• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Whiner

About atoyot

  • Rank
  • Birthday December 1

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

8,251 profile views
  1. Stephen Hawking.

    ....and on Pi day, at that....
  2. That you weren't desensitized to the carnage that an animated figure dropping an anvil on other animated figures would cause out in the real world, due to watching cartoons, comes as no surprise at all. I don't know all the answers and could go on and list some things to try, but will refrain at this time. It's worth noting that guns - guns of every type of feed action (semi-auto, pump action, gas-piston, mass recoil, etc) has been around for a long time. Much longer than the public or mass shootings have been. The really simple answer (Supreme Court challenges aside) is to round up the guns. Done. The catch is, there's this thing about every other Western country which is equally simple to grasp. Those other nations are not us. Those are not the United States, a nation borne of armed insurrection and inherently distrustful of it's government. It's people are severely disinclined toward following rules/laws with which they disagree on the basis of nannyism, or by reason of distrust of intentions. Failing to address whatever reason or reasons why we had this last High School shooting and the 6-year-olds in Newtown, CT here in the current day rather than in, say 1978 or even 1988, before asking for major clamping down on who can own a firearm and for what rather judgemental reasons, is a broad non-starter where trust or distrust of intentions is concerned. Let's even talk 1968 - Up to that summer, a person could walk into Woolworth's, Sears, Western Auto, or a regular gun store and buy an M1 Garrand semi-auto [used in WWII], a single-shot bolt action, a tubular magazine lever action, or pretty much the same types and calipers of revolvers and pistols seen today, each one of these sans paperwork. No I.D., and guns everywhere. Where were these seemingly monthly attention-whore shootings? Where were they? Not when I was in Elementary or Jr. High, or High School, or college. Nada. Background checks became required nationwide by my 4th grade, and additional laws have been thrown on top of other laws as the years poured by like powder through a reloading press. Where were the shootings?? Beuhler? Anyone? I don't care on any personal basis if the AR or other "military look-alikes" get assessed at some higher level of clearance, though, why the AR and not the Ruger Mini-14? Same cartridge, takes a 30-round mag, etc etc. What I do care about is Fixing the Problem rather than chiefly putting a salve on the symptoms. These symptoms are apparently not in other Western cultures to the degree that they are here. "But - but - but... they don't have guns like we do!" True. They're also not located within the political, geographic, and social confines of the country in question. We could go around forever on this aspect. The end observation will always remain: The guns have always been here; the widespread and repeating carnage we're seeing today has not been here over the same period of time. The media, games, and films cannot be suspect? OK.... I don't believe it's any more problematic to finger any given type of violence in a video game or a blockbuster film and ask the exact, same questions people ask of gun owners. Such questions as, "Sure, you like seeing someone fire 400 rounds out of an AR without reloading - but who NEEDS to have that in their entertainment?" or "Only the police and military portrayed in films should be armed.", but then again, that pesky question about constitutionality. As long as we're going to wipe our collective arses with that document, let's not let that get in the way here, either. One might ask why are cigarette ads prohibited on radio and television in the US. Why do we have anti-DUI public-service announcements? Who knows what "product placement" is? One could go on for a while; the point is obvious. Visual media has influence, even when that happens not to be it's primary purpose each time. Pending some deep, peer-reviewed study denying even as a remote and accidental contributor to lowering the standards of the uniquely American social construct, it's worth holding the same kind of calling-out, shaming, and boycotting of violent motion picture films and active-shooter "games" that are being held now against the assholes at the NRA. Supply will follow demand, and, nothing about this takes away any other action that others insist upon doing, vis a vis, writing/changing/stiffening gun laws. Have at it, but do not stop there if we are to fix the problem and cure the illness; This country has far too many guns in it that will never be found and/or will fall overboard, if their [former] owners smell a rat. Remember how well Prohibition worked, and apply that mind-set of "cooperation" to the topic of gunz. OK, time for more pain meds. C1 & C2 fusion's quite annoying to recover from, you know......
  3. Taking NRA money? VOTE THEM OUT!

