Hero1

Julie ripped that! :2thumbs:

tight battle..brakes just :word:

is he disqualified yet? :wiggle:

:rofl: :rofl: Just keeping things balanced :willvspaparazzi:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

can i get "hey ladies!"

http://www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com/multim...ith-podcast.htm episode 3 is now available.. there is no holding back on this one :word: :kekeke:

okay I'm gonna set things off with a little podcast outtake..trust me I got a lot more :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: heres the first gem.. What THE LERK

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/opinion/22thur1.html Intelligent Design Derailed Published: December 22, 2005 By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Not only were they voted off the school board by an exasperated public last November, but this week a federal district judge declared their handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity." A new and wiser school board is planning to do just that by removing intelligent design from the science curriculum and perhaps placing it in an elective course on comparative religion. That would be a more appropriate venue to learn about what the judge deemed "a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory." The intelligent design movement holds that life forms are too complex to have been formed by natural processes and must have been fashioned by a higher intelligence, which is never officially identified but which most adherents believe to be God. By injecting intelligent design into the science curriculum, the judge ruled, the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity." The decision will have come at an opportune time if it is able to deflect other misguided efforts by religious conservatives to undermine the teaching of evolution, a central organizing principle of modern biology. In Georgia, a federal appeals court shows signs of wanting to reverse a lower court that said it was unconstitutional to require textbooks to carry a sticker disparaging evolution as "a theory, not a fact." That's the line of argument used by the anti-evolution crowd. We can only hope that the judges in Atlanta find the reasoning of the Pennsylvania judge, who dealt with comparable issues, persuasive. Meanwhile in Kansas, the State Board of Education has urged schools to criticize evolution. It has also changed the definition of science so it is not limited to natural explanations, opening the way for including intelligent design or other forms of creationism that cannot meet traditional definitions of science. All Kansans interested in a sound science curriculum should heed what happened in Dover and vote out the inane board members. The judge in the Pennsylvania case, John Jones III, can hardly be accused of being a liberal activist out to overturn community values - even by those inclined to see conspiracies. He is a lifelong Republican, appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has been praised for his integrity and intellect. Indeed, as the judge pointed out, the real activists in this case were ill-informed school board members, aided by a public interest law firm that promotes Christian values, who combined to drive the board to adopt an imprudent and unconstitutional policy. Judge Jones's decision was a striking repudiation of intelligent design, given that Dover's policy was minimally intrusive on classroom teaching. Administrators merely read a brief disclaimer at the beginning of a class asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact; that there were gaps in the evidence for evolution; and that intelligent design provided an alternative explanation and could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory. The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no. The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that cannot be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design - the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems - has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have a designer. The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial. Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham. No one believes that this thoroughgoing repudiation of intelligent design will end the incessant warfare over evolution. But any community that is worried about the ability of its students to compete in a global economy would be wise to keep supernatural explanations out of its science classes.

up to 814..should pass 1000 in a few days

with the UTFO verse/ on if u cant dance.. if Will is taking an old school verse and making it his own..he does change the lyrics.. does that mean he still has to get it cleared or noted in the credits?

If you are gonna sell a lot of records..theres a lot of white people out there so I'm sure you'll be selling a fair percentage to them.. I don't see what the problem is.. :hmm:

I could dig up the article probably but I'm pretty sure it had to do with Will and Sony Crediting 2 members of the furious five for his use of their lyrics.. and the other 3 members didnt know why they didnt get their royalties so they sued for 3 million or something..this all happened nearly 6 years ago. okay this is what it says in the credits.. in the writing it has bobby robinson.. and then "Also contains an interpolation of "Super Rappin' 2"(B.Robinson), Published by Bobby Robinson/Sweet Soul Music/Sugar Hill Music Publishing heres what happened FURIOUS FIVE SUES WILL SMITH The Furious Five get furious on the Fresh Prince. The hip hop legends are looking to get paid for what they say is copyright infringement and unfair competition. The groups claims that Will Smith and his co-defendant Bobby Robinson took sole writing credit Smith's song "Will2K" which included portions of the 1979 Furious Five classic "Superrappin". Basically the group claims that the Smith and Robinson knew or should have known what they were selling and still continued to mislead the public as to the the group's role in the song. The five are seeking various damages for the incident.

Ted can we get a paragaph every now and then :kekeke:

yeah that was like when i wrote to join the fan club in the code red insert abt 95 :lolsign: great add! never seen it before.. I can see why they made millions of the phone line :word:

wow that was kool..never heard it before.. they liked there 8 minute tracks back then didnt they :kekeke:

Yeah I'll save that article for my book :lolsign:

Up to 739 now :2thumbs:

So let me understand this.. kids arent taught any black history except for black history month? Thats ridiculous..

welcome man :2thumbs: tell us about yourself, when you became a fan, favorite albums and tracks how you found the site :stickpoke: I used to have the name "JJFP" on AOL about8 or 9 years ago :kekeke:

926 for the first episode..thats a nice start :yeah:

Will has an entire legal team dealing with all the people sueing him..its just we dont hear about it all.. Ready Rock C's case was thrown out because the statue of limitations had passed.. as far as the will2k thing that was Columbia/Sony's fault for not properly clearing it.. I think they only acknowledged 2 members..and the others sued for there royalties..

maybe michael mann, Will and Tom will do a movie together :wiggle:

his dj was jazz from fresh prince of bel air :thumbdown:

Only I will get that sheep line :lolsign: :lolsign: nice verse chief :kekeke: