Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

My feeling has always been that the problem with the ol' adage about being "destined to repeat" history is that there's usually a lot of emotion thrown into the past... what you end up with is a nostalgiac view of history rather than a factual one, and at the end of the day, people can't recognize the correlation to present times.

It's tough not to have a dramaticized view of history, when you talk about the wrongful death of millions of Jews, or something like that. You can't help but get emotional over it. But my point is that to many people who weren't alive to experience the Nazi regime in real-time, it becomes more legend than fact. There are surely young men out there with agendas quite similar to Hitler's proposed plans for a superior race, but a young man on a stoop spreading propoganda is- in the minds of the public- so far removed from gas chambers and mad genetic scientists and millions of deaths, that the connection isn't made until it's too late.

A) The materials quoted in the OP are ridiculous
B) The idea that the OP would entitle this note "Errors in Atheism" when the majority of the post argues the validity of a random statement that may or may not have been uttered by anyone is ridiculous
C) The notion that this is "a thread about Atheism" is ridiculous; it's a thread about people who don't understand logical arguments, and the agendas they're pushing

That should be all I need to say, but since those statements alone won't enlighten anyone, I guess I should go a bit further... just know that I'm finding it pathetic that I have to explain the stupidity of the quoted materials. I yearn for the day when such authors are writing their arguments in Microsoft Word, and after all their typing, that little paper clip guy pops up and says, "It looks like you've made an illogical argument. Would you like some help?"

The entire second quote is dedicated to "disproving" the phrase "I believe what I see". First of all, there is no bible of Atheism declaring this to be a tenet of the concept... the author simply hears this (so he says) from Atheists as the argument for their approach. But arguing the validity of this phrase in such a literal manner is no more intelligent than questioning someone who says "it's raining cats and dogs". It's not a literal statement, and is not meant to be analyzed as such. It's a sarcastic statement; a mockery of the notion of "belief" itself.

Atheists do not believe in any god... they perceive instead, which is why they make the sarcastic statement, "I believe what I see". They believe what they don't need to put belief in, in other words. If N can be perceived, then an Atheist will accept N as a truth. There's no belief involved at all, but the phrase is used as a way of bridging the gap between the two currencies of logic and belief. The end result, in a much less elegant statement, is something like, "I don't believe in any of the things you believe, but if you're so intent on recognizing and labeling what I do believe, well the answer is that I believe what is already known, and is therefore past the point if needing to be believed."

As an atheist, that statement is much too long for me to waste my time voicing, especially in the face of someone whose belief system I find to be laughable. So take into account the notion that many Atheists simply don't want to be bothered hearing about illogical crap like this, and you'll understand why they abbreviate their dismissal with the simplistic phrase, "I believe what I see".

P.S.: the last bit of the OP, where the author declares that the phrase "I believe what I see" is a contradiction simply because it is a spoken phrase, and things spoken cannot be seen, is possibly the stupidest argument I've ever heard in my life. I would think that anyone with the intelligence to use a computer would be above such a theory. But here we are.

P.P.S.: Do not expect me to look at this thread again. I'm ashamed to even see it on a blog network that boasts "quality content". Say whatever you will, but don't wait for a rebuttal.

Worse mileage by definition, but it depends on which model's drivetrains you're comparing.

I drove an S4 for a few weeks and a 6-cyl A4 for a week before that... can't say I noticed the difference in drivetrains at all; it's the blatant stuff I noticed, like the exhaust note and the extra horsepower. You'd really have to take it to the limit handling-wise to understand the benefit of Quattro on a dry road, and trust me, you'd get sick of doing that within a month of having your car.

The benefits are primarily for safety... bad roads and extreme driving maneuvers are a walk in the park with Quattro. I think the only performance benefit you'd really be able to enjoy 24/7 is the fact that an AWD car hooks up much quicker than a RWD from blast-off... so if you plan on streetracing with a Lotus, you'd have a fighting chance.

I'm with Teej on the philosophical argument here. Anyone who thinks they can design ONE style that befits both a desktop user and mobile user has missed the point of accessibility entirely.

Use a mobile device to surf the web, and get a feel for what's easy to do and what isn't. There are plenty of layouts that "fit" a mobile browser, but are a pain to navigate because you don't have a mouse, full keyboard, and large enough viewing area.

