All too often these days citizens in the United States treat the two political parties like rival sports teams...nay...rival professional wrestlers.
Spot on. It's become a weird mix of sports-team devotion and religious affiliation. People choose a side because their parents/grandparents/friends chose that side. They leap to defend "their club", and give no thought to *why*. That's what I really dislike about political parties....they outlast people. If they stick around long enough to build followings, much like a religion, people end up getting born into a party which they reflexively support and defend without ever thinking about any alternatives.
Rather, they should be listening to the electorate, especially in times like this.
That's not why you elect a representative though. Their job isn't to check opinion polls every every time they need to make a decision, and carry out the apparent will of the electorate. When you vote for a representative, you're [supposed to be] selecting a person whom you believe will make a good leader, and will make good decisions when it comes to running the government. Of course you want to pick someone who's views run similarly to your own, but they are not there simply to follow your instructions. If you don't like the job they do in running the government, you vote them out, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm actually aiming this at pretty much all of the sibling posts so far.....
So, since she doesn't walk in perfect lock-step with the "core" of the Republican party, she's not really a Republican? Apparently the GOP disagrees, since she's y'know, a member of the party.
This kind of thinking drives me crazy. If the only point of a politician was to enforce their party's goals with no room for disagreement, then why bother having more than three people in each house of Congress? We could just assign one member of each party to be "The (party affiliation here) Senator" or "The (party affiliation here) Representative", and have an election to see which party picks up the extra person to give their party the majority. Then they could just function as a mouthpiece for the party, and do away with all that independent thinking stuff. In the event of a tie, the third chair stays empty.
Honestly, we need more congress-people who pay less attention to party directives and think for themselves, not less.
And from the same Wikipedia page: Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[5] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[6] Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, the concept of race may be useful in forensic anthropology. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]
I disagree with Gill. I dislike the idea of race largely because it's imprecise, using race in most cases to make any kind of meaningful point is like trying to solder a chip with a flamethrower. You already fell into that trap yourself once trying to go with Jews and Tay-Sachs. The reality is that there's one particular ethnic group (the Ashkenazi), which tends towards Judaism, where the condition is generally found. To suggest that the Ashkenazi are a race unto themselves would be akin to stating that Sicilians are also a distinct race, and to suggest that it's a feature of some overall "Jewish race" that the Ashkenazi are part of is silly.
Race is most certianly a social construct, and it's generally based on fairly arbitrary features.
Personally, I prefer to acknowledge that the concept exists so that I can acknowledge and try to manage its effects.
What effects would those be? The ones that jump to mind that you can use such a broad phrase to describe tend to be social, and related to the entire obsession of classifying different "races", rather than traceable to any direct inheritable traits that are applicable to such large numbers of people contained in any of these classifications.
Come on people, pay attention to science, there is no basis in science for dividing humans into *race* - it was a cultural construct meant to suppress people who looked different. And you are perpetuating it if you keep referring to "race" as a valid concept.
You made an attempt to counter his statement, but I pointed out the absurdity of your argument (which you largely skipped over).
Are there times where "race" can be used as a convenient shorthand to convey an idea? Sure, but the common racial catagories are most definitely social constructs, and fairly arbitrary ones at that. Even in common use, you'd be hard pressed to find consensus about what constitutes a race? Hint, Jews are followers of a religion, comprising of more than a single ethnicity. Are there multiple "Jewish races"? Or does the concept of race in this context simply break down?
yeah, pretty much what I thought you'd say. So, by standard, there's a "Jewish race", and then I guess there must also be a "Cajun race" and a "French Canadian race" (the other groups that come up with Tay-Sachs). I suppose there must be an "Italian race", since they have pretty recognizable noses and hair, and how about a "Scandinavian race" to cover all of those tall blonds with blue eyes, who are clearly distinguishable from the dark-haired, dark-eyed and round-faced "Polish race". We can keep sub-categorizing forever this way, so I'm assuming that you'd concede that there's no "White" or "Caucasian" race, as people traditionally called that really fall into plenty of more specific categories based on things like "noses, hair, and builds" which "offset them from many other groups". Or is there one particular group who are the *real* white people, who just put up with all those not-quite-whites who just think they are?
