Hey, am I the only one getting a little fed up with Ako? KOBEs, you guys seem to have a lot of opinions about him, where the fuck are you guys? If you guys are such badasses, why not shut his sorry racist ass down once and for all? Take the motherfucker down! If you guys can nab Sherman Austin, can't you make Ako squirm a little?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 14, 2004

Answers

I second that. I recommend the following:

(1) Mods ban Ack's ass.

(2) Mods delete every post and thread by Ack.

(3) Kobes...do whatever Kobes do.

It's not like I have a problem with Ack. Think what you want to think, it's a free country. But his posts have nothing to do with what this board's about, for starters, they're in all-caps and misspelled which is annoying, they're not even ABOUT shit "Kobes are my bitches" - someone explain that to me...he's like a magnet for other bad/useless posters, and he keeps getting his ass handed to him, yet somehow maintains that he's some kind of expert debater. My vote? Clean sweep.

-- Pasta (ilike@pasta.com), November 14, 2004.

"Take the motherfucker down! If you guys can nab Sherman Austin, can't you make Ako squirm a little?"

Yeah, we did that once. AKO was posting from a school, and KOBE HQ traced him and called the school. We dont know what he was doing at the school, or how it relates to where he works and that place he goes to in Mexico. Without his IP address, we can do very little. Im not a mod here. About two years ago, I was able to "nuke" him off the net using a Ping of Death. After AKO disappeared for about six months, we were not able to do that one, and AKO has apparently changed ISPs.

Sherman Austin did his time. Hopefully he will tone down a bit.

-- KOBE SBM (kobesbm@kobehq.com), November 14, 2004.

Well, I'm really sorry you feel that way, Charles.

As far as you proving that I have nothing of substance to add, that's funny. We had our little argument, then you found 3 of my "intelligent discussion" topics worthy of your attention. You then posted on 3 of my threads, agreeing like a good little lapdog with everything I said. Remember? Gun control, right to die, and stem cell? Yeah. You agreed with me all 3 times despite your ridiculous claim that you could somehow argue the other side and "beat" me.

So now we go back to the "nothing of substance" claim? If my topics are no good and have no substance, why do you post on them?

And yes, I do get my thread topics by watching the News. You should try that too. And you will notice again that I always give my opinion on them before opening them up for discussion.

You gave the last post on the stem cell thread. Uhh...congratulations. And you say I gave no facts? Let me refresh you.

"There is currenly a bill in the US Senate that if passed, will illegalize "therapeutic cloning".

"If passed, practitioners can face up to a $1 million fine and up to 10 years in prison."

Well, there's two in my first post alone.

"BUT IM SURE YOU WILL KEEP ASKING YOUR QUESTIONS AND I WILL KEEP EDUCATING YOU WITH THE REAL ANSWERS."

With any luck, the mods will ban you. Yes, I will keep asking my questions, and you'll keep agreeing with my stance in all probability.

-- Pasta (ilike@pasta.com), November 14, 2004.

There was no need to defend my position, Charles. Despite you saying that you could argue the other side, you hopped behind me for the third time. What am I defending it against? You? You agree with everything I say like a voice double. Your problem is that you look for an argument when nobody's arguing. I'll bet you were one of those kids in middle school that yelled "fight! fight! fight!" from across the courtyard.

-- Pasta (wheat@starch.com), November 14, 2004.

: I'll bet you were one of those kids in middle school that yelled "fight! fight! fight!" from across the courtyard"

He never got that far in school, Pasta.

AKOFUCK likes to find an article somewhere in the backwoods of the internet, usually written by a little recognized author about major subjects. Then he cuts and pastes things from those articles and says that they are "UNDIGSPTUHSFGEZ FACTSZ", challenging all to dispute his "proof". All the while, typing in all caps and misspelling every other word. Are we supposed to take him seriously?

Time to ignore AKO and continue posting the provocative threads on the usual subjects you guys post here.

-- KOBE SBM (kobesbm@kobehq.com), November 14, 2004.

Since you enjoy getting your ASS RAPED so damn often, from now on, I will call you that because deep down U want to be culled AKOASSRAPEDYETAGAINANDLOVINIT. Don't worry soon you will be culled.

-- Fuck off and DIE already AKO (post1000000topics@stillgetyourASS_Raped.UFreak), November 15, 2004.

If you can manage to stay off the racial issues, then I will stop fucking you in your ass. Nobody here wants to engage you in that subject.

-- KOBE SBM (kobesbm@kobehq.com), November 15, 2004.

