Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 50
General Comments / Re: Question for Hillary supporters
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:36:39 PM »
Part of the "analysis" is that criticism of Trump has no effect.  He in fact revels in it.  Hillary, unlike Trump cares, (or knows she must appear to care) enough to refute the negatives/attacks.

Something that should sound like nonsense, yet is somehow relevant this election cycle.

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:13:08 PM »
I guess the thing is, if my government is so tyranical that they are arresting me and taking my phone physicaly from me, inspecting it without warrant, then... well I'm already screwed.

What I want to guard against is blanket surveillance state stuff that the legitimate government can employ, yet dismiss as a rogue element acting without permission.  It may be bull, but we can't really do anything about it.

If they can get a warrant for that safe which incinerates the contents if you type in the wrong code, and take their time and cut their way in bypassing it... OK.  The same for a phone IMO. 

Now if they want to know what everyone is doing, round the clock, "just in case" (and they do if we'll let them), then I'm not OK with it.

Just because I no longer trust the government doesn't mean I don't accept they still need some tools to do what they exist for.

General Comments / Question for Hillary supporters
« on: February 26, 2016, 01:52:14 PM »

So I just read through this.  More and more I'm in the Bernie camp and this whole piece is quite possibly 'telling me what I want to hear'.  I was wondering if anyone leaning towards (or fully supporting) Hillary takes issue with the conclusions drawn and theories put forward in this piece. 

Short version:
Trump vs. Clinton, he makes it all about attacking her and will avoid policy.  Her history makes her an easy mark for unsubstantiated accusations as well as cherry picking factual tidbits that can be used to make her look bad.

Trump vs. Sanders, Trump doesn't have the material to work with and the things in the negative column for Sanders still look pretty good when compared to Trump.

The author even admits that this dynamic changes if Trump is not the GOP candidate, but it was interesting and their, "here's how I think it would go" seems plausible.

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:57:13 PM »
The, "would it be legal to sell" is going to come up shortly.  The question of, "is it legal to install my own operating system for this phone?" will come up as well.

What apps will we see that offer peer to peer encrypted communication or file transfers suddenly rise in popularity?

Will having those apps installed be illegal?  Will standard (approved) OS's "look" for these apps?  If found will they turn you in?

What about "dead man switches" for your phone?  If you don't "log in" every 24hrs it wipes the contents? 

This could lead to a ridiculous arms race for anyone trying to actively protect their data.  It likely already is.  They are fishing for ways to trip up the lazy and incautious. 

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:53:14 PM »
We wouldn't allow a bank to deny the FBI access to a safety deposit box because other people also have things locked in the same vault.  But we do allow companies to sell safes that are as secure as they can make them if someone has the money and space to install them.

And if someone made a safe that incinerates its contents after nine failed attempts at the digital combination? I wonder if it would be legal to sell, or if the FBI would demand to have a "firmware update" that lets them in.

I guess the difference is, given enough time, they could still get at the content bypassing the security measure for this safe.  IF they knew going in what they were up against.

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:51:47 PM »
onto any other iPhone in their possession.
If this is a physical key, meaning plug in phone and this hardware device unlocks it by changing the OS, I'm actually not all that upset.  I think I could get behind such a request / court order.

I think that Apple should be compensated for the time (if any) it takes to develop / build such a device though.

If it's built into the OS such that they can access the phone remotely / wirelessly, I do take issue with the request.  Even a hard line breach is a risk.  I could see criminal elements setting up "charging stations" to exploit this backdoor eventually.

The catch is I think we (Apple) needs to treat our government as if they are criminals.  If they can't make the tool abuse proof, they shouldn't create it.

I don't know what "Top of the Pops" is.  Maybe there are more correlations than I'm seeing?

I laid out my logic on why they are different.  When an individual sets themselves up as a moral authority, they are held to a different standard.

This is why police killing someone unjustly is huge news and a random citizen killing someone else is a fleeting headline (unless they kill 4 or more). 

This is why when your neighbor cheats on their spouse nobody much pays it any attention but when a politician shouting about family values does it's a huge scandal.

