Dagmar Heideman

I haven't been online much the past year but I noticed that the age verification system is self-certifying now so I finally did it. The odd thing is that Linden Lab already knew my age and had it on file (it automatically punched my birthday in on the age verification page). It raises a question in my mind, which is If they had this information all along (presumably from my payment information) then why wouldn't an account like mine be automatically age verified either before the switch to self-certification or after?

Did you use the instant sale or the trading platform?

I'm in charge of side dishes at my family gatherings. I basically volunteered for it to ensure I have something to eat since I generally don't eat meat and don't eat livestock at all. Nahm nahm nahm. This year I also bought the turkey and will be helping to cook it even though I'm not eating it. I wanted to support this small farm that raises Heritage Turkeys on open pastured land so even though it cost a lot more than the turkeys at the grocery store, to me it's a worthy cause. Pasture raised Heritage Turkeys, which is what people ate before the CAFO industry selectively breeded turkeys to produce the poor turkeys we have today raised almost exclusively on corn product, are significantly different in taste and texture and the cooking time is different from CAFO turkeys I saw this vegan "turkey" for sale at Whole Foods. Hmmm maybe I can ween my family on to it....ah well I guess I can dream. :smileytongue:

Perrie Juran wrote: ...The constitutionality is for the Appeals Courts to decide... Ugh. No it's not. A trial court can make a ruling on the Constitutionality of a law if it is not bound by precedent. In theory it can even make a ruling that goes against precedent but it will usually result in heavy criticisim of the judge by the apellate court and remand on appeal. In the Myspace case mentioned before it was the District Court, which is a trial court, that made the ruling setting aside the jury's misdemeanor conviction and one of the reasons Judge Wu set forth was a violation of due process.

For those of you who rent homestead sims, what is your practice with regards to late payment of rent? Do you try to contact the tenant about it first or do you simply eject them and autoreturn all their stuff when it is past due? Does it matter if they've been in good standing for months? Also do you charge an entry/purchase fee and, if you do, how much incentive does that play in whether you try to contact the tenant first, i.e. if you have prospective tenants and therefore a chance to make more money by evicting the old tenant to collect more entry/purchase fee from the new tenant does that influence you in how motivated you would be to try and contact the current tenant before eviction?

wiked Anton wrote: i think these disclaimers are a warning... No you're giving stupid people far too much credit. They're just not very bright and think that they can circumvent ToS by placing idiotic and ineffectual disclaimers in their profile. They're not doing it so they can report people doing bad things. As Sy pointed out LL has access to everything so your not publishing or disclosing anything by referring them to chat logs in an abuse report. It's far more likely they are the people doing bad things which is why any fool that puts something like that in their profile generally gets blocked and derendered by me and ejected and banned if they show up on my land.

AylaNeissa Magic wrote: ....So with bloodlines what is the big deal... It's annoying when they spam you continually with bite requests or when you get spammed with requests from multiple users. It's also idiotic to randomly send a bite request to a stranger. It's basically the ninja friend request spammer social retardation, only multiplied exponentially, which is why so many sims will auto ban anyone that requests a bite on the sim.

Lol, what do you mean by "skill based"?

Abby10 Lenroy wrote: That's what about 98% of the 99% think. They are good with their lifes and don't have anything to complain about. Yeah only it's not. At least 10% who are unemployed and looking for work would disagree with you. It's probably much greater than 10% given what unemployment statistics actually represent. Then there are those who are underemployed, and those making so little they have to use food stamps to make ends meet and put food on the table (approximately 20% of US households currently receive food stamps).

Appleseed Ex Machina Appleseed Final Fantasy Advent Children Ghost In The Shell Princess Tutu

Suella Ember wrote: ...The 1% rule the world. Always have... Yes we have. We do not tolerate the dissemination of this knowledge though so you would do well to watch your back. Everyone else ignore her post. It's just crazy talk! -Dagmar Heideman Acolyte of Derek Jeter and Tom Cruise, Overseers of the Illuminati (They're both well entrenched in the 1 percent and therefore rule the world with the rest of the Illuminati)

lol

Well if you never watched much television to begin with then that's not a really good metric for whether you are aging past the current norm in television but.... Yes the norm has changed. I disagree that the quality of television dramas, comedies and other traditional programming has declined but "reality" based television has taken over much of the market because it is much cheaper and gets ratings for commercial revenues. (They don't have to pay writers. They don't have to pay actors for most part and for those that do get paid they aren't obligated under collective bargaining agreements to pay them standard residuals.) I despise reality based television. Reality based television has led to the demise of lots of television shows that were exceptional or had potential (Life is one that comes to mind but there are probably dozens of others). Oh and yes, unless you are living your life like Benjamin Button you are getting old. :smileytongue:

My understanding is that Linden Lab has always enforced restrictions against the use of Nazi symbols, and it relates to it wanting to be compliant with German laws, and to avoid a possible internet ban from Germany and similar countries. So while all this discussion about the value of allowing its depiction is interesting it is all moot.

