here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-05-27 09:26:24] - Paul: but the libertarian's zero chance of being elected has nothing to do with the fact that money is not a factor for them. -dave

[2004-05-27 09:26:00] - Dave: See, I figure most of them are making money in ways that don't require their attention, like stock options and the like, and so a $150k government job would be icing on the cake. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:25:14] - Dave: Libertarians do not have a fair chance of being elected at all. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:24:31] - Aaron: It encourages people to apply for the job, yes. What I'm saying is that it will encourage all types of people, good and bad. If the job was low paying, I think it would attract people who are there because they want the job whereas if the job was high-paying, it might attract greedy people. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:22:41] - But that's basically what you're saying, right? Pay politicians less, so that more qualified people will apply to become a politician? - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:22:28] - Paul: Ahhh, ok. Point of disagreement then. I think they all made more before being elected. -dave

[2004-05-27 09:21:50] - Paul: well that's very noble of those people, but in the current system, those people also have a fair chance to be elected, so if they are really so good, they will win anyways -dave

[2004-05-27 09:21:22] - paul: If you make a position pay more, doesn't that usually encourage? I can't think of any other job where it would be logical to say, "This position should be paid less, so that it will attract better people to fill it" - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:21:17] - Dave: But I'm guessing most of them are making more money while being an elected official than not being an elected official. Besides, how many people do you think would be deterred from running for ofice simply because of money when they get elected? I don't think many.  -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:19:45] - Aaron: I don't know if I expressed that right. Basically I meant to say that I think I have a greater respect for money (and hence am less likely to accept a bribe) than somebody like Bush or Kerry, who might see it more as a tool to use to gain power more than I would. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:19:45] - Paul: I don't think paying them is going to attract bad ones rather than good ones, for the simple fact that probably 99% of the current legislators made much more money before they became legislators. This entails that money was probably not a factor in their decision at all -dave

[2004-05-27 09:18:36] - Aaron: Possibly. But I think a person's moral character is more important than their wealth. Is a senator making $30k a year more likely to accept a multi-million dollar bribe from the NRA than a senator making $150k a year just because he is poorer? Or would he have more respect for money since he likely has to work harder for that $30k? -paul

[2004-05-27 09:16:35] - And these are elections that they don't even think they have a chance to win. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:16:16] - Dave: Given our current system, I still don't think we should be paying lawmakers. Actually, most of them probably don't need the salary to survive since a lot are wealthy already and I still think good candidates will find a way to run. A lot of libertarian candidates the pat few elections have quit their jobs to run for office. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:14:33] - paul: If you didn't pay congressmen any money, wouldn't that make them more susceptible to bribery? - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:14:25] - Dave: The problem is that paying people is more likely to attract "bad" legislators than good ones I think. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:11:27] - Paul: I guess it's kinda hard to reconcile your viewpoint to today's system, so it may be rather impractical to gauge your opinion on whether they should be paid so much -dave

[2004-05-27 09:10:06] - Paul: ahh, so no career lawmakers. Well, that makes sense since you don't like/want much govt at all. But given our current system, do you think the congressmen should be paid so much? -dave

[2004-05-27 09:09:03] - Paul: Hmmm, ok, I can understand your viewpoint then. My opinion would be that we want the best legislators possible, so we minimize the negatives as much as reasonably possible for people to become congressmen -dave

[2004-05-27 09:07:57] - I just don't like the concept of somebody making a career out of being a law-maker. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:06:42] - Dave: Well then that would significantly weed out people who would otherwise run for office. Which I think is probably a good thing. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:03:51] - Paul: Like say the congressman is a doctor, no one wants a doctor who is going to be gone 2/3 of the year -dave

[2004-05-27 09:03:08] - Paul: Like how many jobs would let you work only 1/3 of the year, or whatever it is? -dave

[2004-05-27 09:02:49] - Paul: ahh, but if it's a full-time position, then they really can't make a living as well as before -dave