I don't know anything about these two but your comparison strikes me as odd. 
Maybe to you it's just an organization protecting itself from being smeared by the actions of some in their ranks.  That much makes sense.  Though honestly in this case I feel they had more to gain as an organization by booting them out immediately but I have no idea how integral they were to operations from before I was born through when I was in jr. high...  I'm not even sure I could have told you what the BBC was in jr. high.   :-[

The outrage and scandal related to the church (in my opinion at least) has a lot more to do with betrayal of trust from those specifically tasked with teaching morality to those they abused.

Sadly, we accept that awful awful things happen to our fellow humans all the time.  We accept that corruption thwarts justice all the time when those awful things happen.  We try to root it out where we can but defeatism creeps in when faced with the scope of it at times.

What really gets people's blood boiling though is when you pair that with hypocrisy.  When a "bad person" does "bad things" that's one thing.  When a person who claimed to be good, and regularly condemned "bad people" and "bad things" then turns around and does those exact things, we can hardly contain our outrage.

I guess what I'm saying is don't expect the same level of outrage directed at the BBC, because it IS different.  So I guess I can't give a counter example as I don't feel you have compared apples to apples. 

Yes, that's what I think.  I expect it was "just another gig" or it was her idea as a good joke.  This however seems less likely to me.  If you were against the message I doubt you would participate as a smear.

But... It is very possible.  That's why I asked.

Heard about this awhile back.  Are you speculating or did someone put her up to it? 

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: February 23, 2016, 02:59:51 PM »
We need to quit wasting time and nail down eco-friendly, non warming, global cooling solutions.

Then we can sort out controlled global warming solutions which don't rely on fossil fuels.  It's not like we can bank on terraforming to work by exporting our remaining oil reserve to other planets. 

So much wasted time...  :P
So many other environments to exploit for their treasures!

I still find it interesting... 

Learning the logic people employ and their personal priorities or morality they use to reach a position is the main reason to take part in these discussions in my opinion.  It's not like most people who come to these discussions expect to change the other side's position.  Knowing how someone came to the conclusion at least has a chance of breaking out of the Us vs. Them mindset that makes the other side unreasonable obstacles to the way things should be.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:00:04 PM »
My observation has been different.  Rather than fearing a slippery slope, Pyr went on a head first dive off a shear cliff face I didn't see coming.

General Comments / Re: Violins against women
« on: February 19, 2016, 03:26:57 PM »
Not sure if I got to ep. 3 or not.  I watched a few of them.  Some strange stuff on that show.  May take a peek again later. 

edit:  NM, as is relevant to this topic, I'm pretty sure I did see the one you are referring to.

General Comments / Re: Violins against women
« on: February 19, 2016, 03:11:45 PM »
+1 for Lindsey proving that assembly line pop culture is worse than worthless.  (by succeeding wildly despite their efforts to shut her down)

I have no comment on the sexuality of classic instruments or the symbolism involved in playing (with) them...

General Comments / Re: Apple's odd stand on privacy
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:53:47 PM »
It goes beyond that.
Once you create a backdoor it's not only the cops/government who can exploit it.
You end up with legal, search warrant backdoor access.
Illegal, government surveillance.
Hackers attempting to get your personal information and potentially access accounts you have linked to it for paying with the phone.
Tabloids attempting to access celebrity phones for photos, message history, locations...

You do not intentionally design flaws into privacy measures.  :(

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:00:52 PM »
I don't know of any similar accessible and free offerings for training in de escalation and gunshot wound treatment, along with free access to the medical supplies related.

Sorta?  Not free though

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 17, 2016, 01:23:38 PM »
I watch programs and play programmed games all the time for my violence addiction.  I think you got that backwards Wayward Son.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:14:11 AM »
I expect another part of the issue is we are a lot more willing to let people spiral into addiction and death than we are to allow them to run rampant with a weapon.  Deaths are deaths and can be tucked by many into the "not my problem" column.  When their lives are interrupted (or ended) by gun violence, it becomes their problem.

It's not JUST about stopping deaths. 

It's the same reason why the gun rights camp, "what about automobile deaths?" argument falls on deaf ears.

