter than most of the other posters here, but so what? I have friends who are absolutely more knowledgable, informed, and well spoken on politics than any member of this community. But I'm not going to start a thread about the '08 election and then send a link to my brodawg so he can come to a message board of people he's never met, related to a server he didn't play on, in a game he's never heard of, just so he can run circles around fellow lanys posters triumphantly in his area of expertise, because that's not really the point of this board. But I guess you've gotta take what you can get these days eh?

Smarter and better educated? He's afraid to say what he does for a living, so I wouldn't worry about him being better educated. If anyone opposes him directly with anything other than something he has already researched, he simply buries his head in the sand "lines blah blah blah" rather than having the balls to respond. And quoting shit that you read, and shit that you have already argued repeatedly on the internet, does not make you a smart individual.

Responding to posts, son. Occasionally spanking a few crybabies.



Why are you posting here?



Then you do not "get it."

--J.D.

Then "explain it"

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

When you answer my questions.

--J.D.

I'm about as favorably minded as they come when it comes to "Tarot recommendations", and you're even annoying me...and I have no real interest in this thread.

It started with the first appearance of the "lines" crap, and just kept going. I mean, come on. You don't get much more grade school than the whole "la la la can't hear you" schtick...particularly when we all know full well you are reading every single "line" written. People who want to ignore people....IGNORE them. They don't go out of their way to constantly say "see how much I'm ignoring you? huh huh huh? isn't it annoying being ignored?" every time someone makes a post. Why? Because in a message board environment, with oodles of posters on a single topic, you have no way of knowing if they were even replying/talking to you. But you do, don't you? You couldn't be more transparent if you tried on that count. Very, VERY annoying. I want to smack you every time you post that "lines, more lines" crap. I'm sure there will be a follow up "no, really, I'm ignoring them" (and possibly me now), but you and I both know the truth. You're reading every "line". You thrive on it.

Add to all of that the "wise old leader" role crap with all the derogatory "son" and assorted comments about crybabies, etc.... for someone who is the sole champion of your skills in "spanking cry babies"? You certainly seem completely unable to recognize the very spoiled brat in your mirror.

But hey, who am I? By all means, continue.



And that will be my sole contribution to what will be the single most pathetic page 20 thread in lanys history.

_________________

If by spank he means ignored via greasemonkey, as I sure wasn't spanked by anyone.

You misunderstand. We "don't want it".

That will remain your problem.



Yet you contribute to it.



I would rather think spewing profanity, variations of "your a doodyhead," and generally behaving like howler monkeys when told something one does not want to face rather surpasses that.



Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Goes on a fair bit on the subject of Ignore.

Perhaps you are unable to ignore those who do not contribute beyond "grade school." Perhaps you need to know people are paying attention to you. I do not know. For me, it is merely good manners.

I do find it curious that, apparently given the quotes from, some get really upset ones' magnum opus[/b] of maledicta goes unread. Rather like a screaming child far away from people he is trying to obtain attention from. Rather appropriate.

Quote:

Add to all of that the "wise old leader" role crap with all the derogatory "son" and assorted comments about crybabies, etc....

Remains you error to read in "derogatory." As for crybabies, when they throw tantrums they rather meet the criteria.

Quote:

You certainly seem completely unable to recognize the very spoiled brat in your mirror.

I am sure you can recognize that kettle you are staring at?

No?

It is black.

Quote:

And that will be my sole contribution to what will be the single most pathetic page 20 thread in lanys history.

In other words, you basically confess to being unable to contribute anything of relevance to what has become at least [i]three major topics? Did they all just upset your morning Cheerios?

And you wish to point fingers about "brats?"

Curious.

--J.D.

It doesn't take much smarts to recognize a condescending, self-aggrandizing, pedantic drama queen.

_________________

Next time just type "I know you are but what am I?"

This is really the heart of the matter, right here. As this quote shows, he still thinks people are primarily reacting negatively because of what he is saying. He doesn't recognize that it's not what he's saying (which many people here can even agree with), but how he is saying it.

Considering the 20-30 different ways people have tried to make that point in this thread all completely missed by him (hence the quote above), I think he may be simply mentally incapable of grasping this concept.

Neesha - He's not going to respond to your questions because he doesn't want us to know the truth. He doesn't want us to know hes some fat/ugly 45 year old unemployed failure who lives with (either) is mother or some other older relative.

He spent the better part of his post High School years studying Religion in an attempt to understand exactly why God has zero pity for him (cursing him with bad acne, a huge clubbed foot, and a small dick), unable to find an answer he made it is life goal to try and prove there is no God...which resulted in him going Neo-Atheist. And since Atheists have more conviction (in proving there is no God) then your average Christian has faith, he found a large circle of friends in the non-believers. Friend that he shares only this common link, as even the more vile/venomous Atheist can still get pussy.

Then along came the Internet (thanks to Al Gore). Doctor X found this as the perfect venue for his attempts at trying to make up for his shortcomings (and his still intact virginity) and also to find others whom share in the small penis dilemma. What he found was a wonderful thing called Message Boards, where people could (if they so choose) anonymously post whatever they wanted in hopes that either someone would agree with them...or someone would disagree, allowing him to flex his superior wasted education on trying to out do them. This was rather hard for him to start, as he just kept getting over run then chased off by forum trolls. Eventually, however, Doctor X found the wonders of the "IGNORE" feature...which now allowed him to simply bypass those whom didn't agree with him.

On one bright (well, as bright as your mothers basement can get) day, while on a message board for people to discuss psychic powers, our Hero met his soon to be Internet BFF...Tarot. He was so amazed at her ability to ridicule others beliefs, it caused him to jerk off for several days while watching the directors cut of "On Golden Pond". But he needed to share his experience with this Internet Wild Child. So he took her under his wings, to show her the true meaning of being an Internet Skeptic. Time pasted, and the bond these two mavericks of the keyboard grew.

Years passed, the wheel turned. Then, one day, the Wild Child our Hero to come post on a thread regarding the topic of "Hell". She felt that his superior knowledge on the subject and his tiny member would make a fine addition to the communtiy. Doctor X jumped at the chance to flex his mental muscle...and you all know the rest.....

Creative Writing 101 FTW!!!

_________________

Personally, I'm fairly certain that nobody around here would get away with 'your a noob'. I'm sure they would be corrected several times "you're a noob".