MTG Salvation

Comment Hidden

Quote from masterraid

I'm sorry, but when amazon.com upgrades, its still the same site with my information. they dont own it, to sell as they please.

No, they actually do. That's the whole point of a ToS.

Quote from masterraid

so they own my information now? i am not ok with this. they shouldnt own anything of mine

Do you not understand how web services work?

Quote from Killane

I am not a fan.

The current boards are very simple- as easy to navigate as such a large message board can be, simple graphical interface that loads quickly and easilly even in my antiquated work brower, minimally invasive ads, minimal viaul cluttter.

The new boards are a visual assault on the senses. I don't know what "curse" is, but I hate the idea of having to have a profile with someone I know nothing about in order to access these forums.

Look, I'm the old fogey of old fogies. If ever there was someone here who would be opposed to moving from vBulletin 3.x, it'd be me (since I've been getting used to its quirks for going on ten years now). And I have a lot of issues with the Beta, which I've been raising both here and on the site.

But we can't stay here forever. vB 3.x doesn't get security updates anymore. It isn't supported, it isn't maintained, there's no longer an infrastructure of people working to improve it and extend it. The system we have right now is cobbled and jerry-rigged together, and it works for the moment, but it's not a sustainable solution in the long term.

Right now we have the ability to migrate to a system where the developers are being totally responsive to our needs and demands. That's about the best we can ask for.

I was reading through Folly the other night and amused to see all the very subtly different formatting styles we use. I thought I'd collect them together and try to appreciate something I normally just gloss over.

In truth it doesn't really say much, but it's kinda fun to look at. There are two main styles of posting, which I guess you might call prose-style and script-style. But within those two styles the differences are interestingly minor; whether or not to use quotation marks, whether to put a space before the dash after the name, how to use color, and so on. So, yeah.

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Quote from bocephus

Quote from Senori

Quote from bocephus

..and this is the attitude that is wrong and what is wrong with the mentality of America right now. Its never better to not work and be a drain on society, then work, no matter how hard the work.

Let's run through a thought experiment.

Bill and Ted are both 48-year-old office workers who are laid off from their job of 25 years. Both are out of shape, have families to support, and don't have benefits from their spouse.

Bill gets a job as a farm laborer. After three weeks he throws out his back, incurring serious medical bills and preventing him from working any more. His family has less money than when he started. Moreover, now he's injured, and has a job on his resume which doesn't look good to a potential employer in the fields he wants to work.

Ted stays on unemployment and scrapes by.

Which is better?

The way I see it, both end up being a drain on society. I would respect Bill a hell of a lot more then Ted. There is no saying Ted doesnt get sick or get injured not working. Inactivity is never the answer

That's spoken as someone that's never clearly been involved in much hiring before: Bill would likely be looked down upon once a job that he was qualified for opened up since he did "low education labor" (often indicating to a hirer that they're not up to snuff for their preferred work) and that he was flighty because he was willing to leave a new career he'd only been in a short time.

As a professional hirer, it was far more appealing to see gaps in a resume while someone had a hard time finding another job that was appropriate for them or "personal time" of various sorts than seeing them working in the coal mines. Because that time in the coal mines puts their entire qualifications into question.

And "gainful employment" for purposes of receiving non-unemployment benefits is scaled to poverty level. Unemployment benefits are scaled to previous income (although something like 25% of existing wage). In neither case does "gainful employment" under the 75% threshold apply for Federal Unemployment figures provided by the BLS. Straight from their own words "Underemployment (receiving income from a single reported income source below 75% of the mean of your previous work quarters) is reported as unemployment for purposes of these figures" it also elaborates in a separate section about full time of 30+ hrs being required for it to be reported as a job as well. [Which is sort of weird if you think about it - make $500m/yr under some sort of hourly agreement but work less than 30/wk? You're unemployed! Not that many folks earning past $40-50k aren't on contract work or a salary where hours become moot - but still... weird case that could technically occur]

Pray to whatever deity you find acceptable, I am 6-1 at gpvegas and if I win the next round I am in day 2.

Quote from mystery45

Quote from Senori

Quote from Catmurderer

So wait... 4th of July is a white holiday because we celebrate what white people did for our country?

That's absurd. We celebrate America. We aren't celebrating "Happy White People Accomplishments Day!"

On May 8th, 1945 for V-E day, we didn't celebrate accomplishments of white people. We celebrated our victory over the Nazi forces and the end to the Europe front of WWII. For the same reason your logic is flawed. You are putting the horse before the plow.

You're making the mistake of thinking that because these holidays aren't explicitly celebrated for white people, they aren't at all. But there's a vast difference between the ideals that large segments of the country celebrates and the practical reality of it. When a white man goes to a Fourth of July celebration and sees ten white soldiers and a black soldier who was especially brought there, that isn't multiculturalism, that's tokenism. It's still perpetuating the inherent racism of the project while pretending that the racism doesn't exist any more.

you are making the exact opposite mistake. you are making an huge assumption that they are strictly celebrated as white holiday's and they aren't.

this whole thing of "The Great White Guilt Trip" gets extremely old. to the point that it is obnoxious. fortuantly for me it doesn't work. I have no guilt.

4th of july celebrates the birth of our country.
memorial day celebrates the men and women of all races that died fighting for our country.

to say that they are explicitly white celebrations is logically flawed. it is also a bit of a my-optic point of view.

Myopic. Myopic is the word you're looking for. My-optic doesn't mean anything. Myopic.

Anyways, I disagree with this sentient largely because it ignores the history of the founding of our nation. Celebrating the "birth of our nation" is in large part a white celebration because the only people that were citizens in said founding were white male landowners. Do you really think the 4th of July celebrates indigenous persons in America?

You presume that just because something is not de jure white it cannot be de facto white.

Quote from Essence

Excellent argument! Except that A, in the first sentence examined, ("If you are a man, have sex with your wife"), isn't actually "be a husband." It's "be a man." So by your own reasoning, you cannot be a man unless you have a wife. Which is clearly absurd.

My reasoning? Good lord, man. The apostle Paul wrote it and you symbolized it (perhaps not even correctly, at that) -- no part of this is my reasoning. But you're right about one thing -- the conclusion is absurd.

That leaves us with two possibilities: Either Paul made a logical error, or you did. Both options are very much in play, but bearing in mind that Paul wasn't writing for the benefit of logicians (if he did then symbolizing his work wouldn't be necessary in the first place) -- I think the most likely possibility is that you have left out from the symbolization some things that Paul regards as implicit or obvious. I find it exceedingly unlikely that if asked, Paul would say that he actually meant to imply that every man must have a wife.

The error you're making is in your postulate. We're not testing "If A, then do B to C". We're testing the much more complex claim "If (If A, then do B to C), then (If A, then C)."

1) A => "do B to C" [hypothesis]
2) ~"do B to C" => ~A [contraposition, 1]
3) ~C => ~"do B to C" [if you don't have a C you can't do B to it]
4) ~C => ~A [2, 3, modus ponens]
5) A => C [contraposition]
6) (A => "do B to C") => (A => C) [conditionalization on the hypothesis]

QED.

Basing arguments on invalid logic, while commonplace, isn't something you should be doing, because it can lead to erroneous results.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind!

Comment Hidden