[2004-05-27 09:02:03] - Dave: What do you mean, how do I justify it? How do you justify paying them? I say they make a living like everybody else, working at a job, instead of just stealing money from taxpayers. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:00:22] - Paul: So you really think they shouldn't get paid at all? How do you justify that? Don't they need to make a living somehow? -dave

[2004-05-27 09:00:05] - Paul: yeah, that may be true, that it is their fault. But I think that's a separate issue from whether they should get paid so much -dave

[2004-05-27 08:59:13] - And honestly, the reason why it might not work out today is mostly due to their own fault. They've made the government so big and complicated that it takes them so long to craft new legislation and figure out just what it does. -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:58:12] - Dave: Well, that's how it used to work. -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:56:59] - Paul: Yeah, I know they don't work all year round technically, but I guess my question is, is it still feasible for them to keep up their previous business / employment on the side -dave

[2004-05-27 08:55:34] - Paul: one could say that they should be doing it for ideals etc, but practically, I think forcing people to downgrade their lifestyle to such a great extent would be impractical -dave

[2004-05-27 08:54:40] - Dave: It used to be a part time job, and it still is in many respects (in that they don't work year round) but now the thinking is that it's more of a full time job (hence the term 'career politician') -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:54:35] - Paul: err, paid -dave

[2004-05-27 08:54:24] - Paul: Like who would become a congressman if it meant going from being paid $250k a year to being pad $30k ? -dave

[2004-05-27 08:53:55] - Paul: I'm not sure many would become congressman if they had to seriously live a significantly "poorer" lifestyle that what they had before -dave

[2004-05-27 08:53:20] - Paul: Well, if congressman can't keep their other jobs at the same time, I could see paying hem 150k. Just because invariably, they were all making tons of money before they became politicians - they all lived quite high-class lifestyles. -dave

[2004-05-27 08:52:14] - Paul: In other words, is being a congressman a fulltime job? Or is it kinda like a part-time position, where you can also still work at your previous job? -dave

[2004-05-27 08:51:38] - Dave: I don't think politicians should be getting paid at all, but I'm sure people are going to disagree with me. -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:51:34] - Paul: Some would definitely say that is way too much. I think I would need to know whether congressmen get to keep their other jobs to say -dave

[2004-05-27 08:50:32] - Paul: On an interesting note: should politicians get paid so much? That article quotes a senator as being paid 150k, which sounds about right -dave

[2004-05-27 08:49:35] - Paul: I wonder why on earth that is still funded -dave

[2004-05-27 08:48:17] - Paul: hehe, that's pretty dang sad -dave

[2004-05-27 08:37:38] - http://www.libertyforall.net/2004/june6/Scholars.html A humorous look at some tax-payer funded research. -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:34:46] - Pierce: You're making a web browser? -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:34:14] - http://www.reason.com/links/links052404.shtml Some more information about the life of David Reimer -Paul

[2004-05-27 08:31:50] - Paul: I take responsibility... I was writing a program that downloads web pages, and I put in aporter.org/msg as a test, but I had a loop written wrong and it just kept downloading over and over. - pierce

[2004-05-27 07:57:59] - 275 is impressive. Was, impressive. -Paul

[2004-05-26 22:32:19] - a: I wish. - pierce

[2004-05-26 19:19:22] - pierce:  fortran?  ~a

[2004-05-26 18:45:21] - Just so you all know, if any of you ever invents a programming language that's whitespace-sensitive or has syntax in ALL CAPS, I'm going to beat you down on behalf of any contractors who ever have to use that language. - pierce

[2004-05-26 16:49:55] - yeah, avalanche riders was uncommon - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:49:14] - dave: I think one of them was not rare - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:45:43] - vinnie: can the player designed card ever be common or uncommon? -dave

[2004-05-26 16:41:36] - those damn pros... only in it for the glory, not the game... - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:39:28] - vinnie: gah, easier -dave

