salamangkero

Oh please. the point is not whether a person is hot or not. For all we care, you could put another adjective there. "That Mexican sure is gross," for example. Like I said, if I were a Mexican (fine, Hispanic) guy in the middle of a busy street and someone pointed me out from a considerable distance, what on earth would I care if they thought I was hot or not; the first thing that would come to my mind is, "What the fvc< are they looking at me for?!?" Look here. If we all were so purists that we never wanted to offend anyone at all, there'd be no racist jokes, no green or sexist jokes, no dumb blonde jokes, no political jokes and, guess what, we'd be left with no more than a bunch of stupid limericks and too-wholesome word play. Yes, there are other kinds of jokes but I'm sure you'd be quite "intelligent" enough to find out what's wrong with them, in the same way that you find racist jokes to be "offensive". Of course there won't be any approval from the "oppressed" race. However, did you ever pause to think that just because there is no approval, something should be stopped? I don't see the Chinese nodding or affirming my "A Chinese walks into a bar..." jokes but they don't stop me. I ask my (Chinese) friend if he finds it offensive and I should stop and he said, "No, no. Au contraire, it's fun." Let's have another analogy, Suppose I like the color black instead of blue. I'm pretty sure a lot of my friends will not give me their approval 'coz they all have their own tastes. Do I have to stop liking the color black simply because people do not approve? Oh yeah, lastly, regarding the quote about verbally racist stuff, no harm and over-sensitive people, I had mistakenly assumed that everyone on earth do not fret the small stuff. Apparently, the world was not as perfect as I imagined and, for that, I sarcastically apologize

I stand by what I said. It was a joke! Gee, that is the point of entertainment! Nobody's bleeding, nobody's being stoned to death, nada. So long as it is all verbal, then I don't see the harm in it. Of course, it's an entirely different thing when we begin burning blacks, conducting pogroms on jewish households, raiding Filipino huts, firing Mexican employees or shooting Chinese people because there is unfair loss of property, liquid assets or human lives. But a joke, oh, a joke! Really, a joke is only as damaging as the object of the joke. If you're too sensitive and cannot take it in stride, then, yeah, the damage goes a long way but if you can shrug it off and know perfectly well that your friends don't really mean it, then, what can I say? Live long and prosper! I once saw a Yahoo! ad initially saying, "That Mexican guy looks hot," then an animation takes over and scratches out the word "Mexican" It was an anti-racism advert. My opinion, however, is that that advert is kinda taking it too far. I suppose that the setting of the "hot Mexican guy" was in a public place. Now, let's say you're in the middle of a busy sidewalk, with people walking to and fro everywhere. How, on earth, are you gonna point out to your friend where the hot guy is? For one, it is rude to actually point someone out. So you'll have to describe him. Now, suppose every one of them is in a suit, so describing the clothing is pretty much out of the question. Isn't it much easier to say "Mexican" than "tan, medium-built, square-faced guy" or something like that? Sometimes, really, I do think people do easily get ticked off by the most trivial of matters. Get a life, learn to read between the lines. People do not necessarily say what they mean (or mean what they say, for that matter) So much for jokes huh?

True, true. I so agree.I once encountered a wiccan chant, rede, rhyme or spell with a line that goes, "Fairly give and fairly take" so if one cannot handle people laughing at one's expense, then one has no right to laugh at other people's expenses too.I, myself, am a Filipino and I do hear some jokes about our fellow citizens being cheapskates, freebie-hunters, domestic helpers or soldiers who, upon retreat, "gets into the humvee" and, honestly, I couldn't help but smile. Patriotism is one thing but if it causes discord by depriving a person of his/her sense of humor, it is a very stupid thing then

I don't mean to be disrespectful to the dearly departed but it does seem that a lot of replies point out how lame it was to kill one's self just because one's runescape account got hacked (despite numerous re-iterations that it was not the sole reason) and how youth today are so angsty and how they should have turned to their friends (despite having the victim's last friend turn against him) Maybe we can look at it, then, as part of natural selection? Y'know, survival of the fittest; weed out the weakest? If he was incapable of surviving through life at such an early stage of his life, then it probably is just as well that the world is rid of him, don't you think? I do notice that a lot of people in their teen years live in an ego-centric universe. I once thought the universe was made for me, that it my job to ensure that everything goes according to my will. My sister, on the other hand, now has utter disregard for the welfare of a lot of people. I know someone who wanted to hack the school server simply because some professors had been mean to that person. Another kid rebelled against his parents, not because his philosophies ran averse to theirs but simply because he didn't want to follow orders. Consider it an ordeal, then. It's a stage of a person's life that will define his actions far into the future. If we want a better society, then maybe we must weed out those ill-equipped to handle the pressure of reality. Not that we should actively root them out but just let those who want to kill themselves. Otherwise, they could very well grow up into baobabs that will burrow their massive roots into the planet, eventually crushing it to gray lifeless fragments. Ookay, I'll stop with the allusions In any case, we have all been talking a lot about the poor kid, he must be rolling in his grave right now. Kid, wherever you are, rest in peace. To the rest of you, godspeed

Hispanic, Mexican, whatnot, aren't they all the same? They're just a bunch of illegal immigrants that infest our southern lands. Haha, just kidding. I'm not from the US and our brothers in the south are Moslems, not Mexicans I do believe that a healthy amount of racism is essential 'coz things usually don't go too well at the extremes. I mean, if everyone took offense at every black, middle-eastern, irish, chinese, african, asian, pollock, mexican, arabian, iraqi, oriental, afghan and <insert race here>, then the whole world would be a whole lot more boring. It's like... uh... putting a ban to green jokes; it's sleazy and can be offensive, yeah, but it's generally fun Besides, sometimes, it makes for a great conversation starter. "Have you heard about the Korean..." or "A Latino walks into a bar..." and it's not really at the expense of real people. Most of these jokes have hypothetical people starring in them. There was also a song, by AvenueQ where they say, "Everyone's a little bit racist, sometimes... ethnic jokes might be uncouth but you laugh because they're based on truth. Don't take them as personal attack. Everyone enjoys them, so relax!" I couldn't agree more So, for Smack, the next time a cop accosts you, maybe it might help him lighten up if you reply, "What are you asking me these questions for? Aren't you supposed to go grab some coffee and donuts?" Oookay, not really. Honestly, I do think it might make it worse To end my post, allow me to taint your pure un-racist minds. There was once a Chinese and an American. Out of nowhere, the American smacks the Chinese. C: What was that for? A: That's for Pearl harbor! C: But I'm Chinese! It's the Japanese that did it! A: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese; you're all the same to me. The Chinese guy then punches the American in the gut. A: What was that for? C: That's for World War II A: But I'm American! It's the Germans that did it! C: Americans, Germans, Mexicans; you're all the same to me Lighten up. He (or she) who is offended most seriously needs a sense of humor

I was thinking of a sharp snapback but whatever's left of my manners makes me say instead, thank you and have a nice day of silence too. I don't think we'd have that here, except probably for really elite private institutions where the students can afford to slack of a little and indulge their "philosophies" In any case, even if it were held here, I don't think I can be silent for an entire day 'coz I'm usually much of a trickster clown to shut up. At funerals, I sometimes jokingly ask, "Awh, why the sad face? Who died?" We do, however, have gay pride parades sometime in the year. No, I don't participate in those loud-and-proud strutting-around either. I have no problems with gay pride but something about being obscenely loud just disturbs whatever's left of my manners. Well, may you guys live long and prosper, happy and gay (pun intended)

