prev <-> next
[2004-10-27 16:51:42] - Paul: yes, I think even if we killed all the strays, we would still end up (eventually) with a stray problem. Ultimately, too many people buy pets and then get tired of them. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:50:50] - dave: The average American man weighs 191 pounds. The average American woman weighs 161 pounds. very interesting to think about. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:50:39] - One problem with the pet overpopulation deal is that even if we somehow get to a point where there are no stray cats or dogs, then the problem is going to start right back up again. -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:48:47] - dave: wow! 25 pounds heavier is pretty substantial. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:48:44] - Travis: Is that what you're going to do from now on? -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:48:27] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/fl.13.harris.attack/ Man accused of trying to run over Representative Katherine Harris (Republican, Florida) while she was campaigning. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:48:17] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/27/taller.heavier.ap/index.html American an inch taller....and 25 pounds heavier than in 1960s -dave
[2004-10-27 16:46:26] - http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15228,00.html?tnews Howard Stren calls into SF radio show to attack Michael Powell (FCC Chief). Howard says Michael powell got his job because of his dad (Colin Powell). -mel
[2004-10-27 16:44:08] - http://news.com.com/Apple+unveils+color+iPod,+U2+edition/2100-1027_3-5427237.html New iPod photo unveiled. Same as original iPod but will have a color screen that allows you to view photos stored on your iPod. And of course it will be more expensive... -mel
[2004-10-27 16:41:45] - didn't some show have a joke about Giuliani killing off all the homeless to solve new york's homelessness problem?
- travis[2004-10-27 16:38:56] - http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031119.gif my hero - travis
[2004-10-27 16:37:32] - a rather drastic solution would be to kill all the stray cats and dogs. After the transitory number of deaths was gotten over, you'd have a lot less killing of animals. -dave
[2004-10-27 16:33:24] - sorry, that was intended for Aaron. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:33:10] - Paul: I kind of agree with Paul too. I don't think legislation is the answer. I would just advocate that people do what they can personally. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:32:31] - aaron: I like both ideas actually. But the pyramid one is funnier... -mel
[2004-10-27 16:31:28] - aaron: haha. yes, I like that. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:30:57] - paul: yes. I guess you could argue that its all in the spirit of getting a good debate going. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:27:38] - Aaron: How about legal advice for a low monthly fee?
-Paul[2004-10-27 16:19:32] - Maybe you could start some sort of dog-neutering pyramid scheme where dogs sign up their friends to be neutered and get something dogs would like - aaron
[2004-10-27 16:19:27] - "other people's ideas and opinions" I guess I should say. -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:18:44] - What if shelters (effectively) gave people $25 when they had their pets neutered, and charged more money for their pets. Well actually I kind of agree with Paul, you can pass any laws you want but that's not going to control the wild animals... so i don't think it will really affect the problem so much - aaron
[2004-10-27 16:09:39] - Mel: Do you think I'm too critical of other's ideas/opinions? -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:06:57] - actually, a lot of pet stores like petsmart and petco get animals in basically the same way as shelters, so it's really not that bad to buy from them except it costs a whole lot more money (at petsmart a cat costs $100+ while at the shelter they're like $20) - travis
[2004-10-27 16:04:50] - Mel: That's something to try, but like I told Adrian, I don't think that even mandatory and free government S||N services would work as well as one would hope. -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:03:18] - paul: maybe the government could offer reduced fee or free spay/neutering services. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:02:37] - paul: the problem with the Libertarian philosophy is that realistically, a lot of people don't take responsibility for themselves and their actions. They let their pets go around reproducing like crazy. causing a problem for everyone. Particularly the animals themselves. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:01:25] - a: Bye Adrian, have fun in Maryland. -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:01:01] - amel: I don't know what we should do about the pet population. I can't think of anything that will work and also be reasonable to most everyone else. -Paul
[2004-10-27 16:00:48] - a: bye! haha. yes you were, good call. -mel
[2004-10-27 16:00:31] - paul: The part of the Libertarian philosophy that always attracted me is personal responsibility. It all begins with ourselves. So thats the approach that I would take. -mel
[2004-10-27 15:59:47] - paul: and I don't think that the govenment should really require spaying/neutering. I would take a lighter approach and say that on a personal level, I would do everything I can to encourage peopel to spay/neuter and I would spay/neuter my own pets. I also wouldn't buy from a pet store and would choose to adopt from a shelter or get a stray. -me
[2004-10-27 15:59:36] - Travis: I love that quote. That entire scene. It also has "Yes, it's true, this man has no dick".
