salamangkero

I find this hard to believe. If I give you 50 cavans (sacks) of rice, each weighing 50 kilos and you have to deposit them in a storehouse 50 miles from where you are, do you carry each one of them, walking 100 miles each? Or do you use a trolley to transport them into a jeepney you hired (or will drive) to carry them all at once, with lesser effort might I add, to the storehouse? See, in few cases, it usually is better to work hard. Jog, or ride a bike, instead of taking a cab to work. Use the stairs, instead of the elevators, when going 2 floors down, or up. Recycle post-laundry water and carry them in a bucket instead of flushing down money, err, clear water. In these cases, and other similar ones, it is beneficial to a person's health to work harder. However, in our lives, most of us do not live a stone's throw away from the office. Our office might be in the 31st floor (I'd rather not climb it when I'm in a hurry, which is always) We might have the laundry in the basement while we need to flush toilets in in the third floor. Likewise, we simply do not, repeat, do not deliver 50 cavans of rice by hand 50 miles. Nor do we lug around a bagful of explosives; we hire our underlings for that, but that's another matter You're right, though. Working harder and working smarter do not give identical results. Usually, working smarter has the potential to save lives, especially when the city awaiting your rice shipment is under famine. Just imagine what would happen to the poor starving people had you chosen to deliver their food ration by hand (Don't question me please; I, too, have no idea what's behind today's obsession with rice cavans) If you conserve your energy, yes, you are not doing your best. However, I'd like to point out that, sometimes, you don't need to do your best, especially when you have the technology to make it easier. You conserve your energy not because you are stingy but because you have to do your best in other things that really do require your utmost strength. For something a little closer to home, just imagine what would happen if your mom opted to walk to the hospital instead of taking a cab when she was about to give birth to you? Wait... I think I have the solution to overpopulation. It's not rice

Hear, hear! I also sleep shirtless for the same reason. Even when it's cold, I have a blanket (or comforter when it's really cold) but never a shirt. I don't really like the choking feeling of shirt collars around my neck. Of course, when I'm sleeping elsewhere, like staying over at a friend's house, I sleep in decent attire, that is, fully clothed. Usually, I wear shorts but, on times when I get home too exhausted to change, I sleep in my undies. I'd like to try something new, though. I wonder what it's like to sleep with something, other than a blanket, draped around you like, say, a human arm?

That's quite a daring theory you have put forward, unfortunately, you might have exaggerated a bit. Technically, you are right, less than 10% of the oceans had been explored. However, the lowest figure several sources, acquired through a quick Google search, have estimated is just below 5% so your statistic is way off.Also, while we do have ocean depths so deep, it is, by no means, infinite. Insects number greatly partially because of their instinct to form colonies: several small organisms working together in a finite space, acting practically like one massive organism. Now, whales also form communities but a herd of whales (or school, or pod, or gam) simply occupies too much space, moves around an even greater space and needs to surface to breathe. There is simply no way that our dismally finite oceans can support that many large organisms.Also, whales have limitations too. It is highly improbable, though not downright impossible, for whales to inhabit the greater depths of the ocean. For one, they need to surface to breathe. Also, they eat plankton and krills, organisms that photosynthesize in sunlight and thrive in the warmer ocean surface. It is highly unlikely that there is enough nutrition and, wildly speaking, air vents in the abyss floors for whales to comfortably frequent those places or make it their homes.Unless, of course, and this is, again, wildly speaking, there is actually no such thing as a mantle and the earth is made of water, instead of viscous molten rock, then there might be a chance our crust is supported by a massive herd of whales, which, strangely enough, resembles certain pre-"round Earth" theories

I usually have hiccups when I drink soda, which is why I'd so much love to see fizz-less sodas come out in the market. When I get hiccups, I try my best to be extremely aware of them. I breathe much more slowly and, when I sense the onslaught of a fresh hiccup, I try my best to suppress it without holding my breath.Blah! It's kinda hard to describe what I do but suffice to say that holding my breath doesn't work for me. Neither does eating a spoonful of sugar, drinking water from the far side of the glass or fright. The last one actually aggravates the condition 'coz I'd find myself choking some times

