There should also be a rule added to the Pit stating that people that are not from the United States, people that are from the Midwest (and therefor enjoy Chicago "pizza"), and people that enjoy chain "pizza" are to receive a warning whenever they express any opinion on pizza.

Quote by JimmyBanks6
dominoes? ew.

i dont have a picture of my favourite pizza, because the best pizza places are not chain restaurants.

one of my favs though (cant remember the ingredients exactly) was garlic chicken, truffle oil, red pepper.

The Hipster is strong with this one.
No, because I surround myself with people of roughly equal intelligence to myself and kill those whom I deem inferior.
Aaaah shite. Sorry to make you wait a day for nothing. I've recorded 5 takes just now, though none of them are quite good enough to have submitted if they'd been done in time.
Can I submit mine tomorrow afternoon (British time) please? My family won't let me use my amp without headphones past about 7pm and I didn't get back in time today to record it any sooner.
Quote by IronMaiden76
It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS.

Besides, nobody NEEDS a car that'll go 0-60 in 1.4 seconds or does a buck 50 in a quarter mile...

However there isn't a law in the constitution saying "The people have the right to a really fast car." That's covered in either property law or under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You're being pedantic over words and demonstrating you don't actually understand the concept of rights. Rights are there to address the needs of society and the people. At the time that the Bill of Rights was written, much of America was relatively isolated, with many settlements located a day or more away from other settlements. People needed the right to bear arms, because, in a town with one sheriff, far from any aid, raiders or wild animals had an easy target unless civilians were armed. The Second Amendment was so that the population could protect their collective property. As society developed, towns became larger, wild animals became less common, raiders became armed robbers, law enforcement became larger and more efficient, and people only needed to protect their own home or their immediate neighbours, rather than a whole town. Meaning that to protect their property, large numbers of the most advanced guns available are not necessary. In close quarters such as a house, assault rifles (and other types of rifle) will likely do more harm than good. In your living room, a pistol is a much more effective weapon and is all that is necessary. Whereas owning a weapon whose only practical use is to go out and attack large numbers of people is not necessary to society and should not be a right.
Six. God. Damn. Notes.

Despite this being my second attempt to submit this song, I still can't perfect those six damn 16th notes in the verse riff. Everything else I can do but those notes. Hopefully I'll have something recorded tomorrow.

And I think next month I'll go for something easier. I'm thinking Search and Destroy by the Stooges.
Quote by moody git
rapscallion. cracking word, that.

And slubberdegullion.
Quote by Gantz92
Dingoes ate my baby.

^This. A thousand times this.

And, though he's a solo artist not a band, Lorne.
No one uses the word "Skyclad" anymore. Naked is nowhere near as awesome a word.

And people have ruined the word "homosexual". It used to be a lovely word. All the time, I used to say to my wife "The lawn's looking very homosexual this morning, darling." In those days you could walk into a pub and say "Landlord, two pints of your most homosexual beer please, and a packet of arse-bandits."
Quote by treborillusion
Hey, I'm working from memory here. - TY for that though.

Forgive my being a pedantic smeghead
Quote by treborillusion

From Red Dwarf, a band who's music you don't get to hear but just the name - Rasta Belly Skunk

Apparently you don't hear the name very well, it's Rastabilly Skank.
Doubt it. In England a few years back, Laura Marling wasn't allowed into her own gig because she was under 18 (our legal drinking ages). She ended up playing the gig outside.
Quote by theogonia777
thrown into the boston harbor

Only if you boil the ocean first
Quote by SlackerBabbath
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs, why not begin an exciting new career as an executioner? - Crofty89

Life? Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Android
Black Pope Episode VI: The Return of the Rasta
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Well, as I said, it's made up of cryptic phrases, so rather than naming them, it gives each one a cryptic title. For example, the last pope, Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) who corresponds to the 111st pope in the list was called 'Gloria oliuæ' (Glory of the olive) in the list.

The point is, regardless of the names given for the popes, according to the prophecy (otherwise known as the 'Malachite list') there will be only 112 popes and then it's Apocalypse time, and the last one was definately pope number 111. Not that it should bother sceptics like me, but the scary thing is that many Catholics actualy believe in this, so who knows what their reaction will be to the next pope.

Ah, that makes more sense. I've not believed in any of the other recent apocalypses, and don't plan to start now, but I think I may look more into this one as I'm interested to know how Peter the Roman will supposedly destroy Rome and start the Apocalypse.
Quote by desperatechris
It would be more funnier if the new Pope was a Black Midget.

No racist, just sayin.

