Of those 20 acronyms, I've heard maybe 3 of them (plus or minus). I think the rest were pretty much unknown to 99.999999999999999999% of the population. Maybe I'm out of touch with teenagers, but I've simply never seen them and I've done a hell of a lot of internet chat from 1993 to 2008.
Whatever happened to the ones in standard usage? Such as: brb, bbiab, bbl, afk, afaik, lol, rotflmao, ttl, ty, yw, oth, imo, 143, bff, ruok, oic, irl, l33t, etc. Stuff like that.
10. Wussies! The French.
11. What Text File?
12. Wild Tattoo Fun
13. Why The Face?
14. Why The Frown?
15. What The Fork()
16. Washing The Ford
17. Waving To Fergie
18. Wanting That Female
19. Willing To Fornicate
So if all of us guys stopped being direct and instead started communicating our intentions using the difference between a "I'm just happy" smile and a "I'm interested but not quite ready to fuck you" smile, blinking in just the right way from across the room or flicking our hair lightly then all you women would immediately understand these "not subtle" hints?
...
The problem being, as you understand yourself, that this would never work unless it was possible to get a vast majority of men to take part in this "boycott".
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know you'd be a very lonely man.:)
Also, don't be angry about the way things are, but instead focus that energy on understanding it. There is order to the apparent chaos.
Now you're just changing the subject, won't play that game, sorry
...
You're changing the subject again.
ROTFLMAO. Insane. Now that's funny. My response was driven by the points you selected and when I addressed them item by item, you claim I'm "changing the subject". My God, that's too much.
They were definitely on topic, because in the first one you brought up a final point that women don't want to go out on a limb to take a risk of experiencing rejection. I followed up with responding that women do indeed suffer rejection, a form of rejection you hadn't thought of.
And, in the second one you were describing perceptions women have, which pretty much portrayed women as stupid shallow people. Since the one you presented was rather negative, I retorted by providing you an additional perception that many women hold in order to show you they're not stupid and shallow.
Verdict? Both on topic. Crying "off topic" seems to be your escape when you have no retort. So instead of admitting that, you throw out a B.S. reason and skip it. Maybe others fell for that baloney, but I didn't. If you don't want to address something, fine, don't address it. Either skip it or say you don't have an answer, but don't use a lame ass excuse and try to shift the blame to someone else's lap.
Ok, slightly more on-topic and I'll refute that by pointing out that I've known many women through my life who have been interested in casual sex.
Yes. Many are. Many aren't. Those easy women will grow up at some point and realize they're disrespecting themselves by whoring their bodies out by giving away sex to every man that comes along, such as yourself. They generally stop doing that when they become a little older. You can either continue having meaningless casual sex relationships for the rest of your life or you can find a woman to build a life with.
If you chose the former, I'll warn you now that you'll be a very lonely man if you believe you can continue those types relationships well beyond your middle age.
Upon thinking about your reply, I found it funny you wanted to "refute" that one comment. You wrote a number of things implying that you were frustrated with the dynamic between male and female romance. You implied women enjoyed being in the power position of having control over deciding which man she wants to reject. You said she uses subtle communication so that she could deny she was rejected by blaming it on missed communications. You implied women fell for fake alpha men who only appear to be leaders because they're the loudest amongst the group. All of this, when considered as a whole and complete statement, implies that women are nothing more than shallow, game playing, flirts, who get off on rejecting men in pursuit of some power trip, and that women cannot recognize the value of true, honest, good men such as yourself.
Yet, I showed you an example of women who wanted a true, more stable, and possibly older man (which 98% of men wish for--a younger woman), who is career minded and responsible, and you chose to debate that one point. I found that illustrati
I think one problem is that women are a lot worse at sending hints to men than they think they are, and another is that a lot of women, for all the talk of empowerment and taking charge actually enjoy sitting back and having guys do all the work since it gives them an advantage in that they're the ones who are making the decisions, it also makes rejection easier to handle...
Women are masters of communication and their hints are not subtle. You have to know the language to know how to read the book. For men, anything less than "hey baby, let's fuck" seems to be a subtle form of communication. The reason women confuse you is that their communication is indirect and is often relayed with body language and tone. Men rely on words and literal interpretations, but that doesn't mean you can't learn to read women. Lots of men learn to; it's the reason they're successful with them.
If you're unhappy with women waiting for men, then don't pursue them. Convince other men to join your ranks and boycott having to approach women, make them come to you. We'll see how that works out for ya.:}
Also, women deal with rejection just as much as men do, but it's a different form of rejection. A man may get rejected in the bar, but a woman gets rejected when she's 35 and a skinny 22 yo girl walks through the door. The man will make a beeline toward the younger woman. At least with rejection men experience, you can always find another woman. With rejection women experience, it's physical and there's not much you can do about it. You can't make yourself younger and prettier. That is FAR more hurtful than getting dissed in a night club.
And then there's this weird perception some women have that just because a man isn't screaming like Tarzan and starting fights with people for stepping on his shadow then this must translate into him being bad in bed, sexual prowess doesn't decrease just because a man has a brain and manners enough not to act like a loud idiot.
You're apparently unaware of the "older guy" perception. Haven't you noticed many women prefer men who are a few years older? 5 to 15 years? They're more likely to be respectful, sincere, patient, and know what they're doing. They're also likely to have a stable career, goals, and a desire for marriage. And, many women perceive older men to be more sexually potent and attentive. Men get more sensual as they get older, making them more sexually enticing. The worst thing for a woman is an immature man who's wasting time and only messing around with you for casual sex.
Final point, a lot of the guys women see as "leaders" and "alpha males" aren't. A hint to the female slashdot readers, next time some guy looks like a "leader" to you by "taking control" and all that bullshit, don't stare at him and drool, observe his friends, do they actually follow his lead? or do they shake their heads and look like they're considering ditching him and going somewhere else?
What you're describing is a jerk and "alpha male" does not mean jerk. One big reason alpha males get the girl is that they try. Rather than thinking I can't because I'm not worthy; I'm too ugly; she won't like me, an alpha male thinks I am worthy and I have things to offer; I will win her. A man who tries will be 1,000 times more successful with women than a man who doesn't.
Well, isn't the definition of conservative the 'safe and known'? Conservatives tend to be opposed to anything at all that's new, and will make mountains out of molehills at the slightest problems, generally speaking
I don't like to use that definition because it works in some cases (morality, taxes, law) but does not with others (war, environment, foreign trade).
Also, every ideology makes mountains out of molehills because for them their issue at hand is the most important in the world.
Thats because wind power needs massive taxpayer paid subsidies.
As opposed to sending those "subsidies" to the Persian Gulf?:)
No matter what, we're paying for the energy. We can either spend the money on windmills or spend it on $120 barrels of arab oil. Either way someone is getting subsidized.
Management has to value and want to make telecommuting work.
In the company I mentioned, it was also a case of mismanagement, but it was due to not being able to make the team work with some members being in office and some remote. The desire was there, but the understanding was not. Everyone has to work harder to maintain communication lines and keep people in the loop, which wasn't done.
It helps to be orderly with meetings also. We frequently had unplanned meetings so it was impossible for telecommuters to get into the office in time. Management always copped the attitude "we'll fill them in later" or "we'll just get them on speaker", but that was often hit-or-miss.
Yes, it's a press release, but there is a real case and real filings. Before all you guys dismiss this case just because you heard it from a news wire, you ought check and see the court filings. Filed in Cook County Illinois, June 23, 2008, case number 2008-L-006828.
I think telecommuting only works if your entire team telecommutes because if you stay home and your teammates go to the office you will gradually suffer the appearance of declining performance, at no fault from you.
I've seen that happen because if you're not there when the execs ask the team for advice, you don't get asked and don't get a boost in perceived value. You won't get invited to adhoc meetings and you'll miss all those water-cooler conversations. You also don't get invited to lunch with the team or the management, which often spread news regarding the project, so when you actually do show up to a planned meeting, you'll appear extremely unprepared because you missed all those casual details. You also don't get the special projects handed out at a moment's notice, which generally saves someone's ass gaining you another supporter. Volunteering for those special projects makes you look like a go-getter, but you'll be completely bypassed because you weren't there to raise your hand. Also, if your teammates work late, it's assumed you're not. If they can't see you putting in extra time, you gain no benefit from doing such. You will watch helplessly as your teammates slowly rise in ranks. They will receive the flagship projects to work on, while you get handed the maintenance projects, which only buries you deeper because you have no chance to shine on those projects. Your teammates will be recognized every time they complete something, which will never happen on on your crappy maintenance project.
I worked at a job in which every member of the team was remote, and it worked out very well, but once the team was consolidated in the office, the stragglers had a difficult time proving they were working as hard as the ones showing up in person. I watched previously great workers drift off into mediocrity because they suffered declining perceived value by management.
But, like I said earlier. I think it works if everyone does it, but not if 1 or more teammates don't.
Whether they survived the trip or not is not known at this time, although it does seem very unlikely. Last I heard space was still lacking in the oxygen department and all:)
Wait a minute. They must be mutated and ill-tempered sharks. I bet that's it.
I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio and the one apparent constant is the negative attitude toward wind power. I don't get it.
USA needs to be going full bore with wind power. So what if it only contributes a fraction of the power we need. Any additional source of power is good and worth it if the energy return is positive. Off-shore wind power strikes me as a great alternative to the concerns regarding land-based wind power. Concerns such as overcoming NIMBY resistance, ugly-ling up the landscape, discouraging tourism, etc.
So, what's the deal with the politiking? When you face a problem, you attack that problem on all flanks, which for this problem means investing in all forms of safe, eco-friendly energy. Sometimes that means legislating enticing incentives and direct funding by the government for solutions which cannot immediately generate profits, but would over time if initially invested.
I said "very brief", as in five minutes to a single first date or less. That you could twist that into agreement is exactly why you deserve to be modded down. You are deliberately misquoting other people's arguments to win.
When I quote, I quote the text unmodified. I often quote and follow with an interpreted summary. It's rather clear which portions are quoted and which are summarized by me. Your accusation of misquoting is ridiculous.
Yes, you said 5 minutes. And, I said you're an observer peering into their relationship. You are not the participant. You fail to understand that your viewpoint is not the same as your friend's. She is with that man because she is searching for acceptance. It's a pattern often seen with women, but it in no way supports your argument. Women overlook danger signs because they can often be desperate for the love and unconditional acceptance of a man. The fact she could not see the signs, did not mean she willingly chose to be abused. I've tried to explain this and yet you continue to refuse to reorient your perspective to see this through her eyes.
You need to Google "Sharon Lopatka" to see an example of a woman who deliberately sought out an abusive man, in spades. Oh, but she was obviously mentally ill? I've met others.
You have one example, so I suppose you're expecting me to concede and declare you victorious. OK, you have a point there, but know this--it's a very weak point. If you must resort to hyperbole to prove your argument, then it's not a very effective argument. Your point drew an erroneous equivalency between a hypothetical woman who seeks abusive relationships to a woman with a BDSM fetish seeking a master to a woman who's physically abused by her boyfriend (or husband). Sharon was seeking sexual gratification, whereas your friend in the restaurant was not. Portraying them both as evidence that women (or to be pedantic some women or one woman) seek abusive relationships is drawing an illogical connection, because those who participate in BDSM based sexual relationships are not looking to die or become permanently injured. They are seeking rough or degrading sex--not real abuse. It's often accompanied with role play, fantasy, and using pain to enhance orgasm--again, not abuse. This is in no way, no matter how you spin it, the same as a woman seeking unconditional love and acceptance from a man. Her man may have abusive tendencies, but as I said earlier abusive men are chameleons and desperate women cannot see those signs even if it's in front of their face.
I will consider a hypothetical so that we can close the loop on this argument. Let's say Sharon was indeed looking to be abused so badly that she would perish. If that was the case, then she was suicidal. She was committing suicide by asking another person to perform the act, therefore she was not seeking an abusive relationship. She was seeking the end of her life.
You've lectured everyone reading you post about abuse and violence. If you don't want people to do it back, then you're demanding special status. You don't get it. If you have a right to speak, so do I.
