You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Health.

Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 6:24am

Post 1 of 90

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Hey guys, here’s a little tid bit for you. If you disagree that’s fine but first check out these links or better yet… do some research for yourselves.
Here are a few links on Pestacides.
http://www.healthsearches.org/Categories_of_Q&A/Integrative_&_Alternative_Medicine/1285.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plant-pesticides-health
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349263_pesticide30.html
Scroll down when you open the link below for all of the info.
http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/
http://www.bladeslawncare.com/pesticidesandenvironment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
Artificial Fertalizers.
The info in the link below is very intersting. Read the comments.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14683
The link below has a ton of good info.
http://www.natureswayresources.com/resource/infosheets/organicfertilizers.html
http://naturallawnfertilizers.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer
Livestock ,Hormones and Antibiotics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding
http://www.fibroidsetc.com/tag/what-causes-fibroids/
http://www.drheise.com/beef.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=ffKd1BpqSr8C&pg=PR22&lpg=PR22&dq=how+bad+are+the+hormones+and+chemicals+are+given+to+commercial+livestock&source=bl&ots=ocHSyzjJhw&sig=BLAWuzPGGrN4VrGrp5XUz6ko4cY&hl=en&ei=xiV8TbffAqnm0gHnrJGRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Scroll down when you open the link below.
http://www.toxicbodies.org/reviews.html
There are 2 parts to the article below, click on next page.
http://www.alive.com/1340a4a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=168
http://www.alive.com/5248a16a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=168
The link below is a forum thread but it’s very interesting
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-534416.html
http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/synthetic-hormones/

Here are a few links for the Pharmaceutical industry, there are many others out there.
http://www.naturalnews.com/019189_human_medical_experimentation_ethics.html
The link below contains many articles as well as links.
http://www.naturalnews.com/bad_medicine.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/025736.html
The link below contains other links and info on several drugs and the chemicals that are used to make them.
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/drug-toxic_chemicals/
http://ibdcrohns.about.com/library/basics/blharmliver.htm
http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org/during/preg_precautions.html
http://www.fbhc.org/Patients/Modules/harmeff.cfm
http://www.examiner.com/special-needs-kids-in-gilbert/antipsychotic-medicine-is-harmful-to-the-brain-study-confirms-again
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5655848_adhd-medicine-harmful-kids_.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_effect
http://www.naturalnews.com/001353.html
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/10-weird-prescription-drug-side-effect.htm
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/europe-to-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.html
http://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cfm?op_id=4

Foods, drinks, artificial sweeteners and water.
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/youve-had-this-chemical-cocktail/
http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2011/03/most_plastics_leak_chemicals_i.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/earlyshow/health/main6197493.shtml
http://www.anaturalfooddiet.com/foodchemicals.html
http://www.danmahony.com/bigfood.htm
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/ed-chemicals-leach-into-food-pose-regulatory-challenge/
http://www.naturalnews.com/027872_ammonia_beef_products.html
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.
http://greenchristiannetwork.com/green-health/avoiding-hidden-chemical-poisons-in-our-food-and-going-for-natural-choices/
http://www.examiner.com/wellness-in-atlanta/mcdonalds-fast-food-toxic-ingredients-unfit-for-animals?render=print
http://www.healthyeatingadvisor.com/food-additives.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/daily_chart_genetically_modified_crops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/epa-launching-major-inves_n_517464.html
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652E035A1B1BAAAE1F340B54694975
http://www.bottledwaterblues.com/bottled_water_facts.php
http://www.earthclinic.com/CURES/aspartame.html
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184872,00.html
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 6:53am

Post 2 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Regarding your links on medicine: I fail to see how you show that chemical manmade medicine is in any way a bad thing? From what I can see, your links can be split in two groups: links about side-effects, and links about pharmaceutical products being released without proper testing or with dangerous side-effects.

The first is easy to invalidate: medicine can have side effects, absolutely. But just like CPR can sometimes crack ribs while saving a person's life, these are worth it, in the grand scheme of things, because the alternative to much medicine is death or illness. Medicine saves millions of lives.

The second is more nuanced. Yes, you've shown that medicine can be very harmful... when the for-profit creator decides to release it without properly testing or while ignoring its ill effects. This doesn't mean medicine is bad, it means the pharmaceutical companies can be bad. The problem isn't medicine, it's the system.

Also I found this quote really funny:
"If you can't pronounce any of the ingredients and don't know what they are then is it wise to eat them?"
I guess that means people with speech impediments shouldn't eat!
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 8:34am

Post 3 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

I guess that means people with speech impediments shouldn't eat!
Eh?
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 8:37am

Post 4 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

At first I thought this was spam.

Glad I don't take any pills unless I'm deadly ill anyways. smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 9:30am

Post 5 of 90

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +4

My brother has an autoimmune disorder and for a long time (and still with some frequency) had to to high-dose penicillin daily, and at the worse stages injections of penicillin to keep him from getting a myocardium ischemia; which is basically an often fatal heart attack.

Had penicillin not been taken, you wouldn't have a user 'Atom' here past 2005. Nor would I be alive from asthma when I was 10. And we were so desperate that we joined pharmaceutical research studies for all
The test medications which, surprise surprise, saved us.

So yes, I'm very pro-modern medicine. Penicillin and amoxicillin alone are responsible for directly saving millions of lives. Medicine itself is responsible for billions.
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 12:55pm

Post 6 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm not a doctor by any stretch, Spydurhank; but I do have faith in modern medicine which has saved millions of lives. I agree with Pooky that the mega pharmaceutical companies, when driven by profit and greed rather than the desire to help people, can release drugs without proper testing and encourage people to take drugs unnecessarily. I, for one, find the culture of advertising pharmaceuticals in the US to be a downright weird phenomenon.

But to blithely write off ALL of modern scientific medicine as 'evil' or some sort of secret plot to "keep the population down" is the realm of fantasists, conspiracy theorists and lunatics. I'm not saying that you're one of them, but what you're saying does align you with those groups pretty strongly - some of those links read like something written by David Icke. (Please note that David Icke thought that he was the son of God born on another planet, has denied the Holocaust, was convinced that the world would end in 1997, believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the world is secretly run by shapeshifting lizards....)

There are some valid points in amongst your deluge of links - stuff about growth hormones being used in meat production, for example, or the benefits of eating local natural/organic produce - but the problem is that the accurate information in there is so watered down by all the other conspiracy theory nonsense, that it's hard for me to take it seriously, or try to offer a serious rebuttal.

I suggest you read a great book called 'Risk' by Dan Gardener. It's got a really good chapter in it dealing with a lot of the issues you've raised here, especially about chemicals and medicines, and how people have been saying that they're making us ill since at least the early 1960s, and yet we're living longer, healthier lives (in general). It basically answers your points in a much more eloquent and constructive manner than I would be able to. It's a very interesting read aside from those issues as well - some great insights into why humans act the way they do, and why we're not particularly well adapted to react to the risks of the modern world.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 13th Mar 2011, 8:19pm

Post 7 of 90

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Also worth noting things are a bit different between the USA and EU - growth hormones are illegal in the EU, for instance, and a lot of GM stuff too. We have our own anti-vaccination evangelists too, but that is based solely on scaremongering and inability to read results honestly, the case is entirely disproved.