What about a black, flamboyantly gay midget?
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Have you guys ever heard of the 'Prophecy of the Popes'?

It's a series of 112 short, cryptic phrases in Latin, first published in 1595, which claim to predict ALL of the the Roman Catholic popes from Pope Celestine II onward until the final pope identified as "Peter the Roman", who will allegedly bring the destruction of the city of Rome and usher in the beginning of the Apocalypse.

According to the prophecy, Peter the Roman is next.

I was wondering when the next Apocalypse was planned for. Though given that the name of each Pope is not his birth name (Benedict XVI was born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger for example), unless the prophecy identifies their birth names it's pretty meaningless as the Church would simply give each pope the next name on the list.
Quote by element4433
Black Pope sounds like the best movie ever made.

Lenny Henry did a few sketches of that, which sadly are not on youtube. If you know any sites that may have uploaded the old sketch show, Lenny Henry In Pieces, try and find the sketches with Pope Lucius T. Kool III.
I don't post frequently in the pit, but have been following the great porn experiment thread. I'm afraid I'm addicted to porn. I've never talked to anyone in real life about it, and don't feel comfortable posting about it even though probably 99.9% of the pit watches it. It seems I can't go a day without watching. I'll say to myself early in the day... That's it, I'm not gonna do it tonight! But cave anyway. I tried setting parental controls, but with me knowing the pw that doesn't help. The extreme shame and guilt afterwards is overwhelming. And I've been depressed and anxious for ages (maybe unrelated but it adds complications). Besides the shame it feels like my emotions and moods are I'm a ghost walking through life, no enjoyment in positive situations and no sympathy for those suffering. I feel alone. Maybe I'm just suffering from depression but the porn is certainly not helping.

tl;dr...I'm addicted to porn and am ashamed and depressed.

Have you thought of setting the parental controls password by just dropping something on your keyboard so it presses a bunch of random keys? It would make the password more or less unbreakable even to yourself without hacking software
Quote by Philip_pepper
Goddamn it, what a wanker.

Seeing him standing there beside his protrait of a cute dog makes me wanna punch him in the face even more.

You know who else painted shit? Hitler.

The Fuhrer was a great painter. He could paint a whole apartment in one afternoon.

However if it were Myles Kennedy or Nathan Fillion, it would not be gay in the slightest.
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
yeah ok talk to me again when you can say something informed.

Well excuse me, Princess. Given that philosophy isn't a factual discipline, my failure to have read works detailing one man's opinion clearly disqualifies me from discussing it.
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
ok well well me, albert camus and god disagree.

A quick wikipedia search of Albert Camus (my knowledge of philosophers consists mainly of Socrates, Plato, Voltaire and Nietzsche) tells me that he was an absurdist. Given that absurdist beliefs include that the universe has no absolutes, I can't imagine him disagreeing with the idea of working with what one knows, ie "I perceive that there are other people here, those other people often suffer, I will do what I can to alleviate that", even if he disagrees with the assumption that there is no bigger meaning.

And any god that does not consider kindness towards others and helping alleviate their suffering to be a good thing is not a god that I would ever follow.
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is." ~Albert Camus

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. Because that's all there is. What we do, now, today. All I want to do is help, because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world." - Angel.

Seems like a perfectly good way to live life as if there is no god.
I'd probably say Grave Peril or Summer Knight.


Quote by the bartender
Thank you for pointing out how incredibly different the male and female hormonal system works. I know that this difference lies in the amounts, not in presence or absence, but this results in quite different systems because hormones don't operate on their own. It's not as simple as 'hormone A causes this' and 'hormone B causes that', there's loads of complex cycles in which multiple hormones are involved, which results in certain effects.

I won't pretend to know what causes baldness, but I do know that it's nonsense to reject the idea that low testosterone levels in males can be linked with baldness just because it doesn't work that way in females. The only thing that might be said based on this is that testosterone (if linked to baldness) can't be the only hormone involved.

OK, I'll rephrase. Low testosterone levels most likely only cause baldness in combination with other factors, rather than alone. And I am aware that there are complex cycles of multiple hormones. That doesn't stop an overall increase or decrease in one type of hormone from having an effect, as proven by my source and my explanation of HRT in transgendered people. The fact that increased levels of testosterone in women, as described in the link, can cause baldness suggests that one of the reasons that baldness in women is rare is because of low levels of testosterone. Now, can we put the matter to rest?

And in future, mind who you call stupid.

Quote by Philip_pepper
I'm not losing hair actually.

I'm just getting more head.

I call lies (on the dirtier meaning of that statement). The only person that has ever worked for is Sir Patrick Stewart.
Sign me up. I'll probably do my classical guitar instrumental version of Lilium, from Elfen Lied. (That may be subject to change, as I'm also working on HT from Trigun, and can play an acoustic version of Stray from Wolf's Rain, and Falling Down from Eden of the East)
Quote by the bartender
That's an incredibly stupid comment, the female and male hormonal systems work completely different.

You're getting that backwards. The main difference between female and male hormone systems is that they produce different hormones at different rates, so differences in effect is mainly because of the different amounts of each hormone. With the exception of reproductive organs and mammary glands, they have the same sites of action and the same range of reactions in males and females. Testosterone produced by females is no different to testosterone produced by males (well, no more different than it is between two genetically different males). If the hormones were that different, then the hormone replacement therapy undergone by transgendered people wouldn't have the effects that it does, like causing growth of breast tissue, heightening the pitch of the voice and reducing beard growth in male-to-female transgendered people, or increasing body hair growth, deepening the voice and in some cases causing male pattern baldness in female-to-male.

also, read this

A 64-year-old woman presented to a dermatologist with male pattern hair loss and was found to have grossly elevated testosterone levels at 22.3 nmol/l (normal range, 0.0–2.9 nmol/l).

An otherwise perfectly normal woman produced testosterone which caused male-pattern baldness and deepening of the voice, entirely because she had a tumour which caused her to secrete more of a hormone that she was already producing. I think that proves your argument incorrect.
Quote by Neo Evil11
No no no. You misunderstand. It does say something. It however, had no intention to explain all the links. I am not denying at all that too much testosteron causes baldness. I am saying too little does too, for which I presented a source.

My bad, I thought you were saying too little was the only cause (I'm still not entirely convinced that your source means head hair not body hair, but I'll look further into the subject). Sorry to get so argumentative.
Quote by Neo Evil11
Your source isn't even relevant. It is about the link between testosterone, cancer and baldness.

In case you haven't noticed, it began by talking about the effects of testosterone, including causing baldness. Just because it went on to talk about a link between dihydrotestosterone and cancer doesn't make it less relevant (in fact, as it explains that a treatment for prostate cancer that acts by preventing conversion of testosterone into dihydrotestosterone also works as a treatment for baldness, that actually makes it more relevant as it provides direct evidence that high testosterone is what is causing baldness in those cases. Please see the closing statement of my previous post).
Quote by Neo Evil11 (there are a multitude of other sources too, just thought Harvard was probably the best one)

this bit
Although testosterone acts directly on many tissues, some of its least desirable effects do not occur until it is converted into another androgen, dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT acts on the skin, sometimes producing acne, and on the hair follicles, putting hair on the chest but often taking it off the scalp

Your source should be more specific, low testosterone leads to loss of body hair, not scalp hair.

Boom, suck it!
Quote by Neo Evil11
I bet your testosterone level is 0. That's also why you are balding. Some rape would do you good.

Actually balding is caused by high testosterone. Otherwise women would go bald more often. If you're going to make a cheap shot like that, at least get your facts right.
Does this girl's name (with whom you had the conversation with, not the date) happen to be Stephanie Meyer?
Quote by neidnarb11890
the debate over homosexual marriage is just a rouse to keep people from forming class consciousness.
first & foremost, the fiction of the 'homosexual' as 'other', somehow inherently different, threatening, or inferior to the 'heterosexual' is a means to distract you from the reality of economic oppression.
furthermore, marriage is just another institution of control imposed on us by the laughable ideology of bourgeois individualism. you found yr. 'one true love' how cute, yeah right, get real.
next thing you know you are a slave to the fat cats because you 'have a family to support', & instead of agitating for better wages or seizing means of production, you worry that 'homosexuals' will destroy the 'sanctity' of marriage & unravel the 'moral fabric' of america with their 'sodomy'.

wake up, sheeple.

Marriage itself is a made up concept, just like money, the law, The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and France. We don't prevent homosexuals from using these other made up concepts by spending money, testifying in a court of law, reading the Guide series, or going on holiday to France. Why the hell should we prevent them from getting married?
Incorrect. While both our ancestors used to see a man in a funny hat and proceed to shoot him and steal his country, we at least eventually gave them all back. Don't see you bloody Colonials saying to the Native Americans "Sorry chaps, we've made our mistakes in the past, but here's your country back. Hope this makes up for the whole conquering you thing a little."

(Note: this post is meant in good humour and with the understanding that colonising the Americas was well in the past and no one currently living in America can be held accountable for it. Also, you colonials have given the world some good things, I must admit. For example, Nathan Fillion.)