Hey, thanks for the defense of my post (and thanks to DoctorFrog as well), I appreciate it. Hopefully I can get enough 'underrated' mods to get me a +5 Flamebait, as that's on my Very Long List of Very Minor Goals.:-D
In all seriousness though, many people out there are easily perturbed when confronted with even the slightest realistic challenge to the status quo. It's worked for them, and they're all wrapped up in it like an emotional blanket, for with change comes the threat of uncertainty. I understand, and even empathize, but there comes a point at which the status quo becomes imminently unstable, and when that point comes maintaining the status quo leads to an overall harsher experience when the change DOES come. Preparing for the change gradually, the first step of which is to ease power structures from the hands of those holding it's course straight, is a much better solution, IMHO.
*smile* This thread has progressed in furthering the explanation (of how the time difference in rejecting a prospective date as unobtainable) very quickly. In fact, this whole post is filled with a large amount of courteous replies and honest problem solving.
That's funny to me, we've found the topic where geeks and nerds everywhere, regardless of political persuasion, regardless of operating system choice, irrespective of text-editor preference, come together to truly put our heads together, for the 'common good' of course. *chuckle*
And here is where I'll concede that you're absolutely right, I was very unfair in saying what I did about Bush SUPPORTERS. I apologize, as my remarks were entirely too harsh, and out of line.
However, I stand fully by my description of Bush, and will gleefully join in your chorus of The Ballad of the Draft Dodgin' Clinton, when the topic comes around to stuff that was going on a decade ago. Meanwhile, during a conversation about Bush, bringing up Clinton is being both disingenuous and unobjective, being that we're not doing a COMPARISON (at least, no one is but you) but a description of current events.
Claiming that Bush could have been sent to Vietnam is disingenuous AT BEST, but since I've been too insulting too quick already, I'll leave it at saying there is very very little probability that that was ever a possibility, especially considering his State-side record.
And finally, the difference between you and them (I hope) is that you have enough sense in your older years to know not to get people killed for money, political ambitions or to prove how 'tough' you are in your adult years. Neither Bush nor Clinton seemed to learn that lesson, as both seemed eager to send off other people to die when it became expedient for them personally, even knowing that they had seen the act as 'undesirable' enough when THEY were in that position to effectively dodge it.
Oh, and one more difference between you and them (and this is not meant as an insult at all, I assure you) is that you are not in the position to send out thousands of people to their possible deaths.
Well, in all fairness, I made you my foe before our little 'conversation' here about Bush. I made you my foe due to this post. I have very little respect for people who seem as though they deeply respect our current president, and feel he is above reproach. It indicates to me (I'd like to stress that this is personal opinion only, like whether to make someone a friend or foe) a weak mind and a disturbing lack of empathy for anyone not part of their 'select group', as Bush seems to me to be the epitome of unilateralism and exclusionism.
If it makes you feel any better, I foe many of the Clinton bootlickers too, as I have a low tolerance for people who cannot see reality due to self-imposed political blinders.
What part of what I said was 'unobjective'? Maybe the part where I was snide about WHY people voted for this cretin, but my description of the person himself was wholly accurate.
You seem to assume that I am a fan of Clinton, and I assume you just didn't notice the "almost-as-obnoxious turd" part of my previous statement. The world is not black and white, nor is it some shade of grey between your arbitrarily chosen black and white, it is a rich tapestry of multi-nuanced opinion and causality (both perceived and real), with far more allowable states than "A is good B is bad" and "A is bad B is good". I'm more of an "A and B are both unacceptable, I choose L" kind of guy.
Even if I -WAS- a fan of Clinton, there is still nothing in my post to suggest that my handling of Bush is anything but totally based on strong evidence. That -IS- objectivism.
