online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: 2007 MLB Predictions
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
2007 MLB Predictions
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:01:23 PM
I didn't say that the Brewers rotation was the best in baseball, but it is very good. The guys just don't get the respect they deserve because they play in a small market and on a team that didn't put up very much offense last year. The Dodgers pitchers got more wins, but when you average together last year's ERA and WHIP for the top four from last season, the Brewers come out on top.

Overall Dodgers: 4.28 ERA, 1.40 WHIP
Overall Brewers: 4.10 ERA, 1.23 WHIP

That's not to say that I don't like the Dodgers. In my prediction, I had them making the World Series. I just don't think people give the Brewers the credit they deserve. If their hitting continues to develop so these guys can actually put up some wins to go with their low ERA and WHIP, this underrated group of pitchers will finally get their due respect.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Pens staying put ... Preds to KC?
Posted: 3/29/2007 9:32:49 PM
First of all, the exchange rate is NOT the biggest reason why teams are not coming to Canada. It is taxation. Most US cities provide their teams with sweetheart deals for the property tax on their arenas. In fact, it is pretty standard for most of the teams in States to pay $1 a year in property tax because the cities recognize the economic impact that they have on the city.

Canada, on the other hand, does not do this. The Montreal Canadiens pay over $30 million a year on property taxes for their arena. This is more than EVERY American team put together. The Quebec Nordiques and Winnipeg Jets were both teams with solid attendance. They just both moved to cities that offered $1 a year property tax.

Until that situation is rectified, it will be hard to get teams in Canada. The NHL is not stupid. They KNOW that smaller markets in Canada can outdraw larger ones in the States. They KNOW that the Oilers are the ONLY Canadian team below 100% sellouts this season (they are at 98.5% tickets sold this season.) However, they also know that if the property tax is going to be almost as much as the team payroll, it is going to really hard to be profitable.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
2007 MLB Predictions
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:26:33 PM
If you're trying to pick the worst possible teams, I would take Milwaukee out of your list. They are a legitimately good team this season and my pick to actually win the NL Central. Their starting rotation is amazing. Ben Sheets, Chris Capuano, Dave Bush, and Jeff Suppan can go toe to toe with any team's top four. Add that to their promising young group of hitters including Prince Fielder, JJ Hardy, and Rickie Weeks and a bullpen headed by Francisco Cordero and Derrick Turnbow and you have a surprisingly good team.

If you want to choose the worst team of the NL Central, pick the Reds. They aren't nearly as good as their 80-82 record from last year would lead you to believe.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Best Goalie of all times
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:18:13 PM
My vote goes to Patrick Roy. As much as I don't like his character, he won Stanley Cups with Montreal in 1986 and 1993 with teams that had no business winning the Stanley Cup. In both of those seasons, he stole the playoffs.

For those who like to argue for Martin Brodeur, he has been a great goaltender, however he has been the benefactor of a great defense and a stingy defensive system. I don't think he would've won three Stanley Cups in nine seasons without Stevens and Niedermeyer in front of him.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
2007 MLB Predictions
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:03:27 PM
AL East - NY Yankees
AL Central - Cleveland
AL West - LA Angels
AL Wildcard - Oakland

NL East - Philadelphia
NL Central - Milwaukee
NL West - LA Dodgers
NL Wildcard - NY Mets

ALDS
Oakland over NY Yankees
LA Angels over Cleveland

NLDS
Philadelphia over Milwaukee
LA Dodgers over NY Mets

ALCS
LA Angels over Oakland

NLCS
LA Dodgers over Philadelphia

World Series
LA Angels over LA Dodgers
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Eastern ~Conference Playoff Run 2007
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:49:27 PM
I looked at the remaining games for the six teams battling for the last three spots and predicted how I think each game would go. I came up with this as the final Eastern standings:

6. New York Rangers 95 points
7. Tampa Bay Lightning 94 points
8. Montreal Canadiens 92 points
9. Toronto Maple Leafs 90 points
10. Carolina Hurricanes 89 points
11. New York Islanders 86 points

By the way, I have Montreal winning in OT/shootout in the final game. If Toronto won the shootout in that game, Montreal and Toronto would end up tied at 91 points. However, due to having more wins, Montreal would still make it and Toronto would be out. At least under my humble scenario, Vindicator, the shootout would NOT determine who makes it hehe
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 473 (view)
 
