galactica

[Neal Oldham]

Hi all,

I've never watched the new Battlestar Galactica, but the whole ending was spoiled for me (thanks Internet).  And I know some of you are fans.

What do you think the ending says about sustainable vs technological living (if anything)?

[the27man]

> Hi all,
> I've never watched the new Battlestar Galactica, but the whole ending was
> spoiled for me (thanks Internet).  And I know some of you are fans.

my condolences on your loss. it was a great show. i still think it
would be worth the watch, even knowing what you already know.

> What do you think the ending says about sustainable vs technological living
> (if anything)?

i'm not picking nits, but i do have a question about the question. it
seems to compare/contrast "sustainable" and "technological", as if
asking my thoughts on having my house "built to last" versus "built
with hammers".

that being said, *my* take on BSG (because i'm hip and we never spell
out "battlestar galactica") is that ultimately we just want to live
our lives and interact with others. ("who" we are is more important
that "what" we are.) and "sustaining" is about doing whatever it
takes to make that happen rather than a manner in which to combat or
assist technological advancements. the ongoing relations of
human(oids) is the thing which must be sustained; the technology is
merely a means to that end. if the technology starts to get in the
way, then the technology must be improved (which, in the case of BSG,
meant "discarded".)

my take is that nothing is sustainable other than change. one could
argue that "sustainable" is a prophemism of "stagnant", and we thrive
upon motion, preferably upward and forward. but sometimes moving
"forward" in one aspect of our lives requires moving "backward" in
another. regardless, technology must always be in motion to cater to
our own constant motions. technology is not the culprit; our use of
it is. there seems to be a certain inertia in our advancement that
prevents us from stopping once we've achieved our goal. it's in our
nature. everything will also be "too" something. we grow weary of
this and move to that, and then we grow weary of that and move back to
this. and individually, we all measure with a different ruler. it's
the old argument of "are we better for it?" as is the case any time
there is a debate over something defined via subjective qualifying
terms. what is "better" to me might vary greatly from what is
"better" for you. sustainability of culture is dependent upon
technological advancements if we wish to offset the ecological effects
and byproducts of our lifestyle.

man is discontent.

i may have totally missed the mark on what the question was, but BSG
prophesied that our technology will bite us if we don't use it in
harmoniously. it has done, is doing, and will continue to do so.
serve the end, not the means.

it really is a good show. great writing, cinematography, acting, and so on.
-micah

[Neal Oldham]

On May 2, 2009, at 1:51 PM, the27man wrote:

>
>> Hi all,
>> I've never watched the new Battlestar Galactica, but the whole
>> ending was
>> spoiled for me (thanks Internet). And I know some of you are fans.
>
> my condolences on your loss. it was a great show. i still think it
> would be worth the watch, even knowing what you already know.

Any idea when there will be a complete-series DVD set? Or I could
just get it off iTunes. :)

>
>
>> What do you think the ending says about sustainable vs
>> technological living
>> (if anything)?
>
> i'm not picking nits, but i do have a question about the question. it
> seems to compare/contrast "sustainable" and "technological", as if
> asking my thoughts on having my house "built to last" versus "built
> with hammers".

Interesting perspective. I guess the question was, "Do you think
technology is worth its negatives?"

>
>
> that being said, *my* take on BSG (because i'm hip and we never spell
> out "battlestar galactica") is that ultimately we just want to live
> our lives and interact with others.

BSG = borosilicate glass for some of us :)

> ("who" we are is more important
> that "what" we are.) and "sustaining" is about doing whatever it
> takes to make that happen rather than a manner in which to combat or
> assist technological advancements.

You could work for Apple Marketing. I mean that in a good way.

>
> my take is that nothing is sustainable other than change. one could
> argue that "sustainable" is a prophemism of "stagnant", and we thrive
> upon motion, preferably upward and forward. but sometimes moving
> "forward" in one aspect of our lives requires moving "backward" in
> another. regardless, technology must always be in motion to cater to
> our own constant motions. technology is not the culprit; our use of
> it is. there seems to be a certain inertia in our advancement that
> prevents us from stopping once we've achieved our goal. it's in our
> nature. everything will also be "too" something. we grow weary of
> this and move to that, and then we grow weary of that and move back to
> this. and individually, we all measure with a different ruler. it's
> the old argument of "are we better for it?" as is the case any time
> there is a debate over something defined via subjective qualifying
> terms. what is "better" to me might vary greatly from what is
> "better" for you.

