<a href="http://www.seolace.com">quality backlinks</a>
<a href="http://www.seolace.com/buy_backlinks.html">buy backlinks</a>

The new year coming, click in. Let's facelift bar!

===== http://www.brandgoing.com/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.brandgoing.com/ =====

Scott,

Considering you were likely a result of the lack of information in the prior age (your parents likely didn't have Google handy), is this some wierd form of abnegation of self?

Are you suggesting, even as a thought experiment, that if data was completely available and people decided not to mate at all, this would be a good thing?

Ultimately, marriage has been about making judgements based on incomplete information with the pledge to live with whatever else you found out afterwards, provided it didn't break certain codas. Sort of like buying a used car or a house. You accept that there is some chance you just married Marilyn Manson instead of Marilyn Monroe...

But that system worked (as far as propagating the species) for quite a while.

Further, I'll stipulate that mating can be a fifteen minute thing and is driven more by male desire than anything so esoteric as 'the facts'. I suspect mating, as such, would continue because men wouldn't care (since the drive for sex will trump the drive for information from Google) and women would still be attracted to scary/dangerous men (who have a form of power), rich men (who have a form of power), and powerful men (duh...). Of course, there are outliers in every generalization, but once you understand the minds of men and women as they manifest in the bulk of ours society, it clarifies a lot of the things you always wondered about... "Why is she with him?" or "She treats him so badly, why does he stay with her?" etc.

You really need to check this out: http://www.laddertheory.com/

It explains a lot. It is not (as such) safe for work due to language. However, crass and unpleasant as it might be, it probably hits fairly close to an explanation of men, women, dating, mating, etc. as seen in bars and most places where these sorts of activities transpire.

I am convinced that knowing less about your fiance is better beforehand. On the one hand, it leaves more to discover (hence prolonging the mystery and new discovery phase) and on the other hand, the nastier parts may remain unknown for a long, long time. That and knowing that your fiance is a human with flaws and dark secrets and accepting that in advance certainly goes a long way to seeing that you stick together.

I once got a phone call from a national TV news program asking me to comment on the then-current Kenyan elections. Apparently they Googled 'Kenya' and found my name attached to a foreign student guide I'd written several years earlier. Except it was the most basic of information about the country and its people, designed to inform a typical farm family about the student they would be hosting, not a critical essay of any sort--we weren't even allowed to mention human rights!

Beware the Google info.

I am reminded of the business card scene in American Psycho.

Reading these comments made me aware on an interesting phenomenon. I noticed that alot of people who still have landline phones think it is the norm and mocked Dilbert for implying otherwise. My intitial instinct as a person who went strictly wireless about 6 years ago was to mock them for thinking they were the norm when they aren't. I then realised that I wasn't basing that thought on any actual data on how many people still have landlines but rather on my default assumption that any behavior I do is the norm unless I have reason to believe otherwise. I suspect that those who say landlines are in the majority of homes based their statements on a similiar assumption rather than looking up data on the subject. I suspect that most people assume their behaviors are the norm unless they are presented with evidence to the contrary. The same is probably true about a persons beliefs and characteristics.
I noticed this phenomenon years ago when I worked at a donut shop. A large number of customers would order regular coffee and expect to receive it the way they like it, even if the way they like it isn't the norm. People who drank black coffee expected black coffee when they ordered regular. Same for cream and sugar people, cream only people, etc. Maybe this phenomenon is something Scott will be able to use in some way in the future.

>> As for Dilbert being "out of character", that's a two way street. On one hand, maybe he is, because that comic and the one before and the only two Dilbert comics off the top of my head that mention specific dates (or, years) and in this case with a hint of sarcasm.

...After I posted this, at least two comics came to mind where Dilbert mentions dates (or, years). One was when he wished Dogbert a Happy New Years for 1991, and the other was about replacing the Company Doctor and Nurse with the vending machine and then needing to up revenue for the vending machine. lol.

Otherwise, I do believe it was in character, based on the reasons I posted below...

