TTanT

^Yeah chainmail wasn't designed with guns in mind, so even the highest quality stuff doesn't do much good at all against them. And Nyosuht, you must live in a nasty neighborhood. I wore my chainmail to highschool several times for kicks and was never given any crap (a few teachers asked what the heck I was wearing but left it at that). In other news, someone spilled coffee on my backpack and didn't bother to inform me. Half my notes are ruined.

I have five, although most of them are from when I was new and stupid. I remember one member in particular who I got into flamewars with a lot, but I can't remember his name.

Yeah... I haven't looked as closely at body armor as firearms, so I missed that the permission slip was for those convicted of a violent felony and that “body armor” means clothing or a device designed or intended to protect an individual's body or a portion of an individual's body from injury caused by a firearm. The bad news is that the legality of wearing it in public wouldn't keep city cops from being pricks. Also, that I have no idea who would make chain mail. http://www.ringmesh.com/ And if a cop tries to arrest you for it you can probably sue. Although the good news about wearing chainmail in public is that even if people are judging you, most won't start anything because punching you would be a really bad idea.

^The "good" news is that chainmail won't stop bullets very well, and is REALLY ineffective against many nonlethal weapons such as tazers, so it's hard to justify banning it. Edit: That was at Nyosuht. And I filled out the survey, Saq. I hope you don't use this information on my gaming habits to blackmail me and force me into slavery.

^I think we all were idiots when we were new. *Assuming we aren't still idiots that is.

I actually own legitimate stainless steel chainmail*. Because I enjoy reinforcing nerd stereotypes.

In other news, I think I might be on the road to getting to know someone without the aid of a club. On Friday our Macro class was cancelled ten minutes before it started, so half the class still showed up. The TA basically walked in and said "Sorry there's no class today go home", leaving us all with a mixture of frustration at having our time wasted, and relief that we wouldn't have to listen to our terrible professor for an hour. Anyways, so the girl in the row in front of me is acting pretty frustrated about this, but she keeps glancing in my direction. I'm pretty thick headed, but after the third glance even I can tell a person probably wants to talk. So I struck up a conversation and we ended up talking on and off until we had to split up. That was when I realized I didn't get her name. But this morning (I have four courses with this person so running into them is pretty common even if we haven't spoken before) we happened to be leaving at the same time so I mentioned I'd never gotten her name, and yeah we're now at least on a name basis. It's not exactly a massive success, but hey it's a start. I didn't even put my foot in my mouth.

Whenever I post a joke I just know a misandrist is going to pop up and throw in his own. So who else will be taking advantage of Easter candy sales tomorrow?

When most people see an emotional trainwreck of drama and conflict, they run. When RPG sees one he jumps into the middle while juggling vials of nitroglycerin.

I hope it didn't burn anyone.

^Personally I just assume some drama went too far and you ended up getting viciously stabbed to death every time you stop posting for over fifteen minutes. I have to give a speech to my college's chess club on Tuesday for the position I'm running for and I haven't even started writing it yet. This will end well.

Making my way through Code Geass. I love it.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does. 2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility. 3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with. 4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far. 5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against.

:cry:

Say that again I dare you.

A good salesman doesn't "force things" on his clients, though. For example: A decent mattress salesman with a smooth tongue might try to get every penny out of his customers by pushing super expensive mattresses on them even if they're not the most comfortable for that particular person. However they're not going to get much repeat business or recommendations when their customers realize they've been shafted. A really good mattress salesman will find the mattress that fits you the best, which will make selling it easier (also you tend not to need to drop price as much if people love the product). Although he makes less money on the sale it's far less likely that the customer will walk, and he's also a lot more likely to get recommended and gain repeat business. Really, the only form of deception that goes on is playing games with the price level, but hey it's also the one of the only situations in which a savvy customer can haggle. Screwing people over is only a good idea for you if you plan on skipping town every other week. It's much better for you to do right by them and let them be grateful. You're still manipulating them, sure, but it shouldn't leave that sour of a taste in your mouth if you're doing right by them anyways.

You're making my point for me. It's amazing how weak arguments are when you take a single sentence out of them and focus on only it while ignoring the context.

The best backup career is sales. If you're good at sales there are almost limitless job opportunities (and a lot of variety too), and it's a job that will give back exactly what you put into it. If you get good at selling you can make a great living, but if you don't you'll barely make enough to live on. Also, being able to sell things is a useful skill everywhere from dating to job interviews to getting favors.

I love when the lord gives me the opportunity to change someone's life for the better. I wear one of these and have four others strapped to the inside of my jacket, and I just kinda cycle through them during the day, making sure to refill them during my lunch break. I dont want to sound melodramatic, but the Flasktie™ might be the best thing that has ever happened to me. I hope it will be the same for you. Thanks I needed a way to smuggle more alocohol into the workplace. A hip flask just isn't enough.

I'm a vegetarian and this offends me.

I feel like other people are stating what I meant to state far more coherently than me, and am forcibly reminded of why I normally don't post in debate threads.

By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives. And yet, strangely, despite being prompted to on several occasions, you have yet to provide a single fair and reasonable argument as to why homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't be entitled to the same tax incentives as each other. I don't have a burden to prove that. You want to change the status quo, you explain why it needs to be changed. The marriage tax code exists with the idea that dad works, mom stays at home with the kids. Why do homosexual couples deserve the same tax treatment as the traditional family? Unmarried heterosexual couples don't get these benefits. Best friends living together as roommates don't get these benefits. Homosexuals don't want to argue this in the court of public opinion, or get legislation drafted and passed for their special circumstance. They are trying to get all these benefits simply by changing the definition of marriage. They're arguing for special treatment, and conflating the issue by calling it "rights." As if by existing you automatically have the right to be married. If you're a straight male or female you're allowed to marry anyone you'd like. It's a right in the sense that the government doesn't restrict it. Yet it's taken away from homosexuals just because of who they like to get jiggy with? That's preferential treatment of one group over another, also known as discrimination. Last time I checked the United States was supposed to be against that. They aren't asking for special treatment, they're trying to gain access to benefits that are being unfairly taken away from them due to their sexuality. Also you've been ignoring the fact that heterosexuals don't need to ever have children for their marriage to be legal. I think this is my third time mentioning it now. Not to mention the fact that gays can adopt. Those are two gaping holes in your argument for your definition of marriage.

You're missing the point of marriage. How? Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children. There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage." And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken. Ever hear the phrase, "consummate the marriage?" Means try to make a baby. Except it's legal to get married heterosexually even if you don't intend to have a child. If we're going to make it illegal for gays to marry by your definition then the joke from my previous post should be made law for fairness's sake.

Yeah no-one likes sitting next to random strangers in public transportation. Really, no-one likes public transportation in general.

You're missing the point of marriage. How? Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children. There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage." This just in barren women and impotent men are banned from marriage because they can't bear children. All post-menopausal women are also being forced to file for divorce.