[2004-05-26 16:39:17] - vinnie: hmmm, or phrased better: it is easiest to make a powerful memorable card than a balanced memorable card -dave

[2004-05-26 16:37:55] - vinnie: very true, and yet, it's easiest to make a card memorable if it is powerful -dave

[2004-05-26 16:33:54] - some of those were ridiculous. you'd think the pros would want to design more balanced cards - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:27:51] - vinnie: yeah -dave

[2004-05-26 16:08:32] - dave: are you talking about the list of cards submitted by the magic invitational participants? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:03:04] - a: yeah, I see my problem. not sure how to handle it - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:02:35] - a: If you're not looking for one row, what are you looking for? -Paul

[2004-05-26 16:01:59] - Dave: Kinda, in our game it's still going after Russia, but it went pretty strongly after the US early on and so far the US has only landed a couple troops in Africa and otherwise hasn't gotten involved in the Atlantic. -Paul

[2004-05-26 16:01:28] - yeah, your select statement will only give me one row.  ~a

[2004-05-26 16:01:24] - haha, some guy wrote about the MTG card he would design and then said this: "At first glance, the card may appear to be overpowered. At second glance, you'll realize that it is actually overpowered. " -dave

[2004-05-26 16:01:03] - it just picks the first ModeCode that comes up to attach to the Aircraft data.  ~a

[2004-05-26 16:00:56] - SELECT IFFTable.ModeCode FROM (SELECT IFFTable.ModeCode FROM table ORDER BY IFFTable.ModeCode) WHERE ROWNUM = 1 - vinnie

[2004-05-26 16:00:27] - i can't do that . . . that's not what the select statement below is intending to do (IE. that table below will not have just one row).  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:59:26] - basically you want to have one select statement that orders the results and another that selects rownum = 1 from the results - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:58:14] - "First and last are not supported by Mysql and rightly so as there is no concept of first or last in a RDBMS. You can not assume that rows are stored in the same sequence as they are entered. ..."  hmmm.  that makes sense i guess.  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:57:35] - afaik - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:57:30] - a: you can do it, but you have to use "order by" and possibly "rownum" - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:56:48] - so what do i use instead of First and Last (since i can only use them in access?)  or can i only do what i want to do in access?  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:56:35] - Paul: Hmmm, so Japan fights the US? -dave

[2004-05-26 15:55:49] - Dave: So far it does. The European theater AND pacific theater both seem more interesting too, with less of an emphasis on Japan vs Russia. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:55:31] - a: wait, first and last aren't sql functions, I don't think... - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:55:26] - oops, don't group by AircraftTable.XECEF (still same error though)  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:55:19] - Mig: No, not right now. We've been playing on and off during this week and the last. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:54:39] - SELECT AircraftTable.TimeStamp, AircraftTable.TailNumber, AircraftTable.XECEF, First(IFFTable.ModeCode) FROM AircraftTable LEFT JOIN IFFTable WHERE AircraftTable.TimeStamp <= IFFTable.TimeStamp AND AircraftTable.TailNumber = IFFTable.TailNumber GROUP BY AircraftTable.TimeStamp, AircraftTable.TailNumber, AircraftTable.XECEF;  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:54:26] - ERROR 1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax.  Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '(TimeStamp) from AircraftTable' at line 1  (Right before (TimeStamp) is First)  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:53:54] - dave: yes! I've read that somewhere - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:53:34] - a: what's the error you get? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:52:55] - vinnie: kinda an interesting phenomenon - don't people usually pick some sort of prime number when they have to randomly choose some? -dave

[2004-05-26 15:51:32] - a: absolutely nothing -dave

[2004-05-26 15:50:51] - what do you people know about the FIRST() and LAST() functions in sql and why can't i use them in mysql?  ~a

[2004-05-26 15:50:12] - Paul: mmmm, Axis and Allies. So it seems pretty well balanced? -dave

