Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - CaptDMO

3931
Um....... Iraq is in debt to the world for HOW MUCH?
           Iraq has precious little in the way of GNP to offer. Let's say for example-crude oil. How much of the profits from that went to the PEOPLE of Iraq?
 55 Billion to rebuild Iraq? FOR WHAT? I guess mercs dont come cheep. That, of course, is an old number.
And, In My Humble Opinion-
 Neither the U.N., nor Christian Aid, ought to be throwing stones from the parapets of their crystal castles.
3932
Quote from: "Titurel"
Here's an interesting excerpt from a new book by feminist/author Rebecca Walker (daughter of Alice Walker) about societal expectations about masculinity and manhood. Thought-provoking....

quote]

Thanks for the publishers excerpt, now,
What about the REST of the book?
What's YOUR opinion?
Is there a better direct link? (I found navigating the Advocate site archives annoyingly awkward.)
3933
Main / FAQ
Jul 08, 2004, 08:11 PM
Um...Welll......for example
So I did a little(well, alot actually) background on a forum subject.
I can't see giving up the bussiness Email address of the subject in question under the FAQ "Where the hell is this guy so I can trash him" .
My point is;  There may be shakey ground on this. I have to agree with MacKenzies' opinion on this
3934
AAAAGH
Now I AM ticked. Turns out Dr. Sebastian Kraemer is quite a fellow in the Psych world of England.By that I mean kinda like the level of -HRH Society of "Don't F%#K with Me Man"! -Definately worth looking at his previous stuff (fairly consistant). Perhaps an invitation to discuss on this forum( with assurance of non-slaughter conduct) would be the gentlemans thing to do.
I have seen how his stuff has been a bit mangled on the journey from presentation, to news report, to web posting, to forum.

How I truly hate to be on the wrong end of "I told you so....."
3935
Without doubt, my favorite-

Quote
He said that if baby boys were treated more like baby girls they would be better at self-control. "Boys would act more like girls, not in a feminine way but more like a girl in that they would be better able to hold themselves together," he said.


I truly hate to see this kind of stuff as it only means one thing. Now I have to research things like
A full transcript
History of previous papers, citations,etc.
Tenure status
Peer review, if any, before publication( this soon after is tough)
Time since last book
English media response, and of course,
Credentials  (combat medics know what I mean)

At first read I say BUNK of course and can only ascribe Dr. Kraemers apparent expertise in Attention Deficit Disorder to the purpose behind this exibition .

3936
Main / Women Are Morally Superior to Men
Jul 08, 2004, 12:09 PM
While there are certainly problems in the Chicago FD  that need addressing my concerns lie in this:

Why did Cook County Board Prez. appoint Sheila Murphy to the Mikva commission?What are the qualifications there?
Attorney Dan Katin refered to JUDGEMurphy, if this is indeed the case, should all cases presided over by her be examined for simular attitudes of stupidity?

In My Humble Opinion
The Chicago Sun did NOT serve as cheerleader IN THIS PIECE. In fact, the article concludes with two femal survivers attorneys offering polite but clear rebutal to commission member Sheila Murphys unhelpful political platform.
In this case I believe that reporters Fran Spielman and Annie Sweenie should be given kudos for exposing feminist agenda crap in yet another place it just doesn't belong-lest it be just "given a pass"
3937
Main / What is greater violattion?
Jul 07, 2004, 09:14 PM
I'm afraid I must beg the question-

Reword, expand, or add context. Otherwise-In My Humble Opinion-
you're just baiting for some preveiously unknown species of deep sea fish with that one.

My choice ,as presented, Return the question for further consideration
3938
So, if I understand the thread,  is there a consensus of -Yes to antidisestablishmentarianism with the patriarchal status quo?



(HA,.... try...JUST TRY, to slip THAT word into casual conversation! I"ve been wating YEARS!)
3939
Main / OH LORD, HERE WE GO AGAIN!!
Jul 07, 2004, 08:20 PM
Oh?

Where have you heard this before?
So...... this has come up with you alot?
I'm not sure, .........What have you heard about this?
Gee....you sound versed in this subject. What is the conventional wisdom here?
Oh,...I'm sorry, I thought you might be interested in this equal rights stuff.
Again?... It hasn't  been resolved YET!

This ought to get you started. I hope you can come up with better bridges to disscussion than mine as these are a little on the stale side, cliche, and women are quite familiar with their use  as  
casual introductions to "WARNING-word twisting will be needed here"
exchanges.
   A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT IN SOCIOLOGICAL OBSERVATION re; "(insert exclamitory here),HERE WE GO AGAIN"
  If one hears this from a masculine sorce-are they "proclaiming" their readyness to make their point, and looking right at you?
 If one hears this from a feminine source -is it "wailed" like a battle cry, and the speaker PHYSICLY looking desperately to others for support-even if no one else is there?
("proclaiming" and "wailed" subject to percieved tone nuance of course)

In all fairness, I've found that the former case comes from a position of surity and the latter case comes from a position of sophistry-regardless of gender.
I've also found it to be an omnigender, universal case amongst ALL my friends- whenever I start anything with "When I was young......"
3940
Sorry about the unnessissarily long bla..blah...blah. But lest I find myself saddled with  "out of context"...............
3941
Quote from: "LSBeene"
You guys are missing a big part of this:

Does ANYONE see ANYWHERE in that bill ANY provision to protect men from women who come here to goldig or to dump their husbands?



