Usually when you leave the room.>> ^quantumushroom:

So when do the jokes start?

^ Good old Rottenseed. His sentiments linger, even after 18 months. Kind of like the stink of Patchouli and disease from an old Hippie after they leave the room.

do guys really have this problem?
wanting to fuck women who are equally horny,yet desire for a partner that is a passive,meek door mouse for a relationship?
and then get confused to why there seems to be a sexual schizophrenia in their life?
it is not that complicated.
if you do not desire your girlfriend in the beginning,yet stick around because she has great "susie-home-maker" qualities,you might as well prepare for the divorce now.
the same goes for the opposite.
having fantastic sex with a woman only to find she is an idiot who looks banging in a t-back.
look,
i am not telling anyone how to run their business but for you guys out there consider this:
as men we are visual.
give us something to look at and some friction and we be happy lil dudes.
women are wired totally different.
while they can be visual,they are not as single-minded as men.(we have all seen the ugly dude with the hottie and thought wha???).
for women the two strongest components are sensual (touch) and emotional.
the emotional is the biggest key for a woman.this component decides how far she will surrender to you.
i use the word surrender specifically for a purpose.
because at it's core that's what it is.
as men we do not think of sex as "opening up" but that is EXACTLY how a woman views it.if i have to explain that further you need help.
a woman surrenders to you,she allows you access.
she is the gatekeeper..(sorry..gozer reference.i'll stop).

now do not confuse a hook up with the sex a woman craves.
women get just as horny as men but in our culture it tends to be frowned upon.so they use excuses like being drunk or whatever to ease their conscience.a hook up is a woman using YOU for something she needs,something we all need.
touching,kissing,caressing and yes..orgasms!
and you thought it was due to your irresistable charm..you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that.
unless the woman is mentally deficient she just needed sex.
*hint* if you can keep your trap shut and not brag to your buddies 5 seconds after she leaves your room she will come back...and often.
BUT..this arrangement will never be long lasting because at it's heart it only serves the purpose of the body and a woman needs to have the heart nourished also.
this is where i do not understand the question put to mr savage:
when a woman feels safe and secure in not her emotions but YOURS,this is when she will surrender to you.
she will open up and give you everything.
so even miss meek quiet doormouse will reveal a sexual experience to you that you thought not possible.
ALL women have this in them.
she will reveal a side of her that NOBODY else,including YOU,knew existed.
be prepared for the ride of your life.not only will be the best sex you ever had with her but from anybody!
so yes..even missus susie home maker can be a porn star if she trusts you enough.
*note* by the way.you might as well get prepared because you my friend are getting married.

so the only thing i can surmise from this question is:
1.the questioner is young,most likely early 20's
2.he watches waaaay too much MTV and thinks thats how a young man is supposed to act.what up dawg?!?
3.does not realize that women pay attention to EVERYTHING.
4.so while he may be attractive and fun,they consider him a DAWG and will only let him in so far.being very aware of his promiscuous nature.
5.predominantly the women he experiences are other predators with breasts(girls can be just as DAWG as dudes,dont kid yourself),while the girls with things like:self-esteem,strong personality and a strong sense of self avoid him like the plague.
6.the quiet meek women this man has encountered are also buying into a lot of the media,socialized Bullshit and see him as a notch into a particular crowd.future stalkers of america!
7.has never been with a real woman because a real woman would only play with him like a cat does a mouse.
8.i could totally be off my rocker and just spouting nonsensical bullshit.
9.while that may be true...woman utterly fascinate me.

what was the question again?

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I doubt very much that this costs more, or is more difficult, than having a balcony added to an existing building. It takes less time to deploy than installing a balcony, too... small price to pay. (Are Americans so unwilling to wait for anything that they can't wait one minute - less, in fact - for it to deploy?) Plus you need planning permission for a balcony addition, I would imagine, and this might be easier to get permission for.
A drawback might be drainage, and the fact that when you withdraw it, any water on the floor would end up in your room.


What are you even thinking??? This is not just a "window" they put into the hole in a building. This has to be engineered into the building prior to construction. Think about the loads involved.