I've read this and your other post named Tae Kwon Do. Might I suggest, again, that you give more details about your posts. It is not very polite for people to make reckless claims without the least bit of dubious proof to back it up. For example, in this post, if the bible did say something about the exact date of the apocalypse, the very least we'd like to expect would be the passage where it was stated (or inferred). Regarding Egyptian end-of-the-world myths, might I suggest the links about Hathor and Apophis (also known as Apep) A quick search through Google will reveal that, while Egyptians have considered the end times, they also deemed it fully preventable. Now, for the Mayan calendars, a quick search revealed what could have been your source. It details three arguments for 12/21/2012 to be the day of the apocalypse. One of them is the Mayan Calendar. However, I do think electriic ink is right. While the Mayan Calendar "ends" on that year, we should not, by any means, interpret it as the total end. After all, the Mayan concept of time is circular, that everything that happens is bound to happen again. In other words, it means a transition from one "age" to another, which is, of course, not necessarily the end of the world. The second argument, called fractal time, basically says that the speed of change is accelerating. Using a set of mathematical operations that suspiciously appear contrived, people have marked milestones in the planet's history such as the beginning of history, the emergence of *person* sapiens, the "peak" of the age of mammals and the start of life on our planet. In any case, the "formulae" point to the year 2012 as the end times. I, for my part, don't believe in such dubious mathematics because events such as the "peak" of mammal reign and the "start" of life on our planet have been extrapolated with only high, but never full, accuracy. Might I also add that the claims of Erich von Daniken in his books about aliens and giants sound more believable than the second argument. The mathematical operations are too forced. The third one is about galactic alignment. However, I did not encounter any claim from any respectable astronomical institution regarding this "alignment". I do believe, however, that they (the people behind this claim) did study texts of ancient civilizations and, finding phrases about the cosmos being reborn, finding the door to the secrets of time and space and being in harmony with the universe, creatively imagined a galactic alignment. My opinion of this is: what is the big deal about alignments, planetary, galactic or otherwise? Heck, at this very moment, the sun and the moon are perfectly aligned. So are Earth and Venus. Two points define a line, remember? So we easily have a million alignments with celestial bodies. Also, some texts cannot be deciphered easily. There once was a time when people deciphered ancient texts for their meaning, given the context of the time it was written. Offensive language were not quickly struck out because the civilization that wrote them might have something in their culture that could easily explain it. However, nowadays, it seems the world is full of crackpots who will do anything to bend the meaning of these texts to support their theories (and bestsellers) *sigh* Where had the times of Rosetta stone gone? Lastly, I also noticed the obvious play on numbers there. 12-21-2012. What is with the human obsession on numbers? How about the failed apocalypse on 06-06-06? That, dear people of the heathen world, is already a clear indication that this claim is not to be taken seriously. I once had a mobile phone whose number was xxx9-949-9449. Hmmn... lessee... the Japanese people though 4 to be a very unlucky number while cats have 9 lives. So... do I get to have nine lives and the power to hex people? What are the odds of me having a mobile phone with that number? They say everything happens for a reason, so there must be a divine reason why I had a bunch of 4's and 9's? Can it be? Am I the chosen one? (Note the sarcasm) Just be thankful I'm not 'coz if I were, a lot of people would be dead... err, I mean, the world will be severely less over-populated

I would like to point out that masters of their own crafts often deem their own to be the most fundamental and the most powerful of all. For example, my chemistry teacher believes everything, from biology to physics, can be explained by chemistry. My physics professor in college, on the other hand, deemed physics to be the ultimate theory that explains everything. Similarly, black-belters of martial arts often fall into thinking that their own arts are better than anything else. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not against taekwondo; fact is, it's the only martial arts I do know enough of. Most are just from third-person accounts and observations. It would, I think, be a lot more helpful if you detailed how the other martial arts are "weak" in comparison to taekwondo. For example, I do agree that the kicks in kickboxing are different but that does not necessarily mean they are wrong. Also, what is taekwondo's edge over karate? Judo, well, I think it's using your opponent's weight against him/her... I don't really know so I can't comment on that. Kung fu, on the other hand, is considered by many to be the "ultimate" martial arts. Did you know that kung fu has two parts? One is "hard" kung fu, which is primarily what comes to mind of an average person. The histrionic blocks, leaping kicks and flying punches are parts of "hard" kung fu. "Soft" kung fu, on the other hand, deals with concentrating on the flows of energy (or chakra, for Naruto fans, or nen, for HxH fans) It was, supposedly, capable of killing people without any outwardly apparent assault; this danger is the reason why it is taught to only few people. (I've read this a long time ago, in a newspaper feature article) So, if you are really convinced that taekwondo is the "strongest" martial art out there, maybe it would help if you actually describe what makes it so