[2004-05-26 15:48:42] - right now?  aren't you supposed to be working? - mig

[2004-05-26 15:47:37] - dave: 83% of all stats are bogus - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:46:17] - Dave: I'm sure it's against SOME law. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:45:56] - Dave: So when are you coming up to play Axis and Allies with me? Tim and I have a good game going on right now. I think I like the changes that have been made. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:45:33] - maybe some sort of fraud? -dave

[2004-05-26 15:45:12] - I wonder if it would be a crime to create an official looking webpage that posted bogus stats? -dave

[2004-05-26 15:43:17] - Paul: yes, you and your stats I need to find a stat that says stats are bogus -dave

[2004-05-26 15:41:08] - yeah, the only thing books can tell us is that people have a lot of time on their hands - vinnie

[2004-05-26 15:40:53] - Dave: Ah, well, I guess I'll have to concede the point since I can't find any hard data on what percentage believes it. (Not that you would believe my stats anyway ). -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:38:19] - Paul: I was more commenting on your method of proving it was mainstream rather than the issue itself -dave

[2004-05-26 15:37:18] - Paul: haha, no I know it does. I was just saying that trying to prove something is a mainstream point because it has books published on the topic is fairly amusing -dave

[2004-05-26 15:29:56] - Dave: I don't know if this is as extreme as you think it is. I think that this was a highly credible theory in scientific circles for quite some time before it was shown to have flaws. In fact, I think it still has a number of strong supporters. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:28:50] - http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/sc.html Closest I can find, I think all these books deal with the theory of having your gender taught to you by society instead of being innate. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:24:46] - Paul: Hmmm, it'd be interesting to dig up other random books to show what really bizarre/extreme views people write books on -dave

[2004-05-26 15:20:45] - Bah, I give up, I can't find any information regarding what percentage of the population believes which side of the debate. All I know is that enough believed that people aren't born with a gender that books have been written to try to debunk the claim. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:19:31] - pierce: haha, so true -dave

[2004-05-26 15:15:55] - The real reason for having a difference between "gender" and "sex" is so that we don't have to put up with one more person making the "Yes, please." joke when filling out a form that asks for their sex. - pierce

[2004-05-26 15:15:50] - I keep coming up with stupid articles about whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture thing. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:09:41] - Paul: Yeah, I bet -dave

[2004-05-26 15:08:35] - Dave: It's maddeningly difficult to find any information about what percentage believe it though. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:08:11] - http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/mf.html I'm not sure, but I think this website might explain a little about nature vs nurture. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:07:26] - Paul: Yeah, who knows. It'd be interesting to find out how many actually did believe it -dave

[2004-05-26 15:06:58] - mig: I won't argue, that. A small number of people can definitely make a lot of noise -dave

[2004-05-26 15:06:47] - Dave: I didn't mean to imply they did, only that I think a sizeable portion (double digit percentage) of women probably believe this. -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:05:50] - dave:  maybe not, but the ones that do are the ones that have enough political clout to push their agenda. - mig

[2004-05-26 15:04:28] - Paul: I mean definitely some would, but not all, or maybe even a majority-dave

[2004-05-26 15:03:47] - Paul: at any rate, I find it hard to believe that everyone in NOW would hold to that view -dave

[2004-05-26 15:03:25] - dave:  National Organization for (of?) Women. - mig

[2004-05-26 15:03:18] - Dave: National Organization for Women? -Paul

[2004-05-26 15:02:29] - Paul: What does NOW stand for? -dave

[2004-05-26 14:59:45] - Because I would guess it's somewhere on the same level. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:59:15] - Dave: It depends, do you think NOW represents a lot of women? -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:57:42] - I think most people probably just don't have a clue. I know I don't. at least how much of it is biological or societal - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:56:26] - Paul: I guess it depends on what you mean by "a lot" but I think it's just a select group of people making a lot of noise -dave

[2004-05-26 14:55:34] - Paul: A lot of people do? I don't think I would agree with that -dave