And yes, fucking balconies are super cheap and quick when you are building a new building compared to installing these monstrosities. The only benefit I can see is architectural photos of the building when all the windows are close, or perhaps when some are open.

Besides, I can't think of too many places where anyone would leave the room open air without even a screen. Maybe they don't have insects in europe. Imagine when the motors on these thing break in 5-10 years.

>> ^laura:
>> ^spoco2:
^ ... There are a class of parents who want to take no responsibility for their own children ...

I HAD to reply to that statement...in fact, the problem itself is that parents take ALL the responsibility for their own children...leaving NO room for the child to be accountable for his/her own actions. It makes for horrendous adults.
Dear Parents:
Please, for the love of all that is human and good, let your kids screw up, and let them take the consequences of their screw ups. You are not your kids, nor vice/versa.


I think I worded that badly. I definitely agree that kids should be allowed to try and fail at things, but there are a group of parents who refuse to accept that their kid may be doing the wrong thing, or not trying hard enough or are disruptive, but instead think that its all manner of other things that are at fault. It's not their kid, it's the teacher. It's not their kid, it's other kids in the class. And they get so worked up when their kid does poorly and demand explanation and why has the school failed them etc.

Sometimes the school is definitely at fault in these cases, BUT more often than not its the kid, and by extension, really the parent who is at fault.

>> ^spoco2:
^ ... There are a class of parents who want to take no responsibility for their own children ...


I HAD to reply to that statement...in fact, the problem itself is that parents take ALL the responsibility for their own children...leaving NO room for the child to be accountable for his/her own actions. It makes for horrendous adults.

Dear Parents:
Please, for the love of all that is human and good, let your kids screw up, and let them take the consequences of their screw ups. You are not your kids, nor vice/versa.

There were three guys trying out for the CIA. All of them were in one room with the Director and outside this one room were three smaller rooms that the men had seen on their way in. The Director stands up to talk to the men and says, 'The CIA is a very select group. You have passed all of your other tests, but there is one final test you must pass before you can come work for me. Did any of you see the three rooms outside this room on your way in?' The three men nod. 'Inside each room are your wives. The final test you must pass before you will be allowed to join the CIA is one of devotion and loyalty. One by one I want you men to go into the rooms your wife is in and I want you to kill your wife.'

"The Director picks one of the men and tells him that his wife is in the room with the big roman numeral I on it. He nods silently and takes the gun from the Director and walks out. A few minutes later, he comes back in and hands the gun to the Director. 'I can't do it,' he says. 'She was my high school sweetheart and I cannot kill her, no matter what.'

"The Director tells him to leave and never come back. He hands the gun to the second man, who takes it and walks to the room with the roman numeral II on it, as he is told. A few minutes later he returns and is in tears. 'Mr. Director, I am sorry, but I can not do what you ask. As much as I want to work for the CIA, I cannot kill my wife. She is my sole support and I need her.'

"He tells the man to be gone and hands the gun to the third man. After telling him that he could be his deputy director if he accomplishes the task, the man nods and leaves the room. Shortly after the Director hears the door with the roman numeral III shut, he hears the gunfire. Bam, Bam, Bam, Bam, Bam, Bam, Bam. And then there is silence for a few seconds. Immediately following the silence, he hears a loud commotion and some screaming. He hears what he thinks is furniture being overturned and items being broken, but he does not want to interrupt. This goes on for ten minutes and then the noise dies out completely, interrupted by silence. After a minute of silence, the man emerges and the Director asks him what the hell was going on in there. The man said, 'You mistakenly put blanks in the gun, so I had to strangle the *****.'"

im glad pat condell put this rant out there.he clarifies many points i took issue with in his last,namely islam.also someone i respect on the sift who happens to hail from britain helped give me a deeper contextual understanding of what is going on in that region and how it is affecting the citizens.

since i live in the deep south and therefore am surrounded by a majority of christian fundamentalists,using that scale of parameters i guess i can relate to mr condell.there is no anxiety of where i live ever becoming "invaded" by muslim fundamentalists.they would just end up "disappearing".

i totally agree with him in the context of religiousity becoming so prevalent as to stifle actual personal freedom.fundamentalism has actually become MORE stringent and more concentrated,when logic should dictate that it would lessen.religious fundamentalism is the stagnation of not only mind but imagination and leaves no room for error.strict adherence to biblical scripture is followed,any deviation is considered blasphemous and an affront to god.talk about a recipe for disaster.
welcome to bizzarro world.