-Paul[2004-10-27 15:59:20] - se, i was right! ~a
[2004-10-27 15:59:09] - mel: although paul's probably going to say that we should do nothing and let the population fix itself. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:58:46] - a: Sometimes (oftentimes?) it IS better to give up and just accept that life isn't perfect and bad things are going to happen that can't reasonably be prevented. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:58:32] - well now, before paul can answer: i'll run off! (to maryland; yay). bye everybody. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:58:05] - paul: yes, I like Adrian's question. How do you think that we could get our pet population under control?? Its easy to shoot down other people's ideas and come up with problems/drawbacks/scenarios where it wouldn't work. What's hard is putting yourself out there with your own idea. -mel
[2004-10-27 15:56:12] - and i believe if you get a pet from the shelter (in prince william, at least) the paper you sign says you're required to get the pet S||N and you even have to pay $25 per cat for it (you take the paper to the vet who then sends it in to get the $25) - travis
[2004-10-27 15:55:02] - paul: "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria" for some reason your listing reminded me of that
- travis[2004-10-27 15:53:56] - what do you think we should do about the pet population? ~a
[2004-10-27 15:53:28] - sometimes. sometimes. sometimes. just because it doesn't always work like we want to doesn't mean we should give up entriely. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:48:10] - Welfare increases poverty. Federal funding of education makes our children dumber. Gun control laws increase crime. I don't see why it wouldn't be any different with pet populations. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:46:45] - a: I understand. My only point was that nothing ever seems to work out how it seems it should. It's the paradox of law enforcement. Sometimes cracking down on something can just make things worse. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:42:57] - paul: everything has drawbacks. it's give and take. it's our job as americans to figure out what's best in general. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:35:36] - a: Yeah, not a bad market day at all. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:34:57] - a: I'm just saying that every seemingly good law that is passed with good intentions has some sort of drawback. Mandatory recycling causes more air pollution because of the recycling trucks. Raised drinking ages cause more accidents for numerous reasons. Reduced speed limits seem to increase the number of accidents. Etc. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:31:24] - oops.
~a[2004-10-27 15:31:01] - (i meant to
[2004-10-27 15:30:33] - paul: good point. however the "black market" argument can be made to "prove" that everything should be legal (stupid libertarians
). ~a[2004-10-27 15:29:39] - paul: good market day. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:29:18] - http://newtimes.rway.com/2001/080801/cover.shtml And there could be plenty of other consequences to mandatory S||N of pets. It would certainly create an explosion in black market pet breeding which in turn causes more problems, including more stray animals. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:28:18] - paul: ok. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:23:40] - a: It might help, I fully admit that I can't prove it wouldn't. I just think that if you required all cats and dogs to be S||N then it won't work out nearly as well as you might think. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:21:07] - a: If you assume that those 28% (or whatever) of pets that are owned and not S||N are breeding at the same rate as strays (which I think is a faulty assumption), then maybe it would make a significant difference. I just don't think that percentage of owned but not S||N pets are breeding all that much. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:19:06] - it seems like aparna thought it might help if we discourage/disallow breeding. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:18:47] - i'll agree that it probably won't solve the problem. however i still believe it would help. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:12:13] - oh, oops. i looked at the "dog" data. still, the number is pretty high. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:10:25] - i hate to sound harsh, but it seems insane to think that wouldn't have a significant effect. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:09:06] - 28% of all pets can have children. if that 28% stop having children, then owners will turn to strays to make as pets. those strays will get s||n, then it will perpetuate exponentially. ~a
[2004-10-27 15:04:57] - a: I would suspect that the vast majority of breeding done by dogs and cats are done by strays, not by owned animals. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:03:21] - a: I'm not so sure it would, though. If you look at those statistics Aparna posted, it says that the majority of owned dogs and cats are already S||N. -Paul
[2004-10-27 15:01:45] - obviously it could make a significant difference, it just doesn't seem that it would be likely to do so. - mig
[2004-10-27 14:59:23] - requiring pets to be spayed and neutered would mean that non-strays could no longer produce children. without looking at any numbers you have to at least admit that it could have a significant affect on the population. ~a
[2004-10-27 14:54:02] - a: That's true that I don't know that it wouldn't be a problem, but it certainly doesn't seem like it would fix the problem. Almost by definition, the problem is stray animals that don't have owners to get them spayed or neutered so I don't see how requiring pets to be spayed or neutered would help. -Paul
[2004-10-27 14:49:01] - i don't actually know. if i had to guess, i'd probably say some of both. i can ask my parents next time i see them. ~a
[2004-10-27 14:48:20] - a: are they requirements by law or requirements by vets? - mig
[2004-10-27 14:47:02] - *are ~a
[2004-10-27 14:46:47] - mig: actually that's not a problem. there is already requirements for pet immunizations and whatnot. ~a
[2004-10-27 14:46:12] - paul: you don't know that the problem would still be a problem if all pets were spayed neutered. ~a
[2004-10-27 14:45:41] - mel: unfortunately how is that going to work? are you going to have the neuter patrol inspecting people's pets? and what if you want the dog/cat to have puppies/kittens? - mig
[2004-10-27 14:45:18] - require people to spay/neuter strays.
