I dont care what you 'are'. Just do your job and live your life as best you can, and we'll be proud of you for that.

I dont care as long as sift-ups still end with the mandatory cavity checks for gem smuggling.

Sadly, it doesn't make me feel better that you feel like shit about it. It's a shame that you were now affected negatively twice by this whole incident. I mean that.

As for the girl scenario, it would be unfortunate that it had happened, but I cannot change my stance on something for a hypothetical situation, joke or not. I have (had) friends who have committed suicide, and it is incredibly tough to rationalize or justify their decisions, so I don't, as it is too late anyway; but there have been some failed attempts by friends too, that I am proud to say I helped in the "snap out of it" process. Some people want to live more than others I guess, and I think that decision is predetermined.

And lets face it, BoneR was going to be banned sooner or later for something, so I for one blame him, not you. It's just a shame when these things get out of hand. Either way, to each their own and thanks for a healthy exchange of Ideals. I dont care what all the other sifters say, you area a gentleman and a scholar. Your character shines though as well, mister Boise_lib.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^sme4r:
I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.
Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?
Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.
Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )

I appreciate your polite disagreement.
You refuse to censor yourself--okay. I brought up a potential issue in order that people might think twice--I even said please. I did not advocate a new auto-ban rule. You say, "...if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected." I'm not advocating anyone force you to change your online rhetoric, but we all change our views and rhetoric all the time--it's called maturing.
Imagine this scenario:
A 13 year old girl from your neighborhood--you know her and her parents--jumps off a bridge to her death. Upon investigation it's found that the last thing she was doing was reading something online. The very last thing she read--her last action on earth--was a comment from you (not to her) saying, "Go jump off a bridge." Would you then say, "Well it's natural selection, she didn't deserve to live"? Or, would you feel bad that reading your comment was enough to cause a young person, with so much potential life to live, to jump? I refuse to believe that you would be so unfeeling as to say, "She should have been able to take a joke."
The whole premise of my posting was that someone, somewhere, might read what you write and it might trigger a suicide. That one person might even know that you were joking--that doesn't matter if Suicidal Ideation is involved. No, you shouldn't have to assume that every person can't take a joke--but you should, at least, know that not every person can.
My actions (over-re-actions) started a chain of events which caused BoneRemake to be suspended. If it makes you feel better I feel like shit over the whole incident. I'm sorry your friend got suspended for 2 weeks, but please remember--I don't have the power to suspend, or ban, anyone. I'm just a Standard Member; a noob. Also, please remember that you have only seen the parts of the conversations which are open to all. Neither you, nor I, have seen everything that happened.
I appreciate your saying openly what you believe instead of trying to bait me: as has happened. An open discussion may not change your mind--but it has shown me the depth of your character.
Thank You.

There have been no long term studies about effects on cars yet. None at all. Some did it a few years, but thats simply not enough. Here in Germany manufacturers actually didnt release proper lists which cars work with it and which wont until right after E10 was introduced, and even now they are changing those lists regularly. Sure, in other countries they have been running that stuff your years and years, but those countries also have no studies about it. As long as there is such a srisk (and we all know ethanol attacks aluminum and some plastics, that are in fuel pumps and fuel lines and injectors, etc, there is no way to tell how safe it is. Because the manufacturer only care about sales. If engines break sooner, thats just ok, especially since it was forced by the government, so "they are not to blame".

Its detrimental because it drives up the price of food. Have you checked the course of it lately? Also gasline becomes even more expensive because of it, to make people buy it. Very well visible when Germany added E10. From one day to another the prices jumped by 8 cent. Rich dont care about such increases in cost. But poor are hurt a lot by it.
Just look at Indonesia and the palm oil desaster. Many people are actually starving because farmers stopped producing food and instead make palm oil now. And even that palm oil isnt meant for the domestic market, its going straight to foreign countries. In South America the rain forrest is burned down every day to make place for bio fuel plantages. You should Google about soy, corn and Monsanto while were at it. Theres a good documentary about that too, that will open your eyes.

