'We will be able to live to 1,000'

[Behshad]

No more PeePeeBarfait. As of now he is PedoBarf !

[RocknRoll]

WOW!! Just thinking about the implications of living to 1000; which are incredible. I always thought the max was 130.

How long should you work? What about entitlement programs such as social security? I could even invision a government conspiracy in this one. (Too many conspiracy novels ) Not that our gov't would ever do that.

I know I can't afford to live that long. Jeez, I better get a job. Of course, since I'm still smoking probably not an issue. SIGH!

On the positive side, maybe the music we love we live another 900 years. Did you read this Neal? OK! I can live with that.

[Behshad]

Can you imagine being around and watch your greagreatgreargreat grandchildren graduate ?!
If anything like this would be poosible then we will overpopulate the earth in matter of couple of hundred years.


Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

[Rick]

Can you imagine being around and watch your greagreatgreargreat grandchildren graduate ?!
If anything like this would be poosible then we will overpopulate the earth in matter of couple of hundred years.


Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

[Everett]

Can you imagine being around and watch your greagreatgreargreat grandchildren graduate ?!
If anything like this would be poosible then we will overpopulate the earth in matter of couple of hundred years.


Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

Andrew would be a hologram by then

[Behshad]

Can you imagine being around and watch your greagreatgreargreat grandchildren graduate ?!
If anything like this would be poosible then we will overpopulate the earth in matter of couple of hundred years.


Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

Andrew would be a hologram by then

And TNB still living at home with his mom and not being able to pay the $2250 for the MRF VIP package.

[squirt1]

I see 115 in your lifetime, but most of these predictions are to secure more funding in order to keep their jobs.

[parfait]

Can you imagine being around and watch your greagreatgreargreat grandchildren graduate ?!
If anything like this would be poosible then we will overpopulate the earth in matter of couple of hundred years.


Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

We wouldn't overpopulate. Simple math states that population growth will always grow when number of kids born is more than people that has passed away. The biggest population growth comes from the under developed countries, where a family needs to pop out more babies to succeed their survival. Thus distress = higher population growth. If everyone was immortal, there would be no distress, thus that would equate to LESS population growth.

Another point is that, let's say 10 % could afford the gene therapy and get "immortal", then that 10 % would decline in growth to the point of >0|

The growth rate has gone down from 2,09 % (1970) to 1,5 (1995) and it's currently declining.

Here's a study done by SENS, which concludes with:

A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly small and slow in their response to dramatic life extension. Even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of overpopulation, but rather on such potential obstacles to a successful biomedical war on aging, such as scientific, organizational and financial limitations.

http://longevity-science.org/present.html

Since I know you're not very smart, I've even got a video to explain it to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM&feature=player_embedded

It's basically just really, really simple math.

[Behshad]

Listen PedoBarf

Your stats are based on our current average life expectency.

And the 10% people "affording " it is something you grabbed out of your ass. If you could use a simple math that you wanna brav about , 500 years ago you didn't see many if any person lived to be 90+. Now with our modern technology and medicine it's quite possible and affordable for more than just 10% of the population making it past 90.
Even if your 10% was correct , which it's not, in addition to normal growth of our population , you'd see a 10% extra addition every 100 years of those who shouldve actually died in their 90s but keep living few hundred years longer.
If you use a simple calculator which is by far smarter than you'll ever be , you'd realize that in about 1000 years from now , you'd have about 12-15 billion people on this planet = overpopulated.
However by then in sure the technology has allowed us to explore other planets and our current living standards will look somewhat basic and primal to those in the future.

One thing is for sure kid. With your attitude , I find it hard to believe that you'd make it past 50. . Then again , I'm sure daddy's bank account will secure your health and beauty as it has the past 20 years , princess

[parfait]

Listen PedoBarf

Your stats are based on our current average life expectency.

And the 10% people "affording " it is something you grabbed out of your ass. If you could use a simple math that you wanna brav about , 500 years ago you didn't see many if any person lived to be 90+. Now with our modern technology and medicine it's quite possible and affordable for more than just 10% of the population making it past 90.
Even if your 10% was correct , which it's not, in addition to normal growth of our population , you'd see a 10% extra addition every 100 years of those who shouldve actually died in their 90s but keep living few hundred years longer.
If you use a simple calculator which is by far smarter than you'll ever be , you'd realize that in about 1000 years from now , you'd have about 12-15 billion people on this planet = overpopulated.
However by then in sure the technology has allowed us to explore other planets and our current living standards will look somewhat basic and primal to those in the future.

