TRASH TALK
#2
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:59 PM
#3
Posted 30 January 2007 - 12:53 AM
Here, on the other hand, is an example of a last golden age topic taking place at roughly the same time. Hilarious.
-Pufer
This post has been edited by Pufer: 30 January 2007 - 01:13 AM
#6
Posted 30 January 2007 - 01:34 AM
Its like what happens when you cross a phoenix with a super black hole; it's powerful enough to destroy itself, only to be reborn in a vicious cycle of torment and pain. Or in this case, nonsense.
-Avatara, on the life cycle of ATT.
Dude, imagine Redline Trash Talk; the unholy spawn of B&B and ATT.
-ephrin
Will not get involved in a creation/evolution debate.
We're being overrun!
#10
Posted 31 January 2007 - 12:24 AM
Its like what happens when you cross a phoenix with a super black hole; it's powerful enough to destroy itself, only to be reborn in a vicious cycle of torment and pain. Or in this case, nonsense.
-Avatara, on the life cycle of ATT.
Dude, imagine Redline Trash Talk; the unholy spawn of B&B and ATT.
-ephrin
Will not get involved in a creation/evolution debate.
We're being overrun!
#12
Posted 01 February 2007 - 01:07 AM
Rule 3 belongs in Just Chat.
Its like what happens when you cross a phoenix with a super black hole; it's powerful enough to destroy itself, only to be reborn in a vicious cycle of torment and pain. Or in this case, nonsense.
-Avatara, on the life cycle of ATT.
Dude, imagine Redline Trash Talk; the unholy spawn of B&B and ATT.
-ephrin
Will not get involved in a creation/evolution debate.
We're being overrun!
#15
Posted 01 February 2007 - 12:39 PM
#22
Posted 02 February 2007 - 03:49 AM
The Apple Cøre, on Jan 31 2007, 02:24 AM, said:
Ah yes, the good old days of me changing my signature regularly. I think the progression of the Trash Talk link was "dead", then "not dead", then "once again dead", then "undead", though I probably have the order wrong. Perhaps The Journalist remembers.
Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context"
#24
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:45 AM
Mispeled, on Feb 1 2007, 06:48 PM, said:
Having too many biases to count does not make an unbiased source. All you get in noise, the truth is buried in ten page long arguments about how really, one member is a crazy liberal and the other is a right-wing nut job.
#25
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:55 AM
mrxak, on Feb 2 2007, 04:45 PM, said:
This is unfortunately true. While the human brain is excellent at retaining information, it's not so excellent at retaining source data for that information. When you obtain a piece of data from a biased source, you tag it as unreliable so that you can weigh it appropriately. Sadly, that tag is likely degrade before the piece of data does, leaving you with an unreliable piece of data which you no longer have a reason not to trust.
Repeat something often enough, and it'll come to be true.
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy