obfuscator

I'm not meaning to be rude, but what exactly do you want to be done? And why is it worth it for just one user if it works fine for absolutely everyone else?

I suppose you could lump it together in the same category, but what I mean is that there's a way to complain. In the first example, the language is rude, and offers no positive points or a solution. In the second, it is polite, reasonable, and offers a solution. As long as conflict occurs, so will complaining - but there's a way to be tactful about it.

Complaining raises problems which other people may not have noticed, allowing solutions which benefit not just you but people around you. However I understand what you meant. There are ways to do that without complaining. Complaining: "Oh my god I hate _____ she doesn't do anything and is so annoying like ______' Constructive conversation: "I don't think it's fair that I've done this and this but ___ hasn't done much. Perhaps she could do something to even the workload?" Obviously this is a generic conversation, but there are ways to treat every situation, and complaining shouldn't be the only solution.

Same with the whiners and complainers bit. Complaining doesn't help anything, and it's really annoying and self centered.

:ohnoes: I know, right :(

Ran my own pug last night for ICC 10, aiming for 10/12. Went pretty badly, we wiped on lootship because we had some idiot rogue from one of the worst guilds on the server who was basically trolling the whole time and started it early. Oh well, at least we beat first wing.

A new video card would give you greater fps at a higher detail level. Is this OS 32 or 64 bit? I didn't see that info anywhere, although it should be there. If it's 32 bit, then don't bother buying more RAM, as you won't be able to use it. Processor seems pretty decent though.

The US would probably try to keep a kind of attack like this secret, as they can't afford another war. ?And yeah, it's ridiculous that they are liable for so little. How much is Transocean liable for?

Yeah I never have any problems with that. You could just keep yourself logged in as well.

Sorry to be captain obvious, but she definitely likes you. If you're interested, try going for it. If you're not, I'd shut her down before she gets worse.

ZF is really fun, pugged it a few times on my pally. Definitely tricky for tanks though. RANT: I made a druid to heal. I hate it when tanks think because they have one heirloom they can pull the whole instance. I was going OOM on like every pull so at the big pull in deadmines right before the pirate boss I said: "I want to top up mana, if you pull I won't heal you". Of course he pulls, dies, we wipe, then he says: "OMG YOU HAD 30% MANA THATS FINE11111" and then I get vote kicked. Good fight.

Nice, glad to see this got off the ground :)

I think women's rights would have a huge part in that. Until the last 50 years they were more of a possession than a wife. Marriage and monogamy is a man made idea. Evolution is much slower than this huge population boom, and we have the same bodies as our tribal ancestors who did not announce their love to the world by throwing flowers to the bridesmaids. We have the same hard wiring as they did. Fear of female rejection, 'survival mode' when starving etc is proof of this. What actually happened was authorities would keep a selection of fertile women for themselves, and someone eventually had the idea to make it illegal to 'steal' his fertile women. This is where the foundations of adultery came in. Now that women have an equal say to what happens in the relationship, we see more fighting and more divorce. Years ago a backhand would have stopped an argument before it started. Yes, it's certainly true that there was a lot more of "forcing a happy marriage" then there is now. Yes, it is also true that women have an equal say now. I think a lot of men aren't ready to compromise to the degree they need to to make a successful, two way marriage work. However, I still think that it is possible and a lot of people don't want to put in the effort, men and women alike.

I never stated the only purpose of sex was reproduction. Rather, the most basic and natural purpose of sex is reproduction. If some people like sleeping with little kids, that means that at least some of us want to do that. Why should this be the case, if we are naturally supposed to sleep with other adults? Humans have always done unatural things, and will continue to do so. Just because someone does something doesn't make it natural. Please, show me a polygamous culture where women have the same rights as men. Show me that, and I'll concede that point. Just because something is natural doesn't mean everybody will do it, as you've already stated. Why do some people chose to remain celibate? That certainly isn't natural. And you've still failed to prove why. Do you seriously think that, out of the species that mate for life, every single animal automatically mates for life? I doubt it. I find rather the majority will do what's natural. There will always be some who don't. Key word majority. I'm not denying that polygamy, cheating etc are nonexistant, rather than they are not and have never been practiced by the majority of humans. A quick look at any history book will tell you that the overwhelming majority of cultures have had monogamous relationships intertwined. Because not everyone does what's natural. The world isn't perfect. Nor am I denying the human desire. However, it is natural for the father to care for his young, and then move on. Even the majority of animals stick around as mates for at least the first phases of their childrens development. If desire was really to be the be all and end all of society, why are fathers who abandon their young/spouses so looked down upon in today's society, hence the "deadbeat dad" title?

Congrats guys :)

Phpbb, defnitely. While it isn't as fancy as IPB in many ways, I beleive it has some key functionality, and as Dsavi says, open source is awesome. I've been a mod on IPB and phpbb, and I've been an admin on several very small phpbb installations.

Congrats TK, I know you've been back for a while now but nice to see you're doing well!

I dunno, it seems like more than that. For instance, a mature person is more likely to have strict morals, perhaps understand how to manipulate things to their gain, etc. Nick_6464 said that the person doesn't need to be nice. I think I disagree here. Politeness and kindness are important social skills, and if a person isn't nice (aka lacking them) that shows immaturity in my opinion.

I still don't know where you're going with this. You tell me? Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US? Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse? Why was there consensus there? Because the minority - aka the unnatural, were the only ones who wanted it. If society really really wanted more than one spouse, it would be far more legal and accepted than it is today. I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all. It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like".. There are two reasons for polygamous marriages. 1. To have an obscene number of children. 2. Sexual satisfaction. Any man is witness to this, and I have in fact heard several interviews with polygamous husbands using the allure of lots of sex to try to persuade people to their point of view. Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to. No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time. And this contract is meant to be lifelong and binding. I've already stated my opinions on this matter. I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes. You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse. As a matter of fact, several different animal species mate for life. It used to be that the majority of humans did mate for life, we would find that partner and stay with them. However, humans are followers. We do what we are told to. And as society became more and more "liberal", it began to be "ok" to break your marriage contract, and find other spouses. As a result, more and more people don't mate for life. Please see my example at the bottom of the post. Let me explain it this way. Looking at the animal kingdom, some species mate for life, and others don't. This is usually based on what makes sense for that particular animal. I will use humans as an example. Our extended lifespan is 80 years. We'll use that as an average. Let's assume one has children at 20. Yes, we are physcially fertile earlier but this is the age at which full maturity is basically guaranteed for both members (male and female). We mate, have children, etc. We stay together, as do other animals, to help raise them. Assuming we have children at 20 this makes us 40 at miniumum by the time they are adults and no longer require caring. At this point, old age begins to kick in. While technically still capable of reproduction, women's egg cells become more and more dangerous to use and closer to menopause (hence the higher ratio of genetic disorders in children from older mothers). At this point, we can consider practical reproduction to be over. Since we are no longer reproducing at this age, there is no natural need to have another partner, therefore we might as well stay with the same partner, grow old, etc.

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here. Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US? I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all. Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to. I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes. So in your ideal, natural world, we wouldn't have relationships at all then? That's what it sounds like you're condoning.

What I find interesting is there's still no mention of what caused the disaster in the first place. I like the gov. response, but its also clear BP is woefully unprepared for something like this.

Cold turkey works for some people, slowly phasing it out works for others. You just need to find what works for you.

Really? Like what?