[2004-05-26 14:55:14] - Paul: what a horrible experiment. And even experimentally-wise, what on earth are you going to prove from a single case? And there are way too many variables to consider as well -dave

[2004-05-26 14:54:58] - A lot of people do believe that, though. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:54:33] - Dave: Well, that's where that experiment came into play. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:53:28] - Paul: I mean, I think society does steer girls/guys into separate things to a certain extent, but I don't see how you could ever hope to prove that they weren't different AT ALL -dave

[2004-05-26 14:51:35] - Paul: Yeah I understand the impetus. I just think the whole issue is debunk. Personally I think it's ridiculous to think that there aren't differences in the things men and women are attracted to. -dave

[2004-05-26 14:51:17] - Vinnie: I don't know, all I know is that I read somewhere that gender was a term being used by feminists that believed that people were born a blank slate without any pre-programmed disposition towards GI Joe OR Barbie until society forced such preferences on them. I think. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:50:08] - Dave: So if they can prove that it's all a result of how a child is raised (instead of inherently biological), then in theory we would see women and men being a lot closer to being equal in everything (50% women in all jobs). -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:49:15] - Dave: I think the important thing is that a major strike against the feminists obsessed with having women be 50% of everything (politicians, soliders, miners etc) is that women, in general, tend to gravitate towards certain things just like men tend to gravitate towards others. -paul

[2004-05-26 14:48:47] - so we can eliminate "gender"? allllright - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:48:04] - Dave: Exactly, so people who are sexually female but genderally male can become both sexually and genderally male now. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:48:02] - Paul: Ok, I guess I get the distinction. This whole thing is just rather silly if you ask me, tho I suppose I can see how some people would think it is rather important -dave

[2004-05-26 14:45:26] - Paul: But they have sex changes now that they can actually "change" the men's sexual organs into womens. -dave

[2004-05-26 14:44:49] - Vinnie: Yeah, I think that's what gender is supposed to refer to. All I know is that it was a way of differentiating between your biological make-up (sex) and what gender you better associate with (gender). -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:43:50] - Dave: Well, because for 99.9% of the people out there it doesn't make a difference because most people act like their sex. I think it was created for people who have sex changes later in life (women in men's bodies). So they would be sexually male but with a female gender. I think. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:42:39] - but, yeah, I never knew there was a distinction - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:42:33] - Paul: I would just like to say that all men stink -radical feminist

[2004-05-26 14:42:17] - or what gender they identify with, maybe? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:41:59] - Paul: I don't think 99.9% of people would know what distinction you would be making by using gender instead of sex -dave

[2004-05-26 14:41:45] - paul: somehow I doubt you're gonna get a response - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:41:12] - Paul: That doesn't make much sense -dave

[2004-05-26 14:41:06] - Any feminists out there want to help out? -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:40:48] - Appearantly it's why we're supposed to use the term 'gender' instead of 'sex' when talking about people. Because sex just refers to what sexual organs they have while gender refers to, I guess, how they have been raised? -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:40:11] - vinnie: I think where they would have more problems is in areas such as mathematics, engineering, computer science, etc -dave

[2004-05-26 14:39:39] - Vinnie: Honestly, I'm not sure how far they take it. I think it's mostly restricted to psychological stuff (ie, why guys play with action figures and girls play with dolls). -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:37:06] - i.e., more men are miners because they are physically suited for it? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:36:39] - surely they can't argue against physical genetic diffs tho? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:34:42] - Basically, if they can prove that everyone is born the same but differences arise how they are raised, then it would mean that women could and should do all the jobs that men do and the like. Basically, to them, it would make us all equal. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:33:35] - http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/801_fem4.html Ok, I think the reasoning is that they are trying to argue that women who choose jobs like hair stylist over miner are doing it because that's how they were raised instead of it being genetic. So the theory is that if we raised all children the same, there wouldn't be any differences. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:29:42] - my mom was a lefty raised righty. she doesn't seem genuinely frustrated though... - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:29:06] - dave: yeah, that makes sense to me. who can understand radical feminists anyway? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:26:26] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57399-2004May26.html woah, I didn't know that states could have laws that made assisted suicide legal -dave

