Sheikah

I would be dubious about eBay, this kind of media can be cheaply made and made to look real.

Yes...my boring little life at University doing well and having fun? What's your life like? Probably not half as interesting. Debating whether to watch Trisha or Jeremy Kyle...

Life experience doesn't teach you jack. If you smoke cigarettes all your life you might well think there is nothing wrong with them; if you educate yourself on their effects on the global population you have a much greater understanding.

Ha ha, the irony. You bluntly speak about everything as if you're always right; it's a waste of time even talking to you.

Some of you Baldur's Gate players may know already what I'm talking about, but which alignment would you fit into? By this I mean your general personality or actions, or it could be what you truly feel deep down (most of us are lawful and do not go around smashing people up, but you might well wish you could!). A rough breakdown on the alignments- Good Lawful Good: You believe in rightfully upholding the law, detest criminals and have a high sense of honour. You believe in the fair treatment of all individuals. Neutral Good: You more or less follow your own conscience even if not always on the right side the law, but always act in good faith. An example would be a doctor healing both allies and enemies due to their sense of right and wrong. Chaotic Good: You don't play by the rules, but you believe in the greater good. You could eradicate all chavs to ultimately benefit humankind. Neutral Lawful Neutral: You follow the rules set by law without question, but not really primarily due to your own sense of justice. You strictly follow a set of established laws due to reasons other than your conscience. True Neutral: You like gray. You definitely might or might not care about things. Your fence outside has your name engraved on it and bares the shape of your buttocks. You might befriend a crab on a desert island to encourage it to build your raft, only to eat it afterwards. Chaotic Neutral: You're pretty much an individual who doesn't care much for the law, or evil, and go to any measures to carry out what you believe in. Evil Lawful Evil: You'd like to be a tyrant- upholding the law, but being a right bastard. You might even be someone lawfully killing but getting a buzz out of it. Maybe like annihilating a chav with a particle cannon? Neutral Evil: You don't really care about other people, and pretty much make your mind up on the spot. If a side's not winning, you'd switch sides. If you killed someone because they were in your way, you wouldn't care much afterwards. You'll obey the law if it means less trouble for you. Chaotic Evil: Death to the infidels! Kill all that do not co-operate! You don't care about the law, other people, and are full of malice. People are only good for use as tools.

Ha ha oxigen waste true neutral, what bollocks. He's the most argumentative neutral person I've ever met.

I'll ask you to look up the term hypocrite, I've done nothing hypocritical. If I smoked myself then told people it's bad to smoke, that would be hypocritical. Fact is, I don't. Passive smoking results increases the likeliness of getting cancer, this is scientific fact. So now you are making me out to be anti-piercing, sexist or whatever? No, clearly I have not said anything bad about the other stuff, there's no problem to health with those anyway. The only reason I disagree with smoking is just because it is such a waste of life and health. But as has already been mentioned, alcohol is actually beneficial in reasonable quantities and certainly not a problem to health. Smoking on the other hand has no evidence to say the same, plus the nicotine in cigarettes make them addictive. Sure some people are alcoholics, but the vast majority of people are not addicted to alcohol. There are clear differences, which is why it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be when comparing alcohol and cigarettes. Asbestos is harmful, they banned that. You do realise when I say I think in the future it will be banned that I am just reasonably guessing something which I believe may happen? I am not saying I am personally going to force a smoking ban on the entire world.

Don't worry you pay through Amazon. Didn't know about your youtube channel, don't know that much about members here to be honest.

I very much doubt it, I think it's an instant critical if it does hit. But it's not that hard to roll. One thing I will say, Wario is actually really good, I can see him becoming very popular. His FS must be one of the best too, if not the most fun to control.

One thing I will say, work as much as you like in the first year! First year requires something meager like 40% to pass, or 30% with compensation from higher grades. I look back on it and lol...

20+ hours? lol that's nuts. People aren't working at the right place if they need to work that much. Surely my kind of wage plus a student loan would be enough for most people.

