Welcome to Hookah Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Will_Evo

Vested Members
  • Content count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Will_Evo

  • Rank
    Pasha - Majestrate of Mu'ussel
  • Birthday 02/21/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.myspace.com/unowho22188
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Location All over
  1. Clean House

    Nooo lol he sold it! Anyway, he had a hookah room?! I have this fantasy, one day, when I have an extra room in an apartment/home I want to dedicate it as the hookah room. 1 table in the middle, walls completely surrounded by fitted black couches, a plasma TV with surround sound, Some Cabinets for storage of shisha. Everything would be black. Walls will be painted with the paint that only shows under UV light, painted by a graffiti artist. Add some UV lights, and we have my dream hookah room. lol -Evo
  2. Yea, sounds like a recipe for disaster...and at that...I'd probably do it lol. Of Course I am at no stage in my life that I want to settle down either, so the other relationship wouldn't be that serious haha. -Evo©
  3. Will It Work?

    QUOTE (Boricua @ Mar 11 2009, 11:31 PM) QUOTE (AKammenzind @ Mar 12 2009, 01:09 AM) Well, did you think to maybe look at the diameter of the opening and compare it with the stem measurement? I mean they have the measurements right on their site. Note: you may need basic addition and subtraction skills, and a ruler lol'd lol x2 EDIT: Scoop, your avatar is amazing..I cant stop laughing.
  4. Religulous

    QUOTE (Dr. B @ Mar 11 2009, 08:31 PM) QUOTE (Will_Evo @ Mar 11 2009, 05:02 PM) And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say. Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D -Evo© If you right an essay with a faulty (incompetent) pen, errors are bound to surface despite the essay being the first material iteration of your ideals. Humans are not capable of exactly reiterating the ambitions of G-D because we are flawed. Does my extended metaphor make sense now? I'm making the obervation in a constructive manner I assure you: You're contradicting yourself by imploring Christians to "believe the Bible 100%" while also expecting a mortal to translate G-D's form into words flawlessly. The Bible makes it quite apparent that we are made in G-D's likeness, but we are not perfect. How can a flawed scribe, utilizing a flawed medium, make a flawless copy? On your side note: 'Gratz on comin home, I genuinely appreciate your service. Boricua: It is true that experience teaches wisdom, but scrutiny and education can accomplish a lot as well. How exactly is one supposed to experience relgion aside from practicing, question, exploring, studying, and concluding from it? Let me clarify. Christians believe, that the bible is gods words. They believe that god told a scribe of those days exactly what to write down. Now back then, not only for the bible, bu any document, scribes did not have pencils, ball point pens none of that. If you ever look into it, you will find that old documents were almost perfect every time, because a scribe of that time, if he even messed up once, would have the throw the whole parchment away and start the page over. The bible, in its first form, when it was written in Hebrew, would have been for lack of a better word, perfect in Christians eyes, it would have contained zero errors, and said exactly what "God" intened for it to. Now, you come into errors the closer you get to this day and age because of translation, but not errors such as the stories themselves. Adjectives and units especially, using the example from earlier, you said the bible said something about cubics...well what is a cubic to us? So yes, the bible you read today, is not exactly what it was meant to be, but it says generally the topic, especially the stories, they maintain their meaning. -Evo
  5. Glass Hookah Stem

    QUOTE (poncho @ Mar 11 2009, 07:05 PM) i would say inbetween the $120 and $220 range, totally ballpark though, haven't figured out cost of production, since i'm not in production mode Price is awesome. Looking Forward to it! -Evo
  6. Religulous

    I thought that moses was the one that did the plagues...wasn't one of the plagues to do with the water? if you truly believe that millions of people happened to show up to a sea, during an earth quake, and were able to cross it during said earthquake, then more power to you...that right there is reaching man....use your head on this one
  7. Religulous

    QUOTE (FSUReligionMan @ Mar 11 2009, 03:40 PM) QUOTE (Dr. B @ Mar 11 2009, 05:32 PM) QUOTE (Will_Evo @ Mar 11 2009, 05:00 PM) ...Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar... -Evo My personal belief, and I know a lot of others would agree, is that the stories of the books are not to be taken literally but rather the motifs and themes, and even sometimes events, prevalent in each tale are to be applied to the circumstance of man, in all his imperfection. Everything in the books may possibly be true, in one context or another - Or at least applicable. It is, as you said yourself, because the Lord's words were transcribed by man that we have an imperfect set of scriptures in this realm. We are not without the propensity for sin and error. We are not perfect. Therefore, we must derive some practices or doctrines to attempt to fill the void between the form - the ideal - and the imperfection implicit of it which we observe. More to come, back me up FSU. I agree with you almost 100%. I don't want to get into my thesis topic on here because I'd be typing for ages, but yeah, basically what you said, echoes in part, what I said. The Biblical tradition is a very complex one that takes years upon years to even get the slightest understanding of. I agree with both of you on this one. I understand that the bible is full of stories that did not happen literally, they are meant to personify sinners as a whole and teach a lesson. My thing is that not only are those stories not meant to be taken literally, there are those that were meant to be. You mean to tell me, that Moses through God turned an entire river into wine? That he split the red sea in two so his people could walk across? No way, but as a Christian, you are forced by nature to believe these things. And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say. Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D -Evo©
  8. Obama Meter

