kvnchrist

Well, I'm using Firefox as well. The site was down pretty much the whole day for maintenanvce. They probably did an upgrade which can cause some problems. Hopefully they can get it fixed shortly. I have all the faith in the world wityh the staff here.

For some reason I can't see any posts in the lounge at all. Is there something amiss here. Thank you.

Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are well intentioned, but poorly implime Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them. Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000. You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement. If an employer MUST look at race, in their hiring practices, that IS discrimination. I have had direct experience with this. I applied for a job that I figgered I was a shoe-in for. The qualifications exactly matched my skill set, and not many folks applied for the job. A man of color, with LESS experience, LESS training, and NO work experience got the job...... and got paid more per hour than I had asked for. In a private conversation I had with one of the hiring managers, I was TOLD, FLAT OUT, that he got the job, because they needed "more diversity in their workforce" due to some government regulation. Affirmative action is discrimination against the white man. Business should be able to hire the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job, regardless of their race. Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are fine sounding and well intentioned, but as I say, poorly implimented. It creates an agenda of percentages that needs to be adhered to or the work finds itself in jepardy of a lawsuit. The frequency of reverse prejudism law suits have made that clear. If we are going to get rid of descrimination we are not going to do it by creating a new set of victims.

Having equal rights is a good thing but I think the more important thing in this matter is equal opportunities. Programs like Affirmative action and the like was not structured to bring people rights, but to correct the perceived discrepancies in the workplace as far as White male and everyone else. The problem is that you can't burden young white males because of the past sins of a culture they had no hand in building. Suddenly their were agendas and quotas, instead of raw talent. I'm not saying that only the white males had raw talent, that would be absurd, but allowing a person who's grades are worse than yours to step in front of you is patently unfair and personally I think is against the equal protection lause in the constitution. While, like many Democratic legislation are well intended by poorly administered. Instead of correcting anything, all it really did was create a whole new generation of victims. I think this is what this article is all about

Kinda like what just happened with civil unions and opposite sex couples here. I think you actually have to be same sex to be able to do it. imo non gay couples should be able to do it too. Lets make some equal rights stuff, but forget about the equal rights stuff. durr. Happens all over the shop. What's needed is equal opportunity to advance according to individual desires and skills. The thing about the government is that they don't correct a problem, they overwhelm a problem, which causes more problems down the road to fix.

Only if the social norm allow you to do so. The truest form of freedom is an open mind, but superstitions, prejudices and the ever present element of the unknown often deminish it's power. Even if their effects are temporary they might just cost you an opportunity that will never return.

Yes you have a freedom to breath, but if you breath in more than air, lets say Cigarette smoke would you have the freedom to exhale in a room of people or would you have the responsibility to exhale outside in order to ensure the freedom of others not to breath in second hand smoke. this is only one example of what I mean as far a being responsible with the freedoms you have.

Sorry I fixed the link. For some reason it doesn't like the [ur] coding here. Thank you.l

I was deep in a discussion about violence using guns and a person posted this very interesting link on there . It was completely ignored by those more interested in bickering about gun ownership than dealing with the reason for the violence and I was wondering what you guys think about this. Shouldn't progress be enjoyed by everybody in society? Please don't turn this into another fiasco about guns. Please discuss the issue behind the rise of violent behavior and how society can confront and hopefully eliminate it as much as possible. Thank you! link fixed. sorry. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/guns-and-the-decline-of-the-young-man/?src=me&ref=general

If freedom is a right then shouldn't be given to everyone and if so then what precautions should free people place on themselves to guarantee that their freedom doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others? If there are precautions that free people need to observe to ensure that all people are free then should it be called a freedom or a responsibility?

I've now seen so many cases of people pirating the games we discuss here and come here with no concept of crime that they've just perpetrated and without hesitation ask for help fixing the problems they have with stolen property. What is wrong with the world that so many people think they are entitled to a corporations intellectual property, without compensating that corporation for their efforts, by buying their products and services? Rightfully so, they are immediately banned from the site, but Is there not safeguards that these companies can place inside their software that would alert them to computers who are illegally using their software? I mean, tracing it's use could, hopefully lead corporations back to the source of their loss or at least allow them to find out who is dispersing these pirated copies. The record companies have been fighting this for a while. Shouldn't software companies follow suit?

I got up this morning up in Minneapolis, Mn and took off froim there about 02:30 in the morning, heading East across the twin cities. I reached Wisconsin about 45 minutes later and took a 2 hour break in a rest area just over the border. I got up again just after 6 and started making my way towards Chicago and like 1000 times before I witnessed the awe and majesty of the beginning of a brand new day. I could see the pine trees marching in endless rows as I passed them mile after mile and the canopy of the early dawn turning from the deepest purple flowing into a light blue. thin lines clouds lined the horizon like the last guardians of night and I watched as their dark lines lightened and were set afire by the glow of the coming dawn. Around my I could see the deposits of a previous snowfall cover every part of the ground not covered in asphalt. It spread out over the median strip and covered the ground on either side of the 4-lane highway. There wasn't much traffic around me and even through the warm air blowing from the heater you could still feel the sparkly chill of the air outside. Though I never have loved the cold, i could not ignore the feeling of being alive that it imbibed my spirit with. There's something about the cold chill of a wintery snow that giving me an intense rush and far more exhilaration than any Summer day has ever done. I was just wondering wither you guys were a winter person or a Summer person and possibly hear a tale or two of how you feel about the season you prefer.