I did not set the tone of the thread; the GP did. Maybe you ought to consider the topic: masochistic. It's clear you don't find that insulting. Well, I do. It's an opinion implying women enjoy or seek out masochistic, or rather, abusive relationships. It's also incredibly misogynistic, particularly given the content of the body following it.
I have to surmise you can't or won't see that because you may be yet another man who blames woman for rejections and/or relationship failures of the past, so attributing those to the belief that women desire abusive men would salvage your ego. It would also relieve you of any self-doubt you may feel. Of course, I admit that's conjecture mixed with some fortune cookie psychology, so maybe in actuality you don't fit that profile, but your commentary lea
What i don't like about MySpace is all the crappy-assed, jacked-up coloration and crazy-ass fonts some of my friends use. Some are so horrendous that they are very hard to read, and more often than not i cannot intercept the crap by hitting the "stop" button to prevent the css shit from taking over the reasonable readability of things.
My beef is with choices made by profile owners. So often, I see things like Blue font on Blue, so it's impossible to read without highlighting the text to momentarily change its color. Then there are the cheese ass music downloads that automatically start playing at ear splitting volumes. Sometimes they embed dozens upon dozens of videos, each of which must load a preview image and begin buffering data for the off chance you decide to click play on any one of them. All of that causes your browser to hang while it churns away downloading all that garbage, only for you to frantically attempt to close the window.
N00b alert. Just what is the point of using MySpace or Facebook?
I don't get how they're worth putting up with the "junk" when every feature they provide can be gotten elsewhere for free without the cruft. Sure, I understand that everything is integrated on those sites, but it's my opinion that level of tight integration is over-hyped.
I gave MySpace a try, mainly because I wanted to checkout the chatroom so I created an account. It seemed like it was nothing more than a beauty contest with everyone trying to prove they've got the best offline social life by displaying all their drunken party pics.
As for blogging, I had no desire to blog on that site. Part of the reason was due to having very little control over the CSS/HTML and being forced to deal with an inflexible site design. I use Blogger for that and it's always worked very nicely, without the garbage addons. I have blogged quite extensively since 2006 (over 300,000 words) and in all that time I've rarely had a problem with Blogger.
I feel the same toward YouTube as I do toward Blogger. I've posted to YouTube and I have very few complaints about it. Well, that's not quite true. I am annoyed that I can't change a video to offline without having to delete it. And then there's the recent messaging upgrade. It's been quite buggy, but I've overlooked those problems because they don't prevent basic usage of YouTube.
I think the reason Blogger and YouTube do well for me is that they're single purpose and don't gunk up your account with garbage. Although YouTube allows unsolicited invites, they're less invasive because they're stored to the message inbox.
If one really wants a portal, personal or job oriented, I think there are better alternatives, which are clean solutions that don't require signing up to heaping truckloads of spam and harassment. For my professional portal, I host that myself because I require full control. I "feel" better knowing that hundreds of thousands of horny college guys aren't surfing my information, because I know they generally don't use google for that.
Don't confuse the topic with things that did not occur in this case. My comment pertains to the specifics of this case, in which he was quickly discovered and did not reap such benefits. In just about every court system in the world, punishment is weighed against severity of the gain or loss due to theft or forgery. You know that, so adding a hypothetical condition obviously alters what sort of punishment would be appropriate. Had he profited by accepting $50,000 in ill-gotten scholarships, jail-time would be appropriate. In USA, it would have been grand larceny.
Slashdot Mirror
The French and Americans always pick on each other. It's just how things are. :)
I actually couldn't think of an F term for that. Ha.
Maybe.. flipper, finger, fin, fur, flag, or fig. Hmm, I think that last one works.
Washing The Fig
Heh.
Of those 20 acronyms, I've heard maybe 3 of them (plus or minus). I think the rest were pretty much unknown to 99.999999999999999999% of the population. Maybe I'm out of touch with teenagers, but I've simply never seen them and I've done a hell of a lot of internet chat from 1993 to 2008.
