Watermonkey

I'm glad you found my phraseology "ironic", though I actually intended it as a pun I was just getting a jab in about the "near English" accent Kiwis and OZlanders have because it made up for the unwarranted attack on America you made (in my mind), nothing personal. "Books of that nature"? Uh... Well, you're obviously not familiar with the book. It consists of hard science, regardless of the attacks it's received from "the other side", it's never been discredited. It's not in the "fiction" section of your local library, btw... Two other things for you and Smack to consider: There has never been a genocide committed against an armed populace. And Germany didn't invade Switzerland because there was and is a machine gun in nearly every house and someone trained to use it. Random chance? Coincidence? I think not...

In that I'm someone who won't line up against a wall to wait for someone to shoot me, I'm someone who'll take my personal defense in my own hands, I AM SUPERIOR to the worm who'll cry and whimper about how evil guns are and how it's a tragedy and how if we only had more gun restrictions these things wouldn't happen... Yeah, you read that right, in that respect you're damn right I'm superior! Want me to say it again? Did you get that message? Tell me honestly: How exactly are people suppose to be protected from other people when they don't have the same level playing field? Do you really believe it's going to turn out alright when someone goes to a gunfight with a squirt gun? Are the results predictable? Is a government agency motivated to follow the law when they've got all the guns and the citizens have none? Did you pay any attention when the FBI and ATF killed men, women, and children at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, TX? Doesn't it seem kinda strange to you they went to all that trouble over a simple warrant they could've served any time when Koresch was in town jogging or shopping? They were sending the rest of the country a message: We are above the law, we can kill children with impunity, and there's nothing you can do about it. And you know what? We've become so weak as a nation, I'm afraid they're right! Of course the Davidians were armed so Janet's boys had to bring in tanks, helicopters machine guns, and CS gas to get the job done. You remember that don't you?

Your attitude is based on the false assumption that what works on your little island would work in America. Further you seem to be suffering from a Superiority complex. I think you'd be wise no stop shooting your mouth off and if you've got some statistics to throw out, then source them. Otherwise you're just another self-inflated pompous jerk with a fake English accent wearing rose-colored glasses. If you want real cause and effect statistics from real science, go read John Lott's, More Guns, Less Crime. The numbers don't lie. The areas in the United States where carrying concealed is allowed are the areas with less crime. Period, end of story. Those areas that have strick (illegal) laws prohibiting gun ownership or prohibit concealed carry such as Chicago, NYC, and Washington District of Columbia have enormously high crime and notoriously high gun crimes. (England has seen a recent rise in gun and projectile weapon crimes too, though such things are quite outlawed there...) Ironic, isn't it, that those places where guns are outlawed have the highest rates of gun-related crime... Makes a thinking, rational person think... Or at least it should. Oh, and, regarding "weapon if mass killing", is that your own invention? Not very clever... You see, a hand gun only holds between 8 and 16 rounds normally and even military rifles only hold up to 25 rounds per magazine typically. And, contrary to what you see on TV and in the movies, kill shots are not very frequent at all. That thing in Tasmania a few years ago that caused the whole country to piss and moan and turn in all their guns? That guy had a nearly 100% kill ratio. Experts have gone on record as saying he was obviously not the guy who took the fall for it. The guy who actually shot all those people was a top notch world class marksman! Even a cop, someone you'd expect to be able to hit his target fairly frequently, would've only gotten about half of those people. It's not so easy, as just "point and shoot" like some cheap camera. So with a pistol with 10 rounds in the mag and one in the chamber in the hands of someone with no experience shooting live people, in a crowd or whatnot, maybe one or two would die at most. The only reason so many died at Virginia Tech this morning is because the assailant apparently lined people up against walls and shot each of them at close range one at a time. Thing I can't figure is they didn't even try to defend themselves. A group of people could rush a person like that and take him down. Yeah, a few might die in the process, but they're dead anyway, nothing to lose at that point. Your use of that idiotic phrase shows you're totally ignorant of the whole "gun thing" and you're just trying to be sensationalist like some cheap media *BLEEP*. I guess your sole source of information on this topic of discussion is from the likes of the "Brady Foundation" (now known as VPC) and their ilk. That's exactly what they do. They climb upon the stack of dead bodies (figuratively) and preach gun control. All the while, their bodyguards are carrying full auto machine guns...

