I'm sure that you would have liked to know for sure, and I would have thought that you would be willing to try get past the gate keepers. It was my honest mistake.
The whole situation makes me curious. I'll probably try in the future to select all "happy right now" type answers.
100% of Babe Ruth's strike outs were caused by him having the guts to go up to bat.
100% of Michael Jordan's failed attempts at shooting for a basket were caused by him having the guts to play.
The only people who never fail by your standards are the people who never bother to try, or who manage to succeed completely. In the case of marriage, a lot of people do.
I can't believe how many atheists claim that non-Christians aren't allowed. I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
Nonsense. I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
Did you test your theory by trying to sign up, and selecting that option? I ask because I tried to fill in the profile 2 - 3 times, and each time, it didn't work. I couldn't figure out for the life of me what I chose "incorrectly".
I was rejected by eHarmony 2-3 times, and I definitely mentioned that I was Christian the first time; maybe the second or third. It also bummed me out a lot. I don't think that I ever recovered.
During the second or third time, I tried to mention that I make more money, and tried to show looser morals or whatever, and tried to even have a more appealing job. I tried to make myself fit what I thought would be a desirable stereotype, but it still didn't work.
This is borne out with online personals. The first thing women say is they want someone nice -- as if a woman is going to admit that she wants to date a piece of shit. However, when contacted by a nice guy, she ignores him in favour of a 'bad boy' who provides a sense of danger and excitement.
I don't understand how a guy could convey a sense of danger and excitement via online personals or email. It doesn't make sense, because she should be wary of strangers online; according what I understand. Do you know how?
As the other person says, some people get hit on a lot. I'd hate to say it, but I only got hit on less than 5 times in my life, I think. It's definitely not a lot.
There are some very unattractive people out there, and if you think that they get hit on just as much as the next guy, then you're really not looking at it realistically.
To even justify your thoughts as a guess, you should at least point to a study or research.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I think that such a system would relieve so much stress.
I'm even willing to let dealers, hookers, and others go, as long as we don't catch them breaking the law. In other words, I don't think that the government should chase after taxes on illegal activities, unless they are doing it in an obvious manner.
Just yesterday, I was doing my 2010 taxes. I am very certain that the government is charging me too much, but honestly, I can't be bothered to dispute the situation, because it's only $48, and it should only be this once. The system is way too complex.
They should be making it easier for people to pay taxes, not harder.
Interesting. I'm using the latest LTS version of Kubuntu, with OpenOffice.org 3.2.1, and I figured that I would have LibreOffice when it would be ready. It's not in the package manager. Are you saying that LibreOffice works better with that document than OpenOffice?
That doesn't sound good to me. The requirement for paper work should not be based on the price tag. It should be done no matter what to show the cost of the entire product, including the quality of it, and including the technical service required.
Yes, in the Canadian Forces, when you procure things, you have to keep copies of price quotes. Even a flier can count as a quote. The bottom line is that the price that you paid should show the best value, even for $10.
Thanks for clarifying. I think that I understand what you are saying now.
I also see a difference between the movie and the action. I also would be uncomfortable being next to a live couple.
Simulated murder is just pretending, and it isn't a real goal in the story. It's just a part of the story that leads to a better ending. The hero wants freedom, so he kills. The villain wants to conquer the world or just lash out, so he kills. The idea is that the story needs to portray the villain as evil, and the hero needs to get rid of the villain, in order to get freedom.
Movie violence tends to get sketchy when there is abuse, and it is portrayed as justified. Women might beat up men, to belittle them, and get away with it. After all, women are allowed to do that, right? Men can't hit back, right? It's the same with violence in the real world or movies. Wouldn't you and I both feel the same discomfort if Hitler were portrayed as an innocent victim?
Regarding porn, the actual act is bad to me, because I consider sex a private thing, within the context of marriage, as you probably assumed. Porn glamourizes sex out of wed lock. Liberals wouldn't tolerate it, if conservatives made sex look painful, right? Porn portrays it nicely. Also, most conservatives, and I assume liberals, want to pick the right time to teach children things. You probably want kids to learn about sex and religion at time that seems appropriate. I realize that we disagree on when, and on what is the right view, but it should be self evident that letting kids see porn at the library, but not video store is a little contradictory. Also, letting kids see porn in the library undermines the parents' ability to pick the right time while letting the kids have free access to the story books and other computers.