Or maybe the word you're looking for is ethnicity, not race. Snaller was was perfectly correct, the idea of "race" is an artificial construct, with lines that can be moved anywhere you want based on whatever agenda you're perusing at the time.
We were poised to use Android OS phones because iPhones were thought of as toys - with the exception of Exchange we're still mostly a *nix shop
Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but since the iPhone OS is a scaled down OSX, which is UNIX, why would a mostly *nix shop consider it a toy? I can think of other reasons to go with something other than an iPhone, but as far as pedigree goes it has a decent lineage.
And before I get called an iPhone fanboy or shill, I use a Palm Pre, so I really have no stake in the iPhone vs Android thing.
One of the people from the MSN article: "Suzanne Mullins won $4.2 million in the Virginia lottery in 1993. Now she's deeply in debt to a company that lent her money using the winnings as collateral.
She borrowed $197,746.15, which she agreed to pay back with her yearly checks from the Virginia lottery through 2006. When the rules changed allowing her to collect her winnings in a lump sum, she cashed in the remaining amount. But she stopped making payments on the loan.
She blamed the debt on the lengthy illness of her uninsured son-in-law, who needed $1 million for medical bills. "
We live in a country where, even if you hit the lotto, you can still end up bankrupt from medical bills. Maybe single-payer healthcare doesn't just help the poor while robbing from the rich after all......
So if you were to return your EEE, does that mean they'd have to recall all of these new touchscreen ones to continue their systematic campaign of mental torture against you? 'Cause that's got some serious potential for entertainment value.....
Sure, they say it can make "cheap international calls", but can it understand if I ask it to call someone in my native language (which, for the record, is not English)?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.....you dial the number, and the call is placed like any other phone. What difference does it make what language the actual conversation is in?
Can it transcript voicemails that are in another language than English? Because very few of my voicemails are in English. Very few of my contacts on my phone has an English clinging name.
AFAIK, transcription is English only (at least for now). Considering that the service is only available at this point in the U.S. though, that's not particularly surprising....
I guess multiple language support is just a fevered dream of mine.
Give 'em a chance.....so far they only have a limited run going, and it's only in the U.S.. If they get a good response and decide to go international with it, I would expect that multiple languages would go along with that.....
Which just goes to show that a significant percentage of drivers don't give a rat's ass about creaming your squishy body but don't want their paint scratched by a hard object.
Perhaps if the cyclists were sitting on top of some kind of hard object, maybe made of metal, that was likely to damage a car when hit it would have the same effect.....something like, oh, I dunno, a bicycle?
20 minutes? really? Way back in the stone-age, when I was a kid we'd spend hours exploring what our amazing Commodore 64s and Apple IIs could do. We'd dial into BBSs, and run our own. We'd write our own software, and tinker with other peoples' code. Sometimes we'd end up in places we weren't welcome (Hello Joshua, shall we play a game?). Our parents hadn't the vaguest understanding of what we were up to (boys? Why is the phone making a funny whistling sound? Did you hook up that video game thing to it?). We're the application developers and software engineers, the IT architects, and the hardware engineers now. Our understanding of how these machines work come from all the hours we spent exploring them as children. It's fun to demonize children "wasting their time" on the internet, but it's part of our world, and worthy of exploration. I hear all the time about how "this latest generation" is made up of computer geniuses since they grew up with them, but honestly, most of the ones I talk to know virtually nothing about these machines other than day-to-day use. They can't fix'em, they can't upgrade'em, and they still make horrible messes of them that leave an actual power-user scratching their heads. Maybe, just maybe, the whole idea of heavily supervised "play-dates" with their computers plays into this. At their most curious ages they're told not to touch, not to explore, and in the end they turn out not really learning any of the really cool things that they could do.....
Again though, context is everything. I'll agree they were murdered in the sense that they shouldn't have been there and that the Nazis showed a horrifying lack of regard for the prisoners, but the greatest actual cause of death for prisoners at Dachau was disease, neglect and mistreatment, not bullets or poison.