"An it harm none, do what ye will," eh?

There was a superb article a while back (can't remember now)
contrasting the AT&T long-distance system c. 1960 with the current
proliferation of smartphones, VoIP, and cellular networks. The
advantage of the Ma Bell POTS system was that it *worked*. The sound
quality was great. You picked up your phone and it worked. There was
no such thing as "dropped calls." But there were no features as we
understood them. Cellular networks aren't reliable and cellphones
aren't either. BUT there is a lot of innovation going on in the
smartphone space. Tons of features and new ideas.

Which system was better? From a conservation viewpoint, the former
used less resources, but from a economic growth perspective, the
latter encourages more consumption.

> sustainability of culture is dependent upon
> technological advancements if we wish to offset the ecological effects
> and byproducts of our lifestyle.

How much technology, even now, aims at conservation as opposed to
expanding consumption? Right now, green technology is the only thing
getting VC funding, but there is way more technology development in
Asia gunning for new flat panel displays, oil majors working on new
oil and gas recovery techniques ...

>
>
> man is discontent.
>
> i may have totally missed the mark on what the question was, but BSG
> prophesied that our technology will bite us if we don't use it in
> harmoniously. it has done, is doing, and will continue to do so.
> serve the end, not the means.
>

There was no question really, just a hope you'd have something
interesting to say. Mission accomplished. :)

[the27man]

> Any idea when there will be a complete-series DVD set?  Or I could
> just get it off iTunes.  :)

i could not tell you. but i do recommend seeing it when you can.
also, if you have the gumption, try to find a few news headlines that
occurred around the time before each episode. aside from the timeless
issues, the writers threw in a lot of current issues of the day, eg
throwing elections, over-extending authority, terrorist behaviour, and
the like. there was no lack of parallel to what the real world was
dealing with at the time.

> Interesting perspective.  I guess the question was, "Do you think
> technology is worth its negatives?"

sometimes. the wheel, harnessing fire, basic medicinal practices,
thumb-based tools, etc. have gone far to improve our lives. we can
worry less about IF we're going to eat and more about WHAT we're going
to serve when the Johnsons come over for dinner.

Douglas Adams said that there are three stages of civilization based
upon our food supply. 1) How are we going to eat? 2) What are we
going to eat? 3) Where are we going to eat? i realize that this is
an over-simplified comedic take on things, but it holds up pretty
well. in opinion, stage 2 is probably the "best". i'm sort of a
hopeless romantic in the sense that i think our lives should be spent
and focused upon developing our relationships with one another.
anything that moves away from that (technologically speaking) is
detrimental. once we start neglecting time with friends because we
don't want to miss "Friends", then something is wrong.

i have a sort of stance that if something relies upon marketing to
sustain it on the market, it is not worthy of sustaining. i
understand the necessity to inform the public lest they not know a
product exists, but there should be a gentleman's code about spending
less on the advertising than the research and development. more
importantly, i think adverts should depict the product and the
essential qualities of said product. (about the only exception i have
to this "rule" is when the advert is has helped support a highly
creative individual. i feel a little better about paying an inflated
cost of product due to advertisement when i know my dollar will
support an artist, albeit very indirectly. but the advert still needs
to expand knowledge of the product. i could not tell you what a
single drug does based upon its commercial.)

in a nutshell, a products should sell itself. if it does not, it
probably isn't a worthwhile product. that is not to say it has no
value, but rather to say that its value has passed or is yet to come
or would be more well-received elsewhere. but most often, the more it
has to be polished, the stinkier that turd must be. if producers were
more interested in producing quality products than making money off
the products, they would be richer for it. too many people measure
their wealth in money. and when you think about money, its value,
however indirectly, lies in what it can purchase for you to improve
your relationship with others. as for the "however indirectly", that
would be a book's worth of discussion, so i won't go into to that
here.

so many new products are based upon assisting us in working with new
products. computers are developed to help us gather and calculate
information more readily. programs are developed to help us use those
computers. workshops are created and books are written to teach
end-users how to use the programs. meanwhile, the computers are
getting older, new ones come out, new software has to be developed,
and the end-user has to upgrade and start over again. the learning
curve gets overwhelming, so more programs (such as GUIs) are written
to help the end user. so on and so forth. in the end, most of the
people probably just wanted to check the weather and their email. and
the whole reason they wanted to check the weather and their email is
because it is there to be checked. were i to trade in all my computer
time for actual skill-honing time or all my computer knowledge for
"meatspace" knowledge, i would probably be way better for it. but if
i did, i would have a difficult time with my friends because they are
all hooked on cyberspace.

a downside to a technology-free world would be shorter life-spans, but
i wonder how much of extended life-spans are spent developing extended
life-spans. it's like giving me a bunch of money to simply donate the
whole wad.

i say all this whilst sitting by myself at a computer. i would much
prefer it viz-a-viz as there is much expounding to be done between
sentences, but i wouldn't be having this exchange nor would i be
having it with this forum of people if not for the very subject of
which we speak. alanis morissette, there's your irony.

