"These codes" would, indeed, be those assigned to AT&T. I also mentioned that they're in the process of renegotiating their contract with Apple in order to obtain the unlocking tool. It's really easy to (feel like you're) win(ing) an argument if you ignore most of what the other person says, isn't it?
Whoops, pot meet kettle, I should have read your whole post before replying, and I would have read this gem:
AT&T may not have anything in their official channels, but to claim that the software/method simply is not accessible to them is nonsense.
Note that I never said they didn't have access to the same methods you and I do. I did, however, state that they don't legally have access to any method other than calling Apple. You do understand what would happen to them if they used the methods you and I currently have access to, contrary to their contract with Apple, right? Let me explain, just in case. Apple would gain a lot of money, AT&T would lose a lot of money and no longer be allowed to sell the iPhone.
To use it legally, the tool would have to be provided to them by Apple. Their contract specifically states that they must contact Apple for the codes, they were not provided the tool. Therefore, such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. Note that this is not the same as stating "Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow any carrier to use it legally, on the open market.". On the contrary, I acknowledge that such a tool may exist and have been released to other carriers, but such a tool has not been provided to AT&T as of yet. Read my posts, you might understand them better if you do.
So it's their fault the shipper lost or misdelivered the package? I have misdelivered packages all the time and I don't blame the sender; 90% of the time, the shipping company realizes their error, attempts to recover the package, and if that fails, contacts me and the shipper to obtain some proof of the value of the items in the package, then cuts the sender a check for the amount, which is then either refunded to me or used to ship another box of whatever I ordered. The other 10%, I have to contact the sender and they have to file a claim, but the rest of the process is the same with the shipper cutting a check and me getting a refund or another shipment.
It sucks that you chose not to suppliment the prepaid UPS label with insurance (yes, UPS will let you add insurance to a 3rd party prepaid label, I have done so), as that would have covered the replacement cost. It also sucks that you didn't request the return label, with the correct address, when returning your replacement; returns is a different physical facility and things can take some time to transfer between facilities, if they do at all. It probably ended up on a "we don't know what to do with this or why it came back to us" shelf, where it sat for 6 months until nobody claimed it and it was either discarded or added back into their inventory. If you never called for a return label for it, there would be no record stating that it was coming back and why, and if you sent it back to the address that shipped it, they would have no clue why they were receiving it, nor would they know to forward it to the proper location; what would you do with it, in that case?
So, what you're saying is you want AT&T to eat the cost of equipment you returned to them uninsured (that insurance is to protect you, the sender, not them), then magically know why their shipping facility (NOT their returns facility in a physically different location) received a piece of equipment from you (hell, even if they assumed it was a return and contacted that facility, they'd have heard back "nope, no record of it here, not for us"), and just remove those items fro myour bill? And you didn't pay the bill in the interim (this isn't a credit card where they legally have to temporarily reverst the charges during a dispute), so they couldn't send it to collections after 90 days of being uncollectable, after which they're legally required to charge off the debt. Were you screaming at the CSRs thw whole time you dealt with them, as well? The tone of your post indicates that as a strong possibility. Had you been cordial, at the very least, and non-argumentative with the people you're asking to help you, this may have gotten resolved within that 90 days; had you paid the bill, just in case, it definitely would have been resolved eventually. Yes, they have some arcane equipment tracking practices that their shareholders don't want to pay to improve upon, and yes that does cause problems like the one you describe, and yes, the CSRs are human and will instinctively do less to help you and more to get you off the phone quickly if you treat them like shit.
What's funny is I have 3 DSL modems and 2 routers sitting here that AT&T didn't want back (from previous installations at various addresses), so maybe my experience doesn't jive with yours simply because, as far as I've ever known, AT&T doesn't want these things back, or charge for them when not returned, so maybe I'm simply questioning the veracity of your story?
So, you've read the contracts between Apple and AT&T regarding the iPhone? Or you know people directly who have? Or you know people who work for AT&T to procure the handsets they sell and the software tools to support those handsets? I suppose you know people in all tiers of AT&T support and several store employees, including management, personally and not just through store visits?
