prev <-> next
[2006-08-22 15:27:00] - sometimes taking risks are what life is all about. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:26:32] - a: Because it's even safer to not put it to a vote. -Paul
[2006-08-22 15:25:49] - paul: i know. and i agree of course. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:25:17] - why not put it to a vote. if i thought it was going to get voted down, i'd put it up for a vote
~a[2006-08-22 15:24:38] - My point is that whenever there is something "wrong", the first (and second and third...) thought is always how the government can get involved. Nobody ever wonders if things could be solved by not having the government involved. -Paul
[2006-08-22 15:24:02] - paul: i meant that for your previous post about the "push". ~a
[2006-08-22 15:23:39] - paul: no we're all in agreement on that. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:23:31] - a: But more senators voted to put it to a vote than voted against it being put to a vote. -Paul
[2006-08-22 15:23:22] - on either side i believe. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:22:59] - a: Well, at the very least there is a push to get it passed whereas nobody talks about the government actually getting out of marriage. -Paul
[2006-08-22 15:22:26] - hell it didn't even come to a vote. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:20:58] - "almost"? ~a
[2006-08-22 15:19:36] - paul: heck, that almost passed -dave
[2006-08-22 15:19:27] - paul: <nod> I would agree -dave
[2006-08-22 15:18:34] - Dave: Exactly. I would even say a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman is more likely than the government giving up control of marriage. -Paul
[2006-08-22 15:11:10] - paul: look at our tax code, prime example -dave
[2006-08-22 15:10:49] - paul: exactly, easier to add than take away -dave
[2006-08-22 15:09:02] - a: I would say same sex marriage is a lot more likely. When has the government ever given up control over something?
-Paul[2006-08-22 15:08:05] - aaron: well certainly marriage means drastically different things to different people. It's just a matter of practicality I suppose that makes us use the same verbage -dave
[2006-08-22 15:06:54] - aaron: well I think what makes the marriage statement so strong is that it's not just a one-way commitment, it goes both ways -dave
[2006-08-22 15:06:48] - dave: speaking idealistically of course - aaron
[2006-08-22 15:06:22] - dave: maybe every marriage in the world could have its own word, that way people wouldn't get confused about whether they're supposed to be equally meaningful - aaron
[2006-08-22 15:06:21] - a: almost definitely same sex marriage. It's much easier to add something new than take something in place and remove it -dave
[2006-08-22 15:05:36] - dave: so strong statements of commitment no longer mean as much as they used to, once Joe somebody states that he is strongly committed to his spider? people can't just recognize that each statement is independent of one another and leave it at that? that's too bad - aaron
[2006-08-22 15:05:35] - a: well, seeing as the notion (if not necessarily the specific word) has pre-dated almost every modern govt, I would think the order I stated was correct -dave
[2006-08-22 15:04:20] - aaron: so you're saying that all you have to do for the commitment is what a spider can do, which is really not all that much -dave
[2006-08-22 15:04:16] - anybody: between same sex marriage, and government releasing recognition of marriage: in your opinion, if one of the two MUST happen (hypothetical) then which is more likely to happen? ~a
[2006-08-22 15:03:32] - dave: or the other way around. who made the word anyways? ~a
[2006-08-22 15:03:29] - aaron: yes, because it means that a spider can make that same statement of commitment. -dave
[2006-08-22 15:02:33] - a: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. marriage to me is a religious institution. It just so happens that the govt decided to use the religious instituation to base certain laws on -dave
[2006-08-22 15:01:35] - dave: if you don't call it marriage, if you just call it "strong statement of commitment..." does it cheapen the strong statement of commitment, if a man and a spider can share a strong statement of commitment? - aaron
[2006-08-22 15:01:09] - dave: (and everybody) but that's not going to happen. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:00:43] - the word itself must have two distict meanings. the law meaning and the religious meaning. ~a
[2006-08-22 15:00:26] - aaron: so, if the govt stopped making marriage a legal thing, and instead changed laws so that they just dealt with people who lived in the same residence etc, then that would probably erase any objection I would have -dave
[2006-08-22 15:00:10] - if religion isn't dictating anything about law, and law is recognizing marriage, then marriage cannot be purely a religious institution. ~a
[2006-08-22 14:58:19] - aaron: so that's why it gets complicated, because religion shouldn't really be dictating anything about law. But then again, if marriage is a religious institution, then the govt shouldn't be having anything to do with it anyways -dave
