AlecDeBoeuil

If this thread were a horse, it would have been shot by now. Alec - comparing its worthlessness with the "content-free" giant thread in the Friends forum

. . . is "a cyberpunk dystopian novel" written by South African author, Lauren Beukes, which I have just read. In the postface, she acknowledges, inter alia, "virtual rape and refugees camps in Second Life". I know about the virtual rape (an oxymoron if ever there was one) but I am not aware of any refugee camps. The book was published, however, in 2008 so perhaps her research (or experience!) predated my signing up. Can anyone shed any light on these camps? If you're still monitoring these forums Lauren (unlikely) perhaps you could. I have known several surprisingly smart South Africans in SL (unlike the ones I have met in rl) a couple of whom claimed to be journalists even, and one who died of ALS, but I don't think any of them were capable of expressing the casual sexist violence exhibited by several of the leading anti-hero characters in the book. Alec - chasing shadows.

You shouldn't do it. Whatever it is that you were asking about. Alec - to help almost as much as I enjoy not doing so

Don't create outfits. Alec - short and to the point responses

For a man who did as much as anybody to change the face of modern sport. Alec - pompoms.

Christin73 wrote: people tend to give you things if they think your new. Like insults. Alec - not to be a noob

Hot off the press! Alec - the word risible PS Any kid avatars might enjoy this page

PersistentDigger wrote: But are Californians Keynesian? Hollywood certainly reflects his recommendation to the UK government that they should pay half the unemployed to dig holes and the other half to fill them in again. Alec - a good Economic theory

Hoshi Kenin wrote: Quoting movies...and OLD movies at that...is rather lame, don't you think? It's just as well Joe didn't say: "I'll be back", then, isn't it. Would you prefer that he quoted a new movie? Something that hadn't achieved cult status? Something anodyne and thought-unprovoking? Perhaps a cartoon. Or an interpretation of Jim Carrey's gibbering? Alec - to ask the unanswerable.

Hoshi Kenin wrote: ....and then what happened? He died mate. Alec - to do that before you get retired

Innula Zenovka wrote: If the babies have been "looking at faces and deciding who to trust," then, in general, I'd expect them to prefer looking at people who resemble their parents and immediate family, regardless of how attractive or unattractive their parents may appear to the rest of us. They know their parents look after them, but most other people are going to be an unknown quantity to them. I'm not familiar with the research, but Maddy's summary suggests that babies apparently prefer looking at attractive faces and are more willing to trust pretty people, regardless of what their parents look like. If that really is the case, then it suggests something other than knowing who to trust is responsible for their reactions. I'd question how confident the researchers could be that very young babies are expressing preferences about what they look at or whom they trust, but that's another question altogether. You're making an awful lot of assumptions in criticising my informed criticism of the research, Innula. Read the papers THEN revise your conclusions. Oh, and WHO DECIDES what is attractive and unattractive? "Adults". What sort of adults? Blind adults? Idiot adults? Paedophile adults? I could go on . . . but then I might have to wonder who "the rest of us" were. To say nothing of the relation between "attractive" and "pretty". How many fathers would admit to being "pretty", do you reckon? Or maybe you are actually agreeing with me about what a crock of ***bleep** Madelaine's example is. Alec - it when people make things up to satisfy their own bigotry

Dahlink, EVEYBODY knows it's me. What would be the point otherwise? Alec - to see how long it takes the authorities to come up with any proof, which they haven't so far

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I don't know if he ever questioned that statement, nor do I think he takes the superiority as a given. It's a superiority based on choices made by people. Most people choose to be inferior. Most of the rest try to be superior. And fail. Alec - being genuinely superior

irihapeti wrote: how you ever considered why Confucious never questions the predicate on which his definition rests? he proceeds on the assumption / predicate that superiority/inferiority is a given You have misspelled Confucius Alec - to spell it Pserendipity

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: So far so good I'd say, If you were considering this thread as evidence I would have to say that you are completely wrong. Alec - a good argument; this thread isn't

Madelaine McMasters wrote: ETA: In David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", he cites research that detects a racist bias in virtually everyone tested, including outspoken anti-racists. ***bleep*** sensationalism! All that research proves is that nobody much likes people that are different from themselves. Colour, race, religion, cultural background, sports team affiliation, ice cream flavour preference, you name the difference, people don't like it. Alec - this nonsensical "scientific" interpretation of simple human behaviour

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Babies prefer looking at faces adults have deemed attractive, They are also more willing to trust pretty people. This isn't learned, they're doing it at two months of age. Right, they have spent those two months rethinking Einstein's General Theory and not looking at faces and deciding who to trust. What the ***bleep*** else do babies do during those two months? They are not using their instincts. They are developing theories that work. For them. That's learning. Just because so called scientists are unable to measure or test what they are doing during those two months doesn't mean ***bleep***. Alec - amateurs making fools of themselves in the child development arena

irihapeti wrote: we are quite capable of making irrational choices as we are rational ones. And we do No, nobody makes irrational choices, Everybody makes choices that are rational to them. They just have insufficient or inadequate information, or their cognitive processes diverge from the logical because of emotional influences. Alec - it when people don't understand the words they are using

irihapeti wrote: is pretty seductive tho the idea that there might be something outside of us that causes us to do bad. Like it wasnt my fault, Satan made me do it This sentence just about sums up why the rest of your argument is pointless. You are assuming that what you consider to be "bad" is universal. It isn't. Alec - it when people philosophise and argue ignoring their own unjustified and unsubstantiated assumptions.

Christin73 wrote: I am curious as to what people think. I am curious as to whether people think. Alec - to assume that their stupidity is intentional, rather than accidental.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Alec - to remember when I cared enough to quarrel about what testes this sort of thing is,

AccurateLady wrote: Each one of us needs improvement Speak for yourself. I don't. Alec - being perfect already

Not much a of a joke, is it. Alec - to tell it like it is

Wot! Only a link? Where's the Queen of Cut And Paste when you need her? Alec - to monitor how lazy the stupid noobs are

bebejee wrote: harsaasment If you complained to the mods using unwords like that they probably filed you in the "incomprehensible nuisance" category. Alec - recursion