By continuing to slide into a massive decline where the majority of its citizens lifestyle will continue to deteriorate? We can follow the way of Spain in its imperial decline and become the sick nation of the western hemisphere or we can follow the example of the Brits and curb our unrealistic global ambitions and retain some semblance of stability and a place at the international table.

Obvious flame gets an F (so does your spelling :smileytongue:)

Melita Magic wrote: ....Well, I say movie. I mean documentary.... Or pseudo-documentary.....

If it is factually untrue it is defmatory and a violation of Section 8.2(v) of the Terms of Service for use of Second Life. If it is someone's real life picture that was not previously published by that person in Second Life it is a violation of Section 8.2(v) and 8.3 of the TOS. If there are multiple instances of these violations by publication of a "wall of shame" then it is highly probably that it will result in the suspension if not the termination of the account of the person.

Elle Benusconi wrote: I've never been seated on a jury. Nor am I ever likely to be for two reasons. The first is because I have a law degree. No defense attorney wants someone with an intricate understanding of the law and the legal process on a jury. Why on earth would you draw this conclusion? An intricate understanding for the a law and the legal process favors the party with the stronger case. That's not always the prosecution. Sorry but all you've done is shown your bias without regard to understanding of the law and legal process if you draw a conclusion like that. The levels of misconduct that prosecutors can and do engage in without fear of punishment in the United States is actually pretty mind boggling to anyone familiar with the justice system. Elle Benusconi wrote: The second reason is because I'm a law enforcement officer. This is the real reason you haven't served on a jury. Your transparent bias shows that you are heavily disposed to ignore the standard of presumption of innocence, a state of mind which is common to most law enforcement officers, and is why any competent defense attorney would challenge your being seated as a juror. They probably wouldn't even have to use a peremptory challenge for you. Contrary to your assertion, there is a trend towards not automatically challenging lawyers from being seated on juries. One of my friends who has been practicing law for over 20 years was selected for a jury for a criminal trial without being challenged by either side. Also contrary to your assumptions, he laid out the evidence and presentations of each side in such a clear and organized matter during deliberations that it took the jury less than an hour to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

You should have replied "How fortuitous! It so happens that I am a Nigerian Prince in exile and........"

I'm wondering if anyone has the Asus G74SX-XR1 w/17.3'' Full HD (1920x1080) LED with the following specs: Processor : Intel (Quad) Core i7-2630QM (2.0~2.8GHz, 32nm, 6MB, 45W) Processor Video : nVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M w/3GB GDDR5 VRAM Memory : 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3-1333 SO-DIMM Primary Hard Drive : 500GB 7,200rpm SATA II 3GB/s HDD Second Hard Drive : 500GB 7,200rpm SATA II 3GB/s HDD and if you do, how it handles SL at different settings, different detailed level sims, and different viewers. The benchmark tests at notebookcheck.com look promising but I'd like to know if someone has an Asus laptop with this setup or one close to it that can provide some feedback. Thanks

Reminds me of when Kevyn Aucoin made Alex Peruzzi look like Linda Evangelista. Ru Paul too Oh and Shane Donovan aka Courtney Act