[2006-08-22 14:57:07] - aaron: it's the religious connotations and significance of marriage that prompt most disagreements with gay marriage. -dave
[2006-08-22 14:56:07] - aaron: purely from the perspective of commitment, I would say two gay people could probably have that commitment. -dave
[2006-08-22 14:54:44] - aaron: following from that, since it's such a strong statement of commitment, it matters who the parties are. Like having a marriage between a human and a spider would be cheapening the commitment -dave
[2006-08-22 14:52:49] - errr, statement -dave
[2006-08-22 14:52:32] - aaron: idealistically I think marriage matters some. It's a state of commitment -dave
[2006-08-22 14:52:19] - and mig. ~a
[2006-08-22 14:52:05] - since (imo) the government is not going to release recognition of marriage, i'm talking about government recognition of same sex marriage. so i think you and xpovos are out. ~a
[2006-08-22 14:45:04] - a: It kinda depends on what you mean by "speaking out" and also by "marriage". If two people of the same sex want to have a religious ceremony symbolizing their bond, then I certainly don't care. -Paul
[2006-08-22 14:18:03] - not to be divisive. ~a
[2006-08-22 14:16:43] - (correct me if i'm wrong) nobody else has spoken out for same sex marriage on this message board. ~a
[2006-08-22 14:16:03] - aba: Largely that's a result of a failure to denote a proper legal guardian. You don't have to be a spouse to set that up. Most people just don't think of it, any more than they think far enough ahead to have a living will or a DNR. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 14:14:30] - aba: but the real question is, what are we going to do about it? ~a
[2006-08-22 14:08:01] - haha "When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's 'Fifth' [5 is a roman numural 'V'] Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter 'V' in Morse code (···–)." ~a
[2006-08-22 14:08:01] - there are other implications to not recognizing same-sex unions...... only family can find out info in the hospital, only opposite sex partners are recognized for immigration/visa purposes, etc. it's a mess to not have civil unions recognized across the country. - aba
[2006-08-22 14:01:17] - a: and even if they do know something is wrong, usually legal investigations don't disclose anything for fear of compromising someone's rights or case etc -dave
[2006-08-22 14:00:29] - a: yeah, but they don't even know what they're going to find, it's an internal investigation - you don't want to get everyone hyped up about it if you don't even know if there's a problem -dave
[2006-08-22 13:56:48] - down only one? that's not too bad. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:52:59] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101792.html The number of gays and lesbians in broadcast TV series are down to 9 from 10 last year. -Paul
[2006-08-22 13:42:00] - and a felony at that. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:41:40] - hiding information about a crime from the police anyways. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:40:34] - dave: and hiding information about a crime is (usually) illegal and (usually) unethical. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:38:14] - aaron: Marriage isn't a state of mind. Even among non-religious, it's a much more serious commitment than just a mental state. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 13:33:31] - dave: Yes. $0.50 less per hour than I'm currently making. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 13:33:30] - dave: idealistically, why does it matter if people are married or not? why should marriage be ever be disallowed? isn't it just a state of mind, unless you take into account things like medical benefits/tax status/beneficiaries of life insurance and stuff like that? - aaron
[2006-08-22 13:33:15] - If you call us with a report of sexual abuse of a minor, our first question is going to be "have you called CPS"? If not, we'll tell you to call them, and then, IFF the allegation of abuse is against clergy, a Diocesan employee, or volunteer, will you call us back. Then we get the joy of starting our own investigation. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 13:31:54] - xpovos: did the place in WV give you an offer? -dave
[2006-08-22 13:30:51] - a: the letter ratzinger sent wasn't telling all the bishops to go molest people, it was saying that they shouldn't share the details of internal investigations with the public -dave
[2006-08-22 13:30:50] - I can only speak to the Diocese of Arlington's position, but since that's where I am, I feel more than qualified to say that what Ratzinger was speaking of is to the confidential details of the Church investigation, which is seperate from the civil investigation. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 13:29:58] - a: no no, I said most organizations would hide a crime that they found out was committed by one of their members if they could (assuming it would cast a bad light on the organization if it was leaked) -dave