Also, sex actually happens in porn, even though people might not have the feelings associated with it, unlike movie murder, movie divorce, and movie marriage. In the latter 3 types of actions, actors don't really get murdered, divorced, or married, so it's okay.
Although I want to prevent people from seeing any porn in the library, I think that it is a reasonable compromise to at least require that all people view it in the corner or some such place. It keeps everybody independent. Conservatives can't complain about what they can't see, right?
Disclaimer: I recall seeing, that in Europe, porn is very out and in the open at the ordinary stores; I still don't think that it's wise.
Here is a slightly unrelated thought. Can we show images of aborted fetuses on university campuses? Sort of not. Most liberals won't tolerate it. It's considered harassment. It's just an image. Can't conservatives just enjoy showing and looking at it? It's really the message that bothers liberals. I understand that. I don't want to undermine the liberal ability to make a conclusion. There is a natural animosity between us, and that is healthy. The problem is what can be seen at what time.
Here's another thought, that's even more off topic. How would you like it, if kids trick-or-treated at my door, and I gave out Jack Trick tracts as treats? Would you let young children [e.g. perhaps ages 7 and under] view them unsupervised? I remember liberals complaining condescendingly about an incident. A kid told an adult that he [or was it she?] got comics from the nice person. The liberal woman felt skeptical right away, and insisted on seeing them. The woman reached in the bag, and found Jack Trick tracts about sin. You could image how her blood boiled. She confiscated them right away.
I respect any adult's desire to time the message. It's the message and the specific timing that I quarrel about.
Some actions are awesome, no matter what [e.g. choosing to eat healthy and then following through]. Some are legitimately subjective [e.g. killing a theatre full of Nazis who have experimented on Jews, and who have plans to dominate the world, as opposed to killing innocent theatre customers]. Some are legitimately wrong [e.g. kidnapping a child and forcing her to be a prostitute].
In a movie, I have no qualms with actors who portray evil villains, as long as they are just acting, and not trying to glamourize and portray it as good. With killing, people can say that actors don't really kill. With porn, people actually do have sex, or actually do remove their clothes.
I think that you are being deliberately incoherent, because you approve of porn in public, since it's not physically hurting anybody, but not actual sex or goatse when it also doesn't physically hurt anybody.
Whether or not porn and sex are physically there or not is irrelevant to me in this discussion, because I don't want people to see porn or sex in the library, whether the specific pornographic or sexual act is morally acceptable to me or not.
Somehow, the physical act is relevant to you. To imply that there is something wrong with the physical act, and then compare it to killing a theatre full of innocents, means that you are being a bit deceptive or argumentative. You are more liberal than me, and are supposed to have looser standards.
I'm from Canada. I met somebody who took a trip to the US. I asked if the Americans were polite. I expected a typical response, but the person surprised me by saying that the Americans in certain parts were more polite. An example is somebody saying, "Is this the end of the line?" instead of just cutting in. Canadians kind of do that, but more often than not, we just cut in.
I think that the majority of people have a lot to learn about courtesy.
I'm not going to argue your point, because I'm not up to date of the details, but where do you get your information? Is it written somewhere that pornography can be viewed in all places?
Regarding your slippery slope, you write as if only our ideas are abusive and have slippery slopes.
Right wing agenda? I'm sure that all liberals were always at the forefront of anticensorship movements. As soon as pro-life people want to show images of abortions, then you don't censor, you "prevent harassment".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that you would have liked to know for sure, and I would have thought that you would be willing to try get past the gate keepers. It was my honest mistake.
The whole situation makes me curious. I'll probably try in the future to select all "happy right now" type answers.
Yeah, you're right. That is creepy. Thanks for the explanation.
You could use that for a lot of sports stats too.
100% of Babe Ruth's strike outs were caused by him having the guts to go up to bat.
