Actually, "KatAngel" is derived from my real name, which is all the hint I'll give as to what my real name is. And you're the third person to correct my spelling of "per se." And I realized after submitting it that it was the wrong choice of words, but slashdot doesn't let me edit my post, so... there you go. And let's not get into stereotypes. I've talked about them enough on this page already.
I know I asked for the discussion to end, but your statement that I've missed a few things seems based on misunderstanding of what I wrote.
"a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage" is all the sample for statistical evidence most of the American population has access to when it comes to the Islamic religion.
Exactly why I respond by debunking said stereotypes. Just because the sample was small doesn't make it any less worthwhile to introduce the person to a larger dataset. Your statement only reinforces the reasoning behind my response.
Finally, you claim that you can't know if I was being serious or not in my joke, given that you don't know me. I said you're both cats from Outer Space right after my joke. I rest my case.
Read what I said again. I didn't say I couldn't tell if you were serious, I said I couldn't tell whether or not you believed the stereotype as a "general" truth that applies to "most" women. I already said I realized you weren't being serious, but one can make a joke in jest and still believe that the stereotype on which they based it has validity. Without hearing the tone of your voice, or having prior information as to your personality and beliefs, it was impossible to determine. The same joke made now that we've spoken would, obviously, warrant a different response.
Having had some discussion with you now, I have some insight into what sort of person you are, and that data enables me to fully understand the intentions of your original joke, which were - to me - ambiguous at first. Discussing it further will neither make my initial response nor your initial joke any different, as they are both in the past, so perhaps we should accept that we each misunderstood the other's intentions, and move on.
I didn't mean to imply that dominance had to do with disagreement. What I meant to say was that we both ask before we do anything and ensure that the other approves, so neither one of us has the "last word." If she disapproves, I won't do it, and if I disapprove, she won't. (Trust me - I've had relationships in the past where I've acted as both the dominant and the submissive member, and this isn't one of them. We're mutual.) The point about arguments was meant to say that, in most cases, we share the exact same mindset, so the need for either of us to assume a dominant role doesn't arise. Taken moment by moment, there are times when I'm more dominant, and times when she is, but, in a general sense, we share the role. Anywho...
I know you're just going to take this as me still not getting your point, but I'm going to have to disagree that stereotypes are based on "empirical statistical evidence." More often, they're based on false assumptions and assertions made by the media. Take, for example, the stereotype that all muslims hate America - that is so FAR from being based in empirical statistical evidence that it's not even funny. It's based on a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage due to their actions. That's why I correct stereotypes, whether I get the joke or not, because people who make the jokes quite often seriously believe their stereotypes. And without knowing you, as you said yourself, I can't know whether you are making a joke of type 1 or type 2. Thus, I took the route of "just in case." (Even though I could tell you obviously weren't seriously questioning my gender with your post, there was no evidence whether or not you truly believed emoticons to be a "female" trait.)
Also, it's not always social change that renders a stereotype incorrect. Quite often - I would say more often than not - such stereotypes are incorrect from inception, as in the example above. However, if, after this point, you still disagree with my view, then I think we should just agree to disagree on this point. Further argument will go nowhere, and we're WILDLY off topic from the discussion, which was already wildly off topic from TFA.
You read too much into my post. I was being neither almighty nor defensive. Almighty would mean implying that I was smarter than entity x, or group x. It isn't almighty to be aware that my intelligence is higher than the average, as, I would imagine, are those of a good number of others who frequent slashdot. It takes a certain degree of logical-spacial intelligence to gain a strong affinity for technology. Then again, it's possible I'm overestimating slashdot.
At any rate, even if I *was* being defensive, which I wasn't, it certainly wouldn't have been over the comment that I'm a cat from outer space. I love cats. However, I hear so many stereotypes, perhaps it's merely a matter of instinct to quell them when I hear them, even in jokes. Jokes that rely on stereotypes (especially when those stereotypes are truly believed by a large number of people) fail to amuse me. (And there is a difference between "not amused" and "defensive" or "angry.")
Does being female necessitate that I be stereotypically so? I remember reading somewhere that "as intelligence increases, differences between gender behavior becomes less apparent." I believe there is truth in that.
Well, that is true. I didn't actually make the mistake, the generations and generations of people who developed and evolved the Latin language did. I was just trying to be a little bit humble and not point out how much of a failure the rest of the world is compared to me.
I don't think it's an illusion. We don't do anything unless both of us are mutually in agreement on it. If one of us is opposed, we both throw it out. But that doesn't happen often - in the year since we started dating, we've yet to have an argument (knock on wood) or even a very strong disagreement (knock on wood again).
And I know what you mean about the way she dressed, but neither one of us is like that. We both have long hair, wear makeup, and wear a dress if we're going to something formal. My casual dress involves jeans more often than skirts, but I do wear skirts from time to time, and even when I'm not, my tops are very feminine - very rare is the case when I'm seen wearing a t-shirt. Just because I like technology doesn't necessarily mean I have any other stereotypically masculine traits. ^^ (My partner, by the way, also likes technology, but she's not as good at it as I am.)
