Apparently, you have access to history books that the rest of us don't. WTF do you know about 50,000 years of injustice? Nothing of course, you're just talking out your ass.
I disagree - we do have a gender problem. To be acceptable to the social justice sector, males must be emasculated and impotent. I've had recent dealings with some silly cunt who occcupies a "human relations" position. She makes it pretty obvious that she doesn't like men very much, and she especially doesn't like men who speak their minds. If there are any men whom she actually approves of, then they are men who are intimidated by her.
To be fair, she doesn't very much like women who aren't intimidated, either. My boss, a female, has had some rounds with the SJW bitch as well.
You do realize that Tomato does much the same thing as *WRT? In some cases, for some people, Tomato might be a better choice, depending on what they are trying to do. But, yes, I agree with you. Why buy any box, mini or otherwise, if you can't control it?
LOL - I can't tell you where to find them. They're all around you. To experience that kind of thing, you've got to be in the right place, at the right time, and willing to play along with whatever her needs are. Halifax, Nova Scotia was memorable. I walked off the ship, gawking around. Someone walked up behind me, grabbed my elbow, and told me that I was coming home with her. Nice looking gal - 6 ft tall - lovely but unusual color from her African-Irish-Iroquois ancestry. Beauty. I told her that i wanted to hit the bars and get a few drinks first. She said that she had all the liquor I could want at her place. I let her drag me home, and holy SHIT, that woman was demanding!
Right place, at the right time. But, I swear, there's one near you right now!
" All of this was done completely against your will."
When she wraps her body around yours, thrusts against you, and says "Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me", she can't claim that it was against her will. Well - not unless she's a feminazi. A militant feminist, like any other militant, can claim anything, but that doesn't make it so. It amazes me, how many "progressives" can outright deny their humanity.
You're a sick fuck. GP made no racist comment - the faggot to whom he responded is the racist. Yes, I said "faggot". Get over yourself you penis necked queer.
Tom Kratman and David Drake have written superb stories, which explore why we have wars. Drake especially explains that when we have nothing to fight over, nothing to fight for, we'll make the stupidest excuses to fight. As Haldeman says, "We live in an unstable and dangerous environment, and we like it. We don’t want to change it."
" but they are "good enough" for preliminary security screening."
Bullshit. They aren't even good enough for preliminary screening. Voice stress analysis has more going for it than polygraghy does, and even that is pseudoscience. Body language has always been a fair indicator, along with voice analysis. Old men and women can detect liars at least as reliably as polygraphy, using nothing more than those. Unless and until you can read other people's minds, you can't say definitively whether that person is lying.
Actually - yes. If you research the pseudoscience, you can find a number of former government agents who describe the stress involved in taking yet another polygraph test. Of special interest to the females among us, are the women's accounts. It seems that polygraph operators often linger over sexually oriented questions, searching for the most intimate details of a woman's life. What else would you expect of some geeky sumbitch who probably doesn't even have a life of his own?
They simply haven't read the memo yet. None of the "science" was new when this article was published: http://www.science20.com/gerha... A simple search for "polygraph pseudoscience" turns up 35,800 results. There should be millions of results, but I'll settle for ~36,000.
If you're subjected to a polygraph, the guy running the machinery decides whether you're trustworthy or not. You use the word "witchcraft", and it's very appropriate. Voodoo, magic, shaman, witch doctor, polygraph operator - it all amounts to the same thing. Subjective judgement, in each and every case.
ROFLMAO - I disagree with you, but I notice that someone else has modded your post as flamebait. Abuse of mod powers - once again.
But, yeah, I disagree with you. Maybe the OP is an asshat - or maybe the other forum members are asshats, or maybe EVERYONE involved are asshats. None of that really matters. OP shouldn't have posted personally identifiable information on the web. It's dumb.
As for posting things that might anger people - that's what honest discussion is for. People who can't deal with honest, open discussion shouldn't be on the intartubez.
Remember when Google insisted that everyone use their real names on G+? I never did offer my real name. Google contacted me three or four times about it, threatening to terminate all services if I didn't supply my name.