Steven


Shirly! You jest?
NOTE- SECTIONS ONLY

SEC. 8. GOOD FAITH MARRIAGES.
The fact that an alien who is in the United States on a visa under clause (i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)) is aware of the criminal background of a client (as defined in section 652 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (8 U.S.C. 1375)) cannot be used as evidence that the marriage was not entered into in good faith.

`(c) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER WITH RESPECT TO INFORMED CONSENT- An international marriage broker shall not provide any personal contact information about any foreign national client, not including photographs, to any person unless and until the international marriage broker has--
`(1) provided the foreign national client with information in his or her native language that explains the rights of victims of domestic violence in the United States, including the right to petition for residence independent of, and without the knowledge, consent, or cooperation of, the spouse; and
`(2) received from the foreign national client a signed consent to the release of such personal contact information.

(2) the requirement that international marriage brokers provide foreign national clients with responses of clients to questions regarding the client's domestic violence history and marital history, but that such information may not be accurate;

(3) the right of an alien who is or whose children are subjected to domestic violence or extreme cruelty by a United States citizen spouse or legal permanent resident spouse, to self-petition for legal permanent immigration status under the Violence Against Women Act independently of, and without the knowledge, consent, or cooperation of, such United States citizen spouse or legal permanent resident spouse;

 The formula for gold digging, fraudulent immigration, and legal protection of it is all right there!
Not to mention-In My Humble Opinion- new rules in DIRECT CONFLICT with the oft cited "ones past dosen't matter" crap that is founding logic for current "Rape shield laws" that only apply to females.

`(B) Any court ordered restriction on physical contact with another person, including any temporary or permanent restraining order or civil protection order.
`(C) Marital history, including if the person is currently married, if the person has previously been married and how many times, how previous marriages were terminated and the date of termination, and if the person has previously sponsored an alien to whom the person has been engaged or married.
`(D) The ages of any and all children under the age of 18.
`(E) All States in which the client has resided since the age of 18.
3942
Main / Want to have some fun debate?
Jul 06, 2004, 02:32 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
LOL - good one cap-i-tan.  But wahyyyyiii ...hee hee.

Anyways, I was under the impression that the fence post in question was Kiata.  :lol:


(sheesh,philistines![2])  The post immidiatly after the one I referanced was from someone called Kiata responding to what I had written even though she was not invited nor addressed in the body. I made no FACTUAL referances to any one person as a fencepost, nor was the referance clearly comparing ANY persons' emotional depth with a fence post.
The response to what I had writen invited me to share my views and went on to opine I cast aspersions- to EXACTLY what was  not clear.  I only hope IGNORING the UNSOLICITED Personal ATTACK on my views, and not deeming Kiatas' invitation to IMPLIED INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE prevoking, was not offensive to the tenets of COMMON COURTESY.
 I was forced to conclude (and I can understand how other educated folk may also conclude) that Kiata MAY have felt I was refering to some oneor perhaps someones metyod of logical adult discourse in the thread I made the effort to include SPECIFICLY those to whom MAY have, on some other planet, even remotely deemed any aspersion may have been directed to them. I JUST HAPPENED, BY THE MEREST OF COINCIDENCE, to have chosen this forum to do so.

So you see Sir, my point is this. I might of simply posted "NO S&$% SHERLOCK" to your dasterdly implication that I may risk GREAT PERSONAL INJURY to my character by demeaning others - comparing their thought process and cranial composition to .....say..... "with an IQ of a fencepost" [1]. But I prefer to demonstrate that one can go on at length and say nothing without loss of civility in hopes that any that MAY have found that- the shoe SEEMS to be a comfortable fit -and ASSUMED I meant them personally, MAY visit this forum, shut the f$%k up,and stay and learn, to speak their own minds-not the stooge taught ,zanie (sp,zany) antics dictated by others.

Now, would that whole entry rate as "Holy....What a crock of..." while maintaning deniability, alleviating any personal responsability, and maintaining decorum?

1. Tom Waites(sp)-"The Piano Has Been Drinking"
2. Calvin in "Calvin And Hobbs" by Bill Watterson

I thank you....I thank you.....I'll be here all week!
          Geoffery Chaucer in the movie "A Knights Tale"
3943
Main / Want to have some fun debate?
Jul 06, 2004, 09:41 AM
Um....My name is CaptDMO......I am a trouble maker......

(crowd-in unison......Hi Capt....)
 

I have been accused of casting aspersions toward others
http://forums.about.com/ab-womensissues/messages?msg=2743.83
Let it be known that I apologise for what MAY have been MISINTERPRETED as aspersions toward LS, Sir J, and Shoalinwannabe. I'm sorry I questioned your serenity in public forum.


As an explination I can only offer this. SHEESH, YOU'RE HUNTING FISH IN A BARREL WITH GRENADES OVER THERE.
While I understand the nessissity to expose blather for what it is I believe that once one elicits the "I know you are but what am I"  and the "wahyyyyi?......................but wahyyyi...............but wahyyyyi" syndrome of the infantile it becomes .....ungentlemanly...to repeatedly flail the offender with logic and appropriate discourse, For shame!


BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh my!*phew*........(snark)*SIGH*.......sometimes I'm amaze MYSELF at how thick I can lay it on.