As a party game, it's better than Twister, at least if you're into groping.

Anyways, if I remember correctly, this is the way to undo the mess:

One hand above your partner's rope, the other below. Grab his/her rope with your lower hand and push it through the loop on your upper wrist from below, then pull it across your hand and you should be free.

You're right. Finding it on the one hand was easy, but it's much harder finding it on the other hand.

If you had watched the video, you would know that it had clearly not been edited.

But again, you didn't, so you don't.

Anyway, here we go.

First of all, all that wage gap bullshit? Yeah, read this: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Oh, and that violence-against-women bullshit? I'm going to need a citation on that.

Also, I'm sorry about your mother, but one anecdote does not mean that feminism suddenly makes sense. I've been physically and mentally abused by more female teachers than I can count on one hand, but I'm not going to use that to claim that women are somehow evil.

Definitely one of the best cars ever made. Every one hand built.

So sad I got rid of one of my ghias this summer. Oh well, didn't need two.

Power shouldn't be a problem these days. I've got 2 liters and over 150 horsepower. She moves! =)

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
*slaps face

The paradox that most interests me here is why his hair looks like that.

On the one hand, it looks like a man with an infinite lack of sight styled his hair during a hurricane, but on the other hand he has finite 20/20 vision with his glasses on. How can that be?

on the one hand, progress to let people testify over Skype. that alone could save thousands of police hours per month. on the other hand, all the trolling looks really bad.

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

On the one hand, you have to give them credit for having some standards. The rest just sit there and watch something incredibly stupid.

Good job, academics!

Can't you hold your beer glass in one hand and text with the other?

Being a soldier is a bloody hard job.

On one hand, you are trained to follow orders without question and yes, sometimes you are asked to perform morally questionable actions for the "greater good". (One might argue that the whole profession of soldiery is morally questionable acts for the greater good)

That said, it has been well established that "I was only following orders" is not an excuse.

So what do you do when you see something that you cannot justify? Are you a disobedient traitor or a willing accomplice to criminal acts?

And just in case, there's any doubt, I believe he did the right thing.

I'm so torn here. On one hand, I think she deserves all the hate she gets. It's objectively a bad song and the shithead mom just paid her no-talent daughter into fake fame. But at the same time, The death threats are obviously crossing a line and so is the supposed bullying.

It swings both ways. On one hand, I don't think I will ever understand the "quest for fame" that some people strive for. Sure virtually everyone wants to be known and have the respect of their peers. I just can't contemplate being so craving for attention to put myself through something like that. So part of me wants to blame her and her mom for their low sense of self-worth that they have to crave that sort of fame.

But on the other hand. I blame society in general. regardless of whether you like the song or hate her guts, a lot of people put a non-insignificant amount of time and effort into liking or hating her. Why are we so bored that we're willing to like an objectively bad song or spend hours on youtube making hateful comments.

Then of course there's the whole money aspect of things. If all they cared about was getting paid...well obviously the mother's scheme worked. She's set up pretty good and all she had to do was make her daughter a national spectacle.

Is it worth it? Should it be worth it?

I think only two things are certain for me. 1. The mother is a horrible person for putting her kid through that. 2. This is an indictment of the music industry that they're so desperate for anything to sell they resort to the circus acts and freak shows and actual singing ability be damned.

@truth-is-the-nemesis
now we are getting to the flaw in the argument,how i see it anyways.
this video targets the disabled people pimping their status out for cash as being the immoral ones.
that somehow selling their disabled status is vulgar and reprehensible.
maybe that is true but that is another discussion.mainly because we have not been made privy to the private details i.e:financial situation,medical bills etc etc.

you did hit on the very thing that struck me instantly from this video that the reporters never really addressed:the exploitation by the elite and privileged.

this is why i called it fake outrage.
because to me it was directed at the wrong people.

you used an analogy of disabled parking.
let me give a more succinct and actually true analogy that i find more...concise.

lets say we have a mother of 3 children.
and lets say she has multiple debilitating conditions.
let us also add to the pile that she has been denied disability status 4 times in a row from the courts,even after 7 back surgeries,is going blind and cant sit or lay down for more than 2 hrs at a time.

this mother has ZERO income due to the fact she cannot work even though the courts say she can,BUT she gets a host of prescription drugs.
she is over-precribed (and i mean waaay over) painkillers and sedatives.

so to take care of her 3 children she decides to sell her prescriptions at a 2000% mark up.this creates a decent income for her family to:have a home,eat and have clothing and even enjoy a few extras.

to accomplish this she is forced to deal with the unsavory aspects of society.junkies basically and she also has to live in the fear of getting caught and losing everything,including the very things most precious to her and the very reason why she embarked on this venture to begin with:her children.

so,my question :is she being immoral?

because while we may find these people who sell their disabled status as repugnant for abusing a system for cash,is it actually immoral?
or is it the privileged who exploit the desperation of others who are immoral?

is it both?
and if so,are there varying degrees of immorality?
are they mutually being exploitive of each other?

on the one hand we have some creative people that if they had brought their own families this would not even be an issue but since they charge a few hundred bucks it now becomes a "oh thats just terrible" moment.

on the OTHER hand we have families who seem to have a sense of entitlement due to the fact of owning a larger bank account but nobody says a word to them.

yet which is the greater offense?
which has the larger impact on ones sensibilities?

see what im saying?
from a purely subjective viewpoint we look upon these opportunists as vulgar,because it is vulgar.
but is it immoral?

@Kofi friedman was a cunt

He takes one-handed typing to a whole new level.

Why did Hellen Keller's dog run away?
Well if your name was AAAHHWYUEYUEYEYEYYYEWEEEUUUUEEEEEE
You'd run away too...

Why does Helen Keller wear skin tight pants? So you can read her lips!

What did Helen Keller get for Christmas? Polio! she had everything else.

Why was Helen Keller's belly button bruised? Her boyfriend was blind, too.

Why does Helen Keller masturbate with one hand? So she can moan with the other.

nyuck nyuck nyuck