On all but the first of those, I can asnwer affirmatively. Apple may or may not have released the tool to other carriers, but it has not released that tool to AT&T (yet). As such, and as I stated, such tool does not exist in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. It's in their contract that Apple must be contacted for those codes, though at least one person I know at AT&T tells me they are renegotiating those contracts, in an effort to obtain that tool.
Everyone always comes down way too hard on AT&T. I mean yeah, sure, they're greedy as all fuck, they're a corporation and they're legally required to be, for the sake of their shareholders. Come off it, already, people.
No other US carrier wanted to accept Apple's terms for the iPhone, while AT&T was willing to accept them on the further condition that they could be the exclusive source in the US, for a time. Why ask for exclisivity on a product nobody else wants to sell? Because everyone else wanted to sell it, but nobody liked the terms, and if it sold well enough, those terms would become much more appealing. AT&T was the only major US carrier willing to take that risk to bring the iPhone to market here, no other carrier wanted to touch it until after AT&T, the last major US carrier it was offered to, proved that it was a good seller. Meanwhile, all the other carriers who passed on the deal had to complain that AT&T got an exclusive deal after they left the table; any of them could have had the same deal.
Yes, AT&T does a great number of boneheaded things, at the behest of their shareholders, and their greed is exceptional, again at the behest of their shareholders, but the research they've done and products and services they offer are top-notch. Their customer service is, likewise, top-notch (call when they're open, the India call centers do suck, those are nothing more than a glorified answering service); but then, I'm always pleasant with them and never argue when they request more information pertaining to my issue, and no, I don't always run to people I know there when I have an issue, that's extremely unprofessional and something that is reserved for situations when normal channels fail, something which has not happened yet for me.
Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. Apple holds on to those unlock codes with an iron fist.
Funny, I've been an AT&T customer (wireless the whole time, intermittently DSL when cable wasn't available and currently U-verse because Comcast blows hard) since 2000 and, while service and device issues arise, AT&T has always been willing to work with me and resolve the issues. Maybe it's because I'm not a dick to the CSRs who are just trying to do their jobs? I treat them with some compassion, explain my expertise and how it relates to the problem at hand, what troubleshooting I've done, provide my suggestion for what the issue is and/or how to resolve it, then ask their opinion. If they ask me for information related to the problem, I provide it. I try to be generally pleasant towards them and, as a result, they spend more time with me, rather than trying to get me off the phone or out of their store. Try it sometime, it works.
When all you have is a minority voting third party, R&D will never lose an election. Even if a majority vote third party, if no single candidate nets 270 electorial votes, R&D have not lost; simply, nobody has won. In such a case, the House of Representatives elects a president from the three Presidential candidates who had the most votes. If you think you'll ever see the day where D or R isn't at least in the top 3, you must be dreaking; and if you think the R&D house will ever vote third party, given the option of voting for their own, you must be smoking something, too.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "America is simply too divided to expect everyone to agree on a single third party candidate.". You nailed your thumb, however, when you said "You don't actually need a single viable third party in order to get the two major parties to pay attention. You just need them to start losing elections regularly because of third party spoliers.". We need a third party candidate to win in order for R&D to lose; we need a viable third party candidate in order for that to happen.
Vote third party, any third party, doesn't matter who you waste your vote on, you're a minority. Go ahead and vote for a random third party and make yourself an even smaller minority than you already are. That'll teach 'em.
As much as we'd all love to think it's possible to elect a third party candidate, it's drivel like you're spewing that ensures it will never happen. Pick one party, any party, that is not red or blue, and promote the hell out of them. It doesn't matter which party and it doesn't matter if the four years following a non-bipartisan win are good or bad, what matters is that, then, you have shown that a non-bipartisan candidate can win.
Then, and only then, will you see more people vote third party. Right now, voting third party is equated by many as throwing your vote away. That's, in large part, due to the "vote for any third party, it doesn't matter which" mentality you display; no third party candidate will ever gain more than [margin of error] votes that way, so those votes are literally wasted.
