Satar is gonna get cut
Maxwell Hammer
miscarried baby and it's mother.
This is what I'm talking about, "Be thankful that you miscarried." he
said, "No need to bring a child in this world because of 'his sake'."
Where I come from saying shit like that will get you cut, or shot. True,
I come from Alabama, but people are a bit more polite here. They also
still believe in honor, and that was a dishonorable thing to say.
Not that Satar would care, he's the kind of douche who can say something
like that without regret. But sooner or later someone is going to bump
into him in the real world.
Not a threat, I'm just sayin'.
Max
moonglow minnow
> Where I come from saying shit like that will get you cut, or shot. True,
> I come from Alabama, but people are a bit more polite here. They also
> still believe in honor, and that was a dishonorable thing to say.
Most people in most places are more compassionate, more polite, and more
honorable than that. The ability to hide behind a facade on the internet
and pretend that other people aren't people brings out the worst in too
many, though. I don't think his problem is so much where he comes from
as that he's simply an asshole with no compassion, and those come from
all corners of the world.
> Not that Satar would care, he's the kind of douche who can say something
> like that without regret. But sooner or later someone is going to bump
> into him in the real world.
I think his pathetic life may be punishment enough for him, but yeah...
international group, and you never really know where anyone here is at
any given time. And the bumping might see him knocked to the ground.
minnow >^..^<
--
http://twitter.com/taheenahana
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
Jennie Kermode
> Most people in most places are more compassionate, more polite, and more
> honorable than that.
I think a lot of it is to do with empathy. Most of society
still assumes that people are born with natural empathy, although all
the evidence says otherwise, or at least that those intial skills are
very limited. People need to be taught empathy as they grow up. If their
families and school fail them in that regard, they will be dicks. Sadly
it's harder to rehabilitate them in adulthood. I'm not saying we
shouldn't hold them responsible for their actions, but I wouldn't be
offended by such a person any more than I would be offended by a baboon.
I think it's folly to assume that everyone has the same capacity for
what we think of as humanity.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Jennie Kermode
> Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> miscarried baby and it's mother.
Ach, don't worry about it on my account. When I speak
publicly I'm quite aware that some people will be dicks. I stopped
reading Satar's posts ages ago anyway because his reading comprehension
is so appalling and I can't be arsed having to repeat everything as if
talking to a five year old.
> This is what I'm talking about, "Be thankful that you miscarried." he
> said, "No need to bring a child in this world because of 'his sake'."
This may simply be a reflection of his own feelings about
parenthood. He may have failed to understand that it's pregnancy I find
repellant, not the idea of having a child. It doesn't mean I wouldn't
love a child, just that I don't grok the traditional notion of
motherhood, which seems perfectly reasonable given that I don't have
those hormones. I think that when one loves somebody it is perfectly
natural to be willing to make sacrifices for that person's sake - in
fact, I think it's those who can't relate to that who should perheps
refrain from having children.
> Where I come from saying shit like that will get you cut, or shot.
If you piss off the wrong people, yes. I wouldn't cut or shoot
him. How can I explain... I don't have sufficient confidence in his
faculties to take his opinions that seriously. He's only wee.
> Not that Satar would care, he's the kind of douche who can say something
> like that without regret. But sooner or later someone is going to bump
> into him in the real world.
Oh, probably. One would think he'd have learned from his
earlier fall of grace. After all, nobody loves you when you're down and
out. He probably spends his time now standing on street corners trying
to pimp that rolex with everyone dismissing it as a fake.
whisky-dave
"Maxwell Hammer" <Secr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D23D542...@188.40.43.245...
> Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> miscarried baby and it's mother.
Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
the best. ;-)
> This is what I'm talking about, "Be thankful that you miscarried." he
> said, "No need to bring a child in this world because of 'his sake'."
>
> Where I come from saying shit like that will get you cut, or shot. True,
> I come from Alabama,
I wonder if that's good or bad.
>but people are a bit more polite here. They also
> still believe in honor, and that was a dishonorable thing to say.
>
> Not that Satar would care, he's the kind of douche who can say something
> like that without regret.
I think most of the regulars know him too well to be shocked, and so
make allownecies.
>But sooner or later someone is going to bump
> into him in the real world.
I'm sure there are some living in the real world sticking pins into his
effigy at
this very moment, it's just a pity they're wasting their time.
ags...@yahoo.com
> Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> miscarried baby and it's mother.
>
> This is what I'm talking about, "Be thankful that you miscarried." he
> said, "No need to bring a child in this world because of 'his sake'."
>
I'm not mocking anyone. My take is that you should want to have kids
and everything that comes with it. To have a kid because of the sake
of your partner is just wrong.
>
> Max
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2010-02-19, moonglow minnow <taheenah...@charter.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Most people in most places are more compassionate, more polite, and more
> > honorable than that.
>
> I think a lot of it is to do with empathy. Most of society
> still assumes that people are born with natural empathy, although all
> the evidence says otherwise, or at least that those intial skills are
> very limited. People need to be taught empathy as they grow up. If their
> families and school fail them in that regard, they will be dicks. Sadly
> it's harder to rehabilitate them in adulthood. I'm not saying we
> shouldn't hold them responsible for their actions, but I wouldn't be
> offended by such a person any more than I would be offended by a baboon.
> I think it's folly to assume that everyone has the same capacity for
> what we think of as humanity.
>
> Jennie
>
I have no empathy for your situation because I do not agree with your
stance on being a parent. If you were positive about the process and
miscarried, then that my comment would be unwarranted. However, to put
yourself in the perspective of being a parent on the basis of self-
sacrifice for your partner's sake is just crazy. Why bring a child
into this world with such a premise and outlook on life?
Hell, I'll even go further and ask if it is even wise for someone like
you and Donald, given your health conditions and lack of financial
stability, to bring a child into this world?
If you want empathy from me, then you'll have to earn it.
Also, I read your website. You place your failures on the blame of
others. You even focus your goals on the appeasement of others and not
yourself. You are a weak person and until you change your perspective,
you will never accomplish your goals.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2010-02-19, Maxwell Hammer <Secret...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This is what I'm talking about, "Be thankful that you miscarried." he
> > said, "No need to bring a child in this world because of 'his sake'."
>
> This may simply be a reflection of his own feelings about
> parenthood. He may have failed to understand that it's pregnancy I find
> repellant, not the idea of having a child.
Weak argument.
> It doesn't mean I wouldn't
> love a child, just that I don't grok the traditional notion of
> motherhood, which seems perfectly reasonable given that I don't have
> those hormones.
More excuses for your failures.
>I think that when one loves somebody it is perfectly
> natural to be willing to make sacrifices for that person's sake - in
> fact, I think it's those who can't relate to that who should perheps
> refrain from having children.
>
In this context, I will have to disagree with that statement.
> > Not that Satar would care, he's the kind of douche who can say something
> > like that without regret. But sooner or later someone is going to bump
> > into him in the real world.
>
> Oh, probably. One would think he'd have learned from his
> earlier fall of grace.
I never had a fall of grace. What are you talking about?
> After all, nobody loves you when you're down and
> out.
There might be times when I am down, but don't count me as being out!
> Jennie
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> "Maxwell Hammer" <Secret...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D23D542...@188.40.43.245...
>
> > Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> > miscarried baby and it's mother.
>
> Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
> the best. ;-)
>
I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
to what is available. I do love my watch but I have found other makes
that have caught my eye.