I think the greater point is that Guantanamo, like Dachau, is a place where you put people whom you'd like to disappear, and who have little or no recourse or rights. If these people are guilty of a crime, put them on trial in the full light of day. Don't just say that they're in Guantanamo because they're guilty and the proof that they're guilty is that they're in Guantanamo. If we're going to hold prisoners, wherever we do it we should be living up to our own standards, not shopping around for a piece of ground that's outside our boarders so we can say that our rules don't apply. That's an end-run around the ideals that we fight for, and it cheapens those ideals when we disregard them as inconvenient.
I'd rather not have the best things that can be said about a U.S. operation is that at least it's smaller and more sanitary than a Nazi concentration camp. We're better than that.
Then again, maybe he's drawing a distinction between concentration camps and extermination camps. Dachau's original purpose was to hold political prisoners and other enemies of the Fatherland. Horrible place? Absolutely, but it's intended purpose seems to have been different than the murder-machines like Treblinka.
What's wrong with it? I'll tell you what's wrong with it. I have blond hair and blue eyes. We're a comparatively rare breed. Quite frankly, we're a little like rockstars, or genetic lotto winners. It's totally true, blonds have more fun. Really. Just ask some blonds, "Hey, do you guys really have more fun?", and the answer will always be, after a furtive look around to see who else is listening, "Yep, we really do". Guys, girls, doesn't matter, just how it is. As for blue eyes, blue is just cool. C'mon, it's like a hard and fast rule. Want to make something look cool, do you put red LEDs on it, or nice, cool blue ones? No brainer, you go with the blue. You might want to go with red if you're denoting evil, like that flashy eye-thing on a cylon, but if there was such a thing as a good-guy cylon, you can bet it's eye would be blue.
Now, what happens when just anyone can willy-nilly go about having blond-haired, blue-eyed children? I'll tell you what happens, my stock drops faster than an Airbus A320 in bad weather. Just another yellow-haired, blue-eyed, face in the crowd. Next thing you know, black hair and brown eyes are cool, and I'm left out in the cold. Well I'm just not gonna sit still and take it. Don't mess with the natural order, genetic screening is evil and wrong and sucks.
yeah, it's off topic, but I had to really read that carefully a couple of times before I even noticed the extra "was" that was in there. It's amazing how the brain sometimes edits things as you read them to "fix" mistakes as you go without you even consciously noticing it....
You are so wrong. It is illegal to POSSESS certain drugs. Ownership is not a requisite element of possession.
Wrong. Drug laws are full of loopholes and exceptions. Researchers are able to obtain "illegal" drugs for the purposes of study. Cocaine has certain medical uses and is available to hospitals.
Last but not least, if mere possession were illegal under any and all circumstances, then you'd have to arrest the cop who confiscates drugs from someone, and then you'd have to arrest the cop who arrests him, and then you'd have to arrest the cop who arrests that guy etc, etc, etc. Handling by law-enforcement, under strict regulation, is one of the exceptions to the drug laws.
This is why we call drugs "controlled substances", and not "banned substances" or "forbidden substances".
And yet you still don't get it. You can have an opinion all you want. Nobody cares. But when you discuss things with other people, there's a chance that they'll challenge your opinion. Did you miss the part where I said you have every right to be against tracking systems for your own kids? Why is your opinion unchallengeable with regards to how other people view the subject?
I don't think I misconstrued a single thing you wrote. If I did, you didn't seem to do a very good job of clarifying your position though, did you?
You sunk to pure childishness, and then, upon being called on it, decided to do it again. At least you're consistent.
Good night to you too. I'll refrain from the fuck-you though, although you're going out of your way to deserve one.
Wow. You ignored every point I brought up, were obnoxious and belligerent the entire time and yet are so amazingly thin-skinned that you took that question as a personal insult? Seriously, switch to decaf. And maybe consider a therapist.
You'd already stopped listening, as was also indicated by the tedious repetition of your "cellphones are so cool" comments.
