May I also point out the use of the word “explore”. Explore can mean to analyze, examine, investigate, probe, prospect, question, search, survey, test, or to try… meaning an animal “searching” in its own territory for food is considered to be exploring.
So basically, arguing with you is proving to be quite infuriating, however I do quite enjoy your idiocy. I was trying not to offend you and your ideas (stupid and single-minded though they are), but now you have wrought unimaginable wrath upon yourself. Congratulations… “Actually a very innapropriate word choice, unless you wanted to support my arguments.” “Dictionary.com defintion of explore.”to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island." I believe that that supports my theory quite nicely.”-Do you even know what ‘astronomical’ means because how does it support your argument? You looked up ‘explore’, but apparently couldn’t find the time to do the same for ‘astronomical’? Do you like making yourself look completely incompetent? While I’m talking about definitions: are you trying to say ‘explore’ only has one set definition? And even still, that definition didn’t prove your point. Congratulations, you are truly pathetic, you argue over points you don’t even make! Tell me exactly where in that definition it says “A creature that filled a certain evolutionary niche perfectly would have no incentive to explore”? And how exactly does that backs up your theory that animals don’t explore, a theory for Christ’s sake… a theory? It’s not a theory, whether or not animals explore, because it’s already a known fact- they do, by the way. Your stupidity is shining brightly, my friend, let’s hope it fades fast. O, but it apparently doesn’t because if I’m not mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the Earth once one giant land mass? So once again how exactly did animals magically spread out all across this once connected land? Explored maybe, probably? Hey it fits the given definition… and, by golly, it’s already a fact! “Suggesting any other alien type is wild speculation. We don't know anything about differently designed intelligent life forms, so it's safe to say a humanoid alien would be the most logical form.”-Wild speculation to think that, if there is life in space, it is probably not a humanoid? No, speaking from a logical standpoint, out of all the trillions of planets only humanoids are capable of dominating the universe is wild speculation. So explain this once more, because all you have been doing is talking in circles- why exactly are only humanoid aliens the only type of alien that would come to Earth? Is it maybe…Because “[s]ome kind of strange completely different alien might not have the desire or incentive to build spaceships and communicate.”
zybergodJun 2, 2008
Can't be real. He doesn't look Mexican to me..
danby123Jun 5, 2008
May I also point out the use of the word "astronomical". Astronomical is not that small of a chance when discussing the cosmos...
meganinjaJun 6, 2008
May I also point out the use of the word “explore”. Explore can mean to analyze, examine, investigate, probe, prospect, question, search, survey, test, or to try… meaning an animal “searching” in its own territory for food is considered to be exploring.
meganinjaJun 7, 2008
So basically, arguing with you is proving to be quite infuriating, however I do quite enjoy your idiocy. I was trying not to offend you and your ideas (stupid and single-minded though they are), but now you have wrought unimaginable wrath upon yourself. Congratulations… “Actually a very innapropriate word choice, unless you wanted to support my arguments.” “Dictionary.com defintion of explore.”to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island." I believe that that supports my theory quite nicely.”-Do you even know what ‘astronomical’ means because how does it support your argument? You looked up ‘explore’, but apparently couldn’t find the time to do the same for ‘astronomical’? Do you like making yourself look completely incompetent? While I’m talking about definitions: are you trying to say ‘explore’ only has one set definition? And even still, that definition didn’t prove your point. Congratulations, you are truly pathetic, you argue over points you don’t even make! Tell me exactly where in that definition it says “A creature that filled a certain evolutionary niche perfectly would have no incentive to explore”? And how exactly does that backs up your theory that animals don’t explore, a theory for Christ’s sake… a theory? It’s not a theory, whether or not animals explore, because it’s already a known fact- they do, by the way. Your stupidity is shining brightly, my friend, let’s hope it fades fast. O, but it apparently doesn’t because if I’m not mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the Earth once one giant land mass? So once again how exactly did animals magically spread out all across this once connected land? Explored maybe, probably? Hey it fits the given definition… and, by golly, it’s already a fact! “Suggesting any other alien type is wild speculation. We don't know anything about differently designed intelligent life forms, so it's safe to say a humanoid alien would be the most logical form.”-Wild speculation to think that, if there is life in space, it is probably not a humanoid? No, speaking from a logical standpoint, out of all the trillions of planets only humanoids are capable of dominating the universe is wild speculation. So explain this once more, because all you have been doing is talking in circles- why exactly are only humanoid aliens the only type of alien that would come to Earth? Is it maybe…Because “[s]ome kind of strange completely different alien might not have the desire or incentive to build spaceships and communicate.”
buckw1ldeAug 15, 2008
F**KING THING SUCKS