I will have to post pictures of my watch so you can gawk at it! ;)
Regards...
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:debe01f4-0218-4dfd...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 5:23 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "Maxwell Hammer" <Secret...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D23D542...@188.40.43.245...
>
> > Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> > miscarried baby and it's mother.
>
> Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
> the best. ;-)
>
}I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
}to what is available.
bland, that's not how I see them, most seem like expensive bling.
}I do love my watch but I have found other makes
}that have caught my eye.
I see what catches my eye, but I'm not sure I'd ever wear one.
}I will have to post pictures of my watch so you can gawk at it! ;)
That would be interesting and if I see one I like (even if I can't afford or
justify it)
I'll do the same.
I'm suprised someone doesn't do 'goth' watches.
I had a Borg clock once, it fell of the wall and it got dis-assumlated.
Regards...
Peter H. Coffin
>
><ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:debe01f4-0218-4dfd...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 5:23 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Maxwell Hammer" <Secret...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9D23D542...@188.40.43.245...
>>
>> > Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
>> > miscarried baby and it's mother.
>>
>> Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
>> the best. ;-)
>>
>
> }I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
> }to what is available.
>
> bland, that's not how I see them, most seem like expensive bling.
Magpie genes. That's what it is.
--
"Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another,
'What! You too? I thought I was the only one!'"
--C.S. Lewis
Hatter
> Trolling is one thing, but I take great offense to him mocking a
> miscarried baby and it's mother.
>
Hatter
Maxwell Hammer
@qmul:
> Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
> the best. ;-)
>
Rolexes are for people who have more money than sense.
For the same amount of money as a Rolex you could just hire a guy with a
timex to tell you what time it is. Wouldn't that be much more impressive?
Plus, he could hold things for you and maybe type in your text messages.
Max
The Wizard of Berkeley
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote in news:hlm3d3$kgo$1
surely you exaggerate!
\
whisky-dave
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in news:hlm3d3$kgo$1
> @qmul:
>
>> Well what do you expect from sonmeone that thinks Rolex watches are
>> the best. ;-)
>>
>
> Rolexes are for people who have more money than sense.
Don;t forget people that have the 'idea' that they need to buy a fake Rolex
in order that people think they have more money than sense, I think that's
even
more worrying.
> For the same amount of money as a Rolex you could just hire a guy with a
> timex to tell you what time it is. Wouldn't that be much more impressive?
> Plus, he could hold things for you,
I can be arrested for that sort of behavour in public.
>and maybe type in your text messages.
Not sure I'd trust them, most of the people I hear about that wear rolex's
are either drug dealers or pimps. ;-)
Peter H. Coffin
Possibly not by much. I can't find prices for Rolex watches on
authorized dealer sites. I *can* find prices for (for example) Cartier
watches. You can buy a used car for the price of a stainless steel watch
with a rubber band. For one with 18K gold, you can buy a new Honda
hatchback.
--
42. When I capture the hero, I will make sure I also get his dog,
monkey, ferret, or whatever sickeningly cute little animal capable
of untying ropes and filching keys happens to follow him around.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Maxwell Hammer
9716-4f3d-bba...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> surely you exaggerate!
>
Not at all, here's one at amazon for $51,000. Notice the fine detailing
of leopard print. A must have for the modern pimp.
http://www.amazon.com/Rolex-Special-Perpetual-Cosmograph-116598-
SE/dp/B001GUHSXU
And don't call me Shirley.
Max
Elder
> I'm suprised someone doesn't do 'goth' watches.
>
in a small "range"
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Elder
says...
> For the same amount of money as a Rolex you could just hire a guy with a
> timex to tell you what time it is.
>
Won't be a fancy one, but it will look right, not discolour and tell the
time.
whisky-dave
I wonder if anyone would choose a used one, considering the price.
> And don't call me Shirley.
>
> Max.
yes that was well out of order, he should refer to you as "bottom bitich"
I think that's the correct terminology
Peter H. Coffin
> In article <Xns9D27D36E...@188.40.43.245>,
> Secr...@gmail.com says...
>
>> For the same amount of money as a Rolex you could just hire a guy
>> with a timex to tell you what time it is.
>
> You can get a rolex for under �1kGBP. Won't be a fancy one, but it
> will look right, not discolour and tell the time.
Cite? Remember, if it's not on the authorized dealer list, it's better
than even odds to be a fake, even from an otherwise reputable dealer.
It might even be made on the same machinery by the same guys that make
actual Rolexes, but we're talking about real, authorized product...
--
33. I won't require high-ranking female members of my organization to
wear a stainless-steel bustier. Morale is better with a more casual
dress-code. Similarly, outfits made entirely from black leather will
be reserved for formal occasions. --Anspach's Evil Overlord List
Maxwell Hammer
news:slrnhoaanl....@abyss.ninehells.com:
> Cite? Remember, if it's not on the authorized dealer list, it's better
> than even odds to be a fake, even from an otherwise reputable dealer.
> It might even be made on the same machinery by the same guys that make
> actual Rolexes, but we're talking about real, authorized product...
Yes. The magical priests of licensing have to bless it. Because even
though they may be exactly the same in every way one is "real" and one is
"fake".
Did we not learn anything from Andy Warhol? He had a Factory churning out
his art, even had other people signing his name, and those paintings are
somehow are considered just as valuble as the one he personally drew
himself.
He even printed a picture of a one dollar bill and sold it for thousands,
thus proving that the counterfeit could even be worth more than the real
thing. It's all just perception. If the quality is the same, then how
does it matter?
Max
Axel
>I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
>to what is available.
We told you that *years* ago, but would you listen?
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
Hatter
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com> wrote innews:slrnhoaanl....@abyss.ninehells.com:
I personally think my favorite joke he played on the public was using
some his fortune to buy actual art, and not his nonsense.
Hatter
Hatter
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:04:47 -0800 (PST), "agsf...@yahoo.com"
>
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
> >to what is available.
>
> We told you that *years* ago, but would you listen?
>
> --
> Axel... ...Kallisti
If I had the money to spare....
http://www.eager-beavers.net/suekichi2/products/shouhin_guide.cgi?temp=TMP0
Hatter
ags...@yahoo.com
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On Feb 22, 5:46 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This watch is the exact same watch I have, except I don't have the new
latch. The pictures don't do the mother of pearl dial justice. Also,
my watch wasn't as expensive as Howie boy states. I think the price
was only around $8200.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:04:47 -0800 (PST), "agsf...@yahoo.com"
>
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have come to discover that Rolex watches are pretty bland compared
> >to what is available.
>
> We told you that *years* ago, but would you listen?
>
> --
> Axel... ...Kallisti
I remember and you guys were right. I still love my watch, but through
the years, I did see some that I like much more.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
ags...@yahoo.com
> "Maxwell Hammer" <Secret...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D28942D...@188.40.43.245...
>
> > The Wizard of Berkeley <nochsfen...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e4e815ed-
> > 9716-4f3d-bbaf-6d821e771...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> surely you exaggerate!
>
> > Not at all, here's one at amazon for $51,000. Notice the fine detailing
> > of leopard print. A must have for the modern pimp.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Rolex-Special-Perpetual-Cosmograph-116598-
> > SE/dp/B001GUHSXU
>
> I wonder if anyone would choose a used one, considering the price.
>
> > And don't call me Shirley.
>
> > Max.