[2004-05-26 14:24:10] - hehe, this discussion reminds me of the statement I got from somewhere that left-handed people who are raised as right-handed people are among the most genuinely frustrated people in the world -dave

[2004-05-26 14:22:13] - vinnie: Yeah, but wouldn't you think the radical feminists would be the ones saying that men are pigheaded and can't change? -dave

[2004-05-26 14:22:06] - I don't under why radical feminists would care though. it doesn't really show anything either way - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:21:11] - very faulty logic, if that's the argument - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:20:34] - dave: men can change v. man can't change - vinnie

[2004-05-26 14:19:36] - Dave: I'm not sure what the logic behind it is, I think it's because they hate men and want to show that men could act like different and there is nothing that inherently makes them that way. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:15:27] - Paul: And I don't think they would like the logical inference that they could have been guys if they were raised differently -dave

[2004-05-26 14:14:54] - Paul: I actually think radical feminists would be offended to learn that it wasn't some fundamental natural difference. If everyone could be a woman, what would be so special about it? -dave

[2004-05-26 14:10:30] - Mig: I know that some of the more radical feminists would like nothing more than to prove that men can be raised as women and think that it's a good idea. -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:09:50] - Dave: Especially considering that he appeared to be rejecting the "treatment" -Paul

[2004-05-26 14:09:49] - travis: I might be able to make it on friday, but I'll probably be a bit late if I can.  My flight (barring delays) gets in at 4:55 to reagan, plus I need to go home and get sneakers (though that's pretty much on the way). - pierce

[2004-05-26 14:07:31] - paul:  yeah, i'm also kind of weired out that they actually have done "gender reassignment" to kids, and that some people think it's perfectly acceptable.  maybe your theory that there's a movmement to eliminate the male gender has some credence. - mig

[2004-05-26 14:07:04] - Paul: What I find even more surprising is that the parents went along with it -dave

[2004-05-26 13:57:10] - Mig: Sad story, I read about it earlier. I hope those scientists out there who are so eager to ruin people's lives to prove their own politics take note. -Paul

[2004-05-26 13:41:27] - Dave: Yeah, I'll assume that you got it right since it sounds like you understand it. -Paul

[2004-05-26 13:39:30] - he lived next to us junior year - vinnie

[2004-05-26 13:35:10] - dave: he's just a guy that (i believe) we met through aaron and he did stuff with us last weekend (like giving us another basketball player) - travis

[2004-05-26 13:31:07] - xpovos:  doesn't arnie rule over CA though? - mig

[2004-05-26 13:29:40] - Headline: Keery still leads Bush by a significant margin in CA polls. *shock* -- Xpovos

[2004-05-26 13:17:44] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120914,00.html this is sure to terrify paul. - mig

[2004-05-26 13:10:22] - travis: who's sam? -dave

[2004-05-26 13:10:05] - very well. - mig

[2004-05-26 13:07:32] - aaron/mig/paul: whichever one of you wants to, just IM me sam's name and/or email address so i can have it for future plans, too (don't put it here for privacy and because i'm not on AIM at work) - travis

[2004-05-26 13:06:10] - well, then, that leaves two on two for basketball - travis

[2004-05-26 12:54:36] - Paul: Great explanation I know ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-26 12:54:19] - Paul: I get it ^_^ because you can have a truth table of 1024, and if you have all the 1's drink from that bottle, then if that combination dies, then it's that one ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-26 12:40:36] - ponderosa pine - aaron

[2004-05-26 12:34:39] - a: aaron was awk. I think - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:34:20] - a: I sent out an e-mail - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:26:07] - Yeah, I think I have it too. -Paul