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 16, 2016, 01:02:31 PM »
I thought "A plague on both their houses" was meant to be a curse, not an observation.  :P

General Comments / Re: A little perspective
« on: February 16, 2016, 11:29:21 AM »
The same can be (and often is) said about gun deaths. 
But you are right about the "if it's even required".

There is the benefit of not having people defend their right to abuse opiates.  There may be a lack of will by some to address the issue, but not direct opposition.  (or not as significant of opposition?)

You might as well argue with a fundamentalist about one of his holy sacraments.
I can do both, no worries.

Regarding safety, yes. But then that would get back to the larger issue of not being right to force her to have a child, unless you're intending to tell her that the bean disintegrated the child and close all records, etc... such that there's no chance of her later discovering that you secretly did trick her into giving birth, which opens up a boatload of ethical questions along with treating her like a baby factory.
Can you explain WHY you feel that the right to decide to have a child or not is important?  For me there is no ethical question.  Explain what questions it brings up for you. 

Nobody has suggested that you force a woman to carry a fetus UNTIL viability.  We are just discussing that if, at the time of the termination of a pregnancy, it is possible to save the life of the fetus, the attempt is made.   

If we were talking about early or even mid term pregnancies I'd agree with you Pyrtolin.

This is less organ / blood donation than it is choosing to shoot an unwanted guest for trespassing rather than forcing them to leave.

General Comments / Re: Our new Cuban friends
« on: February 15, 2016, 09:30:16 AM »
Good story.  But it does sound like an outside contractor messed up sending it BACK to the U.S..  Not FROM the U.S.  Still some strange stuff.

Makes you think maybe they want backdoors into cell phones just in case the president or his staff looses their iphone somewhere and they need to locate it quickly so nobody gets a hold of the world leader's contact lists and spams our allies. 

I don't know if I should be poking fun at bureaucracy or contracting important work out we should handle internally. 

General Comments / Re: Failure to Grovel
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:51:41 PM »
The y'all Qaeda thing has been going almost from the start.

I just read one that had me chuckling. 

...the Cruz campaign told CNN that Trump was throwing a "Trumpertantrum"

General Comments / Re: Failure to Grovel
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:34:52 PM »
The point that does matter is not how many fancy facts a candidate can recite but rather what the candidate's general philosophy is on dealing with foreign nations. I think Bernie having voted against Iraq speaks volumes as compared to he and Hillary squaring off in talking about Syria, which doesn't say very much at all.
The first debate I listened to the "I voted against Iraq" smacked of "I told you so" but he never mentioned WHY.  Maybe at the time he got into why?

Last night however he added, "Because I didn't believe them."  Now that point (though I'd like to hear him expand on it) may actually speak to something worth mentioning.

You are right that we should expect her to have the experience and for him not to.  It has a lot more to do (for me) with how he speaks about it.  It's no small task to project leadership from a position of ignorance.  But that's the hoop that must be jumped through.  The, "my judgement is better" refrain backed up only with the Iraq vote, does nothing for me.  Maybe it's enough for a large bunch of the voting citizenry? 

The whole negotiating with our enemies / hostile parties conversation came off as both sides trying too hard to twist the other's position.  For me that was the low point of the evening.  Then again you can't spend all night going, "I agree."  :)

General Comments / Re: Failure to Grovel
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:25:41 PM »
I DO like being handed a cookie compared to being told I'll get all the cookies I could ever want if only we win the lotto...   :)

But yes, I'm OK with a political revolution.  Honestly I think he's only about 8-16 years early. 

General Comments / Re: Failure to Grovel
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:12:06 PM »
Haha sadly I do get a, "But I'm qualified, I've paid my dues and I deserve this!  What is WRONG with you people?" vibe from her.  I hope that is an unfair assessment on my part.  The shiny newness for me (in dusty old man form) of candidate Bernie hasn't worn off yet.  :)

General Comments / Re: Failure to Grovel
« on: February 12, 2016, 10:18:12 AM »
I thought it was equally strange, but then I saw the immediate commentary after.  Apparently that's how you pander for black votes.  Latch onto Obama's coat tails and point out any time Bernie differed in opinion.