I was making points on why they fit almost exactly what the guy was looking for. You did nothing to answer his actual questions, or to refute a single point I made. When you fall back on behaving like a child, online or off, you can expect to have your opinions ignored as juvenile.
I was civil, you resorted to name-calling and tantrums. And yet I'm the asshole? Amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on. It's become a weird mix of sports-team devotion and religious affiliation. People choose a side because their parents/grandparents/friends chose that side. They leap to defend "their club", and give no thought to *why*. That's what I really dislike about political parties....they outlast people. If they stick around long enough to build followings, much like a religion, people end up getting born into a party which they reflexively support and defend without ever thinking about any alternatives.
That's not why you elect a representative though. Their job isn't to check opinion polls every every time they need to make a decision, and carry out the apparent will of the electorate. When you vote for a representative, you're [supposed to be] selecting a person whom you believe will make a good leader, and will make good decisions when it comes to running the government. Of course you want to pick someone who's views run similarly to your own, but they are not there simply to follow your instructions. If you don't like the job they do in running the government, you vote them out, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm actually aiming this at pretty much all of the sibling posts so far.....
So, since she doesn't walk in perfect lock-step with the "core" of the Republican party, she's not really a Republican? Apparently the GOP disagrees, since she's y'know, a member of the party.
This kind of thinking drives me crazy. If the only point of a politician was to enforce their party's goals with no room for disagreement, then why bother having more than three people in each house of Congress? We could just assign one member of each party to be "The (party affiliation here) Senator" or "The (party affiliation here) Representative", and have an election to see which party picks up the extra person to give their party the majority. Then they could just function as a mouthpiece for the party, and do away with all that independent thinking stuff. In the event of a tie, the third chair stays empty.
Honestly, we need more congress-people who pay less attention to party directives and think for themselves, not less.
And from the same Wikipedia page:
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[5] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[6] Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, the concept of race may be useful in forensic anthropology. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]
I disagree with Gill. I dislike the idea of race largely because it's imprecise, using race in most cases to make any kind of meaningful point is like trying to solder a chip with a flamethrower. You already fell into that trap yourself once trying to go with Jews and Tay-Sachs. The reality is that there's one particular ethnic group (the Ashkenazi), which tends towards Judaism, where the condition is generally found. To suggest that the Ashkenazi are a race unto themselves would be akin to stating that Sicilians are also a distinct race, and to suggest that it's a feature of some overall "Jewish race" that the Ashkenazi are part of is silly.
Race is most certianly a social construct, and it's generally based on fairly arbitrary features.
What effects would those be? The ones that jump to mind that you can use such a broad phrase to describe tend to be social, and related to the entire obsession of classifying different "races", rather than traceable to any direct inheritable traits that are applicable to such large numbers of people contained in any of these classifications.
What Snaller said was:
You made an attempt to counter his statement, but I pointed out the absurdity of your argument (which you largely skipped over).
Are there times where "race" can be used as a convenient shorthand to convey an idea? Sure, but the common racial catagories are most definitely social constructs, and fairly arbitrary ones at that. Even in common use, you'd be hard pressed to find consensus about what constitutes a race? Hint, Jews are followers of a religion, comprising of more than a single ethnicity. Are there multiple "Jewish races"? Or does the concept of race in this context simply break down?
If the poster you're responding to is a Ferengi, then that statement is perfectly reasonable.
yeah, pretty much what I thought you'd say. So, by standard, there's a "Jewish race", and then I guess there must also be a "Cajun race" and a "French Canadian race" (the other groups that come up with Tay-Sachs). I suppose there must be an "Italian race", since they have pretty recognizable noses and hair, and how about a "Scandinavian race" to cover all of those tall blonds with blue eyes, who are clearly distinguishable from the dark-haired, dark-eyed and round-faced "Polish race". We can keep sub-categorizing forever this way, so I'm assuming that you'd concede that there's no "White" or "Caucasian" race, as people traditionally called that really fall into plenty of more specific categories based on things like "noses, hair, and builds" which "offset them from many other groups". Or is there one particular group who are the *real* white people, who just put up with all those not-quite-whites who just think they are?