[2004-05-26 12:22:02] - travis:  i have sam's im so i can message him tonight for you if you want. - mig

[2004-05-26 12:21:47] - oh, and by 9:30, i didn't mean the time, i meant the location.  ~a

[2004-05-26 12:21:06] - and someone clue me in (i'm confused by the messageboard history) was aaron pretending to be awk?  ~a

[2004-05-26 12:17:03] - concert?  is it that awk thing at 9:30?  if so, it's been on my calendar for a while now and i'm interested in going.  how do i get a ticket?  ~a

[2004-05-26 12:08:28] - Vinnie: Not getting the reference. -Paul

[2004-05-26 12:08:23] - gonna use an old-based paint because the wood is pine? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:08:11] - The positive is that hopefully I'll be able to catch the basketball game on Sunday. -Paul

[2004-05-26 12:08:08] - you're gonna paint it fine? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:07:27] - Vinnie: Close, family friends. I'm actually going to be spending the time helping to paint their boat. -Paul

[2004-05-26 12:06:05] - relatives? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:05:34] - Vinnie: Friday and Saturday morning I'm helping my mom set up for a book sale. Saturday evening I leave for Whitestone, VA where I am staying until I get back Monday afternoon. -Paul

[2004-05-26 12:04:27] - paul: where you at this weekend? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 12:02:42] - A four day weekend, and I'm only going to have one read afternoon free. -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:59:35] - Well, I'm going to be gone Saturday evening and all day Sunday and most of the day Monday, so I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to spend with Andrew. -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:55:24] - vinnie: i'm not gonna speak anymore for andrew lest i get myself in trouble (noodle who i'm referring to with that "myself" ) - travis

[2004-05-26 11:54:17] - paul: he only asked about friday and saturday, even after i mentioned it being memorial day weekend - travis

[2004-05-26 11:54:16] - I see... (I don't see) - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:53:23] - vinnie: he wants to do stuff with us and figures it's easier to do that staying with me than in dale city - travis

[2004-05-26 11:52:38] - if people want, yeah. I have 15 packs I believe - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:51:30] - So we're going to be doing a magic draft on Saturday? -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:50:59] - Travis: I think I have a basketball somewhere, I need to find it though. -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:49:30] - Travis: Ok, I can understand that. I normally use the phone as a last resort too. -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:48:53] - Travis: Dammit, he isn't going to be around Monday? -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:47:30] - travis: wait a sec, andrew's staying with you? not his parents? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:46:14] - vinnie: all righty, so we have something for saturday.  i'm gonna be busy early in the day (have to be in dale city by 9:30am, probably be back by 1pm or so) - travis

[2004-05-26 11:45:05] - oops http://www.awkworld.com - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:44:53] - Paul: are you going to get your own ball so you can get to the court early and practice? - travis

[2004-05-26 11:44:42] - travis: oh neat. I have fifth dawn packs to be drafted... *wiggles fingers* - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:44:04] - paul: not my phone in particular, i just prefer using other means of communication first - travis

[2004-05-26 11:43:50] - andrew: your website rocks! http://www.awkworld.com/I love your q&a, but why did you never answer my question?? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:43:41] - well, then since that andrew mess is cleared up, xpovos-andrew is going to be in NOVA this weekend, staying at my place friday and saturday night - travis

[2004-05-26 11:43:23] - Travis: You don't like using your phone? -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:42:36] - aaron: ah, okay, i have his cell phone number i just don't like using the phone during work (or much at all) - travis

[2004-05-26 11:42:02] - well, then, andrew, you better kick aaron's ass for trying to claim your last album as his own, then saying it wasn't that great anyway - travis

[2004-05-26 11:41:21] - travis: I gave him your AIM screen name. When i get home i'll give you his. - aaron

[2004-05-26 11:40:34] - travis: It's Andrew W.K. I know enough about adrian's message board script to understand that two-word names aren't allowed. Sorry for the confusion - andrew