We dont even know how much oil we have left or exactly how it was created. I dont know the English word for it, but theres the "Erdölkonstante" that shows that since people found oil they always thought it will be depleted in a few years and those years are nowadays actually at the highest point ever and has been at this for several decades without decreasing. As long as we still have enough, there is no need to raise prices and develop stuff that hurts people and cars. Yes, the raise is artificial. To get the rich even richer.
There has not been "oil peak" yet, instead oil production is still increasing a lot, and many countries could raise it by a lot more if they wanted to. But they dont want to because the prices would fall drastically.

Bio fuels are a desaster for humanity. They hurt so many people, its not funny anymore. Also they are not better than gasoline for the environment. All taken together, they are actually much worse. To call bio fuels good for our planet is a farce, and if you really believe that its good and even an alternative to consider, youre just a sock puppet for the corrupt rich. Sorry.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were just making conversation with that "1" remark, I do not know exactly at the moment, I will put my thyme and energy into it tomorrow when I give a shit( at the moment I do not), to answer you question. I know 1 means something, I just dont care to spend my time on you for a question you can get the answer to your self .


forgive my ignorance at the response I gave, I should of done all the work for you myself, rather than you doing it for yourself.

again, I apologize.

^messenger:

It's not a rule. It's him. That on guy. If he (that on guy) is still that weak in English after he (that one guy) has spent 25 odd years in America, he (that one guy) will never be a native speaker.
You say you don't care, but then you fly in full of piss and vinegar and "fucking bullshit" and "...cannot or will not speak ... it's telling.... 20 damn years..." and so on. It's no impartial. You clearly feel strongly that he should speak English, that he was wrong to speak Spanish. I disagree. I think it was fine. He has no duty nor obligation, legal nor social to speak anything but the language of his choice.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman said:
> > sigh i mentioned it as an exception to your rule: "No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never." thus disproving the rule.
you are suggesting that he has some obligation to me. I couldnt care less that this particular man cannot or will not speak the de facto language of the nation he's been a citizen of for over two decades. I think its telling quite a bit about any person who could live in a foreign nation for over 20 damn years and not pick up the language but beyond that, i really dont care what language they speak



meh, i took "he" as the infinitive plural i guess. however at best all you could do is speculate that he cannot speak the language no matter what (any absolute statement such as yours is a bold one)

in either case, my overall angst is this: anyone who spends over 2 decades in a foreign nation and still cannot speak the language tells me one of three things:

1) that he has, in over 20 years, never left a community that speaks only his language and has thus had zero interaction with anyone outside the community.

2) that he really doesnt care to learn the language

3) or he is one in the probably tens of thousands that has some sort of innate inability to learn a foreign language

i find 1 and 2 to be far more probable, so much so, that number 3 is all but dismissed. furthermore i find number 1 to be quite rare in itself (itd have to be a small, entirely self sufficient community of which very few exist and would mostly be found in the desert and mountain regions)

therefor option 2 becomes the most likely explanation by orders of magnitude



NOW HAVING SAID THAT, after my second viewing of the video, it is my speculation that this particular man does, in fact, speak english, and probably quite well. It is also my speculation that he is choosing spanish primarily so those who he is representing can understand what he is saying, although i suspect it would be more effective the other way around: if he spoke english to the board or whatever and his interpreter translated what he and the board were saying to the non english speakers. As far as i could tell the interpreter was only translating what the rep was saying, he didnt translate anything anyone else was saying so its kind of like listening to one persons phone conversation; you know what one person is saying but cant understand anything the other is

It's not a rule. It's him. That on guy. If he (that on guy) is still that weak in English after he (that one guy) has spent 25 odd years in America, he (that one guy) will never be a native speaker.

You say you don't care, but then you fly in full of piss and vinegar and "fucking bullshit" and "...cannot or will not speak ... it's telling.... 20 damn years..." and so on. It's no impartial. You clearly feel strongly that he should speak English, that he was wrong to speak Spanish. I disagree. I think it was fine. He has no duty nor obligation, legal nor social to speak anything but the language of his choice.

