Lateralus

Pelvic thrusts are a good indicator.

Black people use the 'n word' among themselves as a way of defeating and and attempting to take it back. It's a tactic that's been used often. Both the terms Suffragette (as in the womens rights/voting advocates) and impressionist (as in the painters) began as derogatory terms that were eventually captured by the offended parties. The reason they get upset is because of the prejudice and history attached to it, but I can see this changing after a while as it has in the examples above. It's a different case obviously, but it could still go the same way. There's a black history month for a reason, and there's no white history month for a reason. History is white history. Black history would be neglected if people weren't reminded of it. It's much the same as a radio station example. Unless you target a niche specifically, you won't find it. Do you find the "I see black people" thing offensive at all? I don't. It's a clever (although somewhat cheap (but what advertising isn't)) way of appealing to the target audience.

In determining the case, the court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. The First Amendment literally does not allow the abridgment only of "speech", but the court reiterated their long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was an uncontroversial conclusion in light of cases such as Stromberg v. California (display of a red flag as speech) and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (wearing of a black armband as speech). The court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea", but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments". In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." From the wiki page for Texas v. Johnson.

It's easy to fake your way into the Olympics if your home country is the host and the government is corrupt. If those girls are what 16 year old Chinese girls look like then I feel sorry for 16 year old Chinese boys. They both look under 10.

Do you really think there was any malicious intent in it though? He seems like a lovely guy, and he was probably just overwhelmed that he was about to win a gold medal. I don't think he meant any harm in it at all, and the rest of the world seems to have enjoyed it - Do you think this is a bit of a mountains and molehills situation?

EDIT: Taken care of.

Sorry to do the whole 'posting Bill Hicks' cliche, but oh well. You can't justify hurting someone for burning a flag. I don't particularly think anyone can justify burning a flag in the first place because it doesn't make any sense to me, but as long as they're not hurting anyone there's no reason for me to get involved.

Trying to use DOS when you're 5 years old is complicated, installing a few programs through a GUI doesn't seem too tricky.

Actaully, BhB's operation will take nowhere near the jaw... And didnt your dentists warn your brother about the risks of not wearing braces? I was referring to a post at the bottom of the previous page, which I really should have quoted to save confusion. Of course the dentists warned my brother about how his overbite would worsen and would have been more easily corrected if he had gotten braces, but nobody really wants to wear braces and nobody made him.

If I've got a good book I can last a good while on a plane. I would not advise buying a book at the airport. Airport book stores are filled with unbelievable trash. I believe 'airport fiction' has even become a genre.

Quite lovely to see you offering some real advice. I had fully expected to see a flame when I opened this thread. What a nice boy you are.

My younger brother is due for the overbite operation you're talking about. My understanding of it is that they'll break his jaw in a few places and then wire it into a corrective position. I'm sure it'll be awful for him, but dentists had been offering him braces for years - Teenage vanity I suppose.

*cough*Cancer that killed disturbed*cough* Guitar Hero does not count as cancer. We've been over this. Oh here we go again.... No, we're not going anywhere again. You've yet to explain yourself at all.

Levi's 501s are all that's ever required. Months without washing. How I love them.

Treating a symptom. Silly.

How is this comparable? It actually looks thoroughly entertaining - An excellent cast, and I'm not hugely familiar with the Coen Brothers, but I've never seen a movie by them I didn't like.

The political and religious discussions on these forums are becoming tedious. I don't say this to complain, because I would simply leave if I had had enough. It would just be nice if people would educate themselves even slightly before posting. There are plenty of people who post whose opinions I respect, it's just a pity that they're beginning to be drowned out.

It's difficult to tell who's being addressed in the replies, so I feel I have to post to clarify my position because I absolutely refuse to be labeled something I am not (and I should hope no one would think of me). If 'no plastic surgery' is a stipulation for entry to the competition (which I'm not even sure that it is), then I don't think it should be bent in this case, since it is clearly not intended to discriminate against trans gendered people. If entry to the competition is based on their abilities to perform as a model, then of course allow this woman to enter.

Is there a blanket exclusion for any entrant who has undergone cosmetic surgery? If this is the case, then I don't think she should be allowed to enter. Rules are rules.

Please, do go on.

Because she's a man. Modeling is a profession based entirely on aesthetics. If the clothes look good on her/him then that's all the designers need.

She looks like a woman, and the job she wants to do is basically clothes rack. Why not let her? It does seem very exploitative of the show though. I can't see them caring about her 'struggle' (or whatever you want to call it) at all, it's just a shock tactic to attract viewers. As long as people undergo thorough, thorough psychological evaluation before these sorts of procedures I don't have any problem.

And that's what I was replying to. There's a point value assigned to A's and B's and what have you, but I don't think the scoring system is hugely important anymore. Universities tend to look at the grades and not the points, though they are linked.

Each grade throughout Britain is appointed a certain value, and you can calculate your score as you go along, but I don't think many universities work this way anymore. Mine didn't, and no other Scottish university I know of does. It could be different in England however.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" is another good Groucho quote.