[2006-08-22 13:27:34] - you're saying that most organizations would knowingly commit a crime if they thought that they wouldn't get caught? isn't that the whole point of ethics? especially for a religious organization, ethics should come into question. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:15:07] - a: obviously if they knew they couldn't keep it quiet then it would be best for them to come forward with the info at the beginning -dave
[2006-08-22 13:14:23] - a: it's true especially when you're talking about breaking the law. notice I said "if they can get away with it" -dave
[2006-08-22 13:02:54] - and it's especially not true when you're talking about a felony. ~a
[2006-08-22 13:01:23] - dave: that's only true when you're not talking about breaking the law. ~a
[2006-08-22 12:54:03] - a: interesting in what way? I think most organizations would rather deal with problems in their organizations privately by themselves if they can get away with it -dave
[2006-08-22 12:51:44] - interesting. "Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church reminding them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation." ~a
[2006-08-22 12:39:47] - aaron: and i was wondering about the idealistic tendencies of heterosexual marriage proponents with respect to polygamy. ~a
[2006-08-22 12:38:36] - a: You may have, I've also seen it elsewhere. Even some of my staunch Catholic friends agree the resemblence is uncanny. One of them made a morphing Palpatine/Benedict AIM icon. It was amusing. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 12:36:44] - aaron: mayhaps, I was more wondering about the idealistic tendencies of gay marriage proponents with respect to polygamy -dave
[2006-08-22 12:24:47] - i took that screenshot in april 2005. ~a
[2006-08-22 12:23:47] - xpovos: did i ever show you this: Pope Benedict XVI? it made me smile. ~a
[2006-08-22 12:21:52] - a: Spain is not the flower of the Catholic faith it once was. Benedict XVI went there recently to entreat them against their gay marriages and stem cell research laws, and was pretty thoroughly blasted throughout. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 12:20:48] - aaron: At first, maybe, but they'd get that squared away pretty quickly after defining dependents more strictly. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 12:20:28] - i guess spain is pretty surprising too (spanish inquisiton?) ~a
[2006-08-22 12:18:01] - dave: i think businesses would be more opposed to polygamy because of the ramifications of medical benefits and stuff like that - aaron
[2006-08-22 12:16:58] - civil unions in the united states: "California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey. and Vermont; and the U.S. District of Columbia" ~a
[2006-08-22 12:16:01] - canada is the interesting one. i had no idea. ~a
[2006-08-22 12:15:39] - "At present, same-sex marriages [not just civil unions] are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and the U.S. state of Massachusetts for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws." ~a
[2006-08-22 12:04:53] - anyways, since my religions only discuss interacial marriage, i see no difference between same-sex and different-sex groupings so "Have At It, Take Pictures". ~a
[2006-08-22 12:03:17] - dave: well it wasn't!
~a[2006-08-22 12:00:27] - mig: i was just amused because when i first read it, that's what I thought he was saying -dave
[2006-08-22 11:59:50] - dave: yes you can construe it that way to say, yes we are against gay marriage, but that's a bit disingenous, no? - mig
[2006-08-22 11:59:43] - however . . . i'm going to assume the government will continue to recognize marriage. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:54:45] - mig: although i disagree with the preferential rights, don't diss them. parental rights are important and without a governmental recognition of marriage, determining rights of a guardian is pretty difficult. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:54:25] - a: there was plenty of polygamy in the old testament too (not that that means the bible supports it) but at last it didn't condemn it outright in the old testament -dave
[2006-08-22 11:53:28] - a: Yes, and hence against gay marriage. I also have quasi-religious issues with the practice of homosexuality, but that is entirely me and my fuxx0red relationship with Catholocism. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 11:53:25] - a: hmmm, i'm not sure. I think it might against marrying a daughter, not sure about sisters and cousins. I know that at least in the old testament siblings and/or cousins got married -dave
[2006-08-22 11:52:52] - it would just be a lot easier if you just removed all the government priveleges associated with marriage. this whole moronic fight isn't about "the sanctity of marriage" but rather the government handouts associated with it. - mig
[2006-08-22 11:51:37] - dave: how's that? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:51:01] - dave: fair enough. does the bible say anything about marrying in the family? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:51:00] - a: hehe, amusingly your sentence can be construed as saying that paul, you, etc etc are against gay marriage -dave
[2006-08-22 11:50:18] - xpovos: ahhh I see. a valid point of view -dave