Bernie in contrast seems to stay laser focused on a rising tide raises all ships stance on racial problems and, as the title says, fails to grovel.

I'm curious how people pick apart the race issue on this debate. 
The, "given demographic shifts should white Americans be concerned?" (heavily paraphrased) question was a strange moment in the debate. 

I may have to look up the transcripts later to see if Hillary's response was as awkward as I thought at the time. (or worse?)  Bernie kinda dodged that question after Hillary dove in head first.  But then, at the end the moderator kinda forced the issue with Bernie.

Do you think race relations would be better (than present under Obama) under a Sanders presidency?

B:  Yes.

Maybe this is just me being a middle aged white dude but the questions seemed like bait to do something silly and it looked to me like they both stepped in it.

Also the, "I'm no friend of Kissinger" rant was... interesting.  As was the doubling down on the "I didn't vote for the Iraq war" adding "because I didn't believe them". 

As per the previous debate, Hillary's "I'm more practical/realistic" (while I think it's true) comes off as weakness or dishonest compared to Bernie's stated goals.  But, also as in the last debate, I think Bernie looked very weak in foreign policy compared to Hillary.

Fenring you are missing part of Pyr's argument.  It's NOT different.  He's just wrapping it up in packaging people don't tend to like picking at.

In order for her to have a meaningful right to control of her own body and reproduction,

We are not contesting / I do not feel I am contesting, a woman's right to control her body.  I am, most defiantly, infringing upon her right choose if she reproduces or not. 

I think it's a silly way to approach the dehumanizing aspect of terminating a fetus, but he is taking part in the same conversation.

I like how we got to page 3 and this all seems MORE ridiculous than my page one first reply.     ;D

Late term decisions to terminate for non life threatening or significant quality of life decisions for the infant are kinda the realm of nonsense debates. 

They COULD happen every once in a rare while.
The doctor COULD agree every once in a rare while.

I doubt perfect record keeping and reporting for say 5 years would change the debate.

Last one just surrendered. 
Civil war averted!  /wheew  close one!

3 of the 4 surrendered it seems.  1 to go.  Going all "liberty or death".  :(

Who is responsible for the care of the induced person?  Who is responsible to pay for its upkeep and well-being?
Were my moral position to become law, then it would be the state.  This is like child abandonment to me but has the odd feature of us needing to remove any possibility of financial motives to terminate a life.  You need to remove the possibility of someone coming up with a false justification to avoid having to be penalized for choosing not to be responsible for another life.

I have a question.  Am I wrong in assuming we already have laws on the books that let a parent abandon a child without repercussions specifically to deter infanticide? 

I have huge problems with the functional but mentally unwell end of the spectrum.
I'm very sorry that you think that way.  It's like saying if you have treatable diabetes, here's a pill; if you have MS, why don't you just curl up and die already.
Thanks, but it's not like that.  It's more along the lines of saying, you should make some life changes if your job / home life is making you so anxious or depressed.  It's still not (always) fair, but it's my knee jerk reaction.  Also a blind spot when it comes to legitimately uncontrollable behavior compared to poor impulse control.

In the land of DW the dictator, there would not be a mental health justification acceptable for terminating a viable fetus which could be induced.
How to you get to this point without effectively denying the basic validity of mental health, nevermind the greater competitive importance of it in the first place, given that poor physical health does not necessarily lead to poor mental health, but poor mental health will almost always lead to a degradation of physical health. Even if you do not consider the brain the most important organ in the human body, I don't see any good justification for effectively declaring it to be less important than all others.
For me, this is a complex question.  I’ll start with the easy part.

I am not measuring or weighing physical health of the pregnant woman against her mental health at all.  I’m measuring her mental health against the life of a child who MAY grow up to be perfectly healthy.  Let me say this plainly so there is no ambiguity.  I don’t care if the fact of the child’s existence ruins this woman’s life because she becomes mentally unraveled and we are 100% positive she would have been mentally healthy and happy for the rest of her days if only she had terminated that child instead of delivering it live.  That is HER problem and the child does not deserve to die to spare her from it.  Just as we don’t force organ donation we don’t kill people because life would be easier for someone else if they weren’t around.  (at least not legally...)