"Show stopper" actually means the opposite to how you've used it here. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "an item (esp. a song or other performance) in a show that wins so much applause as to bring the show to a temporary stop."
Sounds like mating is due to continue for a while.

"We're only a few years away from a point where no mating will ever occur because no one will pass the background check. "


I think the opposite would occur. I mean there was a time when most guys wouldn't marry a non-virgin female and if she wasn't as she claimed, she might have been killed. However once the sexual revolution hit, men started to realize that virgins were sadly a thing of the past and settled for whoever they could find that was less worse than all the other girls. Same thing would happen in this !$%*!$%*!$%*! people would start settling for those with the fewest or the smallest number of red flags.

Take tiger woods. Not many women would marry him now that we've found out what an out of control sex addict he is. Okay, nearly a billion dollars means some would, but if he made only 50k a year, he totally wouldn't be able to get hitched.

But anyways, if he was the norm, the guy who only has 3 mistresses at once seems like an improvement. If the woman gets along with the mistresses, he might be marriage material. The guy who doesn't have any mistresses or seems unlikely to ever have them or mate with more than one or two women in his life might suddenly become a slightly warmer commodity than he would be now simply because a wife might not want to schedule her sex life around her husband's available time slots or have to worry about which new stds she might be getting today or worry if another lovechild is going to be dumped on her doorstep this month. Suddenly yesterday's huge social red flag doesn't look as bad as today's sexual red flag. Or the guy who has stalked 10 women isn't as bad as the average guy who stalks 3 college cheerleader teams and all the waitresses down at the local hooters.

Basically people will get so desperate for love and attention that the least awful potential mate is the one they choose.

Or people will just by human-like robots that they can breed with and forgo any of those people problems.

My husband and I both thought this was a very funny Dilbert. We have a Skype home phone and it only costs $3 a month.

I rather liked it *because* it was snarky. I did think it would go over some readers heads though.

For some reason my message posted twice.....

I keep my landline phone because we've had the number for 19 years. I have ties with it.

As for Dilbert being "out of character", that's a two way street. On one hand, maybe he is, because that comic and the one before and the only two Dilbert comics off the top of my head that mention specific dates (or, years) and in this case with a hint of sarcasm.

On the other hand, Dilbert has always kept up with the times. Remember his Apple (It could have been a Mac, can't remember...) but all through the years Dilbert and his company have evolved with the times, just like everyone on earth does as they get older. So in a way, it's in character for Dilbert to make fun of "old technology".

I'm just surprised Techno Bill didn't make a reappearance during all the discussion of past electronics.

I keep my landline phone because we've had the number for 19 years. I have ties with it.

As for Dilbert being "out of character", that's a two way street. On one hand, maybe he is, because that comic and the one before and the only two Dilbert comics off the top of my head that mention specific dates (or, years) and in this case with a hint of sarcasm.

On the other hand, Dilbert has always kept up with the times. Remember his Apple (It could have been a Mac, can't remember...) but all through the years Dilbert and his company have evolved with the times, just like everyone on earth does as they get older. So in a way, it's in character for Dilbert to make fun of "old technology".

I'm just surprised Techno Bill didn't make a reappearance during all the discussion of past electronics.

The cartoon wasn't snarky or socially inept, just nonsensical; the vast majority of people still have landlines, so it just makes it look like Dilbert is living in a fantasy world. It's also out of character for Dilbert, both as himself and as a geek male, to be critical of a woman. Now, maybe if the woman had walked away and then Dilbert and Wally had snickered that she was so 2007, as a nod to the speed technology moves, especially amongst geek men, that might have been funny, and also shown their disconnection from regular society where landlines are still the rule.

I just didn't think it was that funny. The fax one (on the previous day) was better. I think that is because I can identify with faxes being old - but not landlines. (Almost) Everyone I know has a land line - is that no the case in the USA?

I liked the comic, but it had more to do with the "landline" punch.

I agree about the business card forensics. It's like putting your small town skills to work in a city.

I guess I missed it. I thought the comic was funny. And it seemed totally in character for Dilbert to comment on her technology and miss the fact that this would not be taken well by the female of the species.