>
> yes that was well out of order, he should refer to you as "bottom bitich"
> I think that's the correct terminology
More like he picked the wrong week to give up sniffing microwaved CDs.
For your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIAUbPDgaAg&feature=related
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:52:55 -0000, Elder wrote:
> > Secret...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> For the same amount of money as a Rolex you could just hire a guy
> >> with a timex to tell you what time it is.
>
> > You can get a rolex for under £1kGBP. Won't be a fancy one, but it
> > will look right, not discolour and tell the time.
>
> Cite? Remember, if it's not on the authorized dealer list, it's better
> than even odds to be a fake, even from an otherwise reputable dealer.
> It might even be made on the same machinery by the same guys that make
> actual Rolexes, but we're talking about real, authorized product...
>
You are correct. The cheapest Rolex is around 3k. You also need to buy
it from an authorized dealer or risk buying a fake.
Plus, I don't see why anyone would buy a fake (or an "original copy"
as my friend would say). I rather save up or buy within my means.
Regards...
`una
> > This watch is the exact same watch I have, except I don't have the new
> > latch. The pictures don't do the mother of pearl dial justice. Also,
> > my watch wasn't as expensive as Howie boy states. I think the price
> > was only around $8200.
> >
> > Regards...
>
> Sorry, forgot the link:
>
> http://www.bernardwatch.com/watch/RLX4009
I spent $70 on a Swiss Army watch that looks pretty much
just like that. Somehow, I always got the impression that
there was supposed to be something special about the Rolex.
Is it powered by a battery that never dies or made of
platinum or covered with indestructible glass?
I see the diamonds, but diamonds are pretty cheap these days.
You wouldn't even get a good sparkle off of them in a
setting like that (waste of good diamonds, really.)
I know you said it was bland. I never imagined it was
Swiss Army watch bland. It's like a Timex with rhinestones.
`una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
Peter H. Coffin
> `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
Very simple! *I* would spend it much more elegantly than they would, so
I should have it instead of them. Building an open-air restaurant under
a 100-ft glass dome or something, to start with.
--
63. Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And
they will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames
going through accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.
`una
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:32:22 -0800, `una wrote:
> > `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> > waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
>
> Very simple! *I* would spend it much more elegantly than they would, so
> I should have it instead of them. Building an open-air restaurant under
> a 100-ft glass dome or something, to start with.
Yeah, but what's the point of spending it on boring shit?
And just because I don't actively want a lot of money, doesn't mean
I haven't put any thought into what I would do with it if I had it.
I've got an extensive list that is easily scalable to whatever amount
I happen to have and I use it frequently.
`una - living the life I want with whatever I happen to have.
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80edc05a-b554-4568...@b7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> This watch is the exact same watch I have, except I don't have the new
> latch. The pictures don't do the mother of pearl dial justice. Also,
> my watch wasn't as expensive as Howie boy states. I think the price
> was only around $8200.
>
> Regards...
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.bernardwatch.com/watch/RLX4009
Well that's not bad at all, looks wise. If I saw it down the market for a
tenner I might be tempted
but what makes it worth $8000 as a time piece, why does it cost 5 X more
than my computer.
Maybe this is what I don't understand. Last week I was shown a pair of
specticles costing �500.
But I don;t think optically they were any better than a �50 pair.
I guess I just don't have the correct mind-set to think that paying
significantly more for something
makes it any better. Although I do see that a diamond encrusted condom might
have it's advantages .
moonglow minnow
> Although I do see that a diamond encrusted condom might
> have it's advantages .
One word: Ouch.
minnow >^..^<
--
http://twitter.com/taheenahana
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
TenshiKurai9
> `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
Just because other people waste it on the most boring shit imaginable
doesn't mean you have to waste it on the most boring shit imaginable.
-TenshiKurai9, I'd travel in between school terms.
`una
TenshiKurai9 <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> wrote:
Doesn't take much money if you are good with creative budgeting
and problem solving. The most obvious ways of doing things are
not the only ways of doing things.
`una - does quite a lot with very little
TenshiKurai9
I'd use it to make it easier to do even more travel and easier to do my
study at a university not-in the US and still do a study aboard option
in yet another country.
Most of my initial travel would be a.g.-connected, but
then I'd hit every Goth, Industrial, Punk music festival I can and
as many related club nights (and GLBT nights) in between festivals.
Maybe have a year of nothing but gay pride parades somewhere in there.
-TenshiKurai9, and random whims here and there.
kest
> I think a lot of it is to do with empathy. Most of society
> still assumes that people are born with natural empathy, although all
> the evidence says otherwise, or at least that those intial skills are
> very limited. People need to be taught empathy as they grow up. I
Really? I'm not sure I was ever taught empathy. I just kind of
logicked it out on my own - 'people being dicks to me sucks, therefore I
will strive not to be a dick to anyone else'.
k
The Exiled, V.2
> I have no empathy for your situation because I do not agree with your
> stance on being a parent. If you were positive about the process and
> miscarried, then that my comment would be unwarranted. However, to put
> yourself in the perspective of being a parent on the basis of self-
> sacrifice for your partner's sake is just crazy. Why bring a child
> into this world with such a premise and outlook on life?
Except, jackass, that you don't even take into account the possibility
that, hey, she might want the kid too? Aside from the reason of her
partner wanting one? Never crossed your mind, I suspect.
> Hell, I'll even go further and ask if it is even wise for someone like
> you and Donald, given your health conditions and lack of financial
> stability, to bring a child into this world?
Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
Nothing new here.
> Also, I read your website. You place your failures on the blame of
> others. You even focus your goals on the appeasement of others and not
> yourself. You are a weak person and until you change your perspective,
> you will never accomplish your goals.
And you're the weak man who hides behind his internet persona because
you don't have the balls to speak it IRL. Your point is?
--
=====
Regards,
The Exiled, V.2
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..."
- H. P. Lovecraft, "The Picture In The House"
whisky-dave
"The Exiled, V.2" <exil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnas6f$b9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
> hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
> Nothing new here.
Although I don;t agree with the above I do agree that if you can't afford[1]
to
have kids thern don't have them.
[1] includes financial, time, resources and everything else that a child
needs
and that includes love.
moonglow minnow
Kids are expensive, yes, but resource availability (except for caring
and love) is a thing that tends to change over a person's lifetime. One
may have abundant time and money when one has a child, and then lose a
job and have to work 80 hour weeks at minimum wage because it's not a
worker's market. In Jennie's case, financial resources may be moderately
scarce, but as someone who grew up poor, I can say that money (beyond
what's needed for nutritious food, good shelter, and adequate clothing)
isn't the most important factor in raising a child well. Security that
one's needs will be met and a loving extended family (whether by choice
or by blood) on the other hand are much more important to a child's well
being.
ags...@yahoo.com
> On 2/20/2010 12:34 AM, agsf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I have no empathy for your situation because I do not agree with your
> > stance on being a parent. If you were positive about the process and
> > miscarried, then that my comment would be unwarranted. However, to put
> > yourself in the perspective of being a parent on the basis of self-
> > sacrifice for your partner's sake is just crazy. Why bring a child
> > into this world with such a premise and outlook on life?
>
> Except, jackass, that you don't even take into account the possibility
> that, hey, she might want the kid too? Aside from the reason of her
> partner wanting one? Never crossed your mind, I suspect.
That's not what I got from reading her post. Hence the "If you were
positive about the process and miscarried, then that my comment would
be unwarranted" comment.