What a lot of designers are doing in an attempt to get their default layouts to work on mobile devices is in effect creating legibility, not accessibility. The site looks fine, but it's not condusive to the tools of a mobile device. An entirely separate sheet is the way to go.

I suppose I shall chime in, though I don't really feel there's a need. As usual, we got our people with a sense of humor, and then we got our people who bear a cross everywhere they tread.

But, here we go:

Ozone42: thanks for accurately translating my statement in a manner that could be more easily digested by some of the less clear-headed posters here. I should pay you to translate all my posts.

cdnBlogFan: your assumptions are hilariously inaccurate. It also seems that while in your flustured alarmist state, you decided that the best way to demonize me in your mind was to picture me as being 35 and married, even though I already stated that I'm 26 and not anywhere near any kind of commitment. Good to see that you're catching up on the rest of CWW though... I look forward to you being my most avid reader once I fix my blog. I'll let you slide because you probably wrote this while you were on your period, and we all know how women get when they're on their period.
-P.S.: I'm sure you'll want to rock some CWW merchandise now that you've fallen in hate with me. You can get it here: http://www.cafepress.com/beaveraveprints

Cooper: those women who you say I "can't get" are great friends of mine. I love them dearly and would never want to ruin my relationship with any of them by attempting to become romantically involved, because as I already stated, I have no interest in commitment. You and cdnBlogFan should chip in for the CliffsNotes to this post, since you both are so quick to forget the facts. Send the check to Ozone42.

Ugh... I did that ad 3 years ago in college. Seems like a simple enough concept though; I imagine others have done it before as well and it probably never got past approvals. Plus, I can't imagine anyone from my graphic design class ever made something of themselves and got a job doing campaigns for Durex. Lawsuit averted!

My ad had a screaming baby as the background instead of this tranquil blue thing... not really sure which of those is more effective, but I know which one is more annoying, and I loves me some annoying.

Great advice dreamweaver, thanks.

I did go ahead and set up shop with my roomie...

http://www.cafepress.com/beaveraveprints

Right now I just have my CuttingWithWater bumper stickers and t-shirts up, but it's a start. Kind of an interesting contrast to Bryan from Avalonstar here @ 9rules, who went a different route for selling shirts. He went ahead and bought up a stock of shirts and hawked them himself. Obviously everyone loves him, so he made out ok... but at first glance, I can't help thinking this is an easier way to go from a production and payment standpoint. Of course, I think his shirts were better quality for a lower price, so I suppose that makes a difference.

CSS warnings and validation are like any other automated tool of content and syntax judgment... they're great building blocks, but they can't learn or provide individual advice. Since the warnings are often useless (as pointed out by dreamweaver in his second paragraph), I don't see the value in glorifying what a CSS validator wants to warn you about.

@Dreamweaver: in regards to your question about the extraneous color information adding to the stylesheet filesize... we're talking what, 0.5 extra kilobytes at best to add that data? CSS files are tiny in relation to the importance they carry... unless you're in some kind of coding competition where the goal is to have a webpage under 3k, the difference in filesize will be imperceptible to you and your users... so yes, you should add that information to make sure the color scheme works with users' default stylesheets.

I wonder how much less sex men would be inclined to have if they knew they could potentially become pregnant. I'll venture... oh, 99%.

@stefani: would you believe you're the 4th person who has told me they enjoy the fact that I'm totally uninteresting? Must be something in the (cuttingwith)water.

@rich: Touche.

@Justin: I might have been a little unclear as to my purpose here... I'm not talking about relative font sizes breaking my (or anyone else's) layouts... in fact, I wasn't addressing concerns of designers at all.

What I meant was that regular joes and joe-ettes out there are less likely to know that they can change font size to their liking, and more likely to fat-finger the text-size shortcut on the keyboard... and when they come across a site that caters to relative sizing (even a Web 2.0 fluid design that looks perfectly proportioned), they freak out over the fact that the font is either too big for their screen or totally illegible, and they navigate away from the site. That, or they call me and ask me "what happened to the Internet".

My conclusion was meant to convey that no matter how well you design your site, there are way more people out there who are confused by relative font sizes than there are people who take advantage of the technology... and if that's the case, then the most accessible way to code text size is ironically to use fixed pixels. At least for now.