Whatever happened to the ones in standard usage? Such as: brb, bbiab, bbl, afk, afaik, lol, rotflmao, ttl, ty, yw, oth, imo, 143, bff, ruok, oic, irl, l33t, etc. Stuff like that.
I have some additions.
8. Whip The French
8. We Thump French
10. Wussies! The French.
11. What Text File?
12. Wild Tattoo Fun
13. Why The Face?
14. Why The Frown?
15. What The Fork()
16. Washing The Ford
17. Waving To Fergie
18. Wanting That Female
19. Willing To Fornicate
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know you'd be a very lonely man. :)
Also, don't be angry about the way things are, but instead focus that energy on understanding it. There is order to the apparent chaos.
ROTFLMAO. Insane. Now that's funny. My response was driven by the points you selected and when I addressed them item by item, you claim I'm "changing the subject". My God, that's too much.
They were definitely on topic, because in the first one you brought up a final point that women don't want to go out on a limb to take a risk of experiencing rejection. I followed up with responding that women do indeed suffer rejection, a form of rejection you hadn't thought of.
And, in the second one you were describing perceptions women have, which pretty much portrayed women as stupid shallow people. Since the one you presented was rather negative, I retorted by providing you an additional perception that many women hold in order to show you they're not stupid and shallow.
Verdict? Both on topic. Crying "off topic" seems to be your escape when you have no retort. So instead of admitting that, you throw out a B.S. reason and skip it. Maybe others fell for that baloney, but I didn't. If you don't want to address something, fine, don't address it. Either skip it or say you don't have an answer, but don't use a lame ass excuse and try to shift the blame to someone else's lap.
Yes. Many are. Many aren't. Those easy women will grow up at some point and realize they're disrespecting themselves by whoring their bodies out by giving away sex to every man that comes along, such as yourself. They generally stop doing that when they become a little older. You can either continue having meaningless casual sex relationships for the rest of your life or you can find a woman to build a life with.
If you chose the former, I'll warn you now that you'll be a very lonely man if you believe you can continue those types relationships well beyond your middle age.
Upon thinking about your reply, I found it funny you wanted to "refute" that one comment. You wrote a number of things implying that you were frustrated with the dynamic between male and female romance. You implied women enjoyed being in the power position of having control over deciding which man she wants to reject. You said she uses subtle communication so that she could deny she was rejected by blaming it on missed communications. You implied women fell for fake alpha men who only appear to be leaders because they're the loudest amongst the group. All of this, when considered as a whole and complete statement, implies that women are nothing more than shallow, game playing, flirts, who get off on rejecting men in pursuit of some power trip, and that women cannot recognize the value of true, honest, good men such as yourself.
Yet, I showed you an example of women who wanted a true, more stable, and possibly older man (which 98% of men wish for--a younger woman), who is career minded and responsible, and you chose to debate that one point. I found that illustrati
If you're unhappy with women waiting for men, then don't pursue them. Convince other men to join your ranks and boycott having to approach women, make them come to you. We'll see how that works out for ya.
Also, women deal with rejection just as much as men do, but it's a different form of rejection. A man may get rejected in the bar, but a woman gets rejected when she's 35 and a skinny 22 yo girl walks through the door. The man will make a beeline toward the younger woman. At least with rejection men experience, you can always find another woman. With rejection women experience, it's physical and there's not much you can do about it. You can't make yourself younger and prettier. That is FAR more hurtful than getting dissed in a night club.
You're apparently unaware of the "older guy" perception. Haven't you noticed many women prefer men who are a few years older? 5 to 15 years? They're more likely to be respectful, sincere, patient, and know what they're doing. They're also likely to have a stable career, goals, and a desire for marriage. And, many women perceive older men to be more sexually potent and attentive. Men get more sensual as they get older, making them more sexually enticing. The worst thing for a woman is an immature man who's wasting time and only messing around with you for casual sex.
What you're describing is a jerk and "alpha male" does not mean jerk. One big reason alpha males get the girl is that they try. Rather than thinking I can't because I'm not worthy; I'm too ugly; she won't like me, an alpha male thinks I am worthy and I have things to offer; I will win her. A man who tries will be 1,000 times more successful with women than a man who doesn't.