Not saying I <3 pharmacutical companies, but no system of medicine cures everyone of everything, but pound for pound, modern Western medicine is waaaaay the best bet for saving your life, preventing polio, etc. Big problem is that some pharma companies are selective (and hence unscientific) about which studies results they publish, this could be easily solved but needs more goodwill. But beware of aligning with anyone who claims anything is all doom and gloom, they have their own reasons and agendas, beware. You would be stunned how much money is made from quack/unproven/undemonstrated remedies like aloe vera, noni juice, acai berries, etc. Believe me, if they actually work in controlled experiments they go from 'alternative medicine' to 'medicine' very quickly indeed. Anecdotal evidence is deeply flawed, and should always be read as an interesting story, not evidence.

For more info on this kind of thing, try Ben Goldacre's superb book/website badscience.net - balanced, informative, non-hysterical and often gently witty. And not trying to sell you anything.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 12:45am

Post 8 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Mabey I'm misunferstanding, but basically with all the stuff you're saying about how bad medicine is, it seems like you wouldn't DARE even touch medicine if you where sick. Is this correct? (I doubt it.)
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 1:04am

Post 9 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

For all this debunking, I would like to say I do quite appreciate your critical thinking, at the very least. It's something we need more of. I guess we're all just saying you weren't critical enough smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 1:15am

Post 10 of 90

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

There is always the idea that were we never to have indulged in any 'advances' in food production like pesticide use or growth hormones, etc for anything, we'd have a lot less cancers in society. Malcolm Gladwell makes mention of this in two of his books, namely a chapter in 'What The Dog Saw' about American and Western European cultures getting more cancers because of diet and difference in food production versus Asian cultures, who diet differently and, to go further, have no such advances in many cases.

So, yes, there's a chance all this 'extra' stuff we're doing to food to make it grow faster, etc could rub off on us one way or another yielding a too-rapid mitosis and meiosis in cell growth, which is the underlying cause of most cancers (tumors, that is).

But to determine such a thing would require such a vast amount of anthropological data - not to mention the involvement of a 'control' group, which is impossible in 2011 - that we really can't know. So there's no 'real' data to support such notions, although not indulging in the advances in mass food production I cautiously understand, if not sympathize with.

As for modern medicine, however - again, no 'Atom' on these forums. He'd be dead if not for penicillin. So..............yeah.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 1:29am

Post 11 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, yes. Pesticides are bad, wich is why you either grow your own, or buy organic vegetables, like my family does. And also, while I admire the fact that you took all this time to research this, you literally can't live an all that healthy life without meat (even if you eat only fish along with vegetables.) And when you spoke about hunting in my thread, my answer: I belive that if hunting is not absoulutely vital for feeding you or your family, then it's just a horrible, sadistic, disgusting, destructive, most outrageous (to name a few things- most, I think I would get banned for postin) "sport" EVER! I mean, seriously? People who go hunt things like bears, zebras, lions-UGH! I met a person who took his 12YEAR OLD DAUGHTER hunting for bears (not sure, but I think it was polar bears.) And then, you want to know what he told me? HE KILLED THEM, SKINNED THEM, AND MADE A RUG OUT OF THEM AND LEFT THE MEAT TO ROT! Then, he did the same with a zebra and a lion in Africa, just to have a lion skin rug, and put the animals heads on the wall!

Not angry at anyone here, but you said that the way the animals were killed that we buy in the stores is brutal, and it is, but at least they're not being wasted, and they were killed for a good reason. Some people go hunting for "sport" then thier excuse for killing a squirle or dove is "Oh, well that's what we had for dinner that night." You can't possibly have eaten a squirle (is that how you spell that) and a dove. Really? Am I the only one that thinks that hunting is A LOT more brutal than the way animals are killed to be eaten? As I said, at least they died for a purpose.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 2:00am

Post 12 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

it's just a horrible, sadistic, disgusting, destructive, most outrageous
despicable, brutal, inhumane, thesaurus, revolting...

Azulon's Assassin wrote:

I met a person who took his 12YEAR OLD DAUGHTER hunting for bears (not sure, but I think it was polar bears.) And then, you want to know what he told me? HE KILLED THEM, SKINNED THEM, AND MADE A RUG OUT OF THEM AND LEFT THE MEAT TO ROT! Then, he did the same with a zebra and a lion in Africa, just to have a lion skin rug, and put the animals heads on the wall!
They're animals, man. I agree that they shouldn't be killed without need, but you're taking it way overboard. There are far worse crimes in this world, like legalized mass murder.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 2:23am

Post 13 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

it's just a horrible, sadistic, disgusting, destructive, most outrageous
despicable, brutal, inhumane, thesaurus, revolting...

Azulon's Assassin wrote:

I met a person who took his 12YEAR OLD DAUGHTER hunting for bears (not sure, but I think it was polar bears.) And then, you want to know what he told me? HE KILLED THEM, SKINNED THEM, AND MADE A RUG OUT OF THEM AND LEFT THE MEAT TO ROT! Then, he did the same with a zebra and a lion in Africa, just to have a lion skin rug, and put the animals heads on the wall!
They're animals, man. I agree that they shouldn't be killed without need, but you're taking it way overboard. There are far worse crimes in this world, like legalized mass murder.
Ok, but take into account that this is comming from someone who has never had less than two dogs at one, plus another pet, gives to the ASPCA, and has wanted to be a veteranarian since he was 3. And yes, mass murder is bad. Very bad.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 3:27am

Post 14 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Everything in moderation. (That doesn't apply to mass murder wink )
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 5:03am

Post 15 of 90

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Ben, I'm really sorry to hear about you and your brothers health issues, I'm glad you're still around and I honestly hope you get better. Have you ever asked or thought about what actually caused your brother to develop a heart condition which by the way, I believe to be a birth defect, or your Asthma? Here's a little bit of what I learned.
Asthma.
Chlorine in water is found to causes asthma.
http://www.aquasanastore.com/water-facts_b07.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_chlorine_hypothesis
Chlorine in tap water.
http://environment.about.com/od/earthtalkcolumns/a/chlorine.htm
side effects of using an inhaler and related deaths.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5075045_harmful-side-effects-asthma-inhalers.html
http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmabasics/a/art_MED_SE.htm
http://www.choosenatural.com/alternative/medicine/77L/asthma/asthma-inhalers.htm
http://www.sddefenselawyers.com/defectivedrugs/asthmainhaler.html

Birth Defects. Causes of defects, Physical birth defects, Hereditary diseases and syndromes
http://science.jrank.org/pages/935/Birth-Defects.html
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/7/82.07.07.x.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/birth_defects/article.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/birth-defects

To clear the air, my argument is that, most diseases can be traced back to what we put in our bodies or are exposed to. If you really read everything in the links from my first post as well as this one, you would know this to be true.
Again I speak from experience as well as doing research. My mom smoked cigarettes and drank wine when my brother and I were in the womb. This caused my brother to have a heart defect and we were born three months premature. We both weighed just under 3 pounds and were lucky to have survived because my moms Dr. urged her to have an abortion since he was certain that we wouldn't live through the birthing process. So ask yourself, what was your mom putting into her body or perhaps exposed to which may have caused your heart condition?

Now, you can disagree with me on this subject till the sun goes supernova but... how are you really going to know, much less speak about anything if you stick to the one belief that you're correct and I'm wrong, without ever doing any research on the subject. I'm sure that you haven't read any of the articles in the links that I provided in my first post because, your post was a purely emotional and sarcastic response. As if I'd offended you somehow?

