salamangkero

More than twenty years ago, humans also thought, "The ozone layer is vast; we can't possibly cause any significant damage by using CFC's." Now, we have a gaping hole the size of Australia. See, it is this kind of aloof apathy that causes damage to the environment. "I didn't think it was going to be that big," or, "X Corporation had no idea it was introducing that much lead into the environment." How many times must we hear of these excuses long after the deed has been done and the damage, rendered irreparable? Might I suggest that you also watch the movie The Day After Tomorrow. And, just in case that will be taking too much time and effort, I'll just explain a situation that, though presented in a movie, is quite real. Ever since global warming began, chunks of polar ice caps have begun drifting out into the open sea. These fragments, known to us as icebergs, are made of pure water, not salt water. If this continues, we could reach a critical desalinization level that could radically alter the flow of ocean currents (This is true, not fiction. Apparently, the movie writers did some research after all) Okay, so maybe I might concede that maybe we cannot greatly lower the salt content of the oceans by obtaining fresh water from it. However, in the current condition of our world, it might take, what, a few years or decades before we see what happens and could do no more than gasp, "Oh, $#!+"

I beg to differ. If it were solely about minerals and nutrients, then might I have the audacity to say the pharmaceutical companies worldwide would have caught on and sold "immortality pills. These little babies, when taken regularly, will supply you with enough nutrients to keep your body from aging! Avail now of this wondrous offah!" I am inclined to agree. Cells, in a strangely freaky sort of way, seem to have a good idea of the time. I do remember an article about a sheep getting cloned (Dolly, is it?) Well, the chronological age of the clone is still quite young but, already, it has developed advanced symptoms of aging. It seems that cells do have a clock of their own. One theory about his is that a cell can only divide for a certain number of times. Beyond that, any attempt at cell division will only result in the destruction of that cell or its descendants, whichever is trying to do a mitosis jig. It's kinda scary, isn't it? Knowing that, one day, beyond all your control, your cells, which have faithfully served your government, err, brain for decades, will drop dead and the streets, alleys and avenues of your body will be littered with the corpses of a million oppressed slaves, peasants and factory workers who decided to retire for good. What? No, nothing political implied

Oh? That's strange. I came across this thread that said Microsoft is pressing Linux for violating over 200 of its (Microsoft's) patents. Oh well, positive or otherwise, it is readily apparent that Microsoft is paying closer attention to the Linux and Open-Source communities

Yah, I've watched a couple of episodes and it does seem like the anime version is okay. I've finished the manga already (thanks, master_bacarra! ) so no danger of spoilers there. Unless... *shudders* unless they decide to do a filler arc XD No. Kira is such a loser who does not anticipate the consequences of his actions. He is solely responsible for his de... downfall. I believe I can do much better Whatever. I'm more of an L fan so those who have read the manga probably know why I hate Kira L lives on!

In my opinion, whether a person a person likes or detests his or her job depends largely on what the person's view towards work is. For example, if a person works only to earn money, then that person will be quite happy with any high-paying job, never mind whether there is any hope for career growth or development as a person. If, however, a person prioritizes his/her purpose in life, then that person would be much more inclined to find a job that is, in general, beneficial to the society, such as medical work, education, or research and development. Interestingly, I just remembered Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which may be relevant to your question: Do these feelings (of discontent, I presume) happen (more) frequently in developed countries. Sorry to add so many words XD So basically, it goes like this: A person on the verge of poverty is a lot less likely to be too keen on his job. The same person, once he earns enough to provide for himself (and his dependents, perhaps) would be looking towards "safer" jobs so military, police, prostitution, construction, plumbing and "alternative" (hitman, bodyguard, assassin, kidnapper, mercenary) work won't be quite palatable to that person. On the third level, assuming the person is now working on a relatively safer job, he/she will begin seeking social interaction and time off to spend with his/her loved ones. Work like tailoring, factory jobs or a place in the assembly line won't be quite favorable since they are little more than living machinery. Talking is usually kept to a minimum during work hours. Even white-collar jobs that require overtime work could be enough cause for a person to feel discontent with his/her job. The fourth level is looking for achievement, self-esteem and the respect of others. A work as a call-center agent for the rest of your life doesn't sound too appetizing here, does it? Sometimes, too, despite all the new faces you get to chat everyday, working behind the bar, or clothes rack, can get quite boring, right? Who, at this point, wouldn't want to have a bunch of minions to supervise? Who doesn't want to have people hanging onto your every word? Don't you wish you were a supervisor, consultant, advisor or mafia head? In the last level, you're the man! err boss! Your word has the greatest weight! This does not, of course, necessarily mean you are in the highest position. However, if you are the art or graphics consultant in your company, then pretty much whatever you say goes! This is quite similar to the fourth level, right? However, at the top of the pyramid, you can now afford to be spontaneous; you can try new ideas and there'd be no secretary to tell you, "Sir, Ma'am, that is not allowed." Now, regarding your question about developed countries, don't you think it seems people are a lot mroe likely to harbor feelings of discontent because their much baser needs are already answered? Here, in our developing country, people aren't too keen on the type of work they get, so long as it gets them money. Heck, we even have a phrase, "May pera sa basura (There is money in trash)," which does not just imply anything about recycling. More than that, people in some areas actually eat from trash cans, live in dump sites and their kids play in murky and polluted sewer waters. So, just in case you feel bored with your job anytime, remember to count yourself lucky to have a job to be bored with. Personally, I have no inclination to live the lively and exciting life of a scavenger