100% of Michael Jordan's failed attempts at shooting for a basket were caused by him having the guts to play.
The only people who never fail by your standards are the people who never bother to try, or who manage to succeed completely. In the case of marriage, a lot of people do.
What if they are not interested in answering more questions?
How do I get them to be interested in me, if I'm not in the top 25%?
I can't believe how many atheists claim that non-Christians aren't allowed. I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
Nonsense. I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
I'm a Christian, and I have filled it in 2 - 3 times, and each time, they rejected me. After the first time, I tried to lie about everything to see what they rejected me over, and I couldn't figure it out.
Did you test your theory by trying to sign up, and selecting that option? I ask because I tried to fill in the profile 2 - 3 times, and each time, it didn't work. I couldn't figure out for the life of me what I chose "incorrectly".
I was rejected by eHarmony 2-3 times, and I definitely mentioned that I was Christian the first time; maybe the second or third. It also bummed me out a lot. I don't think that I ever recovered.
During the second or third time, I tried to mention that I make more money, and tried to show looser morals or whatever, and tried to even have a more appealing job. I tried to make myself fit what I thought would be a desirable stereotype, but it still didn't work.
I'm not trying to argue, but why is that creepy?
I don't understand how a guy could convey a sense of danger and excitement via online personals or email. It doesn't make sense, because she should be wary of strangers online; according what I understand. Do you know how?
As the other person says, some people get hit on a lot. I'd hate to say it, but I only got hit on less than 5 times in my life, I think. It's definitely not a lot.
There are some very unattractive people out there, and if you think that they get hit on just as much as the next guy, then you're really not looking at it realistically.
To even justify your thoughts as a guess, you should at least point to a study or research.
I agree. I think that such a system would relieve so much stress.
I'm even willing to let dealers, hookers, and others go, as long as we don't catch them breaking the law. In other words, I don't think that the government should chase after taxes on illegal activities, unless they are doing it in an obvious manner.
Just yesterday, I was doing my 2010 taxes. I am very certain that the government is charging me too much, but honestly, I can't be bothered to dispute the situation, because it's only $48, and it should only be this once. The system is way too complex.
They should be making it easier for people to pay taxes, not harder.
Thanks for the reply.
Interesting. I'm using the latest LTS version of Kubuntu, with OpenOffice.org 3.2.1, and I figured that I would have LibreOffice when it would be ready. It's not in the package manager. Are you saying that LibreOffice works better with that document than OpenOffice?
That doesn't sound good to me. The requirement for paper work should not be based on the price tag. It should be done no matter what to show the cost of the entire product, including the quality of it, and including the technical service required.
Yes, in the Canadian Forces, when you procure things, you have to keep copies of price quotes. Even a flier can count as a quote. The bottom line is that the price that you paid should show the best value, even for $10.
Seth, thank you for doing what you did. I'm not American, but I really appreciate you moving there, *and* winning.
I see your email address. I'll email you a document.
Thanks for clarifying. I think that I understand what you are saying now.
I also see a difference between the movie and the action. I also would be uncomfortable being next to a live couple.
Simulated murder is just pretending, and it isn't a real goal in the story. It's just a part of the story that leads to a better ending. The hero wants freedom, so he kills. The villain wants to conquer the world or just lash out, so he kills. The idea is that the story needs to portray the villain as evil, and the hero needs to get rid of the villain, in order to get freedom.
Movie violence tends to get sketchy when there is abuse, and it is portrayed as justified. Women might beat up men, to belittle them, and get away with it. After all, women are allowed to do that, right? Men can't hit back, right? It's the same with violence in the real world or movies. Wouldn't you and I both feel the same discomfort if Hitler were portrayed as an innocent victim?
Regarding porn, the actual act is bad to me, because I consider sex a private thing, within the context of marriage, as you probably assumed. Porn glamourizes sex out of wed lock. Liberals wouldn't tolerate it, if conservatives made sex look painful, right? Porn portrays it nicely. Also, most conservatives, and I assume liberals, want to pick the right time to teach children things. You probably want kids to learn about sex and religion at time that seems appropriate. I realize that we disagree on when, and on what is the right view, but it should be self evident that letting kids see porn at the library, but not video store is a little contradictory. Also, letting kids see porn in the library undermines the parents' ability to pick the right time while letting the kids have free access to the story books and other computers.