The courts determined years ago the police are not obligated to protect citizens. I used to go to a community college and then the University. I didn't own a handgun when I went to CC, but at the U, I bought a little 9mm that I still own and I conceal-carried it all the time on campus and in class. Strangely, miraculously even, not a shot was ever fired. But if some sicko were to storm in shooting random people, at least there would have been a chance of him being stopped in his tracks. This University allowed students to conceal carry on campus, but they had to apply for a special permit, which I never applied for.

Classic gov't op. Multiple bomb threats for weeks. Cops just cower behind trees doing nothing for hours giving the bad guy more time to carry out his agenda. As of now, I'm hearing over 30 people dead at this time. There's no excuse for this kind of event in America where, supposedly, the right to keep and bear arms is protected for all citizens. Yet, no students were armed to defend themselves from some psycho with a firearm? Completely avoidable. We're a nation of wussies who are ready to be lined up and shot by ski mask wearing thugs.

This may look a little silly because there?s no paper above to refer to regarding this response. In lieu of this fact, this is a critique of the second draft presented here which was written partially as a response to the comments posted above. Again, follow by paragraph, the first beginning here: Underlining is a non-conventional method of highlighting a word or phrase. I?d advise you to either italicize or embolden, not underline. At least give the audience some kind of context for the Spidy quote? Students at Mass? Technology (MIT), who? Really, in the 50?s and early 60?s were Baby Boomers, Gen ?X?, and now the current crop of felons. That?s only three generations total. How do you define generations here? Use of the acronym for the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not consistent. Pick an acronym and stick with it. There?s still a noticeably high incidence of useless words, i.e. fluff, in this paper. ?With the calculations made by the FBI, they reported that ?2.9 million US organizations experiencing at least one computer security incident?incurring a $24,000 average loss? would total the $67.2 loss.? This sentence, I think, should read? No, I?m not going to do your work for you. Re-write that sentence. It?s wrong in nearly every way. Pay attention to detail, then read it out loud exactly as written to see if it?s actually written right. First sentence has flaws. ?loss? should be ?lost?. Total used twice. ?mentions about? isn?t good English. Fluff fluff fluff? Don?t start a sentence with ?But? unless you?re a professional writer. What are the odds of that happening? US oro U.S., take your pick. It?s most definitely NOT U.S government. Details are everything! ?even? is 100% fluff here: ?even spending more money to not only?? Too many ?that?s. One shouldn?t assume in a ?research paper?. One should do something to show a cause and effect statistical correlation when presuming trends in such a paper. How about just directly quoting Ms. Wilson in that article? She probably articulates it better then you do anyway! ?Wilson suggests hacking is ethical because hackers are employed by companies to test their defenses against real attacks from the outside.? Both sentences need to be re-constructed here. When you begin with ?While?, you?re making an argument. ?While something is something, something else isn?t.? What you?re saying here is ?While some do it for this and others do it for that.? That?s a statement and ?While? has no place in it. One ?answer? is enough, thank you. I don?t see the need for the semi-colon after the second ?answered?. You?ve used their first names in your introduction, now when you do it, it?s just fluff. ?located near Moscow?? Tense problems in the sentence (many sentences in the paper) beginning, ?The most likely?? ?article talks? DETAILS! Has it occurred to you that only ?Ethical hacking? is ethical? All other hacking is either criminal or ?mischievous?. Anyway, that?s neither here nor there? I?m still unclear on what a cracker is. I think you only mention one person?s definition of it once. Instead of quoting every alleged expert, why not just come out and tell me what the distinctions are between the three: Ethical hackers, mischievous or criminal hackers, and crackers. Simple paragraph and you could probably get away with creatively hiding some fluff there too which could go unnoticed. It?s either ?these types of crimes? or it?s ?this type of criminal? I prefer the later. ?Stalkers have?? This sentence needs help, and the computer creates nothing. It?s the medium that is defined partially by anonymity. The criminal isn?t created there, he?s emboldened there because he can do everything he?s always wanted to do in real life: Convince someone