Here's the thing, Bob.
You were wrong. There are NOT known cases of Democrats cheating in elections in the last decade, only Republicans caught cheating thousands of times.

It's ok to be wrong if you can admit it....but you just can't. When you see you can't back up your claim, but you continue to make it, that's when you go from being duped to being a liar. I think you passed that point on this topic 7+ weeks ago.

It's ok to say you were misled, lied to. In fact, I think I can speak for most that that admission is what we all want for, and from you. Whoever told you there were known instances of Democrats cheating outright lied to you, born out by the fact that you can't find a single instance after two months of being harassed over claiming it.

You can't escape a lie until you admit it is one, something Trump has told you is bad, a sign of weakness, but that's backwards. Being unable to admit a mistake is a sign of weakness, an ego so fragile it can't survive being wrong, a lack of confidence so severe that one mistake makes a person worthless, so admitting a mistake is like suicide. That's nonsense, the kind of logic you get from clinically insecure narcissists. You deserve better.

Btw, your obsession with CNN is telling. I don't watch it, something I've told you a dozen times, but you have a pathological need to believe they're the source of anything bad about Trump. Sorry, but that source is Trump himself, not your CNN bogeyman. Nothing could make his words, actions, and plans worse that he makes them himself. He's the one doing us all wrong.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

Oh no! I've been doing it all wrong!

He was doing it all wrong...

he should be using boiling water.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.

Again, what would've been better?
Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.
Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.


No you're incorrect about Russia holding Afghanistan. Also you sort of sound like a Neo-Liberal the way you say we should do more around the world rather than less. Influence more, try and control people.

Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject, I just thought I'd let Chomsky talk about it. I'm not going to hold a class in a comment section bcglorf. You can study this on your own.

>> ^Yogi:

Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.


Again, what would've been better?

Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.

Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.

He was doing it all wrong for the first half of the cross! When you're crossing in Viet Nam, pretty much every main road in the cities are like that. You keep walking at a steady pace, not hesitating, keeping eye contact the whole time.

Wickedly empowering, once you get the hang of it.

We need some regulation, we're just doing it all wrong in the US. The story of talktalk starts with the government forcing BT to open up their last-mile copper to other providers. This allowed more competition to spring up which led to a healthier, arguably freer, market than the one which was less regulated.

More competition is always ideal for consumers.

In the US all of our regulations are in place to protect monopolies/oligopolies and stifle competition, and we wonder why we suck at damn near everything.

Dhacta Jhonse!

In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Oh silly Scientologists, you're doing it all wrong! You're supposed to dig underground tunnels into lava tubes and chain children to the walls with pick axes and complex mine cart systems. This is a disgrace.

Oh silly Scientologists, you're doing it all wrong! You're supposed to dig underground tunnels into lava tubes and chain children to the walls with pick axes and complex mine cart systems. This is a disgrace.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.

Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??

You're doing it all wrong. You're supposed to mute it. Then you'll tend to care a lot less about her integrity. >> ^spoco2:

unblocked
But still not upvoting that darn woman... grrr to her and her blatant whoring out for money and fame. No integrity at all

Lies! - I've made firewood before - and I used an axe!

Edit: I'm starting to think I was doing it all wrong!

I don't know how I managed to have kids - I was doing it all wrong - I don't remember the Bees at all!
-Come to think of it - The kids do look a lot like the milkman!