Not saying Obama's doing a good job or anything, but he's doing nowhere near as bad as Dubya did. Are you trying to imply that McCain would have been better?
You are correct. However, what detects both of those? Antivirus software! By differentiating the two for the average user, you are doing them a disservice, in that they won't bother to run antivirus because they will see it as ineffective against these vere real threats, when it would actually benefit them.
And that's ignoring the fact that a virus (trojan, whatever, it's malware that takes over your computer and would be detected by antivirus, it's a fucking virus) coded to delete itself if antivirus or debugging tools are present is probably also capable of infecting time machine backups, so when you restore, you re-infect.
The beautiful irony, here, is that AntiVirus doesn't even have to DO anything to protect against this threat, because it DELETES ITSELF IF AV IS PRESENT! So, users with AV installed will say "Nope, no viruses on my Mac" because it deletes itself before it is detected and users without AV will say "Nope, no viruses on my Mac" because they just don't know any better.
Or, maybe, they're being modded down because that's not the case anymore.
HOST: CentOS 6.2
VM1: OSX Snow Leopard
VM2: Win 7
No realtime scanners on any of those, weekly scans of each have revealed no infections.
App Store si not a trusted repo. A trusted repo compiles its own binaries from (community or self) reviewed and vetted source. Apple never sees the source for apps in their store, just the binaries. It would be trivial to throw a bit of sleeping malware into an App Store app, set to activate on, say, 9-11-12 or 12-21-12, that would sneak you past the review process and keep you in the App Store for long enough to build up a decent install base, then BAM, malware activates. Even then, your app won't be pulled until Apples notes the problem as people begin reporting it and they trace it back toyour app, or Apple gets areound to re-reviewing your app. If you're careful to not make excessive use of resources, users won't notice it and it will go unreported; does Apple even do periodic audits of submitted apps once they've been accepted?
Not saying this has already happened..... or am I?
I never said it could have been prevented, I said it could have not been invited, there's a huge difference.
You could have reminded us that some men have the wrong protocol for dealing with women that show a little bit more.
That said, I've never been the type to play with people like that, or "teach them a lesson", but there is no denying that there are people out there who do these things.
I believe that was taken directly from my first post.
I've got a busy day ahead of my today, so </discussion>
I'm not blaming the victim for anything more than making themself a more attractive target than others around them. If you read my other posts in this thread, you'll note that I bear that same responsibility for my car stereo being stolen; had I not left the faceplate on it, it would have been a less attractive target. That does not absolve the thief of their crime, but at the same time I am not absolved of my own decisions and actions.
You cite Wikipedia, which at first blush does seem to support your position. However, when you read my comments as a whole (it's also worth noting that my "first post" as you label it is actually four generations below my first post in this thread) you'll note that the point I'm making and the point you're arguing against are not one in the same.
I don't want my car stereo stolen again, so I don't leave the faceplate on it anymore. I don't want to be drugged and raped again, so I get my own drinks and don't drink them if they've left my sight, since that's how it happened the first time. It's not my fault it happened the first time, nor would it be my fault if it happened again because I broke that policy; however, it would be my fault, and only my fault, I didn't take steps I know to take to prevent it. That's not victim blaming, that's expecting people not to put themselves into situations they know how to avoid and don't want to be in in the first place. This doesn't apply to people who want to be in those situations.
By all means, dress like a whore and flirt with anything that moves if you're looking to hook up. If that's not what you're after, either dress and act differently or don't fucking complain when people think you're after that; people are just reading the message you're sending.
You seem to think I'm trying to attack a class of people here, and I'm certainly not. Poeple are certainly free to behave as they wish, but there's a problem when someone continues to behave in a manner which they know is producing results they don't want. It's called self destructive behavior; since you're sich a fan of Wikipedia, go look it up. Note that I'm not saying dressing and acting slutty because you're looking to hook up is self destructive in any way. Quite the opposite, if that's what you're after it's probably pretty damn productive. If that's not what you're after, and you're complaining that you're being hit on all the time or that all you can find are one night stands, then yes, dressing and acting slutty is a self destructive behavior. There is a distinction, based solely on what a person's goals and ambitions are, that determines whether a specific behavior is self destructive for a specific person. You seem to insist that promiscuity is in no way a self destructive behavior for anyone and I fully disagree; it may not be for you and it may not be for many other people, but it certainly is for some people, as well.
