Warp wrote:
>   The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> There was no other point.

Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are trying 
to get others to act in self-destructive ways.

> single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> considered contradictory.
>   Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.

Check this out for why it makes sense to doubt that:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/cake.shtml

>   Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defending
> anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
> nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.

I don't know. A bad review of a bad entertainment is useful of itself. 
Might save you $20. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message