Hmmn... how do I put this... If you, CinnamorollTK were part of NASA or the government, then I probably would have stayed in bed Seriously, though, the only things I see, which I have to fear, in a deep space journey is loneliness and claustrophobia. If I'm ever gonna make the trip, I'd like an asteroid-sized craft hurtling through space instead of a small and cramped broom closet where I have to sleep with my knees hugged close to my chest. I'd like some gravity too, 'coz weightlessness can be interestingly novel only for so long. Having an AI robot capable of human interactions would also be great, even if it's Marvin (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) or G.I.R. (Invader Zim) I once read a booked called Yargo by Jacqueline Susann where a human girl, mistakenly picked up by a (supposedly) far more intelligent extraterrestrial race disabled from feeling emotions, has been sentenced to an exile in deep space. She was initially sentenced to death, to protect the secrets of the civilization from her "peasant running-mouth" but, probably out of respect for life, she was just sentenced to an exile. Well, there's more but that's all that's relevant right now In the end, I suppose life in deep space is not too bad, so long as you bring all your amenities with you in an earth-sized handbag

I once came across, in this board, a topic about visualizing the tenth dimension. Well, I rummaged in my HD and found a link. It's a very lovely site, in that it was pleasing to the eye. Might I also add that it was very helpful in actually visualizing the tenth dimension. (Click the helix on the right to "visualize" it) No, my mind can only suspend its disbelief for so long I can only grasp up to the 7th dimension. Basically, when I read the posts, however, it does seem like the universe is/was being viewed as some sort of "fractal", which can be zoomed on infinitely. However, if we equate one end (the large universe) to the other (the quarks, or whichever is the smallest particle), we'd have a universe that can be shattered from within. Like, if you happen to focus a lot of lasers unto that particle, you could probably end up heating the universe. The heating universe, on the other hand, could then heat itself up and the universe could go on a rampage, heating itself infinitely. In other words, a universe whose entirety can be affected from within, is teetering on a very unstable tightrope. It can only accept so much stimuli until a critical "mass" or "level" triggers a runaway reaction like heating up, cooling down, exploding, green jell-o infestation and the like. (FYI, I also imagined a fractal universe, only, the entire thing was submerged in a beaker of "something" somewhere) I guess, more than anything, I don't want to be part of a Homer Simpson. On a side note, I once saw a poster showing the back of Homer's head with the words, "Intel Inside"

ROFLMAO, how harsh could the truth get? ;)Really, some girls can appear to be so... manipulative. They'd ask sly questions like, "Would you like it if my breasts were larger?"If you say yes, it "means" you don't like her for what she is. If you say no, on the other hand, she'd accuse you of not caring enough for her.I also once read in a magazine, one thing a girl should never tell a guy, "I saw your dad's picture when he was in college and, man, was he HOT!" Seriously, it just pisses us off, no matter how truthful that statement may be.Gah! What am I talking about?!? I'm gay!Ah, well, there was once a time when I was straight, y'know, so I can relate to this (some)

Right now, my room is spic-and-span. Funny, however, that you should mention changing with the seasons because that is exactly what best describes the cleanliness of my room. My mom and I generally have this understanding: I can clean my room a bit ever and anon but, if she really wants it clean, they have to clear the house for roughly a week. See, the way I clean is this: I haul everything outside, clean the very floors, walls and ceilings of my room, down to last corner then organize and clean everything as they come back in. It'd be pretty simple, if I didn't have a lot of stuff. Runestones, my Snoopy collection, odds and ends of cordage, notebooks in various states of dustiness and, sometimes, money. Just recently, I found PhP400, which, at the moment is about $8.35 Anyway, the point is, I need just about every surface in the house to put my stuff on while I clean my room. My mother, on the other hand, loves to plan "family" vacations every summer. (We don't have school during summer) She'd haul us off to someplace in the provinces and build sandcastles on beaches, swim on pools, view scenery and, generally, have fun. I, however, abhor long-haul travel in a land vehicle so I usually come up with an excuse to stay home. It's is a somewhat uneasy treaty. I grudgingly agree to clean my room while they are away but, in return, I get to "own" the house for a week. I have to feed the dogs myself but I also get to choose what I want to eat, what I want to cook and, sometimes, what I want to do. Not that I usually do much aside from cleaning my room (yes, it does take up a whole day) but it means I can sleep whenever I want. I can slumber in broad daylight and stay up late as much as I want. So, as you can probably infer, my family had gone on vacation recently. I'm breathing clean, non-dusty air and working on an organized desk. I'm not being defensive or anything, however, but my room isn't all that bad. Sure, there'd be lots of dust and granular matter but I am pretty sure the only macroorganisms in there are me, an orchid plant and a few spiders. There are no disgusting organisms like fungal lifeforms, roaches, flies or mosquitoes (unlike some people I know, who drink coffee from moldy mugs *shudders*) Ah, what the heck, I don't have to explain myself, haha. Think whatever you want to think