Scroll down and read everything when you open these links. Please?
Penicillin is made from fungi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin
This is how man made penicillin is made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_synthesis
This is what is used to make man made penicillin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical
http://ezinearticles.com/?Petrochemicals---The-Real-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction&id=1444448

Which type of penicillin are you using? Looks like the Pharmaceutical industry took something good and turned it into another cheap and mass produced way for you to kill yourself. frown
You've really got to ask the question, what's in the medicine you're taking? Find out before it's to late. Man made chemicals are bad for you, no matter what you think, and they are being used to make medicine... among other things.
Western medicine is not at all what you guys believe it to be.
I can't for the life of me, grasp how you think it's beneficial for anyone to ingest an immune system destroying petrochemical based medicine, and still think that it's going to make you better. Read on, for the love of Pete read on.
http://www.npra.org/ourIndustry/petrochemicalFacts/
http://www.icis.com/v2/companies/9145289/honam-petrochemical/structure.html
Scroll down till you see TABLE 1. PETROCHEMICALS USED IN MEDICINE in the link below.
http://spiritualorchid.org/node/64
This is one of my favorites.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028623_health_care_America.html
This is what happens to Dr's. that speak out against pharmaceutical companies.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_Merck_vaccine_drug.html
Here's something on mercury. Dentists use it and it's used to make some medicines even though it's deadly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/mercury/100705.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/44616/

Arktic, I don’t have the cash to purchase that book right now but I did find this video where Dan Gardner discucces his book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6buOrNLXIgg
Thanks for the suggestion. Let me tell you my thoughts on the video, I went into this with an open mind and prepared myself to learn something new so thanks again. I’m sure the video may not be as in depth as the book so you let me know if I’m wrong. I’m only commenting on the parts that I disagree with.
He first asks the audience, at what age are women at risk for getting breast cancer. Only one person says over 80 years of age. What Dan says next raised a red flag for me. He said that he always starts off with this question because it tells him what he wants to hear. That everyone else is wrong except for himself and the one audience member. Right off the bat he’s telling everyone that they’re wrong and he’s right. Either he’s never done any research on breast cancer and has no idea what he’s talking about or… he’s done his research and is lying to his audience and the folks that purchased his book.
Dan states that women aren’t at risk for Breast Cancer until they’re over the age of 80 and should not worry about getting breast cancer. Here are a few links “many more out there” of women under the age of 30 who are getting breast cancer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184495/Girl-10-youngest-person-U-S-diagnosed-breast-cancer.html
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/547
http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/breast-cancer-young-women
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/01/10/three-year-old-breast-cancer-survivor-aleisha-hunter-youngest-person-ever-diagnosed/
Dan then states the publics concerns over connective tissue disease being linked to breast implants. He says that there is no scientific proof to confirm any public concerns. All the studies that I’ve found say the same thing, women with breast implants are at no higher risk of getting CTDs than women without breast implants but… they also say that there is not enough study to disprove it either, but they all disregard any woman coming forward with CDT complaints after getting breast implants. The first breast implant surgery performed in the u.s. was in 1962. So in the past 49 years, with all of our so called medical advancment, there is still not enough research to prove or disprove this concern. I read all the links contained in the link below. Check it out.
http://www.google.com/search?q=connective+tissue+disease&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADFA_en#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADFA_en&q=list+cases+of+connective+tissue+disease+linked+to+breast+implants%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e68d8902d5bd6cb1
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/7/619.full
I wanted to point out that Dan only mentions CDTs in his discussion of breast implants. Why is that? Is it because it’s the only thing that hasn’t been proven or disproven? Seems a little biased to me. Why not mention the other diseases linked to breast implants? Such as.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/health/research/27implant.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/214891.php
http://www.breastimplantinfo.org/augment/implantfibro.html
Dan then says that there is no proof that Genetically modified foods are harmful. This is in fact another lie by Mr. Gardner. G.M. foods are not required by law to be labeled as such. Here are a few links, there are many more out there.
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/06/04/12/are-genetically-modified-gm-foods-dangerous-the-essentials-on-both-sides-of-the-debate.htm
http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/023238_GMO_food_Monsanto.html
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/GMODangers/DangersofGMFoods/index.cfm
Now Dan says that the media is lacking in critical scrutiny. They report only certain news because of money or push agendas, he says it’s okay though because they are only human and it’s okay to be biased because humans love novelty stories. Being that he’s a journalist for a magazine, I do believe that he’s part of the media. He’s been very biased so far, told several lies and wraps those lies around some truths that make sense on their own but not in the bigger picture of what he’s really saying such as, If he showed you a picture of a sad person and a happy person you’d remember the sad person or, if he showed you 30 words, 29 are written in blue ink and one word is written in green ink, you will remember the word written in green ink. Those two examples make sense on their own but he’s hiding the lies that he tells around the notion that the two examples make sense. Hmm?
Now he talks about your conscious and unconscious mind and they way you make decisions. He makes total sense during his discussion… right up until he uses child abduction as an example. He brushes it aside by saying that statistics are very low on the matter and should be of no concern. Where is he getting his statistics and why does he make it sound like there’s an acceptable number for child abductions? I’m not becoming a fan of Mr. Dan Gardner very quickly. Since when is being concerned about your childs welfare a thing to not have on your mind? Again he takes something that makes sense, if taken in it’s own context, and wraps it around an absurd statement. Here’s two links on the number of Abducted children annually. One child gone missing is one to many in my book.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816
http://crime.about.com/od/stats/f/faqkids.htm
He’s under the assumption that everything he says is correct and everyone else is wrong. Watch the video and let me know if I’m missing or misunderstanding something.
Well, I can’t really say anything constructive till I can afford to buy the book and read the entire thing. I’m sure it’s going to be an interesting read for me after having watched his video discussion.
Oh and uh… who said anything about some secret plot? What’s that all about? I’m just letting you guys know what we’re putting in our bodies via the food and drug industries because it’s pretty bad for us.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 1:02pm

Post 16 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

That's a lot of links!
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 11:09pm

Post 17 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

That's a lot of links!
That's a lot of fish.
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 11:31pm

Post 18 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:


They're animals, man.
I'm sorry but a thought just occured to me. Do you mind? No? Of course you don't.

No offense, but they way you said that makes it look like you think thier lives aren't worth much. In my opinion, thier lives are worth just as much as ours. And, if you believe in Heaven and Hell I personally believe that animals do have a soul and go to Heaven or where ever. And I have proof: The day my dog, Zorba (my Great Dane) died we were all very sad. We walked outside, and there, just sitting there, was a large "Z" made of clouds. It stayed for around half an hour, and this was all within about half an hour that he died. I'm prepared to swear to this on my grandmother's, aunt's, uncle's, and every single person who has ever died that I have ever known's graves. You want EVEN MORE proof? Someone tell me how to get pictures from an HTC Hero onto a computer, and I'll show you. (though it was taken on my old phone, so there's a picture of the picture, but again, I CAN give you proof that the one the origional picture was on was my phone.)
Posted: Mon, 14th Mar 2011, 11:49pm

Post 19 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

That's not proof of anything, but I suppose that for the sake of the thread topic, and the memory of your dog, I will spare you the psychological and philosophical rigamarole that would explain why. For now... wink

Now, if the clouds had spelled out "RIP Zorba, the Great Dane, loved by Azulon'sAssassin and family", that's another story...

Edit: vvv It just got real.