I told them that I'm almost sixty years old, and that I've made enemies in my lifetime. I wasn't willing to publish my name and address, so that one of those enemies could find me and murder me.
It was a bullshit story - but it made a point. It is stupid and potentially dangerous to post your real life contact information randomly all over the internet.
Odd that the site seems to begin history in 1500. I guess that's as far back as they can dig. Odd also that they only cite climate change as a force that might push a tribe out of it's ancestral home. They just ignore the fact that other tribes were competing for resources. For instance, when the Mayan civilization collapsed, a lot of Mayans moved to the southeast US, displacing a lot of "native" tribes. As the Azteca rose to power, they also displaced a lot of other tribes. And, in more recent times, the Apache were pushed into the Azteca sphere of influence when they were pushed south by other competing tribes.
Yeah - climate change affects a lot, but pressure from other groups of humans have always played an important role in the Americas. The arrival of the Europeans simply put a different face on an ages old problem. That problem being, "What do we do when we meet competition to strong to compete against?"
Actually - you ought to ask the warriors of the tribes how they feel about being so honored. Yeah, you can ask the women too, but most definitely talk to the warriors.
All that you have stated here, is that you do not respect warriors. You are incapable of understanding the honor of being remembered as great fighters. If you live someplace where there are no Native Americans to speak to, then you should at least talk to some military veterans. We are everywhere, there's not a chance in hell that you can't find some veterans to talk to.
As for myself, I have Native American blood in my veins, I live close to reservations, and I've worked with members of several tribes for much of my adult life. With few exceptions, all of the American Indians I've ever known take some pride in those teams named after the tribes. I hear some objections, but the overwhelming majority are proud of their fighting history.
The single strongest objection to the use of tribal names, is that the pale faces don't really appreciate the history of the tribes, much less the culture. Mostly, they laugh at the white man for being ignorant.
The Japanese in World War Two had dehumanized themselves to the point that NO ONE GAVE A FUCK about 300,000 civilians. Have you bothered to READ SOME HISTORY?!?! Open a google search, and enter "rape of nanking". Go ahead, you can do it. Try to distinguish between the more authoritative and historical links, as opposed to simple minded propaganda. Yes, look for the actual numbers of people killed by beasts in Imperial uniforms. Tossing babies into the air, and catching them on bayonets, then tossing them to another soldier to catch on his bayonet. Raping any female large enough to accept an adult penis, and maybe cutting a hole large enough if the girl wasn't large enough.
The Imperial army and navy had to be DEFEATED, and the civilians were in the way.
You can bitch and whine about those civilians - but if the shoe were on the other foot, no one would be mourning the loss of our parents and grandparents after the Japanese bombed Los Angeles, or New York, or any other city.
There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a cowboy that can't be throwed.
I invite you to read David Hough. I first threw my leg over a bicycle frame about - damn - 55 years ago. Then a motorcycle frame about - ohhh - 48, 49 years ago. And, I'm still learning.
A bit of interesting trivia, that applies to both motorcycle riders, and truck drivers. The most dangerous time in either of their careers is right around the two year mark. First year, they are lacking in self assurance, they are cautious, and they may not have any accidents at all. Right around two years experience is most dangerous, because they are gaining self assurance. And that self assurance is not yet justified. Many, many riders and drivers meet their fates right around that two year mark.
Now, I don't want to jinx you or anything, but you sound a little bit overly self assured.
Just think about it. I don't want to argue, just think about it.
You've most likely been lucky. Often enough, it isn't YOUR FAULT that you go down. The first time I ever laid a motorcycle down on pavement? A New York City cop ran a red light. No flashers, no siren, I had the right of way - that is, I had the green light. I noticed that blue and white car while I was jockying my way across some trolley tracks. Tracks behind me, I looked again, I still had the green light, looked at the cop again, and he was RIGHT THERE! My choices were, hit the brakes, or hit him. I lost control when the rear brake locked, and went out from under me.