From what I have heard from my friend, aikido, at least, traditional aikido, that is, focuses heavily on defense. My friend humorously told me there's practically no such thing as sparring in aikido 'coz they'd just end up crouching, each waiting for the other to move aggressively. From the few snippets he regales us with over lunch, I think one of the principles is that the nearer to earth you are, the better your "balance" or something...The main point, from what I gather, is not in counter-attack but just defense, that is, immobilizing your opponent and "parrying" his (or her) attacks

Yarr, that be soundin' like fun. A bit crude but still shivers me timber, yarr!I especially liked the female pirate's pickup line: "I've crushed seventeen men's skulls between me thighs!" I wonder how that came to be :DI'll probably try to greet my co-workers a Happy Talk Like A Pirate Day by walking them off the plank. Oh, did I mention we're on the 31st floor?

I know perfectly well what telekinesis means, thank you. The reason I didn't use it is because other (label-obsessed) people might argue whether other kinetic powers, such as pyrokinesis, aquakinesis/hydrokinesis or aerokinesis can actually be considered under telekinesis. That is, of course, assuming you are not the only person with supernatural abilities. Otherwise, you'd just be mutation-leech in a world without mutants. I believe the show title you're looking for is Early Edition

Actually, invisibility is usually picked first 'coz it has the greater potential to let the user get away with murder, figuratively and, eerily enough, literally speaking However, if I'm gonna go bad (as if blackmail, assassination, burglary and frame-ups weren't evil enough) I'd probably choose any "kinetic" power. More specifically, the power to absolutely alter the position of certain objects relative to a reference point, effectively creating an impermeable shield, if needed be. In principle, it is just moving things around, perhaps on a molecular level like Jean Grey's Phoenix Force. However, the principle is pretty much the same with the power of Sabaku no Gaara to move particles of sand, the mutant ability of Magneto to move metal, the paper mastery of Dokusensha's Sonny Wong, the two releases of Kuchiki Byakuya's sword, Senbonzakura and, to a limited degree, the initial release of Matsumoto Rangiku's sword, Haineko, or that of "Kamaitachi" Ikkanzaka Jiroubo, Tsunzakigarasu. What would I do if I had any "kinetic" power? Let's just say, to hell with protecting my identity; the world's gonna pay! Most probably, I'd put my best foot forward by going on a robbery spree until I get bored of all those cash (which is, at the moment, highly improbable) Then I'd start the ruthless murder of criminal (I'm afraid to use the sensitive word "terrorist") groups, along with a few members of the military, police force or even just civilian bystanders, just to keep me from becoming the government's lapdog

Invisibility is, simply put, overkill, which is why a lot of people, including me, choose it.Also, in my humble opinion, invisibility is not a superpower that will bore its user real quick. Oh yeah, it's gonna be boring if you'll stick to the "ethics" or "unwritten rules" of supernatural abilities and limit yourself to playing pranks on people. However, if you use it to steal, spy, record blackmail material, frame someone up, kill or, generally, just be a total devil, the possibilities are what? Shall we say, endless? :DOnly thing is, if you can be invisible, what are it's limitations? Can you make other objects, your clothes, for example, invisible? Or are you gonna be parading around naked and no one will be the wiser? Scratch that, can you even see while invisible? 'coz light does not strike your retina but simple passes through it. Oooh, or will it not be total invisibility but only a simulated one by bending light about you?Also, keep in mind that persons in invisible modes usually are going to have a hard time crossing busy intersections Also, their powers will not be of much use in rainy weather, polluted environments or, generally, places where the atmosphere is chock full of particulate matter. That said, there's still a limit; invisible people can't just go anywhere but you gotta admit, there's a whole lot of places that open up to them, bathhouses not included, though