Ack's a funny guy. I hand him his ass twice now, so of course the gay jokes come back out. Ack, I gave you TEN reasons why you were raped by me. The best retort you have is that I have nothing to contribute. Face it. I win, you lose.

And as far as you ending the stem cell debate, nobody replied because it was the stupidest thing we've all ever heard. Nobody cares about your thoughts on your masturbation habits or your thoughts on cutting your fingers off. The argument is when HUMAN life begins. Nobody's stated the argument that you have because it doesn't make any sense. When does HUMAN life begin is the issue.

-- KOBE Pasta (starch@wheat.com), November 15, 2004.

I agree with Pasta and Kobe SBM. AKOFAGGOT needs to be banned and taken down. We sure as Hell DON'T need or want his stupid shit polluting these boards. I hope the same can be done to that other faggot named "Jake".

-- (tired of @ll of AKOFAG's bullshit.com), November 15, 2004.

That still doesn't answer the question of WHEN HUMAN life begins which is the debate according to my posts. Way to almost save face though.

-- Pasta (noodles@work.com), November 15, 2004.

YOU DID NOT ASK ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Pasted VERBATIM from that thread:

"One thing I've been looking for is some evidence to show when exactly life begins. According to a lot of Conservatives, it begins at the "moment of conception"."

Oops.

"AND WHAT I PROVED WAS THAT AN EMBRIO IS NOT A HUMAN BEING IT IS MERELY LIVING CELLS . SO WHAT I HAVE PROVEN IS THAT LIFE DEFINITELY DOES NOT BEGIN AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION OR IN THE EMBRIO OR EARLY FETUS STAGES."

Actually, you didn't really prove that. You gave the example of your finger cells not being "alive". It was an almost decent example, but you failed to account for the fact that the fertilized egg is a zygote where your finger cells are mere epithelial tissues. The zygote will develop into a human (as I define it) where your epithelial tissue will not.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that you don't have a HUMAN LIFE at the moment of conception, but in the early embryo stages, (week 6 and below), you have heartbeat, brainwaves, and organs. Let me say again that I agree with stem cell, but the ARGUMENT is when human life begins, indicated above.

-- Pasta (pasta@pasta.com), November 15, 2004.

"THAT WAS THE SECOND QUESTION YOU ASKED . THAT CAME AFTER MY FIRST POSTS. THE FIRST POST I MADE WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION."

Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong TODAY. Sorry, try again. Strike one.

"NOW THE CELLS OF MY FINGER IS STILL A GOOD EXAMPLE. BECAUSE AS I SAID IN MY FIRST POST, ALL IT TAKES IS ONE CELL TO CLONE SOMEONE .SO THAT ONE CELL ALSO HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME A HUMAN BEING."

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jones/tmp352/projects98/group1/how.html

Read up. Takes two cells. You're wrong. Strike two.

"A ZYGOTE IS STILL JUST ONLY ONE CELL THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME A HUMAN BEING ,BUT THAT CELL IS A LIVING CELL NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING."

Which is why I was wondering when life began even though you missed that part...on purpose, it seems.

"AND AS FAR AS THE HEARTBEAT AT 6 WEAKS, THATS WRONG.AT THAT STAGE IT IS NOT A HEART BEAT IT IS MERELY A TINY TUBULE THAT HAS A PULSE. NOT A HEART NOR A HEART BEAT."

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

Strike three.

AND IT IS NOT UNTILL THE 6TH MONTH THAT THEY CAN DETECT SOME RUDIMENTARY BRAIN WAVES. AND AT THAT TIME I WOULD SAY THAT YOU MAY HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEREFORE A HUMAN BEING.

http://www.aoh61.com/newsletter/feb2001.htm

"At six weeks, the baby has brain waves that can be measured with an electroencephalogram."

Strike four.

"BUT I DO NOT SEE WHY THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CLONE SOMEONE WITH THE CELLS OF A FINGER."

They could, but apparently they'd need a second cell.

-- Pasta (pasta@youlose.com), November 15, 2004.

Wow. Six posts, but you managed to avoid posting a single relevant fact. As usual.

"THEY TAKE THE DNA FROM ONE CELL AND PLACE IT INTO THE EGG , THIS IS JUST LIKE WHERN SPERM HITS THE EGG THE SPERM AND EGG ARE TWO LIVING CELLS THAT FORM ONE JUST AS IN CLONING ."

Right. So that makes you wrong on the one cell thing, and your finger example completely irrelevant. Somehow, you think that your finger cells could grow into a human by itself. You are clearly wrong as the site I pasted demonstrated. The zygote can make a human unaided, your finger can not.

