:s/$/4

Gah! I am a failure, no wonder no one likes me.

No, Prisoner $ is not a number, he is a free man.

Freedom African American.

Okay, My eyes are opened, I see no link to support you assertion.

There is the manual by pop/dance music pranksters the KLF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual). Which, of course, they put out after releasing the song "Doctorin' the TARDIS" under the name The Timelords.

It looks like Abraham Lincoln?

1) Cut off Sony rooted hand.
2) Replace with chainsaw.
3) ????
4) Kill demons.

Well, yes, in Soviet Russia GIMP controls you with foot peddles. But here, in God's 'Merica it is the other way around.

The price seems, how do I say this politely... a bit steep. You could pick up a second hand MIDI foot controller and something like Bome's MIDI translator, midiStroke or bash something together in the programing language of your choosing. And I know at the very least the GIMP supports MIDI input devices, I wouldn't be surprised it there are other programs that do not as well.

I am really good at getting out of going to meetings "I can't or I will get overtime."

An atheist wouldn't have to define what god is, and religions and religious people most definitely define what their god/gods are. I am not saying that there is proof for their not being a god, I am saying that the proof doesn't point to a god. I feel there is a clear distinction in the two. For you to not believe in unicorns doesn't require you to have proof for their nonexistence, it requires proof for their existence. One wouldn't believe one way or another if what a unicorn is wasn't already defined, it would be a non-issue because without a definition the ideology is nonexistant. Or, rather, by default an ideology has a definition because the definition creates the ideology. In a logical argument the burden of proof lies on the holder of the belief. I am not making a claim that there is no god, I am stating the fact that the evidence that I see doesn't point to a god.

Noah Everett will think of the children! Our hero has finally arrived! Rejoice!

Specifically the lizard people. It is true, i saw this guy talk about it. They are from the constellation Draco. It is real. I promise. Also: sarcasm - because you never know when someone saying something like that is serious.

Hey, baby, want to make virological history?

Eww, wait... no, that came out wrong. GAH! No, it didn't come out wrong like that... Someone isn't getting laid tonight. Sheesh, I am terrible at pick-up lines.

Yes, actually, the burden of proof in the scientific process is on the person making the claim. The scientific process is, by its very nature, a skeptical one - it isn't "I want to believe" it is "I am willing to believe." They may seem, initially, to be similar statements, but there are undertones to each that are dramatically different. When you say "I want to believe" you are starting out from an initial position of belief in a claim regardless of supporting or refuting evidence; conversely, "I am willing to believe" should imply that certain conditions must be met in order for the claim to have merit. So to make a scientific claim one must also provide evidence that supports the claim, show how the evidence supports the claim AND show how the evidence DOESN'T support an alternative claim. Science doesn't conclusively prove things to be true, it proves things to be conclusively false. When you start from a position of "I want to believe" you start at the conclusion and work your evidence to support your claim. In fact, your open mindedness is inversely proportional to your want for believing. If you start from a conclusion and work your way backwards to a claim you must be willing to reject any evidence to the contrary of your conclusion. You have already implicitly stated that you are unwilling to accept explanations that refute your claim.

So, yes, the burden of proof is, in fact, on you as the claimant, but not only must you provide evidence to support your claim and demonstrate how that evidence supports your claim, you must also demonstrate how that evidence isn't the cause of some other phenomena.

And if you would like to maintain your courtroom analogy, then we can do this scientifically, anecdotal evidence carries little to no weight in the scientific process. Your stories will not pass muster, nor will unreliable source material. And I am sorry, but without those you do not do not have much of a case. Maybe you should have carried this out in a courtroom.