Again, you skimmed until you found something which, taken out of the context of my posts in this thread, seems to support your agrument. Taken in context, it just makes you look like you're grasping at straws and hoping you eventually draw the long one. I'd like to point out that, aside from the few who immediately jumped up and screamed "RAPE!" for no reason, you're the only one arguing against me in this thread; and the rape-whistlers had the wisdom to stop arguing when it was pointed out to them that this wasn't about rape. You must have at least as much karma to burn as I do, or you just don't care.
No, people who invite others to act a certain way toward them, then complain about it when it happens certain do bring me down.
That you keep trying to make this about sexual freedom of expression when I have made it clear in several instances that it is about something else entirely inticates either some comprehension problem, a strong desire to believe that I'm trying to deny something, or some similar disorder. Let me assure you, I have no problem with people expressing themselves however they so choose to express themselves. What I have a problem with is people choosing to express themselves in a way they know will get a certain reaction, then complaining about that reaction. Like you, expressing and argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (more or less the definition of trolling), then calling me a troll (a complaint) when I point out the behavior.
More to the point, I have explained the distinction between being promiscuous and being slutty, I am not going to explain it again, so if you want to continue thinking that I have a problem with promiscuity, go right the fuck ahead; if you want to understand the point I'm trying to make, go back and actually read my posts, taking them for what they are, rather than skimming the details that you think support your position.
Slashdot Mirror
"These codes" would, indeed, be those assigned to AT&T. I also mentioned that they're in the process of renegotiating their contract with Apple in order to obtain the unlocking tool. It's really easy to (feel like you're) win(ing) an argument if you ignore most of what the other person says, isn't it?
Whoops, pot meet kettle, I should have read your whole post before replying, and I would have read this gem:
AT&T may not have anything in their official channels, but to claim that the software/method simply is not accessible to them is nonsense.
Note that I never said they didn't have access to the same methods you and I do. I did, however, state that they don't legally have access to any method other than calling Apple. You do understand what would happen to them if they used the methods you and I currently have access to, contrary to their contract with Apple, right? Let me explain, just in case. Apple would gain a lot of money, AT&T would lose a lot of money and no longer be allowed to sell the iPhone.
To use it legally, the tool would have to be provided to them by Apple. Their contract specifically states that they must contact Apple for the codes, they were not provided the tool. Therefore, such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. Note that this is not the same as stating "Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow any carrier to use it legally, on the open market.". On the contrary, I acknowledge that such a tool may exist and have been released to other carriers, but such a tool has not been provided to AT&T as of yet. Read my posts, you might understand them better if you do.
So it's their fault the shipper lost or misdelivered the package? I have misdelivered packages all the time and I don't blame the sender; 90% of the time, the shipping company realizes their error, attempts to recover the package, and if that fails, contacts me and the shipper to obtain some proof of the value of the items in the package, then cuts the sender a check for the amount, which is then either refunded to me or used to ship another box of whatever I ordered. The other 10%, I have to contact the sender and they have to file a claim, but the rest of the process is the same with the shipper cutting a check and me getting a refund or another shipment.
It sucks that you chose not to suppliment the prepaid UPS label with insurance (yes, UPS will let you add insurance to a 3rd party prepaid label, I have done so), as that would have covered the replacement cost. It also sucks that you didn't request the return label, with the correct address, when returning your replacement; returns is a different physical facility and things can take some time to transfer between facilities, if they do at all. It probably ended up on a "we don't know what to do with this or why it came back to us" shelf, where it sat for 6 months until nobody claimed it and it was either discarded or added back into their inventory. If you never called for a return label for it, there would be no record stating that it was coming back and why, and if you sent it back to the address that shipped it, they would have no clue why they were receiving it, nor would they know to forward it to the proper location; what would you do with it, in that case?