~a[2004-10-27 14:43:08] - Mel: Do you think that will really do it? It seems like the problem is not coming from owned pets but from strays. -Paul
[2004-10-27 14:37:24] - Paul: require people to spay/neuter -mel
[2004-10-27 14:37:09] - a: yes, it has.
cool, thanks. Well the cat I saw looks like its a few months old, so I am hopeful that it will like house life better than the contrcution site. We'll see... -mel[2004-10-27 14:36:39] - aba: What do you think the solution is? -Paul
[2004-10-27 14:27:19] - well my family has done its part
~a[2004-10-27 14:23:46] - its pretty sad, but animals coming into a shelter will be euthanized for reasons as small as suspected discharge around the eye or nose area. the volume of stray animals is just too much for the system as it is to handle. - aba
[2004-10-27 13:39:34] - mel: yes they were found, but not me directly; friends of family found all of them. yes they were all strays. yes they all were put into house life at very early ages (like months old). ~a
[2004-10-27 13:35:55] - He was actually malnourished because his diet was so poor (too much fat and carbs). -mel
[2004-10-27 13:35:01] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/10/27/half.ton.man.ap/ Thousand pound man recovering from gastric bypass surgery that he got as part of an obesity study.... -mel
[2004-10-27 13:16:54] - a: so you found all six cats? They were strays? Did they all adapt to house life ok? -mel
[2004-10-27 13:15:42] - There is a construction site near my apartment with a bunch of hungry kittens. Since the rain started, they have been living there. -mel
[2004-10-27 13:15:13] - I am thinking about adopting a pet. -mel
[2004-10-27 13:14:09] - a: haha. yes, I think other cats are needed other than the one female cat.
-mel[2004-10-27 13:04:46] - a: I think it's following fibonacci arithmetic. It's one of the few problems for which fibonacci numbers are very useful. - aaron
[2004-10-27 12:57:49] - a: yeah, dang animals and their ability to have multiple kids all at once. My boss' dog just had 8 puppies -dave
[2004-10-27 12:57:07] - Paul: <insert sarcasm in previous statement> -dave
[2004-10-27 12:54:22] - And I don't think pet abortions would help since it's not the animals that are owned that tend to be the problem... -Paul
[2004-10-27 12:53:50] - most (all?) cats are against inbreeding. ~a
[2004-10-27 12:52:42] - in seven years, one female cat and her offspring can theoretically produce 420,000 cats. bahaha, that's amazing. however . . . i assume that other cats are needed, right? it's not one female cat and only her offspring. ~a
[2004-10-27 12:52:39] - Dave: Isn't that what spaying and neutering is? Pet birth control? -Paul
[2004-10-27 12:51:07] - a: you and your wild cats ^_^ -dave
[2004-10-27 12:50:32] - i.e. not bred. ~a
[2004-10-27 12:49:58] - aba: every cat my family has ever had were born outside of captivity (all six) ~a
[2004-10-27 12:45:07] - or cat/dog abortions, HEHE -dave
[2004-10-27 12:44:21] - mebbe it calls for a cat/dog birth control awareness program ^_^ -dave
[2004-10-27 12:44:20] - aba: Thanks. -Paul
[2004-10-27 12:34:04] - http://www.hsus.org/ace/11830 and http://www.hsus.org/ace/11831 - aba
[2004-10-27 12:27:07] - Dave: I have no idea what the numbers are for anything. Owned cats. Cats in shelters. Bioengineered cats. I'm mostly just making wild assumptions.