So - yes, I did it wrong, but then, it wasn't my "fault" either.
The cop? He kept on going, acted like he never saw me.
Your fault, another cyclist's fault, a driver's fault, some stupid dog, a child, eventually the odds catch up with all of us.
Motorcycle or bicycle - if you ride, the question is not, "Will I go down?" but "When will I go down?" If you're on two wheels, you WILL FALL. You either accept that, or you don't, but it doesn't change the facts of life.
Good observation. Nothing wrong with that. But, I grew up with the understanding that I must obey the same traffic laws as motorists, and I've just accepted that. Your observation is a large part of the reason that I ride a motorcycle, and have no desire to ride a bicycle. 30 ponies (for a 500GL, HP varies of course) between your knees helps to level the playing field, because you can power out of a bad situation. Braking on a motorcycle is usually better than on a bicycle as well. Not always - it depends on what kind of bike you're riding, but usually.
It makes just as much sense to assume responsibility in proportion to your vulnerability. That is why I ride a motorcycle, but not a bicycle. I can be equally alert and defensive on a bicycle, but on the un-motorized bike, I have no performance. Even on a relatively small motorcycle, I have the power and speed to evade just about any vehicle coming at me.
Someone above mentioned the "right" vs "dead right" adage already.
Yep. Motorcycle safety research supports that. One school of thought on motorcycles is that you want to wear high visibility clothing and helmet. Theory is, if people see you, they won't run you down. Problem is - people drive in the direction they are looking. I most CERTAINLY don't want people looking at me! I can't possibly count the times that I've met an oncoming auto, and the driver was very obviously looking AT ME, and the auto drifted toward the center line.
So, yes, be as invisible as possible, be alert, maintain situational awareness, and ALWAYS HAVE A PLAN OF ESCAPE!
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, you have access to history books that the rest of us don't. WTF do you know about 50,000 years of injustice? Nothing of course, you're just talking out your ass.
I disagree - we do have a gender problem. To be acceptable to the social justice sector, males must be emasculated and impotent. I've had recent dealings with some silly cunt who occcupies a "human relations" position. She makes it pretty obvious that she doesn't like men very much, and she especially doesn't like men who speak their minds. If there are any men whom she actually approves of, then they are men who are intimidated by her.
To be fair, she doesn't very much like women who aren't intimidated, either. My boss, a female, has had some rounds with the SJW bitch as well.
I'm not real sure about that. I remember one time when a SJW actually claimed to have a sense of humor. THAT was funny!
You do realize that Tomato does much the same thing as *WRT? In some cases, for some people, Tomato might be a better choice, depending on what they are trying to do. But, yes, I agree with you. Why buy any box, mini or otherwise, if you can't control it?
LOL - I can't tell you where to find them. They're all around you. To experience that kind of thing, you've got to be in the right place, at the right time, and willing to play along with whatever her needs are. Halifax, Nova Scotia was memorable. I walked off the ship, gawking around. Someone walked up behind me, grabbed my elbow, and told me that I was coming home with her. Nice looking gal - 6 ft tall - lovely but unusual color from her African-Irish-Iroquois ancestry. Beauty. I told her that i wanted to hit the bars and get a few drinks first. She said that she had all the liquor I could want at her place. I let her drag me home, and holy SHIT, that woman was demanding!
Right place, at the right time. But, I swear, there's one near you right now!
" All of this was done completely against your will."
When she wraps her body around yours, thrusts against you, and says "Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me", she can't claim that it was against her will. Well - not unless she's a feminazi. A militant feminist, like any other militant, can claim anything, but that doesn't make it so. It amazes me, how many "progressives" can outright deny their humanity.
"There are several models based in genetic evolution which support the emergence of homosexual behavior."
Well - there IS one good model. Our society is sick.
You're a sick fuck. GP made no racist comment - the faggot to whom he responded is the racist. Yes, I said "faggot". Get over yourself you penis necked queer.
