Originally posted by The Dogan

---

Personally, I believe that alcohol, tobacco, AND drugs are big problems. (So obviously I don't think that laws really reflect my thinking) Pot may be illegal but I find it sad that I am no longer surprised that people I know use drugs or have used them.(In a small town with less than 5,000) So, I find it as my duty to try and stop people I know from making dumb decisions.(After all, most people will get addicted to drugs, so I'd best warn them of its dangers) And I'm not one trying to control people's lives, only supporting my opinion.(Drugs are stupid)

---

Originally posted by The Dogan

---

Originally posted by Zem

---

Rollercoaster anology still applies. Sometimes people die on the rollercoaster. Do you go around telling everyone not to ride it and that they're dumb because they have inherent dangers?

---

Well, I didn't say that potsmokers are all dumb, just a lot. However, the rollercoaster thing does not apply because that is a natural danger. I could be staying in my house and still be at risk of it collapsing on me. Even though I can leave the house, how could I know that it's about to collapse? It's not necessarily something I control. The same applies to roller coasters but not really to drugs.

Gavin: I prefer my cake with sprinkles of course. And by sprinkles, I assume you mean the standard jimmies.

---

Originally posted by Gavin

---

The soldering itself of the Socket can (and probably will be) a lot more complicated than what i have stated. Mostly because the mask rom (original non-reprogrammable PRG/CHR-ROM that came with the game) is very likely to have a different pinout than the chip you want to replace it with.

---

Originally posted by The Dogan

---

Nick and Zem: The collapsing house example still applies.
Gavin: You expect me to be offended by you calling me gay? How childish.

---

Originally posted by Retro-Kasumi

---

Even though you only see the HTML outputted, just because it looks sloppy it doesn't mean that it's not efficient.

---

---

We've already demonstrated that it shrinks the fiile sizes by approximately a third (looking at the difference in line length), and seeing as it works in Firefox, IE and Opera 99.999999% of the time, you couldn't possibly have a good reason to complain about this.
Unless you're hardcore and use text based browsers, that is

---

---

I agree that the W3C standards for XHTML are in the best interests for a formal website that would need to be read in mulitple browsers, but let's face it: Out of all the billions of pages of HTML code that makes up the internet, how many are written to a high standard? THAT is the reason why the big three browsers are so forgiving. You simply wouldn't be able to surf without tripping up over problematic pages.

---

Originally posted by knuckUh yeah, some people (like me) just find the w3c standards stupid. And file size does matter for some people, mind you.

---

Originally posted by The Dogan

---

I'm not telling anybody how to live their life. I am simply stating why I think it's bad. And everytime you guys lay an opposing viewpoint down directed at me, I respond. Except the difference is that I don't make fun at what you are doing. To me, drugs are a waste of time, money, and brain cells. And although the number of people I know who do it is astounding, it's still risky, because you CAN get caught.

---

Arwon excerpt

---

...

If you're a well-balanced person and use drugs in moderation it's not going to mess you up or kill you or whatever... if you're already fucked up drugs will probably make you worse.

At any rate, I find the puritanical abstinence mindset a little obnoxious and condescending. "Drug free and proud"? Meh. I enjoy a drink, I like the occasional joint, and fucked if people are gonna preach to me about how pure and righteous they are because they don't. It's obnoxious. No-one is better than someone else just because they abstain from some of the enjoyable things in life.

---

Originally posted by The Dogan

---

Also, another main point I have is that why try it and risk being addicted? And those of you who aren't addicted and try it occassionally, why? After all,it is never more pleasureful than the first time you try a drug.

---

Originally posted by Sex Change

---

We're on the web, such things exist but aren't respected. Who does, maybe some of you do. But in programming, most will write non-standard code.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I just stumbled across this thread again and sat down to read it in earnest. It breaks my heart to see Dogan represent what I'd call the moral high ground, yet be stricken from all sides. But, Ziff, you're the one who's really irking me the most.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins

---

If you talk to any priest, I'm dead certain he would tell you it's not okay. If you want to rationalize your behavior, go ahead. The bible also doesn't mention heroin, crack, ecstasy, etc.

---

I don't see any response to MathOnNapkins' greatest point, save for a deft change of subject that appears to have fooled most everyone. Ziff, you continually identify yourself as a staunch, by-the-books Catholic, but apparently you can only maintain the image because everyone else here is so ignorant regarding the faith! It doesn't matter if you thing smoking pot's alright. If the local priest - God's representative on Earth, by Catholic doctrine - says you're wrong, you're wrong! I know not a single Catholic clergyman or devout Catholic layman who'd endorse marijuana. If you do then, well, you live in a crappy parish. And no matter how crappy your parish may or may not be, I'd wager you cannot find a devout follower who believes in the value of marijuana.

I like many things you say, Ziff - and dislike just as many - but, until you "qualify" as an actual, "perfect" Catholic, don't identify yourself as one. It misleads those who might have no other contact with the faith.

---

Originally posted by Elric

---

Who the hell died and made W3 god, anyway?

---

Originally posted by knuck

---

W3C is a bunch of morons who think they cna make "standards". Actually, they can. The morons here are the ones who think that W3C's standards are THE OMFG CORRECT XYZABCH TML MUST BE USED ELSE YOU SUCK AT WEBDESIGN.

---

Originally posted by Elric

---

And Gavin, just because someone made a website doesn't make them a god. Is Zohpar a god of emulation news, since he created Zophar's Domain? No. Are Acmlm or myself gods of ROM Hacking, since we created websites for it? No. So good for Timmy. He made a website to shove his views down our throats. Doesn't mean he's right.

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

As for the bad nesting, fixing it would possibly make the PHP code itself look messy,

God forbid any acmlmboard PHP code would look messy.

---

Originally posted by Narf

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

Yeah, but why bash them?

---

Because he's either too lazy or too much of a dumbfuck to use XHTML. Either way he's not fit to use it, that's for sure. I can't think of any other reason why one would be so totally against writing HTML the way it's supposed to right from when it was invented.

---

Originally posted by Elric

---

Anyway, I'm not bashing W3. Or standardization. Just pointing out that just because W3 thinks they're right, doens't mean they are.

And if W3 invented HTML, and HTLM sucks, then that would put the blame on their doorstep, wouldn't it? Of course, I'm just saying that if HTML was as great & powerful as W3 thinks it is, then there would have been no need to XML, as HTML would have already done that.

---