>
> > Hell, I'll even go further and ask if it is even wise for someone like
> > you and Donald, given your health conditions and lack of financial
> > stability, to bring a child into this world?
>
> Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
> hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
> Nothing new here.
To some degree, that should be true. As long as you can afford to pay
for the expenses of the child, then having children is OK by my book.
Even if it means you live in a small apartment. However, if you need
government assistance to survive, then you should not have kids.
Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
1. Lack of financial resources
2. Bad genes/genetic defects
3. Poor health
> > Also, I read your website. You place your failures on the blame of
> > others. You even focus your goals on the appeasement of others and not
> > yourself. You are a weak person and until you change your perspective,
> > you will never accomplish your goals.
>
> And you're the weak man who hides behind his internet persona because
> you don't have the balls to speak it IRL. Your point is?
>
You can go and play with your own straw man.
> =====
> Regards,
>
> The Exiled, V.2
>
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> "The Exiled, V.2" <exile...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:hnas6f$b9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
> > hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
> > Nothing new here.
>
> Although I don;t agree with the above I do agree that if you can't afford[1]
> to
> have kids thern don't have them.
>
> [1] includes financial, time, resources and everything else that a child
> needs
> and that includes love.
My guess is that "love" is the only thing the child would receive and
that would be from only one parent after the first few years.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Supporting a person's position when it is not to their best interests
nor the best interests of society is not empathy. If anything, it is
cruelty.
To tell Jennie it is OK to have a child and that should she bring a
child into this world based on her argument and life situation is not
being a friend or empathetic. Someone needs to point out the obvious.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> "agsf...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> > > This watch is the exact same watch I have, except I don't have the new
> > > latch. The pictures don't do the mother of pearl dial justice. Also,
> > > my watch wasn't as expensive as Howie boy states. I think the price
> > > was only around $8200.
>
> > > Regards...
>
> > Sorry, forgot the link:
>
> >http://www.bernardwatch.com/watch/RLX4009
>
> I spent $70 on a Swiss Army watch that looks pretty much
> just like that.
I have another watch that looks like that as well. It's a Swiss star.
Mostly found in Europe and not in the US.
>Somehow, I always got the impression that
> there was supposed to be something special about the Rolex.
It's built to last generations. In fact I got it so I can pass it off
to my son. I grew up poor and made it on my own without any help. So I
want that message to be passed onto my son as well.
Also, Rolex watches, increase in value with time. Just like Mont Blanc
pens.
> Is it powered by a battery that never dies or made of
> platinum or covered with indestructible glass?
It has an automatic Swiss movement, sapphire crystal lens, stainless
steel band and white gold bezel.
> I see the diamonds, but diamonds are pretty cheap these days.
> You wouldn't even get a good sparkle off of them in a
> setting like that (waste of good diamonds, really.)
This model was $2500 more because it had the diamond and the mother of
pearl dial. When the lights or sun hits the face of the watch, it is
beautiful.
> I know you said it was bland. I never imagined it was
> Swiss Army watch bland. It's like a Timex with rhinestones.
Maybe more like a Citizen, rather than a Timex. When I think of a
Timex, I think of a black plastic band with a digital face.
> `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
The point is to have the option of spending money on boring shit.
Being poor till I was 20 years old, I can tell you that I prefer my
life now than then. Why would you aspire to be poor? For the record, I
don't mind if you are self supportive and enjoy your quality of life.
That's fine in my book, but don't make disparaging comments regarding
those of us who like having the extra money around to spend on "boring
shit".
ags...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:32:22 -0800, `una wrote:
> > `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> > waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
>
> Very simple! *I* would spend it much more elegantly than they would, so
> I should have it instead of them. Building an open-air restaurant under
> a 100-ft glass dome or something, to start with.
>
Think of the liability should that glass dome were to break and fall.
But I guess to be witness to such destruction would be worth it.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I agree with you. There are watches with the quality of a Rolex that
are cheaper (like my Swiss Star). I guess I paid for the brand name. I
have no regrets as I love the watch.
> Although I do see that a diamond encrusted condom might
> have it's advantages .
Well, like that study I referenced many years ago did show, men in
nice suits and wearing a Rolex were considered more attractive to
women than the same men wearing a McDonald's uniform.
So yes, having a Rolex gets you more pussy than a Timex.
Regards...
NightMist
>
> Well, like that study I referenced many years ago did show, men in
> nice suits and wearing a Rolex were considered more attractive to
> women than the same men wearing a McDonald's uniform.
>
> So yes, having a Rolex gets you more pussy than a Timex.
>
Sure if you want to pay for it.
If you like being attractive to women who shop for men based on income tax
bracket, or prefer those who ask for payment up front, then I guess it would
be good for attracting women.
Maybe I am strange but if a man catches my eye it is not his watch that
attracted my attention. Unless maybe it is a pocket watch. That would be
just different enough to to make me notice.
NightMist
--
I'm raising a developmentally disabled child. What's your superpower?
`una
> Maybe I am strange but if a man catches my eye it is not his watch that
> attracted my attention. Unless maybe it is a pocket watch. That would be
> just different enough to to make me notice.
Pocket watches are dead sexy, especially if they are manual wind.
But I've given up on generalizations about attractiveness because
it doesn't really matter how many people you can attract if they
are all boring.
It's like the difference between fishing with a giant net and
using a specific kind of bait on a hook. Sure, you'll pull a huge
number of fish with the net and you MIGHT find the one fish you want
in the pile, but you'll have a better chance of getting the specific
fish you want with the hook.
But hey, if you are into quantity over quality, go with the net.
`una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you like ;)
`una
> On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, `una wrote:
> >Somehow, I always got the impression that
> > there was supposed to be something special about the Rolex.
>
> It's built to last generations. In fact I got it so I can pass it off
> to my son. I grew up poor and made it on my own without any help. So I
> want that message to be passed onto my son as well.
Heirlooms tend to be good things, especially in a disposable culture.
> Maybe more like a Citizen, rather than a Timex. When I think of a
> Timex, I think of a black plastic band with a digital face.
I owned a very nice Timex watch that lasted over a decade,
until I lost it in a move. I haven't worn a watch since because
it is well nigh impossible to find a watch that isn't a digital
piece of crap for under $20 anymore.
> > `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> > waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
>
> The point is to have the option of spending money on boring shit.
> Being poor till I was 20 years old, I can tell you that I prefer my
> life now than then. Why would you aspire to be poor? For the record, I
> don't mind if you are self supportive and enjoy your quality of life.
> That's fine in my book, but don't make disparaging comments regarding
> those of us who like having the extra money around to spend on "boring
> shit".
Not wanting a lot of money and aspiring to be poor are very different.
My definition of a lot may be very different than what you had in mind.
I did not say that there was anything wrong with spending a lot of money
on boring shit. I simply asked what was the point of doing so, which is
really a rhetorical question because one does not need to have a point
for making personal choices. My subjective assessment of "boring shit"
has nothing to do with how anybody else should feel about their choices.
`una - not into disparaging people
`una
> To some degree, that should be true. As long as you can afford to pay
> for the expenses of the child, then having children is OK by my book.
> Even if it means you live in a small apartment. However, if you need
> government assistance to survive, then you should not have kids.
Tangential question:
Would you then argue that those, who could afford to pay for the
expenses of a child when they had it, should give up the child
when they unexpectedly find themselves needing long-term
government assistance?