Funny I came across this thread; I was reading a fictional novel about a judge who once tackled a case like this. All in all, there are arguments that support minority groups. While we all (or most of us) would like to have a world of equality, there is no denying that some groups have, in the past, suffered at the hands of mainstream society. If we were to impose absolute equality rules now, it's paramount to saying that "We'll have absolutely fair rules in this race but you blacks, Asians, Hispanics and homos will have to start where you are right now, which is, unfortunately, several leagues behind the whites."Also, in some institutions, like colleges, for example, it is advantageous to have a demography that mirrors that of the outside world. As such, some campuses cannot simply accept all whites into their school, never mind if they actually scored higher. If they did that, the culture would also be predominantly white, which poses a problem for the school's image, and for the students themselves, once these students graduate and venture into the outside world.Also, since they are, after all, minority, it is perfectly understandable to gravitate towards those whose situations are similar to theirs. Members of the majority have little need for such mechanisms because they rarely feel the same threat felt by members of the minority. Hence, we have gay pride parades but no straight pride. Wouldn't it be interesting if there were, though? I wonder what they'd be wearing :XD:

I beg to differ. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with parents being friendly with their children, if, and only if, they do not renounce the responsibilities of parenthood. For one, my mom and I are very close. Granted, she raised me well (she spanked me as a child) but it does not mean that she is always cold to me. Au contraire, when I am behaving, we find it a lot easier to communicate with each other. The same is true between my mom and my sibs. I honestly think that being parent and friend to your kid is beneficial. If someone were just a parent, they'd probably say, "Gary, let's have the talk," and things will get awkward from there. If, however, you consider your parent your friend, it'd be much easier for them to say, "Nikki, let's talk about boys." This, methinks, is very beneficial in that pubescent kids are given the knowledge that they really need, instead of having to seek it elsewhere, possibly in more unsavory sources such as porn mags, movies, the internet, etc. What is the point? I believe that, on some issues such as sex, it is sometimes better to approach as a candid friend than as an authority figure. Of course, it's not always limited to sex, but I'm just giving you an insight to my personality Take smoking, for example. Don't you think the words, "You shouldn't smoke; it's bad for your lungs," are convincing enough? How about, "You really shouldn't smoke, trust me on this. I used to smoke once, it my college days... *blah, blah*...and now there are a lot of things I couldn't do 'coz I've burnt most of lungs." Ah, anyway, I'm getting off-topic here but I'd just like to offer my two cents that parents should really be parents, but it wouldn't hurt if they're also friends :XD:

Then whomsoever taught you that the Big Bang was a fact is, like you said, arrogant. That's also pretty much like the religious person who insists that his/her god(s) created the world from scratch. Let's face it, we're all human and, by the way things go, we can never validate the existence of a creator, at least, not in our lifetime. There are technologies for extrapolating into the past. I am hoping you have heard of one called carbon dating. :XD:

It is quite freakish. I big... nothing. I have always feared the ocean because of the thought of going overboard in all that depth, with nothing to rest my feet on. But even that seemed petty compared to the prospect of living on a planet or, heaven forbid, an asteroid smack dab in the middle of that giant nothing.I'd be first to admit I know nothing much about astronomy, although probably not as large a nothing as the nothing at hand. Still, I've been wondering, what if it was actually the center of the universe? Well... that sounded a lot more awkward that it actually is; the point is, what if it was the center, or at least, the area, where the Big Bang occurred? Maybe the explosion/expansion had blown off/pulled away all matter from the center of the "Primordial Explosive Atom" that everyone, meaning the hulky galaxies, the bright and chipper stars and even the dark and brooding blackholes were, in a way, "knocked back"?I remember watching a TV series that an explosion has two phases. The first one pushed matter away from the center, effectively creating a near-vacuum. In the second phase, the low pressure inside the "shell" of air and shrapnel, along with the relatively higher pressure of the atmosphere outside, pushes all that matter back in, metaphorically creating a vortex that is sustained for only a short while, sucking ejected matter back in.Now, suppose that the Big Bang was the first phase of an explosion. If the above theory were correct, we should be having a second phase, the collapsing phase. Only, the difference is that there was no atmosphere back then to push everything back in. As a matter of fact, after the explosion, there could very well be vacuum inside but there is an even greater amount of vacuum outside. So, right now, it could very well imply that that hole will continue to grow and that the universe could very well end up expanding into infinity.Then again, I have to remind myself that the Big Bang event was an expansion, not an explosion. Still, for a while there, it might have been interesting, ne? :XD:

Some people, I believe, have no sense of humor and treat every joke and speculation as evidence of actual belief. To your first question, no. At this point, it does not matter... and your point is? Truth is, just because there is a meaningful discussion about an issue does not necessarily mean that the issue is of utmost importance. Look at it this way, a lot of people have different ways of entertaining themselves. Some glue their eyes to the boob tube while others glue their ears to their iPods. We, similarly, opted to glue our minds to this. Even if it does not matter, speculative thought can oftentimes be interesting. That, I believe, is the answer to your second question. Not really. (Sane) scientists are not actually trying to provide answers, they are finding them. They are not using facts to solidify ideas; it is more like the other way around. What they do is collect whatever evidence they can find and extrapolate back into the past. From that, we can get a sensible, though not really accurate picture. In any case, scientists always have a disclaimer that their theories describe what, most likely, happened in the past and not just what exactly happened. There's a difference. Nonetheless, from the tone of your post, it seems as though you were implying that people who come up with ideas from fact are kidding other people. I highly recommend a much greater appreciation of technological inventions around the world, they being the product of people who "were kidding others by presenting their ideas as facts" Agnostic as I am, don't you think there's a flaw in the idea that God, who is supposedly perfect, had failures? I think you should read the post first. It did say that the memories were no more than, uh, implants, programmed to seem like recollections of a past that did not exist. The same with the fossils, I think it was detailed that these fossils and artifacts were deliberately placed there when the world was created 10 seconds ago to hint at a past that, again, did not exist.

I'd like to observe that asking, who created the creator is very much as pointless as the paradox, "If god can do anything, can he make a wheel so large that he can't lift it?"See, we are dealing with hypothetical entities. Be it God, gods or goddesses, the Atom (the seed of the Big Bang. It's not called the Atom but, for simplicity's sake, let's just assume it was), whatever, we are thinking of a Creator that we have yet to see in tangible, empirical form. Isn't it unfair to equate them with everything else?In the God's wheel paradox, isn't it quite unfair to assume that God has the same limitations as man, specifically, the inability to move something of dire mass? Analogously, isn't it a bit imprudent to assume the Creator (whoever or whatever it is) also need to be made or created?True, true, the laws of physics state that matter (and energy) cannot be created or destroyed. How sure are we that such "laws" are absolute? Even assuming the laws are immutable, why the need to assume the Creator is matter (or energy)?I'm tempted to lash out, "Give it a rest, people," were it not for the interesting ideas and insights I come across. Keep 'em coming people :XD:

I agree. In our country, we have a saying, "Anak na di mo ngayon paluin, bukas ikaw ang paluluhain" (The child you did not spank today will surely make you cry someday) Really, I think some parents quite dumb for shunning corporal punishment. I think they need to seriously understand that children aren't quite refined individuals yet. As such, the language they understand will be one of reward and punishment, not moral and philosophies. Of course, however, I am aware that corporal punishment can have many different outcomes. (1) The parent becomes abusive. This happens when the parent fails to distinguish the fine line between righting a wrong and nitpicking. For example, it is perfectly alright to spank your kid for moving too much, disturbing the people around him. However, you know it is already too much when the parent hits the child for simply shifting in his seat. As parents, no, as humans who once went through childhood, they should know the limitations of a child. (2) The outcome is not the one expected; fear, instead of discipline, is instilled in the child. I think this one happens when stupid mothers leave the punishment to their husbands. "Oh no, you broke Grandma's vase. Just you wait 'til your dad gets home." As a result, the child associates punishment with his dad, instead of his own wrongdoing. My psychology professor suggested, based on studies done on la brats, err, lab rats, that punishment, if implemented, should be done as soon as possible after the "crime" In other words, parents should spank their child the moment they learn of a mistake. (3) The child grows up fine, with a firm sense of discipline. As a matter of fact, the child grows up under authoritarian conditions and become authoritarian himself/herself. Or, the child grows up to rebel, not understanding that his parents did not hate him. Nah, actually, I'm just stereo-typing but don't you think these children usually grow up to be policemen, soldiers, school teacher or principals or the epitome of their own parents? (4) The child grows up fine, not perfect, but fine. For example, Mermaid711 has a strong idea on acceptable behaviors for kids, or humans, in general. She know perfectly well, like any perfectly educated person should, the limits on what is acceptable behavior and, as such, recognizes the fact that some kids need to be disciplined. I'm sure each person has his/her own beliefs on what is right and what is wrong but most of you will probably agree that humanity has a general set of rules that delineate acceptable from rude behavior. Most certainly, it is undesirable to nudge other people's butts, right? :XD: There are advertisements in television that irk me, especially those of milk. The story usually begins with a toddler who like to eat fried chicken. The problem? The kid's not eating a well balanced diet. The solution? This so-and-so milk that has all the essential nutrients from all the food groups. Methinks those are terrible advertisements in that they promote leniency, no, laxness in parenting. The way I see it, the problem: the kid's not disciplined/trained to eat his meals properly. The solution? A sound spanking, or other, more colorful discipline methods. On a side note, our country has other forms of punishment, aside from spanking or sitting in the corner. My mom has often regaled me with colorful stories like parents who make their children kneel on a large basin of rock salt, gravel or munggo beans. (Each bean is about as large as a ball bearing, kneeling on a bunch of 'em for extended periods is supposedly painful) Also, whilst kneeling, the child is made to stretch her arms out on both sides. Depending on the version of the story/movie, books may sometimes be placed on her palms and on her head. I'm only too grateful my mom hadn't thought of personally introducing me to the experience. In any case, the point still remains and I only serve to re-iterate it: Parents NEED to discipline their children through corporal punishment.

Hmmn... I see that posts in this thread have taken a much more emotional turn.I'd like to point out that, however advanced we, as a civilization, may be, it is still quite beyond our powers to create anything "new" out of nothing. For example, to make a calculator, you would need metal, different metals, as a matter of fact. Probably plastic too, if you want a nice casing. Whether it is an ubiquitous arithmetic calculator or an uber-powerful scientific calculator, the fact still remains that the human who made it is merely a "Maker" and not a "Creator"As for the other post, if we assume that something "wonderful" or "beautiful" has to have a creator, then I'm afraid this debate has devolved into a petty prayer meeting or artist's workshop. For one, the major flaw in that argument is that the basis of how wonderful or beautiful something is is highly subjective, even wildly so. Also, the animals didn't submit to us.Really now, don't you find it totally conceited to foolishly believe the universe was created for the human race? The animals, or generally speaking, the wilderness did not submit to humanity. Rather, we hacked and slashed our way that those who resisted had died in vain. Anyone who tells me humans are this planet's most intelligent specie will get a faceful of guffaws and laughter.Humans, don't flatter yourselves too much. You can't create anything and the universe is not created for you either.