Unlike majority of the people in this thread, I, for one, do not have a best friend, at least, not at the moment. Back in high school, I did have one whom I could really consider my best friend. He knew me and I could say, to a certain degree, I also knew a great part of him. A teacher once called us cousins, 'coz we always hanged out together. We also talk about things not typical in a typical high school conversation (in our culture, of course), like blackholes, shadows and illumination, alien life in Mars and Venus, or even why girls cannot pee standing up Well, what happened? We crossed the line between friendship and intimacy. Things didn't work out and we had a falling out. Earlier last year, we re-established contact and, while we could easily get back into our usual witty banter from time to time, we never really got back into the way things were. As it is, it seems like we are both carrying the fragile glass sculpture called 'civility' XD Probably, the reason I don't have much of a best friend is because I don't have a large circle of friends. I can count the people whom I really consider my friends. I do, however, have a large circle of warm acquaintances and an even larger circle of mere acquaintances. But then again, for all we know, such circles may not exist

Whoah! That was some...whooh! I don't think I can add anymore to what was already said. It's kinda hard to stomach, 0.999... being equal to 1 and all, really, but I suppose advocates of the Ptolemaic model felt the same with Copernicus' heliocentric model. Personally, I don't believe in the existence of circles. They are, for all we know, nothing more than constructs in the mind of sentient species, like humans, for example. Why is that? Because circles have no thickness! They have height and width, being in 2D but they have no thickness. Their z-dimension is zero. In our world, it would have to be a loop of wire in the shape of a circle but having an infinitesimally small, even non-existent, thickness. Oh yeah, for that matter, I don't believe in squares and triangles too. As a matter of fact, I could be audacious enough to claim that polygons do not exist. So, sorry, Saint_Michael, I suppose the beauty of triangles and squares have also been dispelled I do concede, however, that what we have here in the real world are approximations of a circle, or polygons, for that matter

I've just tried a few things in Yahoo! Webmessenger and Meebo. It seems that Yahoo! Webmessenger does support offline messaging. So does Meebo, err, at least, now it does.Now, if only Yahoo! Webmessenger also included buzzing and viewing contact details, salamangkero will be very, very happy

First off, I'd like to agree with sylenzednuke Next, I'd like to disagree with demonatashadow. While I am of the belief that suicide is not a good (beneficial) things, I am not a blind believer who just hates people who commit suicide for the most trivial nonsense. True, a fraction of suicide cases are due to petty matters, however, those are the exceptions and not the case, methinks. The only reason these are all we hear about is because the media bring us only these things. "Strange death in suburbs" or "Suicide due to hacked runescape account" Sensationalism has filtered away the base reasons for suicide, such as despair, depression and total helplessness (as opposed to a nonsense illusion of sorrow, which is probably what you are referring to, they teased me bla, bla) Also, note that, since not all people believe in the concept of hell, not all people can deduce equally "intelligent" reasoning regarding suicide like you do. Then, aside from religion, there's culture too True, true. The lengths a lot of people go to, just to be noticed. Some people, seeking to be out of the mainstream, will do anything to "belong" to any formidable group. After all, who would want to be a techie geek with no social life? (I'm talking of stereotypes) Or be a member of the dumb blonde cheerleader squad? Or smash bones and body parts with the stupid football team? Wouldn't it be much "cooler" to wear black, act depressed, threaten your friends with self destruction or play aloof? In our high school, we once had a band of people claiming to be "witches" and it came as no surprise that most of those people don't have too many friends outside their "cool" and "dark" little ring. People want to belong but, more than that, they also want to be noticed as something different. Unique. A friend of mine once said, those who seek death say nothing, then kill themselves. Those who seek attention, on the other hand, just threaten that they seek death. If it were always that simple, then maybe the suicide rates should go down? As it is, it's just the same as ever so something tells me there's more to combating stress and depression than just mere exercise. After all, as they say, one man's (person's) trash is another man's (person's) treasure. I couldn't agree with you guys more

I beg to differ. Not every part of the planet will benefit from trees. I once read a book that has some theories on why the Sahara Desert grew to such a size. It said that the rise of the Himalayan ranges, pushed up by India driving inland, caused the redirection of the cooling rain-bearing winds from the East. It was a slow process that took a very long time but, as you can see, a daily dose of searing sunlight has taken its toll on what was once lush greenery. No amount of tree planting could save that area from turning into a desert. Similarly, some heavily populated rural areas (or even the outskirts of urban areas like New Delhi) have no connection to water services. The easiest approach woukd probably be to draw water from the ground. However, if everyone also drew water from the ground, then groundwater will be used up faster than it is returned by natural processes (rain or snow). As you can see, planting trees will only cause more problems. Like I said in my previous post, the problem is not that we are running out of water; we don't have our oceans drifting away into space. The real problem is the tramsport/delivery of water to certain populated areas. However, if you wish to look at it differently, the problem could also be that people are living in areas where water is hard to come by

There was once a time I also used to like Meebo. Imagine, a web-based messenger that can connect to Yahoo!, AIM, GoogleTalk and MSN! In the office, all our PC's are running Ubuntu so Yahoo! Messenger was pretty much out of the question. That is, of course, until I found out that meebo erases your offline messages, which, for me, led to some violent manifestations of "communication failure" Honestly, I liked the Yahoo! Webmessenger. Although a tiny fraction of my messages are lost, I liked the way it also supported the smileys I have been using for a very long time

I do agree with the post above mine in that the original proposed solution extracts salt and vaporizes fresh water. For it to work, I think one would need a condenser? In any case, the idea of a solar-powered distiller is pretty nice, don't you think. Now, I know a lot of "factual" people insist that the world is not running out of water. However, I do believe that the problem being adressed is the shortage of fresh water in certain areas of the world. For example, I heard that in the outskirts of New Delhi, capital of India, water has become an increasingly scarce commodity. People trek to wells in the outskirts of the city just to fetch water for their daily use. In some villages in Africa, potable water is also a scarce resource. True, they have an abundance of rivers and streams but most of these bodies of water are infested with microbes and/or toxins. (Recently, however, a device called Lifestraw has been introduced to filter out these harmful substances) The way I see it, the problem is not the existence of water, per se, but the availability and transport of fresh water to inland areas. It is not true that we can always just rely on rainwater or springs because, oftentimes in heavily populated areas, people draw it out faster than the weather can replenish it. In any case, I can see different ways to solve this 1. Use less water. Really, anyone with common sense can see that you can recycle water for your daily chores. Instead of flushing down freshwater down the toilet, we just use the suds and wastewater used in laundry. 2. Recycle water. I meant recycling sewer water, not just laundry suds. I do believe there is a forum thread about this somewhere. 3. Draw more fresh water from other areas. By this, I meant the import of freshwater from other cities, or even neighboring countries. 4. Draw freshwater from the sea. Only, for this to work in a country, we'd need desalinisation plants, long-distance conduits and water tanks. 5. Import freshwater ice from the polar caps. But, really, won't it be much easier to conserve water, like #1 and #2? Or build purifier plants like #3? In other words, I do believe it is much easier to clean water that's on our doorstep than to clean water from a coast several miles away. Don't you guys think so too?

Puzzle games are a game genre which are, primarily, concerned with solving puzzles (duh). Unlike action games, there usually are no time limits. A popular one would be minesweeper, despite the timer on the upper toolbar of the game. For non-PC games, a classic example would be Rubik's cube and mastermind (if you've heard of it). Packing games, like Sokoban (and probably Tetris), also fall under this genre, although some might have hostile characters moving inside the maze, combining an element of action games. Nowadays, though, most games combine two or, most probably, even more genres. It is not unusual to see timers on what used to be solely puzzle games. Likewise, several action, FPS, RPG's and even 2D scrolling games incorporate puzzles into their gameplay, often as mini-games or quests. Hope I was of help

I've also run into a lot of developers who do that. Access get variables directly, I mean.It does seem to me that an older version of PHP once supported that. However, as of PHP5 (I'm not sure about PHP4), POST and GET variables had to be accessed using the appropriate indices in the $_GET and $_POST array. So instead of $page, you'd be accessing $_GET['page']Oh yeah, I know you already got it working, just wanted to point that out

How good could it be? At the moment, for Linux OSes, I'm using Meebo.com but I've been told that it doesn't handle Yahoo!'s offline messages, costing me dearly in the social department. I'd be very grateful if Yahoo! Webmessenger still supported that. Emoticons too. Not just the typical , and but also the other "hidden" emoticons like :o3, L-) or :-h. Lacking the luxury of visual contact, emoticons are, pretty much, the only way for me to convey "emotions" which can't be put into words. I'll probably try this out when I return to the office in 3 days, though. Just to see, first-hand, what Yahoo has been up to

Indeed. Specs on the guy is just as important as specs on you. (Uh, that's Mermaid711, not truefusion ) Oh yeah, this might be a bit too far out but also be observant of him. I've seen many a girl fall for guys who happen to like guys too. Well, I don't know you at all but, in all honesty, I wouldn't want to see you fall blindly into that one. In my humble opinion, doing so could very well arouse suspicion both in him and in anyone within eyesight. Might I advice you to approach him but make it appear as though he was the one who approached you. I've seen lots of movies where, in the olden times, women "accidentally" dropped their handkerchiefs on the floor. Well, that would be gross, especially in the school cafeteria so if you're gonna try that, bring an extra hanky. Also, it'd be a great chance to find out if he's chivalrous or apathetic (I don't know about you but I can hazard a guess that most girls would like a gentleman) Seriously, though, you can drop something harmless, like notebooks or pens. Just don't overdo it or you'll come across as a clumsy girl. Some guys might find it cute but it's generally not worth the risk. I do agree. Stand out. Don't be as flat, dull, gray and uninteresting as everyone else (I'm talking about personality, not anatomy) Again, though, don't overdo it. If your personality is more like a goth than anything else, don't come to school suddenly wearing a vision in pink with a heavenly smile all genki like some stupid anime character(s). I'm not a girl, sorry. I do, however, like most humans, readily give advice and come up with solutions when it's not at all my problem. Awh, I'm hurt by the last line In any case, while I do not agree that a woman should not ask a man out, I also believe that women were supposed to take a more subtle, roundabout approach. I had this friend who fancied a guy; she used a lot of tricks in the book and some that weren't. First of all, she fell in as one of the "guys" He and his buddies became her friends and they liked her for appreciating what other girls do not fancy like roughhouse sports. Pretty soon, she came to hang out with them in different places, sometimes just lounging around their houses. Sometimes, too, she invites them in her house. Sometimes, too, most of them couldn't make it so she and the guy she wanted have some of those days left alone with each other. Oh yeah, she also learned that a crying girl is disarming to a guy so, sometimes, she "confides" her "grief" with school, thesis and work to her "buddy" In any case, it ends up with him hugging and consoling her. Well, it's about to get a lot more cheesy than that so I'll probably spare you all and just say, "Be crafty, be sly, be wise and there's no man that cannot be yours!" (That is, of course, assuming the absence of friction, feminine resistance and other outside forces) Go girl! And best of luck

Like I said, perception has nothing to do with it. Non-sentient particles also "feel" these effects. Time dilation is not an illusion but a reality Well, 'nuff said.

Au contraire, time is not just an abstract concept created by man, like money (or money values) or language. In truth, it's transit is "felt" even by non-sentient objects like the minutest of subatomic particles. I'm sure you have heard of some of Einstein's theory. I do remember one (can't remember the name, though, time dilation, I think?) that basically states that the faster an object goes, the slower time "runs" for it. At first, I was just as skeptical that maybe it was just an inaccurate observation caused by imperfect human instruments. This, I did ask my Physics teacher. He replied that some exotic particles have a fixed lifespan before decaying into smaller, more stable subatomic particles. These "lifespans" often last for nary a nanosecond. However, sensors, even at ground level, can detect such particles hurtling in from space. This is a strong evidence for the aforementioned theory. Were "time" indeed just an imaginary concept, then it should have no effect on matter. On the contrary, it "slowed down" for those particles, delaying their decay, thus enabling them to reach us here. I'm sure some of you have heard of the equation explaining Time Dilation. For everyday objects with normal speeds, that equation approximates Newtonian physics. Only for those hurtling at fractions of the speed of light does that equation begin "slowing down" time, which, I have hopefully convinced you, is not a human construct. It would appear, on the equation, that speeds equal or beyond that of light is impossible. However, the limit as one approaches the speed of light appears to put the object in stasis, in other words, "freezes" that object in time. I was wondering myself if electrons moved at the speed of light and that if they were to be "stopped", they'd dissipate into something else far more smaller than what our instruments could detect. I do remember my physics teacher telling me that one cannot know an electron's position and direction at the same; maybe that has something to do with it? There are also other theories that say certain particles, called tachyons, moving faster than the speed of light also move "back" in time. The tachyon realm is supposedly one where the effect precedes the cause. Oh, in any case, I'm having a headache just thinking about it now. It's the wee hours of the morning over here, by the way. Just so you know, though, time is real