he?s something he?s not. He can lure, stalk, and ultimately victimize many unsuspecting na?ve young people with relative impunity. I?d put a comma behind ?teens?. Better yet use parenthesis: ??more children (especially teens) and women?? Ask your tutor, but I?m thinking the credit in parenthesis should be outside the sentence. (Like this) ?This is because?? shouldn?t even exist in this sentence. Try it without: ?Teens and women are the most common victim groups due to their inexperience interacting with on-line personalities safely without ever exposing their whole identities?? (Something like that) See how that flows better? ?difference? should be ?different characteristics?? Lots of fluff in that sentence. ?Three types of stalkers: obsessive, delusional, and vengeful? (I use an additional comma before ?and? in a list which is acceptable, but needs to be consistent throughout.) The paragraph needs work beyond what I?ve highlighted here. Comma use: ?Katie Dean, author of? stalking?, states?? I believe ?estimates? is present tense with a hard ?a? so the sentence shouldn?t include that word and it?ll read much better. The quote should be ?there could be hundreds of?? ?And? isn?t the beginning of a sentence unless your name is Stephen King. Should be, ?Linda Fairstein, Chief of the Sex Crimes Prosecution, Manhattan District Atty., adds, ?the rate of cyber?? Again, ?whereas? is the beginning of an argument that never materializes? kind of like seeing strawberry cheesecake on the menu, but the restaurant is out. Know what I mean? There is no other hand, it?s all fluff. Start that sentence, ?The report Roy Mark talks about in his article? ethnic groups as well as the criminals: Men, women, and children.? ??is coming from a post 9/11 perspective when the reality is that people of middle east descent are targets due to their alleged involvement in the event that ended with the destruction of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex in Manhattan, September 11, 2001.? Should be, ?Though state and federal laws regarding cyber?? Fluff= ?to be used.? Give me at least one more example of a popular target. I?m tired of hearing about ?myspace.com? already. Should be, ?Recently cyber-stalkers have been targeting websites like myspace.com and ?..com for their large population of teens; soliciting sex and pictures of a sexual nature from them.? Or you could probably use a comma there. ?There have been countless successful solicitations forcing law enforcement officers to pose on these sites hoping to get bites from careless pervs so they can reel them in and arrest them.? ?Further, many cyber-stalkers aren?t caught until after they?ve victimized their prey.? ?turn? should be ?turned?. Should be, ?commit computer crime? I think maybe you should just say, ?Identity theft is when someone steals your name?? Correct the sentence, ?In 2003?? Don?t start a sentence with ?But? unless your income exceeds mine by several million per year. ?This is due to the fact that since?? Doesn?t work. ?Since? is another argument or something like that, it?s looking for resolution that never materializes. If you loose that one word, the sentence works except you?ve used the word, ?internet? twice in the same sentence. More fluff! Don?t start the last sentence with ?except? because it seems as though it?s a part of the former sentence. You can start a sentence with ?Except?, just don?t to it to continue from the last sentence. I don?t need the first sentence here at all. ?Of course? is conversational. Are you writing a nice story, or are you stating the facts? Loose that phrase. ?Another aspect of the shocking impact of identity theft is the financial costs: In 2005 Americans lost over?? Should be, ?Germain, who is a ?? I know it?s a crime. End the sentence with ?Recover?. Again, another unfulfilled argument, should read, ?When a credit card is lost of stolen, there?s a number (on the back of the stolen card you no longer have in your possession!) to call and the company will immediately cancel the card, but in an article by Kim Zetter, ?ID Theft: What you need to know?, it?s made abundantly clear ?there isn?t?? ?Yet another, often overlooked, aspect of the crime of ID theft is the psychological effects the victim will likely endure when they realize, rather quickly, their name was just used to achieve an illegal activity such as a violent crime. The humiliation of having to explain to people their identity was stolen and used by a criminal on top of the excessive length of time it takes to recover from the theft (weeks to years depending how long it takes to stop) adds enormous stress on a person?s life. ?where? should be ?were?. Should be, ?were initially put into place to battle against?? ?It is the lack of resources and proper? ?happening? You already stated that once in the paper. Remove the first instance. Fluff fluff fluff?Research_Paper_2nd_draft.rtf

