Azonic

Actually, quite a good upbringing yeah! Discipline was awesome when I grew up, and today in my own household everything is great.

http://i.qkme.me/3pyk8h.jpg

Not an awesome childhood, but introducing those three items with a bit of discipline probably kept you out of jail as an adult.

Government se moer. If a kid is old enough to answer yes or no when you ask them if they want a juicebox, they are old enough to start learning right from wrong. If after much guidance at that point as to what's right and wrong, and they still step over the line, there will be glowing backsides.

+1 http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m74iz90Tde1rpga6zo1_500.jpg

No dude, you can't say that!!! They were completely innocent, its all the adults fault!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e1_1346783478 This 8-9 year old girl knew right from wrong, and reacted correctly. When the 20 year old brought out the booze the 12 and 14 year olds should have marched out the door, but they didn't. If my 10 month old daughter can push her milk bottle away when she doesn't want more, the nearly teenager and teenager could surely have done the same.

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/memes-pimp-my-grammar-nazi.jpg

Dude, call it then whatever you want to. Poppie, girl, whatever. Arguement stands.

I think you give kids these days too much credit. It isn't Lego and Barbies these days buddy.

A whole bunch of valid questions below the article. What was a 12 and a 14 year old doing at a 20 year old dude's place? What kind of parenting did they receive for them to just down booze? Did he strap it down and funnel it down their throats? Doubt it. The whole story sounds a little bit like two ("kommin") poppies who tried to be "a bietjie groot vir hulle skoene", and it backfired on them. Why did she show the video to friends at school? To look for symphathy for the terrible act, or to show off? The guy was in the wrong, obviously, but don't think the poppies were innocent angels either...

Brilliant read. The guy is clearly a psycho. Got caught up in his own lies. He should be a rapper, if you go by how quickly he can come up with ****.

Compared to him, Ethiopians look well fed.

Why is everyone saying Wiggins's chic is dik? She's built just fine.

Steve Peat?

Could be stand any more like a p0rnstar? And only grabbing his chics ass, jinne.

Exactly. There are many questions, most of which I'm too tired to go into again. There are many questions within the one question which is "does it give him an advantage". 1) Does it give him an advantage over able bodies people, whether he ends up wining or losing 2) Does the blades make him as a human faster than what he would have been had he had "real" legs. I feel YES in both points. His "legspeed" was a good 10% slower than the guy that won the other night. If you don't have that fast twitch muscles, you don't. Sad but true. But as mentioned, I'm not going to try push that point of view any more.

Ask on their Facebook page.

Beslis, klaar.

http://filesmelt.com/dl/facepalm1.jpg

Good reply. Seems facts and research can't trump touch/feely emotions either. Wow.

Here I go again. Every time I don't have a response? Bwahahaha. I have a pretty decent response every time, and unfortunatelly every time its to try and knock the cup of hot choc out of your hand but you seem to cling pretty tightly to it. ...and pretty consistent yourself, you every time you don't have a reply you can't reply without throwing "childish" somewhere in there. Childish, isn't it? Seems you have your own page on Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (...as in "give the guy a break", such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Not at all. He should compete. Most def. Against other disabled athletes. Not abled ones. And the scientific tests were done. 1) He was "banned". 2) He hired his own scientists to overturn the ban 3) Ban overturned 4) After time his own scientists start singing a different tune.

O Gawd, there is no name for people like you. Please do me a favour. If you don't have anything logical to say, don't. Cause as much as I know I shouldn't reply to you I always end up replying, but trust me, you will be wasting your own time next time.

Again, and as always you are taking a dump right next to the toilet. Thanks for highlighting what I said though ("do you or do you not believe that his carbon legs give him an unfair advantage"). That, mate, is the debate I was and am after. I don't care to hear people arguments about giving him a break, letting him have the benefit of the doubt and other touchy/feely bullsh1t. Some people, and it seems you included, are incapable of taking a logical stance on the topic and prefer to muddy the water with emotional mumbo-jumbo. Um, possibly because they keep answering and hammering a question I never asked.