Regardless of what some might think, Miriam is not a fetishist. I knew her when she lived in my neck of the woods and her reasons for not wanting surgery are archetypal for the transsexuals I know that are otherwise qualified for SRS but decline to undergo or defer SRS . She: (i) is young; (ii) is educated; (iii) presents as a very attractive woman and can easily go stealth in her everyday environments; (iv) has the support of her family and friends; (v) has a very healthy appetite for sex; (vi) enjoys a very active sex life with access to an appreciable amount of potential attractive playmates; (vii) understands that SRS is not going to open many more doors for her (basically legal status only); and (viii) has some degree of anxiety and concerns about SRS resulting in a serious decline in sex drive and the ability to enjoy sex (the big "O") or worse (having serious medical and health complications). The number of transsexuals that match this profile are not in the majority. They are not even close to a majority. While almost all young transsexuals have some degree of anxiety about the loss sex drive and the ability to enjoy sex , it's simply not an important enough factor for most to offset the intense desire for body conformity. It's also important to note 2 other things about Miriam. Like me, Miriam is technically not a non-op. She's chosen to defer making a choice indefinitely. Unlike me, she has not developed any highly marketable skills to earn a living other than the skills of an escort and actress in the sex industry. When you add that factor to all of the above, and a choice between undergoing SRS and not having any appreciable income, and foregoing it to maintain to retain a niche clientele (men with a transsexual fetish AKA tranny chasers) who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars per hour for your services, it's not hard to understand why Miriam has chosen to forego SRS. In the United States having gender status changed on a federal issued government ID, such as a passport, is not possible unless you have SRS. As for driver licenses and other state issued identification, before the September 11th attacks, some states did allow pre-ops to get a gender change on their identification if they could produce letters from a therapist or psychiatrist stating that they were a candidate for SRS and a doctor's letter affirming they had been scheduled for SRS. Since 9/11 AFAIK this is not the case in any state, and SRS is required for a gender change on your state issued identification. However, having your name changed is possible and, depending on the state, it can be quite easy. That being said, knowing many transsexuals and indirectly knowing thousands of other transexxuals through them, I can tell you that legal status is not the driving force for seeking SRS in the United States, body conformity is.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I don't. That's exactly what I was complaining about. People who assume, and sometimes even demand, that all transsexuals must have a sex reassignment surgery.... No, you were complaining about people who assume one thing about transsexuals (valid) while asserting your own broad assumptions about the majority of transsexuals (not valid). All we know for sure is that "shemales" are a lot more common than post-OP M2F transsexuals in countries such as Thailand, where an intermediate or third gender is more or less socially accepted. Even if we were to assume that was all that is known, based on that very premise, it is extremely flawed reasoning to conclude that the reason why non post-op MtF transsexuals outnumber post-op transsexuals is because they prefer to have male genitalia over female genitalia. Many of them are pre-op and not non-op (while SRS is much more affordable in Thailand by western standards Thai salaries are proportionately lower so it still takes many Thai transsexuals years to save money for SRS), and there are a host of other factors that are relevant including that many feel that they are incapable of maintaining their level of income without continuing to work in the sex industry as ladyboys, that SRS does not afford any legal rights for MtF transsexuals in Thailand, and a myriad of other reasons that are unique to Thai society. Ishtara Rothschild wrote: We also can't know how many M2F trans women in the Western World only undergo surgery because Western societies would otherwise not accept them and regard them as sexual deviants, because their doctor / therapist suggests it, because their health insurance pays for it, and because they have unrealistic expecations about the end result. No legitimate transgender therapist, psychiatrist or physician is going to push a transgendered person who is not a transsexual into SRS. Quite the opposite is true. Part of the whole point of the the medical community following the Standards of Care is to screen out people who should not undergo SRS. No doctor in the United States is going to even consider SRS without at least one letter of support and many require 2, 3 or even 4 letters (1 from a therapist, 1 from an endo, 1 from a psych and 1 from primary care physician) Health insurance in the United States does not cover SRS for most candidates. While some health plans offer it as an option, very few employers adopt the option, and the conditions to qualify under medicare are so onerous that it is extremely rare that SRS will qualify for medicare coverage. The last factor you mentioned however is worth noting and is one of the primary reasons why non-op transexxuals decline to undergo SRS. Unfortunately many transsexuals do have a false notion that somehow SRS is going to make all or most of the negative issues they have to deal with as a transsexual disappear when the reality is that the only thing SRS guarantees in countries like the US is that you get legal status. Discrimination, bigotry and companionship issues don't go away with SRS and it results in regret/remorse by some transsexuals when they come to this realization (and suicide for some). This coupled with a few other factors has a lot more to do with why many non-ops decline SRS even though they would otherwise qualify for it. Given that this is a PG forum, I really can't go into detail regarding the other factors or why stating that a desire to hold on to boy bits is an inaccurate mischaracterization as to why non-ops decline SRS. It does have to do with losing something but it isn't the original equipment design.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Dagmar, I don't have any documented scientific surveys available so I can only offer my own experience. Given that my sample size is vanishingly small—I've talked to possibly 100 transgendered people in my whole life, including those I've met in SL, at most twice that—my experience matches Ishtara's comment. While I have met/talked to girls who either grew up hating or learned to hate the fact they were biologically male (or vice versa in a couple of cases) they've been at best 10% of my contacts, probably 5% or less. I admit that's anecdotal but short of a real study I'd agree with Ishtara. Let me clarify by pointing out 2 things. First, there is a difference between a MtF transsexual and a MtF transgendered person. The former covers those that by definition fulfill most (some will insist all) of the pathology set forth in the DSMV, which always includes a substantial amount of discomfort with having a female mind/indentity and a male body. The latter covers a much broader group that includes people with gender identity issues such as gender queer, drag queens, fetishists and crossdressers. If you are counting those in the latter broader category then it's not surprising if you find many people who have little to no discomfort about the fact that their body is male or that wouldn't have it any other way (almost all drag queens and crossdressers fall into this category). However if you are talking about the former category, then that simply doesn't comport to the reality of being a non-op transexxual. Second, there is a big difference between coming to terms with the reality of one's situation as a non-op, being at peace with it, and even taking pride in the ability to face life every day as a non-op, and "not wanting it any other way." All of the non-op transsexuals I know of (and I was in that category for several years) would opt for SRS if their related concerns could be addressed be they medical, economic, social or legal, but for most of them, those issues cannot be addressed with enough certainty and so they remain non-ops. They are not self-loathing because of it. I was comfortable with my situation as a non-op. That hardly translates into preferring being born with male genitals over being born with female ones, and if you understand what transsexualism is, that's a very bizzare claim to make about the majority of transexxual women. Dillon Levenque wrote: In your last paragraph I think you omitted a word. I think you meant to say ".....it takes so little effort to acknowledge and respect the identity that most SL residents present for themselves that it's hard to fathom why some people go out of their way NOT to do so." Yes, that's what I meant.