For an expert like yourself who thinks avoiding bad links in your IM client is full protection for a business network storing vital customer information, those should be a piece of cake.
hmm? oh I'm sorry you say something? Even if I answer that dumb question, you'll just say I googled it-and that seems to be wrong with you.
Umm... You ARE wrong. My insulting you doesn't change that.
Oh and I suppose you're right. If you were right you wouldn't be so afraid to talk in real time.
And I'll take care of your pathetic excuses now
1) ohh butzors itze givzez me the spyware!!!!!
The only real spyware that aim gives you is a piece called "viewpoint" (not to be confused with viewpoint media player) which can easily be uninstalled. The fact is many companies (larger than yours) use instant messenger for the employees to communicate (like my company, my bosses company-he's a consultant for one of the biggest companies in the world as well, and they use IM regularly).
2) I dont have ze timezrez
If you have time to read these long posts and respond to them with your stupidity, do your real job (if you have one), and still be a fansubber, you gave time to talk on IM.
3) I do not wantzez to installz nething!!!!
Uhhh, express messenger anyone? A third rate consultant/counseler whatever probably wouldn't know anything about it.
4) I wantzez everyonz to seee dissss
That's fine, you can post the entire conversation here and every other message board on the net if you want. There is this little thing called cut-copy-paste.
Antok's real reason wrote:
5) I'm an old man and my brain doesn't work the way it used to so I'll be too slow to keep up and will probably make a fool of myself. I need lots and lots of time to come up with these dumb posts, which are pretty much just insults and differently worded repeats.
ehhh, sorry can't help you there. Eat bananas I heard they make your brain faster.
myself wrote:What low opinions? If you mean the remark I made about people being spoiled, it was not meant towards women, it was meant towards anyone who thinks money is not important in life (and that love and all that other stuff is more important). It's obvious these people never had money troubles so they don't think much about what life would be like without it, if that is not spoiled I don't know what is.
ummm ... yeah. Read my first post and ignore my second. That one I talked about the unconscious and the studies done, the one directed at nadesico and the one following that was directed at spoiled people, which could be why they seemed more vindictive than the first.
As I said I don't like people condescending those that are poor by saying money is not important, or it means nothing. This is my opinion.
but wait, this reminds me of a similar situation. Someone here made a joke about the fansubbers and you being the vindictive ass your are... well acted like a vindictive ass and started BSing about no tolerance or some garbage.
And don't start saying **** about how its not the same, it is. You're more sensative to people criticizing the fansubbers, so even if to others it seems as nothing more than a joke, to you it seemed like an insult. The same with me with people saying money means nothing. To me it's condescending those that don't have it.
Tell you what, to show I'm fair and compromising, from now on, you stay away from topics where people say something about the fansubbers, I'll stay away from topics where people talk about money. But considering you're nothing more than an ass who can do nothing but curse and paraphrase, I'm guessing you'll say no.
Lessee, in these, you appear to be saying that love is not, and by extension, never more important than money and that anyone who thinks so must be a spoiled brat who's never had money problems or had to pay their own way, am I wrong there? Doubt it.
If you feel that money is the be-all and end-all most important thing, then realize that that is only YOUR belief, and not necessarily true for others.
Frankly, I feel that people like you who appear to deem money more important are the real losers.
Funny, didn't you come and start pushing YOUR beliefs about love in the first topic I saw you? Saying that scientists are wrong and that love is a field of bunnies etc. Guess what, that's YOUR belief, but that didn't stop you from being an ass and say that all those studies were nothing more than crap did it?
And you're wrong about what I said. I say that people who say money isn't important are spoiled brats who never had to worry about it. I never said it's the most important thing in the world (but it's definitely in the top 5 IMHO).
I never said anything about Morgaine's post, nor anything about angeizahoy's post-and both of their's was before nadesico's.
To me nadesico's post was condescending and spoiled (just like that others person's joke post about the fansubbers was offensive to you), deal with it.
Oh, and if you pull the " I don't think money's more important, they do" card, then by your own admission, you feel that pretty much everyone else is a money-grubbing little hound. Either way you look at it, you're wrong. (and btw, I never use ADD as an excuse for not grasping the concept of a long post. Neither should you.)
so you mean hospital's, grocery stores, fast food places, clothing stores, books stores, restaurants, movie theatres, buses, cabs, subways, universities, landlords all don't think money is important? Or are you saying it's just possible to live without all that? Sounds to me like you're just rambling-old me do that.