Well, I guess I've got the only Mac vote in this thread so far then. I like the Macintosh OS, specifically OS X 10.4.9 because it just works. It's multi-processor capable and I don't generally have to worry about drivers or things like that. I can plug it into most any printer and it'll work. No viruses to speak of, I don't even use anti-virus software, no trouble. If an app. crashes, you can force-quit the app. and the rest is unaffected. And my favorite part... You don't have to re-start the stupid thing a quarter as often as Windoz makes you!

I claim 9 exemptions on my W-2 and I just noticed that the IRS penalized me $29 for withholding "their" money this year. I had to cut them a check for over $3200 for owed taxes a few days ago. And do you know why I do it? It's not because it's legal, it's not. And it's not because I feel that I should "do my fair share", I already pay more than my fair share of taxes and I know that the IRS is just the collection agents for the Federal Reserve, a private banking organization owned by the wealthiest families on the planet (go figure). It's because they've somehow convinced most people including judges everywhere that what they do is legal and as long as the judge is paid for, they'll come through and seize my home, cars, bank accounts, everything over $3200 -chump change in their world. The key is to avoid paying taxes at every turn. Someone once said, Tax evasion is a crime, but tax avoidance is every citizen's responsibility. It is slavery, though, to tax the earnings of a person. We're slaves to the Fed for about a quarter of our lives and we're slaves to the rest of the criminal taxationists for another quarter or more depending upon where we live and how much we earn at our jobs. Some people may only work a few months of the year for themselves. Don't kid yourselves kids: Slavery is alive and well in the world and it's no longer race specific. Unless you're a member of one of the elite families, you're a slave.

This is a great topic, Mich because it is, indeed, a small tiny little world. Everything we do comes around no matter if we're doing it on line or off. In the industry I work in, telecommunications, I bump into people I've worked with before all the time, sometimes I even bump into people who graduated from the same high school as me and more than once I've bumped into one of my old classmates. In my world, sometimes you're the boss, and sometimes you're the subordinate so it always pays to treat people with fairness, respect, and high regard because you never know... that person could be your boss one day. I've only once burned a bridge behind me in my professional life and it'll never haunt me, but usually it pays to leave a job on the best of terms with everyone because your reputation follows you where ever you go and just when you least expect it, it'll be waiting at the door to opportunity before you get there. Your reputation proceeding you could open doors or keep them closed. And watch how you drive or just behave in general in public, that old lady you just cut off could be someone who knows your momma or something! They say there's only six degrees of separation in the world which means that I know someone who knows someone who knows someone... (six times) who knows your momma. That's the true definition of a small world!

Hey, you caught it! That's exactly what I was talking about when I told him to use his spell checker! Except, alot should be a lot. Thank you for catching it though! That was bugging me...

Oh sure... Blame the Monkey... Hey, Seez. Why all the whining? You've only received verbals? You know the mods and admin don't really like moving posts to their correct locations... It's kind of a drag... Also, most people come here looking for some meaningful content and diverse subject matter we can all contribute to on one level or another. And it's really not too much, no really!, no expect of everyone to be able to write well, you know, in "decent English".

Well, I don't see the spelling error now and I haven't pasted it in to word, so who knows? Maybe I was just seeing things earlier. On achievements, wouldn't that be a good place to list your academic achievements? I mean, surely you have more achievements than people who are rooting for you to succeed...