One thing is for sure kid. With your attitude , I find it hard to believe that you'd make it past 50. . Then again , I'm sure daddy's bank account will secure your health and beauty as it has the past 20 years , princess

That's the dumbest thing I've ever, ever seen written anywhere (and I've read the bible)

Dude, you're seriously not agreeing with the THE FACTS?!

Don't you get it; math on this level is NOT debatable - it's factual and empirical. That's the whole point of math, to prove something with an exact science. This isn't something you can't agree with. Jesus. I'm going to take this step by step, so hopefully you'll understand it:

- First of all; you've clearly not read the studies that I JUST POSTED. If you would have, you would have seen that 10 % is the same percent the scientists used.

Negligible senescence for a part of population (10%). What if only a small fraction of the population accepts anti-aging interventions. The population declines

- Gene therapy of this nature is extremely time consuming and expensive, and not something "modern medicine" can do at this point. No way. That's the whole point of de Grey's 7 point plan. Jesus dude, have you even read my former posts? Obviously not.

- The population is at this moment decreasing. When you factor out immigration, industrialized countries are actually seeing population declines rather than increases. Source: "Biodemography of Exceptional Longevity"
Leonid Gavrilov and Natalia Gavrilova

And here's the conclusion to the MATHEMATICAL study:

A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly small and slow in their response to dramatic life extension. Even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of overpopulation, but rather on such potential obstacles to a successful biomedical war on aging, such as scientific, organizational and financial limitations.

And to top of all of, here's another fun fact:

Many developed countries (like the studied Sweden) face dramatic decline in native-born population in the future and also risk losing their cultural identity due to massive immigration. Therefore, extension of healthy lifespan in these countries may in fact prevent, rather than create a demographic catastrophe.

Now, B. How does it feel to get absolutely fucked? You have no argument because you obviously have no grasp at all on how science works, or even how to read through a post until you reply with a bunch of commas (,,,,,,,,,). The difference between you and me, besides I being a person with a brain, is the fact that you pull this stuff out of your ass, never showing any sources or studies at all. How can anyone take yous seriously when you have the argumentative skills of a hairy mole?

When you starts to drag my dad into this, well, then you just lose altogether. Just... Just stop, B. Seriously. You're the Emperor of retardness, and you sit on your throne made of plastic, pressing the comma button and browsing through Google for pictures (cause I'll give you that; you're good at finding pictures), but as a grown human being? Dude. No way. No way

NB: Do not respond to this until you've read the studies and sources I've posted. If those are not adequate, I got a shitload more. Close to 40 actually. There really is no reason though, as this is not debatable, not at the level you want to debate. Go and pick your nose or something instead. At least you'll have someone to talk to.

[DrFU]

Coolest thing that none of you thought of would be when Neal & Perry finally reunite in 2073 for their 100th year anniversary and Andrew inviting them to MRF XXV !!!

Just think of the Cain nostalgia lyrics ...

[Behshad]

Just bunch of blabber from you as usual again, with so called FACTS from the future. Yeah youre the genius alright. NONE of what you bring is considered as FACTS, its all hypothetical.

LOSING native born population doesnt mean that the population itself is decreasing you moron. Take your example , Sweden,,,,, a country which had about 7.8 million people about 20 years ago.But now at 9.5 million, with that calculator of yours, you should realize thats still and INCREASE.
While immigration has affected the NATIVES vs FOREIGNS ratio drastically, the POPOLATION ITSELF HAS INCREASED. But a moron like you wouldnt understand this. An average family of Swedish people used to consist of 4 people, 25 years ago. But 25 years later its very common to see families with 4-5 kids.