    QUOTE (Sonthert @ Mar 11 2009, 02:35 PM) I would say there are numerous Bull Shit laws that need to be changed. Free Market is anathema, but the overregulation of the labor markets in the US are one of the causes of the loss of jobs to countries with less regulated labor markets. Why are we trying to stimulate markets that are inherently rigged to prevent people from working and making money? I think your numbers of 65T dollars are seriously flawed, there Scotsman. To the anti-Obama people: G W Bush ballooned the national debt from 1.05 Trillion to over 10 trillion in his 8 years...and what did we get out of it? A ruined economy. Why are you bashing Obama spending money in the same degree G.W Bush did? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the national debt last year...most of that debt going to worthless undertakings. On the other hand, Obama spending more money after Bush spent a lot of money doesn't really seem like a great solution. It sounds like a recipe for inflation and recession. That being said, the primary causes of the current recession are partially reversed (price of oil). The republican deregulation of the Home Lending Markets is still floating around, waiting to cause more problems. Republican deregulation is the source of a great many financial problems in the US. Obama might just benefit from OPEC taking the vise off our nutsac. We'll see... By no means am I blaming our debt completely on Obama. I am not a fan of Bush or Obama, BUT Obama's actions, ESPECIALLY recently*, to fix the economy, is a big fat joke. *The stimulus bill was signed and passed behind closed doors, later Obama comes out in a press conference and says that the imperfect bill is necessary. For a president who campaigned to bring change and "Slash earmarks in half" he sure didn't show any backbone by signing a bill with 7 billion dollars in earmarks. I am not sure if any of you heard, but literally 1 day after Obama signed this new stimulus bill, there are already talks about the next stimulus bill because they know this one is not going to be enough. If that is not proof enough that what the federal government is doing is not working, I dont know what is. It's like we are taking 1 step foward and two steps back. -Evo© lol /\ .....|
  9. Religulous

    QUOTE (FSUReligionMan @ Mar 11 2009, 02:36 PM) The miracles located in the 4 [5 if you count St.Thomas] gospels do not hold any current scientific backing. However, things like the giants in Genesis, the Nephilim, have been connected to the giant-sized human bones found in Syria. The 10 plagues of Egypt all have backing of real events. The flood was documented world-wide. Just because someone is Christian does not mean they take the stories in the Bible to be 100% true. In almost any religion class worth it's tuition cost, one of the first things you'll learn is that there are different types of stories in any religious text, that includes the Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Talmud, Tanach, Bio of Bahalluah, Bagivad-Gita (mispelt), ect... And you're not supposed to take everything literally. Imagine if all the Christians in the world took literally the passage about killing all Hittites? Or Muslims to kill all Kajirites? There would be non-stop killing, not that there isn't already... The idea of religion takes two things, first and foremost it takes logic and understanding, the things that cannot be rationalized or explained by science or anything else requires faith. Sontert: The Bible has many books that do not exist in the Bible, such as the Apocrypha and other extra-cannonical texts. A lot of them were excluded from the Bible for a variety of reasons but one of the reasons is that the books took away from the grandeur of G-d, such as the story of Lilith. Hippo: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict did not begin until 1936 with the Arab revolt in conjunction with 1947's partitian plan. Evo: I am currently a grad student at Xavier in Theology. I do NOT believe in everything that is in the Bible. Let's not make assumptions. Simply stated, people are taking the information presented in this decent movie and accepting everything as 100% true fact without second guessing the information because it seems good enough. You're right, eventaully we all do listen to someone else, even in research we're looking at someone else's work who looked at someone else's work, ect..ect...ect... but it's the coagulation of the material that allows one to form their own thoughts, ideas, and opinions about subjects. To form an idea based off of any fewer than 5 sources I would say is irresponsible. I do not mean to offend anyone I am just here to offer my input, as far as I know, I'm the only one here with formal training/education in Religion. My bad, I did assume you were a christian. My point in that post was that you said "people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true,, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them" ...yet you would pull a number like 93% out of thin air and expect us to believe that 93% of the bible is backed by scientific data. Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar. My point behind this, was you said we are not forming our own original thoughts...and as a direct contradiction(Assuming you are a Christian) you believe(because you must) every word someone else wrote down because it "Seems true". QUOTE Or Muslims to kill all Kajirites? There would be non-stop killing, not that there isn't already... By the way, Muslims are still taking passages like this literally. aka the American "Terrorist" is actually a religious "Extremeist"(Only extreme because it is so foreign to us, normal for them). They believe every bit of it, and some take action. -Evo
  10. Glass Hookah Stem