>> ^rottenseed:
can you all leave the room? I've gotta--um--I've gotta review this video a couple of times. Don't come back in 'til I tell you it's ok.


Now there's Sprite EVERYWHERE..?!

can you all leave the room? I've gotta--um--I've gotta review this video a couple of times. Don't come back in 'til I tell you it's ok.

well i like taleb. nassem nicholas taleb.
I watched this video once:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kahneman_taleb_DLD09/kahneman_taleb_DLD09_index.html

If you watch the tv show "Monk" on tv, this guy is the Real Life Detective!
He has a best seller book called _The Black Swan_ on how current models don't really predict randomness.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

Now! About the debt to equity conversion...Don't read this next link. It's dense.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4e02aeba-6fd8-11de-b835-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Here's a quote from the blog above^ The blog titled:

Time to tackle the real evil: too much debt"
Our analysis is as follows. First, debt and leverage cause fragility; they leave less room for errors as the economic system loses its ability to withstand extreme variations in the prices of securities and goods. Equity, by contrast, is robust: the collapse of the technology bubble in 2000 did not have significant consequences because internet companies, while able to raise large amounts of equity, had no access to credit markets.


However, he has a point. Since we are starved for capital, and the capital starvation is causing unemployment (he doesn't say but I will)

We do a debt to equity conversion. This means the bank owns companies instead of owning debt from companies. Presto, tons of capital available for any kind of investment.


Eventually after years and years, new industries and new exports would even help reduce inflation. Assuming we don't get Sarah Palin as President.

His logic wasn't too bad until the assumption that apparently "miraculous" patterns could only form due to vast, supreme intelligence. I guess if you believe that there were only 6000 years for the patterns to form, then you have to conclude that something was pushing things around. Billions of years, however, leaves more room for coincidence, selection, mutation.

The supremely annoying thing is that he's discussing this like he's the first to ever consider it, and he's educating the masses.

Thanks for dropping some "science" on me, random Youtube wanker!

I usually impress my cat by lighting fireworks next to him. He's so amazed he has to quickly leave the room to calm himself.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Diogenes
"take the lessons from a religious text rather than any literal meaning, that value common sense"
What do you need the lessons of the bible for if you already have "common sense" that you're judging them by?
As far as her smug labeling is concerned it's a proven fact
(see: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED ) that Republicans value being on the same "team" more than Democrats. I think this is the kind of thinking that she's talking about, albeit not in a tactful way, that 'team oriented' thinking doesn't leave much room for individuality especially in matters of philosophy.


because a religious text can impart knowledge or notionally change our understandings (e.g. the parable of the good samaritan or "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" forming the basis for servant leadership), in the same manner that virtually *any* text can do the same - my point here being that not all conservatives are 'christian fundies' and 'creationists' but rather can take some important lessons from *any* religious text in the same manner that a student can increase their understanding from their school texts

by 'smug labelings' i was referring to her ad homs of "cruelty, asshole, dick, and small-minded"

the ted vid doesn't take this tack, certainly - if anything, it emphasizes that the different 'teams' need or rely on each other... rather than saying that one side is "sick"

it would be interesting to me to see a psych study done of the liberal mind by the same methodology as used in the following:

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf

keeping in mind its possible failings:

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles.php?artID=070116_jost_conservative_study_methodology

I didn't think he did all that well, actually. I mostly agree with him, but his showing was weak here.

On the issue itself, I think forcing children who want to say the pledge to leave the room is asinine. They should be allowed to say the pledge if they wish, they just shouldn't be led by the school. Of course, if they'd fix the pledge most of this would be a non-issue.