What the fuck is this? Your fucking whining about posts not being good, and implementing rules to limit low-quality posts. You fail to realize one flaw in this plan: THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A POST IS GOOD. That rule is stupid, because what one percieves as good is relative to the individual. Read some fucking Aristotle! Since none of us here are in agreement as to what the sight is about this is probably going to lead to a lot more problems and arguments about who rated what post as bad, and then there with more rules come more problems with buracracy and worrying about following those rules. This will get pretty tiresome. You know, I have no problem reading the site and seeing a series of small posts on the screen, because if they push longer posts off of the main screen, then I press a little button and get all of the previous posts within half a fucking minute. I am really not bothered by seeing little posts at all, but if it bothers you, then maybe we can come to some sort of gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) agreement not to do so. But it is not big fucking deal.

If we don't like the quality of some posts, then why don't we just not read them. It seems pretty simple to me. Its an idea that fuels this country's notions of first amendment rights, so I think it will work for Insult as well. Sorry about all the fucks being thrown around, but the sight is called "Insult". Enought of this. Go watch the Simpsons.

Hmmm. I don't know. I can see a problem with letting the general public e-mailing us about our ideas. With my pro-atheist posts a few weeks ago I can see getting a lot of religious groups hounding me. Ugh. Well, I'm at least glad to see that I'm not one of the most hated among the authors, because that will likely be less superfluous e-mail for me to deal with. And in addition, lets try to keep the sight as anonymous as possible, so even if we have photos, lets not use photos that we will be easily identified by, because some of us might be identifiable by means of association with those who show their photos. I think its best to keep precautions since I have heard a lot about fucked up people leaving e-mails and death threats for Pappy by e-mail.

But anyway, yes, Flying Tim, there are some dumbass people with advanced degrees out there. I really dislike literature proffessors that insist that their ideas or perceptions about a particular piece of literature are completely correct, but don't really have the evidence to support their ideas beyond any reasonable doubt. Its not like the discipline of literary analysis is a science. The ideas can not be tested in an experimental manner, and the data do not speak for themselves. Literary analysis is always subject to interpretation, however, there are some people out there that refuse to recognize this. I hate that. That is just one example of stupidity in academics. I also hate historians that come up with conclusions that are simply conjecture, but can not be proven or disprooven, so they insist that it is fact, such as the idea that "Slavery in South America was worse than slavery in North America". Ugh. Its completely subjective, and stupid. Meh.

Anyway, Pappy what is it with the British English lately?

Well, here we are again, accept we have Little Bush and Colin Powell instead of Bush Daddy and Colin Powell. The Iraq situation had to be dealt with sooner or later because Bush Sr. and his military administration fucked up the first time. At the end of the Persian Gulf conflict George H. encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up in revolution and topple the oppressive Iraqi government, but he gave no help to the unarmed people. Supposedly this conflict was justified by the government as an application of force to an aggressive nation, so as to prevent further agression, but as soon as the US defeated the Iraqi army, and the flow of oil was no longer threatened, the US and allies withdrew. Why did the US encourage the revolt of the Iraqi people and then give no help to see it through? The US could have had an easy ally in Iraq. The common people were not all that happy with the Hussein regime. Hussein is responsible for the killing of Kurdish peoples, so why not depose him, help another regime get established, and put Hussein on trial for international crimes? I guess we didn't want to use a little extra force or something, in a war that took minimal effort to win. I suppose the fear that more US troops might die from friendly fire, as most who had died in the conflict did die from. But instead we've had decades of sanctions, building hatred towards the US, because the sanctions are affecting the poor more than anyone else in Iraq, an occasional bombing, and worst of all, half-assed weapons inspection; who knows what the Iraqis have in store right now. And now, we have George Dubya to deal with the problem, who at least on the surface appears to be a less experienced version of his father, who sucked anyway. Lets just hope that Powell gets it right the second time.

Well first of all I don't think that any of us should really criticize what each of us are doing, provided that we all make some contribution to the benefit of society and do not act largely for our own interests. Qava may be in the military, and that is good in many ways, however, the actions of the United States military are often far from noble, so lets not place any absolute ideals on it. Lets not just say that miliatary service is the noblest of things that people here have done because that is just blind analysis. I also agree with gatekeeper in his statement about knowing what the world is about. I would like to apply that to most citizens of said town in Connecticut, and most on this site. Most of the major complaints in our lives involve liquor and/or videogames. Thats nothing to complain about.