[2006-08-22 11:50:16] - xpovos: so you're not against gay marriage. like paul (and me and lori and lots of people) you're against state recognition of marriage. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:49:52] - a: the daugher could be of legal age. I believe statutory rape is only if they are underage -dave
[2006-08-22 11:49:29] - and i'm not sure how you can have parental rights over yourself
~a[2006-08-22 11:48:44] - dave: I am opposed to gay marriage because I am opposed to the state intrudance on a strictly religious entity. Homo/Heterosexual has nothing to do with it. Seperation of Church and State has a lot to do with it. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 11:48:25] - dave: statutory rape? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:46:57] - xpovos: yeah, i'm not exactly sure of what you mean by being against it for political reasons -dave
[2006-08-22 11:45:48] - xpovos: political? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:45:40] - a: why not a man and his daughter? because we would mess up the gene pool? -dave
[2006-08-22 11:45:34] - a: Bigot. -Paul
[2006-08-22 11:44:24] - "if they love eachother it should be ok" is dumb because lots of people who love eachother shouldn't be given all of the stupid governmental marriage rights. for example, a dog and a human. or a man and his daughter. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:43:58] - dave: My reasons for opposing gay marriage are political. Strangely, this gets me in more trouble than having religious convictions for it. People get angry with religious convictions they disagree with, but people go postal when I don't even have that as a 'defense'. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 11:43:19] - Xpovos: Yeah, I'm super happy about today too (mostly because of AMD) although it makes me sad that I didn't end up buying XM stock when I was thinking about it a week or two ago. -Paul
[2006-08-22 11:43:11] - xpovos: i'm actually frustrated with the market right now. I want it to go down. ^_^ -dave
[2006-08-22 11:42:44] - xpovos: woot! -dave
[2006-08-22 11:41:59] - a: i think you can try to come up with other reasons for opposing gay marriage, but I dont' really think there are any great logical/social ones -dave
[2006-08-22 11:41:26] - I needed a day like today. Sirius is back up over $4 (for now) and my other stocks are recovering some too. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-22 11:40:50] - a: my reasons for opposing gay marriage are religious ones, not because "if they love each other then it should be ok" is a bad argument -dave
[2006-08-22 11:39:21] - a: that's not my point. I actually think the argument is a decent one -dave
[2006-08-22 11:39:00] - a: how is it a pretty failed argument? -dave
[2006-08-22 11:38:54] - paul: i haven't missed dave's point. his point is that "if they love eachother it should be ok" is a bad argument. and i agree. but, i'm trying to go further than the failed argument. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:37:35] - dave: it's much like the argument that "abortion stops a beating heart". because lots of normal things stop a beating heart too and people aren't usually crazy about them. not all arguments are perfect. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:36:19] - dave: right. well . . . you have a good point. however, i wouldn't argue "if they love eachother it should be ok" because (like we've seen) it's a pretty failed argument. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:35:25] - a: In that case, I think you totally missed Dave's point.
-Paul[2006-08-22 11:34:30] - sic. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:34:27] - a: well the reason I singled out gay marriage supporters was because generally gay marriage opponents probably wouldn't support polygamy, and they wouldn't ascribe to statements like "if they love each other, it should be ok" etc -dave
[2006-08-22 11:31:55] - paul: i support herosexaul marriage and i don't support polygamy. i also don't support interspecies marriage. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:29:28] - paul: who cares? just because the claims are/aren't being made doesn't make them any less analogous. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:28:16] - a: asian men should have the right to do whatever they want ^_^ -dave
[2006-08-22 11:28:12] - my bible says that it's just wrong, and i think these liberal cases are what's wrong with america. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:27:26] - a: Do supporters of heterosexual marriage usually make those kinds of claims? -Paul
[2006-08-22 11:27:23] - dave: do you think an asian man should be able to marry a white woman? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:27:14] - bible? who said anything about the bible? ~a
[2006-08-22 11:25:38] - a: well, I think opponents of gay marriage would probably be opposed to polygamy. When I think about it, there's actually more biblical support for polygamy than homosexuality -dave
[2006-08-22 11:25:17] - loving v. virginia wasn't that long ago. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:23:53] - i wonder if the supporters of gay marriage would support interracial marriage.