Also, sex actually happens in porn, even though people might not have the feelings associated with it, unlike movie murder, movie divorce, and movie marriage. In the latter 3 types of actions, actors don't really get murdered, divorced, or married, so it's okay.
Although I want to prevent people from seeing any porn in the library, I think that it is a reasonable compromise to at least require that all people view it in the corner or some such place. It keeps everybody independent. Conservatives can't complain about what they can't see, right?
Disclaimer: I recall seeing, that in Europe, porn is very out and in the open at the ordinary stores; I still don't think that it's wise.
Here is a slightly unrelated thought. Can we show images of aborted fetuses on university campuses? Sort of not. Most liberals won't tolerate it. It's considered harassment. It's just an image. Can't conservatives just enjoy showing and looking at it? It's really the message that bothers liberals. I understand that. I don't want to undermine the liberal ability to make a conclusion. There is a natural animosity between us, and that is healthy. The problem is what can be seen at what time.
Here's another thought, that's even more off topic. How would you like it, if kids trick-or-treated at my door, and I gave out Jack Trick tracts as treats? Would you let young children [e.g. perhaps ages 7 and under] view them unsupervised? I remember liberals complaining condescendingly about an incident. A kid told an adult that he [or was it she?] got comics from the nice person. The liberal woman felt skeptical right away, and insisted on seeing them. The woman reached in the bag, and found Jack Trick tracts about sin. You could image how her blood boiled. She confiscated them right away.
I respect any adult's desire to time the message. It's the message and the specific timing that I quarrel about.
Thanks again for clarifying.
Some actions are awesome, no matter what [e.g. choosing to eat healthy and then following through]. Some are legitimately subjective [e.g. killing a theatre full of Nazis who have experimented on Jews, and who have plans to dominate the world, as opposed to killing innocent theatre customers]. Some are legitimately wrong [e.g. kidnapping a child and forcing her to be a prostitute].
In a movie, I have no qualms with actors who portray evil villains, as long as they are just acting, and not trying to glamourize and portray it as good. With killing, people can say that actors don't really kill. With porn, people actually do have sex, or actually do remove their clothes.
I think that you are being deliberately incoherent, because you approve of porn in public, since it's not physically hurting anybody, but not actual sex or goatse when it also doesn't physically hurt anybody.
Whether or not porn and sex are physically there or not is irrelevant to me in this discussion, because I don't want people to see porn or sex in the library, whether the specific pornographic or sexual act is morally acceptable to me or not.
Somehow, the physical act is relevant to you. To imply that there is something wrong with the physical act, and then compare it to killing a theatre full of innocents, means that you are being a bit deceptive or argumentative. You are more liberal than me, and are supposed to have looser standards.
I heard that people in the south are very polite.
I'm from Canada. I met somebody who took a trip to the US. I asked if the Americans were polite. I expected a typical response, but the person surprised me by saying that the Americans in certain parts were more polite. An example is somebody saying, "Is this the end of the line?" instead of just cutting in. Canadians kind of do that, but more often than not, we just cut in.
I think that the majority of people have a lot to learn about courtesy.
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that live goatse would be allowed according to the rules?
Good punch lines, by the way.
I'm not going to argue your point, because I'm not up to date of the details, but where do you get your information? Is it written somewhere that pornography can be viewed in all places?
So, liberal Hollywood doesn't go around telling people that they can't print pictures of Mickey Mouse of cakes for their own use? Really?
Abortion information is routinely censored by liberals in the name of free speech.
Pick what evidence you want, and hand wave the rest.
Regarding your slippery slope, you write as if only our ideas are abusive and have slippery slopes.
Right wing agenda? I'm sure that all liberals were always at the forefront of anticensorship movements. As soon as pro-life people want to show images of abortions, then you don't censor, you "prevent harassment".