True, true. All that blood and gore XD Oookay, this is so off-topic, I'll shut up for a while

"There is no such thing as hell."Well, at least, that's what my co-worker said to me. (She's a Jehovah's Witness) Anyway, she explained to me that they don't believe in hell because, supposedly, people are continually being punished by Satan in hell. Now, their reasoning goes: "Why the hell (pun intended) would Satan punish the people that were gonna be his allies come Armageddon?"I then asked what happens to the bad people."Nothing."No magic, no fireworks, nothing. Simply put, they don't get reborn/resurrected. Good ones, on the other hand, get to sing hymns, play harps and lyres, and pretty much just fly about the clouds 'til the end times. Oh yeah, they also do not believe in purgatories.So for them, maybe, nobody goes to hell, although it not as positive as it sounds ;)P.S. If you've read Dante's Divine comedy, you'd get some insight on how people in hell "suffer". I'm not saying it's true but even for a non-believer like me, it is a very entertaining read.

Personally, I would want every person to have some means to protect one's self. Guns score pretty high on that list because bare fists, boots or baseball bats are melee (unless you threw your boots, which is kinda pointless) while projectile weapons like arrows, shuriken and grenades can be hard to use. Guns, however, are comparatively easy to use. You just point and click, err, fire.However, this ease is also what worries me. After all, even if we had laws permitting only reasonable, tax-paying citizen with no criminal records to own a gun, we can never be sure what there people can do under drunken rage. Another thing is that we can't expect them to keep their guns at home all the time. Some of them may think, "I might get ambushed in the parking lot or mugged at an alley. I need a gun with me at all times." Now suppose this guy (or gal) enters a bar and downs a drink or eight. The merest of all assaults, such as shoulders bumping, could very well trigger a massacre.Also, it'd be a whole lot easier for criminal elements to acquire guns. They'd just have a front guy getting their stuff for them while they strut 'round, burgling houses and, possibly, acquiring more firearms.It is of my opinion, then, that people, which is to say, law-abiding citizens, should find other alternative means to protect themselves. Guns are quite easy to use but they're also easy to misuse. I was thinking of tranquilizer darts but that could also be used for criminal activities. So in the end, my vote goes to the classic melee weapons. Mmmm... knives, arnis sticks, quarterstaves.Besides, isn't it much more fun to bludgeon a burglar when you can feel the hits really hitting?

While I am a self-confessed apathetic person, there are limits to my apathy. I do agree that we cannot absolutely purge all flamers, bashers and stealers, err, thieves, from the online world. However, we can, at the very least, do our part to teach them the rudiments of acceptable manners. I am of the opinion that people who bash other people and their works with or without valid reason are quite stupid barbaric Philistines who don't know how to use spoons and forks. On the other hand, people who do give negative feedback regarding another person's works without giving valid reasons are completely spineless jellyfishes who cannot support their own statements in a purely intellectual argument. Okay, so maybe my beliefs are wildly exaggerated. However, let's face it, it's definitely not nice to be screamed at in the streets. After all, if we are talking about... eccentricities with our friends, it'd be quite a rude interruption to have a mob screaming, "Burn the )@mn3d withces! Burn 'em!" chasing after us. Online, though, it is a different matter. There is virtually no closed conversation as everything we say is broadcasted to the world. Anyone can react, especially if their philosophies run quite averse to yours. However, there is a distinction between rational and unreasonable behavior. That probably is also the difference between a stranger whispering, "You have spinach between your teeth," in your ear and another stranger guffawing at you, "Look at the stupid guy/gal! Have you seen a mirror lately?" Also, the fact that these $#!+ happens a lot of times does not mean it is right or that we cannot do anything about it. Similarly, what happens when a drunk person harasses people in a subway station? Supposedly, members of a peace-keeping force interfere and, if necessary, collar the trouble maker. Online, we call these people moderators. However, what happens when there are no policepersons around? What if you saw a girl being raped in the middle of the street in broad daylight? Won't civilized gentlemen interfere? These "gentlemen" are the nameless people in numerous fora online who call on other people's infractions. In a sea of strangers, they kindly take the time to (attempt to) correct a rude and unbecoming behavior. Look at it this way, if everyone were so vulgar, had no sense of proper manners and nobody stopped 'em, the Internet would be flooded with more flamewars, profanities and bashings. Sites like wikipedia would be even less reliable that it already is now, what with people just posting their opinions and emotions without limit. A lot of drive spaces would be wasted on Google-bombing people we dislike. In the end, anarchy would rule and we'd be a whole lot better off without the Internet. As it is, thank goodness, there are more thinking people online than there are those with running lips, well, fingers