~a[2006-08-22 11:22:36] - i wonder if supporters of heterosexual marriage would support polygamy? it seems like many of the same arguments apply. why stop people who love each other from getting married? they aren't hurting anyone. ~a
[2006-08-22 11:21:38] - paul: ahhh, I don't remember -dave
[2006-08-22 11:20:48] - granted, if the husband is being abusive, or if one of the wives didn't want to get married, then there's a problem, but that's true of standard marriage today as well -dave
[2006-08-22 11:20:38] - Dave: I think we've (as in, the message board) talked about this before. I don't remember what the consensus was, though. -Paul
[2006-08-22 11:18:40] - not all the arguments, i suppose, but ones like, "why stop people who love each other from getting married" or "they aren't hurting anyone" -dave
[2006-08-22 11:17:38] - I wonder if supporters of gay marriage would support polygamy? It seems like many of the same arguments apply -dave
[2006-08-22 10:45:01] - Sam: I would put the odds at about 50/50. A lot depends on the reviews, since I heard that Madden07 might have some problems. -Paul
[2006-08-22 10:02:49] - paul: r u gonna buy madden 07? it comes out today. -sam
[2006-08-21 16:27:17] - a: Yeah, it seems like they had an idea for a title for the article and decided to use it, even though by their own admission it seems like only the media is making a big deal about this. -Paul
[2006-08-21 16:20:07] - oh, oh, because they've had no complaints?! yeah, that is pretty dumb. ~a
[2006-08-21 16:19:51] - what's it assuming? ~a
[2006-08-21 16:17:32] - http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/21/sweden.porn.ap/index.html " Porn broadcast stuns news viewers" Is it just me, or does this title seem to be assuming a lot? -Paul
[2006-08-21 16:08:09] - i didn't realize it was the first day of class. wow. ~a
[2006-08-21 15:56:58] - it's well sourced now (cnn, msnbc, vtnews) ~a
[2006-08-21 15:42:52] - unsourced: "3:36 . . . Montgomery County police reported over the police scanner that William Morva was captured and taken into custody. He was captured west of the rugby fields on the Virginia Tech campus." ~a
[2006-08-21 15:08:40] - the latest news is in the AM. nothing besides rumors have come out in 3 hours. ~a
[2006-08-21 13:54:15] - today was the first day of class at VT... i wonder how the freshmen felt... -sam
[2006-08-21 13:53:08] - it's also a top story in foxnews.com -sam
[2006-08-21 13:49:38] - sam: I just saw that. Pretty scary. I wonder if they caught the guy yet. - aaron
[2006-08-21 13:46:54] - a: yea, it's like the top news on CNN.com now. -sam
[2006-08-21 13:13:50] - some unsourced comments left on wikipedia: "Morva was never a student of Virginia Tech." "rumors of Morva holding up a hostage in Squires student center spread" ~a
[2006-08-21 13:04:25] - he wasn't in for anything serious and he put himself in for life trying to get out of what would be a very short sentence. ~a
[2006-08-21 12:53:10] - crazy guy . . . he was only in for being charged with attempting to rob a store? ~a
[2006-08-21 12:50:42] - "everywhere you look there are police snipers on the roof." ~a
[2006-08-21 12:49:16] - sam: no, Fing way. ~a
[2006-08-21 12:29:28] - Suspected cop killer shuts Virginia Tech campus http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/virginia.escapee.ap/index.html -sam
[2006-08-21 12:13:40] - and i love how the article doesn't even say. ~a
[2006-08-21 12:13:18] - some believe he was also a vegetarian. hrm. i hope the restaurant doesn't sell meat. ~a
[2006-08-21 11:57:08] - a: I think he also believed in gun control.
-Paul[2006-08-21 11:37:59] - a: He did bring their economy out of a massive depression.