Or maybe the word you're looking for is ethnicity, not race. Snaller was was perfectly correct, the idea of "race" is an artificial construct, with lines that can be moved anywhere you want based on whatever agenda you're perusing at the time.
Just out of curiosity, which "race" is Tay-Sachs unique to? I know perfectly well what Tay-Sachs is, but I'm curious to hear your answer.
Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but since the iPhone OS is a scaled down OSX, which is UNIX, why would a mostly *nix shop consider it a toy? I can think of other reasons to go with something other than an iPhone, but as far as pedigree goes it has a decent lineage.
And before I get called an iPhone fanboy or shill, I use a Palm Pre, so I really have no stake in the iPhone vs Android thing.
One of the people from the MSN article:
"Suzanne Mullins won $4.2 million in the Virginia lottery in 1993. Now she's deeply in debt to a company that lent her money using the winnings as collateral.
She borrowed $197,746.15, which she agreed to pay back with her yearly checks from the Virginia lottery through 2006. When the rules changed allowing her to collect her winnings in a lump sum, she cashed in the remaining amount. But she stopped making payments on the loan.
She blamed the debt on the lengthy illness of her uninsured son-in-law, who needed $1 million for medical bills. "
We live in a country where, even if you hit the lotto, you can still end up bankrupt from medical bills. Maybe single-payer healthcare doesn't just help the poor while robbing from the rich after all......
>> Too many young, good looking, vapid actors.
> Are you sure you're not talking about Battlestar Galactica?
I call BS. I you were old enough to think Tigh and Adama were young and good-looking, your UID would be waaaaaay lower.....
So if you were to return your EEE, does that mean they'd have to recall all of these new touchscreen ones to continue their systematic campaign of mental torture against you? 'Cause that's got some serious potential for entertainment value.....
I'm not sure what you're asking here.....you dial the number, and the call is placed like any other phone. What difference does it make what language the actual conversation is in?
AFAIK, transcription is English only (at least for now). Considering that the service is only available at this point in the U.S. though, that's not particularly surprising....
Give 'em a chance.....so far they only have a limited run going, and it's only in the U.S.. If they get a good response and decide to go international with it, I would expect that multiple languages would go along with that.....
I think Ho-Ho-Kus (NJ) is unique :)
IIRC it's also the only double hyphenated city-name in the U.S.
<Zim>Worse? Or better?</Zim>
Perhaps if the cyclists were sitting on top of some kind of hard object, maybe made of metal, that was likely to damage a car when hit it would have the same effect.....something like, oh, I dunno, a bicycle?
20 minutes? really? Way back in the stone-age, when I was a kid we'd spend hours exploring what our amazing Commodore 64s and Apple IIs could do. We'd dial into BBSs, and run our own. We'd write our own software, and tinker with other peoples' code. Sometimes we'd end up in places we weren't welcome (Hello Joshua, shall we play a game?). Our parents hadn't the vaguest understanding of what we were up to (boys? Why is the phone making a funny whistling sound? Did you hook up that video game thing to it?). We're the application developers and software engineers, the IT architects, and the hardware engineers now. Our understanding of how these machines work come from all the hours we spent exploring them as children.
It's fun to demonize children "wasting their time" on the internet, but it's part of our world, and worthy of exploration. I hear all the time about how "this latest generation" is made up of computer geniuses since they grew up with them, but honestly, most of the ones I talk to know virtually nothing about these machines other than day-to-day use. They can't fix'em, they can't upgrade'em, and they still make horrible messes of them that leave an actual power-user scratching their heads. Maybe, just maybe, the whole idea of heavily supervised "play-dates" with their computers plays into this. At their most curious ages they're told not to touch, not to explore, and in the end they turn out not really learning any of the really cool things that they could do.....
Again though, context is everything. I'll agree they were murdered in the sense that they shouldn't have been there and that the Nazis showed a horrifying lack of regard for the prisoners, but the greatest actual cause of death for prisoners at Dachau was disease, neglect and mistreatment, not bullets or poison.