Wow, that's pretty insightful I'd say. Your notes will serve you well. The only thing that REALLY sticks out to me is #1, and to that I would add that if the girl is COMMONLY critical, don't just reply with a *shrug* but reply with an equal (or maybe even slightly more stinging, but don't go too harsh) criticism. This will serve a couple of possible purposes; it can help you dispose of a bad relationship, it can spark a sexual relationship with someone who likes confrontation (don't get emotionally attached though, they are destroyers), or it can hurt the feelings of a nice but insecure girl. That last bit is the part that MOST nice-guys want to avoid, but what they don't figure is that this 'nice' girl is (just as thoughtlessly) using YOU as an emotional crutch (at your expense), a situation any truly 'nice' girl would find unacceptable once they realize it is happening.
#8 is good, but can be a pitfall back into 'good friend' territory, keep it sensual and exciting.
Finally, be careful with #11. It's not as universal as the others, and though good advice to keep in mind, should not be considered with the weight of your other (excellent) notes. At least, unless you're talking about serious hard-to-negate commitments like moving in together or getting engaged, then you should be wary until you KNOW things are right. Things like sharing apartment keys or even petsitting for a week (as long as you're not just being used) and even stuff like carpooling agreements (when possible) can be perfectly acceptable commitments, with not much chance of ruining things. A little stability can help things along, as long as stability doesn't turn in to stagnation.
This is all just my opinion on it, but you seem to have things figured out pretty well.
Placating the egos of people who made a horrible horrible mistake both 8 and 4 years ago and voted for a cocaine-using, draft dodging, bloodthirsty, dry-drunk, nearly illiterate faux-cowboy when he sought out his next snatch-and-crush business opportunity? Look, you made your mistake the first time voting for a dry-drunk you wanted to have a beer with, and the second time voting for him because you liked the bulge he had in his flight suit, don't go all melodramatic and talk about the LAST almost-as-obnoxious turd to grace the office just to make yourself feel better.
The turd in office is the one we have to deal with RIGHT NOW, save your heavily-modified nostalgic memories for when the topic is how things USED to be, not what's going on today.
If you're not going to vote for either main party, could I convince you to either vote Green or Libertarian? In my personal opinion, I believe that voting for a nearly mainstream '3rd' party sends the most effective "middle finger" to the ruling cabal.
Personally, the Green Party platform is something I can support, they even support the kind of feminism I can get behind (the equality kind, not the men are pigs kind). Having said that, the more support we can get to the major '3rd' parties (I hate that term if you can't tell by the quotes), the more of a message we can send that the 'bipartisanship' that only seems to come about when screwing the populous is no longer acceptable.
I don't see this as redundant, this seems very topical and a large factor in any calculations you're going to make in this area. There is a large amount of time difference in the time a 'nice' guy will spend trying to seduce (in his own special way) someone with a very low probability of dating and the amount of time a 'bad' guy will take to brush off the one who's not putting out.
Being as the equation seems to be dates per period of time, the delta T(wasted) here is very significant.
Heh, anyways thank you for providing the woman's point of view on the matter. I've read a couple of your posts now, and for what I can tell, your opinion seems to be the majority of women's these days. Of course, I mean women who are comfortable with themselves and their emotions, not the emotional train-wrecks that try to live their life based on what TV tells them they should be like, there are a lot of those too...
Anyways, Just wanted to thank you for your insight and your confirmation of the 'confidence and straightforwardness' theory of getting women as a nerd (in general actually, but this IS slashdot). Oh, and to make a bad pun, wanted to do that too.:-D
That's what happened to me in High School. I was the stereotypical 'nice guy' until I realized that I wasn't being nice as much as I was being horney and (unsuccessfully) using 'nice' as a way to fulfill that need. So, I based my social interactions on the truth, that I was in fact horney, and nice (but not nearly as nice as I had acted before). The nice learned it's limit fast, the horney made itself obvious, but not desperate (lude jokes, obvious sexual passes, but not lamenting about a lack of sex life) and I stopped caring so much. I ended up losing a couple female friends. I also ended up loosing a couple female friends. (my first joke based on a typo! yay!) Overall, just the refreshing honesty of being myself was a relief, the fact that it WORKED, CONSISTENTLY, was outstanding. In fact, by the time I settled down, I was picking and choosing between women.
