Spiritchaser

Eddie

 

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFg7eY7-qkk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFg7eY7-qkk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

When it comes to Santino, I'm not only saying "never" but carving it in stone.

 

And Kozlov has the look that Vince creams himself over. Santino does not.

 

So for you that's a guarandamntee? I respectfully disagree, and yeah Vince does like the Kozlov look.:good222:

I was under the impression Ghandi was a man, thus would be included within the group category of men. I may be wrong about that, but I doubt it... unless by "men", you meant "men - but no pacifists!".

 

I only mentioned Ghandi, but I'm sure there are other figures from history who have done things that weren't soley, or even in part, about the pursuit of power.

 

You have used a sweeping generalisation to advocate a viewpoint, I, in retort, used a specific example to counter that viewpoint.

 

Cool. In general men have acted this way. Ghandi and the others have been exceptions, not the rule. Hence a generalisation.

Anything is possible in the WWE dude. I think anyone can get over given the time and storylines, for me Edge was never going to be a main eventer, even though he was a good all rounder, he just didn't have the right stuff for me, but then over time and with the correct storylines you forget about the Edge who reeked of awesomeness and see the Rated R Edge, I agree Santino is being jobbed out and is boring in the ring, but that doesn't mean he can't make it. Vladimir Kozlov made it and he is boring in the ring.

 

Santino has as much chance as anyone given the right push and handling it well too.

Never say never.

Ghandi says you're talking shit, or he would if he was that way inclined... and not dead.

 

History says I'm not.

Ghandi was a pacifist, what does he have to do with this? I don't mind destruction for a constructive reason.

 

People have always done things to suit their own ends, always. Rewritten biblical texts, stashed money away, stolen, murdered, reneged, deceived and buried others all to make themselves look and feel better, all for this mythical power, which they beleive will save them from actually having to live with those they see as beneath them or less than them, or weaker easier prey.

 

Those they see as fools and clowns, who are to be, mocked and held up for ridicule, but it is merely their own fear of being the one being mocked that leads them to act in such a way, fear of not being "normal".

 

If a member of your family was being mocked for their differences you would see the truth as it appears before you, but when you see the world through inured eyes it is difficult to see what happens, as long as you are warm and safe what does it matter?

 

It matters if the warm safe place is up to your neck in shit.

 

People are responsible for many great and wonderous achievements, beautiful creations, fantastic visions and magnificent moments, but they are also on the other hand vile, insidious, lying,two faced, backstabbing cowards, who follow what they are told, who blindly kill for the chance to be "normal".

 

So excuse me while I find humour in your replies.:good222:

Ok the Rock wasn't the best example, but what about Eddie Guerrero? Yeah ok he had his dark moments in WCW, but then he came in to WWE and eventually became a comedy character of sorts who then went on to beat the invincible Brock Lesnar, Eddie then became a main event player. The only reason we haven't seen a dark side to Santino is because he hasn't had enough tv exposure. Give him time and storylines and he'll make it. Imagine Santino beating Randy Orton next week on RAW and not fluking it either.

The Rock managed to combine both aspects though people, I'm not saying he is as talented but it has been done.

Also Dra, Punk may rub folks up the wrong way as RVD did before him, but RVD still had a pretty good WWE run for all his recklessness.

I think Santino can be taken seriously if he beats someone serious.

A lot of the smaller guys are suffering in WWE presently, but you never know.

Now as well with WWE running a more family oriented business, a few surprising stars my come to the fore.

Santino Marella is an excellent wrestler, not just a comedy act, he will be a big star given the right push.

Swagger impresses me a hell of a lot, he just has the ability and the nous.

Morrison will always be around the top, he needs to add mass though to be seen as a serious contender, Miz is another Road Dogg for me.

CM Punk will also be a company man, so will do anything asked of him with a smile and will have a good shot in WWE.

The others up to now don't stand out in my mind enough.

Wow, I thought I was the only nihilist on the boards.

 

 

:good222:

For me historically, men have only done things in pursuit of power.

When they learn to not love power but understand the power of love, peace on Earth shall prevail, until then show me how you do something and let me reproduce it, then I may beleive it.:greets4:

Is'nt he Vince's illegitimate........no no no Hornswoggle that's right.

Basically, they've ha scientists redo their experiments countless time, and the results they claim to have happened have never ever been replicated by any other scientific group, including the groups that A.R.E. helped out.

 

There's also a lot of essays written about the way that their scientific method makes no sense and that all their experiments are pretty much fixed, random chance, or, if they're proven wrong, by their own experiments, which has happened quite a lot, totally ignored.

 

The old Einstein cliche is reeeeeeally getting old. To change science you need something to back it up. Everyone who's changed popular scientific thought has done so with years of research, peer tested hypothesis and experimentation. It doesn't work in the way that you can just random claims without any evidence what so ever and suddenly you're Galileo.

 

If that's the case, every meth head in London screaming about how the Pope stole their eyes needs to given some sort of a doctorate.

 

The sky is made of diamonds.

 

There, totally random claim. I've got nothing backing it up what so ever, but I assure that it's true and you should give me money to convince other people that it's true.

 

Did you believe that? And if so, can I have my money?

 

 

To say you miss the point is futile.

 

Unless you are there, unless you do the experiments, unless you perform and theorise your own set of scientific results, then you have no idea. How do you know and I mean truly know, that scientists who need to stay in a job who need to make mortgage payments who need to eat aren't telling you the sky is made of diamonds and you are swallowing it peice by peice. You beleive science to be truth, but it is merely one of many truths.

 

Man has a way of rationalising his own understandings of the world, but maybe the fact that he is trying to experiment on things changes the things he is experimenting on and in turn that gives the results he is looking for. Quantum physics alters the perceptions and the normality.