Actually, there is no "guy" in our relationship. Assuming you meant "person who takes charge/responsibility/control," that role is shared equally between us. If you meant to imply that I was "butch," however, I'll tell you that I am quite "femme," as is my partner.;)
That's not true either.:P Doubtful that anyone will believe me, but I get complimented on my looks fairly frequently, and have the height and figure (but not the breasts v.v) of the average American model. But maybe there are just no good looking straight women on slashdot. >.>
Of course, now that I've said that, the Law of Inverse Sexual Attraction states that the number of people trying to "befriend" me must now increase exponentially.
Of course, slashdot law requires that at least five people now show up to prove me wrong, since there are "no women on the internet." It's ok. However wrong you may be, I am prepared to acknowledge that you are only following cliches, jumping on bandwagons, and repeating someone else's jokes for perhaps the hundredth time in your life in an attempt to sound funny, witty, or intelligent. I know you're only 'doing your duty,' par se. Fulfilling your obligation to slashdot society.
Once Windows and Macintosh (or whatever hardware-based proprietary operating systems come along to replace them in this new framework) are permanently embedded in the hardware, making dual-booting nigh impossible (if not completely impossible), and making replacement of the operating system with a new one into a task so arduous that even a good many of today's Linux junkies would just opt to stick with what came with it... I doubt we'll see any more crossover to the free alternatives.
Oh, and did we mention the upgrade cycle on these things? That's right, for the average user who has no idea how to flash a piece of hardware, they have to order a whole new replacement every time the slightest security upgrade comes along on the operating system level! That sounds like wonderful fun for Gramma, don't you agree?
If that was the case, why not just go with TGR? What confuses me is the randomly appearing "I" that seems to serve no purpose, save to make it sound like "Tiger."
So... where did the I come from, and where did the S go? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to actually put something in for the I - Tactical Interactive Ground Reporting would have worked well, I think.
Do you really know that many people who can do THAT well? Holding one hand still or moving it a vaguely circular motion while the other moves a stick isn't even remotely similar to typing one word with one hand and another with the other.
Yes... that would make it easier for robots and harder for humans. Seriously, how many people do you know who can do two different things with both hands at the same time?
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, I know what you want, so here you go!
Don't you wish... ;)
Actually, "KatAngel" is derived from my real name, which is all the hint I'll give as to what my real name is. And you're the third person to correct my spelling of "per se." And I realized after submitting it that it was the wrong choice of words, but slashdot doesn't let me edit my post, so... there you go. And let's not get into stereotypes. I've talked about them enough on this page already.
"a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage" is all the sample for statistical evidence most of the American population has access to when it comes to the Islamic religion.
Exactly why I respond by debunking said stereotypes. Just because the sample was small doesn't make it any less worthwhile to introduce the person to a larger dataset. Your statement only reinforces the reasoning behind my response.
Finally, you claim that you can't know if I was being serious or not in my joke, given that you don't know me. I said you're both cats from Outer Space right after my joke. I rest my case.
Read what I said again. I didn't say I couldn't tell if you were serious, I said I couldn't tell whether or not you believed the stereotype as a "general" truth that applies to "most" women. I already said I realized you weren't being serious, but one can make a joke in jest and still believe that the stereotype on which they based it has validity. Without hearing the tone of your voice, or having prior information as to your personality and beliefs, it was impossible to determine. The same joke made now that we've spoken would, obviously, warrant a different response.
Having had some discussion with you now, I have some insight into what sort of person you are, and that data enables me to fully understand the intentions of your original joke, which were - to me - ambiguous at first. Discussing it further will neither make my initial response nor your initial joke any different, as they are both in the past, so perhaps we should accept that we each misunderstood the other's intentions, and move on.
I didn't mean to imply that dominance had to do with disagreement. What I meant to say was that we both ask before we do anything and ensure that the other approves, so neither one of us has the "last word." If she disapproves, I won't do it, and if I disapprove, she won't. (Trust me - I've had relationships in the past where I've acted as both the dominant and the submissive member, and this isn't one of them. We're mutual.) The point about arguments was meant to say that, in most cases, we share the exact same mindset, so the need for either of us to assume a dominant role doesn't arise. Taken moment by moment, there are times when I'm more dominant, and times when she is, but, in a general sense, we share the role. Anywho...
I know you're just going to take this as me still not getting your point, but I'm going to have to disagree that stereotypes are based on "empirical statistical evidence." More often, they're based on false assumptions and assertions made by the media. Take, for example, the stereotype that all muslims hate America - that is so FAR from being based in empirical statistical evidence that it's not even funny. It's based on a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage due to their actions. That's why I correct stereotypes, whether I get the joke or not, because people who make the jokes quite often seriously believe their stereotypes. And without knowing you, as you said yourself, I can't know whether you are making a joke of type 1 or type 2. Thus, I took the route of "just in case." (Even though I could tell you obviously weren't seriously questioning my gender with your post, there was no evidence whether or not you truly believed emoticons to be a "female" trait.)
