Barihawk

Women gamers in general usually avoid fantasy mmo's in generally, many times because let's face it...women are terribly objectified in these games. Even in Runescape. Men wear large thick armor while women get chain bikinis. And then there's the fact that the male players also objectify the female avatars and the women behind them. From my experience, women who play mmo's usually play games like city-builders, games where clothing/armor is completely customizable (ala City of Heroes/Villains), tactical games surprisingly, and others that require more thought than simple clicking. WoW is also popular (and has fairly tame dress for female characters as well).

She would be considered a sex offender because she is uploading sexual-oriented pictures of a minor on the internet for others to download. That she got charged for posting her own pictures is a technicality, but still falls under the law.

Shotguns do not require licenses, fyi. I imagine that the proof had to be overwhelming to even bring the boy forward as a suspect.

It's possible you could have had a reaction in your gums to the pie, which would account for the bad taste progressively getting worse. Best to consult your dentist and maybe a doctor if necessary.

Don't get too excited, every male over the age of 50 is highly recommended to be checked for colon cancer and have a colonoscopy (cleansing of the large intestine). The risk for colon cancer is so high in all adult males that it's worth doing. Also, it's painless and not worth even really getting worried about. When you are 50, you will probably get one like just about everyone else. Getting a tube stuck in your rear end while you sleep is hardly a price to pay to make sure you don't die from your bowels imploding.

Potential risk of diabetes, although risk is decreasing due to better diet. Adult-onset diabetes killed my mother so I have reason to worry. Father has slight blood pressure issues but diet seems to be helping that. We also have a hereditary foot problem with a pinched nerve that I am already starting to feel on occasion (once or twice a year) but will need to be operated on in 10-20 years.

But surely for them to be a good companion, they'd need some non-physical characteristics that attract you. That's a fairly non-physical characteristic, I'd say. As long as she is someone I can get along with and have a good time, I think I could call it a successful relationship. Especially if I am entertaining hopes of marrying her one day. I had two relationships like this, sadly distance (and therefore a lack of companionship) doomed both.

I have only one requirement for someone to come into my life: The need to be a good companion.

Push-ups =/= abs. This is why we can't have nice things. push ups work your abdominals if you do them right. ... No, they don't. Unless you launch into the air and do a crunch mid-flight. You get a six pack from abdominal exercises, not arm ones.

I'll be concerned when he starts discussing the Battle of Seattle and the brave sacrifice of the Wolverines.

Doubts rising...

Something a sociology professor said down here. There are exceptions to every rule, however. But then again, realize that most people wouldn't admit to it if it was true :P. None of the people here are also the ones in charge of the wallets and making decisions on how to spend money, either. It's a matter of perspective. I think I revised my post earlier with there being a distinction between people who make 125k-499k a year and the "bourgeois mentality" associated with living in that bracket. I think my definition fit into the latter. When I worked in a deli, I was literally called "peasant" and "fool" by people who arguably had less assets than I did because they themselves were a part of that bourgeois mentality. Of course, most commercials for fancy cars or real estate seize on the appeals of the income bracket above, where products are aimed at those households or attempt to inspire lower brackets that the company's view of what constitutes society is indeed correct.

Well, I am not saying that your interpretation is wrong. I think we would eventually had developed all of this, but certainly not by 2009 and according to the butterfly effect our very existence at the moment would be in question.

I wouldn't call it insignificant. The Cold War did advance us in science, technology, and culture. Would we have space travel, microcomputers, or MTV if it were not for the Cold War? What would our society be like if it never happened? It would be wrong to say that it was the most influential era in history, but it's just as much a crime to dismiss it without discussing the benefits that it bestowed.

I would agree with that assessment, but you can not truly pin it down to one specific cause. I presented that argument to show when the Cold War actually came into being. The origins of it can be traced to a multitude of factors tracing back hundreds of years, to be honest. I was just taken aback at the specific "pinning" of the Cold War on the Revolution. It was a fragrant logical error, at least in my mind. Placing much too signifigance on an event that really was only a small factor. Working on MA in history, too :). Remember the adage. Get two historians in a room and what do you get? An argument.

