Orwellian

Howard Kveck said:

This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:

There are some things you are doomed to fail in even before you
start. Like arguing with an AI (or perhaps AS) program in an infinite loop
for example.

Donald Munro said:

Howard Kveck said:

This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:

There are some things you are doomed to fail in even before you
start. Like arguing with an AI (or perhaps AS) program in an infinite loop
for example.

Please, no loud noises this morning. Reports are that TK took the
Academy noms pretty bad. A little hair of the dog, we should hear
something by 1:00 or so. --D-y

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

Howard Kveck said:

This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:

There are some things you are doomed to fail in even before you
start. Like arguing with an AI (or perhaps AS) program in an infinite loop
for example.

Please, no loud noises this morning. Reports are that TK took the
Academy noms pretty bad. A little hair of the dog, we should hear
something by 1:00 or so. --D-y

I haven't heard a single good thing about the movie itself, other than
it's politics, that would even vaguely rate it for an oscar nomination.
What I've heard from everyone is that it's boring and second rate as
both a romance and western with no inovations or great performances.
That said it probably wins a couple of categories. Not worth going to
see though, and no big news here where same sex couples aren't exactly
news, or really even being discussed except by the handful of people
who just can't deal with it.
Bill C

Bill C said:

I haven't heard a single good thing about the movie itself, other than
it's politics, that would even vaguely rate it for an oscar nomination.
What I've heard from everyone is that it's boring and second rate as
both a romance and western with no inovations or great performances.
That said it probably wins a couple of categories. Not worth going to
see though, and no big news here where same sex couples aren't exactly
news, or really even being discussed except by the handful of people
who just can't deal with it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/

Seems to be a diversity of opinion. All the same, sex sells. Or repels,
depending.

Obviously, they should have made it about two cow-girls. Duh. --D-y

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

Howard Kveck wrote:
> This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:

There are some things you are doomed to fail in even before you
start. Like arguing with an AI (or perhaps AS) program in an infinite loop
for example.

Please, no loud noises this morning. Reports are that TK took the
Academy noms pretty bad. A little hair of the dog, we should hear
something by 1:00 or so. --D-y

I haven't heard a single good thing about the movie itself, other than
it's politics, that would even vaguely rate it for an oscar nomination.
What I've heard from everyone is that it's boring and second rate as
both a romance and western with no inovations or great performances.
That said it probably wins a couple of categories. Not worth going to
see though, and no big news here where same sex couples aren't exactly
news, or really even being discussed except by the handful of people
who just can't deal with it.

Mick Lasalle puts it this way:

In trying to make sense of the Oscar nominations, it
always helps to remember one thing: The Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences likes movies that are socially
liberal but artistically conservative. And this has been
the case from the beginning.

So Terrence Malick (``The New World''😉 shouln't feel bad
today, any more than King Vidor (``The Crowd''😉 or Charlie
Chaplin (``City Lights''😉 or Spike Lee (``Do the Right
Thing''😉 should have in their respective years. If you
want to be nominated for best picture, don't make the most
artistically adventurous film of the year and don't push
the art of cinema forward. Instead make ``Gentleman's
Agreement.'' Make ``Driving Miss Daisy.''

--
Michael Press

On 1/31/06 6:56 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article said:

1 study............
Read on homeslice... Do you want more??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

That looks like *one* study, shoeshine boy.

But! It came from one of your favorite liberal universities AND you favorite
liberal newspapers!

On 2/1/06 5:23 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Michael Press"

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:
>
> There are some things you are doomed to fail in even before you
> start. Like arguing with an AI (or perhaps AS) program in an infinite loop
> for example.

Please, no loud noises this morning. Reports are that TK took the
Academy noms pretty bad. A little hair of the dog, we should hear
something by 1:00 or so. --D-y

I haven't heard a single good thing about the movie itself, other than
it's politics, that would even vaguely rate it for an oscar nomination.
What I've heard from everyone is that it's boring and second rate as
both a romance and western with no inovations or great performances.
That said it probably wins a couple of categories. Not worth going to
see though, and no big news here where same sex couples aren't exactly
news, or really even being discussed except by the handful of people
who just can't deal with it.

Mick Lasalle puts it this way:

In trying to make sense of the Oscar nominations, it
always helps to remember one thing: The Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences likes movies that are socially
liberal but artistically conservative. And this has been
the case from the beginning.

So Terrence Malick (``The New World''😉 shouln't feel bad
today, any more than King Vidor (``The Crowd''😉 or Charlie
Chaplin (``City Lights''😉 or Spike Lee (``Do the Right
Thing''😉 should have in their respective years. If you
want to be nominated for best picture, don't make the most
artistically adventurous film of the year and don't push
the art of cinema forward. Instead make ``Gentleman's
Agreement.'' Make ``Driving Miss Daisy.''