"THE POINT IS THIS IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING IT IS ONLY A LIVING CELL. WHAT DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?"

Which is why I do not agree that human life begins at conception. This is the thing we agree on, remember?

"NOW AS FAR AS THE BRIAN WAVES GOES HERES YOUR ASS AGAIN.http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html"

Pasted directly from that site:

"12 Weeks from Conception: More kinds of reflex movements appear."

So I'm guessing you'll argue that the brain isn't in control of reflexes. The stomach maybe? There are brain WAVES well before your 6 month "estimation". Thanks for posting that. Point for me.

ONCE AGAIN TAKE ANOTHER BITE OUT OF YOUR ASS. THE EARLY FTUS DOES NOT HAVE A FUCKING HEART IT IS A TUBE ,HERES THE FACTS. http://www.abcparma.it/english/nascita.htm

Pasted directly from that site:

"primitive heart tube"

Hmm. It appears that it is both a heart AND the "tube" you describe. We can argue semantics all day, but you have an organ that pumps blood. Again, thanks for posting that. You're really just reinforcing everything I've posted though...as usual.

"HEY ASSMUNCH I ALREADY SAID LIFE ALREADY EXISTS IN THE FUCKING CELLS .CELLS HAVE "LIFE" BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NOT UNDESTAND ABOUT THIS?"

Actually, I was the one that pointed that out. Look up. It's there. Don't try and hop behind me now, it's too late.

"http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm SEE ASSHOLE ANYONE CAN LOOK SHIT UP ON THE INTERNET. MY ARGUEMENT WAS WITH MY OWN KNOWLEDGE."

Pasted directly from that site:

"Its heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception."

"2 months: Some of the brain begins to form...The embryo will respond to prodding"

You should really find sites that support what you're trying to argue. 2 points for me.

"CASE CLOSED."

Agreed.

As you all can see, Charles clearly loses to me again. I gave 10 reasons last time. Here's six.

(1) The evidence posted by Charles and I supports that unborn humans have brain WAVES much earlier than 6 months. Primitive, but present. Charles said that brain waves are how you define a human being.

(2) The evidence posted by both of us supports that much earlier than Charles claims, you have an organ which pumps the unborn human's own distinct blood. Whether you call it a "heart" or a "tube" is irrelevant.

(3) Charles claimed yesterday that I made no question as to when human life began. I clearly showed Charles to be wrong. Charles tried to cover his ass, but I clearly exposed it. See Charles's ass.

(4) Charles is very proud of his example of a finger developing into a human. I told Charles that the issue is when human life begins. No finger has ever given rise to human life. Zygotes have.

(5) Charles claimed that one cell from any part of the body is all you need to clone a human. Charles is incorrect as the site I posted clearly proves.

(6) Charles and I agree on stem cell research. I told Charles that one of the issues is when HUMAN life begins. Charles decided that this was somehow a "disagreement", but then later agreed with me. Charles and I then pasted sites and evidence that show some inconsistencies on in-utero development. The very fact that not all researchers agree proves that the issue on when human life begins is indeed, an issue. I said that a while ago. Charles missed it.

-- Pasta (starch@noodle.com), November 16, 2004.

Akobad,

Maybe if you wouldn't post in all caps more people would read what you write.

Pasta,

Did you say somewhere above why you thought human life did NOT begin at conception? It's tedious to wade through all the caps to see your posts.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), November 16, 2004.

Ako says some things worthwhile on occation. I think he should really post in normal caps though. Reading even his more "educated" posts gives me a headache.

-- Dick Tator (inneedofliberty@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.

Okay fellas, I'll make it easier for you to understand Charles and my discussion. Here's a synopsis:

Charles and I started off talking about the use of stem cells. We agreed that stem cell research should continue. That wasn't good enough for Charles, however. As I'm sure you can all tell, he feels the need to argue useless details even with someone that shares the same views.

So he comes to this thread waving his hands around saying "I won I won!" I, of course, wonder what he's talking about. Charles explains that he thinks that I neglected to say that a key issue in the stem cell debate was when exactly human life began. I pointed out to Charles that I clearly mentioned it. In the pertinent thread, even. Corrected, Charles still wants to somehow be "right". The sites that you see are us showing that there is indeed, a debate in the world as to when exactly life begins and when, in-utero, the heart starts beating and brain waves are present. Precisely as I said there was. Imagine that. Even though I have already stated numerous times that life doesn't begin at fertilization, Charles still keeps bringing it up in this losing effort to be "right".