I believe in unconditional rights of the woman to end a pregnancy at ANY time.  I have the odd quirk in the pro choice camp (which I still feel I belong to) of believing that unless the woman is at risk of permanent physical injury or death that she has no say in whether or not that fetus lives or dies.  I find this morally identical to delivering a child naturally then choosing to smother it with a pillow.  Now because of this oddball morality, I believe there should be protections in place so that a child can be given up, no questions asked, if the mother does not want to raise it. 

Now the second part of your question gets into actually weighing mental health of a patient against physical health of the same patient.  To contradict my comment to AI earlier that I try not to get into anything personal…  If mental health issues were treated like race, I would probably a border line or full blown racist.  While I fully grasp the importance of the more obvious spectrum of mental illnesses I have huge problems with the functional but mentally unwell end of the spectrum.  It’s not fair and part of me knows that but I whether nature or nurture I despise self deception and refusal to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions.  Where others leap to expressing sympathy there is part of my brain that can’t help but think that they may just be weak or exploiting sympathy to excuse actions they choose to take.

If I’m being really honest, it’s probably a sign of my own mental un-wellness. 

So while your line of questioning was totally irrelevant (from my point of view) to my stance on this issue, you correctly note I don’t take mental wellness as seriously as most.

You're the only one bringing the concept of "monster" in here.
Because being punished for sexual contact without consent just makes you the sexy type of dangerous and a misunderstood rebel? 

Pete throws around a lot of loaded descriptors when he's upset but "monster" is as good as short hand gets for how people see accused rapists. 

Dictator DW appreciates your consent.
I feel moved to ask if this issue affects you personally.  That's not a challenge, but we're all aware how people's viewpoints on other people's behavior is often influenced by their personal experiences.
Abortion, no.  Mental health, possibly?
Obviously we are all shaped by our experiences but I do not go out of my way to lay them out in this type of venue.  I apologize for being dismissive of your friend's loss.  Situations like that do not impact my opinion on the issue but I shouldn't be a jerk about it.

Dictator DW appreciates your consent.

Because women are not entitled to mental health? On what basis are you arbitrarily dismissing a critical element of a person's health here?
In the land of DW the dictator, there would not be a mental health justification acceptable for terminating a viable fetus which could be induced.  On the basis that there IS another life to consider.  I believe the woman's life is MORE important, not that the fetus/infant is unimportant.  I believe that saving the less important life outweighs ANY mental health consideration.

If you are asking if they ARE entitled, that's different.  MY morals however offer no wiggle room on that.  If you willingly brought a pregnancy right up to the finish line and decide this whole motherhood thing may be too stressful to cope with, give the kid up for adoption.  If you don't think you could cope with the guilt of abandoning your child, then don't give the kid up, or just deal with it.

Can you explain what your metaphor there has to do with why the additional steps taken in an abortion procedure reduce or do not reduce risk over an equivalent birth where those steps are not taken?
It has nothing to do with it.  It was a dodge and a metaphor used to illustrate the moral justification behind my stance.

And about having informed control over one's own body and reproduction.
I'm not talking about the state inserting a syringe and extracting a fertilized egg, implanting it in someone else or some science fiction artificial womb and manufacturing or outsourcing a pregnancy.  That may be in our future though... we COULD discuss the moral ramifications of such a system if you want.

If I read between the lines I'm not sure I can agree to the "and reproduction" part of that statement.

I was going to do the same substitution NH did.  Anyway…

I can’t tell if Pyr is being openly sexists, just spelling out how a sexists system works or is advocating a zero tolerance policy towards sex combined with alcohol?  That’s like preaching abstinence only sex ed and hoping for the best…

P.S.  Took a page Pete but I understood your whole post and agreed with it.  How bout that.