So, what you're saying is you want AT&T to eat the cost of equipment you returned to them uninsured (that insurance is to protect you, the sender, not them), then magically know why their shipping facility (NOT their returns facility in a physically different location) received a piece of equipment from you (hell, even if they assumed it was a return and contacted that facility, they'd have heard back "nope, no record of it here, not for us"), and just remove those items fro myour bill? And you didn't pay the bill in the interim (this isn't a credit card where they legally have to temporarily reverst the charges during a dispute), so they couldn't send it to collections after 90 days of being uncollectable, after which they're legally required to charge off the debt. Were you screaming at the CSRs thw whole time you dealt with them, as well? The tone of your post indicates that as a strong possibility. Had you been cordial, at the very least, and non-argumentative with the people you're asking to help you, this may have gotten resolved within that 90 days; had you paid the bill, just in case, it definitely would have been resolved eventually. Yes, they have some arcane equipment tracking practices that their shareholders don't want to pay to improve upon, and yes that does cause problems like the one you describe, and yes, the CSRs are human and will instinctively do less to help you and more to get you off the phone quickly if you treat them like shit.
What's funny is I have 3 DSL modems and 2 routers sitting here that AT&T didn't want back (from previous installations at various addresses), so maybe my experience doesn't jive with yours simply because, as far as I've ever known, AT&T doesn't want these things back, or charge for them when not returned, so maybe I'm simply questioning the veracity of your story?
Nionsense.
So, you've read the contracts between Apple and AT&T regarding the iPhone? Or you know people directly who have? Or you know people who work for AT&T to procure the handsets they sell and the software tools to support those handsets? I suppose you know people in all tiers of AT&T support and several store employees, including management, personally and not just through store visits?
On all but the first of those, I can asnwer affirmatively. Apple may or may not have released the tool to other carriers, but it has not released that tool to AT&T (yet). As such, and as I stated, such tool does not exist in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. It's in their contract that Apple must be contacted for those codes, though at least one person I know at AT&T tells me they are renegotiating those contracts, in an effort to obtain that tool.
Everyone always comes down way too hard on AT&T. I mean yeah, sure, they're greedy as all fuck, they're a corporation and they're legally required to be, for the sake of their shareholders. Come off it, already, people.
No other US carrier wanted to accept Apple's terms for the iPhone, while AT&T was willing to accept them on the further condition that they could be the exclusive source in the US, for a time. Why ask for exclisivity on a product nobody else wants to sell? Because everyone else wanted to sell it, but nobody liked the terms, and if it sold well enough, those terms would become much more appealing. AT&T was the only major US carrier willing to take that risk to bring the iPhone to market here, no other carrier wanted to touch it until after AT&T, the last major US carrier it was offered to, proved that it was a good seller. Meanwhile, all the other carriers who passed on the deal had to complain that AT&T got an exclusive deal after they left the table; any of them could have had the same deal.
Yes, AT&T does a great number of boneheaded things, at the behest of their shareholders, and their greed is exceptional, again at the behest of their shareholders, but the research they've done and products and services they offer are top-notch. Their customer service is, likewise, top-notch (call when they're open, the India call centers do suck, those are nothing more than a glorified answering service); but then, I'm always pleasant with them and never argue when they request more information pertaining to my issue, and no, I don't always run to people I know there when I have an issue, that's extremely unprofessional and something that is reserved for situations when normal channels fail, something which has not happened yet for me.
Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market. Apple holds on to those unlock codes with an iron fist.
Funny, I've been an AT&T customer (wireless the whole time, intermittently DSL when cable wasn't available and currently U-verse because Comcast blows hard) since 2000 and, while service and device issues arise, AT&T has always been willing to work with me and resolve the issues. Maybe it's because I'm not a dick to the CSRs who are just trying to do their jobs? I treat them with some compassion, explain my expertise and how it relates to the problem at hand, what troubleshooting I've done, provide my suggestion for what the issue is and/or how to resolve it, then ask their opinion. If they ask me for information related to the problem, I provide it. I try to be generally pleasant towards them and, as a result, they spend more time with me, rather than trying to get me off the phone or out of their store. Try it sometime, it works.