Also, it's not always social change that renders a stereotype incorrect. Quite often - I would say more often than not - such stereotypes are incorrect from inception, as in the example above. However, if, after this point, you still disagree with my view, then I think we should just agree to disagree on this point. Further argument will go nowhere, and we're WILDLY off topic from the discussion, which was already wildly off topic from TFA.
You read too much into my post. I was being neither almighty nor defensive. Almighty would mean implying that I was smarter than entity x, or group x. It isn't almighty to be aware that my intelligence is higher than the average, as, I would imagine, are those of a good number of others who frequent slashdot. It takes a certain degree of logical-spacial intelligence to gain a strong affinity for technology. Then again, it's possible I'm overestimating slashdot.
At any rate, even if I *was* being defensive, which I wasn't, it certainly wouldn't have been over the comment that I'm a cat from outer space. I love cats. However, I hear so many stereotypes, perhaps it's merely a matter of instinct to quell them when I hear them, even in jokes. Jokes that rely on stereotypes (especially when those stereotypes are truly believed by a large number of people) fail to amuse me. (And there is a difference between "not amused" and "defensive" or "angry.")
Excuse me. Differences *become less apparent. *mutters*
Does being female necessitate that I be stereotypically so? I remember reading somewhere that "as intelligence increases, differences between gender behavior becomes less apparent." I believe there is truth in that.
>.>
I don't think it's an illusion. We don't do anything unless both of us are mutually in agreement on it. If one of us is opposed, we both throw it out. But that doesn't happen often - in the year since we started dating, we've yet to have an argument (knock on wood) or even a very strong disagreement (knock on wood again).
And I know what you mean about the way she dressed, but neither one of us is like that. We both have long hair, wear makeup, and wear a dress if we're going to something formal. My casual dress involves jeans more often than skirts, but I do wear skirts from time to time, and even when I'm not, my tops are very feminine - very rare is the case when I'm seen wearing a t-shirt. Just because I like technology doesn't necessarily mean I have any other stereotypically masculine traits. ^^ (My partner, by the way, also likes technology, but she's not as good at it as I am.)
Actually, there is no "guy" in our relationship. Assuming you meant "person who takes charge/responsibility/control," that role is shared equally between us. If you meant to imply that I was "butch," however, I'll tell you that I am quite "femme," as is my partner. ;)
Excuse me for that, I'm not quite up-to-date on my Latin. (The irony of "up-to-date" and "Latin" being used in the same sentence...)
So I made one spelling error. Trust me, it's a rare occurrence. ^^;
...no comment.
That's not true either. :P Doubtful that anyone will believe me, but I get complimented on my looks fairly frequently, and have the height and figure (but not the breasts v.v) of the average American model. But maybe there are just no good looking straight women on slashdot. >.>
Of course, now that I've said that, the Law of Inverse Sexual Attraction states that the number of people trying to "befriend" me must now increase exponentially.
*raises hand*
Of course, slashdot law requires that at least five people now show up to prove me wrong, since there are "no women on the internet." It's ok. However wrong you may be, I am prepared to acknowledge that you are only following cliches, jumping on bandwagons, and repeating someone else's jokes for perhaps the hundredth time in your life in an attempt to sound funny, witty, or intelligent. I know you're only 'doing your duty,' par se. Fulfilling your obligation to slashdot society.
Don't worry. There are people who can help you.
Once Windows and Macintosh (or whatever hardware-based proprietary operating systems come along to replace them in this new framework) are permanently embedded in the hardware, making dual-booting nigh impossible (if not completely impossible), and making replacement of the operating system with a new one into a task so arduous that even a good many of today's Linux junkies would just opt to stick with what came with it... I doubt we'll see any more crossover to the free alternatives.
Oh, and did we mention the upgrade cycle on these things? That's right, for the average user who has no idea how to flash a piece of hardware, they have to order a whole new replacement every time the slightest security upgrade comes along on the operating system level! That sounds like wonderful fun for Gramma, don't you agree?
If that was the case, why not just go with TGR? What confuses me is the randomly appearing "I" that seems to serve no purpose, save to make it sound like "Tiger."
TIGR = Tactical Ground Reporting System?
So... where did the I come from, and where did the S go? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to actually put something in for the I - Tactical Interactive Ground Reporting would have worked well, I think.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, do. Those who can't do either, watch and wish they could.
Do you really know that many people who can do THAT well? Holding one hand still or moving it a vaguely circular motion while the other moves a stick isn't even remotely similar to typing one word with one hand and another with the other.
Yes... that would make it easier for robots and harder for humans. Seriously, how many people do you know who can do two different things with both hands at the same time?
"I once smoked tobacco ... there's no smoke..."
Can you explain how that works? Smoking without smoke?
This just in: cookies now come in multiple flavors, people will be coming in multiple skin tones, and TV is going to come with multiple channels!
I'm only a hobbiest writer, not a professional. I haven't published anything. But one doesn't have to be published to be a writer. ;)