NYC... I suggest Divine Bar on 51st & 2nd

Usually I would've chimed in by saying that if you're black, and you don't want to be stereotyped as a rapper, then stop dressing like a rapper, talking like a rapper, and customizing your car like a rapper. As a white guy, I don't want to be stereotyped as a redneck... and that's why I don't wear Wrangler jeans and flannel shirts, or drive an old pickup with a confederate flag on it, or talk in a slack-jawed style. Take some goddamn responsibility for the way you appear to others... the real world isn't a damn hippie circle of love where you're gonna take time out of your day to learn about the life philosophies and career goals of every stranger you meet before judging them.

However, because this occured in Arizona, I'd like to point out that everyone in AZ has tinted windows (because the sun is killer) and chrome rims (because the lack of humidity out there means chrome never rusts)... so two black guys driving a tinted-out Benz with chrome rims in Arizona should be treated no differently than an old white woman with the same setup on her car.

Justin:

I like to argue from a philosophical standpoint, and one of the techniques I like to use is to take each side's opinion to the universal extreme- meaning that we consider what the world would be like in the most extreme case of each argument. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to try that out with you here. Let me know if you think I've incorrectly analyzed either of these extremes. We'll approach the argument as if the WWW had just started yesterday:

Your way (the current domain system): Anyone can buy any domain, virtually for free. No value is attributed by the registrars to the domain names. The following names (and all similar iterations, because hey, it's $10!) have now been purchased by these people:

Microsoft.com: Some hacker sitting in his underwear
Whitehouse.gov: A member of Al Qaeda
NYTimes.com: A 12-year old kid who writes for his school paper
JustinKistner.com: Your ex-girlfriend

My way: Domains with inherent value are priced accordingly. The following domain names have been purchased by these people:

Microsoft.com: Microsoft
Whitehouse.gov: U.S. Government
NYTimes.com: The New York Times
JustinKistner.com: Ok, so your ex-girlfriend still could've bought this

Which world wide web would you rather be surfing?

Sparkalyn, some of your points are valid, but obviously I do disagree. I'm not saying there aren't kinks to be worked out (hell, I haven't even written a formala proposal for how to achieve this), but at some point I think you will find that my approach will be adopted, because it is the same approach that has been adopted in almost every other consumer market after it was realized that a free-for-all structure is no structure at all.

Addressing a couple of your specific points:

I don't see how a $5,000 price tag on a domain makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. That domain's price is based on the idea that it IS valuable, and so squatting becomes futile. Why would you pay $5,000 to squat on a domain that in 5 years will be worth... $5,000? (Plus inflation of course.) It is the current system, which attributes NO value whatsoever to Nissan.com, that allows sqautting to take place. And to clarify, this is not about the name going to the highest bidder, a la the New York Yankees business model. There is no bid. There is a price tag, and if you're the first person on the scene, it's all yours for that price. If you don't have the money to shell out for a domain that is deemed to be worth $5,000, then my question to you is: should you really be buying this domain in the first place?

You said "Would the monthly fees on dooce go up next time it's time to renew because it's now more popular?" That's the best argument against my approach that I've heard... honestly I don't know what the remedy would be there, but I'm sure something could be worked out. Anyone have any ideas there? Or is every 9ruler against me on this one...

Sparkalyn:

My rationale behind point#1 was that yes, Nissan Computer Corp. does have every right to purchase the name if they were quicker on the trigger- but as you stated yourself, there's plenty of value out there for the domain Nissan.com, aside from the obvious international automotive manufacturer- so the "right to purchase" shouldn't mean, "here you go, this is really important to a lot of people but you can have it for the price of a cheesesteak just because you got here first"... it should mean, "you want a prime-time domain like this? Yeah, so will everyone else in two years. But no problem, you got here first so you're welcomed to it... the price is $5,000".

Going on a formula rendered by Google for term popularity, "Dooce.com" would probably have cost Heather the same exact amount. I don't see your point there at all. When you take a domain name that doesn't inherently have value to the world market, and turn it into an awesome site, then you have every right to profit off the sale of that domain, because you are the reason the name has any value. However, Nissan Computer Corporation's site content is not- by any stretch- the reason for the fame of "Nissan.com".