I still wore glasses, I still was fat (250 or so on a 5'11" frame, I didn't lose any weight until I was nearly married), but I was witty (like most nerds can be when not overwhelmingly nervous) I was seemingly confident (it was actually apathy, at first) and I was laid on a regular basis.
There ya go, neomunk's nerd-dating testimonial. You can live your dreams, I'm living proof... Beefcake!
Pay attention everyone who has problems getting dates, Snocone just gave you the greatest and most effective method of getting a specific woman's attention. Of course, all women are different (being people and all), but this article is about statistics, right? The parent's method is an excellent and effective way to game the system in your favor.
You show me a candidate that believes in personal freedoms and well structured social programs... Was that Kucinich or Paul? Oh, that's right, it was both of them.
...and I will show you the laughing stock of the election...... Was that Kucinich or Paul? Oh, that's right, it was both of them.
Re-read your parent post carefully. He didn't say Republicans, he said "republicrats", a term most often used by those people (like me) who believe that the 2 major political parties in the United States differ greatly in rhetoric and little in practice. It's my belief that the GP was referring to the bought and sold thralls of BOTH parties.
I could be wrong though, it did happen that one time.:-D
Really now, are the movie versions THAT MUCH BETTER than the comic books? Of course not, the only reason you want to see those movies is the comic book version. Don't be so quick to thank someone for butchering a classic story just because they spend enough on it to make it look really pretty.
No, but presenting a negative opinion about the recently dead without even trying to show evidence IS INDEED flamebait. Just because somehting is an opinion does not shield it from being flamebait. I'll give you an example.
#1 Brittany Spears' newest album pleases me just as much as the rest of hers have; not at all.
#2 Brittany Spears' newest album is nothing but a continuation of her self-worship and continued detachment from reality.
Both are opinion, both are very likely true, but one is a simple stated opinion and the other is intended (or would be, if this were more than an example) to create a negative emotional response in her fans. It's very likely to draw strong negative reactions due to the way it's worded; this is the very definition of flamebait.
This time I'll ignore the nose-raised attacks thinly veiled in the airs of civility, and focus on your example. Specifically, I'll be giving a counter example, namely the gentle handling he gave the Bush administration during the lead-up (and execution) of the Iraq war. Tim Russert threw alot of softballs to both sides, thus making him fair (balanced is a marketing term and completely irrelevant to news media). Since your post was flimsy and brief in stated evidence, I believe my counter-point is of sufficient (but minimal) weight.
If you weren't offended, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to attack me for my post, and any other explanation is hand-waving and obfuscation. Period, stop, end-of-line. I consider this thread closed. Regarding the first sentence I've quoted, no, it is not necessary to be offended by foolishness to point it out as such, one can do so while being amused.
Regarding your second quoted sentence, that 'Period, stop, end-of-line' hubris might work with your children or your subordinates at work, but it fails miserably when dealing with real-world conversations and only serves to indicate your level of self-grandeur; no one is impressed.
And finally, the fact that you are consistent in suggesting that any possible dissent from your opinion MUST be liberal group-think or liberal intolerance shows exactly what kind of worldview you have: Liberals vs You. Attempting to maintain an illusion of neutrality whilst consistently rattling off about what I can only assume is the 'other' (gotta love false dichotomies) philosophy is self defeating.
I won't be so prideful as to tell you the conversation is at an end, in fact I invite you to reply yet again, but this time try not to insinuate I'm serving some partisan agenda without the slightest shred of evidence.
Nope, undercutting doesn't work on the target demographic for these kinds of 'specialty purchases'. You must always charge MORE, as cost is directly indicative of perceived quality. There is simply no other worldly explanation for 500 dollar ethernet cables, short of very large ones.