I think he meant j3rk, but he omitted the last 'k' to avoid getting warned/banned for foul language or something. I do agree with him, though; it's just plain wrong. While it may be true that you, living under their roof, are subject to their rules and whims, they have no right to take away something that is yours. What if it weren't dogs? What if it were your money or jewelry? What if they said, "Money is the root of all evil so we freed you from its curse by giving it to, lessay, Eur Yvelle C. Sterr?" or "Necklaces and bracelets aren't for boys so we gave 'em to Eur Yvelle C. Sterr." It's not merely about who's the master and who's the subordinate. The king, from Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince, once said, "Hum! Hum!" which is completely pointless and irrelevant to this topic. However, he also said, Now, while it is presently beyond me to judge with complete finality whether rejected's parents were reasonable in their decision, I do think that it is wrong for them to do just that simply because rejected is their child and he/she lives under their roof. They may have other reasons too but I do think that the very least they should have done is talk it over. There are many ways to skin a cat, y'know? (pun intended) I, for one, am proud of my parents in that they know when they are wrong. While pride and dignity prevents them from accepting defeat, they just turn silent, wave a hand and say, "Fine, have it your own way." Also, I overheard my mom telling my dad, "You can't expect our son to bow down and be dumber than you; he has a spine of his own. He studied computers all throughout college while you just touched lightly on the subject. If they just said 'yes' to everything we say, then we have failed, as parents, to educate them as we must. What will happen, then, when we are gone?" Enough of rubbing salt into open wounds, though. I do think you should have a good talk with your parents, preferably, something about basic human rights, invasion of privacy and material property rights

I do suppose that these "practices" or "customs" stem from the views that females are the "weaker" sex. After all, we guys can do pretty much a lot of things any time of the month. We also do not carry heavy after-sex luggages for nine months. We don't usually experience hot flushes or mood swings in our late forties and, given the chance, we can still actually pro-create far into our sixties and seventies (assuming we can get "it" up)With these in mind, it is no wonder that a lot of males bully the females into submitting to them. They are made to serve, in every sense of the word. Also, some cultures frown on having a first-born daughter. Maybe they don't believe a woman can handle the responsibilities of a first born, hence, female infanticide.Well, those are just my musings, which does not necessarily mean those are my viewpoints

I cannot seriously answer that right now; I just gulped down a healthy portion of laughing gas so I'm in a pretty jovial mood right now. There was once a joke where a student "proved" that hell is getting warmer: 1. People of many religions basically say that if you don't worship their God, you will go to hell. Assuming that everyone tells the truth, nobody goes to heaven, ergo, everyone goes to hell. 2. If hell were of a constant volume, the mobs entering it would raise the pressure, effectively raising its temperature, in accordance with Charle's Law 3. On the other hand, if hell expanded to maintain constant pressure, it'd be getting abysmally colder, as stated by Gay-Lussac's Law 4. My girlfriend told me she's have sex with me when hell freezes over. 5. Again, assuming that everyone tells the truth and considering that I still haven't had sex with her, then Hell must be getting warmer by the minute. Well, you guys can infer right from the start that nobody goes to heaven

I don't know... maybe it's one of those things that started out pagan but was "converted" into Christian belief. Something like Samhain (Hallowe'en) being turned into All Souls' Day or Saturnalia (or Yule) being turned into Christmas. How about Lupercalia into a day for St. Valentine's? Personally, I do feel (not think, feel) that the rabbit was "gobbled up" by Easter and not the other way around. The capitalist rabbit gobbling up Easter? Psh. Of course, those are just my feelings (not thoughts, feelings) P.S. I believe the Easter bunny was actually a hare and not a wabbit.