-Paul[2004-10-27 12:21:51] - Paul: I wonder how many 'owned' cats there are in the US anyways? -dave
[2004-10-27 12:19:24] - Dave: Yeah, I guess that was partially my point. I can't imagine that at this point in time (or even in the near future) that there is much overlap. Maybe something on the level of a couple hundred of cats nationwide? Not to sound cold, but that seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the entirety of the problem. -Paul
[2004-10-27 12:15:07] - I'm not sure how many people buy expensive cats or get ones from shelters, but I'm guessing, at 3.5k a pop, that the kinda people paying that money and the kinda people who are getting them from shelters are quite distinct -dave
[2004-10-27 12:14:10] - I'm an example of someone who probably wouldn't get a cat because I have allergies, but would consider a hypoallergenic cat. Tho the price sounds a bit too steep -dave
[2004-10-27 12:13:09] - Aaron: I suppose so. -Paul
[2004-10-27 12:09:55] - paul: It depends. Like everything, I'll bet the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Like the article said, a lot of people with allergies currently put up with cats anyways. So if they got engineered cats instead, that's obviously going to leave more cats in shelters - aaron
[2004-10-27 12:01:28] - I wonder if bioengineered cats are really competing with cats in shelters though. Wouldn't most people who want a cat go for the cheaper (shelter) one unless they were allergic in which case they wouldn't have gotten a cat at all? -Paul
[2004-10-27 11:57:36] - abaaron: Ah, ok. Thanks. -Paul
[2004-10-27 11:55:31] - the thing that a lot of people dont realize is that there are already many pure bred animals in shelters and rescues across the country. i dunno. i guess my problem is that people just dont think.
- aba[2004-10-27 11:54:29] - bingo. - aba
[2004-10-27 11:53:58] - paul: Because they're making more cats artificially when there's already so many cats, I think - aaron
[2004-10-27 11:36:32] - aba: How are they making the problem worse? Not disagreeing, I just don't know enough about pet breeding and bioengineering. -Paul
[2004-10-27 11:30:48] - bleh. stuff like that really makes me mad because tons of dogs and cats are euthanized every year due to domestic pet overpopulation. breeders and bioengineering are just making the problem so much worse. - aba
[2004-10-27 11:03:28] - a: no - aaron
[2004-10-27 10:54:25] - aaron: pierce has the video on his comp - vinnie
[2004-10-27 10:08:30] - Dave: That might explain why the stocked dropped like a rock a couple of months ago.
-Paul[2004-10-27 10:04:39] - aaron: should i get a cat?
~a[2004-10-27 10:04:03] - the cats are bioengineered if that wasn't clear -dave
[2004-10-27 10:03:39] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html Hypoallergenic cats to be sold in 2007. Put down a $250 deposit for you $3.5k cat now ^_^ -dave
[2004-10-27 09:56:26] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64391-2004Oct26.html Sharon wins vote for Gaza pullout -dave
[2004-10-27 09:52:13] - Paul: well, actually this news isn't necessarily 'new.' It's just the first I've personally seen or posted it. People who are dealing in stocks have probably known about it for awhile now and had already factored it into the stock price awhile back -dave
[2004-10-27 09:45:40] - Dave: I know, it's just strange that the stock would go up after news comes out that nVidia is getting it's ass kicked in (at least what used to be) their main market. -Paul
[2004-10-27 09:43:04] - Paul: I would guess nVidia's marketshare in the AMD mobo market is quite high. With AMD systems becoming more and more widespread, nVidia looks to be on the right 'bandwagon' in that area -dave
[2004-10-27 09:41:56] - travis: yeah, I agree ^_^ -dave
[2004-10-27 09:41:07] - Paul: yeah, cuz they're not just a graphics card company anymore. ^_^ And also, stock price is a function of how people think the company is going to do, not necessarily how they are doing atm -dave
[2004-10-27 09:41:03] - dave: it's just a funny thing to be able to have insurance for, is all i was thinking. sorta like the silly things people sue each other over on shows like people's court - travis
[2004-10-27 09:39:53] - Dave: What's funny is that nVidia stock has been going up lately.