Last edited Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:10am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:03am

Post 20 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

spydurhank wrote:

Arktic, I don’t have the cash to purchase that book right now
PM me your address details and I'll buy a copy and have it shipped over to you, if you like smile

spydurhank wrote:

He first asks the audience, at what age are women at risk for getting breast cancer. Only one person says over 80 years of age... Right off the bat he’s telling everyone that they’re wrong and he’s right. Either he’s never done any research on breast cancer and has no idea what he’s talking about or… he’s done his research and is lying to his audience and the folks that purchased his book.
No, I think it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. To quote Cancer Research UK - "Breast cancer risk is strongly related to age,with 81% of cases [in the UK] occurring in women aged 50 years and over. Nearly half (48%) of cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the 50-69 age group"

And, in fact, to quote your OWN link - "It is a disease primarily of older women, with 75% of cases occurring in women over 50 years of age. Only 6.5% of cases occur in women under 40 years of age, and a mere 0.6% of cases in women under 30 years of age."

Which I think goes to show that Dan has done his research pretty well here. Breast cancer primarily affects older women. Fact. A demonstrable fact backed up by decades of statistical data, not a 'lie' as you put it (which is a rather loaded weasel-word that you chose there).

spydurhank wrote:

Dan states that women aren’t at risk for Breast Cancer until they’re over the age of 80 and should not worry about getting breast cancer.
I didn't have time to watch the whole hour long lecture, but he doesn't say "women aren't at risk until they're over 80" anywhere in the first twenty minutes or so, nor any of the other parts of the video I skipped through; and he certainly doesn't state that in the book. I highly doubt that he says that in the lecture at all. He's not saying that breast cancer doesn't occur in younger women - but the fact of the matter is that the risk for women under 60 is actually very low compared to how women perceive that risk - fueled by things such as overly emotive media reports that take a really rare case and make it seem as if it's the norm.

Handily, you've also provided an example of just that in the next link -

spydurhank wrote:

Here are a few links “many more out there” of women under the age of 30 who are getting breast cancer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184495/Girl-10-youngest-person-U-S-diagnosed-breast-cancer.html
Firstly, a quick note about the Daily Mail. In the UK, it is notorious for a number of things - it's generally regarded as pretty right wing, it's often racist, and it epitomises tabloid over-reaction. It also has a very peculiar stance when it comes to reporting on cancer; almost every day there's at least one article which links something to cancer. Sometimes these these things increase the risk of cancer, other times they reduce the risk. Very often, the articles will contradict themselves from week to week. In fact, there are a number of blogs dedicated to trying tracking the things that the Daily Mail says will increase or decrease the risk of cancer - for example 'Kill or Cure'. As you can see from the first page, alcohol, allergies and aspirin have all been reported by the Daily Mail to both increase and decrease the risk of cancer. And that's just the 'A' section. As you can see, they have a very odd relationship with reporting on cancer.

And it's not just the Daily Mail that skews reportage of cancer. A 2001 report by the University of Washington analysed articles about breast cancer in major US magazines between 1993 and 1997. 84% of those articles were about women under 50 with the disease, and nearly half were about women under 40. Clearly compared to the real statistics (6.5% of all cases in the US were women under 40), you can see Gardner's point here about the media, by and large, misrepresenting the average age of a breast cancer victim - which in turn influences the public to believe that women are at a higher risk when they're younger.

I have to admit that you totally lost me in the middle of your post. I'm not sure what you're getting at about the connective tissue disease. As you say, most studies neither prove nor disprove the link - so I'm not sure how he's supposedly 'lying' here...?

spydurhank wrote:

I wanted to point out that Dan only mentions CDTs in his discussion of breast implants. Why is that? Is it because it’s the only thing that hasn’t been proven or disproven? Seems a little biased to me.
Again, I'm not sure that I follow what you're trying to say here. But the fact that you've provided links to stories about women who have linked silicone breast implants to their ill health doesn't really prove anything. There aren't any news stories that I'd be able to post because "Woman Not Sick" isn't much of a headline - the millions of women who have silicone implants without issues simply aren't represented by the media, because it would be deathly boring to read stories about women who haven't had issues with those implants.

spydurhank wrote:

Dan then says that there is no proof that Genetically modified foods are harmful. This is in fact another lie by Mr. Gardner. G.M. foods are not required by law to be labeled as such.
And still, I don't see what you're getting at. There's conflicting evidence both ways, but many major unbiased organisations have published peer-reviewed evidence which suggests that there is no risk from eating GM foods. As the World Health Organisation concludes: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."

Quite why the WHO would be lying is beyond me. They don't stand to benefit from GM foods being approved for sale, and they don't stand to lose anything by saying that they're not safe either. Their only priority is to ensure the world's health. Therefore it's safe to assume that their conclusion is probably in our best interest.

spydurhank wrote:

He’s been very biased so far, told several lies and wraps those lies around some truths that make sense on their own but not in the bigger picture of what he’s really saying
I'm going to have to disagree with you here - I don't see that he's told any lies. Can you clarify what those lies are? I think I've proven that at least two of the things you've labeled 'lies' are very much true - breast cancer risk is incredibly rare in younger people, and age is the biggest risk factor, and non-biased organisations such as the WHO deem GM to be safe.

spydurhank wrote:

Now he talks about your conscious and unconscious mind and they way you make decisions. He makes total sense during his discussion… right up until he uses child abduction as an example. He brushes it aside by saying that statistics are very low on the matter and should be of no concern.
Again, I think you've totally misunderstood the point here. What Gardner is saying isn't that you shouldn't worry about your child's safety or the danger of having a child abducted - but the fact is that the risk of having a child abducted is virtually non-existent and there are much bigger risks to your child that a parent should be more worried about.

spydurhank wrote:

Where is he getting his statistics and why does he make it sound like there’s an acceptable number for child abductions?
Again, you're putting words into his mouth. He doesn't say that there's an acceptable number - merely that because the risk of a child being abducted is so incredibly tiny, it's not something that parents should put high on their priority list of safety concerns; and yet that's very often the opposite.

As for where he's getting his statistics - the exact same place as you; namely the U.S. Department of Justice National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). Did you even bother to read your own links?

I'm just going to quote right from Dan's book here, because it deals with the statistics in a very straightforward manner:

In Risk, Dan Gardner wrote:

[in the statistics] there were 58,200 'non-family abductions'. That may sound like strangers stealing children, but it's not. It is in fact a very broad category that can include, for example, a 17-year-old girl whose ex-boyfriend won't let her get out of his parked car.

In order to get a number that matches the sort of paedophile-in-the-shadow attacks that terrify parents, NISMART created a category called stereotypical kidnappings: A stranger or slight acquaintance takes or detains a child ... with the intention of keeping him or her, or kills the child. NISMART estimated that in one year the total number of stereotypical kidnappings in the United States is 115.

To look at these statistics rationally, we have to remember that there are roughly 70 million American children. With just 115 cases... the risk to any one American minor is about 0.00016 per cent, or 1 in 608,696.
In perspective, the risk of a stranger kidnapping any child is minute. Tiny. Virtually non-existant. There are many other dangers that are much more likely to hurt your child - for example, a child is 26 times more likely in the USA to die in a car crash than be abducted by a stranger. But when was the last time you saw an news special about road safety?

The statistics are much the same the world over. In Canada, the National Missing Children Services found that in the two years 2000 and 2001, there were 5 children taken by a 'stranger' - using a definition that included 'neighbour' and 'friend of the father'. They found that there was only one single case of a child being taken by a complete stranger in those two years.