[2004-05-26 11:34:11] - Travis: I should be there since I have this Friday off. I might even plan to show up a little early and take some practice shots so I'm not totally useless this time. -Paul

[2004-05-26 11:24:36] - I think it was meant to be andrew wk himself - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:23:14] - is the "andrew" who asked about buying in advance different from the "xpovos" andrew? - travis

[2004-05-26 11:20:33] - does sam know it's an open invite for every friday? i don't have his email address - travis

[2004-05-26 11:18:22] - I don't know who all is interested in going (me + mig + aaron?), but I think you'd still have enough people to play - vinnie

[2004-05-26 11:15:49] - are we still playing basketball if you guys are going to that concert? - travis

[2004-05-26 10:55:34] - http://www.acadiananow.com/newsupdate/html/A131CB58-EC0C-4F74-A641-001DEFBFE44E.shtml Can a private restaurant exclude women? -Paul

[2004-05-26 10:54:17] - Mig: Can you explain? 'Hot' means somebody is a slut? -Paul

[2004-05-26 10:46:03] - ah. gotcha - vinnie

[2004-05-26 10:45:52] - though i think it might be easier to just go to a ticketmaster office (there's one in tysons inside the hechts) and just buy tickets there. - mig

[2004-05-26 10:44:47] - i think you go up to the ticket booth tell them your name, and then they give you the tickets there. - mig

[2004-05-26 10:43:57] - i understand why.  doesn't mean i don't think it's stupid of them for being so oversensitive about it. - mig

[2004-05-26 10:43:31] - Pierce: Nope, sorry. -Paul

[2004-05-26 10:42:33] - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040521/ap_on_bi_ge/tecate_billboards_3 Just out of curiosity, does anybody else understand how the tag-line is offensive (or if it even makes sense)? -Paul

[2004-05-26 10:42:28] - mig: what is "will call"? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 10:41:40] - i think you can buy them in advance, but you have to use 'will call' instead of them mailing them to you. - mig

[2004-05-26 10:39:00] - this friday - vinnie

[2004-05-26 10:38:51] - when is the conecert? - mig

[2004-05-26 10:38:01] - it takes time to mail the tickets, right? - vinnie

[2004-05-26 10:37:17] - can we still buy in advance? I think it might be too late for that - vinnie

[2004-05-26 10:34:48] - Hey, does anyone here have any experience with the FOCUS reporting system? </shotinthedark> - pierce

[2004-05-26 10:16:35] - errr, andrew w.k's last album that is - aaron

[2004-05-26 10:15:39] - Although I've heard my last album kind of sucked, so maybe crowds at the 9:30 club will be thinner this time - aaron

[2004-05-26 10:15:10] - Are you guys buying concert tickets in advance, or are you planning to buy them at the door? My last concert sold out - andrew

[2004-05-26 09:28:28] - Vinnie: Then he went on a hot streak of 6/9 -Paul

[2004-05-26 09:20:08] - I know at one point last night he was 2/12 - vinnie

[2004-05-26 09:01:20] - Mig: Kinda like Travis in our games. -Paul

[2004-05-26 09:00:23] - paul:  the problem is timberwolves (and most teams) don't really have anyone who can keep him out of the paint. - mig

[2004-05-26 08:55:01] - I think the problem is that it's far better to not even let Shaq get into position to score at all (easier said than done, I know) than to just foul him every time. -Paul

[2004-05-26 08:50:02] - considering shaq's grotesque foul shotting, if you have the fouls to spare, then yeah it's a good strategy.  it can backfire on you sometimes but it's still better to have a chance for shaq to miss 1/2 foul shoots than for him to get an easy two points. - mig

[2004-05-26 08:34:01] - Dave: Better than letting him have the easy dunk or layup. -Paul

[2004-05-26 08:15:11] - anyone have opinions on whether Hack-a-Shaq is a good strategy? -dave

prev <-> next