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
Wow man, that's twice now you've used bold, and twice now it's been the same word. "Mine".
Get over yourself. I hate to break this to you, but you are not self contained. You've used my roads, you've used my air to breathe, and you're using my internet RIGHT NOW.
I say these things are 'my' things, because I have a sense of community, of being an integral (look up the meaning if you feel snide when reading that) member of society. Society, which is mine, and to which I belong, built those things. Society laid the groundwork for you to write that 'interesting' little porno of yours.
I'm not saying that you're incorrect in stating that your copyrighted work isn't yours, but the bold text on that word 'mine' repeatedly points to a disturbing sociopathy that I think you should ponder well. If you think everything you've ever done is ascribable to only your own brilliance, you're both wrong and short-sighted. Think about how being an actual member of society effects you, and has effected you all of your life before going off on someone so strongly about what's "Mine."
Unless you're one of those baby-boomers that George Carlin informs us have a philosophy of 'GIMME IT, IT'S MINE'. If that's the case, then nevermind, get what you can before you become irrelevant.
The are REFERENTIAL links, in that they make reference to another site, but to claim someone has fat enough fingers to hit 't' instead of 'p' is a stretch, as well as asserting that missing the letters 'r' 'e' 'p' 'o' 'r' 't' all in a row is a typo.
I haven't seen Bush answer (or be asked) a question like that, and he claims to talk to God directly, and receive verbal response! That's a pretty strong theological claim, and I think it should have been tested, don't you? I mean, had we checked if this dude really was 'Christian' we might have realized that he and his... coven? cabal? cult? (whatever) would be responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
I guess with Obama we have to make sure he doesn't single-handedly re-write the U.S. Constitution in order to make all the women wear burkas, and all the men pray to the East. Or (most likely) you just really hate anyone who Fox News doesn't tell you is 'a serious politician' and thus will say even the most obnoxiously childish foolishness to show your loyalty to your clan.
Not that I'm an Obama fan, but I dislike him for reasons based in reality, not because my overlords have told me he's an 'Islamofascist' (the most ignorance filled oxymoron to be uttered in decades).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, thanks for the defense of my post (and thanks to DoctorFrog as well), I appreciate it. Hopefully I can get enough 'underrated' mods to get me a +5 Flamebait, as that's on my Very Long List of Very Minor Goals. :-D
In all seriousness though, many people out there are easily perturbed when confronted with even the slightest realistic challenge to the status quo. It's worked for them, and they're all wrapped up in it like an emotional blanket, for with change comes the threat of uncertainty. I understand, and even empathize, but there comes a point at which the status quo becomes imminently unstable, and when that point comes maintaining the status quo leads to an overall harsher experience when the change DOES come. Preparing for the change gradually, the first step of which is to ease power structures from the hands of those holding it's course straight, is a much better solution, IMHO.
*smile* This thread has progressed in furthering the explanation (of how the time difference in rejecting a prospective date as unobtainable) very quickly. In fact, this whole post is filled with a large amount of courteous replies and honest problem solving.
That's funny to me, we've found the topic where geeks and nerds everywhere, regardless of political persuasion, regardless of operating system choice, irrespective of text-editor preference, come together to truly put our heads together, for the 'common good' of course. *chuckle*
I don't get it.
Mind you, I've had a long day so far, but the only thing I can think of is a reference to Bush 1...?
I'm confused, and feeling like maybe my hair is messy from a *WOOOSH* but at least I've got the balls to stand up and proclaim my ignorance loudly! :-D
And here is where I'll concede that you're absolutely right, I was very unfair in saying what I did about Bush SUPPORTERS. I apologize, as my remarks were entirely too harsh, and out of line.