-Paul[2004-10-27 09:28:19] - using only -dave
[2004-10-27 09:28:02] - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/26/computer041026.html NASA takes back supercomputing crown from Japan. Usinly only 16/20 of its linked systems, 'Columbia' performs 42.7 tflops vs 35.86 tflops of Jap's Earth Simulator -dave
[2004-10-27 09:25:45] - http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20041026_164352.html nVidia marketshare for standalone graphics cards way down -dave
[2004-10-27 09:17:36] - a: it was in the 40s. - aba
[2004-10-27 09:13:28] - travis: actually, getting insurance for things like hitting the taco bell sign is probably more common than not. Like you can get insurance for those half-court shots that you see at functions. Makes a lotta sense, pay $50 to get insurance for a half-court shot that would pay off like $1k if the guy makes it -dave
[2004-10-27 07:30:25] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A447-2004Oct26.html 36 papers abandon Bush for Kerry -dave
[2004-10-27 07:28:32] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A557-2004Oct26.html Prince William County adds jobs at fastest rate of any large county -dave
[2004-10-27 07:20:11] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/27/news/international/sony_psp.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes PSP price $186. Debut in NA early 2005 -dave
[2004-10-27 00:27:25] - http://www.g4techtv.com/players/features/50116/Ashlee_Simpson_LipSyncing_Blunder_Not_First_SNL_Musical_Faux_Pas.html article about the incident which also lists a few other times musical artists caused trouble on SNL - aaron
[2004-10-27 00:22:12] - I doubt that link will be up for long considering it looks like it's on a college web site and it's probably getting a lot of hits all of a sudden - aaron
[2004-10-27 00:21:40] - http://homepages.wmich.edu/~m1hjjaap/snloops.mpg Anybody get a copy of that video of Ashlee Simpson on SNL recently? Where some glitch caused the wrong vocal track to get played on her second song... so she just started dancing around - aaron
[2004-10-26 23:37:44] - paba: what was it at? ~a
[2004-10-26 20:39:29] - aba: Hey! I worked hard all day long getting that counter up there.
-Paul[2004-10-26 18:59:42] - doot doot doot. resetting the counter..... - aba
[2004-10-26 15:49:36] - a: What? -Paul
[2004-10-26 15:40:12] - paul:
~a[2004-10-26 15:29:11] - a: Usually pro-life refers to abortion and not depleted uranium munitions.
-Paul[2004-10-26 15:21:38] - paul: usually the term pro-choice is used to describe abortion, not gun control. ~a
[2004-10-26 14:40:42] - a: Or you could say he is pro-choice, in that he is giving the military the right to use whatever munitions they want. Their gun, their choice and all. -Paul
[2004-10-26 14:35:53] - i guess he's anti-choice
. ~a[2004-10-26 14:03:25] - http://thewandererpress.com/a10-28-2004.htm the pro-life president has ended up harming the unborn in iraq bigtime. - mig
[2004-10-26 13:39:35] - I doubt that the images were really royalty free, even if they were advertised as such. -mel
[2004-10-26 13:39:12] - damn it -mel
[2004-10-26 13:39:01] - mig: However, I doubt that the images were really royalty free. -mig
[2004-10-26 13:17:49] - mig: yes, I agree. -mel
[2004-10-26 13:17:28] - well, if it's a royalty-free image i don't see what catherine zeta jones can really complain about. - mig
[2004-10-26 13:06:12] - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/titan_flyby_041026.html Cassini Flies Past Titan Today. -mel
[2004-10-26 13:04:28] - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06121.html New pictures of Titan from Cassini.