> You could work for Apple Marketing.  I mean that in a good way.

you cut me, neal. you cut me real bad.

but if there's a job opening.....

> "An it harm none, do what ye will," eh?

sure. where's the harm in that?

> [POTS vs cellphones] Which system was better?  From a conservation viewpoint, the former used less resources, but from a economic growth perspective, the latter encourages more consumption.

is more consumption good?

>>  sustainability of culture is dependent upon
>> technological advancements if we wish to offset the ecological effects
>> and byproducts of our lifestyle.
>
> How much technology, even now, aims at conservation as opposed to
> expanding consumption?  Right now, green technology is the only thing
> getting VC funding, but there is way more technology development in
> Asia gunning for new flat panel displays, oil majors working on new
> oil and gas recovery techniques ...

oh, it's all conservation. the question is "what are they
conserving?" usually their bank accounts, to be sure. i'm certain
that conservation of the planet and all that jazz is way down the
list. the argument on technological advancement lies in defining what
is "good" and "better". americans ravage more resources, but our
tribe is stronger and has better spears, and whatever leads to the
continuation of me and my kind is "good". but unless you can
demonstrate how me and my kind (specifically "me" and right now)
suffer for such and such development, arguing against it will be a
hard row to hoe. for one thing, you'll have to speak in words and
concepts that i can understand. if you talk over my head, i'm gonna
chalk it up to argumentum verbosium and stick with the logic that i
can follow. if effort is the enemy to a life of leisure, tell me how
to do something without effort or how i'm about to lose my leisure.

i want a cabin in the woods. ...with WiFi.
-micah

[Neal Oldham]

On May 3, 2009, at 12:54 PM, the27man wrote:

Interesting perspective.  I guess the question was, "Do you think

technology is worth its negatives?"

Douglas Adams said that there are three stages of civilization based
upon our food supply.  1)  How are we going to eat?  2)  What are we
going to eat?  3) Where are we going to eat?

I think it was actually, How do we eat? -->  Why do we eat?  -->  Where shall we have lunch?

 but if
i did, i would have a difficult time with my friends because they are
all hooked on cyberspace.

There is a superb set of novels I recommend on this subject:  Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion, by Dan Simmons.  Not to spoil anything, but it draws this great parallel between computer-aided ass-sitting society and people who actually get off their ass, and there is some copious ass-kicking all up in there.

a downside to a technology-free world would be shorter life-spans, but
i wonder how much of extended life-spans are spent developing extended
life-spans.  it's like giving me a bunch of money to simply donate the
whole wad.

"Neal, did you know that living a starvation diet can extend your lifespan?"

"So I make myself miserable for the sake of prolonging my misery?"

This discussion actually happened with someone.

You could work for Apple Marketing.  I mean that in a good way.

you cut me, neal.  you cut me real bad.

but if there's a job opening.....

Who knows, but you seem to subscribe to the same "technology is about relationships" that they do.

"An it harm none, do what ye will," eh?

sure.  where's the harm in that?

Sometimes folks need a swift kick in the butt:  http://tr.im/knC0

[POTS vs cellphones] Which system was better?  From a conservation viewpoint, the former used less resources, but from a economic growth perspective, the latter encourages more consumption.

is more consumption good?

Per capita, no.

 sustainability of culture is dependent upon

technological advancements if we wish to offset the ecological effects

and byproducts of our lifestyle.

How much technology, even now, aims at conservation as opposed to

expanding consumption?  Right now, green technology is the only thing

getting VC funding, but there is way more technology development in

Asia gunning for new flat panel displays, oil majors working on new

oil and gas recovery techniques ...

oh, it's all conservation.  the question is "what are they
conserving?"  usually their bank accounts, to be sure.  i'm certain
that conservation of the planet and all that jazz is way down the
list.  the argument on technological advancement lies in defining what
is "good" and "better".  americans ravage more resources, but our
tribe is stronger and has better spears, and whatever leads to the
continuation of me and my kind is "good".  but unless you can
demonstrate how me and my kind (specifically "me" and right now)
suffer for such and such development, arguing against it will be a
hard row to hoe.  for one thing, you'll have to speak in words and
concepts that i can understand.  if you talk over my head, i'm gonna
chalk it up to argumentum verbosium and stick with the logic that i
can follow.