As for the alias question, yeah, its really good to have an alias, because it may not be a good idea to let the teeming millions know who we are considering what we are saying, and the fact that we are associated with others that are saying disagreeable things. Since the site gets lots of angry e-mails, I know I don't want all the asshole readers knowing who I am. Heh heh. What a bunch of assholes.

Anyway, I think we can all agree on what Pappy said: Ally McBeal sucks. Its just a stupid show about some superficial chick and a coke-loving common criminal. As well, I must say that I intended to write a series of posts using all of the various category icons so as to actually see what they are, because I don't know. But there is a new guideline posted that tells me that I can only select the proper category, or I will lose my posting acess. I guess this leaves me to write a series of low quality posts on each subject so as to see what each picture is, unless we establish an effort among all of us to write rants for each subject. How does one determine the category of their rant? If I mention tacos in this sentance does that make it a food rant? Idunno. Time for some tacos.

I must say that the new design is great, it has added functions such as the biographies, and the design looks great. Great job Calliander. I like the icons as well that go along with each rant. Bully! I also think that anyone that has problems with the site will get used to it soon enough. Its not like the old version was the greatest thing since the sun, our lord and master. Anyway, a fine job. Pappy needs to get some pornography that does not make me question all conceptions of human biology that I currently hold. Ugh. Where does this crap come from? And we need to start posting mail that comes in to the site, but in an anonymous manner. That would be great, a section called "Insults to Insult" or something like that. That would be great.

Well, I'm really getting tired of this religious debate because I made my point in the first post, and I have been more or less repeating myself again and again. Here I hope to make it the last time. To adress Spodudezor's citation that the logical evidence does not disproove that god exists, that is true; however, I have never made the claim that logic can proove that, in fact I have claimed that logic prooves the LIKELIHOOD that god does not exist as the major religions see it. This is because the accounts by the major religions show that god came to earth and prooved his existance to people, however, now there is no physical evidence of his existance. In addition, since texts from the past are not a reliable source of information to anyone who analyses them critically, then it seems that both the accounts that we have of god, and the physical evidence are flawed. Since there is no real evidence to proove that god exists it is reasonable to believe that he PROBABLY (not definitely) does not; especially since other civilizations are known to have made up religions in the past that are not accepted as being true, this seems plausible.

Some would answer that since god is omnipotent, god can hide its existance from human perception. This seems to contradict the pre-existing accounts of god, however, since god is appearent to humans in religious accounts. Thus, if the evidence that tells us that there is a god is not valid, then the idea is likely entirely invalid, since there is no evidence to support any other notion of the existence of god. So could god exitst? MAYBE, but it SEEMS LIKELY that god does not. Since we base our beliefs on our perceptions of the world and it is perception and analysis that bring us to conclusions rather than just "feeling" then establishing a likelihood seems to lead to the conclusion that there is no god.

In conclusion, since there is not DEFINITE answer to the question the logical answer is only a likelihood. Since there is no definite answer can not conclude that a) god definitely exists, and/or b) that god is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, etc. All we can really say is "maybe", but in terms of the religious rhetoric that we are exposed to, the conclusion can be drawn that god as we percieve it does not likely exist.

Alright this has been a moderately beneficial excersise in philsophical writing, but I am tired of it. This is my point, and I think I've made it clear enough. Lets move on. The Mullet loves you.

First of all, to anyone reading this sight: DON'T FOLLOW ANY MEDICAL ADVICE THAT YOU READ HERE. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW HOW THE ATKINS DIET WILL AFFET YOUR BODY SHOULD CONSULT A LISENCED PHYSICIAN, OR SEVERAL PHYSICIANS TO SEEK A CONSENSUS OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE DIET.

However, about Stone's comments, I think that there probably is no god, of course there is the ever popular religous idea that "there are things that are beyond our understanding." This is an idea that I like to call the "deus ex absurdia," or "god out of absurdity." This is the idea that there is a god that is all powerful and we can't see him, for some reason that is attributed to "divine wisdon." Unfortunatly this logic is poor, for the idea that there are things that exist beyond our reasoning could be true, and seems to be true when discover that there are things that we did not previously percieve, however, the fact that there are things that exist beyond our perseption does not mean that god exists. It means that god could exist. Maybe. But there is still no evidence that states this. So there is a possibility, likely a small one that god exists, however, it does not seem that one could possibly make a logical argument for god's existence due to a lack of concrete empirical evidence. Any argument that would be considered logical that supports god's existence would have to meet this burden of proof. Now with that being said, why the fuck do so many good universities have divinity schools? What the hell is that? There is no critical basis for much of this.