Justin:

That was a wonderfully in-depth rebuttal. So by your logic, every seat for a Jay-Z concert should cost $10 no matter how inherently valuable the spot might be... and if the first guy in line decides he's going to buy up the first 20 rows and then turn around and sell those tickets to the rest of the people in line for $500 a pop, well there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Not a fan of it unless I'm on a super-fast PC and the content refresh actually serves a purpose.

As you pointed out, Yahoo's interface sucks donkey balls on a slower connection, and really, if I've logged and there's a mail icon there, why not just do it the old way, where there was a number showing you how many new messages you had, and it linked to the mail interface? I don't need no 200x120 peep-show window with my latest messages in it.

#1. Totally real. I had a girlfriend that was borderline psychotic when she had her period, and otherwise was a totally rational person.

#2. It's interesting that you'd rather not admit to having PMS... a lot of women I know feel that way, and I always thought it strange that a woman would not want to cash in on an excuse that no man would ever argue with. Like, anytime you act like a total bitch to someone, just say it was PMS. Who's gonna question you?

That's wicked painstaking.

Not that this thread is short two cents, but...

I do agree with Brad that there exists a high degree of "bloginess", for lack of a better term, in 9rules. By that I mean:

1. Casual conversation which doesn't necessarily benefit anyone but the two people who are participating in it
2. Posted material (basically half the Notes section) about absolutely nothing, i.e. "shower door or curtain". If people are going to come up with hilarious responses to such a mundane question, then yeah, I can see the value. But read that thread, and others like it... it's a congregation of thirty people trying to outdo the last one's banality.

However, I do recognize that this is a large group of individuals who are not only celebrated for their personalities, but actually have those personalities promoted day in, day out. It's meant to be this way... a forum for some of the most intriguing people to just be who they are, and let the world sit back and enjoy it. That was my understanding of 9rules when I joined; I don't see where I'd have the right to question another's professionalism or maturity in this network, because everyone was picked for being exactly who they are, and it wouldn't be 9rules if everyone wore a suit and tie to the Notes section every day.

The last thing I'll say (which matters not, because who ever reads the 32nd response to a thread anyway?) is that Brad did explicitly state that he did not want to incur any drama with his statements. The words may have been a bit biting, but they were intelligent and well-structured. I have beef with anyone who replied in this thread with "fine jackass, get off our network!", because the fact is that statements like this do bring about positive change... in any organization. Whether they're right or wrong, when people stop questioning the process and the people, the organization ceases to progress.

Craigslist has everything you'd ever want in life, in every type of condition and quality. That's the place to look. Of course, you have to know how to read people to ensure that you're getting a used laptop, and not a blind date with a transvestite who will exchange sex for cocaine.

I'd talk with Sean if I were you... you'll know what kind of quality you're getting, and from what he's saying, you'll have your pick of the litter. And since he's a fellow 9er, I'm sure you'll get a good deal.

You genius kids with blogs freak me out. The Internet will turn this whole damn planet into Children Of The Corn one day.

Honestly though, welcome. You remind me of a young me. Do I remind you of an old you?

Love love love,

CWW

What I don't understand is why people were actually walking out of this comedy club! Like, wtf more do you want for entertainment? You pay to go see some washed-up schmuck at a comedy club, hoping that maybe he'll do some funny nostalgic Seinfeld humor or something... and next thing you know, frickin' Kramer is going on a racial tirade?? How is that not the most interesting night you've had in the past 6 months??

Oh and as for my stance on it... i do agree with some of you here that it's definitely possible to make racial remarks and not actually hold them as personal values. Maybe he is racist, sure, but i feel it's just as likely that he was an embarrassed and frightened man with a hot white light shining on him, and in his narrow ability to improvise (can't understand why that would be, seeing as he's an improv actor), he saw the most obvious angle to take- the fact that his "opponent" was black- and he ran with it. Classic fight or flight response.

Here's the funny thing about that:

Guys love any action they get... their anatomy is uber-easy to arouse. Ergo, you can be a chick and A) not like giving oral, and B) not be good at it at all, and you'll still be okay in the eyes of a guy. He'll take whatever he can get. So in my mind, a woman who takes pride in giving it is a rare treat, simply because they don't have to be talented at all for it to be successful.