Also, every ideology makes mountains out of molehills because for them their issue at hand is the most important in the world.
No matter what, we're paying for the energy. We can either spend the money on windmills or spend it on $120 barrels of arab oil. Either way someone is getting subsidized.
Management has to value and want to make telecommuting work.
In the company I mentioned, it was also a case of mismanagement, but it was due to not being able to make the team work with some members being in office and some remote. The desire was there, but the understanding was not. Everyone has to work harder to maintain communication lines and keep people in the loop, which wasn't done.
It helps to be orderly with meetings also. We frequently had unplanned meetings so it was impossible for telecommuters to get into the office in time. Management always copped the attitude "we'll fill them in later" or "we'll just get them on speaker", but that was often hit-or-miss.
Yes, it's a press release, but there is a real case and real filings. Before all you guys dismiss this case just because you heard it from a news wire, you ought check and see the court filings. Filed in Cook County Illinois, June 23, 2008, case number 2008-L-006828.
2008-L-006828 LIMITNONE LLC GOOGLE INC 06/23/2008
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAI0L0AAGICI0LD
I think telecommuting only works if your entire team telecommutes because if you stay home and your teammates go to the office you will gradually suffer the appearance of declining performance, at no fault from you.
I've seen that happen because if you're not there when the execs ask the team for advice, you don't get asked and don't get a boost in perceived value. You won't get invited to adhoc meetings and you'll miss all those water-cooler conversations. You also don't get invited to lunch with the team or the management, which often spread news regarding the project, so when you actually do show up to a planned meeting, you'll appear extremely unprepared because you missed all those casual details. You also don't get the special projects handed out at a moment's notice, which generally saves someone's ass gaining you another supporter. Volunteering for those special projects makes you look like a go-getter, but you'll be completely bypassed because you weren't there to raise your hand. Also, if your teammates work late, it's assumed you're not. If they can't see you putting in extra time, you gain no benefit from doing such. You will watch helplessly as your teammates slowly rise in ranks. They will receive the flagship projects to work on, while you get handed the maintenance projects, which only buries you deeper because you have no chance to shine on those projects. Your teammates will be recognized every time they complete something, which will never happen on on your crappy maintenance project.
I worked at a job in which every member of the team was remote, and it worked out very well, but once the team was consolidated in the office, the stragglers had a difficult time proving they were working as hard as the ones showing up in person. I watched previously great workers drift off into mediocrity because they suffered declining perceived value by management.
But, like I said earlier. I think it works if everyone does it, but not if 1 or more teammates don't.
I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio and the one apparent constant is the negative attitude toward wind power. I don't get it.
USA needs to be going full bore with wind power. So what if it only contributes a fraction of the power we need. Any additional source of power is good and worth it if the energy return is positive. Off-shore wind power strikes me as a great alternative to the concerns regarding land-based wind power. Concerns such as overcoming NIMBY resistance, ugly-ling up the landscape, discouraging tourism, etc.
So, what's the deal with the politiking? When you face a problem, you attack that problem on all flanks, which for this problem means investing in all forms of safe, eco-friendly energy. Sometimes that means legislating enticing incentives and direct funding by the government for solutions which cannot immediately generate profits, but would over time if initially invested.
F the politics.
When I quote, I quote the text unmodified. I often quote and follow with an interpreted summary. It's rather clear which portions are quoted and which are summarized by me. Your accusation of misquoting is ridiculous.
Yes, you said 5 minutes. And, I said you're an observer peering into their relationship. You are not the participant. You fail to understand that your viewpoint is not the same as your friend's. She is with that man because she is searching for acceptance. It's a pattern often seen with women, but it in no way supports your argument. Women overlook danger signs because they can often be desperate for the love and unconditional acceptance of a man. The fact she could not see the signs, did not mean she willingly chose to be abused. I've tried to explain this and yet you continue to refuse to reorient your perspective to see this through her eyes.