I think the greater point is that Guantanamo, like Dachau, is a place where you put people whom you'd like to disappear, and who have little or no recourse or rights. If these people are guilty of a crime, put them on trial in the full light of day. Don't just say that they're in Guantanamo because they're guilty and the proof that they're guilty is that they're in Guantanamo. If we're going to hold prisoners, wherever we do it we should be living up to our own standards, not shopping around for a piece of ground that's outside our boarders so we can say that our rules don't apply. That's an end-run around the ideals that we fight for, and it cheapens those ideals when we disregard them as inconvenient.
I'd rather not have the best things that can be said about a U.S. operation is that at least it's smaller and more sanitary than a Nazi concentration camp. We're better than that.
Yeah, I've been to one of those. Pink Floyd's Division Bell tour, Giants Stadium....good times, good times.....
Oh you said controlled....my bad.
Then again, maybe he's drawing a distinction between concentration camps and extermination camps. Dachau's original purpose was to hold political prisoners and other enemies of the Fatherland. Horrible place? Absolutely, but it's intended purpose seems to have been different than the murder-machines like Treblinka.
What's wrong with it? I'll tell you what's wrong with it. I have blond hair and blue eyes. We're a comparatively rare breed. Quite frankly, we're a little like rockstars, or genetic lotto winners. It's totally true, blonds have more fun. Really. Just ask some blonds, "Hey, do you guys really have more fun?", and the answer will always be, after a furtive look around to see who else is listening, "Yep, we really do". Guys, girls, doesn't matter, just how it is. As for blue eyes, blue is just cool. C'mon, it's like a hard and fast rule. Want to make something look cool, do you put red LEDs on it, or nice, cool blue ones? No brainer, you go with the blue. You might want to go with red if you're denoting evil, like that flashy eye-thing on a cylon, but if there was such a thing as a good-guy cylon, you can bet it's eye would be blue.
Now, what happens when just anyone can willy-nilly go about having blond-haired, blue-eyed children? I'll tell you what happens, my stock drops faster than an Airbus A320 in bad weather. Just another yellow-haired, blue-eyed, face in the crowd. Next thing you know, black hair and brown eyes are cool, and I'm left out in the cold. Well I'm just not gonna sit still and take it. Don't mess with the natural order, genetic screening is evil and wrong and sucks.
yeah, it's off topic, but I had to really read that carefully a couple of times before I even noticed the extra "was" that was in there. It's amazing how the brain sometimes edits things as you read them to "fix" mistakes as you go without you even consciously noticing it....
Wrong. Drug laws are full of loopholes and exceptions. Researchers are able to obtain "illegal" drugs for the purposes of study. Cocaine has certain medical uses and is available to hospitals.
Last but not least, if mere possession were illegal under any and all circumstances, then you'd have to arrest the cop who confiscates drugs from someone, and then you'd have to arrest the cop who arrests him, and then you'd have to arrest the cop who arrests that guy etc, etc, etc. Handling by law-enforcement, under strict regulation, is one of the exceptions to the drug laws.
This is why we call drugs "controlled substances", and not "banned substances" or "forbidden substances".
And yet you still don't get it. You can have an opinion all you want. Nobody cares. But when you discuss things with other people, there's a chance that they'll challenge your opinion. Did you miss the part where I said you have every right to be against tracking systems for your own kids? Why is your opinion unchallengeable with regards to how other people view the subject?
I don't think I misconstrued a single thing you wrote. If I did, you didn't seem to do a very good job of clarifying your position though, did you?
You sunk to pure childishness, and then, upon being called on it, decided to do it again. At least you're consistent.
Good night to you too. I'll refrain from the fuck-you though, although you're going out of your way to deserve one.
Wow. You ignored every point I brought up, were obnoxious and belligerent the entire time and yet are so amazingly thin-skinned that you took that question as a personal insult? Seriously, switch to decaf. And maybe consider a therapist.
I was making points on why they fit almost exactly what the guy was looking for. You did nothing to answer his actual questions, or to refute a single point I made. When you fall back on behaving like a child, online or off, you can expect to have your opinions ignored as juvenile.
I was civil, you resorted to name-calling and tantrums. And yet I'm the asshole? Amazing.