Actually, what you are saying is "making" and not "creating" The primary difference between making and creating is that "making" is the transformation of raw materials into another, possibly more ordered, possibly more chaotic, but essentially different, object(s) Creation, on the other hand, entails the instantiation of an object out of absolutely nothing. This "nothing" does not refer to dark matter, anti-matter, dark energy or what other pseudo-science proponents might insist. It's just that, nothing, the absence of anything: no matter or anti-matter of any sort, no energy, nada. Your opinion is understandably human. Allow me to borrow a few phrases of Bill Bryson's book, A Short History of Nearly Everything. Imagine that, near a tree by a roadside, you see a twig. Of course, there's nothing quite strange about it. Now suppose, instead of just one twig, you see two twigs, lying on the ground, "joined" at their endpoints. Presumably, there is also nothing too strange. One twig must've fallen and another must've fallen above it. Now suppose you see three twigs, again joined by their common endpoints, however, they have been joined in such a configuration that forms a tetrahedron. Undoubtedly, the most common inference would be, "Somebody made that." As a matter of fact, anything that is seemingly ordered always seems to be the end result of some intelligent design or, at least, a sentient material force. Most of the time, these deductions are correct, however, that does not mean that they are absolutely correct. In other words, concluding that something ordered is a product of intelligent design is more likely to be true, but not absolutely true. Really, if we were to believe in the Big Bang, the world, and life, as we know it, exists only due to a lucky sequence of lucky breaks, as opposed to a series of unfortunate events Were gravity a bit stronger, we'd be living on rock, not gas, planets the size of Jupiter, if life ever began at all. Were it a bit weaker, matter would not have coalesced to form the galaxies we know today. The margin for error is quite slim but this is not, repeat, not definite proof that the universe today has been created, or, at least, orchestrated, by a supreme force. However, allow me to point out that even this is not something validly analogous to creation. For one, while we have countless records of manufacture, we, as a race, have not ever documented a single creation event, apart from mythology. As such, we have completely no idea what to expect in a creation. Ultimately, I'd have to say that, like the existence of God, whether creation requires a creator is a question to which the answer is inherently unknowable in our lifetime, if it will ever be. Then again, hardcore mythologists would most likely attribute it to faith or literary material supposedly written thousands of years ago :XD:

I am under the impression that Guy B has some serious insecurity issues especially when it comes to pay. It severely offends him to know that other guys are paid more than he is.For the first one (Guy A) I agree that almost anyone would react the same way he did. After all, Guy A was boasting and getting paid for something he didn't work/suffer for. I mean the redundancy pay, not the overtime work he does.For the second situation, that is just completely irrational. Methinks he will be singing a different song were his own hip be the one broken. Then again, that is just my own opinion and there's only one way to prove or disprove it, ne? :)Best of luck on your hip. Hope it mends well soon, even if it's just to get Guy B off your back :XD:

It has been three years since I, too, had las played Neopets.I was there mostly for the stock market. There was a time when it was okay, until I realized that, more than anything, it is just a big gambling game.I never cared much for Battledome, auctions, quests (faerie and non-faerie) and the games. I do remember eagerly awaiting new plots, though. Yeah, the comic's kinda sucky and the plot (sic) doubly so but, as a creative writer (or an ordinary person claiming to be one) I occasionally come across a few gold nuggets of plot-worthy events while sifting through that bucket of humus :)Really, it is a total waste of time, if you ask me but, then again, that might be unfair for me to say considering that I usually view a lot of online games as waste of time :XD:Oh yeah, as a friend/buddy network, it didn't work for me. I made more friends over Yahoo! Messenger than Neopets, if that's any way to describe how terrible it is.

I also use Colgate, 'coz it's really sweet. I don't have much of a thing for those "icy-cool mint-fresh" gel toothpastes

I'm no game addict but I think I know what I say when I claim that not all game addicts are "destroyed" by computer games, as most addictions are wont to do. Actually, some of these addictions, harnessed the right way, could "enhance" an individual in certain aspects of his/her life. Yeah, you've all heard of those cheesy stories about people finding love or their soulmate(s) in an online game so I won't regale you with those. Instead, allow me to describe a close friend of mine. He used to be severely disinterested in mathematics. Indeed, his grades were just slightly above passing. However, he soon became addicted to Philippine Ragnarok Online, a graphic MMORPG. In addition, he was also obsessed with Kings of Chaos, a webpage-based online strategy game. It was during these times that he became interested in mathematics. More than that, stats like luck, probability and chances like critical strikes, hit or evade, had him taking up a subject in statistics. He used what he learned to calculate the maximum possible average damage output and attain it in the shortest possible amount of time. (He had to pay for Ragnarok online so money was also a priority) Well, I gotta admit, it's a very petty reason to study but it worked, nonetheless. Although I'd like to warn you people that, when I claim gaming addiction can have some nice benefits, it's probably a statement not meant for everyone. Not all people, I believe, has the same sanity and sensible priorities as he did No, he does not call anyone noob; let's face it, we've all been through that stage. Nobody is born lvl 50, right? For the rest, I'm sure you also heard about improved reflexes and hand-eye coordination. Personally, I also believe that some games can be like books. You can sometimes glean a few nuggets of wisdom, though that may be very rare. Also, you get to learn something, not because you were playing but because you're interacting with other people. Granted, it's a simulated online virtual environment but learning how to deal with noob-bashers, or bashers, in general can give you an edge when dealing with difficult people offline later on. If those bashers really annoy you (meaning, people who needlessly insult other people, not those weapons that stun you) that they totally ruin the game, then leave. You don't have to stand for it. Just know that, when dealing with difficult people, you can either shun them and leave the game, which is kinda enjoyable to them, to a certain degree, or just ignore them and continue with your life, which will most probably piss them off. So what if they call you noob and they're right? Should you, as a perfectly sane, rational and sensible person, really be affected? Or will you just chalk it up to experience and get on with your life as those bashers hopelessly grovel at people's feet for attention?