A simple way to explain it to you is, look at USA. Although immigration from Europe and eventually the rest of the world the last 500 years, showed a decline in the ratio of Native Americans living in US, it didnt DECREASE the TOTAL population of the country.
------------------

Essential Concepts
There are 5 main concepts that our students struggle with when learning about population growth and the relationship of population to geological resource use:
1.overpopulation is a leading environmental problem,
2.exponential population growth and development leads to faster depletion of resources,
3.population grows exponentially,
4.why population prediction is difficult,
5.population is not evenly distributed throughout the world.





The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2009, is estimated at 6,790,062,216.

The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.


World Population Growth
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion



and


Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[3] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate (somewhat inconsistently) as 1.986%, 0.837%, and 1.13% respectively[4] The last one hundred years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[5] made possible by the Green Revolution.[6][7][8]



Game.Set.Match.

[Behshad]

There's more PedoFait...

World at midpoint in population growth

Bongaarts points out in the October 16, 1998 issue of Science that contraceptive use in the developing world, once rare, is now widespread: the average number of births per woman has fallen by half from the traditional six or more to near three today. This "revolution in reproductive behavior," says Bongaarts, has led some to speculate that "the world population explosion is over." But instead of being near the end of the "explosion" with today's population of 5.9 billion, Bongaarts comments, "we are just past its midpoint. After a record-breaking increase of 2 billion people over the past 25 years, the same increase is projected over the next 25 years, and a further expansion to 10.4 billion is expected by 2100."

Large increases in population growth are expected in Africa, Asia, and Latin America for three reasons, Bongaarts says. First, fertility is still about 50 percent above the two-child level needed to bring about population stabilization. With more than two surviving children per woman, every generation is larger than the preceding one.

Second, declines in mortality historically the main cause of population growth will almost certainly continue. Higher standards of living, better nutrition, expanded health services, and greater investments in public health measures have increased life expectancy by 50 percent since 1950. The unhappy exceptions will be life expectancy declines in most of those sub-Saharan African countries with severe AIDS epidemics. Third, the historically largest generation of women about to enter the childbearing years will produce more than enough births to maintain population growth for decades even if they each have only two children population momentum.

Even tho there may be a minor decline of population in some regions and countries , the OVERALL population of earth is GROWING and it will INCREASE .

May 5 2010
The rate of national growth is expressed as a percentage for each country, commonly between about 0.1% and 3% annually. You'll find two percentages associated with population - natural growth and overall growth. Natural growth represents the births and deaths in a country's population and does not take into account migration. The overall growth rate takes migration into account.
For example, Canada's natural growth rate is 0.3% while its overall growth rate is 0.9%, due to Canada's open immigration policies. In the U.S., the natural growth rate is 0.6% and overall growth is 0.9%. The growth rate of a country provides demographers and geographers with a good contemporary variable for current growth and for comparison between countries or regions. For most purposes, the overall growth rate is the more frequently utilized.

The growth rate can be used to determine a country or region or even the planet's "doubling time," which tells us how long it will take for a country's current population to double. This length of time is determined by dividing the growth rate into 70. The number 70 comes from the natural log of 2, which is .70.

Given Canada's overall growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, we divide 70 by .9 (from the 0.9%) and yield a value of 77.7 years. Thus, in 2083, if the current rate of growth remains constant, Canada's population will double from its current 33 million to 66 million.

However, if we look at the U.S. Census Bureau's International Data Base Summary Demographic Data for Canada, we see that Canada's overall growth rate is expected to decline to 0.6% by 2025. With a growth rate of 0.6% in 2025, Canada's population would take about 117 years to double (70 / 0.6 = 116.666).

The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.

Most European countries have low growth rates. In the United Kingdom, the rate is 0.2%, in Germany it's 0.0%, and in France, 0.4%. Germany's zero rate of growth includes a natural increase of -0.2%, without immigration, Germany would be shrinking, like the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic and some other European countries' growth rate is actually negative (on average, women in the Czech Republic give birth to 1.2 children, which is below the number to yield zero population growth, approximately 2.1 children). The Czech Republic's natural growth rate of -0.1 can not be used to determine doubling time because the population is actually shrinking in size.

Many Asian and African countries have high growth rates. Afghanistan has a current growth rate of 4.8%, representing a doubling time of 14.5 years! If Afghanistan's growth rate remained the same (which is very unlikely and the country's projected growth rate for 2025 is a mere 2.3%), then the population of 30 million would become 60 million in 2020, 120 million in 2035, 280 million in 2049, 560 million in 2064, and 1.12 billion in 2078! This is a ridiculous expectation. As you can see, population growth percentages is better utilized for short term projections.