    So you assume the typical, career politician is "vaguely aware" on the topic of guns. Given the way the usual suspects keep conflating a firearm with gas-cylinder or recoil-powered cartridge exchange cycles with "automatic" weapons, that is IMO overly generous. Just one guy's opinion.
  4. Taking NRA money? VOTE THEM OUT!

    ^I believe that's the point Tom is making, that the lawmakers wouldn't know a .22 from a .223 from a turnip.
  5. Taking NRA money? VOTE THEM OUT!

    True enough. It does seem odd if not simply disappointing that this level of demonstration and collective pissed-offedness was not formed in the wake of Sandy Hook. I'd have believed that if a score of dead primary schoolers wasn't going to spark a more serious discussion, nothing was going to do it. It's just out of line enough, given my cynicism toward "modern" American culture, to make me wonder if the same people behind screwing with the '16 election are now encouraging civilian disarmament. Now if you'll pardon me, i need to find my tin foil and see about some extra headwear.
  6. Taking NRA money? VOTE THEM OUT!

    Do you really see returning access to automatic weapons coming up for discussion, ever, in our lifetimes? While just my observations alone fail at representing statistical certainty, there seems to be about no push whatsoever at large to rescind this subset of items (automatic weapons) from the Destructive Weapons list. Anyone currently looking to mainstream friggin' full-strength Tommy guns and select-fire M-16's right about now, has got to be a bit of an insensitive jackass. Names and representative district(s) would be appreciated....
  7. More Teachers Behaving Badly

    It's that old "position of authority" thing again which (in some localities, such as mine) supersedes whatever kind of statutory age variables exist in the case. If the law says it's illegal then it's illegal (until successfully challenged).
  8. LONQR

    ...as well as the undergarments....
  9. LONQR

    More fake Chinese shit:
  10. "National Cleavage Day"

    I'd still settle for the sisters/twins, though the conversa- Never mind.
  11. "National Cleavage Day"

    Oh, for sure. I'd turn her down in a heartbeat even on a dare. She couldn't beg me. Uh-huh. Well, i suppose if given a choice, the twins would have me painting the celing before their panties hit the floot.
  12. LONQR

  13. How to Talk to Girls

    Conjugating verbs back in grade school sometimes got a bit tense as well.
  14. Climate, no Weather, no Climate, no Weather

    The larger issue is the myth that "There are cyclical changes, so, this is just nature doing what it does." That is not inaccurate as a whole; it's simply disingenuous and provides a convenient excuse for not addressing a meaningful energy paradigm shift. The "cyclical changes" that have happened, have taken place over tens of thousands of years, not a mere 100 or even 200 years. When overall, long-term (centuries upon centuries of gradual drift one way or the other) temperatures vary, plant life and animal life (including homo erectus) has a chance to evolve a litte - if not biologically, then, certainly in a cultural sense. that is - there are civilizations whose remains are under the sea, but, the inhabitants didn't necessarily have to leave and relocate within two or three generations due to sea level alterations. As it is, coastal cities are having to earmark monies for the foreseeable future - within the lifetimes of their younger Council members - to mitigate and minimise the coming street flooding that will not retreat. Science does not care what anyone believes. It is what it is. This may explain the context of "cycles" versus the time over which they ocurred: https://xkcd.com/1732/ (It's a big-ass picture file and won't paste here) So, yes: the climate does change. It even goes up and down on its own. That said - it happens over tens of thousands of years, maybe half a dozen centuries at best, time enough for whole cities to come and go and for homo erectus (and other life forms, anmal or plant life) to evolve or otherwise deal with it. Passing off "regular, cyclical temperature fluctions" for an explanation for what we now know of as climate change, is more than just a little disingenuous.
  15. "National Cleavage Day"

    How's she look in the back seat? You know, back when cars like that had a rear window deck to put one foot while t'other was over the front seat..