`una - life-altering accidents happen
The Exiled, V.2
> Although I don;t agree with the above I do agree that if you can't afford[1]
> to
> have kids thern don't have them.
>
> [1] includes financial, time, resources and everything else that a child
> needs
> and that includes love.
The question is: What defines 'afford'?
If we go by the modern standards of what financial requirements, time
needed, and resources required are for 'affording' children, no one with
a yearly income below $150-200K should have children at all.
The Exiled, V.2
> On Mar 11, 5:45 am, "The Exiled, V.2"<exile...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Except, jackass, that you don't even take into account the possibility
>> that, hey, she might want the kid too? Aside from the reason of her
>> partner wanting one? Never crossed your mind, I suspect.
>
> That's not what I got from reading her post. Hence the "If you were
> positive about the process and miscarried, then that my comment would
> be unwarranted" comment.
I'm pretty sure you didn't get that from reading her post. You read
everything to fit your warped "Fuck you, Jack, I GOT MINE." worldview.
>> Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
>> hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
>> Nothing new here.
>
> To some degree, that should be true. As long as you can afford to pay
> for the expenses of the child, then having children is OK by my book.
> Even if it means you live in a small apartment. However, if you need
> government assistance to survive, then you should not have kids.
Yeah, I pegged you as that type years ago. Typical internet
'lolbertarian' clinging to a BOOTSTRAPS ideology that breaks down rather
quickly...as your own business failure has indicated. I'm just waiting
for you to go all Joe Stack.
> Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
> 1. Lack of financial resources
> 2. Bad genes/genetic defects
> 3. Poor health
Describes about 75% of the people in the world and 95% of the people
throughout history. Not everyone can have my perfect health, Prussian
genes, and family's wealth, true. That does not indicate that they
should have not have children. To utilize a variant of your viewpoint,
we still need more fodder for wars and to work the factories.
But hey, you're doing a great job of promoting the Genetic Eugenics and
Economic Eugenics argument.
>>> Also, I read your website. You place your failures on the blame of
>>> others. You even focus your goals on the appeasement of others and not
>>> yourself. You are a weak person and until you change your perspective,
>>> you will never accomplish your goals.
>>
>> And you're the weak man who hides behind his internet persona because
>> you don't have the balls to speak it IRL. Your point is?
>
> You can go and play with your own straw man.
Straw man, nothing. How many times have people called you out and
offered to meet in public to hash out views...and you've declined? It's
pathetic.
=====
Regards,
The Exiled, V.2
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..."
Peter H. Coffin
> On 3/12/2010 8:31 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> Although I don;t agree with the above I do agree that if you can't afford[1]
>> to
>> have kids thern don't have them.
>>
>> [1] includes financial, time, resources and everything else that a child
>> needs
>> and that includes love.
>
> The question is: What defines 'afford'?
> If we go by the modern standards of what financial requirements, time
> needed, and resources required are for 'affording' children, no one with
> a yearly income below $150-200K should have children at all.
It'd solve all those dire warnings about human-generated global warming
in about 70 years...
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting. [TOFU := text oben,
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? followup unten]
whisky-dave
> On 3/12/2010 8:31 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> Although I don;t agree with the above I do agree that if you can't
>> afford[1]
>> to
>> have kids thern don't have them.
>>
>> [1] includes financial, time, resources and everything else that a child
>> needs
>> and that includes love.
>
> The question is: What defines 'afford'?
Depends what life style you want to live while raising a child, most
sensible
people would work this sort of thing out before having the child.
The troubkle being in todays world (UK anyway) children are a way
of getting an income, have a child and get paid to keep it isn't a good
message.
> If we go by the modern standards of what financial requirements, time
> needed, and resources required are for 'affording' children, no one with a
> yearly income below $150-200K should have children at all.
Children tend to require that the parents make sacrifices form their off
spring,
that tends to be fogotten, nower-days it's up to someone else to make the
sacrifices.
whisky-dave
"`una" <una...@nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:st8u67-...@abyss.ninehells.com...
It's a difficult question but if the money comes form another source then
you need to ensure that no one else is suffering because of it.
Insurance is a good option and some take out mortgage, car, theft, death
and all sorts of other insurances.
I don't believe children should be used to blackmail someone in to
giving another money.
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2eb0c9da-bd23-4a8e...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 11:32 pm, `una <una...@nettrip.org> wrote:
> "agsf...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> > > This watch is the exact same watch I have, except I don't have the new
> > > latch. The pictures don't do the mother of pearl dial justice. Also,
> > > my watch wasn't as expensive as Howie boy states. I think the price
> > > was only around $8200.
>
> > > Regards...
>
> > Sorry, forgot the link:
>
> >http://www.bernardwatch.com/watch/RLX4009
>
> I spent $70 on a Swiss Army watch that looks pretty much
> just like that.
}I have another watch that looks like that as well. It's a Swiss star.
}Mostly found in Europe and not in the US.
>Somehow, I always got the impression that
> there was supposed to be something special about the Rolex.
}It's built to last generations.
That doesn;t make much sense though does it.
} In fact I got it so I can pass it off
}to my son. I grew up poor and made it on my own without any help. So I
}want that message to be passed onto my son as well.
}Also, Rolex watches, increase in value with time. Just like Mont Blanc
}pens.
So nothing that specail about Rolex watches, you might as well buy a
victorian
piss pot, they too go up in value.
> Is it powered by a battery that never dies or made of
> platinum or covered with indestructible glass?
}It has an automatic Swiss movement, sapphire crystal lens, stainless
}steel band and white gold bezel.
Piss pots don't need batteries.
> I see the diamonds, but diamonds are pretty cheap these days.
> You wouldn't even get a good sparkle off of them in a
> setting like that (waste of good diamonds, really.)
}This model was $2500 more because it had the diamond and the mother of
}pearl dial. When the lights or sun hits the face of the watch, it is
}beautiful.
Without the sun it's shit then, wouldn't make a very good Goth watch would
it.
> I know you said it was bland. I never imagined it was
> Swiss Army watch bland. It's like a Timex with rhinestones.
}Maybe more like a Citizen, rather than a Timex. When I think of a
}Timex, I think of a black plastic band with a digital face.
Sounds like a cyber punk
> `una - never really wanted a lot of money because people tend to
> waste it on the most boring shit imaginable. What's the point?
}The point is to have the option of spending money on boring shit.
}Being poor till I was 20 years old, I can tell you that I prefer my
}life now than then.
I guess that makes sense.
}Why would you aspire to be poor? For the record, I
}don't mind if you are self supportive and enjoy your quality of life.
}That's fine in my book, but don't make disparaging comments regarding
}those of us who like having the extra money around to spend on "boring
}shit".
Why not buy some exciting shit. :-)
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6c44f2e-e2f3-4fae...@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 5:31 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Well that's not bad at all, looks wise. If I saw it down the market for a
> tenner I might be tempted
> but what makes it worth $8000 as a time piece, why does it cost 5 X more
> than my computer.
> Maybe this is what I don't understand. Last week I was shown a pair of
> specticles costing £500.
> But I don;t think optically they were any better than a £50 pair.
> I guess I just don't have the correct mind-set to think that paying
> significantly more for something
> makes it any better.
}I agree with you. There are watches with the quality of a Rolex that
}are cheaper (like my Swiss Star). I guess I paid for the brand name. I
}have no regrets as I love the watch.
Well that's OK then but trying to convince someone else that it's money
well spent is difficult unless that person has money like that to spend on a
watch.