Barack Obama said this very well in his campaign when he refuted drill-baby-drill:  "America consumes 25% of the world's oil and has 6% of the world's oil reserves."  That ain't gonna work forever.

[Steven Tyree]

Micah,

 

As usual, I delight in your thoughts.  They open new windows for me.  Thanks.

 

To throw another ingredient into the soup, the biggest driver in human society is competition for women.  There's nothing unusual about this, being the status quo of just about every other sexually reproductive animal species.  In short, sperm, which is easy to make and takes almost no effort to culminate, is worth nearly nothing, and eggs, which are a lot less numerous and a whole lot harder to bring into fruition, is worth nearly everything.  Regardless of our recent monogamous mores, we're hardwired to compete with each other over women in order to pass on our competitive traits, which perpetuate the trend.  Women, for their part, have to compete for scarce resources in order to provide for their progeny.  All this can be summed up in the term "status", which is at least as big a driver of technology as anything else.  Counterbalancing all this competitiveness is the need to cooperate, ironically, in order to be more competitive.  All this fuss is so pervasive that the attacks and counterattacks begin before we're even born.

 

Steve

[the27man]

de senhor neal:

> Douglas Adams said that there are three stages of civilization based
> upon our food supply.  1)  How are we going to eat?  2)  What are we
> going to eat?  3) Where are we going to eat?
>
> I think it was actually, How do we eat? -->  Why do we eat?  -->  Where
> shall we have lunch?

yeah. thanks for correcting that. shoulda googled it. that's just
how lazy i was being. couldn't muster the gumption to open a new tab.
sigh.

> "Neal, did you know that living a starvation diet can extend your lifespan?"
> "So I make myself miserable for the sake of prolonging my misery?"
> This discussion actually happened with someone.

you live in california, don't you?

> Sometimes folks need a swift kick in the butt:  http://tr.im/knC0

i believe this is a (but not THE) key to solving many of our problems:
a nice ass-kicking. lord knows i could use one from time to time.
there should be a guy reciting my offense aloud in an english accent
while another is giving me the boot with each pause of oration.

a friend of mine was telling me about a new tv show called "the
world's strictest parents". i haven't seen it, but her recounting of
it was that she didn't see the parents on the show doing anything
beyond what was daily protocol growing up in her own house. kids got
it too easy these days. and i'm sure our parents are rolling our eyes
with the same sentiment in regard to us. and i'm sure it's true.
there's no wonder, no longing, no appreciation. everything is so
readily accessible and easy to obtain.

andrew made a comment a few months ago that i found memorable,
possibly even profound. we were discussing something and decided to
get online and do some quick research. in the process he turned to me
and said, "you remember when we used to sit around and wonder?" it
was a comedic remark, but it was pregnant with relevance. we were
discussing AD(H)D and how so many kids today have an amazingly wide
breadth of knowledge yet an amazingly shallow depth of knowledge. i
know i'm a foolish daydreamer who is nostalgic of my prelapsarian
days, but i miss the idea of having people who were very knowledgeable
on a specific subject and/or skilled in a particular craft. today,
it's mostly a wash of hacks doling out mediocrity. and i feel a
soapbox forming under my feet, so i'll digress here.

> [POTS vs cellphones] Which system was better?  From a conservation
> viewpoint, the former used less resources, but from a economic growth
> perspective, the latter encourages more consumption.
>
> is more consumption good?
>
> Per capita, no.

then per what?

> Barack Obama said this very well in his campaign when he refuted
> drill-baby-drill:  "America consumes 25% of the world's oil and has 6% of
> the world's oil reserves."  That ain't gonna work forever.

barrack obama is our president.

i have another friend (seriously, now are you impressed?) who is a
doctor in memphis. he's a bright guy and a revered medical
practitioner. likewise, he is well-versed in music and boats and a
many other things. i say all this to paint the picture of a cultured,
well-rounded, intelligent man. but to me, what really set off his
genius was his ability to "dumb it down". moreso, he does it without
being condescending. he can explain some of the most abstract
concepts in a way that the most neanderthoid, philistine of the hoi
polloi (ie. me) can understand without feeling as if they're being
patted on the head. likewise, what i have seen of t. boone pickens.
agree with him or not, he doesn't cloud his argument with a smattering
of obscure multisyllabic words. he understands that his idea has to
be sold to the masses, thus he must talk "to" the masses rather than
"over" them.

