Lonesome Cowboy Bill

7 minute update: damn this sux... I've never heard so much empty rhetoric and the words 'freedom' and "democracy" used in a sentance... and of course, all the dumb clapping and standing ovations...

take my initial advice get your own place and if your lonely buy a cat...

if you sort for english only sites, 12oz ranks as #271...wow it now feels so insignifigant... moby ranks ahead...

I'm watching tonight, of course, we can discuss before and after if y'all like...I'm getting a six pack and heading to Dominoes Pizza first though...

Our country made the most progress developmentally, industrially, technologically etc back when drugs were legal...

I won't even make a sarcastic, caustic and racist joke this time... RIP its just too bad there no in the black community to continue the March, unless you think 50 cent, micheal jackson, or isaih thomas are the ones...

"The most recent version of the European code against cancer recommends keeping daily consumption to two drinks for men and one for women," Boffetta noted. lately I've been drinking only once a week...and if I read correctly, it says 14 drinks a week, so that averages it out for me...

I missed last week, but the week before with the ghost thing and the drama with the junkie guy stalkin the bitch with the baby...I hate that dude...he has caused so many problems...and everybody is so emotional, doesn't anybody ever think rationally? and what about the rest of the survivors? c-mon bring them into the mix...there like sheep...I dodn't think any of them have even been to the hatch yet? wtf, thers food and shit there too... but whatever, this show is going downhill quickly... but the sopranos is coming back... *edit, but yeah, its still the best show on regular tv (abc, cbs, nbc, fox)

^^^looks like it worked, thanks

I'm gonna have coffee market my site using his christian high hopes t-shirts that I will make the day laborers wear...

I think with the name High Hopes you should do ironic looking Christian themed graffiti shirts...perhaps with Bart Simpson dresed up as biblical characters...

please dont call it dotty, that offends me as a dorchester resident Quoted post [/b] then what do you call it then? dot or dotty is what we call it. ask anybody from there...unless of course you just joking, ha ha... .... and in regards to artsy black chicks, I love em. Theres one on my bowling team (yes a guess like 0.00000001% of blacks bowl), she owns a house and is a web site developer. I know she needs a crazy drunken white guy from Boston in her life. Shit, I probably speak better slang than her...(and have smoken more ya-yo too)

ok my idea..I'll get a f350 ford pickup and go to day laborer sites and pick up a bunch of guys to do a gang bang on local teenage runaways who hook near my apartment... it will be filmed on location in my living room... kinda a mix between mike's apartment, latina maids and bang bus

bill, the issue is that your work just plain sux... yeah this thread in particlar has too many zit faced high school kids who think tagging is all about rap music and acting like gang members and pretending like they tough, but everybody who writes out here isn't like that...but still the problem is your work sux and your a sucker for posting your own shit too. I never post any of my shit in any thread...I let other people do that...

so I'm thinking of starting a porn site... should it be online? and I want to make like a million dollars right now, yet put no thought or $$ investment into it... does anyone where know I can find cheap girls to be on my site too? thanks

yeah, unless I have a meeting, I typically wake up at 12 or 1pm... if I get up early then I nap from 5 to 8pm or so, then watch tv the rest of the night... if I'm bored then I take a nap during the day, usually from 3 to 5 or 6pm, then get up for the news and/or Law and Order reruns..

yeah Comcast on Demand is having a Sopranos countdown. First they had the 1st season, took it down before I watched it all; but they've had the 2nd and 3rd up for a minute now... but I want to see seasons 4 and 5... but from watching the trailer, I hypothesize than Ben Kingsley is either another "cousin" of Tony's out of jail (not likely) or Johnny Sacks gets popped and Ben takes over NYC and wants Tony out...Tony's guys look to jump ship, Chris defends him, but ends up wacking some NYC head, and hence is looking to get wacked. Janice is fucking another goomba and schemeing and lil Bing turns into a tunnel and rat emo fag in NYC... should be good... and will that spic who raped Lorraine Braco ever get wacked?

and you can sell them at dead shows for tickets!!!!

my advice would be to buy a bunch of boxes of fruit-of-the-loom t-shirts, in bulk, and then bring them to your local silk screener (there's usually a few in town for local companies, sports leagues and people like you)... yep, there's alot of up-front costs, you won't make much profit (or any) unless you sell alot, but then again, thats how small businesses work... most fail within 2 years too I hear...

2 questions: what's the matter with firefox? been mad slow lately,,,I've herad the Others complaining too, and if you use safari or whatever, what is the diffrences? when I watch that mytube or google video etc or music on amazon, the volume is so low...I have to turn it way up on my speakers, but my computer itself then is too loud...is there a setting to fix the sound on media files to match the regular computer volume?

looks like the son is gonna turn into a scumbag too...but I hate watching trailers..it gives away the good scenes...

I never bought anything on ebay...or even tried...

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy. In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate. [Latin] which translates to: Multiples should never be used if not necessary. or "Shave off" (omit) unnecessary entities in explanations. But the more commonly used translations are: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler, and The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms does indeed tend to indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (un-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferred. The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Occam's surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity". This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data. The difference is simply that it is possible for two different theories to explain the data equally well, but have no relation to one another. They share none of the same elements. Some would argue that in this case Occam's Razor does not suggest a preference. Rather Occam's Razor only comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power. Occam's Razor neatly cuts these additional theoretical elements away. Used in religion: In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn't seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn't exist. An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element which does not improve accuracy or precision. A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origion of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). However, such arguments do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model it must be kept (in some form). If the evolution model is kept then the God sub-model hasn't simplified the World model. The other possible justification for including the God sub-model would be that it improves accuracy or precision, i.e. it is a better fit for the data. An example of this would be the idea that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are *not* explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology. In examing this question the principle of Occam's Razor would dirrect us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models. While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not universally accepted among philosophers or scientists, possibly because the enourmous social and cultural implications make it an extremely emotional and contentious issue, or possibly because there is an philisophical flaw in the argument. The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned to demonstrate that creation was contingent and the Creator free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences. from wikipedia, I only pasted the intro and the section relating to religion, reda the whole here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

sure, the only thing mexicans smuggle in their shoes is meth and hairnets... did you know weed was originally made illegal as a way to stem mexican migration? now terrorism is being used to the same effect, and with probably with same results... 100's of thousands of years of human existence has shown that human migration can't be stopped.

and oh, people shouldn't just dismiss wikipedia. It IS NOT infallible...but if you good at research, and click the links to to keyword hyperlinked in the articles, you can more or lest find best availble knowledge...I see errors sometimes, but I also like how they present different viewpoints of issues too...