A friend of my has been trying to persuade me to join Trickster Online. I personally haven't played it although he has shown me some stuff. Basically, it's exactly an animal MMORPG and, what's more, it's free to play. From what I gather, what other MMORPG's call character classes are Trickster's animals, meaning, the same animals also have the same "job class" I have also heard that Trickster involves some "digging", where you can dig (duh) and, sometimes you turn up with something nice or valuable. Aside from that, I can say no more. After all, I do not have first-hand info on that. I suggest you check it out for yourself

That's kinda harsh. I used to be a Runescape player too, but yeah, you're right. Back on topic, as elaks said, people who diss other people's stuff usually cannot compete with what they're dissing. I think it is, primarily, a miscalculation on their part. Take websites, for example. They're most probably thinking, "God, this site sucks. Y'know, I could make a better site than this... if I had the time, energy, motivation, etc. In short, the right conditions." Take it from me, I'm speaking from experience The thing is, those people they/we diss have managed to come up with that "God-awful" website despite not having the time, energy, motivation, money, etc. In short, the right conditions. Another possible reason I am aware of but do not practice (No, I'm not being defensive! Stop smirking at me!) is that these people are insecure about themselves that they could only kick where it hurts. I mean emotions here but if you're thinking "balls", you're not that far off Take wealth, for example. How come wealth has become synonymous to sadness? Too many times, I hear people from middle to lower classes scoff and say, "Pah! I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and sad!" Duh? As if it is perfectly impossible to be rich and happy? (No, I'm happy but not rich. Yet.) How about physical looks? How many times have we heard of those dumb blonde jokes? ... Allow me to change my example. I know a lot of you people see gorgeous hunks and sexy chicks in your day-to-day life. (For those living in a monastery, I'd like to add a disclaimer ) Anyway, we also see a lot of nerds, geeks, goths and, generally, outcasts saying, "I'd rather be a smart nobody that gorgeous/popular but stupid." Again, does popularity or fair looks equate to inferior intelligence? (No, I'm not that drop-dead gorgeous either, but I'm working on it ) Really, sometimes, people just diss other people's $#!+, err... stuff, just because they feel immensely insecure not having that $#!+. Stuff! Seriously, though, I'd rather be one of those people who diss other people and have fun than those Miss Goody Two-Shoes that mope in their own depressingly gray and boring corners. Ooops!

For me, the most important thing when designing my site is a dialup-friendly interface that is fairly pleasing to the eyes. Well, let's face it, almost everyone likes good graphics on their sites. A lot of sites I know really take it to the extreme level that, unfortunately, people with dialup connections often cannot appreciate the entire content. (Well, maybe they could, if they cared to wait for twelve minutes or more) Some are even appallingly ignorant to even believe "the more, the merrier" and littering their pages with loads of bandwidth consuming clips from YouTube, online playlists, Google ads and a handful of other plugins, claiming that their pages are Web 2.0. Duh, as if Web 2.0 = Non-dialup Gah, sorry for ranting but, for me, that is the most important consideration when designing a website. (Actually, I assume you meant graphical design. Content is, of course, entirely another thing)