Oh lookie, kota discovered the "green gene", yay!! *ahem..*
The genetic programming you've been so incorrectly misappropriating appear to be the ones dealing with the tendency (note the word tendency, it's important.) for the female of a species to want to mate with the most dominant male she can find for both protection and to continue the propagation of the species. As I said before (look, there's that phrase again!) monetary values are a learned, societal value. Your little X and Y chromosomes don't know a dollar from a dildo.
Great, you learned evolution 101, want a candy or something?
Yes, genetics can be modified by environment, but according to studies, men and women truly are different even from birth. They looked at many families where boys and girls were raised completely equally and saw that their personalities were what they expected of boys and girls.
Yes, monetary values are learned from society, but knowing that you need resources to survive is more innate.
Oh, and please forgive me for not phrasing that correctly. From now on I'll use the words "innate survival instincts". Is that better for you, you grammar whore.
Insult? With every post you make, you show yourself to be an even more unthinking, assumptive ass than you did before. Of course that's only my opinion. Hate to think you'd misconstrue that I put that out there as a fact.
Oh, wait! If I truly feel that you are an assumptive ass, then that thought is a fact for me. If others feel you're the "enlightened one", then in their eyes, that would be a fact as well. Gee, aren't "facts" easy to manipulate?
Is your brain fried old man? That was the dumbest thing you ever wrote. Yes, it is your opinion. But if you can scientifically back up your opinion and get it accepted as general scientific fact, I'll believe you and tell everyone I'm an unthinking assumptive ass, deal?
And yet another inane insult about my computer skills? That's OK. it's about as "factual" as the rest of your post. As far as your being "misinterpreted"? Is that the word you use for people who don't get or agree with your point of view? Real-time or not, that isn't going to change.
Actually it is very easy to misinterpret things with simple text (remember that more than 80% of communication is non verbal, so simple words can be interpreted many ways if there is no facial expression, sound epression etc).
Oh, and where did you get the number 34 from? Just curious.
I thought you said you were 34, once. My mistake. guess you're even older then.
No, that long, drawn-out post is simply saying that you act like a presumptuous, rude little prick who tends to put down anyone else who posts a thought or opinion on a subject that doesn't agree with yours. Others have valid opinions and experiences. The fact that you regularly put them down and try to belittle them supports that argument.
That's your opinion.
But this brings back a memory, weren't you the one who said you should humiliate people on the internet to get them thinking correctly? Did you mean thinking like you? Hmmm, so much for the whole "everyone has their own opinions crap huh old man". I guess the real definition of that is "everyone who antok thinks is correct is allowed to have their own thoughs and opinions". Well, which is it?
Did you take the red or the blue pill before typing that one?
The red one. An old man would make an old joke like that.
As far as your "scientific one" being "backed up by tons of research", yada, yada, um... No. Not at all. Your biggest failure in that one is in the fact that you totally misinterpret the results of these studies,and the rest of your crap.
Hmmm you know for someone who keeps claiming that other people make too many assumptions, you make just as many. How do you know I misinterpreted it? How do you know what I even read? Oh yes, that's right you assumed it. My guess is you have no idea. I would talk about it with you in real time-because that is waaaaay easier, but alas your old man brain wouldn't be able to keep up in real time so you keep refusing.
It's ok, just say, "I'm old, I'm scared, and need a lot of time to come up with my crap" and I'll never ask you again.
Anyway, do some research and see how much they actually discovered and how much real world testing they actually did. Is this 100% fact? Of course not. nothing is ever 100%. Is it pretty damn close? maybe... but I can promise you one thing, they're a lot closer to the truth than you'll ever be. Before retorting with you "I don't believe it" crap, do some research and learn a little about the thing you're dismissing-wait I guess you can't because you're so busy, I mean you're too busy to even talk in real time right? you only have time to come here read and write long drawn out boring posts from what I see.
Actually, it's based on your responses in several (read: nearly all) of your responses to people in the relationships threads. Don't act like this is the first time I've called you out on this.
Well aren't I the popular one. what you're in love with me or something?
Fine I won't act that way, if you don't act like you weren't a vindictive ass the very first time you talked to me (before I made all those posts that you like to read so much). Oh yes, that's right, your theory of "having to humiliate people in order to get them to think correctly (the way you want them)", how could I have forgotten.
Now how in the hell do you get that she's a spoiled brat from that post?