> Although I do see that a diamond encrusted condom might
> have it's advantages .
}Well, like that study I referenced many years ago did show, men in
}nice suits and wearing a Rolex were considered more attractive to
}women than the same men wearing a McDonald's uniform.
Well there's no suprise, and more drugs couriers wear Rolex than timex
that's one way of catching the stupid at 'ports when drug smuggling.
}So yes, having a Rolex gets you more pussy than a Timex.
Is that really true, the only person I know with a Rolex is Gay
and he also wear one of those stupid grand prix track staff leather
jackets and
hat with some lame sponsers splashed all over it. IMHO [1]
[1] Not so humble perhaps :)
moonglow minnow
> On 2010-03-16, The Exiled, V.2 <exil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/13/2010 4:55 PM, ags...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
>
> Whoa! Now this was one I didn't know about. No doctor has ever
> mentioned anything wrong with either of us from a genetic point of view.
> What peculiar myths one encounters on the internet. The other errors I
> can understand in context, but this one is completely out of the blue.
Don't you love when people confuse acquired or random but not contageous
conditions with genetic defects? It hearkens back to the days when
malformed children were considered a curse from the devil.
moonglow minnow
[on Rolex watches]
> } In fact I got it so I can pass it off
> }to my son. I grew up poor and made it on my own without any help. So I
> }want that message to be passed onto my son as well.
Wouldn't the best way to pass on that message be to make him make it on
his own as well? Children who aren't forced to make it on their own at
some point never seem to grasp the value of being well off.
TenshiKurai9
> `una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you like ;)
Female?
-TenshiKurai9
`una
> `una wrote:
> > `una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you like ;)
>
> Female?
That would be the implied euphemism, which greatly amused me, but
I really did mean that I have a specific kind of person in mind.
Gender is one of the least important characteristics
I am looking for.
`una - extremely selective about some things, but not others
Peter H. Coffin
That's where you get the roe, after all.
--
16. I will never utter the sentence "But before I kill you, there's
just one thing I want to know."
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
moonglow minnow
> That would be the implied euphemism, which greatly amused me, but
> I really did mean that I have a specific kind of person in mind.
> Gender is one of the least important characteristics
> I am looking for.
>
> `una - extremely selective about some things, but not others
I find myself similarly picky, but my pre-sets often aren't where I
expect them to be, they change, oo they end up being based on things I
have little to no conscious control over. Genitalia don't seem to matter
as long as they're kept relatively clean, but gender presentation (often
in the little things rather than the big things) does matter. Being able
to navigate psychological minefields is a must for long-term partners,
though not as much as it used to be. I suppose I'm extremely picky but
I'm only aware of certain criteria and my subconscious does the rest.
whisky-dave
"moonglow minnow" <tahee...@charter.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:80abt7...@mid.individual.net...
>> <ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [on Rolex watches]
>> } In fact I got it so I can pass it off
>> }to my son. I grew up poor and made it on my own without any help. So I
>> }want that message to be passed onto my son as well.
>
> Wouldn't the best way to pass on that message be to make him make it on
> his own as well?
I thought that was the idea, or perhaps born with a "silver spoon in the
mouth"
is a bit too 19th Century perhaps born with a Rolex on your wrist is more
appropriate .
whisky-dave
"TenshiKurai9" <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhq0bmh...@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On 2010-03-14, `una <una...@nettrip.org> wrote:
>> `una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you like ;)
>
> Female?
I though she meant non English language (flavour) fish :-)
whisky-dave
"moonglow minnow" <tahee...@charter.net.invalid> wrote in message
> `una wrote:
>
>> That would be the implied euphemism, which greatly amused me, but
>> I really did mean that I have a specific kind of person in mind.
>> Gender is one of the least important characteristics I am looking for.
>>
>> `una - extremely selective about some things, but not others
>
> I find myself similarly picky, but my pre-sets often aren't where I expect
> them to be, they change, oo they end up being based on things I have
> little to no conscious control over. Genitalia don't seem to matter as
> long as they're kept relatively clean,
I'm trying to work out relatively clean.
Polished by brothers/siters springs to mind but that's because it's
wednesday.
>but gender presentation (often in the little things rather than the big
>things) does matter. Being able to navigate psychological minefields is a
>must for long-term partners,
So remembering to put the toilet see down is a must I assume ;-)
> though not as much as it used to be. I suppose I'm extremely picky but I'm
> only aware of certain criteria and my subconscious does the rest.
Isn;t that the same for most of us though, we have the ideals then we end up
settling for those that don;t come up to them, hence my sowing problem.
`una
I used to be preoccupied with the things other people said
that they were looking for because I was always told those
were the healthy things to look for. It didn't work for me.
So, I stopped looking and started finding things that
did work for me: scent, voice, speech patterns, body language,
the way people look through their eyes, etc.
What works for me is incredibly rare. I see it in about
one person out of every hundred and have only encountered
two that returned my interest. The first is married to
someone else now. The second is someone I am not likely
to ever see again due to plain old circumstances.
Fortunately, I'm not looking for The One. I'm just looking for
a specific kind of fish and I am getting better at baiting the hook.
`una - only likes salmon
whisky-dave
> I used to be preoccupied with the things other people said
> that they were looking for because I was always told those
> were the healthy things to look for. It didn't work for me.
Well healthy things to look for might seem like a good idea,
I'm sure it's healthy to do sports (excluding sporting injuries)
but the peole I know that do do sports always have some injury
I rarely have injuries, mayube I'm just too careful or can see and eliminate
problems in most cases, but I admit when sowing I did predict I'd injure
myself.
> So, I stopped looking and started finding things that
> did work for me: scent, voice, speech patterns, body language,
> the way people look through their eyes, etc.
Do people look through any other organ, I know some talk out their arse :)
>
> What works for me is incredibly rare. I see it in about
> one person out of every hundred and have only encountered
> two that returned my interest. The first is married to
> someone else now. The second is someone I am not likely
> to ever see again due to plain old circumstances.
Isn't this similar to 'love at first sight' or should that be site
depending if you subscribe to one.
> Fortunately, I'm not looking for The One. I'm just looking for
> a specific kind of fish and I am getting better at baiting the hook.
Carry on like that and you'll become a master baiter.
The old jokes are the best :-D
>
> `una - only likes salmon
Wild or farm ?
Do you like fishsticks......[1]
I guess you lie putting fishsdicks in yuor mouth ?
Well that makes you a gay fish.
Oh well maybe not as you're female.
[1] southpark joke
TenshiKurai9
Your phrasing is confusing me. Please re-phrase.
-TenshiKurai9
moonglow minnow
His phrasing confuses everyone, and he seems incapable of saying the
same thing with different words. I just ignore the incomprehensible bits
when he's out of my killfile.
whisky-dave
"moonglow minnow" <tahee...@charter.net.invalid> wrote in message
> TenshiKurai9 wrote:
>> On 2010-03-17, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>> "TenshiKurai9" <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhq0bmh...@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>>> On 2010-03-14, `una <una...@nettrip.org> wrote:
>>>>> `una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you like ;)
>>>> Female?
>>> I though she meant non English language (flavour) fish :-)
>>
>> Your phrasing is confusing me. Please re-phrase.
>
> His phrasing confuses everyone, and he seems incapable of saying the same
> thing with different words. I just ignore the incomprehensible bits when
> he's out of my killfile.