-mel[2004-10-26 12:38:59] - riiiiight they didn't know it was Catherine Zeta Jones. -mel
[2004-10-26 12:38:35] - The club says that they didn't know it was Catherine Zeta Jones and that they got her pictures from an image download service that said they were royalty-free. -mel
[2004-10-26 12:24:56] - Catherine Zeta Jones is not amused and is suing. -mel
[2004-10-26 12:22:42] - haha. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3953553.stm Topless Vegas club claims that Catherine Zeta Jones should be flattered that her picture was used on their web site. -mel
[2004-10-26 11:21:52] - http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/hotgossip "The Boston Herald reports the "Daredevil" co-stars, both 32, showed up to the sold-out game on Saturday without tickets, but were quickly given primo seats courtesy of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig." Must be nice to be famous. -Paul
[2004-10-26 10:42:48] - yes, that's very obviously gambling. i'm surprised they could get an insurance company to cross that fine line between gambling and insuring. ~a
[2004-10-26 09:53:21] - Travis: Or perhaps for each run scored from the homerun. -Paul
[2004-10-26 09:44:13] - too bad it's not 1 taco per homerun that hits it, that would be more enticing - travis
[2004-10-26 09:43:31] - dave: haha, they took out an insurance policy? i'd love to see the contract for that (if i could read legalese
) - travis[2004-10-26 08:47:53] - dave: just one? eh - vinnie
[2004-10-25 20:33:06] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/25/news/fortune500/tacobell_baseball/index.htm?cnn=yes haha, if someone hits a homer into the 12' by 12' Taco Bell target in game 3 of the World Series, then everyone in the US gets a free taco ^_^ -dave
[2004-10-25 20:13:41] - Paul: you too.
-mel[2004-10-25 20:09:34] - Mel: I said no sugar coating! Have a nice evening. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:08:47] - Paul: ok, good talking to you, regardless.
I am going home soon too. talk to you some other time.... -mel[2004-10-25 20:08:26] - Mel: Inflammatory adjectives? Heh, don't worry about it, I've had far, FAR worse things said about me and my opinions before.
-Paul[2004-10-25 20:07:53] - Paul:
-mel[2004-10-25 20:07:43] - Anyway, I should probably head on out for home now. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:07:40] - Paul: yeah, sorry for the use of inflammatory adjectives. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:07:14] - Paul: haha. Same for you.
-mel[2004-10-25 20:07:14] - Mel: Fine, if you want to go with the RIDICULOUS and FAR FETCHED situation where everybody you argue with gets mad at you, you're welcome to believe that.
-Paul[2004-10-25 20:06:10] - Mel: Thanks for pointing out what I was doing. I'll try to fix those things in the future but if I don't make sure to yell at me. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:05:28] - Paul: How do you know it doesn't happen to everyone I argue with too?? My position is that you don't have enough information.
-mel[2004-10-25 20:05:26] - Mel: Heh, you weren't coming across like that to me. I was just a little taken aback by your anger over what I saw as merely me expressing my opinion. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:04:30] - Mel: Nah, it's not your fault because this happens to everybody I argue with so it's clearly something I do. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:04:02] - Paul: Because I hate coming off like I am telling people what do do. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:03:19] - Paul: I should have relaxed and not taken the word choice personally. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:03:19] - Instead of me just building up mine. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:03:09] - Mel: Yeah, it's my fault. When this all started I originally intended not to express an opinion at all and just point out some things (biased article, maybe he is a good father, etc) but then I got mixed up and started expressing my opinion and being more forceful and that probably came across as me trying to tear apart your opinion... -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:02:54] - Paul: But that was my fault too. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:02:44] - Paul: It was my fault too, because I got overly defensive. I felt attacked because of your word choice. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:01:54] - Paul: I'm not blaming you. -mel
[2004-10-25 20:01:38] - Paul: So theres not much of a point of arguing. see what I mean? -mel
[2004-10-25 20:01:20] - Mel: Yeah, that's my fault again. I have really poor word choice sometimes. A lot of the time I'll use stronger words than I intend to use. -Paul
[2004-10-25 20:01:05] - Paul: That's why we should just agree on what we are aguing about next time. Because I didn't realize that was your point. (That there wasn't enough information to say he is evil). If I had realized that, i would have stopped arguing sooner. Because I think there is enough information. But thats ultimately a subjective call. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:59:04] - Paul: correction for below: I know this was a question from you, and not a statement. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:58:41] - Mel: Ok, I can see that. I was just trying to provide the rationale behind my thinking (why there wasn't enough information to say he is evil) but I probably phrased it all wrong. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:58:26] - Paul: And it also made me mad that you suggested that I was saying that Joe Simpson should have forbid the show. I this was a question from you. I overreacted. That was my fault. But to me there is a big line between giving someone advice and telling someone what to do. Forbid is a strong word. I don't forbid people to fo things. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:56:53] - Mel: I told you, no need to sugar-coat things. Just say that I'm a cold-hearted, uncaring bastard.
