But he never once mentioned Clinton. He did make a comparison to Sanders, but I'm assuming that's not one of the two "turds" you were talking about.

Also, there was no advocacy to vote one way or the other. The message was clear - do not be fooled by this man and this system. Do not direct your anger towards the ill-defined other in an easy scapegoating attempt to make yourself feel better.

You strike me as the type of person who likes to take the rights away for others it they don't do exactly as you do. I do not like your type - Begone please.

No, seriously, stop preaching for the sake of making yourself feel better than others - yours is simply an opinion, which carries no weight greater than mine or any one else's.

Thank you and good night.

Once I was 7 years old, my mama told me,
Go make yourself some friends or you'll be lonely,
Once I was 7 years old

It was a big, big world but we thought we were bigger
Pushing each other to the limits, we were learning quicker
By 11 smoking herb, and drinking burning liquor
Never rich so we were out to make that steady figure

Once I was 11 years old, my daddy told me,
Go get yourself a wife or you'll be lonely
Once I was 11 years old

I always had that dream, like my daddy before me
So I started writing songs, I started writing stories
Something about that glory, just always seemed to bore me
'cus only those I really love will ever really know me

Once I was 20 years old, my story got told
Before the morning sun, when life was lonely
Once I was 20 years old

I only see my goals, I don't believe in failure,
'cus I know the smallest voices, they can make it major,
I got my boys with me, at least those in favour
And if we don't meet before I leave, I hope I'll see you later

Once I was 20 years old, my story got told
I was writing about everything I saw before me
Once I was 20 years old

Soon we'll be 30 years old, our songs have been sold
We've traveled around the world and we're still roaming
Soon we'll be 30 years old

I'm still learning about life
My woman brought children for me
So I can sing them all my songs
And I can tell them stories
Most of my boys are with me
Some are still out seeking glory
And some I had to leave behind
My brother, I'm still sorry

Soon I'll be 60 years old
My daddy got 61
Remember life and then your life becomes a better one
I made a man so happy when I wrote a letter once
I hope my children come and visit once or twice a month

Soon I'll be 60 years old
Will I think the world is cold,
or will I have a lot of children who can warm me
Soon I'll be 60 years old

Soon I'll be 60 years old
Will I think the world is cold,
or will I have a lot of children who can warm me
Soon I'll be 60 years old

Once I was 7 years old, mama told me
Go make yourself some friends or you'll be lonely
Once I was 7 years old

Once I was 7 years old

There are definitely people that look better one way or the other. A groomed beard can cover up features that are less than appealing. It's not bad to try to make yourself look better although I'd say obsessing about your looks is a problem. Find a look that suits you and run with it.
I wonder how many guys they had to film before they found one that looked good before and after and also got good responses from family.

I didn't realize until not too long ago that there was such confusion about how to respond to a bear attack. It struck me when I heard someone aghast at the very notion that you should curl into a ball and play dead as if he'd never heard that before. (He must've been living under a rock.)

I think the distinction, which doesn't seem to ever be made explicitly clear, is that if a bear charges you as in this video, then you are supposed to do your best to scare it off (by making yourself appear threatening, bigger, louder, etc.), BUT if a bear has already started attacking you, you obviously can't do that (while laying bloody on the ground), so it's at that time that you should play dead to make the bear think it successfully killed you so it will stop attacking you because there's likely no reason to fight a corpse.

The worst confusing part is that many people think your initial reaction when a bear charges or threatens you should be to lay down and play dead. That's very, very bad advice and I've heard of several cases of people doing that where the bear then just meanders up to the person and starts eating them.

If you just lay down the bear regards you as prey and their eating instincts kick in.

If you first try to fight the bear, it regards you as a threat that it needs to fight and kill, hence once you play dead and it thinks it won the battle, it's more likely to walk away. I think the natural instinct of creatures after a battle is to walk away victorious, not eat the opponent.

I suppose this works in the same way as seeing other people smiling can make you happy. Your brain responds to different cues all the time. Making yourself smile or laugh can make you feel better, feel happy. We don't look into another person's eyes like this until we reach a certain level of intimacy, so if that is happening then our brains respond as if you have that level of intimacy.

I'm going to find my wife and gaze into her eyes for four minutes. If she's lucky I'll tell her what's going on

One day I want to be the old couple.

I deal with this sort of behaviour every day in Toronto, being a cyclist in a city with very minimal cycling infrastructure. Almost being doored, hit, etc.

Yelling, cursing, being sarcastic and mean will never ever change these people's behaviour. Ever. Have you ever gone home after being yelled at someone about something you're sure you're right about and thought, "Huh. That person who called me an asshole really had a good point."

If anything, it pushes someone on the brink of not being an asshole further onto the wrong side.

I find that if I give very genuine comments like, "Please, sir/maam, that sort of behaviour scares the shit out of me. Can you please be more careful?" their responses are literally (anecdotally) 70% apologetic. 30% can't confront their own behaviour when actually talking to a human, so they ignore you.

Don't get me wrong. I've yelled the fuck out of some people in the heat of the moment. When you almost die that can happen.

But when you're composed enough to respond humanly, the question is are you responding to make yourself feel better, or are you actually trying to influence someone else's behaviour?

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!

"Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distant shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends."

Why not make yourself useful and "write a complaint" about this incident.

Would not doing good deeds just to make yourself feel good be classified as pride?

Did you watch the whole video? People are wasting money on a diet that won't cure their symptoms and in some cases, is actually worse than a "regular" gluten diet.

Plus gluten is awesome. Any kind of really good pizza or bread dough relies on it. So do most beers. Why make yourself miserable if you don't have to?

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains
as a quick explanation for why the belief that you can go out and make yourself rich is dumb.