However, I stand fully by my description of Bush, and will gleefully join in your chorus of The Ballad of the Draft Dodgin' Clinton, when the topic comes around to stuff that was going on a decade ago. Meanwhile, during a conversation about Bush, bringing up Clinton is being both disingenuous and unobjective, being that we're not doing a COMPARISON (at least, no one is but you) but a description of current events.
Claiming that Bush could have been sent to Vietnam is disingenuous AT BEST, but since I've been too insulting too quick already, I'll leave it at saying there is very very little probability that that was ever a possibility, especially considering his State-side record.
And finally, the difference between you and them (I hope) is that you have enough sense in your older years to know not to get people killed for money, political ambitions or to prove how 'tough' you are in your adult years. Neither Bush nor Clinton seemed to learn that lesson, as both seemed eager to send off other people to die when it became expedient for them personally, even knowing that they had seen the act as 'undesirable' enough when THEY were in that position to effectively dodge it.
Oh, and one more difference between you and them (and this is not meant as an insult at all, I assure you) is that you are not in the position to send out thousands of people to their possible deaths.
Well, in all fairness, I made you my foe before our little 'conversation' here about Bush. I made you my foe due to this post. I have very little respect for people who seem as though they deeply respect our current president, and feel he is above reproach. It indicates to me (I'd like to stress that this is personal opinion only, like whether to make someone a friend or foe) a weak mind and a disturbing lack of empathy for anyone not part of their 'select group', as Bush seems to me to be the epitome of unilateralism and exclusionism.
If it makes you feel any better, I foe many of the Clinton bootlickers too, as I have a low tolerance for people who cannot see reality due to self-imposed political blinders.
What part of what I said was 'unobjective'? Maybe the part where I was snide about WHY people voted for this cretin, but my description of the person himself was wholly accurate.
You seem to assume that I am a fan of Clinton, and I assume you just didn't notice the "almost-as-obnoxious turd" part of my previous statement. The world is not black and white, nor is it some shade of grey between your arbitrarily chosen black and white, it is a rich tapestry of multi-nuanced opinion and causality (both perceived and real), with far more allowable states than "A is good B is bad" and "A is bad B is good". I'm more of an "A and B are both unacceptable, I choose L" kind of guy.
Even if I -WAS- a fan of Clinton, there is still nothing in my post to suggest that my handling of Bush is anything but totally based on strong evidence. That -IS- objectivism.
Wow, that's pretty insightful I'd say. Your notes will serve you well. The only thing that REALLY sticks out to me is #1, and to that I would add that if the girl is COMMONLY critical, don't just reply with a *shrug* but reply with an equal (or maybe even slightly more stinging, but don't go too harsh) criticism. This will serve a couple of possible purposes; it can help you dispose of a bad relationship, it can spark a sexual relationship with someone who likes confrontation (don't get emotionally attached though, they are destroyers), or it can hurt the feelings of a nice but insecure girl. That last bit is the part that MOST nice-guys want to avoid, but what they don't figure is that this 'nice' girl is (just as thoughtlessly) using YOU as an emotional crutch (at your expense), a situation any truly 'nice' girl would find unacceptable once they realize it is happening.
#8 is good, but can be a pitfall back into 'good friend' territory, keep it sensual and exciting.
Finally, be careful with #11. It's not as universal as the others, and though good advice to keep in mind, should not be considered with the weight of your other (excellent) notes. At least, unless you're talking about serious hard-to-negate commitments like moving in together or getting engaged, then you should be wary until you KNOW things are right. Things like sharing apartment keys or even petsitting for a week (as long as you're not just being used) and even stuff like carpooling agreements (when possible) can be perfectly acceptable commitments, with not much chance of ruining things. A little stability can help things along, as long as stability doesn't turn in to stagnation.
This is all just my opinion on it, but you seem to have things figured out pretty well.
Helps, what, exactly?