-- Xpovos[2006-08-21 11:36:09] - in other words, if you just have a hitler themed restaurant, then you can focus on the good things (there were some, right?) about hitler. you can distance him from the genocide. ~a
[2006-08-21 11:34:01] - i think it would have been an ok idea if they hadn't ALSO capitalized on the nazi theme. pick one or the other (because then at least you'll have a larger chance of actually having a valid point). ~a
[2006-08-21 11:29:49] - aaron: it's a direct quote from the article. ~a
[2006-08-21 11:25:49] - punit: what do you mean by that? i am so confused! - aaron
[2006-08-21 11:25:28] - We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different. - Punit
[2006-08-21 11:10:05] - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14121008/?GT1=8404 India’s Hitler-themed restaurant draws fire. -Paul
[2006-08-21 11:09:42] - dave: they also supply high quality cable from the wall to your set. *assuming* the distance isn't too long they do it for free. so if you have some old crummy cables lying around, remove them before the cable guy gets there! ~a
[2006-08-21 11:07:05] - paul: thanks! -dave
[2006-08-21 10:59:36] - Dave: They supplied the component cables to connect from the cable box to the TV for me. -Paul
[2006-08-21 10:52:28] - for those who have comcast HD, did they supply the component cables or did you have to buy them yourself? -dave
[2006-08-20 16:51:44] - allez le france! http://www.fiba2006.fiba.com/images/web/Events/2006_wcm/fanZone/photZone/photoDay/_original/evaLong.jpg
[2006-08-19 15:54:40] - sam/a: i think she is on e because a side effect of that is a tense/sore jaw. - aba
[2006-08-19 12:50:28] - sam: she might have just been drunk. ~a
[2006-08-19 01:34:04] - she's totally cool. 88mph! ~a
[2006-08-19 01:30:46] - sam: proove that she's britney spears! now. i feel like i've been missing out on life. ~a
[2006-08-19 01:06:09] - it looks like she is high on some drugs -sam
[2006-08-19 01:04:38] - wow, i didn't know britney spears was a redneck... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB84A3zcmVo -sam
[2006-08-19 00:49:56] - "Attack of the Show" -- videogame violence leading to real world violence? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkHtgRxBfKA&NR -sam
[2006-08-18 20:44:30] - paul: i found out on wikipedia
~a[2006-08-18 18:45:56] - a: We were talking about that at work during lunch, actually. -Paul
[2006-08-18 17:39:18] - the "S.R. Sidarth" guy (the guy that Allen was calling "Macaca") was tj03. ~a
[2006-08-18 17:38:59] - no way! ~a
[2006-08-18 17:11:28] - fun == weird? ~a
[2006-08-18 14:46:21] - a: don't you love how the cockpit can rotate 360 degrees? think of how much fun that would be at red lights - aaron
[2006-08-18 14:40:16] - a: isn't that great? the first time i saw the car i thought it looked like a pokeball on wheels - aaron
[2006-08-18 14:04:18] - and what's with the Pokémon? ~a
[2006-08-18 14:02:19] - aaron: is it just an expensive golf cart? ~a
[2006-08-18 14:01:41] - heh. i thought i caught it soon enough. ~a
[2006-08-18 14:01:22] - not mevo. ~a
[2006-08-18 14:01:22] - no mevo. ~a
[2006-08-18 13:34:13] - http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2005-Nissan-Pivo-Concept.htm who wants a pivo - aaron
[2006-08-18 13:24:52] - i/TGJ13XY8qPaJZiacUiuYRtZeLKFJ3XHCKIB5d/KlN4CdBZ2DmRm41Gsg======
[2006-08-18 12:41:48] - paul: it applies to this situation, because i sold some of my amd (the first in, first out rule means i sold it at a loss), then amd went down a bunch (down more) and i bought it back. since i bought the same stock, soon after a loss sale, it becomes a wash sale which means i can't get a deduction (until i sell it again). ~a
[2006-08-18 11:58:29] - and if the government gets to take my gain anti-deduction if it's a wash or not, then i should be able to take my loss deduction whether it's a wash or not! it's only fair. in fact, since it's my money anyways, the wash rule should only apply to capital gains!
~a[2006-08-18 11:57:16] - dave: yeah i know that you do eventually get to take the loss deduction. but, if the government lets me keep $100 of my money today, that's far better than the government letting me keep $100 of my money in 10 years. $100 today can double in ~8-10 years. ~a
[2006-08-18 10:55:00] - *sigh* "he just looks like a child molester too". If he looks like a child molester, he probably isn't. If he looks like an everyday joe, you've got a much better chance. Particularly if he has good social skills. -- Xpovos
[2006-08-18 10:39:31] - Wash rule? I think I've heard of it (and vaguely know what it is) but I wouldn't have thought of it at all in this situation. -Paul
[2006-08-18 10:36:21] - and i meant prevents, not presents -dave
[2006-08-18 10:36:10] - a: and yes, it is only for losses -dave
[2006-08-18 10:35:59] - a: well, the wash rule just presents you from taking the loss on the current year, if in the end you really do take a loss, you get to take the credit whenever you finally sell the stocks -dave
[2006-08-18 10:32:41] - a: yeah, that wash stuff really sucks, especially for options since it doesn't seem to differentiate between options at different strikes and with different expirations -dave
[2006-08-18 10:32:15] - gtg. ~a
[2006-08-18 10:30:03] - hey, a "wash" sale isn't also for capital gains, right? only capital losses? that really sucks. stupid government. ~a
[2006-08-18 10:21:39] - oh wait, if i buy back my amd, then it's a "wash" under the tax law, isn't it? grrrr. ~a
[2006-08-18 10:19:32] - paul: i sold half of my amd yesterday. /me buys it back. ~a
[2006-08-18 10:16:45] - AMD giveth, and AMD taketh away.