So what you're saying is, if I've got an intruder, I'm supposed to ask the intruder nicely to just wait for a few seconds while I open this safe, take out my gun in the dark, load it, and then I'll deal with him? That's the stupidest thing I can think of. By the time you're half way into unlocking the safe, the intruder will be pointing his gun at you waiting to take yours once you get the thing open. Now you've got no gun and the intruder can still have his way with you and your family. Where's the sense in that? According to the Xisto rules: Now I tried, nicely, to give you some advice on using a word that doesn't exist, and you specifically tell me you don't need me to tell you how to talk, even though I was actually telling you how to write. Since you don't need my advice with that, next time I see something that's not "decent English", I'll just report you and the Mods or Admin will tell you to clean up your act. Thanks.

(First, it's "gun ownership". "Ownage" is not a word.) I would tell her to bring her pepper spray and baseball bat to a gun fight. Tell her if her rules are good enough for everyone else, they should be good enough for her. People of her ilk, though, never follow the same rules they've created for everyone else. Just look at your state Rep. Feinstein. All her bodyguards carry full auto firearms. Of course the regular person (peasant) can't afford personal bodyguards, and if you're in places like NYC where in-kind self defense is banned, you're a sitting duck for any criminal to do with as he pleases. Every animal has the ability to defend themselves against attack from other animals, but people have somehow devolved into thinking they're above all that. That's just the sort of thinking that makes for good slaves that don't question the illegal IRS or the illegal war on drugs, terror, or any other "war" our masters have declared in order to save just one child. Yeah, I think you should be able to demonstrate safe handling of a firearm before being able to carry it concealed in public, but the second amendment doesn't impart that restriction. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means any arms, according to the intent, well documented, of the framers of the constitution, that are similar to what the army carries in their defense of our nation. That includes muffled or big bore (or both) firearms like the .50 BMG that's been recently outlawed in the state of CA. When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them, leaving the law abiding defenseless sheep.

(You're right, Tim. No quote needed.) First thing that stands out, and I only just started reading it, is you say you're only 16 years old. Don't degrade yourself with the word "only". If that's a problem, let it not come from you. See what I mean? Make like you're secure and confident no matter what age you are and you're happy with being where you are in age. Loose "only". You might want to use a spell checker and end sentences with the appropriate punctuation. Anyone reading your resume will know what "WPM" means. Loose the translation. If you have "many skills", don't tell me and make me guess what they are, list them. Otherwise I think you're BS'ing me. And that would not encourage me to hire you. Otherwise, looks pretty clean. Good luck! Addendum: If you really need "words per minute" then just use that and loose the "WPM". Otherwise, you're going to insult someone's intelligence... I hope.

Sadly, I'm not going to disagree with the above, only to add that the sad truth is that female infanticide has been the norm for many many generations. For a long time now in China, since they've been limited to just one child, the females have been destroyed and the parents try again and again if necessary to birth a male. This might make some a bit queasy, but there have been persistent reports out of mainland China of rampant cannibalism which is also reported from some other Asian countries. As long as males are more valuable to build armies with and to work the land with, they'll always be the preferred of the two genders. But, I think most rational people would just accept what they've created from their unions especially if there wasn't a "baby-cap" to control population growth. I learned of infantacide in college along with other fun tricks like genital mutilation and so forth. Just be glad you don't live in a country where the practice of munching on infant legs isn't acceptable... yet.

Hope you enjoyed your day! Have a beer for me and stay out of trouble. Happy Birthday in NY!

I don't know about "wise", TF. I mean, I did imply above that they could've made a better choice about how to go about making the dogs go away. The means they used, waiting for the kid to leave for a week then giving the dogs away, were underhanded and not conducive toward future trust in their relationship with thier son. That being said, don't you think they have the right to say what animals can be in their household? They pay the bills after all... Get beyond the means for a second and put on a pair of their shoes and tell me you don't think they had any right to not want the dogs.

I looked at your link. Nice disclaimer at the bottom: I wonder how long that name will last until Google's lawyers shut them down? Do you do this often? Coming to forums pluggin that link so you can get a piece of the action from whomever signs up for this alleged program of yours? How's that working out for you? Pretty good, I hope. I've seen your link twice now. That's enough. Either contribute something of substance to our forum or move along.