Now, obviously those 115 cases a year in the US are 115 too many. But the risk is so small that it shouldn't really be a major concern to most parents - but that's simply not the case. It's an increasing trend that parents don't let their children out to play on the streets like they used to - one of the major reasons cited by concerned parents is 'stranger danger', i.e. the fear that their child will be abducted by a paedophile. But by being overly cautious about this negligible risk, parents are doing more damage to their children's health and well being in the long term. Children are less active these days, down in no small part to parent's reluctance to let their kids play outdoors unsupervised like we all used to, and there is a growing epidemic of obesity in younger children - 1 in 3 children is now overweight, which is a direct threat to their health. That is a real cause for concern, and the number is growing; and yet parents are more keen to go out of their way to avoid the nearly non-existent risk from 'stranger danger' by keeping their children indoors all day. Do you see how the fear is disproportionate to the genuinely tiny risk posed by child abductions?

spydurhank wrote:

Oh and uh… who said anything about some secret plot? What’s that all about?
I'm not saying that you definitely believe in a secret conspiracy to keep us all subdued through chemicals in our foods and medicine, but your views do quite closely align with people who share those sentiments. And when you say things like "now you're stuck in the hamster wheel known as the pharmaceutical and insurance industry which thrives on you being sick all the time" or "when some folks finally realize that they're being taken for a ride by the EPA and FDA" - it does sound a little like you believe that the pharmaceutical, food and insurance industries are conspiring against the little guy... which, you must admit, sounds strangely like some of the conspiracy theories trotted out by David Icke and the like.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:12am

Post 21 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

That's not proof of anything, but I suppose that for the sake of the thread topic, and the memory of your dog, I will spare you the psychological and philosophical rigamarole that would explain why. For now... wink

Now, if the clouds had spelled out "RIP Zorba, the Great Dane, loved by Azulon'sAssassin and family", that's another story...

Edit: vvv It just got real.
Huh-ok...let me put more detail into the story. It was huge, a different color than all other clouds, and didn't move as all the others moved relatively quickly. Now does ANYONE believe me, and not think that I'm a sycotic little kid?
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:16am

Post 22 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I believe that there was a cloud in the sky, but I also believe that you have greatly exaggerated its importance in your mind. And that's okay! If you want to think that it was your dog in heaven saying "Dude, it's cool", then go for it. I would guess that most people won't agree, but I really doubt anyone will think you're psychotic for thinking so. Maybe if you decide to base your entire life around that single event, and NEVER, EVER stop talking about it. wink
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:40am

Post 23 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:


They're animals, man.
Do you mind? No? Of course you don't.
As cold as this may sound, you're right. I don't mind. The death of an animal holds absolutely no emotion for me. It used to, but not anymore. Here's my stance on the matter; if someone wanted to kill a dog for no reason, I wouldn't help them. I would say "come on dude, is it really necessary?" If he ignored me, I'd say "whatever" and walk away without a second thought. A lot of people have called me heartless for having this mentality. I reply that I save my heart for human beings.

And I'm afraid photographs and vaguely-shaped Z's in the sky won't affect my view. Of course, you're open to try. Anything can happen.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 12:45am

Post 24 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

I really doubt anyone will think you're psychotic for thinking so.
Sycotic. Come on Aculag, I would expect more.

Also, Azulon'sAssassin, increasing the story to greater proportions isn't going to make anyone believe you anymore than before. I'm sure that event meant a lot to you (regardless of whether or not it was as real as it seemed) but that's terrible (terrible) "proof" of some type of after life. I mean, seriously, this ranks higher in credibility than a story about clouds that I read on the interwebs.

In regards to the original topic.. I don't have the time or the interest in reading all of those links. Or two or three for that matter. A condensed "TL;DR" or article would help those of us without an insane amount of free time on our hands. For now I'm going to go buy some McDonalds.

EDIT: And on the other side of the spectrum.. Terminal Velocity, you have no soul. Seriously man, you wouldn't flinch at someone killing a dog in cold blood? That's pretty bad. I mean sure, it's a dog, but it's a living creature. I can understand not wanting to mourn for a dog, but not caring in the slightest to the slaughter of a semi-intelligent creature is a bit shocking. Maybe that's just me.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 1:10am

Post 25 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:


They're animals, man.
Do you mind? No? Of course you don't.
As cold as this may sound, you're right. I don't mind. The death of an animal holds absolutely no emotion for me. It used to, but not anymore. Here's my stance on the matter; if someone wanted to kill a dog for no reason, I wouldn't help them. I would say "come on dude, is it really necessary?" If he ignored me, I'd say "whatever" and walk away without a second thought. A lot of people have called me heartless for having this mentality. I reply that I save my heart for human beings.

And I'm afraid photographs and vaguely-shaped Z's in the sky won't affect my view. Of course, you're open to try. Anything can happen.
No, not vaugley. perfectly. Any way, I can't get anyone to believe me, fine. I know what I saw. And I wasn't "*says in mocking high-pitched annoying voice* increasing the story to higher proportions" I was stating the fact that that was what I, my mother, my father, and my friend saw. So theres. The end. It's over. And Terminal Velocity...Really? That's probably the worst thing I've heard in a while. I have lost almost all respect for you (just saying.)


So anyway, I have yet ANOTHER story. My aunt died about five years ago, and we were of course all sad. But someone we just happened to meet a few days later, one day (a few years later) comes up and asks my mom if she believed in "clair voyancy." Mom said yes, and she told her that my aunt had come to tell her things to tell my mom. Apparently ghosts (spirits, apparitions, whatever you want to call them) have to communicate through pictures and very few words. EVERYTHING she said was correct about what had happened leading up to the events of my aunts scuicide. And this person had NEVER EVER talked with us about our life, other than how my school and piano lessens were going. So believe me or don't but I know what's happened and I've gotta say, I've been through alot through a 12 year old (including almost drowning at the age of five in a HUGE hurricane stuck in an upstairs room as the house feels about to collapse.)
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 1:43am

Post 26 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Your family sounds very superstitious.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 9:55am

Post 27 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Terminal Velocity wrote:

if someone wanted to kill a dog for no reason, I wouldn't help them. I would say "come on dude, is it really necessary?" If he ignored me, I'd say "whatever" and walk away without a second thought. A lot of people have called me heartless for having this mentality. I reply that I save my heart for human beings.
That kind of attitude can lead to sociopathic tendencies, though. Having a total lack of empathy for animals isn't actually all that far away from having a lack of empathy for humans.

That's partly why there are laws against animal cruelty - not just because people like the little fluffy wuffy animals, but because the ability to be cruel to animals (or not be bothered by it) suggests a personality that could transition to cruelty to humans.

Sure, prioritise the welfare of humans over animals if you want, that's fine and makes sense. But to have no regard for animals at all is actually a little worrying. smile
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 9:05pm

Post 28 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:

if someone wanted to kill a dog for no reason, I wouldn't help them. I would say "come on dude, is it really necessary?" If he ignored me, I'd say "whatever" and walk away without a second thought. A lot of people have called me heartless for having this mentality. I reply that I save my heart for human beings.
That kind of attitude can lead to sociopathic tendencies, though. Having a total lack of empathy for animals isn't actually all that far away from having a lack of empathy for humans.