Increased population growth generally represents problems for a country - it means increased need for food, infrastructure, and services. These are expenses that most high-growth countries have little ability to provide today, let alone if population rises dramatically.

I suggest you ask daddy to send you some more money so you can buy some more education as it seems what youve paid for so far was a waste of daddys money, princess.

[Behshad]

Human Population Growth

The Rate of Natural Increase (r)
Birth rate (b) − death rate (d) = rate of natural increase (r).
•birth rate expressed as number of births per 1000 per year (currently 14 in the U.S.);
•death rate expressed as the number of deaths per 1000 per year (currently 8 in the U.S.);
•So the rate of natural increase is 6 per thousand (0.006 or 0.6%).
Although the value of r is affected by both birth rate and death rate, the recent history of the human population has been affected more by declines in death rates than by increases in birth rates.



The graph shows birth and death rates in Mexico since 1930. The introduction of public health measures, such as

•better nutrition
•greater access to medical care
•improved sanitation
•more widespread immunization
has produced a rapid decline in death rates, but until recently there was no corresponding decline in birth rates. In 2007, r is 1.7%. (Data from the Population Reference Bureau.)
Although death rates declined in all age groups, the reduction among infants and children had — and will continue to have — the greatest impact on population growth. This is because they will soon be having children of their own.

This situation, resulting in a rapid rate of population growth, is characteristic of many of the poorer regions of the world.

The Demographic Transition

Slowly declining birth rates following an earlier sharp decline in death rates are today characteristic of most of the less-developed regions of the world.

The shift from high birth and death rates to low birth as well as death rates is called the demographic transition.

This graph (based on data from the Population Reference Bureau) shows that the demographic transition began much earlier in Sweden than in Mexico and was, in fact, completed by the end of the nineteenth century. The spike in deaths in the interval between 1901 and 1926 was caused by the worldwide influenza pandemic of 1918–1919.



The birth rate in Sweden is now (2007) 12/1000; the death rate 10/1000, giving a rate of natural increase (r) of 0.2%.

The Story of Sri Lanka

Prior to World War II, advances in public health has been largely limited to affluent, industrialized countries. But since then, improvements in public health have been made in many of the poorer countries of the world — always with dramatic effect on death rates.
•In 1945, the death rate in Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) was 22/1000.
•In 1946, a large-scale program of mosquito control — using DDT — was started.
•By eliminating its vector, the incidence of malaria dropped sharply.
•After 9 years, the death rate dropped to 10/1000, and by 2006 was 6.
•But a compensating decline in birth rates has come more slowly (19/1000 in 2006).
•So by 2006 the population was increasing at an annual rate of 1.3% (13/1000/year).
•At this rate the population would double in 53 years.







Let's see why.


Exponential Growth


The prediction that Sri Lanka will double its population in 53 years is based on:
•the assumption that r will remain unchanged (which is surely false)
•the mathematics of exponential growth.
The product of growth grows itself. So the growth of populations is a problem in "compound interest". At the end of each year (or whatever period you choose to use), the base against which the rate is applied has grown. Whatever figures you pick, as long as r is positive, a plot of population as time elapses will produce an exponential growth curve like this one.

The rate of population growth at any instant is given by the equation


dN = rN
dt
where
•r is the rate of natural increase in
•t — some stated interval of time, and
•N is the number of individuals in the population at a given instant.
The algebraic solution of this differential equation is N = N0ert where
•N0 is the starting population
•N is the population after
•a certain time, t, has elapsed, and
•e is the constant 2.71828... (the base of natural logarithms).
Plotting the results gives this exponential growth curve, so-called because it reflects the growth of a number raised to an exponent (rt).
Doubling Times
When a population has doubled, N = N0 x 2.

Putting this in our exponential growth equation, 2N0 = N0ert
ert = 2
rt = ln (natural logarithm) of 2 = 0.69
doubling time, t = 0.69 / r
So Sri Lanka with an r of 1.3% (0.013) has a doubling time
t = 0.69/0.013 = 53.