 

As for the Einstein cliche, it's a cliche because like all cliches it is true. It gets old because it is what it is.:xyx

 

You will now endevour to change my already made up mind, my mind will not accept things because people say I should or because people say there is no other way, there are always other ways, have I found them all yet? No, will I? who knows, but I will not accept that science knows all for a start it is arrogant and flawed, because people are fallible, they make mistakes, they do and say things which calls into question their integrity.:xyx

 

Also, any news on the Scole Experiments?? ARE maybe flawed, but that proves my point about experimentation and human integrity.

Crazy Necro

 

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyicCsgqXzY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyicCsgqXzY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxVB9G6vEs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxVB9G6vEs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

Check out more Joe Vs Necro craziness.

Einstein and Eddington proved nothing, they theorised and theory is science's greatest flaw because we are constantly guessing.

Sorry Saz you are of course correct, they merely disproved the Newtonian Theory.:xyx

Strange I've never paid to read any of their research and at one time the Earth was flat according to science, but if you want to take one set of theories and scientific experiments view over another that is your right.

 

Remember before Einstien and Eddington proved that space was curved, then the universe was flat too, science is an evolving subject, don't close your mind to what might be.

What makes you believe that? Have you seen it happen, or heard of it happening?

 

 

There are a number of studies being carried out by the Association for Research and Enlightenment and a group which carried out the Scole Experiments which dealt with life after death and the abilities of paranormal physicists. Also read In Search of Shroedinger's Cat for wierd and wonderful quantum physics and how stranger things than "materialisation" are thought (there is that word again) to be possible by using thought alone.

 

Think about it, nothing that exists which has been created by man, was not thought of first, was not imagined first, what was the spark of inspiration, creative people talk of being conduits, whose best ideas come from somewhere else outside of them? Maybe it's just one of those "mysterious ways" we hear so much about.:xyx

Apart from breaking the laws of physics (physical matter can't be just thought into or out of existance) it all sounds pretty good in a crazy person speaking to God sort of way to me Spiritchaser :lol

 

Physics as we understand them but not as a thinking, feeling being millions of years old understands maybe? I also think physical matter can be thought into existence, if enough thought goes into it..... the difference between fantasy and life is fantasy tends to make sense, life doesn't have to.

God (or should that be god :P), that would be boring. So little to think about for millions of years...

 

:lol or quite literally everything to think about for millions of years. How many nearly humans were made on how many Earths?

I beleive in The Face of Boe.

 

Imagine millions of years ago just after the Big Bang a huge vast cloud of positive and negative charged atoms clustered together for millenia and eventually sparks of electricity passed between these atoms getting faster and faster until one day, the cloud did what our brains do every day and a thought of instinct passed between those atoms, eventually the cloud evolved into a super massive "brain" which having no real physical "being" became able to bring about physical things by "thinking" them into existence, it is not as far fetched as you would think after all look at the way our brains work. Anyways, this "brain" thought all of existence as we see it and eventually created even us through thought patterns and an understanding of physics we have yet to grasp, as myths and fables tell us we are created in the image of "GOD" yet we all look different, but our brains do not, they all look the same. We became the "brains" ultimate creation and the "brains" ultimate test, to see if we can make the universe the way we want it to be by thinking it "as in heaven so on Earth".

 

Just a thought, one of my beliefs? You decide, you think.....

All very good arguements peeps, we also are 99.8% Bonobo Chimp, but just 0.2% difference is still different, in a whole complex way. We observe time differently than other creatures, and we can philosophize about things other creatures never would, we can think about yesterday and tomorrow, though some evidence is leading science to beleive that other creatures do possess foresight when it comes to hunting so that debate is up in the air as of now; but having watched the Ida documentary last night which i found very compelling I still don't think there is an argument against a creator, creating us (homo sapien sapiens), using the basic animals that already existed on Earth at the time, whenever that may have been. My thought is if I didn't see it happen in front of me, I'm going to wonder if the truth I'm told, is the truth at all. Science maybe correct but equally so might creationists, we as humans are different in amazing ways than the rest of the creatures of Earth.

 

Yet, we are suprisingly close to them too, Charles Darwin may see a pattern, but I see patterns in the stars and I have no idea where they came from either.

188,000 for Spiritchaser

Results 1 - 10 of about 90,600,000 for Terry

I'm also talking about truly evolving into something else, like a chimplike animal changed into a slightly less chimplike animal and more humanlike. What made us talk for instance? When will another Chimp turn into a human being? As for time being a factor in evolution in the Amazon Basin new creatures evolve every day and die every day as their environment is destroyed so they are trying to evolve but humans are speeding up that process, and I don't think humans are getting smarter either, I think technology is advancing which is more the evolution of machina rather than humans, also the more "advanced" humans become the more our humanity is being devolved. 100 years ago the people would not have behaved as we do to one another they had different morals and ethics and principles, because they had to deal face to face with others, nowdays human life is devalued by faceless and sometimes morally bankrupt individuals, so is that evolution or is it simply survival of the fittest which leads to the contraction of the gene pool, which in turn leads to again, mutations in DNA which truly makes us evolve into something completely different.

Hehehehe I wonder when humans will evolve then eh?

:xyx

Its mum and dad when they made hot dirty monkey/lima love to eachother I suspect :P

 

 

So chicken and egg scenario then...lol this could be a long process

"I aint no rattlesnake, I aint no People's Champion..............I'm The Deadman."

Taker to HHH after Hunter claimed there was no one else for him to beat.

 

Anything Santino/Santina says....pure gold.

Hahahahaha so who "created" Ida??????