I personally have no idea whether 200 mongooses are significant enough to noticeably disturb ecology. I do think that there is more to this than just 200, though. What if those mongooses breed as successfully as wabbits? Are they all male mongooses? Sterile? Maybe this should be better implemented only as a short-term solution? Something like allowing those mongooses to root out the snakes for a month then going in and retrieving all 200 mongooses. While this still is not as accurate in predicting long-term effects, it might help buffer the effects of suddenly incorporating all those mongooses in a habitat that wasn't their own. For example, after one month of mongoose reign, retrieve them all. Now, observe. If the snakes fire up again, then re-introduce the mongooses for another month. And so on and so forth. Now, isn't that much better than installing them as a permanent fixture in the caves? Well, of course not. People up there will definitely be concerned with the cost of transferring mongooses to and fro ever and anon. "Won't it be much more inexpensive to just let them be? After all, they seem to be happy with their meals in those caves," they might say. Well, what happens when the mongooses run out of snakes? What, or who, will they eat, or attack, next?

It appears that one of the things bloggers have in common is the need, or desire, to be heard and, as the quoted passages imply, the need to be acknowledged. I know, I know, it sounds like a vaingloriously egoistic thing; it sounds like attention deficit people thirsty for someone to wave hello at them. However, it is not. First, it is perfectly natural for us, humans, to want to be acknowledged. After all, if we, as humans, cannot stand being ignored for too long, how much more as bloggers? I've read in an article once that blogging caught on when people realized that they, themselves, can be part of the media. Before, people relied on professional reporters, cameramen (plus camerawomen), editors, newscasters, writers and publishers to deliver the news. Now, that very same power (and privilege) seemed to have been snatched from those people and shared with the little ones. It was said that people liked blogging because, finally, they can be heard by everyone! I, for one, found the last statement a complete exaggeration. Why would everyone want to read your posts? Even celebrities with a worldwide following cannot ensnare the interests of totally apathetic people; why would anyone new bother reading up on your day-to-day activities? How on earth could you hope to broadcast your "message" around the world? It is perfectly possible but highly implausible. Second, there was a saying that goes, "You are unique, just like everyone else." We, as humans, have spent millenia in this third rock from the sun, which means, we have been thinking of a lot of things. It is very rare now that someone comes up with a radically new idea that will shake the very foundations of the world. In other words, why would people be interested to read specifically your insights when there are literally hundreds of other blogs in the world that say the same things you do? Then there also is the unpredictability that comes with being human. After all, your readers are humans, right? Humans, as they are, are quite moody creatures. They may decide to comment on your blog on a whim, or if they're really moved to tears by your melodramatic life or profound musings. However, most of the time, they just think, "Oooh, nice idea," then they log off or browse to other blogs. A lot of times, the people who read blogs are, themselves, bloggers. A lot of people who read and comment on posts are bloggers. A lot of these bloggers are thinking, "Should I comment or should I just post a paraphrase of his/her idea into my blog?" Quite unfortunately, a lot of these people choose the latter option. So if blogs don't satisfy the basic human need to be heard (and acknowledged) why do people blog? (No, I'm not an anti-blogger seeing that I am a blogger myself ) People usually blog: (in no particular order) 1. for money. Mmmm, Adsense, Adsense, Adsense! (Some have even made careers of blogging) 2. to hone or showcase their skills and fulfill their passions on webpage design or writing 3. to vent out the frustrations they wouldn't dare scream out at home (Online "anonymity") 4. to meet new people, make new friends 5. to make a difference The first reason is very compelling but, in some cases, is not enough. Some of those people do succeed in raking in profits by blogging. Whether they get feedback or not is of concern to them only if it has any effect on their... income. The second reason is also very compelling. These people are doing what they like and damn if nobody comments, they will continue blogging. Blogging, to them, is not primary source of income (although they're far from rejecting the opportunity to earn a little on the side) but a hobby. The third type is also quite prevalent. The inherent negativist within each person emerges whenever something's wrong. See, we complain when things are not quite right, we blog our complaints, we flame, we rant on and on, on and on, blah, blah goobledegook, until we run out of words. Then we click the "Post" button and Boy! Doesn't it feel good to have talked it out with someone? Who? Well, potentially, everyone, practically, very few. Blogging, for these people, can be therapeutic, though. Quite beneficial to them, I suppose, but then what is it to the world? The fourth and fifth one, well, they're probably the anti-thesis of the third. Where the "ranting maniac" cages himself or herself with walls of words and screams in his or her own private hell, the fourth and fifth ones think "outwards"; they mind the world. A lot. Who might I meet out there? I wonder how many fishes there are in the proverbial sea? How do I get the world to see things my way? Can this post grab the world by its very balls and... well, you get the picture. Oftentimes, though, I meet these people in a disappointed state. They sometimes ask, what's the point of blogging if nobody ever replies? See, altruism -> blogging -> ... -> still no feedback -> disappointment -> no more blogging. I hope you still get the picture. So what am I trying to say? Nothing. I'm just racking up credit points; see how long I have written already? Just kidding. My point is that if people don't comment on your blog posts, don't be discouraged. Blogging, after all (and supposedly) is not about the ooh, ahh, wows and "Nice blog you got there. You can also visit mine at..." replies; it's all about expressing yourself. A lot of people will not give a damn but isn't that exactly how the world works? See, if I literally scream my opinions right now, would any of you people in your respective sides of the world mind? I'm sure not; it is the same with blogging. Now, if it really, really, really bothers you that nobody seems to be listening (or more accurately, nobody seems to be acknowledging), then you might as well as yourself your reasons for blogging. biscuitrat is right; if you cannot figure out where passion, drive, dedication, motivation or <insert synonym here> goes, then maybe blogging isn't for... everyone In any case, why don't you guys post your blog links here? Who knows? Maybe some people (me, for example) might find your insights quite... insightful