i always love hearing people who can explain things to kids. chances
are that if they can't explain it to a kid (within reason) that they
don't really understand what they are saying themselves.

i guess i say all this to say that it doesn't matter how great of an
idea someone has if they can't convey it to the general populous.
genius is in action, not in concept. solutions to any problem
discussed here aren't going to amount to anything lest they are
articulated in a way that the common man can understand. once they
understand, they are likely to agree.

de senhor steve:

>To throw another ingredient into the soup, the biggest driver in human society is competition for women. There's nothing unusual about this, being the status quo of just about every other sexually reproductive animal species. In short, sperm, which is easy to make and takes almost no effort to culminate, is worth nearly nothing, and eggs, which are a lot less numerous and a whole lot harder to bring into fruition, is worth nearly everything. Regardless of our recent monogamous mores, we're hardwired to compete with each other over women in order to pass on our competitive traits, which perpetuate the trend. Women, for their part, have to compete for scarce resources in order to provide for their progeny. All this can be summed up in the term "status", which is at least as big a driver of technology as anything else. Counterbalancing all this competitiveness is the need to cooperate, ironically, in order to be more competitive. All this fuss is so pervasive that the attacks and counterattacks begin before we're even born.

this is going to sound presumptuous but i say it as a
dispassionate/disassociated party. i find it interesting that very
people who need to be reproducing are the least inclined to do so,
rather they seem to do so the least. i mean, i understand the motive
and the mere act of doing so may negate its own purpose, but there
seems to be a lopsided ratio at hand. anybody? anybody?

-micah

[Steven Tyree]

de senhor steve:

>To throw another ingredient into the soup, the biggest driver in human society is competition for women.  There's nothing unusual about this, being the status quo of just about every other sexually reproductive animal species.  In short, sperm, which is easy to make and takes almost no effort to culminate, is worth nearly nothing, and eggs, which are a lot less numerous and a whole lot harder to bring into fruition, is worth nearly everything.  Regardless of our recent monogamous mores, we're hardwired to compete with each other over women in order to pass on our competitive traits, which perpetuate the trend.  Women, for their part, have to compete for scarce resources in order to provide for their progeny.  All this can be summed up in the term "status", which is at least as big a driver of technology as anything else.  Counterbalancing all this competitiveness is the need to cooperate, ironically, in order to be more competitive.  All this fuss is so pervasive that the attacks and counterattacks begin before we're even born.

this is going to sound presumptuous but i say it as a
dispassionate/disassociated party.  i find it interesting that very
people who need to be reproducing are the least inclined to do so,
rather they seem to do so the least.  i mean, i understand the motive
and the mere act of doing so may negate its own purpose, but there
seems to be a lopsided ratio at hand.  anybody?  anybody?

-micah

 

Guess what?  Our societies evolve a whole lot faster than our biology.  (Our technology evolves a lot faster than either one.)  If you take a look at human skulls from prehistory, a majority of them are caved in on the left side, most likely because the biggest, strongest cave man was getting his way.  Incidently, it's not hard to find female skulls that were bashed in, either.

 

Roughly speaking, the males of a species can be separated into two groups:  big and dumb, and little and sneaky (read:  smart).  There's at least one species of lizard who's males express themselves in just that way, with access to females ebbing and flowing accordingly.  There's a species of bats with relatively gigantic testicals, but relatively small brains, compared to other species of similar type and size.  In nature, you have to pay for everything.  If more resources are being devoted to big brains, something has to give somewhere else, roughly speaking.  Naturally, in times of plenty, you have more to choose from.  Yeah, I know, sweeping statements like this are hard to swallow, but we are painting on a very large convas, after all.  The long and short of it is, the very mechanisms that drive intelligence also hinder prolific reproduction.  There are other factors, of course.  Smart people are often well educated, plan ahead, and choose to put a lot more resources in their kids, thus fewer becomes an asset rather than a liability.

 

Steve

[Mac Davis]

Unfortunately that doesn’t portend well for the sexual proclivities of the  little and sneaky ones.   There is a term, LLE, or long latency ejaculator, that refers to sexual practice of dominate males who, not threatened by being run off the female,  take more time doing it.   The sneaky fuckers, on the other hand, have to  zip in and do it in a hurry.    Read head jock gets head cheerleader.   Fortunately we have evolved to the point where intelligence is also viewed by females as a positive attribute and supposedly, more intelligent people are better at sex, if not at reproducing.  

