Dusty Chalk

"Dear Erick, Look, I understand that this is what you do -- you get people to contribute, while keeping your costs down. And I can see why from our exchange how it is that you're very good at what you do. But you have to realize that this is what I do. There is a lot involved -- I have to plan when in the year to start growing my beard out, and when to start bleaching it in such a way that it will still grow out the next year, for example. And I have been doing this for years. I have become very good at what I do. There are a very few events that I will do at cost, and fewer yet that I will do for free. And even in many of the cases where I choose to do it for free, I am still offered compensation which I refuse (for my own personal reasons), or I am implicitly offered an exchange of goods or services which is always appreciated. Which of these and for why is none of anyone else's business but mine. But I will mention that they are very few and for very personal reasons. For future reference, it is only polite to offer to pay costs. I realize your event may have started small -- more like a pot luck party where there is no hired help, everyone contributes in some way or another, but it has gotten big enough that it should be managed like a business. And once it got to that point, you need to separate your contributors from the hired help. You wouldn't ask the caterers to bring the food for free, would you? Such as it is with me. And a little advance notice is also in line with running this professionally as a charity. Even then, don't expect anyone else to do this at cost on an annual basis. If you want to elevate this to the next level, then please learn to manage your costs. Sincerely, Wayne aka the Santa Claus" Erick == Entitled RICh Kid. Wayne == keep things personal the Santa Claus == remind him this is your profession

I told this to someone at work today, and they corrected me -- apparently the correct word is man-o-pausal.

Rich people stay rich by not spending money.

Current image under Emerson, Lake & Palmer (Deluxe Edtion) -- yes, I am one of those people that complained, that previously, it was the image for the Tarkus album, rather than the first, self-titled album: There's also some verbage about Amazon stopping selling the item because of me. But at this point, at least they are trying to fix it -- the last time they responded to me with "no, it's not a problem, we are ignoring you". All while fucking with me humorously.

Jinx.

Yeah, the Vic Firth ones -- the one in the upper right is the one I think my ex-housemate had that I used all the time. I need to get myself my own, right now I only have the disposable kind pre-filled with peppercorns. And those woodwork ones are gorgeous -- do love the grain on those -- is that, grain, or inlays? Either way, dayum. And yes, that last one is particularly phallic. It could almost double as a ritualistic fertility object. I know this is weird, but: want. Was pepper-passion.com the site? If not, it's its competitor. EDIT: Found it was, indeed, pepper-passion.com.

I like the dildo-looking ones. Also, wasn't there a pepper site that someone posted...I can't seem to find it now...I think the proprietor even followed the links back to us at one point...

This -- don't feel bad, he'll make out fine.

I edited the "statistics nerd" quote for accuracy. Because I am a pedant.

Sorry, gotta disagree with that last statement, but when someone is obviously going postal, I have no problem with someone stopping them. I'm not saying that about any other situation, but if someone at that school was armed, it might have been shorter. Paraphrasing Obama in something he said just tonight, if we can save the life of one child, aren't we obliged to at least investigate that possibility? 20 is a lot of children, anything cutting that shooting spree short would have been a good thing. He did piss me off when he said that "year after year after year" comment, trying to make it sound like an annual event. Fear-mongering. Ric, I don't think both sides are being silent, unless I missed something -- I've seen all four (over-simplifying, but I will make my point) stances: pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-gun-but-something-must-be-done, anti-gun-but-not-full-out-gun-control. Regarding open or concealed carry, I realize a lot of you are against this -- I am certainly against the concept of obliging anyone unwilling to be armed -- but it is not as horrible a world as many of you have painted. I realize http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?ctid=1000157&cnid=1003264'>this is largely pro-gun propaganda, but it's still worth knowing, in short, that there have been several mass shootings stopped by open or concealed carry. I went looking for this because my friend from Utah mentioned the story in Utah, where the shooter was stopped after 3 or 4 killings, by someone carrying (the point being that a lot of people carry in Utah). 3 or 4 is a lot less than 20. So by Obama's own reasoning, should we not seriously consider this? And please don't feel obliged to stay out of the discussion, you are indeed eloquent and intelligent. Even if I do quote Ben Franklin. In a previous version of that post, I specifically mentioned that I do think some preventative law should be okay (age of consent, child pornography, license to drive, drinking age, smoking age, etc.), but I must have deleted it. Back to my stance -- I am fighting the concept of any action regarding gun control laws now because I think it is badly timed, and should be well thought out intellectually rather than emotionally "react". I actually don't have any problem with gun regulation (background checks, registration, etc.), so am not as hard-nosed as I sound. I also do think regulation should be stricter or less strict based on what the weapon is capable of. But I disagree with any concept that makes it impossible to own a gun. That's just a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

Could be. Would explain a few other things as well.

That's actually a good point -- laptops actually make decent desktops, once you move things to proper ergonomics -- at my previous job, that meant an external keyboard, mouse (trackball in my case, but everyone else used a mouse), and screen, and all was well.

The problem is, you'll never know if it was this, or if they just chickened out. I think -- based entirely on your reiteration of events -- that it was more the latter. You mentioned yourself that you think maybe they felt safer with an out-of-towner, and maybe once they started thinking you weren't, that was enough. Me: slept, just got up. I could not get to sleep last night. WTF?

Yeah, just get a Mac Mini later, with a "real" screen. I remember when people used to laugh at my 15" screen and say that there was no point in having 1080 resolution on something so small.

'Resistance is futile'?

I'm alright with discussing this further. And I apologize for not addressing your specific concern earlier -- you did mention it before -- blame it on my inferior reading comprehension and trying to get through this thread too quickly when reading it in bursts. I'm now going to go watch Hachi and plan on crying my eyes out.