In understand your POV but different people have different views on what is important and what is not. Take our government, for example, different agencies have a lot of claims as to where a lot of the funds should go. Last I heard, military got the largest share. 1. Military wants more funds. "It is essential that we eradicate terrorists in our nation." 2. The education sector clamors for more funds. "Education is the key to success." 3. The same quote is also the mantra of the research and development department. 4. Women's groups, gay and lesbian rights groups, children's welfare groups, they clamor for human rights and request funds to prosecute the violators. 5. The transportation sector also has something to say about roads and bridges. See, we all have different ideas on what is important. There is no saying which wrongdoings should be rectified first. What if, instead of that Virginia Tech shooting, gays and lesbians were stoned by mobsters instead? The way I see it, we're only reacting about guns and gun laws simply because of timing. Had a different event taken place, like a landslide, we'd be looking at issues of forest denudation or the excessive draining of groundwater. If a girl was nabbed, raped, tortured and killed, we'd be complaining against security in the school. Humans can be so short-sighted. A small upstart and we immediately move on to the most trivial of issues. Say, is anyone here still concerned about the Taiwan quake and the disruption of daily life it caused? No siree, we're yapping away about Virginia Tech, guns, gun laws, weapon ownage (or ownership, but I do like the pun ) and the like. So, see here, let's not play clean and tell other people what issues are important or what "better" topics they should protest about. People usually take action when they have something to protect, as said by Yoruichi-sama. Whether it is good or bad does not matter at all. It may be honor, pride, family or friends. You talk of protecting people from guns. We talk about protecting people from bigotry and prejudice. Neither is more important than the other, rather, they are both of importance to those who support their cause

It is true that some people's ways of writing are heavily influenced by modern technology. Nowadays, it is not too rare to see smileys on a research paper or even on an exam paper! Hmmn, this is a bit... ambivalent. I don't really think it's about laziness but more on the illusion of savings. After all, it takes more effort (and time) to key in anything of fairly considerable length than just actually talking to your target. Furthermore, text messaging lacks the context cues such as inflection, speed, pitch or even silences, thus is more prone to misinterpretation. So why do people insist on texting? For one, for really short messages, like a quick notice or an imperial one-word command, it is just as fast as calling. However, one of the things it has going for it is the price. It is much, much cheaper to send one message that to relay that message in a phone call. Unfortunately, this, too, is text messaging's own pitfall. See, while people do, most of the time, save a lot of money, not time, by sending text messages, misinterpretations, misunderstandings and misconceptions can cost just as much, or even more than a phone call. For example, two people with different vocabularies may interpret things differently. Requests for clarifications or asking "what do you mean..." provide the overhead in terms of price. So, as we can see, text messaging is useful only to a certain degree. For things that are much more complex, like instruction sets, questions with lengthy answers or puns, it probably is much better to make a phone call. That is, of course, aside from this thing called carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ah, who am I kidding; my mouse seems intent on giving it to me) Who u callng txt msg-ing frk?

I think this stems from a very sexist point of view. Men, supposedly, are of great benefit to their families even after getting married. In a stereotypical family, men are the breadwinners, meaning, they are part of the workforce. Should they excel in their respective fields, they bring honor, not only to their own family but also to their own parents.Women, on the other hand, in a conservative setting, get married off. As housewives, they hardly have a chance to excel. Also, as mothers, they have a tendency to brood over their young, in other words, their loyalty lies, first, in their progeny, before their own parents.Might I also add that a big factor is the fact that men carry the family name while women's surnames get overwritten by their husband's surnames

I do believe that in the unlikely event that suicide becomes legal, suicide attacks would be perfectly legal only if there was no collateral damage. If, however, other people were nicked, killed, injured or traumatized, then the act of nicking, killing, injuring or traumatizing other people is illegal but the act of suicide, itself, is just fine. However, I did fall to thinking, what then? If the suicide attempt was successful, how can you punish a corpse for nicking, killing, injuring or traumatizing other people?