Fan here... When and why were you banned and how did I miss this?
Won't happen. I'd love to see it, but it simply will not happen. Period.
Gah... "dreaming", not "dreaking". One day, I swear, I'll learn to proofread my posts before I post them.
When all you have is a minority voting third party, R&D will never lose an election. Even if a majority vote third party, if no single candidate nets 270 electorial votes, R&D have not lost; simply, nobody has won. In such a case, the House of Representatives elects a president from the three Presidential candidates who had the most votes. If you think you'll ever see the day where D or R isn't at least in the top 3, you must be dreaking; and if you think the R&D house will ever vote third party, given the option of voting for their own, you must be smoking something, too.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "America is simply too divided to expect everyone to agree on a single third party candidate.". You nailed your thumb, however, when you said "You don't actually need a single viable third party in order to get the two major parties to pay attention. You just need them to start losing elections regularly because of third party spoliers.". We need a third party candidate to win in order for R&D to lose; we need a viable third party candidate in order for that to happen.
Vote third party, any third party, doesn't matter who you waste your vote on, you're a minority. Go ahead and vote for a random third party and make yourself an even smaller minority than you already are. That'll teach 'em.
As much as we'd all love to think it's possible to elect a third party candidate, it's drivel like you're spewing that ensures it will never happen. Pick one party, any party, that is not red or blue, and promote the hell out of them. It doesn't matter which party and it doesn't matter if the four years following a non-bipartisan win are good or bad, what matters is that, then, you have shown that a non-bipartisan candidate can win.
Then, and only then, will you see more people vote third party. Right now, voting third party is equated by many as throwing your vote away. That's, in large part, due to the "vote for any third party, it doesn't matter which" mentality you display; no third party candidate will ever gain more than [margin of error] votes that way, so those votes are literally wasted.
Not saying Obama's doing a good job or anything, but he's doing nowhere near as bad as Dubya did. Are you trying to imply that McCain would have been better?
Black and White, why don't you come together and make a nice shade of gray?
You are correct. However, what detects both of those? Antivirus software! By differentiating the two for the average user, you are doing them a disservice, in that they won't bother to run antivirus because they will see it as ineffective against these vere real threats, when it would actually benefit them.
And that's ignoring the fact that a virus (trojan, whatever, it's malware that takes over your computer and would be detected by antivirus, it's a fucking virus) coded to delete itself if antivirus or debugging tools are present is probably also capable of infecting time machine backups, so when you restore, you re-infect.
The beautiful irony, here, is that AntiVirus doesn't even have to DO anything to protect against this threat, because it DELETES ITSELF IF AV IS PRESENT! So, users with AV installed will say "Nope, no viruses on my Mac" because it deletes itself before it is detected and users without AV will say "Nope, no viruses on my Mac" because they just don't know any better.
Nobody ever claimed Macintoshes were bulletproof. But they're still a lot less of a target than Windows.
In the same way the side of a shithouse is a lot less of a target than the side of a barn. Not any harder to hit, just smaller.
Damn, forgot my HTML. Oh, well.
Or, maybe, they're being modded down because that's not the case anymore. HOST: CentOS 6.2 VM1: OSX Snow Leopard VM2: Win 7 No realtime scanners on any of those, weekly scans of each have revealed no infections.
App Store si not a trusted repo. A trusted repo compiles its own binaries from (community or self) reviewed and vetted source. Apple never sees the source for apps in their store, just the binaries. It would be trivial to throw a bit of sleeping malware into an App Store app, set to activate on, say, 9-11-12 or 12-21-12, that would sneak you past the review process and keep you in the App Store for long enough to build up a decent install base, then BAM, malware activates. Even then, your app won't be pulled until Apples notes the problem as people begin reporting it and they trace it back toyour app, or Apple gets areound to re-reviewing your app. If you're careful to not make excessive use of resources, users won't notice it and it will go unreported; does Apple even do periodic audits of submitted apps once they've been accepted?