    AHHH! BEAUTIFUL! I already have the MN clear glass bowl and clear base waiting! JUST NEED THE STEM :-DDDDDDDD ----Cant wait ! -Evo
  11. Religulous

    QUOTE (FSUReligionMan @ Mar 10 2009, 08:25 PM) I hate people who speak on religion and/or cultural issues and have zero education in either topic. Most of them fail to realize that the Bible has scientific backings for at LEAST 93% of its stories c.f. Google. Additionally, religion has been in existance longer than any other thought process or idea. Most people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them. Never underestimate the power of forming your own thoughts. ***I am not trying to flame here, just reply to the post*** Isn't backing the bible with scientific data completely contradictory to belief in faith, and that none of it needs to be proven? Also, so a sea being split into two, water turning into wine, man being made out of thin air, that is all backed by scientific data? I am going to have to throw up the BS card. Find me a source that says 93% of the bible is solidified by science. Religion, has been in existence, within the exact same times civilization has. Religion started, almost systematically, with the creation of a new empire. This includes, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.. Religion is not original, it has not been here any longer than the first man wondered what a star was(Early philosophy). Now I don't mean much offense by this, but it is inevitable, coming onto a forum telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, is completely a two way street. Additionally, from the looks of your post, you didn't do much original research for yourself either. Perhaps, instead of telling people like me we don't think for ourselves, you should take a close look at yourself..because..quite simply...you do not believe in anything someone else didnt tell you...you believe everything that is in the bible, you have to, therefore you do not have original thoughts, you believe what someone else tells you to because it "Seems true" -Evo
  12. Obama Meter

    QUOTE (Bulldog_916 @ Mar 11 2009, 01:32 AM) QUOTE (Will_Evo @ Mar 10 2009, 11:33 AM) Not saying I like W Bush, but I recently saw a very interesting economy report that showed how we got into this mess and made it clear that this economic struggle is not just his fault. It actually started in Clinton's day and age, while he was president he allowed certain guidelines to be relieved or changed when it comes to the relationship between banks and insurance....apparently it continued under Bush, until you get what we have now. Anyways about Obama.. Id give him some shit because of his stimulus plan...if you truly look at it..he is full of shit. He wants to create jobs by investing in green technology, and no doubt it will create jobs...but equally the greener we go, the less we depend on fossil fuels..which will in turn cut jobs. He also wants to dump billions of dollars into an economy that needs trillions. The money just isn't there..everyone is scared of what is going to happen in the next couple years, and are trying to remedy the problem to no avail. I don't like what hes done so far with the economy. On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all. -Evo How do you figure going green will cut jobs? Someone is going to have to maintain wind turbines. Someone is going to have to drill for natural gas. Someone will have to keep the solar power plants running at peak efficiency. Someone will have to maintain the new grid systems that spring up. Someone will have to build and maintain new bullet trains. Commercialism will always make competition. Therefore someone will always be in need of being number 1, which drives research and development. R & D drives people to get newer better equipment, which someone has to install and maintain. I dont think you will necessarily be getting rid of any jobs by going green so much as transferring them from a less environmentally sound occupation to a more environmentally sound occupation. It's crazy to expect us to go backwards from mechanization back to factory workers when it comes to car assembly. Just like it will be crazy for us to go back to fossil fuels from green fuels once we get there. Question is, how fast are we going to get there? I think you misunderstood my point. No doubt going green is going to create jobs, I am not saying it isn't. But according to Obama, going green is going to drastically help in the unemployment rate of the nation, where as if you really look at it, there will be a marginal gain in the beginning, then as we rely more and more on greener power, you will see the employment rates in Power/fuel job market even back out due to the loss of jobs in the conventional fossil fuel/ regular power plants. he is essentially relocating jobs, not creating them. -Evo
  13. Religulous

    The best part about religions, is their existence almost always rises in the wake of a new empire. Religion, in a sense was necessary way back when, how else could you justify right and wrong? Religion played in the favor of almost every new and upcoming empire. Some religions even went so far as to create a personification of war as a religious deed. If I was an early Emperor of Rome, I would have used religion as a base for creating one of the worlds largest army's too. On topic, I have seen neither movie, but have heard about them...as soon as I get back to the states, I will watch em. -Evo
  14. Obama Meter