I do remember strange (widespread) animal behaviour tend to happen a few days, or even weeks, before a major calamity or natural disaster. I recall a news report when jellyfishes, apparently, attacked the seawater filters of our main power plant, effectively denying electricity to a great part of the metro. A week later, an earthquake ripped through the South China Sea. It appears they have been fleeing before the quake.Similarly, I do think it is possible that the bees might have migrated elsewhere. Something big must've been coming up.Or the aforementioned theories posted by other people; I also agree it is possible

In my opinion, it is fanaticism taken to the extreme.Let's face the gentler aspects first; patriotism, for one, as been regarded as a positive thing. However, even as such, it has a darker side, that is, it undermines world peace/unity for the sake of a nation's progress.Taken to the extreme, we can have various reasons for suicide bombing. Ranging from the relatively tame and simple psychological disorders to war stratagems to a "worthy" cause. (I do not mean to insult those who plan on suicide bombing by putting quotes in "worthy"; it's just that what's worthy to one may be foolish to another. It's a relativity thing) Ultimately, though, I guess the point of suicide bombing is gaining attention and getting a message across.The 9-11 bombing, for one, must've been a message that says, "There is a grave threat to America and this threat is real. Take this threat seriously and be not complacent nor rest on your laurels."There has been, recently in our country, a hostage crisis. Unlike suicide bombing, there were no casualties. Au contraire, the entire shindig ended peacefully. The hostage-taker used the attention he got to expose corruption in his home province along with outlining other ills that plague our beloved nation. After he had said his piece, he peacefully surrendered. Now, what's sad is that the media and, in general, everybody, focused on the crime of hostage-taking. People were taking action like filing suits against him, psychiatrists were "mending" the minds of the "traumatized" children (who left the place smiling and rallied for the hostage-taker's release days after) but nobody even paid attention to the things he brought to light, namely, corruption and scandal.I suppose, then, that the bitterest thing that could happen to suicide bombing is people ignoring the message and focusing on the wrong and obscenely superficial things. It means, in all angles, a life wasted on absolutely nothing.P.S. I don't support non-war suicide bombing that involves collateral damage (i.e. loss of innocent lives). If it were just a plane slamming into a vast desert, a polar icecap or Mount Rushmore then I wouldn't mind at all

Not really the answer to why people lie but I'd just like to share something I've come across in a comic strip earlier. The next frame also presented a retort. Alright, shutting up now XD