[Steven Tyree]

An awful lot of a male's appeal lies in their role as a provider, thus rich, powerful men can often attract women even if they're old and ugly.  On the other hand, cockholding often involves a female finding a secure and stable provider, but seeking out more exciting (attractive, virile, etc.) laisons who's children the hapless husband ends up raising.

 

This kind of thing was so bad among the nobility of fuedal Europe that the lords typically raised their sister's sons instead of their own, because they could be certain that the nephews and nieces were blood kin.  As I recall, chastity belts were all the rage back then, too.

[Neal Oldham]

Anyone who hasn't seen Idiocracy should do so.  Twice.

"Been around the world and found

That only stupid people are breeding"  --Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"

Intelligence really isn't worth much as an adaptation.  More below ...

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:55 PM, the27man <the2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Neal, did you know that living a starvation diet can extend your lifespan?"
> "So I make myself miserable for the sake of prolonging my misery?"
> This discussion actually happened with someone.

you live in california, don't you?

Yes, unfortunately.  

 

> [POTS vs cellphones] Which system was better?  From a conservation
> viewpoint, the former used less resources, but from a economic growth
> perspective, the latter encourages more consumption.
>
> is more consumption good?
>
> Per capita, no.

then per what?

More consumption per joule :)  (More output per input ...)

 

> Barack Obama said this very well in his campaign when he refuted
> drill-baby-drill:  "America consumes 25% of the world's oil and has 6% of
> the world's oil reserves."  That ain't gonna work forever.

barrack obama is our president.

A fact I am decreasingly happy about.

Let's game the stress test:  http://tinyurl.com/StressTestLeak

Let's commit racketeering:  http://tinyurl.com/dzyt2g and http://tinyurl.com/cxjlp2

Let's get in bed with crooks:  http://tinyurl.com/d5l3xp and http://tinyurl.com/cw27v8

Let's make up money:   http://tinyurl.com/djqqed

Let's listen to you:  http://tinyurl.com/d6p5ae (awfully scary in light of the Chrysler action)

this is going to sound presumptuous but i say it as a

dispassionate/disassociated party.  i find it interesting that very
people who need to be reproducing are the least inclined to do so,
rather they seem to do so the least.  i mean, i understand the motive
and the mere act of doing so may negate its own purpose, but there
seems to be a lopsided ratio at hand.  anybody?  anybody?

Idiocracy isn't a comedy, it's a documentary.

 

-micah

[the27man]

> Idiocracy isn't a comedy, it's a documentary.

i've had this movie playing in my head for most of this conversation.
i hate that it wasn't made a little better. as a movie, it's ok, but
as a social commentary (or "documentary") it is brilliant.

i love the dialog about einstein. (i won't expound for the benefit of
those of you who haven't seen it. seriously. neal's spot on. you
need to watch it. and then again.)
-micah

[Neal Oldham]

Just the scenes with Owen Wilson vs the Presidential Cabinet alone are worth the price of the DVD.

[the27man]

because it has electrolytes

[Neal Oldham]

I've felt like that in just about every meeting of my career...

We (i.e., my wife and I) watched Idiocracy back to back with Children of Men (best dramatic movie this decade) and they made us think that we really, really needed to have more kids.

[Neal Oldham]

Go Vols!  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/sports/football/12henry.html

[the27man]

wow. really? wow. i don't even have an analogy for it.

[Robert D. Crawford]

allyne hart <all...@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm dying to comment here...but I'm not gonna.

Oh, come on. Everybody likes a little dirt or scandal... that is unless
it is about them. If you have any dirt on me, just go ahead and keep it
to yourself, thank you.

rdc

>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Mac Davis <tm...@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately that doesn't portend well for
> the sexual proclivities of the little and sneaky ones. There is
> a term, LLE, or long latency ejaculator, that refers to sexual
> practice of dominate males who, not threatened by being run off
> the female, take more time doing it. The sneaky fuckers, on the
> other hand, have to zip in and do it in a hurry. Read head jock
> gets head cheerleader. Fortunately we have evolved to the point
> where intelligence is also viewed by females as a positive
> attribute and supposedly, more intelligent people are better at
> sex, if not at reproducing.

--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net

Adapt. Enjoy. Survive.