You mean what you don;t understand you ignore fair enough I guess.
I eat fish, but I've never really considered whether they are male or
female[1]
if I want Cod they never asked me whether I want a male of female fish.
But I do understand that fish from different waters actually taste different
See the statement `una - after a specific flavor of fish (read that how you
like ;)
the bit where is says (read that how you like), which I did.
[1] As for gender and sexuality I'm not even considering those options.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhq7df8.7n7...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2010-03-19, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> I eat fish, but I've never really considered whether they are male or
>> female[1]
>
> it - fish are much more complicated.
I wonder if they have the same 'problems' as humans do, doubt it or at least
I doubt it concerns them.
>Some species are hermaphroditic
> [1], some change sex partway through life, some change sex because
> there's a shortage of one sex around, some males carry their gestating
> offspring around in pouches and some males are tiny and parasitic,
> living off the blood of the females they fertilise.
The most interesting I find is the one that's a fish and then decides to eat
it's own
brains and end up 'de-evolving' into anenome[sp} coral thing.
But the main point is does the flavour of fish change depening on their
gender
or sexualily, I had Haddock on Friday but I've no idea if it was a male or
female fish.
In the live stock world we tend to eat cows, chickens well bit are female
AFAIK.
Beefs seems to come from cows rather than bulls, and we eat chickens rather
than
roosters.
I've even heard people only smoke the female cannabis plant.
I've always assumed male/female are differnt biologically and chemically
even if the mind doesn't agree.
Now it's lunchtime it's time to think of food. :-)
The Exiled, V.2
>>> Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
>
> Whoa! Now this was one I didn't know about. No doctor has ever
> mentioned anything wrong with either of us from a genetic point of view.
> What peculiar myths one encounters on the internet. The other errors I
> can understand in context, but this one is completely out of the blue.
That's why I was all "LOL, eugenics."
I really can't tell you how much I despise that crap.
--
---
whisky-dave
> On 2010-03-22, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> I wonder if they have the same 'problems' as humans do, doubt it or at
>> least
>> I doubt it concerns them.
>
qwell In was just refering to the sex/gender ones.
I used to keep fish had 3 tanks for about 10 years, gave it up as it became
a bit stressful
and too time consuming.
>Most
> gregarious animals do, because social cooperation and hierarchy are so
> important to their survival,
and it includes humans.
>and there's always a bit of conflicct
> between the two. Fish get picked on for being small, physically unfit,
> fat, long-finned or simply disinclined to follow orders (even if they
> don't understand the rules because they're new to a group or have
> learning disorders). Sometimes they get picked on simply because another
> fish wants to demonstrate its comparative power and importance to
> others. Often fish sexually harrass each other or pick fights with
> romantic rivals.
seems to be pretty consistent across intelligent species.
>Some fish demonstrate homosexual behaviour, though I've
> never seen nor heard of another fish treating that as a stigmatised
> trait. Sometimes fish become hopelessly attached to other individual
> fish and put up with bullying in order to be near them.
That's called marriage isn't it ;-)
>It's societies
> in general that are fucked up, not just ours. ;)
So you would have thought intelligent people would realise this...
So why do we put so may new people in our 'tank' and expect us to live
happily
ever after ?
>> But the main point is does the flavour of fish change depening on their
>> gender or sexualily,
>
> Hmm. Some species of fish get bigger after changing from
> female to male (though in most species, females are bigger). I guess
> that might affect flavour.
And males are usualyl the best looking.........
Where's a food expert/chef when you need one.
>In other cases, females might taste better
> because they get more exercise, continually having to dart around and
> hide from aggressive males.
Or the opposite as we keep baby cows stationary most ofm teh day and night
so they don;t build up musscles adn therefopre stay tender and we sell the
baby cows
and call it veal, which does seem to taste nice and tender, haven't had it
for years.
So maybe the less you move the better you taste. :-)
Well when I go to the fish shop I ask for what they have, usually I have
Cod, Haddock or plaice.
I'm never offered male or female.
Even dope heads insist on smoking the female plant rather than the male
IIRC.
>> I've always assumed male/female are differnt biologically and chemically
>> even if the mind doesn't agree.
>
> Your mind doesn't agree, or their minds don't agree?
The mind.
it can be their mind or my mind.
I can understand how someone with female sex organs might think
that they should be a male from how they see and perceive things,
but if that is the case then it can't be true that males and females are
equal.
That just does not compute.
Some either think they are a cat or a dog and live a life on a lead eating
from
a bowl on the floor, but I really don;t consider they are the animal they
want
to be, but that doesn;t mean I'll stop them or overly restrict them from
doing
what they are doing.
> I'm not sure how dramatic a chemical difference you'd expect
> between creatures with enough in common for sexual reproduction to be
> viable (or worthwhile).
Well ASAIK I eat chicken not rooster, although remember the capon range
and for some reason that was better. I eat beef that seems to come from the
cow
rather than the bull. I know there's a differnce between ducks and drakes,
but on master chef and other cookery show they cook duck.
ags...@yahoo.com
> > for the expenses of the child, then having children is OK by my book.
> > Even if it means you live in a small apartment. However, if you need
> > government assistance to survive, then you should not have kids.
>
> Tangential question:
>
> Would you then argue that those, who could afford to pay for the
> expenses of a child when they had it, should give up the child
> when they unexpectedly find themselves needing long-term
> government assistance?
>
It depends on the age of the child and the nature of the event that
caused the hardship. However, at this point, the individual should not
allow another child to enter this world.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> On 3/13/2010 4:55 PM, agsf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 5:45 am, "The Exiled, V.2"<exile...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Except, jackass, that you don't even take into account the possibility
> >> that, hey, she might want the kid too? Aside from the reason of her
> >> partner wanting one? Never crossed your mind, I suspect.
>
> > That's not what I got from reading her post. Hence the "If you were
> > positive about the process and miscarried, then that my comment would
> > be unwarranted" comment.
>
> I'm pretty sure you didn't get that from reading her post. You read
> everything to fit your warped "Fuck you, Jack, I GOT MINE." worldview.
>
You can go and play with your own arguments by yourself.
> >> Ah, yes, the "Only rich people should have children." argument. Just a
> >> hop, skip, and a jump away from the "Sterilize the poor." argument.
> >> Nothing new here.
>
> > To some degree, that should be true. As long as you can afford to pay
> > for the expenses of the child, then having children is OK by my book.
> > Even if it means you live in a small apartment. However, if you need
> > government assistance to survive, then you should not have kids.
>
> Yeah, I pegged you as that type years ago.
> Typical internet
> 'lolbertarian' clinging to a BOOTSTRAPS ideology that breaks down rather
> quickly...
Apparently it's a viewpoint shared by a responsible society.
>as your own business failure has indicated. I'm just waiting
> for you to go all Joe Stack.
1. The business does well. So far, we have made more than the majority
make in a year.
2. You'll have to wait for a long time. If I were to slack off and do
nothing, I can easily afford a great lifestyle.
> > Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
> > 1. Lack of financial resources
> > 2. Bad genes/genetic defects
> > 3. Poor health
>
> Describes about 75% of the people in the world and 95% of the people
> throughout history. Not everyone can have my perfect health, Prussian
> genes, and family's wealth, true. That does not indicate that they
> should have not have children. To utilize a variant of your viewpoint,
> we still need more fodder for wars and to work the factories.
So who's best interest are you supporting when you promote this
irresponsible viewpoint?