(You can use the same equation to calculate how quickly an investment in, for example, a certificate of deposit will enable you to double your money.)
The Population of the World
The solid line in this graph shows estimates of the size of the world's population over the last two millennia. The estimates from 1800 to 1991 are based on more accurate data than those before.
The dotted line shows what would happen if exponential growth continued to the year 2100.

As you can see, the world's population has been growing exponentially (except during the years of the black death). How long will it continue to do so? (Since the graph was drawn, the world's population has reached 6.5 billion; that is, in 2007 we are still on course.) But can it continue indefinitely? Surely not.
Predicting Future Population Size
With a 2007 rate of natural increase in Mexico of 1.7%, its population would be expected to double in ~40 years (0.69/0.017 = 40.6) from its 106.5 million people now to some 213 million in 2047. Will it?

No one knows for certain. What actually happens to population growth depends on a number of factors. Some of these can be estimated with some confidence, some cannot.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So even without the anti-aging plan , the total population of the world will continue to grow, unless a huge nuclear war breaks out and slows it down somewhat.

[parfait]

Hello mister Copy and Paste

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Your own "evidence" (wikipedia) even proves what I said earlier: THE POPULATION GROWTH IS DECREASING.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

In 1995 the growth was 1,5 % and now it's 1,1 %.

Jesus, dude. Seriously?

[Behshad]

Hello mister Copy and Paste

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Your own "evidence" (wikipedia) even proves what I said earlier: THE POPULATION GROWTH IS DECREASING.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

In 1995 the growth was 1,5 % and now it's 1,1 %.

Jesus, dude. Seriously?

The growth RATE goes up and down, but the POPULATION is still growing. Nice try, moron! Did your English let you down once more ?
THE POPULATION IS STILL GROWING. Sometimes at slower rate, sometimes at faster rate. But its always growing, which proves my original point that the earth will be overpopulated.

[parfait]

Hello mister Copy and Paste

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Your own "evidence" (wikipedia) even proves what I said earlier: THE POPULATION GROWTH IS DECREASING.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

In 1995 the growth was 1,5 % and now it's 1,1 %.

Jesus, dude. Seriously?

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/posting.php?mode=quote&p=4476929

The growth RATE goes up and down, but the POPULATION is still growing. Nice try, moron!

You try with the best of your ability to disapprove something that's not even that relevant to the discussion, and you can't even manage that. What about the rest of my points? The rest of the math? The rest of everything?

The fact is that you're too stupid to wrap your minds around how things work. I've given you so many chances to understand it, with all the sources and studies I've told you to read, but you haven't. I guess it's no use with you.

You've tried to disapprove what's already proven, dude, and you're not even a scientist. I think you don't even have any valid degree in anything, besides maybe something you bought of the internet. And when you know you've lost, you keep on going with the same crap, just you bring in my family.

Congratulations, B. There's just no use with you.

[Behshad]

Hello mister Copy and Paste

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Your own "evidence" (wikipedia) even proves what I said earlier: THE POPULATION GROWTH IS DECREASING.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

In 1995 the growth was 1,5 % and now it's 1,1 %.

Jesus, dude. Seriously?

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/posting.php?mode=quote&p=4476929

The growth RATE goes up and down, but the POPULATION is still growing. Nice try, moron!

You try with the best of your ability to disapprove something that's not even that relevant to the discussion, and you can't even manage that. What about the rest of my points? The rest of the math? The rest of everything?

You've tried to disapprove what's already proven, dude, and you're not even a scientist. I think you don't even have any valid degree in anything, besides maybe something you bought of the internet. And when you know you've lost, you keep on going with the same crap, just you bring in my family.

Congratulations, B.

Im not diapporving whats proven. Im just explaining the stuff you posted ... to you. There is a huge difference between THEORIES and FACTS...

My entire point was that the earth will get overpopulated some day and you decide to argue with that FACT! You have no points . Your math totally sucked cause you didnt even pay attention to what you were quoting. You simply need to study some more and then come back in say 20 years,which by then I will sitll be 20 years ahead of you.