In addition, humanistic ethics are the way to go. Many religious moral systems are based on an absolute system of preventig wrong-doing; this is god who watches everyone and knows all of your bad thoughts and actions. I feel that an absoltue may be necessary to a moral system, but I am not sure if it is. However, acting in the benefit of society may be the way to keep people in check. If one does what is best for the people around them and does not cause discord by doing things that hurt others, then you don't need a god. I don't understan how a lack of an afterlife, like Spodudezor sugested, is cruel; for it seems to be true. There is nothing to really suggest anything other than that exists. I'd hope that life is a journey that goes on after death, but it doesn't look that way. I feel that its best to be aware of the likelihood and to accept it, but you can always hope for the best. Just beaware that you are hoping and not basing this idea on concrete evidence. Belive what you want, but just know why you are believing it and know why it is a better founded idea than the contrary beliefs. Any way, all praise the mighty new Insult design. It will be our salvation.

I'm telling you, if you like naked, bloated corpses than see "The Gift." The nudity is no good if the girl is green and bloated with water.

WARNING! WARNING! Spoilers below. (I am a homosexual, and didnt warn you before). Be warned. Do not read this post if you have not seen the move "The Gift". I like cock

You know, I saw "The Gift" the other day. That Holmes chick died. Keanu (or however the fuck its spelled) Reeves was in it. He gave a stirring performance portraying a scummy redneck guy. I thought it was a wonderful performance, I mean I really believed that he was redneck scum, rather than surfer scum, as he usually comes across. The story was weak. I loved the courtroom scenes, however. The main character uses psychic powers to locate the body of a murder victim, and when the alleged murderer is standig trial the defence attorney questions the methods used by the police to find the corpse, since using psycic powers is unorthodox in police work. This was the basis of the defences' case in the trial scene. It ignored the fact that the there was a body found on the defendant's property, regardless of whether or not it was found by a psycicand it took up about thirty minutes of the film. What the fuck was that? It was the stupidest thing that I have ever seen. This scene made me laugh, although I was the only one laughing in the theater. The story had poor continuity, and I don't know what that musical scene in the middle was about. The moral of the story is that if you want to see this fim for that chick who gets naked, then don't. She dies after half an hour, and most of the nudity occurs after her death. Although I can't say that the story won't change your life in that you may be compelled to labodomize yourself half way through it. Although I think the guy that plays Schilenger on OZ is the sherif. Wilson. Don't die, man. Mmmm. Tang. So much better than that film.

Wow. Five hundred posts. Think of how the world has changed during those past five hundred posts. For those of you that are not familiar with the site, I'd like to present a timeline of the progression of humanity over the span of insults first five hundred posts, and how its changed the world:

1942: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began a project at the begining of WWII to further the war effort against Germany. The project was entitled "The Kraut-murdering super robot project", but was later changed to "insult.org." Top scientists from across the nation were brought together to work on the project, such as Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, Pappy, and Leo Szilard.

1945: As the war comes to an end, greatly aided by "insult" it was looked to as the agent to preserve peace in the post war world. In May of that year the Insult charter was signed to limit future agression, and to provide low-quality pornography that can only be described as "gayifying."

1950: A new form of music sweeps the nation called "insult," and it becomes popular with teenage audiences who could be heard singing the now-standard melodies of this musical craze, "Pete, Pete...Pete, Pete, Pete is so cool."

1956: Insult founder Pappy, and Soviet dictator Nikitia Kruschev denounce Joseph Stalin; make hot, stinky love.

1960: Insult defeats Richard Nixon in the presidential election by a landslide margin.

1967: Insult prevails over neighboring Arab forces, occupying the Sinai Desert, which it uses to cultivate ragin' dank.

1971: East Pakistan becomes an indipendent nation as Inslut trades the territory for some ragin' dank.

1979: Pappy and Ayatollah Khomeni have wild night on the town, having only vague recollections of a drug-filed orgy at Studio 54 and tatoos of each other's names on their asses the next morning. The Ayatollah returns to Iran the next day, and both develop a ragin' case of the Herps.

1980: Insult invents the personal computer; trades prototype and plans to some computer nerd in exchange for an "Alf" drink coolie, which was subsequently converted into a poorly functioning bong.

1985: Hands across America. Or was it '86? Ah fuck.

1991: The US kicks a little foreign ass in the "Mother of All Wars." Insult takes you there.

1996: Insult appointed to President Bill Clinton's cabinet as Secretary of Gettin' it On.

2000: George W. Bush elected president of the United States. Folks, we didn't even have anything to do with this one, but wow.

2001: Insult reaches 500 posts.