-Paul[2006-08-17 21:16:17] - sam: yes. yes travis is a child molester and yes his birthday is on christmas. ~a
[2006-08-17 18:05:34] - just in case you might get confused, i'm not saying travis looks like a child molester, i was referring to the man in the msnbc article below -sam
[2006-08-17 18:03:31] - a: travis's birthday is really on christmas? -sam
[2006-08-17 18:02:30] - he just looks like a child molester too -sam
[2006-08-17 18:01:22] - Man in custody claims he loved JonBenet Ramsey, was with her when she died http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14379566/ -sam
[2006-08-17 17:06:51] - aba: You all look the same. -Paul
[2006-08-17 17:03:38] - wrong kind of asian.
- aba[2006-08-17 17:03:12] - amy: you're aba's mom? ~a
[2006-08-17 16:43:20] - http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/PlayingCatchUp/BigChangesForYour401kRetirement.aspx?GT1=8473 Some changes to 401(k) and other retirement plans. -Paul
[2006-08-17 16:37:15] - gurkie: it was a different adrian? you promised me you only knew one adrian! - aaron
[2006-08-17 15:23:55] - aba: and that mom is.... oh never mind. -amy
[2006-08-17 15:02:48] - amy: my mom's birthday is feb 2nd! - aba
[2006-08-17 12:49:29] - a: i am going to ddr too! ddr is fun - aaron
[2006-08-17 12:46:22] - amy: heh heh heh ^_^ -dave
[2006-08-17 12:19:02] - dave: oh you said "another," not "a." joke not as funny .( -amy
[2006-08-17 12:18:46] - dave: ...and that friend is me!! ,) -amy
[2006-08-17 12:13:31] - please stand up, please stand up, please stand up. ~a\
[2006-08-17 12:12:46] - a: Posers? -Paul
[2006-08-17 12:10:47] - all those other adrian's are just imitating. ~a
[2006-08-17 12:06:35] - says gurkie...
[2006-08-17 12:06:25] - i lied nevermind.... apparently i have a diff adrian on my friendster whos bday is diff..... i didnt realize i had more than one friend named adrian
[2006-08-17 12:06:12] - a: Not being a prime doesn't eliminate anything. -Paul
[2006-08-17 12:05:08] - and it's a multiple of 8.33333333333... ~a
[2006-08-17 12:04:24] - also it's not a prime
~a[2006-08-17 12:03:52] - paul: after sam's and before dave's. ~a
[2006-08-17 12:01:32] - a: by god, I am gonna make it DDR today - vinnie
[2006-08-17 12:01:17] - amy: wow, feb 2? groundhog day, no? I have another friend with that birthday, how coincidental -dave
[2006-08-17 12:01:03] - a: And when is yours? -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:59:56] - a: She says November 4th. -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:57:19] - the bday.txt never lies. ~a
[2006-08-17 11:57:02] - well ask gurkie when her birthday is. i don't have her's. ~a
[2006-08-17 11:56:24] - a: Gurkie. -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:56:13] - a: Your birthday is still not on there. -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:55:53] - somebody? who is somebody? ~a
[2006-08-17 11:55:18] - a: Yes you did, but somebody is challenging the accuracy of my information, so I need it from the horse's mouth. -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:54:45] - paul: http://wiki.aporter.org/index.php?title=Birthdays ~a
[2006-08-17 11:53:57] - maybe it had all the bdays except those two.
~a[2006-08-17 11:53:18] - paul: didn't i send you a bday.txt file? ~a
[2006-08-17 11:45:51] - a: When is your birthday? And when is Lori's birthday? -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:29:38] - Dave: Wow, that's very kind of them. -Paul
[2006-08-17 11:29:00] - Dave: Heh, sorry. I could probably look this up myself instead of making everyone else do all the work. I just was hoping somebody here would know already. -Paul
prev <-> next