And I bring in your dad, cause I see it as his fault and responsibilty to raise such a spoiled princess with no manners at all, trying to talk big words that he doesnt understand. If your dad wouldve let you actually see the real world and WORK for a day to earn your own dime, you wouldve been a better person today

[parfait]

Hello mister Copy and Paste

Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Your own "evidence" (wikipedia) even proves what I said earlier: THE POPULATION GROWTH IS DECREASING.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009 the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

In 1995 the growth was 1,5 % and now it's 1,1 %.

Jesus, dude. Seriously?

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/posting.php?mode=quote&p=4476929

The growth RATE goes up and down, but the POPULATION is still growing. Nice try, moron!

You try with the best of your ability to disapprove something that's not even that relevant to the discussion, and you can't even manage that. What about the rest of my points? The rest of the math? The rest of everything?

You've tried to disapprove what's already proven, dude, and you're not even a scientist. I think you don't even have any valid degree in anything, besides maybe something you bought of the internet. And when you know you've lost, you keep on going with the same crap, just you bring in my family.

Congratulations, B.

Im not diapporving whats proven. Im just explaining the stuff you posted ... to you. There is a huge difference between THEORIES and FACTS...

My entire point was that the earth will get overpopulated some day and you decide to argue with that FACT! You have no points . Your math totally sucked cause you didnt even pay attention to what you were quoting. You simply need to study some more and then come back in say 20 years,which by then I will sitll be 20 years ahead of you.

And I bring in your dad, cause I see it as his fault and responsibilty to raise such a spoiled princess with no manners at all, trying to talk big words that he doesnt understand. If your dad wouldve let you actually see the real world and WORK for a day to earn your own dime, you wouldve been a better person today

Jesus God in heaven.

First of all, that I doesn't understand? Remind me of your education please

And if you want to make yourself look like the biggest ass in history, by saying that studies done by expert micro biologists and mathematicians is WRONG, then go ahead. This is not something that I made up - this is all pulled from the studies that I've, time and time again, asked you to read before you reply! The facts are there - you just want to avoid them (for whatever retarded reason) If you would have just read it for fucks sake.

Now, seriously, what have you done in life that makes you somewhat capable of calling out my fathers parenting? Tell me - I'd like to know.

On a sidenote: I would gladly, the next time I'm in the US (June), to come by and beat your skinny ass down.

[Behshad]

Jesus God in heaven.

First of all, that I doesn't understand? Remind me of your education please

You dont understand cause of this language barrier. You call cologne a perfume. And there are people who have a PHD but they have no REAL LIFE experience. FYI , not that I have to explain to you, I have a degree in computer science.

And if you want to make yourself look like the biggest ass in history, by saying that studies done by expert micro biologists and mathematicians is WRONG, then go ahead. This is not something that I made up - this is all pulled from the studies that I've, time and time again, asked you to read before you reply! The facts are there - you just want to avoid them (for whatever retarded reason) If you would have just read it for fucks sake.

I could never be the biggest ass in history as long as you're alive and I never said the studies were wrong. I explained those studies to YOU since you had no clue what you were copying&pasting

Now, seriously, what have you done in life that makes you somewhat capable of calling out my fathers parenting? Tell me - I'd like to know.

Very simple. I teach my kids about respect and manners. My 6 year old knows more about how to respect people older than him, more than you. Not your fault, since you were raised with butlers and maids around you.

On a sidenote: I would gladly, the next time I'm in the US (June), to come by and beat your skinny ass down.

See above about respect and manners You of course had to write in tiny fonts, because you know that your highschool threats are just plain childish behaviors, but I will take time and pleasure in giving you a nice asswhopping and eyeopening experience if youre ever around here

[parfait]

Jesus God in heaven.

First of all, that I doesn't understand? Remind me of your education please

You dont understand cause of this language barrier. You call cologne a perfume. And there are people who have a PHD but they have no REAL LIFE experience. FYI , not that I have to explain to you, I have a degree in computer science.

And if you want to make yourself look like the biggest ass in history, by saying that studies done by expert micro biologists and mathematicians is WRONG, then go ahead. This is not something that I made up - this is all pulled from the studies that I've, time and time again, asked you to read before you reply! The facts are there - you just want to avoid them (for whatever retarded reason) If you would have just read it for fucks sake.