Our society is doomed.....
The end of the world is near!

It is obviously over for us humans when everything (even this topic on RBR!)
leads to "Bareback Mountain" discussions..

In article said:

On 1/31/06 6:56 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article said:

1 study............
Read on homeslice... Do you want more??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

That looks like *one* study, shoeshine boy.

But! It came from one of your favorite liberal universities AND you favorite
liberal newspapers!

My favorite? Where oh where do you get that, Stevie? The LA Times is liberal?
UCLA visited that [censored] heap of a study that claimed to "prove" there is liberal
bias in the media on us. Anyway, it's but *one* study. As I said, there is a
significant body of work that does support the notion that condoms *do* help
prevent the spread of STDs, including HIV.

By the way, I should warn you that your right wing credibility might get
called into question, as your sentence doesn't contain enough exclamation points.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Here's a hint Howard - HIV are not glass beads of the same size. Nor do they
have the same shape.

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm

Studies conducted on STATISTICS. Of course most people would have
considered
that it's far more likely that there were substantial behavioral changes
and
not just condoms.

This study isn't done on statistics, Tom:

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html
______________________________________________

Can HIV leak through microscopic holes in latex condoms?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a study in
the July-August 1992 issue of "STD" which examined whether
HIV-sized glass beads could be forced through latex condoms
under stressful laboratory conditions. These conditions
included higher concentrations of the "virus" (glass beads)
than in semen, a fluid that doesn't stick together as much as
semen, and forces that simulated 10 minutes of thrusting AFTER
ejaculation. Most latex condoms leaked absolutely nothing.
The worst condom found would still reduce exposure risk by
10,000-fold, i.e., only 1 HIV virus might "leak" through only
1 of every 90 condoms. Other tests have shown that under
"normal" conditions, HIV does not pass through a latex condom
that is not torn or broken.

______________________________________________

Quoted message said:

But then you really can't ask the questions you'd like to can you?

Like it or not, Tom, there *is* a significant body of evidence that
indicates
that condom use *does* a lot towards preventing STDs, including HIV.
Obviously,
since humans are involved, there is the risk of accidents and misuse of
them. I
just wonder why you and Stevie seem to have so much against them?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All the same, sex ~ repels,

I can well believe that's been your experience.

Bill C said:

I haven't heard a single good thing about the movie itself, other than
it's politics, that would even vaguely rate it for an oscar nomination.
What I've heard from everyone is that it's boring and second rate as
both a romance and western with no inovations or great performances.
That said it probably wins a couple of categories. Not worth going to
see though, and no big news here where same sex couples aren't exactly
news, or really even being discussed except by the handful of people
who just can't deal with it.
Bill C

Get out of the house and ask some chicks who've seen
the movie for their opinion.

I bet the fastest way for a straight guy to get busy this month
is to take a girl to see a sad movie about two gay cowboys
(shepherds, whatever). I would call this irony, but it's more
like the natural order of things.

Ben
Official RBR Advice Columnist

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Stevie, are you telling me that only liberals have sex that isn't for
the
purpose of making kids?

And here I thought he was simply disagreeing with your ideas that animals
and knotholes in fences are made for you.

"ST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

An "opinion" of a CDC study. And you find this on someone's homepage??
How about this homie??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

You have to remember that the idea is to try to convince kids that sex with
old guys like Howard is good for them. But it would require large scale
behavior modification to get any living being to have sex with the likes of
him.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a hint Howard - HIV are not glass beads of the same size. Nor do they
have the same shape.

Then you should explain that to the researchers, because they're obviously
too stupid to know how to do the work. Oh, and be sure to tell them that you're
an engineer *and* a scientist. I'm sure they'll welcome your input.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a hint Howard - HIV are not glass beads of the same size. Nor do they
have the same shape.

Howard Kveck said:

Then you should explain that to the researchers, because they're obviously
too stupid to know how to do the work. Oh, and be sure to tell them that you're
an engineer *and* a scientist. I'm sure they'll welcome your input.

*And* a microbiologist.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"ST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

An "opinion" of a CDC study. And you find this on someone's homepage??
How about this homie??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

You have to remember that the idea is to try to convince kids that sex with
old guys like Howard is good for them. But it would require large scale
behavior modification to get any living being to have sex with the likes of
him.

It sure is easy to tell when you've run out of arguments to prove whatever
point you were trying to make.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All the same, sex ~ repels,

I can well believe that's been your experience.

Dumbshit (never more appropriate): You don't know anything about my
experience. Hint: it's part of the fun in reading your posts. Another
hint: there's some wordplay present in the above. Loosen up, buddy!

Did you read the Naomi Klein article yet? --D-y