Your "people who have no experience really should not butt in, the only thing you're doing is setting others back." response to her was uncalled-for, incorrect, unmitigated bullshit. Period. Can you honestly tell me that you weren't assuming a ton about her in that one? If so, you're delusional.
What's your point? I saw it as condescending to poor people, just like you saw that other post condescending to fansubbers-even though others might have seen it as nothing more than a joke. And yes, it is equivalent, don't say it's not.
OK, here's something to think about (and I'm not being mean in this part, honest...)
First, look at which women you're putting your ideas out there to. It's bound to be a small group, and by nature, unreliable in a statistical sense. Law of Large Numbers ring a bell? Then add to that that what you're suggesting is 1: Different from what they usually hear, and 2: Given the nature of the girls you usually encounter, offers them some justification for any greedy behavior they may have, so they'll be more inclined to support it.
Ok, this is why I want to talk in real time. You assume, that I think all women are gold diggers, am I correct? and then you assume all the women I encountered are gold diggers (look who's assuming now).
Once again, read my first post. I wrote, you need to have it to appeal to their "innate survival instinct" (better?) but you don't necessarily have to spend it on them. And that surprise gifts were ok. god, do you only read what you want to?
You seem to have started taking all my posts and mixing and matching them, only commenting on things you want.
Those are the action of a vindictive ass (you).
Once again, the first post was scientific (and yes I tried it in reality myself, it's true) and had nothing to do with my response to nadesico. If you think it does, well you're the one who's assuming now aren't you (and if you give me that whole "this is the internet, you weren't clear excuse. well, like I said there's always real time).
I do agree that people who are well-off telling poor people that money is unimportant are generally hypocritical snobs, but not always. Frankly, for someone well-off, money may very well be relatively unimportant to them, whereas for someone who's eating out of a dumpster it can be a lifeline. Those are societal though, not genetic. (Survival instinct is for the food and shelter that the money can provide, but not the money directly)
Frankly, my feelings about your assumptive-assedness aside, I truly feel that your biggest misconception is that people's emotions and behavior are ruled by our DNA. You also appear to believe (note the word "appear") that everyone has about the same "emotional DNA makeup", for want of a better phrase. The fact is, everyone has a unique make-up, and you tend to paint a wall of absolutes around it, while even the researchers who's work you're so fond of qouting will tell you that at best, certain traits can be predicted, but that it would be impossible and incorrect to apply it to everyone.
I am sorry for my wrong use of the word. from now on, I'll use "innate survival instinct", good?
You know, for someone who comes out insisting that others have a lack of experience and don't live in the "real world", you seem to couch your ideas much more in the "test-tube world" than the "real world."
Used it myself in the real world, worked every time.
My lovely lady and I are doing just fine, thanks. So how's that three-way with your palm and the KY Jelly working out???
I don't even know what that is, but if things are working out so fine, why do you?
Right. Too bad these ideas are simply your assumptions and interpretations of said studies. Also too bad that you appear to think that people are ruled by their DNA and their hormones, and have little, if any, free will of their own. Gee, wasn't there a study or two somewhere that discussed one of the differences between humans and the majority of animals being man's critical thinking and judgement and ability to go beyond instinct and the like?
Yes, our curiosity is definitely one of the major things that separates us from the animals (although some believe it's only our opposable thumbs, not gonna get into that though).
In some cases yes you do go above and beyond your instincts, but it's not the norm when it comes to attraction (except for the extremes or anomalies of course). According to study, and my own real life perspective.
Silly boy, love and attraction are about the most unscientific things you can talk about, so no matter how many studies, tests, etc. that you dig around for won't change that anytime soon.
Silly old man, the studies were based on hundreds of thousands of real life human experiments. No one said they were 100% accurate, but they're much closer than anything you know.
As far as being able to "read between the lines", and "learn how people feel" being important things for someone looking to understand human emotion, let alone counsel anyone else? Oh Lord, who would be silly enough to think that those things matter a bit when dealing with people's feelings and emotions? Gosh, that idea is just insane!!!!!
(hmm... is sarcasm genetic as well?)
silly old men must have problem with their eyes, so he can't read very well.
Okay let me explain and I will use big words to explain this so your old man brain can pick up on them ok?
I was saying that you are very bad at reading between the lines. You only "read between the lines" when it's convenient for you to make yourself seem right. You obviously couldn't read between the lines in my post to nadesico could you, but then again you weren't able to read the plain text I wrote either, oh well...