@smooman said:
> > *sigh* i mentioned it as an exception to your rule: "No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never." thus disproving the rule.

you are suggesting that he has some obligation to me. I couldnt care less that this particular man cannot or will not speak the de facto language of the nation he's been a citizen of for over two decades. I think its telling quite a bit about any person who could live in a foreign nation for over 20 damn years and not pick up the language but beyond that, i really dont care what language they speak

>> ^messenger:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman
Your anecdotes show that some people can learn the language to near native speaker level, and you seem to infer from that that everyone should be able to (otherwise, why mention it?). You're also indirectly suggesting that the guy in this vid has some obligation to be that good (otherwise why mention it?). I disagree on both points.
My anecdote shows that some people really can't learn the language, and infers that this guy may be one of them.
Also, being able to hold up a fluent conversation is not the same as displaying language mastery. My Mexican students in particular speak fluently, but are mostly unconcerned with accuracy as long as their point is conveyed. In a deposition, there's no way to ensure that your point is conveyed because it's not a conversation. So, bring an interpreter.


*sigh* i mentioned it as an exception to your rule: "No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never." thus disproving the rule.

you are suggesting that he has some obligation to me. I couldnt care less that this particular man cannot or will not speak the de facto language of the nation he's been a citizen of for over two decades. I think its telling quite a bit about any person who could live in a foreign nation for over 20 damn years and not pick up the language but beyond that, i really dont care what language they speak

I find it pretty offensive on alot of levels, The designers although short sighted did not design the stairs to look at your clunge... the fact she say "MEN designed it" is pretty sexist on her part nd the fact that theres a security guard at the bottom telling these women not to go up the stair due to the clothes they are wearing is sexualising it even more. To keep their modesty they have to use a lift or if they dont care and go up the stairs they come across as "I dont care I WANT them to look"

Stupid people, stupid stairs, stupid story

I find it pretty offensive on alot of levels, The designers although short sighted did not design the stairs to look at your clunge... the fact she say "MEN designed it" is pretty sexist on her part nd the fact that theres a security guard at the bottom telling these women not to go up the stair due to the clothes they are wearing is sexualising it even more. To keep their modesty they have to use a lift or if they dont care and go up the stairs they come across as "I dont care I WANT them to look"

Stupid people, stupid stairs, stupid story

I find it pretty offensive on alot of levels, The designers although short sighted did not design the stairs to look at your clunge... the fact she say "MEN designed it" is pretty sexist on her part nd the fact that theres a security guard at the bottom telling these women not to go up the stair due to the clothes they are wearing is sexualising it even more. To keep their modesty they have to use a lift or if they dont care and go up the stairs they come across as "I dont care I WANT them to look"

Stupid people, stupid stairs, stupid story

I find it pretty offensive on alot of levels, The designers although short sighted did not design the stairs to look at your clunge... the fact she say "MEN designed it" is pretty sexist on her part nd the fact that theres a security guard at the bottom telling these women not to go up the stair due to the clothes they are wearing is sexualising it even more. To keep their modesty they have to use a lift or if they dont care and go up the stairs they come across as "I dont care I WANT them to look"

Stupid people, stupid stairs, stupid story

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^enoch:
he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:
I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.
I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.


fair enough my friend.
i am only speaking from personal experience and not offering empirical data based on anecdotal evidence.
but if i may point out that to say you do not believe NOR disbelieve is to not know.
which is the literal translation of the word "agnostic".
agnostic does not mean you are unsure.it means you dont know,one way or the other.
maybe you dont care, which would be indifference.
i see many religious people use the term agnostic in the wrong context implying that agnostics are unsure,wishy- washy, even indecisive.
i disagree with that usage.
in the end it doesn't really matter what term you wish to use.either works fine to convey your position.

>> ^deathcow:

> Tip: Never put a battery on concrete.
good advice, 40 yrs ago.... todays plastic cased batteries really dont care what you set them on...


What were they cased with before? And what would the concrete do?

> Tip: Never put a battery on concrete.

good advice, 40 yrs ago.... todays plastic cased batteries really dont care what you set them on...