Oh, sorry 'bout that. No, really, I'm sincerely sorry. I must've accidentally deleted the other words that were supposed to be in there. In any case, I have edited it. Really sorry guys. Uh, I can't reply aside from that right now 'coz I'm rushing to get to work. I'll just post or edit this post later. Cya!

Only one song has ever brought me to tears. Well, it's not really a song but a piano instrumental: Jim Chappel's Gone.Every time I hear it, my mind is filled with images of my loved ones dying or dead. Farewells are really sad events but more so when you say good-bye for good.

Again, you miss the point. It's not about being hot or being gross or even being Mexican; it's about identifying the "target". It's not about whether they're picking their noses or flashing sexy smiles, it's about identifying a man who, to you and your friend, "looks" Mexican. I don't say that to people looking at me. As a matter of fact, I'd never say that; I simply said it was the first thing that comes to my mind, meaning, I thought of it, okay? I'm not in the manner of accosting people in public to ask awkward questions or mention obscene profanities like that. Also, I said I'd think of that if the people were pointing at me. And even so, a stare is very much different from a glance or a glimpse. I hope you are aware that looking at something can be taken differently depending on the duration or intensity. Pointing at you will, indeed, clear all doubt but it is also a mark of hostility, and rudeness, might I add. Additionally, [1] and [2] do not contradict each other. [1] deals with whether I am hot or not, which you also mentioned in, "Would you find it rude if you were pointed out for your "hotness?"" It specifically deals with the adjective "hot" [2] on the other hand deals with "me", the "target" or the Mexican guy. Hotness has nothing to do with it. Attention a bit to keen does. I never said nor implied that jokes were meat to offend anyone. What I did imply, however, is that a lot of jokes, which were started to entertain, not offend, are usually offensive if reviewed by anyone who is hell-bent on stopping material that seem the least bit offensive to any race, religion, clan, person or groups of persons. Some "racist" jokes, which a lot of people enjoy, are usually a fact of life in certain social groups, that is, until someone butts in and says, "That's wrong! Even if Blondie/Helga/Lee Yang Fei is laughing along, it's wrong! Even if it is just a joke, it is wrong!" while all around him, more serious stuff are being neglected such as black slavery, mail brides in Asia, denial of employment to Irish people and things more serious than a joke. Like I said, don't sweat the small stuff. I see you failed to grasp the rhetorical question. Allow me to rephrase it for you: Do you believe something with no approval should be stopped? Please do clear it up because it does seem like that is what you are saying. Secondly, I know that just because something is allowed does not mean it is right. However, just because something is not right does not necessarily mean it is wrong either. What is "right" and what is "wrong" anyway? Isn't that what we are discussing here, to a degree? The way I see it, you imply that racism, in any form, is wrong. For me, racism, in jokes, is alright, which is to say, neither right nor wrong, and that racism that goes beyond verbal entertainment is "wrong". We obviously do not agree on the first half of my belief but, boy, am I glad you are with me on the second half Lastly, lemme adopt your style and split your statements. (a)Finally! You see what I mean. Yes! It is him! In as much as humor is relative to different people. So you cannot really generalize that racist jokes are wrong (or "bad") for everyone. (b)Are you saying that saying, Irish jokes, black jokes or Indian jokes are not wrong in that it is about the Irish, black or Indian people? In effect, are you saying racist jokes are not wrong in that they are about certain races? ŠIf the joke is meant to make specific people look bad, they it is no longer a racist joke. If I said, "Lee Yang Fei stinks because she's Chinese and Chinese people don't take baths in the morning," then that is no longer a joke. That is not even racist. That, my dear, is not anti-Chinese. That is, however, anti-Lee Yang Fei; it is a snide comment. Well said. If the words start putting another person (or his image) down, professionally or physically, then it is no longer a joke but a serious matter. Racist jokes are good fun but there should probably be a line that defines which is good fun and which is plain and unreasonable racist assault (or battery). I do believe, however, that that line is somewhere in between joke and putdown, not between non-racist and racist I, too, believed I would escape conflict when I said racist jokes were fine. Apparently, we were both wrong