I'll take that as a compliment anyway. -paul[2004-10-25 19:56:30] - Paul: First, I think next time we should both agree on what we are arguing about. I got mad because it felt to me as if you were putting together a "far-fatched"
situation just to make my opinion wrong. An that is annoying. -mel[2004-10-25 19:56:17] - http://slate.msn.com/id/2108641/ An article about vote-pairing in the 2004 election. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:55:08] - Paul: I mean that as a good thing. just in case. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:54:46] - Paul: ok.
You appear not to be as sensitive as I am. -mel[2004-10-25 19:52:53] - Mel: Meh, be as offensive and negative as you want. I prefer the truth to feel-good-language. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:51:45] - Paul: I will use nice feel-good language
-mel[2004-10-25 19:50:55] - Mel: Alrighty, what was it? -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:50:42] - My guess is that my opinions are inherently offensive.
-paul[2004-10-25 19:50:27] - Paul: I can tell you what pissed me off -mel
[2004-10-25 19:49:58] - Mel: I'm sorry I upset you.
I'm pretty sure it's my fault since I do this to everybody all the time. I'm either going to have to find out what I'm doing wrong or stop expressing my opinion eventually. -Paul[2004-10-25 19:49:27] - Paul: Unless there is not enough evidence to make that decision....
-mel[2004-10-25 19:49:01] - Paul: I agree to disagree with you then.
-mel[2004-10-25 19:48:30] - Mel: Which has absolutely nothing to do with me thinking you cannot have an opinion. Or that torturing animals is ok.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:48:29] - Paul: I know.
well I calmed down. It makes me mad to think about parents exploiting their children. Maybe Jessica Simpson is smart and can protect herself and Newlyweds was all an act. But if she is stupid, I feel bad that she is such a good target for manipulation. Ashlee too. -mel[2004-10-25 19:48:02] - Mel: My point is merely that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to think Joe Simpson is evil. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:46:55] - Mel: You stated your opinion and that's fine. Then I stated my opinion and tried to back it up with my "ridiculous" and "far fetched" situations.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:45:58] - Paul: My point is (succinctly) that based on the facts that I know, I believe Joe Simpson is evil. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:45:44] - btw, smilies indicate me that I'm mostly joking around, in case that's causing confusion. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:45:30] - Paul: ok. What is your point??? -mel
[2004-10-25 19:44:54] - Paul: Yes. All I did was state my opinion based on the facts that I know. You are concocting some kind of far fetched situation to try to prove that my opinion could be wrong. Why? -mel
[2004-10-25 19:44:27] - Mel: I'm pretty sure I never said that. Although I certainly am regretting expressing an opinion that differs from yours on this topic.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:43:14] - Mel: I'M telling YOU that you can't have an opinion?