Is it best to shield them from the quote/unquote Evils of the world, as the lining of an electrical cable or should we instill an understanding of the the world around them and answer their questions as openly and honestly, without bias as possible? If shielded, at what age should a child be exposed to controversial life situations, such as sexuality and politics? How far should society be able to go to expand the experience of a child as opposed to the wishes of the parent?

Sorry. i have no recollection of any such topic and have no intention to start one here. This was about the responsibility of the parents and those who don't step up to the plate. The rest was just thread drift.

A leader does not have to be a ruler. If your ability as a leader is so little that you need the iron fist of authority and coercion to lead your people then you are no leader. And more than that, if you as a leader are so fearful that you will try and force your position regardless of what the people think of you and want of you, then you are, again, no leader. I didn't think I was talking about a tyrant or a control freak of some type. I was talking about the basic structure of social groups and the propensity for those more affluent to evolve into a leadership position. That really doesn't strike me as tyrannical, but in some cases does occur. I was wondering if the formation of such an individual constitutes the basic form of a government. They would not need to have physical, just be persuasive, Is it not human nature to collect into groups and if so, would not the formation of said group work against the concept of anarchy?

Parents who think that games make children violent will find any excuse to mitigate their failures.

Some peoples idea of parenting! http://t.imgbox.com/acoEZqGH.jpg

Maybe I'm a little confused, but isn't it the nature of society to have some sort of leadership to at least speak for the group. Is this not a governing body at it's most basic terms. It's not the size and shape of a national government, but if Anarchy is eradicated at the most basic social groups, could it survive anywhere at any time. Maybe I've got this wrong, but it's how I perceive the issue here.Thank you

In what reality does browbeating opponents with ones opinions of others opinions grant anyone credibility.

Again you are assuming the worst. Did I say anything about institutionalizing them. When I say acting strangely, i don't mean people talking to themselves. I mean doing really anti social things like killing a dog with a pipe or screaming at people at the top of your lungs that come close enough to step on your property.

What do you when you identify someone as being "strange"? you can't start locking people up for what they might do unless they're certifiable. The thought of people reporting their friends and neighbours for acting differently is frightening, it's reminiscent of the old East Germany. People need to accept that these things happen, we can't create a perfectly safe society that is also free, the result of watching and controlling people is a police state. Who said anything about locking anyone up? I said identify strange behavior, which would give the authorities a heads up a potential time bomb. At least they can look and see if these people need help and get them what they need. as a plus they may just be able to see if the person is a gun owner.

From all accounts I've heard the guy was a consummate jerk. He killed a neighbor's dog with a pipe and threatened just about everyone around him. I don't necessarily see a anti anything guy. I see somebody that thought only about himself and took drastic measures to get the attention and recognition he thought he deserved. I can see no other reason in the world for this type of behavior since no one was taking anything from him and he wasn't on anyone's radar until he acted out this little scenario. Of course Timothy Mc Vey was never on anyone's radar screen either, but he had traceable ties to militia groups . The one thing about Mc Vey was he never showed emotion at any time all the way through his trial and even up to the time he was executed.I don't think you can say this bunker guy didn't show emotion. More like too much emotion and Mc Vey Assaulted a government building and the people inside were secondary. This guy went after a school bus to get a hostage to hold that would bring attention to himself. I don't see any statement in that other than. "Screw you this is all about me and you are going to listen to me. " All this, "he's and anti government conservative wack job is simply more partisan rhetoric which is exactly what this country doesn't need any more of. It's fractured enough as it is and to continue such unsubstantiated statements only fuels the fire that this country is burning in. This is not about God, guns or country. In my opinion it was about a self destructive person who pushed everybody away and then hated the fact that no on paid attention to him, so he got that attention. I'm just glad that it ended with that child not being laid to rest like the heroic bus driver who was the only real trajedy in this entire fiascal. The problem with this is the problem with us as a country. We tend not to get involved in situations until it is too late. We simply don't want to get evolved and by our own inaction we allow these people to exhibit wildly crazy activities that go unreported. this guy, everybody knew was crazy as a bed bug. Infact if you look back at all these gun tragedies you will see a pattern of action by every one of these perpetrators. They all acted cravy and people just looked the other way. That is up until their craziness intersected with the ability to posses firearms and then lives were lost. Shouldn't we be doing the same thing with everybody that the government asked us to do with foreigners after 9/11? Shouldn't we be reporting strange behavior so we can identify this lunatics before they act.? NO it's best not to get involved. Yeah, right! Sarcasm alert,,,,,Woop, Woop!

Is there a mod specifically for Wood Elves to make them easier on the eyes? I use the UNPB body and already use the Life mod as well as others which makes all the characters far better looking. I know there is one specifically for the Dark Elf but I've seen absolutely nothing specific for Bosmers. By the way I play Skyrim.

I've been playing The Elder Scrolls for as long as I can remember and Elves, especially Wood Elves have always been some of the ugliest characters in the franchise. I love the game system and highly promote it to everyone who asks but Elves looking less fair than Humans and well on the way to looking like tuskless orcs has always irritated me.

Is insecurity a valuable trait to have to provide the humility in human interactions?