You have one example, so I suppose you're expecting me to concede and declare you victorious. OK, you have a point there, but know this--it's a very weak point. If you must resort to hyperbole to prove your argument, then it's not a very effective argument. Your point drew an erroneous equivalency between a hypothetical woman who seeks abusive relationships to a woman with a BDSM fetish seeking a master to a woman who's physically abused by her boyfriend (or husband). Sharon was seeking sexual gratification, whereas your friend in the restaurant was not. Portraying them both as evidence that women (or to be pedantic some women or one woman) seek abusive relationships is drawing an illogical connection, because those who participate in BDSM based sexual relationships are not looking to die or become permanently injured. They are seeking rough or degrading sex--not real abuse. It's often accompanied with role play, fantasy, and using pain to enhance orgasm--again, not abuse. This is in no way, no matter how you spin it, the same as a woman seeking unconditional love and acceptance from a man. Her man may have abusive tendencies, but as I said earlier abusive men are chameleons and desperate women cannot see those signs even if it's in front of their face.
I will consider a hypothetical so that we can close the loop on this argument. Let's say Sharon was indeed looking to be abused so badly that she would perish. If that was the case, then she was suicidal. She was committing suicide by asking another person to perform the act, therefore she was not seeking an abusive relationship. She was seeking the end of her life.
I did not set the tone of the thread; the GP did. Maybe you ought to consider the topic: masochistic. It's clear you don't find that insulting. Well, I do. It's an opinion implying women enjoy or seek out masochistic, or rather, abusive relationships. It's also incredibly misogynistic, particularly given the content of the body following it.
I have to surmise you can't or won't see that because you may be yet another man who blames woman for rejections and/or relationship failures of the past, so attributing those to the belief that women desire abusive men would salvage your ego. It would also relieve you of any self-doubt you may feel. Of course, I admit that's conjecture mixed with some fortune cookie psychology, so maybe in actuality you don't fit that profile, but your commentary lea
Being as that I'm taken, that feature would not be enticing to me... at the moment. Heh. Heh. Heh.
Supposedly transparent aluminum is highly scratch resistant. I'd like to see it used in PDA, cellphone, and Gameboy screens.
N00b alert. Just what is the point of using MySpace or Facebook?
I don't get how they're worth putting up with the "junk" when every feature they provide can be gotten elsewhere for free without the cruft. Sure, I understand that everything is integrated on those sites, but it's my opinion that level of tight integration is over-hyped.
I gave MySpace a try, mainly because I wanted to checkout the chatroom so I created an account. It seemed like it was nothing more than a beauty contest with everyone trying to prove they've got the best offline social life by displaying all their drunken party pics.
As for blogging, I had no desire to blog on that site. Part of the reason was due to having very little control over the CSS/HTML and being forced to deal with an inflexible site design. I use Blogger for that and it's always worked very nicely, without the garbage addons. I have blogged quite extensively since 2006 (over 300,000 words) and in all that time I've rarely had a problem with Blogger.
I feel the same toward YouTube as I do toward Blogger. I've posted to YouTube and I have very few complaints about it. Well, that's not quite true. I am annoyed that I can't change a video to offline without having to delete it. And then there's the recent messaging upgrade. It's been quite buggy, but I've overlooked those problems because they don't prevent basic usage of YouTube.
I think the reason Blogger and YouTube do well for me is that they're single purpose and don't gunk up your account with garbage. Although YouTube allows unsolicited invites, they're less invasive because they're stored to the message inbox.
If one really wants a portal, personal or job oriented, I think there are better alternatives, which are clean solutions that don't require signing up to heaping truckloads of spam and harassment. For my professional portal, I host that myself because I require full control. I "feel" better knowing that hundreds of thousands of horny college guys aren't surfing my information, because I know they generally don't use google for that.
I dunno. I just don't get it.
"Nice" is a relative and subjective term.
Don't confuse the topic with things that did not occur in this case. My comment pertains to the specifics of this case, in which he was quickly discovered and did not reap such benefits. In just about every court system in the world, punishment is weighed against severity of the gain or loss due to theft or forgery. You know that, so adding a hypothetical condition obviously alters what sort of punishment would be appropriate. Had he profited by accepting $50,000 in ill-gotten scholarships, jail-time would be appropriate. In USA, it would have been grand larceny.