Gerard

Yeah that happens to be MY porno site. And I liked your comment.

If you hate Zac, go here and vote against him

The above repliers are correct. We don't pin topics because you ask. In fact, it's likely to STOP us pinning your topic, since you've made it for the wrong reasons. Just like, as a rule, we never promote anyone who asks to be staff. The reasons we DO pin topics are either because they are very popular (but your topic has no replies) or very useful information (in which you wouldn't expect a reply). Whilst I understand your keenness to have a good topic, by going round making topics (in the hope of them becoming popular) youre actually more likely to annoy people.

Chris - We'll find out in a few days when the results of the hottest male celebrity are in. My moneys on Mitch Hewer beating Zac. Younger girls like zac, but probably not "chicks" who you would consider actually dating or whatever.

Sinning according to who? And FYI - no more arguments. No more swearing. Discuss, it's not that hard.

If I may take Connor as an example? I don't know the detail so this is an approximation. He's maybe a bit unstable, but probably not actually dangerous 99% of the time. Unless theres a definite illness that would prevent him owning a gun, currently he'd be able to get one (where thats legal). But I could imagine him flipping out and doing serious damage. Just once, after a lot of provoking, he could very easily kill someone. Should he be allowed? I'm sure all of us have our limits. If someone held a gun to my face, I'd shoot. If someone held a knife to me or a friend/family member, I would probably shoot (but not aim to kill). Maybe some of you would shoot to kill in that situation, maybe some of you would shoot in even less threatening situations (eg being beaten up). I just think Connor's limits are a bit lower, so he might shoot when threatened/provoked/made fun of, even if he isn't in mortal danger. Where do we draw the line for that limit to be for it to be safe for you to own a gun? Probably just where the law says reasonable force is OK?

We're talking about violence-related mental illnesses, or extreme social disorders (such as ones which stop you valuing the lives of others)

Thats exactly what homophobes total intolerance of NORMAL and acceptable homosexual relations can force a small minority of homosexuals to do. Far far more commit suicide, which I assume you approve of more?

I didn't specify an age of choirboy, nor an age of parent. Might have been a 20-year-old choirboy and a 15-year-old father. And often with reclusive undercover closeted homosexuals, they are unable to get a real partner, so they occasionally resort to the use/abuse of younger people, as they're less likely to squeal or whatever. Happens on tv all the time, plus I work in a monastery. Either way, this is one of the problems caused by society's intolerance.

As was I Either way my last comment was valid.

When mummy and daddy think they love each other very much, and hug very tight, and daddy doesnt like it, he leaves mummy and goes and finds a choirboy or similar to hug very tightly instead. No baby, no mess, no monthly tomato sauce stains on the floor, win-win. And this is why 11 year olds shouldn't use the Internet.

Tis an old pic. And unfortunate timing... And just showing off my new muse gear (and trying out my new phone)

At the worst, the school are "picking on" you because theres a chance you might improve. The gang members you talk about have no chance, so the school just don't even bother. I'd take it as a compliment that your teachers are putting the effort into punishing you (with the aim of improvement), rather than ignoring you at the back of the class or expelling you entirely (which would be a lot easier). I got expelled when I was 14, cos I was bored out of my skull in a tiny school and started getting involved in the wrong people. When I got kicked out I went to an awesome school, made loads of friends, got put in charge of loads of things, was a well-respected member of the school community to the point where a couple of times a week the headmaster would be running round the school looking for me so I could go fix a problem. As a result of all this, I'm an Executive Officer of my University's Students' Union, which would never have happened if I was dabbling around in crime and drugs and stuff. So I'm glad I got expelled, cos I changed, I put the effort in, and it paid off. You should do the same. Sure it may not be "fair", the punishments may be weird, but you know what you gotta do to stop it. Either that, or send the TGTAP mods in. We know how to deal with unruly teenagers better than anyone.

May I also add if you say "please delete this post" or something, that should be a polite request to staff. It is just rude to go around telling staff what to do. Some people have a habit of going round the forum posting "close this topic" in random topics just because they think it should be closed. We know how to do our jobs, but we appreciate people sometimes make mistakes, and letting us know when they have helps us keep the forums running smoothly.

I meant abusers, or I meant whilst high (on other substances). Take your pick.

This is quite a good question, but I think it has a simple answer. Mentally ill people who are more likely to overreact should not be let anywhere near a firearm. I know a lot of people that fit into this category, but in fact I know a lot of not-ill people who also get angry very quickly. I really don't see the need unless you are I appreciate you say you only overreact if provoked, but all it takes is an eigth of a second of anger and you can kill someone. 'Normal' people (without any known/unknown mental illnesses) would usually be too scared to do it, or they would take a lot more provoking. That's not to say they wouldn't ever shoot, but they're a lot less likely to than paranoid schizophrenicss or marajuana users. It isn't always possible to tell who will flip out, who will get too angry, who will not be scared of pulling the trigger - but if certain mental health issues are a good indicator, then that's a good place to start.

Dropdown menu in the very bottom left, should say "The GTA Place" for you (since thats the skin youre using currently). That is also the default skin, the one which is kept up-to-date, and the one the site is designed to work around. But feel free to use the others if you know the risk. Two random pics cos I'm bored:

A lot of those rights are principled rights - the name sharing and joint adoptions and next-of-kin status. They mean more than financial ones. If they don't matter, why hold them back from us? There's no real reason. We're not trying to opress straight couples, we're not trying to devalue what they have. We just want to be ALLOWED to value what we have with each other in the same way, cos there really is no difference.

It's two things. Firstly the principle, secondly the rights and other legal benefits. The principle is that we believe that to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples in this way is deeply discriminatory. We just want to be treated the same - and our relationships (that we deem sacred) should be able to be made official, just like straight couples. There are lots of extra rights married couples (and thus official families) get, depending where in the world you are. They share the tax burden, they can inherit estates from each other, you are exempt from estate/gift taxes to your spouse, you can set up special trusts and accounts, you would be the first person if they need to make a medical decision etc (like organ donation, turning off life support etc), you get Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, you receive veterans' and military benefits for spouses (such as those for education, medical care, or special loans) and general welfare benefits. Think about the medical decision one - with a straight couple, if one of them is terminally ill, the other gets priority to decide when to let go and turn life support off, because they're married and thus next of kin. With a gay couple, that right does not exist at all, and the decision would have to be made by a parent, child, or sibling. That would be an awful situation, especially if the partner didn't agree with the parent/child/sibling.

Or any anti-choice agnostics?

Guys I told you already. Stop arguing about arguing. Stop trying to twist what other people say. Connor said atheists have no flaws THAT come from a book. They make their own decisions. He's implying that if you follow the aformentioned religious texts, you automatically inherit the flaws from those.

Can we stop arguing about arguing? And lets resume arguing about whether or not people should be restricted rights cuz they like teh cock.

I believe there's still a massive queue of pictures to go up. Last time I heard there was about a 6-month queue, so pictures submitted in October would be showing around now. Only Chris can approve pictures, but if you all go and submit some GTA IV pics, then I'm sure we can persuade Chris to get rid of loads of shit ones so that the IV ones show up soon.

What Twisted meant was that (in his view) there are no "flaws" (I assume prejudices etc) DUE to him being atheist. However there are flaws in some Christians BECAUSE of them being Christians. Obviously everyone has various flaws In other words, religion brings unreasonable additional prejudices and rules, Atheism does not. Religion adds additional beliefs to your own choices and decisions and interpretations of the world.

Agreed