I would tend to disagree with IGoddessI's primer there on the origins of the Cold War. Problem with textbooks is that they are vast parts of history summed up by a single person and therefore only provide that person's narrative. I'd say if you wanted to get technical, the Cold War was really an American invention that began the second we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We didn't drop them exclusively to blast Japan into submission, it was more of Truman's way of saying "screw you" to Stalin. Contention in Yalta led over the handling of Germany really put tensions between the two powers and Russia responded by developing it's own atomic weapons, blah blah blah. Surprisingly, the common narrative is fairly accurate, and both sides have come dangerously close to actual blows on numerous occasions. However, did the Revolution of 1917 contribute to the conflict? Yes, and no... Attributing the Cold War specifically to the Revolution of 1917 is a shining example of causality. A basic teleological error (x happens before y, therefore x caused y) is presented by the author. When studying history, you are provided with the effect of a certain cause. The problem is, that you do not know this cause. The cause can drastically change just be altering when you begin your search. One could discuss the Revolution of 1917 as an effect of the formation of the Communist Party if they start their study in 1900, or attribute it to terrible famines if they go back a decade. Here, the author is making that same mistake. If one started their study of the Cold War in 1750 they could just as easily claim that the American Revolution was just as much to blame as the Revolution of 1917 or the bombs, or Yalta, or Hitler, or whatever they seek to claim. The study of history is far deeper than this, and must be approached from multiple perspectives as part of a greater whole. You can not just simply divvy out causes to explain your effects without realizing that there would be a good deal of causes to lead to your effect. Now, to the original poster. Your teacher sounds from what you describe as teaching some fairly wacky stuff. However, I've only heard your side of the story. Not even really your side of the story, per say, but an interpretation of what you witnessed that could be colored by your past experiences, personality, or what you had for breakfast this morning. Which is a challenge that historians must overcome to begin with. Now, if you really feel that he is teaching bad crap, ask to speak with the history department chair at your school or something, and discuss your concerns. EDIT: IGoddessI, who wrote that primer? That angle sounds familiar and one of the professors I know (who studies Russian history extensively) might know the guy who wrote that. Just out of curiosity. Also, if anyone wants some good books for history, feel free to ask. I will make your Amazon wishlist fear me.

I'll likely be driving a BMW. But it's from 1987. And I have to fix it. And it's 900 dollars. >_> My family is really made up of all sorts. Me, my dad, and my brother act a lot like we're blue-collar workers, and sometimes we are. My brother-in-law makes more money than my mom and dad combined (he's an engineer for Exxon), but he's worked in oil fields since he was 15. My brother also likes to act affluent. My sister got used to being wealthy quick. My mom, well, she's just my mom. Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with driving a Beamer or fancy car, or living in a nice house. If you are wealthy, you should live very comfortably. What I was describing were people who make less than 125k a year attempting to live in that kind of lifestyle, when they really can't. You can do it if you plan very well and make sacrifices, but most do not. Basically it was a knock on people who live beyond their means just for the sake of appearances.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dystopia?view=uk There you go, then.

Wikipedia ain't proof. Would you prefer the Oxford English Dictionary, then?

He doesn't really even understand socialism to begin with, I don't really see what he could truly contribute to this discussion.

I guess my approach is more towards the bourgeois upper middle class, then. Sorry if I confused you. Apparently there is a distinction.

That's kind of outdated. Middle class have always been the moderately educated people. In today's world, the children of a plumber or electrician can go off to at least a community college and get the skills to manage and operate a business. To me, the lower classes would be groups where the kids don't give a damn about school or education and end up perpetuating their family into the lower classes for the next generation. There's a good difference between those who have a chance of upward mobility and those who don't. Hence the distinction given in my series. It would probably be just "middle class." I would call it a good branch since you have affluence, but the entire term "upper-middle" class has always referred to yuppies and the such. Back in the 80's what you describe would be upper middle class, but in today's world it's kind of iffy. I'd call it "affluent middle class." To be upper class in the eyes of the law, you would need annual income of $500,000. I could retire a millionaire but if I make less than that amount, I am still middle class.

I'd like to do some clarification here. Upper-Middle is a middle class position where the people attempt to live as if they were upper class. They drive cheaper versions of the same car lines (BMW, Mercedes, etc), go for mock-tudor and other large homes, and dress extravagantly. In essence, attempting to live higher than their means. This often means that instead of being wealthier than anyone else, they simply have much more debt than anyone else. These people make up a large chunk of the recent US foreclosures (and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for them). Other classes would be: Poverty - catch all Lower Middle - the "working class" Middle - white collar Upper Middle - already explained Wealthy - catch all I think we'd fit mostly in the middle there. Saving up for retirement/kids is more important to me than driving a fancy car or living in a beautiful house.

You should be fine. Most of the time you probably won't even be above deck. The food in most modern navies is pretty good. It gets a little cramped, though. Duck your head going through hatches, don't talk back to superiors, blah blah. Just take some small reminders of home and you should be good :). Go bust some pirates.

Can't they just, like, get along? I may be six generations separated from my Irish roots, but the days of "only one religion" are long gone. Why can't they just have open worship and come together in a Christlike approach to helping the people of Ireland? There's nothing religious about this, at all. That's just the excuse for a few overzealous "patriots" who take offense to actions that occured over two hundred years ago. How about instead of killing people and blowing up bombs, we use our efforts in diplomatic terms to petition Britain to release the nation or give it more autonomy. Sorry to be cruel, but those attacks do squat. I had a dear friend (a very Catholic dear friend) murdered in an IRA car bombing along with her younger sister. Killed by people claiming to be Catholic. The who idea of using religion as a facade for murder is sickening. The IRA needs to die, or at least stop claiming that these underhanded attacks are anything to do with religion.