Placating the egos of people who made a horrible horrible mistake both 8 and 4 years ago and voted for a cocaine-using, draft dodging, bloodthirsty, dry-drunk, nearly illiterate faux-cowboy when he sought out his next snatch-and-crush business opportunity? Look, you made your mistake the first time voting for a dry-drunk you wanted to have a beer with, and the second time voting for him because you liked the bulge he had in his flight suit, don't go all melodramatic and talk about the LAST almost-as-obnoxious turd to grace the office just to make yourself feel better.
The turd in office is the one we have to deal with RIGHT NOW, save your heavily-modified nostalgic memories for when the topic is how things USED to be, not what's going on today.
If you're not going to vote for either main party, could I convince you to either vote Green or Libertarian? In my personal opinion, I believe that voting for a nearly mainstream '3rd' party sends the most effective "middle finger" to the ruling cabal.
Personally, the Green Party platform is something I can support, they even support the kind of feminism I can get behind (the equality kind, not the men are pigs kind). Having said that, the more support we can get to the major '3rd' parties (I hate that term if you can't tell by the quotes), the more of a message we can send that the 'bipartisanship' that only seems to come about when screwing the populous is no longer acceptable.
I don't see this as redundant, this seems very topical and a large factor in any calculations you're going to make in this area. There is a large amount of time difference in the time a 'nice' guy will spend trying to seduce (in his own special way) someone with a very low probability of dating and the amount of time a 'bad' guy will take to brush off the one who's not putting out.
Being as the equation seems to be dates per period of time, the delta T(wasted) here is very significant.
Hey, wanna cyber?
(that's good funny right there)
Heh, anyways thank you for providing the woman's point of view on the matter. I've read a couple of your posts now, and for what I can tell, your opinion seems to be the majority of women's these days. Of course, I mean women who are comfortable with themselves and their emotions, not the emotional train-wrecks that try to live their life based on what TV tells them they should be like, there are a lot of those too...
Anyways, Just wanted to thank you for your insight and your confirmation of the 'confidence and straightforwardness' theory of getting women as a nerd (in general actually, but this IS slashdot). Oh, and to make a bad pun, wanted to do that too. :-D
That's what happened to me in High School. I was the stereotypical 'nice guy' until I realized that I wasn't being nice as much as I was being horney and (unsuccessfully) using 'nice' as a way to fulfill that need. So, I based my social interactions on the truth, that I was in fact horney, and nice (but not nearly as nice as I had acted before). The nice learned it's limit fast, the horney made itself obvious, but not desperate (lude jokes, obvious sexual passes, but not lamenting about a lack of sex life) and I stopped caring so much. I ended up losing a couple female friends. I also ended up loosing a couple female friends. (my first joke based on a typo! yay!) Overall, just the refreshing honesty of being myself was a relief, the fact that it WORKED, CONSISTENTLY, was outstanding. In fact, by the time I settled down, I was picking and choosing between women.
I still wore glasses, I still was fat (250 or so on a 5'11" frame, I didn't lose any weight until I was nearly married), but I was witty (like most nerds can be when not overwhelmingly nervous) I was seemingly confident (it was actually apathy, at first) and I was laid on a regular basis.
There ya go, neomunk's nerd-dating testimonial. You can live your dreams, I'm living proof... Beefcake!
Thank you.
Pay attention everyone who has problems getting dates, Snocone just gave you the greatest and most effective method of getting a specific woman's attention. Of course, all women are different (being people and all), but this article is about statistics, right? The parent's method is an excellent and effective way to game the system in your favor.
Ummm, the Corporate Party, just like 98% of them all?
...and I will show you the laughing stock of the election...... Was that Kucinich or Paul? Oh, that's right, it was both of them.Re-read your parent post carefully. He didn't say Republicans, he said "republicrats", a term most often used by those people (like me) who believe that the 2 major political parties in the United States differ greatly in rhetoric and little in practice. It's my belief that the GP was referring to the bought and sold thralls of BOTH parties.