That's partly why there are laws against animal cruelty - not just because people like the little fluffy wuffy animals, but because the ability to be cruel to animals (or not be bothered by it) suggests a personality that could transition to cruelty to humans.

Sure, prioritise the welfare of humans over animals if you want, that's fine and makes sense. But to have no regard for animals at all is actually a little worrying. smile
That's very true, and as I said: I'm saorry but have lost all respect other than of the fact that he is a fellow film maker for Terminal Velocity. And it may not seem like much to him (or her), but when a child is told (and always has) to respect all adults (assuming he or she is) has lost almost all of it, that kinda takes alot.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 9:08pm

Post 29 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Your family sounds very superstitious.
Well, my grandfather is, but he's an old man straight from Greece. But I really don't see how believeing someone who has never heard a thing about your life other than that you do yell in piano and make good grades suddenley knows everything there is to know about the events leading up to your aunt's death that have been kept very private *takes deep breath from talking to much* can really be counted as superstitious. smile
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 9:53pm

Post 30 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

But I really don't see how believeing someone who has never heard a thing about your life other than that you do yell in piano and make good grades suddenley knows everything there is to know about the events leading up to your aunt's death that have been kept very private *takes deep breath from talking to much* can really be counted as superstitious. smile
Someone translate this for me, because I have no idea.

Edit: Ohhhh, I get it. Yeah, the fact that you believe that a total stranger had spoken to your Aunt's ghost = superstition.

Last edited Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:03pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 9:58pm

Post 31 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

That kind of attitude can lead to sociopathic tendencies, though.
Well, I'm already borderline-punchdrunk, at least in a sports situation. I full-on headbutted someone who was wearing a football helmet, when I wasn't. But in other situations I am not anywhere near sociopathic.

Tarn wrote:

Sure, prioritise the welfare of humans over animals if you want, that's fine and makes sense. But to have no regard for animals at all is actually a little worrying.
Well, let me rephrase that. I have a small amount of care for animals. I was once told to shoot a cat that was ripping stuff apart in our garage. I almost shot it in the head, but then felt a bit bad and decided to hit its leg instead (it was a BB gun). But I certainly wouldn't get too upset about the death of an animal in any situation. A little maybe.

Azulon's Assassin wrote:

And it may not seem like much to him (or her), but when a child is told (and always has) to respect all adults (assuming he or she is) has lost almost all of it, that kinda takes alot.
From this somewhat jumbled sentence, you seem to be operating under the assumption that I'm an adult. Actually I'm not quite 16. But thank you for the small amount of respect you still hold for me. Most people are just scared of me at this point.

Oh right, forgot to mention. spydurhank, I think you're going overboard a little bit by condemning modern medicines. The average lifespan of a European during the Middle Ages was about 35. Now I think it's 80. That speaks a lot about modern advances in technology. I mean, not everything's a scam dude. I can see the advantages in eating untreated food (mostly), but modern medicine is definitely solving more problems than it's causing.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:08pm

Post 32 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Ok. I'm gonna due this thing that I usually don't do...I'm willing to apologize if you all are *winces at the word apologize* LOL okay I didn't really wince. But yeah, I gotta agree with TV on the medicine thing. I really don't see how you could condemn medicine (I would understand the ones that are like " you can use this to stop this problem, but it may lead to this, this, thi, thi, or death.")

Are you saying you will NEVER take medicine? If so, I fear you may not live quite as long as us, given that you don't eat meat, which is a human's MEGA MAIN source of protein.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:09pm

Post 33 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Is it just me or does this thread become stranger and stranger with each post...?
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:10pm

Post 34 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Is it just me or does this thread become stranger and stranger with each post...?
Yes, but this seams to happen to almost all General Chat threads.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:12pm

Post 35 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Especially those you are involved.

Now where's Darth_Paul Gooku with some sexy fox stories when you need him?
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:13pm

Post 36 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

But I certainly wouldn't get too upset about the death of an animal in any situation. A little maybe.
Ground floor for watching Terminal Velocity slowly become a serial killer.

Seriously, your idea of having a small amount of care for animals is to shoot a cat in the leg instead of in the head (causing it a great deal of pain instead of just killing it)? How about, stop listening to whomever is telling you to SHOOT CATS (guessing it was a parent/family member), and put the gun down instead? You're an interesting person, TV. wink

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

given that you don't eat meat, which is a human's MEGA MAIN source of protein.
There are millions of vegans and vegetarians who would disagree. I enjoy meat, but it's not necessary for survival. The protein, vitamins, and minerals found in meat can also be found in many, many other things. What I mean is, a properly balanced diet doesn't necessarily include meat.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:26pm

Post 37 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, the only other thing with alot of protein in it I can think of that ISN'T meat would be red beans and rice, and as much as I like it, I couldn't eat it THAT often.

MOD EDIT - Azulon'sAssassin, please don't quote entire posts just to add a sentence or two at the end. If there's something relevant to quote, do so - but quoting an entire post makes the thread (even more) difficult to follow. Thanks.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:35pm

Post 38 of 90

swintonmaximilian

Force: 1970 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 527

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This thread is fascinating...

Terminal velocity, you sound hilarious, like an actually hilarious person who it would be so fun to observe for a day. Obviously you aren't funny or anything, but I bet watching you go about your day would be. Do you open bottles with your teeth then look moodily around and then punch the nearest wall when a girl looks at you? You sound, or at least sound like you are trying to sound, ridiculously intense all the time. It just isn't cool to express your infinite coldness, it's an odd thing to broadcast.

Spydurhank, what about man made chemicals designed to treat mental illness, to readdress an imbalance of chemicals in the brain for example? Should they also be avoided? Will that sort of thing just go away with good ol' clean livin'? Oh but I forgot, those drugs are probably making people mentally ill in the first place right? This thread seems very paranoid. Lets all get the flu and die like in the past though yeah?
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:40pm

Post 39 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

I really don't see how believeing someone who has never heard a thing about your life other than that you do [w]ell in piano and make good grades suddenley knows everything there is to know about the events leading up to your aunt's death that have been kept very private
Sadly, this isn't clairvoyancy, but much more likely to be something know as 'Cold Reading' - the method through which mediums, spiritualists and so-called 'psychics' are able to apparently deliver insights into other people's lives that they seemingly have no way of knowing.

If you want to learn more about cold reading, I thoroughly recommend Ian Rowland's 'The Full Facts of Cold Reading'.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:45pm

Post 40 of 90

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -3

*coldly* I really thought we had closed the issue of my aunt's scuicide and my dog's painful death. disgust
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:52pm

Post 41 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:


*coldly* I really thought we had closed the issue of my aunt's scuicide and my dog's painful death.
First off, you really don't need to keep describing your emotions within two asterisks. Second of all, I believe you brought the subjects up, so a sane and rational response is to be expected. Third, I would stop bringing up "painful" subjects if all you're going to do is *coldy* drop them when someone responds helpfully.

Honestly, the insanity level of this thread is rising every post.
Posted: Tue, 15th Mar 2011, 10:55pm

Post 42 of 90

mercianfilm

Force: 210 | Joined: 31st Dec 2006 | Posts: 687

Windows User

Member

Is this thread a dream? It's taken such a bizarre turn from the interesting debate of the first page and a half and swerved in a way no one could have predicted. You've got to love general chat threads biggrin
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 12:28am

Post 43 of 90

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

mercianfilm wrote:

It's taken such a bizarre turn from the interesting debate of the first page and a half and swerved in a way no one could have predicted.
That's the Azulon Effect.