But if you're a chick, the guy simply can not be uninterested in it or bad at it for the girl to enjoy it. It just won't work. Even then, if a guy is good at it and loves giving it, that's still no guarantee that the girl's going to enjoy it. Freakin' chicks.

So, by virtue of those arguments, the logical answer for all of humankind is:

Girls: Only like getting it if it's good. Don't need to like giving it or be good at giving it, so who cares

Guys: Love getting it in any way shape or form. Hate giving it because it's never good enough for them, unless you practice for 15 years and the perfect girl shows up at the perfect time of night, and she drinks the perfect glass of wine with the perfect Isaac Hayes song playing in the background.

Well if you weren't making a point about women as a gender being bad at driving and talking on the phone, you would've written a note entitled "cellphones, people, and driving", right? So your disclaimer means nothing.

And I didn't say you said that "women are not as good at multitasking as men"... that was me who said that, and it was a question to the group about whether or not that was a recognized theory established through the scientific method. I recall that being an established theory, and was wondering if anyone could substantiate it.

Well, I think your message might possibly be correct, but it sounds as if your motives for the message are basically stereotypical. One woman pissing you off at a light does not equal "women suck at driving and talking on cellphones".

Is it not an established theory that women are not as good at multitasking as men? I believe it's been successfully tested across cultures and age groups, in the same boat as "women are better at short and long term memory" and "men are better with spatial relationships".

You should always begin a voicemail with 1) your name, 2) your callback number, and 3) the time you called (unless your vm system logs that automatically.)

After that, you can talk for as long as you like. Because I, for one, will not listen to anything past those first three items. And because if you need to jot down the number, you don't want to miss it and have to go back through another 2 minutes of drivel to get to it again.

I would perhaps suggest to her that she leave messages in that manner, so both parties can be happy: your coworkers can get the information they need, and she can feel important by leaving 3 minute messages that no one will listen to.

A platonic lady friend of mine used to give me manicures because she thought it was fun. And it turned out that all the girls I was with during that time (ok, by "all" I mean three) thought it was awesome, because let's face it, if you're gonna be sticking your digits somewhere where the sun don't shine, wouldn't it be more comfortable if they were clean and smooth like a dildo, rather than all scraggly and cut up like a dried-up sausage that maggots had been picking at?

And that is what makes you a man's man for having a manicure.

My only beef is the inconsistency... if one is so quick to mock another for not drinking, one better feel the same way about every other drug, because almost all of them are less dangerous to others and more effective, and plenty of them are safer for you personally.

About fifteen years ago, comedian/philosopher Bill Hicks had this to say to people who snub their noses at you for smoking pot or shooting heroin, yet think drinking is totally acceptable:

"I just cannot believe in a war against drugs when they've got anti-drug commercials on TV all day long, followed by, 'This Bud's for you.' I got news for you, folks. A-1: alcohol is a drug, and B-2: and here's the real one- alcohol kills more people than crack, coke and heroin... combined each year. So, thanks for inviting me to your little alcoholic drug den here tonight. You fine, upstanding citizens- wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now... you know what, if I was going to have a drug be legal, it would not be alcohol; you know why? There's better drugs and better drugs for you. That's a fact, so you can stop your internal dialogue. Wait a minute, Bill, alcohol is an accepted form of social interaction which for thousands of years has been the norm under which human beings have congregated in the form of social events and... Shut the fuck up. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you."

Halloween party at college. Girl walks by on her way to the bathroom, double fisting two cups of beer.

"Hey there... can you hold these beers for me for a sec?"
"Hi... yeah sure."

5 minutes later...

"Thanks hon... you handled those cups pretty well."
"Why yes, I believe I did."
"So how do you feel about handling some c-cups?"

Aaaaaaand bedroom.

Later, herpes.

Um, I didn't even notice the running tally on Notes until now. But now that I have... dun dun duuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Actually, I agree that something should be done about it if it's going to stick around... I'm not a fan of rankings, but if you're gonna have it, it should be based on the quantity/quality of conversation that the post generates, rather than the amount of posts someone makes. To give people incentive to just say anything is invariably promoting watered-down content.

1. No
2. N/A
3. http://www.cuttingwithwater.com/posts/rants/11_1_06_voting.php