Tom Kratman and David Drake have written superb stories, which explore why we have wars. Drake especially explains that when we have nothing to fight over, nothing to fight for, we'll make the stupidest excuses to fight. As Haldeman says, "We live in an unstable and dangerous environment, and we like it. We don’t want to change it."
" but they are "good enough" for preliminary security screening."
Bullshit. They aren't even good enough for preliminary screening. Voice stress analysis has more going for it than polygraghy does, and even that is pseudoscience. Body language has always been a fair indicator, along with voice analysis. Old men and women can detect liars at least as reliably as polygraphy, using nothing more than those. Unless and until you can read other people's minds, you can't say definitively whether that person is lying.
You sit on a pressure sensor and have your feet on pressure sensors in modern voodoo and witchcraft techniques.
FTFY
Actually - yes. If you research the pseudoscience, you can find a number of former government agents who describe the stress involved in taking yet another polygraph test. Of special interest to the females among us, are the women's accounts. It seems that polygraph operators often linger over sexually oriented questions, searching for the most intimate details of a woman's life. What else would you expect of some geeky sumbitch who probably doesn't even have a life of his own?
They simply haven't read the memo yet. None of the "science" was new when this article was published: http://www.science20.com/gerha... A simple search for "polygraph pseudoscience" turns up 35,800 results. There should be millions of results, but I'll settle for ~36,000.
If you're subjected to a polygraph, the guy running the machinery decides whether you're trustworthy or not. You use the word "witchcraft", and it's very appropriate. Voodoo, magic, shaman, witch doctor, polygraph operator - it all amounts to the same thing. Subjective judgement, in each and every case.
ROFLMAO - I disagree with you, but I notice that someone else has modded your post as flamebait. Abuse of mod powers - once again.
But, yeah, I disagree with you. Maybe the OP is an asshat - or maybe the other forum members are asshats, or maybe EVERYONE involved are asshats. None of that really matters. OP shouldn't have posted personally identifiable information on the web. It's dumb.
As for posting things that might anger people - that's what honest discussion is for. People who can't deal with honest, open discussion shouldn't be on the intartubez.
AC nailed it.
Remember when Google insisted that everyone use their real names on G+? I never did offer my real name. Google contacted me three or four times about it, threatening to terminate all services if I didn't supply my name.
I told them that I'm almost sixty years old, and that I've made enemies in my lifetime. I wasn't willing to publish my name and address, so that one of those enemies could find me and murder me.
It was a bullshit story - but it made a point. It is stupid and potentially dangerous to post your real life contact information randomly all over the internet.
Odd that the site seems to begin history in 1500. I guess that's as far back as they can dig. Odd also that they only cite climate change as a force that might push a tribe out of it's ancestral home. They just ignore the fact that other tribes were competing for resources. For instance, when the Mayan civilization collapsed, a lot of Mayans moved to the southeast US, displacing a lot of "native" tribes. As the Azteca rose to power, they also displaced a lot of other tribes. And, in more recent times, the Apache were pushed into the Azteca sphere of influence when they were pushed south by other competing tribes.
Yeah - climate change affects a lot, but pressure from other groups of humans have always played an important role in the Americas. The arrival of the Europeans simply put a different face on an ages old problem. That problem being, "What do we do when we meet competition to strong to compete against?"
Actually - you ought to ask the warriors of the tribes how they feel about being so honored. Yeah, you can ask the women too, but most definitely talk to the warriors.
All that you have stated here, is that you do not respect warriors. You are incapable of understanding the honor of being remembered as great fighters. If you live someplace where there are no Native Americans to speak to, then you should at least talk to some military veterans. We are everywhere, there's not a chance in hell that you can't find some veterans to talk to.
As for myself, I have Native American blood in my veins, I live close to reservations, and I've worked with members of several tribes for much of my adult life. With few exceptions, all of the American Indians I've ever known take some pride in those teams named after the tribes. I hear some objections, but the overwhelming majority are proud of their fighting history.
The single strongest objection to the use of tribal names, is that the pale faces don't really appreciate the history of the tribes, much less the culture. Mostly, they laugh at the white man for being ignorant.