I could never be the biggest ass in history as long as you're alive and I never said the studies were wrong. I explained those studies to YOU since you had no clue what you were copying&pasting

Now, seriously, what have you done in life that makes you somewhat capable of calling out my fathers parenting? Tell me - I'd like to know.

Very simple. I teach my kids about respect and manners. My 6 year old knows more about how to respect people older than him, more than you. Not your fault, since you were raised with butlers and maids around you.

On a sidenote: I would gladly, the next time I'm in the US (June), to come by and beat your skinny ass down.

See above about respect and manners You of course had to write in tiny fonts, because you know that your highschool threats are just plain childish behaviors, but I will take time and pleasure in giving you a nice asswhopping and eyeopening experience if youre ever around here

No, you ass. You said the studies were wrong. The studies said that there would be no overpopulation if one could live to be a [1000->}, and you so strongly said otherwise, so stop with the bullshit. You're obviously a liar since you can't have read the studies and still say that - no way.

Stop talking about me like you know me. You know nothing on how I grew up.

And mentioning you and respect in the same sentence is the biggest oxymoron ever. You throw around insults to everyone, TNB, Blueskies; you name it. You have called my mother a whore, how's that for respect? And you want to talk to me about respect? I respect people that actually made some of them self in life, those that have a purpose, that have values. From what I can tell, you have no apparent values or a purpose - so no, I don't respect you. There's no need for me to do so. I respect Lorrie, Matt, Gunbot, Andrew, MG - but you; I'd rather dip my head in a 4 year old vaginal ulcer.

[Behshad]

No, you ass. You said the studies were wrong. The studies said that there would be no overpopulation if one could live to be a [1000->}, and you so strongly said otherwise, so stop with the bullshit. You're obviously a liar since you can't have read the studies and still say that - no way.

Studies are different than FACTS. Studies can PREDICT things. But they will remain THEORIES. The population of earth is growing on a daily basis. THAT IS A FACT, yet YOU argue with that!

Stop talking about me like you know me. You know nothing on how I grew up.

Sadly , I know enough and wish I didnt

And mentioning you and respect in the same sentence is the biggest oxymoron ever. You throw around insults to everyone, TNB, Blueskies; you name it. You have called my mother a whore, how's that for respect? And you want to talk to me about respect? I respect people that actually made some of them self in life, those that have a purpose, that have values. From what I can tell, you have no apparent values or a purpose - so no, I don't respect you. There's no need for me to do so. I respect Lorrie, Matt, Gunbot, Andrew, MG - but you; I'd rather dip my head in a 4 year old vaginal ulcer.

The board name calling and the minor insults here and there are merely for fun and I have no problems with any of the people you mentioned above, even Phyllis. Sure I joke around , but I also know that all these people have a level of intelligence way above YOURS.
Your problem is that you always come in here, knowing that most of us are twice your age with twice the life experience, you try to tell us what we do ,eat, say , think is all wrong cause YOU have studies to back that up.
Im sure you would dip your head in a 4 year old vaginal ulcer, since that's the current dating scene for you after all

As I said before, the day you have earned your first dollar (or franc), is the very first day you will start seeing a bit differently than the "studies" that are currently your only source of guidance.

peace

[S2M]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

[StevePerryHair]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

well you'll never live to be 1000 that way!!

[S2M]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

well you'll never live to be 1000 that way!!

Well, you could love to 1000 and never see another Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh.... Swiss Miss...

[StevePerryHair]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

well you'll never live to be 1000 that way!!

Well, you could love to 1000 and never see another Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh.... Swiss Miss...

oh, Pitt will see that cup again! Even if I only live to be half that

[Michigan Girl]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

lol ...I found it very entertaining!!!

What would we do for 1000 years?!? We would continue to reproduce for at
least 500 ... that's bound to increase the population!!

[Saint John]

At least Phyllis wouldn't feel so old.

[Everett]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

lol ...I found it very entertaining!!!

What would we do for 1000 years?!?

Wait for perry to release an album

[Saint John]

Ok...I wanted to slit my wrists, vertically, after reading this thread...lol!!!

lol ...I found it very entertaining!!!

What would we do for 1000 years?!?

Wait for perry to release an album

"I never felt like part of the millenium."