No, you're right, I don't fully understand anyone's values, as I doubt very much they are as black-&-white as I am seeing them right now (not just you, but many who have posted in this thread seem to be very pro-gun-contol). So I think you're right in that I'm seeing things in an overly monochromatic eye -- but not just you, so again, please don't take it personally. And yeah, I can see now how that would be seen that way, but whoever said "one" was probably closest to what I meant -- I sicken at the thought of having any one person's values imposed over other people -- not just yours, but mine, Obama's, Dan's, Romney's...anyone's. Do you see how one little misspeak can convey such an entirely different meaning? I honestly did not mean that directed at your one thoughts on the subject. And it was this statement that seemed to cross that line from sharing one's personal feelings to imposing it on others -- you're right, the words "allowed to" weren't in there: "I DON'T EVER WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT!" -- and again, I misread -- I read "ability" as "legally allowed to" whereas I see now that ... alright, no, I don't have any idea why you stuck that in there, so I'll just shut up and let you explain. There was a tragedy, yes. Do you feel helpless for it having happened under our current legal structure? Yes. Do we have to change it just because of your feelings? I'm not even going to mince words -- no. Notice I'm not saying we shouldn't change it, just that we don't have to. Whatever we do, doesn't have to be like the fiscal cliff -- there is no deadline, whatever we do should be well thought out with all of its ramifications, not passed because of the current emotional state of the populace. And to give you a little more context -- that concept of "trying" a law for a couple years like prohibition scares the shit out of me -- I don't think politicians should "temporarily" be given that kind of power, because I know they would fight tooth and nail to relinquish it, just as I would fight tooth and nail to relinquish my rights. It's the camel's nose under the tent flap. Why should I have to sell my guns because the government says so? Why should I have to go through the trouble of selling them then and buying them back now? What if I needed them during that difficult period in between? Tell that to the victims of all the drive-by shootings during prohibition era.

Dude, sometimes your concept of sequencing is just masterful.

Ric -- I am 100% in agreement with you -- I used to be the kind of guy that thought that law enforcement should only be allowed after the perpetration of a crime, I.E. caught red-handed, but have since come around on a few safe issues -- meth use, anything involving an underage, etc. But for the most part, I do not believe in preventative medicine, for the reasons I stated previously. As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Steve, my man, I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings, but you added those two words "allowed to" which to me changes everything -- it changes the discussion from you (personal) to everyone (legal). Yes, the gay marriage thing was meant to present to you other people imposing their beliefs on you, hence trying to make you understand how that is a bad thing. Anyone who follows me on Facebook knows that there are three things which interest me the most -- rescuing animals, music, and gay rights. I am very sorry that this was not more clear from before you read it. Oh, and beer. And funny things. And my friends and family, which I consider you to be a part of. I stand by something I told to someone recently in private -- I consider my best friends the ones that can call me out on my shit, and ones that I can call out on shit (in this case, a statement) -- I.E. argue with -- and we can go out and have a beer the next day. I consider you to be one of those people (even though you don't drink, mostly). I want my friends to be able to tell me I have broccoli in my teeth, and I will tell my friends when they have broccoli in their teeth. Because no-one wants broccoli in their teeth. And that goes for the rest of you, too -- even though it feels I disagree with most of you, I don't want you to take it personally just because I argue with you. I'm just argumentative like that. Now get off of my lawn. (pumps shotgun)

Happy Birthday, guys! (sticks two party favours correctly in mouth, one on each side -- stereo party favour noise!)

That's funny, I got Nate, too. Hmmm... EDIT: And that's okay -- he gives two gifts, he gets two gifts...I'm just worried that someone got missed, or was it just an odd number of entries?

Whoa, whoa, you don't want the ability to do that, or you don't want to do that, or you don't want others to have the ability to do that (because presumably if you don't have the ability to do that, others would be prevented as well). Quite frankly, some people who are much more sensitive than you are could be affected even worse -- I think they would need the ability not to be exposed to this tragedy. I will not be sharing this tragedy with my mother -- she has the ability to "over-suffer" such things, and in her weakened health, it will not be good for her. So yes, I want exactly that ability for her. So although I applaud your desire for a better life, I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people -- that's what America is about, to me -- to protect each other from each other, not just acts of violence, but imposing each others' belief systems as well (see "gay marriage", for example). And to answer your original question -- although you phrase it meanly, the short answer is yes, as far as the law is concerned, I don't feel there's any change in the law that will fix this -- you have to realize just how rare something like this occurs, and just how unlikely it is to happen in the place it happened. I do agree with gun registration, however -- there definitely should be a system prevent people with known mental health issues from having access. But that still won't prevent the ones who aren't known to have mental health issues...yet. I'm not sure that's possible with the current state of the art. The issue I'm worried about when we get into that slippery slope of "preventative" law is punishing someone who would never have broken the law. And yes, it is a punishment to take a law-abiding citizen's guns away from him against his will. I'm not saying I'm against preventative law, obviously (license to drive, drinking and smoking ages, etc.), I'm just saying we need to tread carefully.

Well the pro gun control advocates seem to be able to predict the future (that gun control will work), so why not? Of course any sweeping statements I make should be preceded "I think", of course.

No, one can twist graphs around to any purpose. As Dan pointed out rather humorously, the trends can be made to show to follow some other trend just as easily -- it's a bit too easy to manipulate data to show what it is you want to show. Your definitions of "bad things" and "costs" are a bit too sweeping for me.

Had this earlier Sent frum mah phone-blet using Tapatalk.