He has the unique ability to derail interesting discussions in utterly nonsensical ways. We need no further proof to confirm that he has rightfully claimed the title of 'AwesomeFist's Heir Apparent'.
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 12:39am

Post 44 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Azulon'sAssassin wrote:

Well, the only other thing with alot of protein in it I can think of that ISN'T meat would be red beans and rice, and as much as I like it, I couldn't eat it THAT often.
You haven't been exposed to many types of food, apparently. smile

A: Rice is not protein rich, though beans are, yes. But red beans & rice isn't a very nutritous meal on its own. B: All types of legumes (nuts, beans) have varying amounts of protein, and many whole grains (Amaranth, Quinoa) are also rich in protein. Grains like amaranth and quinoa are also rich in vitamins and minerals, which is what so many people think you lose by not eating meat. Oh, those grains are also gluten-free, so... magic!

A meal consisting of some form of cooked, vegetarian protein (tofu, tempeh,) whole grains, and vitamin-rich vegetables (these are typically darker/richer in color, for example; beets, asparagus) will give you everything you need to sustain yourself and keep healthy, and there's no animal product used. Magic! There are countless options.
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 1:54am

Post 45 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -3

Aculag wrote:

Seriously, your idea of having a small amount of care for animals is to shoot a cat in the leg instead of in the head (causing it a great deal of pain instead of just killing it)? How about, stop listening to whomever is telling you to SHOOT CATS and put the gun down instead?
It was a BB gun, so it would have healed fairly quickly. I'm not even sure if I hit it or not, cause the thing jumped in the air and took off. The reason we shot at the cat is because it was making a mess of our garage and attacked my baby sister and scratched her. I am extremely protective toward babies and I get angry when something bad happens to them. And I'm taking that last sentence as a compliment, so thank you.

swintonmaximilian wrote:

Do you open bottles with your teeth then look moodily around and then punch the nearest wall when a girl looks at you?
No, you're getting the wrong vibe. This whole issue is focused around my attitude toward animals and you're incorrectly expanding that to every aspect of my personality. I'm more or less average, most of the time. In fact some people say I'm not serious enough. It's just that my sense of humor doesn't convey well through text, so I don't bother.

swintonmaximilian wrote:

You sound ridiculously intense all the time.
Only in football.

Azulon's Assassin wrote:

Well, the only other thing with alot of protein in it I can think of that ISN'T meat would be red beans and rice, and as much as I like it, I couldn't eat it THAT often.
Fish, peanut butter, eggs...lots of stuff actually.
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 4:05am

Post 46 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Can't believe I missed the roaring 20s of threads that is this until now.
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 4:30am

Post 47 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

THE PLOT THICKENS!
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 9:44am

Post 48 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Fascinating! I'm trying to think whether there's ever been a topic quite like this one.
Posted: Wed, 16th Mar 2011, 1:17pm

Post 49 of 90

mercianfilm

Force: 210 | Joined: 31st Dec 2006 | Posts: 687

Windows User

Member

Someone should make this into a film biggrin It'd be more complex and action packed than Inception.
Posted: Thu, 17th Mar 2011, 11:21am

Post 50 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Atom wrote:

Can't believe I missed the roaring 20s of threads that is this until now.
Totally agree.

I am shivering with laughter at work right now. I might need to go take a walk or hide in a cupboard so I can laugh as violently as I need to.

FWAHAH
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 8:18pm

Post 51 of 90

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

The best part is actually the title. Try reading some of the stuff TV and Azulon wrote, then imagine it has something to do with "Health".

Also, I find your sociopathy (to be clear I'm not accusing you of being a sociopath, I don't know you, and I hope you change your ways) reproachful, TV. You might want to re-think your entire...everything if you think "your heart needs to be saved for humans" or something. Do you seriously think there is a limited quantity of empathy in a person? That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in if that's the case. You might as well believe your interest in women (assuming you're straight) might "run out" someday, to use one example.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 9:44pm

Post 52 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Do you seriously think there is a limited quantity of empathy in a person?
No; that was a figure of speech.

Staff Only wrote:

Also, I find your sociopathy reproachful, TV.
Dude, it's not sociopathy. They're animals. If it were sociopathy, it would extend to humans as well, correct? I don't have a lack of empathy. I just don't care about animals. So what?

Staff Only wrote:

(assuming you're straight)
I'm straight. I'm just trapped in the closet, is all.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 10:08pm

Post 53 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

Also, I find your sociopathy reproachful, TV.
Dude, it's not sociopathy. They're animals. If it were sociopathy, it would extend to humans as well, correct? I don't have a lack of empathy. I just don't care about animals. So what?
Wrong on all counts.

Empathy is in regards to living beings, and anyone who doesn't feel bad while hurting an animal is, objectively and by definition, not empathic. So you really do have a problem.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 10:13pm

Post 54 of 90

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

No; that was a figure of speech.
It sounded like a bad excuse to me.

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Dude, it's not sociopathy. They're animals. If it were sociopathy, it would extend to humans as well, correct? I don't have a lack of empathy. I just don't care about animals. So what?
Psychology does not agree with you (as Tarn pointed out). Also you have no proof that they're "[just] animals". In fact almost everything points to that they are made of the same stuff as us. We are just more evolved. A human infant is probably much less self-aware than an adult cat, but you would hurt a cat and not an infant? But it's "just an infant", dude. Save your heart for actual self-aware adults.

I don't know who gave you the conclusion that "they're just animals", but not feeling anything for animals is an indication of a severe lack of empathy as seeing an animal or a human get hurt should trigger an involuntary emotional response of pain in you. People even feel that when watching film-characters get hurt. If it was rational (as you seem to be assuming) they would feel nothing for a fictional character.

Not to mention the fact that thinking they're just animals is extremely misguided. That's the kind of us/them thinking that allows people to perform hate-crimes every day. Just as you are "sure" about your viewpoint, they are sure there is big difference between themselves and [insert religion, nationality, sexual preference etc.]. Therefore the wise man treats everyone as if they are a living creature who deserves their respect and help.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 10:18pm

Post 55 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

I just don't care about animals. So what?
Humans are animals too, you know.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 11:56pm

Post 56 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Okay, whatever. It's obvious that you all know me better than I know myself.

Also, although I am admittedly loud and obnoxious, I don't think you guys have ever seen me exhibiting traits of soullessness or unfeeling. My lack of empathy toward animals has never affected my behavior in other situations and never will.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 1:48am

Post 57 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

For what it's worth, the only reason I brought it up is because I'm genuinely worried about what that could lead to - it is most definitely not to make myself feel cooler or to make you look like an idiot.

I say you should just embrace it already and become a supervillain.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 1:53am

Post 58 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

For what it's worth, the only reason I brought it up is because I'm genuinely worried about what that could lead to
And while I appreciate that (and you're not one of the people who has gotten me pissed), there's still the fact that most of you seem to be under the impression that this makes me a bad person, when it really doesn't. My attitude is just something that has developed as a result of events and circumstances: the deaths of several pets, etc. I just don't want my statements blown out of proportion until people think that I'm some kind of evil bastard who doesn't care about anything or anyone.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 2:40am

Post 59 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Wait, so your pets died and you felt so bad you now repress any emotions regarding pets? Doesn't sound like a lack of empathy to me, just some sort of brain trauma-compensation measure.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 3:11am

Post 60 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sort of. I never thought anything could replace my last dog, so I just decided, "Whatever" and stopped giving a crap.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 4:38pm

Post 61 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Sort of. I never thought anything could replace my last dog, so I just decided, "Whatever" and stopped giving a crap.
I really hope you don't have this same reaction when you lose a loved family member...
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 6:42pm

Post 62 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't. I'm Christian, so I believe I'll see them again.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 3:37am

Post 63 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

As much as I know I'll regret chiming in here, I have to give Terminal Velocity a bit of help here.