    QUOTE (judgeposer @ Mar 10 2009, 02:34 PM) QUOTE (Will_Evo @ Mar 10 2009, 04:55 PM) No offense...but by limiting the researchers to 21 cell lines, and limiting funding to only those lines, he effectively ceased the research all together. Yes you are right, a ban in the way you interpreted was not instated, but the limit for 21 out of hundreds of stem cell lines, slowed the research to a hundredth of what it could have been. -Evo No offense taken. I think you're overstating the effect of Bush's Executive Order since private research using embryonic stem cells continued unabated between then and now. The pertinent distinction here is whether the government would a specific type of research, namely the sort that destroyed the embryos from which the stem cells were obtained. In addition, I believe you're creating a false dichotomy that pits the sort of research Bush's Executive Order denied funding to against research in the area generally. The federal government's ban on embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos lasted from June 2007 to now, less than a year later. Moreover, in September 2007 scientists researching stem cell use created induced pluripotent stem cells, which they could induce to replicate the properties of an embryonic stem cell. That is to say, without resorting to using embryonic stem cells (which hadn't been banned outright), these scientists could induce non-embryonic stem cells to become any other sort of cell, thereby maximizing the potential for future scientific research having to do with future stem cell research. So, from June 2007, the date of Bush's Exec. Order, to September 2007, we saw scientists develop a way to produce the sort of research potential critics of Bush's Order sought to accomplish using government funded embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't seem then that Bush's Executive Order produced the sort of stalled research or scientific paralysis its critics thought it would. We now have a way to produce effective stem cells without resorting to destroying human embryos. So, I'm not sure you've characterized the situation rightly to say that scientific research was stalled or slowed given the breaktrhough we witnessed within three months of Bush's Exec. Order coupled with the freedom of the private sector to conduct freely its own research using embryonic stem cells during that time. Ok, yea I completely understand the point brought up here. The research was not stopped all together...but the problem, even with a "fake" stem cell that is capable of becoming another, is applying it to modern medicine. The stem cell lines Bush had restricted federal funding to, were all but helpful in the fact that they only represented a few out of the hundred of "Types"(In quote because they are not necessarily types of cells, rather different strands, or bases) of stem cells avaliable. Without these other hundreds of lines of cells, scientists were very limited in that they could not research in its entireity the nature of a "Grown" liver cell and its relationship to a liver, and the differences, due to the lack of saids "grown" liver cells in the different lines that exist. Its like this, if someone told you to put together a 200 piece puzzle with only 50 pieces, not only would you be drastically slower to piece those 50 pieces in their correct positions than you would have been with 200 pieces, you would not be able to continue without the missing pieces. See what I mean? yes the research continued and may have made advances, but without the ability to compare and cross reference off other cell lines, they were forced to make marginal advances in applying this science. -Evo
  15. Obama Meter

    QUOTE (judgeposer @ Mar 10 2009, 02:22 PM) QUOTE (Will_Evo @ Mar 10 2009, 03:33 PM) [...] Anyways about Obama.. [...] On a good note, at least he raised the ban on stem cell research. I am a big advocate of stem cell research...there are countless possibilities in this research. Can't wait to see what becomes of it all. -Evo To be sure, there was never a ban on stem cell research. That means that government and private sector funded research of human stem cells has continued unabated. The debate and Obama's recent Executive Order focuses on the status of embryonic stem cell research, but specifically the means scientists can pursue in their research. Still yet, however, there existed no ban on government-funded embryonic stem cell research. President Bush's Executive Order on the matter specified that research using embryonic stem cells could continue once those cells "are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus." More simply, President Bush's restriction in the area of stem cell research concerned only government-funded research and had to do with embryonic stem cells, but specifically whether scientists could, in their research, destroy human embryos, which they used to produce the cells, but no longer needed once the cells were produced. That leaves President Obama's Executive Order concerning government-funded stem cell research room for one alteration: President Bush's only limitation that government funded research not destroy human embryos in the process. This was Bush's only limitation on research, thus the only area open to Obama for change. Keep in mind, for the regime of the Bush Executive Order, the private sector could have (and did) conduct the sort of research Bush said the government wouldn't fund. Those groups simply didn't receive government funding. No offense...but by limiting the researchers to 21 cell lines, and limiting funding to only those lines, he effectively ceased the research all together. Yes you are right, a ban in the way you interpreted was not instated, but the limit for 21 out of hundreds of stem cell lines, slowed the research to a hundredth of what it could have been. -Evo