Sociological implications of modern computer and internet sub-cultureIsaac Asimov said it best about computer technology. ?Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.?(1) I?m just making notes here as I read along. First, restructure the first real sentence after the Asimov quote. Simplify, shorten, lose the unnecessary verbiage. Get to the point already. Second, no Spiderman quotes. Look back much further and you?ll find that?s a real quote from a real person. Spiderman turns me off. I don?t want to read it anymore after seeing that. I feel dirty, illegitimate. Like the whole paper is going to throw real quotes from fictional characters at me. I need a shower now? I don?t like the last sentence in that first paragraph either. Don?t repeat the same word twice in a sentence unless absolutely necessary.(The new paragraphs here mirror the paragraph I?m critiquing, in case you were wondering) I don?t see what using chat room slang has to do with the price of rice in China. I don?t get the ?sledge hammer? reference either. Loose them. ?Some Americans have abused computer technology and not with a sledge hammer, but by using computers as a way to commit crimes such as computer hacking, cyber stalking and identity theft, and thus there should be more resources to combat these crimes.? Should look something like this: ?Criminals using hacking skills and other nefarious means such as cyber-stalking and/or ID theft have been able to exploit open doors in computer mainframes at public institutions such as banks to commit cyber-crime. Over the past ten years fill in the blank resources have been dedicated to providing law enforcement the means with which to combat this type of crime. More resources are needed.??The history of computer hacking is nearly as old as the computer itself starting in?.?(2) (Elaborate more on the fascinating history instead of just skipping ahead to today, jump ten years, and another ten and so on.) There?s way too much fluff and way too little substance in this paper. I?m starving here and all you?re feeding me is water!The distinction between a hacker and a cracker (not to be confused by the racist slang) is this: A hacker is a person? (4) Yes, throw in some humor. Don?t take yourself too seriously; make the paper at least a little bit fun to read. ?Some points she makes about hacking being ethical is that?? Is there a single necessary word in that part of the sentence? It?s cumbersome to read and says nothing. Again, I?m starving! I want to learn more about hackers and crackers but I?m getting an awful lot of fluff. It?s starting to give me cotton-mouth? Say it this way, ?An alternate point of view from Marcia Wilson (5), asserts hackers as? ?computer system. Some, however, argue that hacking is the ethical, beneficial endeavor and should be embraced as the hacker is the person who finds flaws in the security and code while a cracker?(you really don?t give me a good picture here on what exactly a cracker does) Go into the whole hacker=good, cracker=bad thing so I get a sense of why one group of people is good and the other should be locked away somewhere. You may be beating the whole ?law needs to be enforced? drum a little often? ending a couple paragraphs in a row with it now?I don?t like the stalking paragraph at all. First sentence should read, ?Traditionally, stalking has referred to a person who ?? now add the definition of a cyber-stalker, ?a person who picks up where his pop left off and hangs out in chat rooms and creates entirely new personas to lure the unsuspecting young or inexperienced target into his web?? ?Obsessional? should be obsessive. Skip the ?a? in front of 1999. Last sentence, ?where? should be ?were?. The entire sentence should be tightened up, though, for grammatical reasons. You?re writing like you?re talking. Don?t talk. Talk is full of fluff, words like ?that? and ?is? and ?the? etc. I can fill in the blanks, just get to the heart of the matter. If you were a Sophomore in a four-year college class, I wouldn?t let this pass. It needs much more work. It needs ten times more substance, and ten times less fluff.?Even though there are fed?? The use of the words ?their?, ?there?, and ?they?re? are often confused. Loose the confusion fast. You?re in college now, not the sixth grade. (Hey, you told me to be brutal!) I doubt ?Katie? would approve of your sudden need to be on a first-name basis with her. Is this a research paper or a love letter? Loose the familiarity and call her, properly, Ms. Dean every time you refer to her after the first introduction. Same goes for the others. Mr. This and Ms. That. If you wish, it?s just fine to refer to them by their last names only as well.I think the paragraph that begins, ?Identity theft is defined?? should actually begin a sentence earlier with, ?Though cyber-stalking has turned out to be another way for people to commit computer crime, id theft has seen its greatest advancement since?? All one sentence. Mind your details. In that last sentence I caught four grammatical errors, all of which I corrected in my version. I can see you?ve done the research, I?m not convinced you?ve actually digested it yet. Read much more on the subject then you need to include in the paper. Don?t just research the facts, get in to the heart and soul of the whole matter at hand. I remain unconvinced that the laws that are already on the books don?t accommodate this new generation of cyber-crime after reading your paper. I?m thinking you need to give the whole thing a thorough shake-down. Take each sentence and determine if it contributes to the paragraph and see if it?s too full of fluff or if it could be whittled down a bit more. Let me see your third draft and we?ll go from there?Another thing, I feel like the paper isn?t focused as well as it should be. Re-reading my critique, I think the third paragraph is the theme of the paper, but I can?t be sure. You?re very caught up in the anonymity of cyberspace and mention it in the first sentence inferred in that Asimov quote, but I?m not seeing a reason to keep hammering on it. Are you suggestion that something be done to prevent people from having the ability to remain anonymous? While that would be cool, how far are you willing to go to get there? Don?t people have some reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom of speech? Perhaps you?re suggesting a band-aid instead of advocating some common sense or even formal training be used for those about to dive into the cold deep waters of the internet without a life preserver. The make you train to some level of proficiency to become eligible to handle firearms, perhaps it?s time to train people to take some personal responsibility and educate them before ?allowing? them to access the internet? Just a thought.