Yes animals die. Yes it is sad. Even Terminal Velocity will admit that losing an animal that you are emotionally connected to is a sad time, however losing a human being that you are personally connected to, is so completely different. The emotions are much, much, more intense. The fact is, a human being dying is much more emotionally traumatizing than an animal. Most people get over animals dying, and I think all people should. When I found out my hamster's died, I was a tad upset, but I was over it in a matter of days, I'm still not over my cousin dying (who was 17), which happened almost 5 years ago. I didn't even know my cousin! I had seen him probably a total of 10 times before he died, but because he was a human being that I had known, it was and is way more intense than my hamsters, or even our old dog that died, I got over in a matter of weeks.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, it is much easier to get over an animal dying than a human. If you can't get over an animal dying, you just happen to be a tad more sensitive than most people. I honestly haven't met anyone who was permanently traumatized due to the death of an animal, but he death of a human being is completely different.

It is like comparing apples to oranges, sure they are both fruits, but they have completely different tastes. Just like they are both deaths, but both have some different emotions attached to them, at varied levels of intensity.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 4:41am

Post 64 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Totally disagree. I think the value and emotional resonance behind human life is more paramount than animal life- at least for human beings (clearly of the same species)- but on a much broader scale than you've given credit.

My dog is a very important and loving part of my life, and as silly as it sounds I find her supportive in my life. When she eventually dies, it won't be a matter of days that I'm over it and recollected. It'll be a huge sorrow and pain on my mind, likely for a very, very long time. Much more than many loved ones I've roughly known and lost over the years.

Which isn't to say that I'm detached from the others- just that the priority of connections with those that die, I believe, are what dictate the impact.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 6:28am

Post 65 of 90

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Atom speaks the truth.

As far as this whole 'animal empathy' thing goes, TV, here's a litmus test: watch this quick (and award winning!) documentary and report back. If it does not affect you on any emotional level, there is a 99% chance that you are a soulless robot.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 4:11pm

Post 66 of 90

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

People are different.
I have no problem with Terminal Velocity's attitude towards the death of animals.
I've lost no respect for him.

It doesn't affect me at all.

(The video did however. Thanks for sharing that rogolo. My dog had to be put down last year because of cancer. Still miss him. sad )
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 9:49pm

Post 67 of 90

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I don't get very sad while watching movies but wow that doc made me want to cry.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 10:31pm

Post 68 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Great video, very moving.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 11:10pm

Post 69 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I was affected by it, but not nearly as much as most people, based on the video's comments. So I may be about 50% robot. Or maybe I'm just less emotional than most people.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 11:43pm

Post 70 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Or maybe I'm just less emotional than most people.
You may still be a robot, then. Tests must be done.
Posted: Mon, 4th Apr 2011, 11:47pm

Post 71 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
Posted: Tue, 5th Apr 2011, 7:58am

Post 72 of 90

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Do you make these questions up, Pooky - or do they write them down for you?
Posted: Wed, 6th Apr 2011, 4:56pm

Post 73 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

They're just questions, Arktic. In answer to your query, they're written down for Pooky. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 1:11am

Post 74 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What desert? ...What's a tortoise?
had to get in on this action
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 1:45am

Post 75 of 90

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Let me tell you about my mother...
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 2:07am

Post 76 of 90

Micah master studios

Force: 822 | Joined: 30th Apr 2010 | Posts: 163

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

If it tastes good I eat it.

I quote from "Over the Hedge"
"If it tastes this good, it must be good for you." biggrin
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 3:45am

Post 77 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Garrison wrote:

Let me tell you about my mother...

Micah master studios wrote:

If it tastes good I eat it.
Were you being really disgusting, there, or were you just confused about what was happening?
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 9:37am

Post 78 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hahaha. I think MMS was just introducing a Combo-Breaker. Someone had to stop us before we quoted Blade Runner from start to finish.
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 9:59am

Post 79 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, I think this topic just nuked the fridge.
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 11:28pm

Post 80 of 90

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Or maybe I'm just less emotional than most people.
You may still be a robot, then. Tests must be done.
Yeah.... pretty sure he passed the "Robot Test" way back in this thread. razz
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 12:06am

Post 81 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow, there is a rather creepy repetition...
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 2:49am

Post 82 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

After reading through that thread, I thought I'd add, I have never seen E.T. and never want to.
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 4:25am

Post 83 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Biblmac wrote:

After reading through that thread, I thought I'd add, I have never seen E.T. and never want to.
Why not? Got better things to do than watching all-time classics?
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 4:32am

Post 84 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Why not? Got better things to do than watching all-time classics?
Haha Pooky, my parents, being the strict bunch they were/are never let me watch it growing up. The reason they gave me was that they didn't like the fact that the child mc cussed, or something like that. I used to watch the trailer and be like, "ooooooh I want to see that!" but I've lost interest since I was never allowed to watch it anyway. I guess it just doesn't seem that interesting anymore.

If it was a netflix "play now" I'd watch it, but I just don't feel like it is worth the $3-4 to rent it form the local rental store and since it's my dad's netflix account, I don't think he'd let me get the DVD haha.
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 4:51am

Post 85 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sorry about your parents, bra.
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 12:51pm

Post 86 of 90

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Biblmac, as a 17 year old on a filmmaking website you are seriously deprived of classic films. Or maybe just films made before 2000.
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 1:37pm

Post 87 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

doppelganger wrote:

Biblmac, as a 17 year old on a filmmaking website you are seriously deprived of classic films. Or maybe just films made before 2000.
I've seen "Rebel Without A Cause" which is from 1955, as well as "East of Eden" also from 1955. I've seen the Goonies, (but sadly not till like last year), so yeah... I didn't see E.T. on very many people's top ten of all time so it can't be that good right? wink
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 2:41pm

Post 88 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Biblmac wrote:

I didn't see E.T. on very many people's top ten of all time so it can't be that good right? wink
These "all-time" top ten lists aren't exactly definitive. Take a look at most of the lists on here, and many of the films on them were released in the last five years.

E.T. is an absolute classic, one of the definitive greatest films of all time, and you should watch it, not avoid it because your parents are uptight. Seriously, who deprives their children of one of the most amazing adventure stories ever told on film? I can't think of a single offensive thing about it...
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 2:45pm

Post 89 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

It's worth mentioning that, despite very light profane language being used, ET has one of the most moral and ethical stories and messages you'll find in mainstream cinema.


I'll be right...here.
Posted: Fri, 8th Apr 2011, 3:00pm

Post 90 of 90

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright guys I get it. Haha. My parents had there reasons, no idea what they were, but they had them. I'll rent it some time. Soon. I did look it up on IMDB and checked the "content advisory" and like you said, very very mild language. Barely any cussing in that movie at all.

For the record, I haven't watched it yet, simply out of lack of interest. Not because of them. Haha, If i wanted to watch it, I would have. They quit caring what I watched a couple years ago.