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:42:32] - Paul: Baesd on the facts that I know, this is my opinion. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:42:05] - Paul: And yes I do. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:41:54] - Paul: Well you are basically telling me I can't have an opinion. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:41:34] - Paul: Well I feel ok about making a judgement about Joe Simpson. No I don't know everything that happened. I don't know know everything about anything. But at some point, I think I have enough knowledge to have an opinion. And this is the case with Joe Simpson. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:40:26] - Mel: Thank you for permission to believe what I want to.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:40:19] - Paul: If I were Jessica's friend, I would tell her not to air Newlyweds. I I were her father, I would say the same thing. Note that I didn't say I would forbid her from doing it. There is a big difference, so don't put words in my mouth. Jessica is an adult and she can do whatever she wants. But I would not aid her in making the show. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:37:02] - Mel: I guess that's my point. He could be an evil exploiter of his children. We don't know. Hell, he could also have sexually molested them when they were children, but we don't know that either. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt since I see no big reason to think that he forced his daughters into something they didn't want. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:36:23] - Paul: But sure Paul, if it makes you happy to believe all that, you go ahead. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:35:45] - Paul: But IMHO, the odds that all of those items (or any of them really) are true, is very very low. It is too much of a stretch. If you look at the facts, I think it's ridiculous to really believe that all of those IFs are true. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:34:44] - Paul: IF the show was Jessica's idea AND she wanted to look stupid on TV in order to get her family out of debt that her father incurred AND she was in control of which shots were aired and which shots weren't, AND she wan't pressured in any way by her father to make the show, then her father might be a great guy. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:32:53] - Paul: The show was his idea, as far as I know. And he was the producer. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:32:50] - Mel: Well, if this is a topic of intense emotion for you, then maybe it's not such a good idea to discuss it after all. No offense. It's just that I have a history of pissing people off more when discussing topics which people get emotional about.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:31:56] - Paul: I still maintain that Joe Simpson sold his children. He does not have their best interests at heart. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:31:34] - Mel: What if she wanted to do the show, though? There are plenty of people who are willing to do almost anything for fame so isn't it entirely possible that she wanted to do this show, even if it made her look bad, because it would get her fame? -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:30:49] - Paul: Yes, I feel intense hatred. I don't like to see people taken advantage of. I get mad about that. Just like I would get mad if I saw someone torturing an animal. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:29:26] - Paul: He wasn't just supporting his kids. This is waaay beyond that. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:29:06] - Paul: So he chose which scenes to put on there. I saw the show and most people were only watching it to laugh at Jessica. Thats cruel to do to your kid. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:28:09] - Paul: And then he got her out of debt by selling a TV show that was pretty much all about how stupid Jessica is. He produced the show. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:28:00] - Mel: I'm not saying no tears, I'm saying no intense hatred.
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:27:20] - Paul: That is too much pressure to put on a child. Don't put your family in debt if that's what it takes. sorry. no tears from me. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:26:34] - Paul: Yes I am saying that he put their interests before his own. He borrowed all that money, yes. I am not giving him any points for that. Jessica was a child and it is not her responsibility to make sure her father saty out of debt. I have no sympathy. His finances are his own problem. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:24:49] - Mel: If you're not saying he should have forbid it, what are you saying? -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:24:49] - Jessica should do whatever she wants to do. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:24:02] - Mel: How do you know that? He borrowed all that money and did all that work to try to advance his children's careers and you're saying he's putting HIS interests before theirs?
-Paul[2004-10-25 19:24:01] - Paul: If you're not listening, let's not have this discussion. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:23:49] - Paul: I'm not saying he should have forbit it? Are you not listening??? Because this is frustrating. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:23:27] - Paul: We could make up all sorts of situations where he would be a bad father. That doesn't mean he isn't a bad father now. Yes he would be a bad father if he shut down their dreams. But he doesn't need to sell them. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:22:53] - Mel: So if Jessica was offered the role on the show Newlyweds and she wanted to do it, you think he would've been a better father if he forbid it? -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:21:48] - Paul: He is a bad father because he doesn't put their interests before his own. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:21:00] - Britney and Christina are at least exploited by strangers. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:20:56] - Mel: What exactly is missing from his parenting skills though? How do you know he is a bad father? I think he would be a bad father if his girls wanted to be hollywood stars and he absolutely forbid it and tried to derail their careers. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:20:37] - Paul: He is their manager and he gets a 10-20% cut of everything they earn. So he has a clear motivation. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:19:41] - Paul: That's not the point. I'm not arguing that other female pop star aren't exploited. I am arguing that Jessica Simpson and Ashlee Simpson are exploited by their own father and I think that's wrong. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:19:34] - According to the article, it sounds like the most controversial thing the two girls have done is pose in Maxim which I think is pretty impressive considering they are two young and attractive girls in hollywood. Compare that to what Britney or Christina who seemingly keep trying to outslut eachother. -Paul
[2004-10-25 19:17:48] - Paul: He needs to step out of the producer role and start being a father to those kids. -mel
[2004-10-25 19:17:39] - Mel: I've not seen either show (I didn't even know Ashlee had a show until I read the article) and I know little about the daughters and I somewhat agree with you but I also think that their father IS protecting them. Compare Ashlee and Jessica to almost any other female pop star and the Simpson daughters seem to be a LOT less exploited. -Paul
prev <-> next