I know this happened a long time ago now, rejected, but here's my take on that situation, harsh as you may think it is. I'm completely on your parents' side on this one. Especially if the dogs were hassling their cats. Their roof, their cats, their rules, no dogs that go around chasing cats. Seems completely reasonable to me. I think they were waiting for you to leave for some time to make the whole thing easier, and I don't blame them, but they maybe could've handled it differently.Spending an hour a day with a blue heeler is nothing. Those dogs need constant attention. Further, they shouldn't be adopted as "pets". They were bred to be working dogs on a ranch. Why people keep those awful dogs is beyond me, they don't do well in a household environment at all, they're needy, emotional, and hyper. The lab might not have been too bad if it was well trained to respect the cats and all that. The heeler.... I would've shot it if it was in my household and I caught it chasing cats just once. Cats are just too small and really are no match for a larger dog like that. I hope you've wised up a bit and haven't replaced the heeler with another one. They're sheep and cattle dogs, not people dogs.

I suppose it's something most everyone has done at one time or another. I can't think of any specific examples of lying, myself, though. I'm not female, though, so I don't have much reason to lie. I completely understand why some females lie online, but only about their gender and/or location. Of course the first lies turn into other lies which turn into more lies and sooner or later you're found out. I find it much easier to simply tell the truth because then you don't have to remember any of the lies you told. I find it most amusing when people lie about their profession and tell the truth about their age when they're only in their early 20's or so and the profession would require many more years. Or another good one is when they lie about their location but when you look up their IP it's coming from another place in the world altogether. If there's anything I'm asked that I don't want to tell a truthful answer to, I'd simply tell them I'm not comfortable divulging that sort of information to an online personality. There's the occasional L.E.O. that comes through here trolling for perverts claiming he's a 14 y.o. boy or girl that I've seen twice now. They're pretty easy to spot too and you'd have to be a totally depraved sick stupid weirdo to fall for them which is why they'd deserve to get caught! I don't even lie about being unemployed for cryin' out loud! When I become employed, you'll all know it because I won't have time to post here as often! Either way, once the weather gets better I'll be doing more outdoors stuff which will limit my computer activities too...I know of three people who lie (or have lied) to make themselves appear significantly different then they are in real life on Xisto.com. I spotted them in good time and they're obvious so I'll not divulge their identities, anyone can finger it out for themselves by simply reading their posts or shouts.