Not saying this has already happened..... or am I?
I'm curious to know which hosting provider this was.
I think he's trying to call the US a "lesser" evil. I'm not sure whether I agree or not.
I never said it could have been prevented, I said it could have not been invited, there's a huge difference.
You could have reminded us that some men have the wrong protocol for dealing with women that show a little bit more.
That said, I've never been the type to play with people like that, or "teach them a lesson", but there is no denying that there are people out there who do these things.
I believe that was taken directly from my first post.
I've got a busy day ahead of my today, so </discussion>
I'm not blaming the victim for anything more than making themself a more attractive target than others around them. If you read my other posts in this thread, you'll note that I bear that same responsibility for my car stereo being stolen; had I not left the faceplate on it, it would have been a less attractive target. That does not absolve the thief of their crime, but at the same time I am not absolved of my own decisions and actions.
You cite Wikipedia, which at first blush does seem to support your position. However, when you read my comments as a whole (it's also worth noting that my "first post" as you label it is actually four generations below my first post in this thread) you'll note that the point I'm making and the point you're arguing against are not one in the same.
I don't want my car stereo stolen again, so I don't leave the faceplate on it anymore. I don't want to be drugged and raped again, so I get my own drinks and don't drink them if they've left my sight, since that's how it happened the first time. It's not my fault it happened the first time, nor would it be my fault if it happened again because I broke that policy; however, it would be my fault, and only my fault, I didn't take steps I know to take to prevent it. That's not victim blaming, that's expecting people not to put themselves into situations they know how to avoid and don't want to be in in the first place. This doesn't apply to people who want to be in those situations.
By all means, dress like a whore and flirt with anything that moves if you're looking to hook up. If that's not what you're after, either dress and act differently or don't fucking complain when people think you're after that; people are just reading the message you're sending.
You seem to think I'm trying to attack a class of people here, and I'm certainly not. Poeple are certainly free to behave as they wish, but there's a problem when someone continues to behave in a manner which they know is producing results they don't want. It's called self destructive behavior; since you're sich a fan of Wikipedia, go look it up. Note that I'm not saying dressing and acting slutty because you're looking to hook up is self destructive in any way. Quite the opposite, if that's what you're after it's probably pretty damn productive. If that's not what you're after, and you're complaining that you're being hit on all the time or that all you can find are one night stands, then yes, dressing and acting slutty is a self destructive behavior. There is a distinction, based solely on what a person's goals and ambitions are, that determines whether a specific behavior is self destructive for a specific person. You seem to insist that promiscuity is in no way a self destructive behavior for anyone and I fully disagree; it may not be for you and it may not be for many other people, but it certainly is for some people, as well.
Again, you skimmed until you found something which, taken out of the context of my posts in this thread, seems to support your agrument. Taken in context, it just makes you look like you're grasping at straws and hoping you eventually draw the long one. I'd like to point out that, aside from the few who immediately jumped up and screamed "RAPE!" for no reason, you're the only one arguing against me in this thread; and the rape-whistlers had the wisdom to stop arguing when it was pointed out to them that this wasn't about rape. You must have at least as much karma to burn as I do, or you just don't care.
Excuse me?
No, people who invite others to act a certain way toward them, then complain about it when it happens certain do bring me down.
That you keep trying to make this about sexual freedom of expression when I have made it clear in several instances that it is about something else entirely inticates either some comprehension problem, a strong desire to believe that I'm trying to deny something, or some similar disorder. Let me assure you, I have no problem with people expressing themselves however they so choose to express themselves. What I have a problem with is people choosing to express themselves in a way they know will get a certain reaction, then complaining about that reaction. Like you, expressing and argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (more or less the definition of trolling), then calling me a troll (a complaint) when I point out the behavior.
More to the point, I have explained the distinction between being promiscuous and being slutty, I am not going to explain it again, so if you want to continue thinking that I have a problem with promiscuity, go right the fuck ahead; if you want to understand the point I'm trying to make, go back and actually read my posts, taking them for what they are, rather than skimming the details that you think support your position.
</feeding>