The Japanese in World War Two had dehumanized themselves to the point that NO ONE GAVE A FUCK about 300,000 civilians. Have you bothered to READ SOME HISTORY?!?! Open a google search, and enter "rape of nanking". Go ahead, you can do it. Try to distinguish between the more authoritative and historical links, as opposed to simple minded propaganda. Yes, look for the actual numbers of people killed by beasts in Imperial uniforms. Tossing babies into the air, and catching them on bayonets, then tossing them to another soldier to catch on his bayonet. Raping any female large enough to accept an adult penis, and maybe cutting a hole large enough if the girl wasn't large enough.
The Imperial army and navy had to be DEFEATED, and the civilians were in the way.
You can bitch and whine about those civilians - but if the shoe were on the other foot, no one would be mourning the loss of our parents and grandparents after the Japanese bombed Los Angeles, or New York, or any other city.
In short, you can blow it out your ass.
There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a cowboy that can't be throwed.
I invite you to read David Hough. I first threw my leg over a bicycle frame about - damn - 55 years ago. Then a motorcycle frame about - ohhh - 48, 49 years ago. And, I'm still learning.
A bit of interesting trivia, that applies to both motorcycle riders, and truck drivers. The most dangerous time in either of their careers is right around the two year mark. First year, they are lacking in self assurance, they are cautious, and they may not have any accidents at all. Right around two years experience is most dangerous, because they are gaining self assurance. And that self assurance is not yet justified. Many, many riders and drivers meet their fates right around that two year mark.
Now, I don't want to jinx you or anything, but you sound a little bit overly self assured.
Just think about it. I don't want to argue, just think about it.
You've most likely been lucky. Often enough, it isn't YOUR FAULT that you go down. The first time I ever laid a motorcycle down on pavement? A New York City cop ran a red light. No flashers, no siren, I had the right of way - that is, I had the green light. I noticed that blue and white car while I was jockying my way across some trolley tracks. Tracks behind me, I looked again, I still had the green light, looked at the cop again, and he was RIGHT THERE! My choices were, hit the brakes, or hit him. I lost control when the rear brake locked, and went out from under me.
So - yes, I did it wrong, but then, it wasn't my "fault" either.
The cop? He kept on going, acted like he never saw me.
Your fault, another cyclist's fault, a driver's fault, some stupid dog, a child, eventually the odds catch up with all of us.
While that is true, it is a judgement call. And, your judgement carries no more legal weight than that of the bicyclist.
Motorcycle or bicycle - if you ride, the question is not, "Will I go down?" but "When will I go down?" If you're on two wheels, you WILL FALL. You either accept that, or you don't, but it doesn't change the facts of life.
Good observation. Nothing wrong with that. But, I grew up with the understanding that I must obey the same traffic laws as motorists, and I've just accepted that. Your observation is a large part of the reason that I ride a motorcycle, and have no desire to ride a bicycle. 30 ponies (for a 500GL, HP varies of course) between your knees helps to level the playing field, because you can power out of a bad situation. Braking on a motorcycle is usually better than on a bicycle as well. Not always - it depends on what kind of bike you're riding, but usually.
It makes just as much sense to assume responsibility in proportion to your vulnerability. That is why I ride a motorcycle, but not a bicycle. I can be equally alert and defensive on a bicycle, but on the un-motorized bike, I have no performance. Even on a relatively small motorcycle, I have the power and speed to evade just about any vehicle coming at me.
Someone above mentioned the "right" vs "dead right" adage already.
Yep. Motorcycle safety research supports that. One school of thought on motorcycles is that you want to wear high visibility clothing and helmet. Theory is, if people see you, they won't run you down. Problem is - people drive in the direction they are looking. I most CERTAINLY don't want people looking at me! I can't possibly count the times that I've met an oncoming auto, and the driver was very obviously looking AT ME, and the auto drifted toward the center line.
So, yes, be as invisible as possible, be alert, maintain situational awareness, and ALWAYS HAVE A PLAN OF ESCAPE!