Charles is now very proud that he has shown sites that conflict with the sites I have shown. However, since I said a week ago that there is a debate on when exactly life begins, Charles only cements my point. There is a debate on when things happen in-utero and when human life begins. However, he still feels the need to be "right" somehow.

The only thing that surprises me is that noone has contacted Charles to come and speak to our elected officials to get the bill passed.

Hope that helps. :)

-- Pasta (ramen@noodles.com), November 16, 2004.

See what I mean? Charles is so anxious to recover from the last asskicking I handily administered to him that he just HAS to be right here. Okay, Charles, refute my point:

(There is controversy as to when human life starts and controversy as to when exactly things happen in utero.)

Note to EVERYONE. I've been saying this from the start. Charles, as you can see, just wants to prove me wrong to tie the series up. Prove the statement in parenthesis wrong. Do it, Charles. That is, after all, my original thesis from a week ago. You've been ranting on and on about your finger and things you think I left out, but I've destroyed all of that. This is all you have left. Prove that statement wrong.

-- Pasta (ilike@pasta.com), November 17, 2004.

Wrong again, Charles.

The experts at VANDERBILT agree about brain waves before 6 months:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetology.htm

"Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram"

The experts at COLUMBIA seem to too:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.txt

"it has detectable brain waves from 6 weeks"

The experts at the Gabriel Pregnancy Resource Center:

http://www.gabrielpregnancyresourcenter.org/qanda.html

"by 45 days, it has its own brain waves"

The experts at WebMD:

"20 Weeks The nervous system is starting to function."

Yes, still before your 6 month estimate.

Now then. Everyone. As you can see, even the experts are divided as I have clearly shown. Charles seems to think that there is no controversy in the field. There is. Charles has not refuted my statements here or anywhere else.

Charles. You. Lose. Again.

-- Pasta (marco@polo.com), November 17, 2004.

Now Charles, before you embarass yourself again, let me restate what I'm saying.

(Even some experts disagree on when exactly brain activity starts.)

That is a fact.

I have shown that there is disagreement in the field from Columbia, Vanderbilt, and WebMD. You have shown conflicting sites. The fact that the information clashes shows that even experts can disagree. That is what I am saying. You posting anything to the contrary just proves me more and more right. Just admit that I'm right and go on with your "life".

-- Pasta (basil@oregano.com), November 17, 2004.

"THIS IS EASY ,THE LAWS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE AS I STATED EARLIER BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE REAL EXPERTS HAVE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION."

Once again, that proves my point. Even the experts are divided. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

"DUDE THAT ONE LINK YOU POSTED WAS A JOKE. WHAT WAS IT THE GABRIEL GROUP OR WHATEVER."

And the links from Columbia, Vanderbilt and WebMD? Are those jokes too?

"THE LAST LINK I POSTED PROVES ALL THE OTHER ONES YOU POSTED WRONG."

Yes, I like to take the word of a "former guide at About.com" over the word of REAL doctors and REAL medical sites too. It makes proving my points so much easier. Oops.

"ITS SIMPLE AS THIS IF THE INTERLINKINGS OF NUERONS AND SYNAPSES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE UNTIL THE 6TH MONTH THEN YOU CANNOT HAVE BRAIN WAVES ,ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE. AND THATS THE ONLY WAY THAT THERE CAN BE CONSCIOUSNESS.."

As I said, it's being debated. One site said 6 months, one site said 5. One site said 6 weeks, one site said 10. We can do this all day, Charles, but the FACT here is that not all the experts agree, so the political parties and medical practitioners aren't going to agree. That is, of course, what I've been trying to explain to you. But of course, you feel the need to "prove" me wrong somehow, when every post you make just makes me more and more right. I appreciate that, and thanks for playing. :)

-- Pasta (baked@ziti.com), November 17, 2004.

"One site said 6 months"

"AND ALL OF THOSE SITES HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG"

Those were the sites you posted, genius. You lose again.

And if you're going to say that these sites have been proven wrong, let's see an actual medical site instead of your opinion author's column. You know, something like WebMD? Oops. Remember, WebMD said 5 months, which is four whole weeks before your estimate. That's a big gap in pregnancy. As I said, the experts don't 100% agree, you are wrong. Dude, at least try and make this interesting, k?

-- Pasta (yayfor@pasta.com), November 17, 2004.

No sites, no facts, no evidence. Thanks for playing, Charles. :)

-- P. (p@p.com), November 17, 2004.

Damn AKO, you really ARE a fucking dumbass!! What elementary school did you drop out of and did you even pass the FIRST grade?? You didn't win squat and you keep proving you're still a shithead!!! You dumb fuck!

-- (AKO @ assraped yet again.com), November 17, 2004.