> But hey, you're doing a great job of promoting the Genetic Eugenics and
> Economic Eugenics argument.
And you're doing a great job promoting the need for abortion.
> >>> Also, I read your website. You place your failures on the blame of
> >>> others. You even focus your goals on the appeasement of others and not
> >>> yourself. You are a weak person and until you change your perspective,
> >>> you will never accomplish your goals.
>
> >> And you're the weak man who hides behind his internet persona because
> >> you don't have the balls to speak it IRL. Your point is?
>
> > You can go and play with your own straw man.
>
> Straw man, nothing. How many times have people called you out and
> offered to meet in public to hash out views...and you've declined? It's
> pathetic.
> =====
Having fun yet?
> Regards,
>
> The Exiled, V.2
>
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> >> On 3/13/2010 4:55 PM, agsf...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Now, Jennie and Donald have three strikes against them:
> >>> 2. Bad genes/genetic defects
>
> > Whoa! Now this was one I didn't know about. No doctor has ever
> > mentioned anything wrong with either of us from a genetic point of view.
> > What peculiar myths one encounters on the internet. The other errors I
> > can understand in context, but this one is completely out of the blue.
Are you stating that you are normal and do not have any flaws that can
be passed off to your offspring?
> That's why I was all "LOL, eugenics."
> I really can't tell you how much I despise that crap.
>
It's not a bad idea.
> ---
> Regards,
> The Exiled, V.2
>
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> > <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I agree. It's just one of many messages I wanted to pass off to him.
Regards...
ags...@yahoo.com
> agsf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Well, like that study I referenced many years ago did show, men in
> > nice suits and wearing a Rolex were considered more attractive to
> > women than the same men wearing a McDonald's uniform.
>
>
This doesn't apply to this situation. I am keeping my money and the
watch is really for me, not them.
However, sometimes you need the comfort and simplicity of a
prostitute, so I find nothing wrong with paying for sex.
> If you like being attractive to women who shop for men based on income tax
> bracket, or prefer those who ask for payment up front, then I guess it would
> be good for attracting women.
I didn't care what their motives were. If they looked good, then I
would try to have sex with them.
> Maybe I am strange but if a man catches my eye it is not his watch that
> attracted my attention. Unless maybe it is a pocket watch. That would be
> just different enough to to make me notice.
Well maybe you do not fit the norm of what makes a woman attracted to
a man. Not saying this is a bad thing.
> NightMist
Regards...
> I'm raising a developmentally disabled child. What's your superpower?
Communicating with developmentally disabled adults. ;)
ags...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 1, 5:31 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> > <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> and he also wear one of those stupid grand prix track staff leather
> jackets and
> hat with some lame sponsers splashed all over it. IMHO [1]
>
> [1] Not so humble perhaps :)
I can't speak from experience as I got the Rolex after getting
married. However, I do get attention from women because of the watch.
Regards...
te'Shara
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecaf356f-ca83-4336...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>Regards...
No offense guys, but seriously. No one wants to adopt non-white children or
babies older than infancy. Sure, you can tell me about a few people you know
that did, but the majority of adopted kids, even in the US today will never
know they were adopted unless there's some sort of emergency in their older
years and they need to find a birth parent. (When I say 'older' I mean age 2
and up because they're cognitive enough to understand adoption.)
If these kids were taken away that's exactly what's going to happen to them:
the foster system. As if it isn't completely over-burdened already...
It's WAY cheaper in the long run to keep these kids with their parents. If
they were in orphanages people would flip if they weren't at least treated
and kept up with the standards of lower middle-class America, which is
something even native middle-class families are having trouble with. We
already have foster group-homes that do this for kids waiting for foster
families, and even some of them are already closing due to loss of funding.
As for limiting births, it's a great idea in theory, but unfortunately life
is more complex than that. In a perfect world, people that loved each other
(I'm not excluding poly households) would come together, get financially
stable, decide on creating or raising a life together, and then set out on
that adventure. (Although there is no such thing as financially stable
If you tell me you can make it to age 25 without seeing at least one friend
waving around or pacing with a pregnancy test going: 'shit, shit, shit' I'm
going to assume you're not very observant. A lot of kids are unplanned, but
unplanned does not equal unwanted or unloved.
I'm more worried about the unloved kids growing up without empathy. They're
the ones that cause the societal drain in the first place by committing
violent crimes, white-collar crimes, and most importantly, repeating the
process by fathering/mothering kids they don't plan on actually raising.
If you want to get technical about it, you're better off limiting children
to emotionally stable households that have a high probability of producing
adults that contribute to society rather than being a drain; instead of
financially stable households that may or may not continue to contribute
into further generations.
moonglow minnow
"te'Shara" <tes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to get technical about it, you're better off limiting children
> to emotionally stable households that have a high probability of producing
> adults that contribute to society rather than being a drain; instead of
> financially stable households that may or may not continue to contribute
> into further generations.
Unfortunately, it's really hard to screen for the most dangerous types
to children's well being, the sociopaths, because they're really good at
mimicking appropriate responses. On the other hand, the 'emotionally
unstable' that can be easily screened out have the full potential to be
good, loving parents as long as they follow a program of therapy and/or
medication, depending on the disorder.
As an example, my mother, dealing with severe depression among other
things, was and is a good parent, under the circumstances.
My father, on the other hand, was excellent at appearing completely
normal and even charming in public and was a horrible, manipulative,
uncaring sack of shit as a parent and as a husband.
Hoorah for divorce!
--
minnow >^..^<
http://twitter.com/taheenahana
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
whisky-dave
<ags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4dcc97d0-c727-4442...@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
Wow that's one hell of a bribe ;-)
>However, I do get attention from women because of the watch.
Is it the right sort of attention though, I used to wear a fair bit of
jewlery
only the cheap stuff though. I'm not sure it's such a good idea
for people to give you attention because of what you wear.
I try not to judge the worth of someone from such things as it unusually
turns out bad.
whisky-dave
"te'Shara" <tes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpcrnl$jro$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
> As for limiting births, it's a great idea in theory, but unfortunately
> life is more complex than that. In a perfect world, people that loved each
> other (I'm not excluding poly households) would come together, get
> financially stable, decide on creating or raising a life together, and
> then set out on that adventure. (Although there is no such thing as
> financially stable
But it is possible to be financially stable because we know of situations
that
can be described as financially unstable, in the same way we cabn say
someone is in good health or in bad health we use these ideas to formulate
an opinion about a person or situation.
> If you tell me you can make it to age 25 without seeing at least one
> friend waving around or pacing with a pregnancy test going: 'shit, shit,
> shit' I'm going to assume you're not very observant. A lot of kids are
> unplanned, but unplanned does not equal unwanted or unloved.
Unfortunately there are two sides to most things, sometimes more than two
sides.
> I'm more worried about the unloved kids growing up without empathy.
> They're the ones that cause the societal drain in the first place by
> committing violent crimes, white-collar crimes, and most importantly,
> repeating the process by fathering/mothering kids they don't plan on
> actually raising.
I agree but no one seems to have a solution to stopping these things
from esculating year after year.
>
> If you want to get technical about it, you're better off limiting children
> to emotionally stable households that have a high probability of producing
> adults that contribute to society rather than being a drain; instead of
> financially stable households that may or may not continue to contribute
> into further generations.
True but sometimes you find that those that can sort themselves out
financially can also be better at sorting themselves out emotionally too.