But they don't use a teleporter right into an incinerator.  There is still a procedure that takes place.  We were skeptical that this procedure is more safe, not suggesting there was no risk in inducing.
Okay, metaphor time. I'm going to put a tennis ball in your mouth, then pull it out. You have the choice of it going in whole or chopped up into pieces. Which do you think poses the greater risk of physical damage, such as possibly dislocating your jaw?

Can I play this too? 
It's going to take 3 hours to pry you out of this car wreck sir.  The child in the seat next to you appears to be bleeding and we can't get to him any other way.  We're not sure if he will make 3 hours.  If we break your arm we can get him out now.

A broken arm COULD throw a blood clot and kill the man.  It's possibly lethal and sure to be painful.  The child may even die anyway and the man will have been subjected to needless pain and danger for nothing.

Once the pregnancy is far enough along that the fetus/infant could survive induced labor I think that only a legitimate threat to the long term PHYSICAL health or life of the pregnant woman should be considered a reason to terminate. 

For me choice is about not being pregnant any more.  Not deciding if a fetus lives or dies.  I honestly believe it's a distinction without a difference from pro choice absolutists.  I don't think someone gets within a week or two of delivery and just changes their mind and terminates without having a legitimate health reason.  It's a weird thing to argue about IMO.

If boys are told the insane standards that this school applies for rape, don't even need to be conscious to "rape" someone, they can properly protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, wearing chastity belts, and carrying a video camera and a breathalyzer to every sexual encounter.
Maybe I did fail to read the article properly. 

Are you intentionally (or mistakenly) blurring the lines between conscious, incapacitated and unconscious?  What you just wrote, is an entirely differing condemnation of their policy than the situation I thought was outlined. 

Your advice is sadly appropriate regardless. 

But they don't use a teleporter right into an incinerator.  There is still a procedure that takes place.  We were skeptical that this procedure is more safe, not suggesting there was no risk in inducing.

Pete, replying to you here is feeling way too much like talking someone down off a ledge.  Between that and the simple fact I wasn't getting enough actual work done, I tried to bow out.

I asked you a question.  You told me (I think) it was answered in the part I clipped out.  I assume you mean the part within the same post by you which contained part of scifi’s quote and your response to it.  I assume you mean the answer to my question is buried in this quote.  If so, I’m blind or can’t make sense of it.
It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.

Or the fact that the federal government has used it's funds to strong arm private institutions into setting up these Kangaroo courts.

The fact that there are no criminal charges does not change the fact that the government is directing these operations therefore when to say constitutional argument does not apply sounds exactly like the Bush admin and Clinton admin's defense for RENDERING processes to foreign government so America doesn't get hands dirty.

I would like you to connect the dots.  The first sentence seems unambiguous.  You took what scifi said, ran it through your brain and out popped that sentence.  That’s what it sounded like to you.  The second and third sentences are accusations that the events were either the desired outcome or at least a conspiracy or bureaucratic *censored*show.  To coin a phrase from the article.  Either way, none of that can be extrapolated (by me at least) from what scifi posted.

If you are INSTEAD reaching those conclusion based upon some piece of the article you linked to rather than the quoted post by scifi, fine.  My confusion is addressed.  Note, I don’t even try to correct the sentiment you express, lest you assume I do by this reply…  Though I do think it is needlessly hyperbolic.

try the two paragraphs that you left out of the quote.  Referencing the article issues that SD's points #1 and #2 streamlined.
I refuse. 

Pretend that this paragraph is me parroting back what you want to hear.

Pretend this paragraph illustrates my outrage to an acceptable level.

Hope the rest of your day is relaxing and enjoyable.

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.

2. There was no criminal charge or conviction.

3. I am glad you are not in charge of deciding who to label a sexual predator.

All that said, assuming the whole story is there, this case definitely seems like an overreach.

It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.
How do you get from A to B?  What part in 1, 2 or 3 “sounded” like that?  I just don’t see it. 

Take it at face value.  “Too drunk to form intent” as a defense IS a terrible idea.  You must see that?  The inference that you don’t, I expect, is what lead to point 3. 

As the same over-correction sometimes applies to race relations in our country right now I'm not positive intersectionality is a poor word choice. 

I had to look it up to check...

Pete, are you in there?  Come back to us.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 50