I could be wrong though, it did happen that one time. :-D
Really now, are the movie versions THAT MUCH BETTER than the comic books? Of course not, the only reason you want to see those movies is the comic book version. Don't be so quick to thank someone for butchering a classic story just because they spend enough on it to make it look really pretty.
No, but presenting a negative opinion about the recently dead without even trying to show evidence IS INDEED flamebait. Just because somehting is an opinion does not shield it from being flamebait. I'll give you an example.
#1 Brittany Spears' newest album pleases me just as much as the rest of hers have; not at all.
#2 Brittany Spears' newest album is nothing but a continuation of her self-worship and continued detachment from reality.
Both are opinion, both are very likely true, but one is a simple stated opinion and the other is intended (or would be, if this were more than an example) to create a negative emotional response in her fans. It's very likely to draw strong negative reactions due to the way it's worded; this is the very definition of flamebait.
Regarding your second quoted sentence, that 'Period, stop, end-of-line' hubris might work with your children or your subordinates at work, but it fails miserably when dealing with real-world conversations and only serves to indicate your level of self-grandeur; no one is impressed.
And finally, the fact that you are consistent in suggesting that any possible dissent from your opinion MUST be liberal group-think or liberal intolerance shows exactly what kind of worldview you have: Liberals vs You. Attempting to maintain an illusion of neutrality whilst consistently rattling off about what I can only assume is the 'other' (gotta love false dichotomies) philosophy is self defeating.
I won't be so prideful as to tell you the conversation is at an end, in fact I invite you to reply yet again, but this time try not to insinuate I'm serving some partisan agenda without the slightest shred of evidence.
Nope, undercutting doesn't work on the target demographic for these kinds of 'specialty purchases'. You must always charge MORE, as cost is directly indicative of perceived quality. There is simply no other worldly explanation for 500 dollar ethernet cables, short of very large ones.
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
Wow man, that's twice now you've used bold, and twice now it's been the same word. "Mine".
Get over yourself. I hate to break this to you, but you are not self contained. You've used my roads, you've used my air to breathe, and you're using my internet RIGHT NOW.
I say these things are 'my' things, because I have a sense of community, of being an integral (look up the meaning if you feel snide when reading that) member of society. Society, which is mine, and to which I belong, built those things. Society laid the groundwork for you to write that 'interesting' little porno of yours.
I'm not saying that you're incorrect in stating that your copyrighted work isn't yours, but the bold text on that word 'mine' repeatedly points to a disturbing sociopathy that I think you should ponder well. If you think everything you've ever done is ascribable to only your own brilliance, you're both wrong and short-sighted. Think about how being an actual member of society effects you, and has effected you all of your life before going off on someone so strongly about what's "Mine."
Unless you're one of those baby-boomers that George Carlin informs us have a philosophy of 'GIMME IT, IT'S MINE'. If that's the case, then nevermind, get what you can before you become irrelevant.
Neither of those is an example of typo-squatting.
The are REFERENTIAL links, in that they make reference to another site, but to claim someone has fat enough fingers to hit 't' instead of 'p' is a stretch, as well as asserting that missing the letters 'r' 'e' 'p' 'o' 'r' 't' all in a row is a typo.
I haven't seen Bush answer (or be asked) a question like that, and he claims to talk to God directly, and receive verbal response! That's a pretty strong theological claim, and I think it should have been tested, don't you? I mean, had we checked if this dude really was 'Christian' we might have realized that he and his... coven? cabal? cult? (whatever) would be responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
I guess with Obama we have to make sure he doesn't single-handedly re-write the U.S. Constitution in order to make all the women wear burkas, and all the men pray to the East. Or (most likely) you just really hate anyone who Fox News doesn't tell you is 'a serious politician' and thus will say even the most obnoxiously childish foolishness to show your loyalty to your clan.
Not that I'm an Obama fan, but I dislike him for reasons based in reality, not because my overlords have told me he's an 'Islamofascist' (the most ignorance filled oxymoron to be uttered in decades).