Try some Marketplace sellers on Amazon, here for instance. Maybe try e-mailing them. Edit: Mokong did you appear in some youtube video? I remember googling N-Europe one time and you were in a video quoting something or other. :p

Where are you from? I too am from Cheshire but travel into Manchester every day to go to the main university, studying Cell Biology. I get the Metro from Altrincham, overall it's pretty conveniant and saves a fortune. Manchester is a great place, I really recommend it to you. I disagree, I think a small amount of work promotes activity and stops you from simply molding into a void of nothingness with time passing at the blink of an eye. :p I work on Sunday only at Tesco - one day doesn't do much, but I earn £72 quid (time and a half on Sunday, so are a fair few places) just for going in at 8AM-5PM on a Sunday. That's £288 a month. It really does help. So much so I don't even have student loans. :p

Thanks for that, you've basically confirmed I don't need to waste any more time talking to you. If you'll discard animal testing so easily and say it's for the deluded, I have no reason to continue talking to you about moral issues. You are one nasty piece of work.

I think it's wrong, monopolising on something intended for remembrance.

What does this have to do anything? But in answer to your question, not nearly as many people as animals.

Having played a fair bit with Marth/against Marth (friend), my opinion of it has gone down a bit. It's surprisingly quite easy to dodge his final smash. You can roll out the way as he goes past to avoid all damage, and a fair few times he's gone right off the edge. Also, as long as you jump you can try hit Marth on the way down to know his FS ball off him. But if you do get a hit, it is ridiculously good.

No one in this topic has studied anything about drugs, we just have a few people who are expressing their views more strongly because they believe having tried drugs means they a) know their effects on the everyone who takes them, b) know exactly the consequences. Therefore according to you, all opinions are invalid. Frankly this is ridiculous, and to be honest I was never aiming to talk about other drugs to begin with, rather smoking (as the topic implies).

Actually, even scientists wouldn't know what drug taking was like, presuming they hadn't taken drugs. They publish their information from studies in journals, for all to see.

Do you have any scientific proof, or are you going to keep saying that just for argument's sake? Given that you tried to tell me about alcohol not being beneficial, I would say my post was very relevant indeed. Plus it was fun watching you fall flat on your arse. Drugs are obviously used not for the sake of damaging someone's health, but that is their unfortunate side effect. The statement "you can't talk about drugs because you haven't taken them" seems an all-too-convenient line to simply reject anyone elses opinion of them, despite plenty of factual evidence being available to anyone, drug user or not.

I think you have taken that metaphor too literally. Right, I've been waiting for someone to post some science, now to get to work. Alcohol in reasonable quantities is actually beneficial. There is no evidence to suggest that in reasonable quantities alcohol damages your health. In fact, evidence argues the opposite. Doll et. al (2005) showed that mortality was higher in non-drinkers in a large sample of doctors who did and did not and did drink. Studies also show that alcohol reduces the risk of heart attack in woman with the consumption of small amounts of alcohol. It's also been shown that in studies involving drinkers and non-drinkers, people were less likely to develop Alzheimer's if they drunk. Before suggesting that 'any amount of alcohol is bad for you', you should have researched beforehand. Your body =/= everyone elses.

Facts of drugs does not = what happened to them, facts of drugs are based on reading medical journals, possibly being a scientist who studies in that area. Then that doesn't contest my point, about non drug users in debates about drugs. Research on drugs could be done by reading medical journals or (something I disagree with) animal testing. Not from drug users giving their opinions.

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands. And to be honest, if I was a drug user trying to get over drugs I would probably feel better if given help or encouragement from someone who has gone through the same experience. But that doesn't mean a councellor could jump into a hardcore debate on the facts of drugs. Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong. You clearly know little or nothing about the effects of smoking. In any smoker the lining of the lungs is continuously irreversibly broken down, just one of the things that smoking causes. I have studied this at uni, I'm pretty sure my lecturers know what they are talking about. You on the other hand just seem to be saying things that you believe without any real factual background. No, if you drink drive you will be arrested. That's like choosing not to sell knives because they could be used to stab. The point is that drinking and buying knives for kitchen use are responsible and safe, while smoking is never healthy.

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument. And I mean for Christ's sake, it's evident that this argument is full of smokers or ex-drug users, frankly I wouldn't expect any less than a full-out argument from you all. It's like debating with a school of fish that water should be banned.

Yes, let's ban alcohol because some people don't consume it in reasonable amounts, or are stupid enough to drive afterwards. Your posts are full of thought, I can't find a single flaw! This is quality stuff. Are you suggesting we replace the people responsible for the classification of drugs with drug users, as they are more knowledgeable in the field of drugs? Some people on this forum talk such nonsense, it's a good read.