Is separated single?
Posted: 4/12/2006 4:48:35 PM
I believe that even if you are separated, you are still married and should not be starting a relationship with somebody else. Marriage is a serious obligation. If you choose to enter into it, be prepared to abide by the moral code of marriage until you legally terminate it.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Write back, or No?
Posted: 4/12/2006 4:24:33 PM
I'm going to break with the trend and suggest that you simply don't answer the email. Personally, I would rather get no response at all than a rejection email, no matter how tactfully it is worded. Because that is my preference, I tend to respond in the same way. The only time I will send a response to someone I am not interested in is if they send three or four emails and just aren't getting the hint. In that case, I will send a friendly email saying that I don't think we would be a good match.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 39 (view)
 
If wrestling was a real sport...
Posted: 3/9/2006 12:21:13 PM

Then perhaps they should compete in an olympic sport!


This has been covered. Many have competed quite successfully in Olympic sports.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Kirby Puckett passes away
Posted: 3/8/2006 1:43:24 PM
Its always sad when baseball loses a legend, but its even worse when it is such a great person. Puckett was a true role model while he played. He played hard, played clean, and simply produced. Unfortunately, his life has been cut short just as his playing career was, which should remind us all that it isn't important how long you stick around, its what you do while you're here.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Its All Bertuzzi fault why canada Lost
Posted: 3/8/2006 1:39:14 PM

He is the most over ratted hockey payer in the world.....why did canada bring him to italy... he has no skill and know heart.... he must took wayne and janet out for dinner to be on the team....what a self fish player and he should be in jail for what he did......canada fans what do u think


First of all, I think you need some serious spelling and grammar lessons. Secondly, it is just ridiculous to say that Bertuzzi has no heart. He is one of the most gutsy players in the league. People are riding him way too hard for the Steve Moore incident.

Prior to his suspension, it was commonly accepted that he was one of the best players in the world. Why is that any different now? All that happened is he punched a guy from behind. There are at least 20 or 30 incidents each year that are worse than what he did. It was really a fluke that Moore got hurt as badly as he did. When things far more cheap that Bertuzzi's punch happen, the player gets two games and everyone moves on.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
If wrestling was a real sport...
Posted: 3/8/2006 1:32:33 PM

Lex Luger - Played for the Buccaneers
Brock Lesnar - 4 time NCAA wrestling champion and 1 pre-season Minnesota Viking
Marc Henry - Olympic Power lifter
Kevin Nash - was drafted and played pre-season for the Detroit Pistons
Dale Torborg - played minor league for the Chicago White Sox
Bob Holly - raced for NASCAR in the 90's (NASCAR is a sport, they have espy's for that)
Farooq - I don't remember his real name, played college football for Florida St.
Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) - played football for Miami University
Paul White - was being recruited by the Buccaneers in the late 90's
Bill Goldberg - played football for Georgia State
Steve McMicheal - former Chicago Bear and Superbowl starter (third highest consecutive games played.
Vince McMahon- he played football in college and high school


Just off the top of my head, here are some more legit athletes that you missed:
Kurt Angle - Olympic gold medallist in amateur wrestling
Shelton Benjamin - NCAA All-American in amateur wrestling
Monty Brown - Played in 3 Superbowls
Bobby Lashley - NCAA All-American in amateur wrestling
Ken Shamrock - world class mixed martial arts expert before and after his time in WWE

In my opinion, wrestling is something that really cannot be categorized. They describe themselves as "sports entertainment" and I think that is about as accurate as you can get. It is true that they are not a real sport, so they do not belong in the same group as the NHL, NFL etc. At the same time, they are more than just actors appearing on a TV show.

I have no problem having people discuss wrestling in a sports forum. If they are "sport" enough to be shown on TSN and The Score, Canada's two largest sports networks, then they are "sport" enough to be discussed in a sports forum, even if they are not sport in the purest sense of the word.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 94 (view)
 
High schooler complains about left-wing teacher
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:57:55 PM
Teachers should NEVER give their politcal views, regardless of whether those views are left wing or right wing. Education should be completely neutral. Many kids have never given a thought to politics and if they get an opinion from one side, they will never hear the opposing argument.

Although having teachers give their political views can be beneficial to the few kids who follow politics and keep themselves informed, it can be very dangerous for the vast majority of kids who don't.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 107 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:40:50 PM
say anything to cover for the kind of government YOU think should be in power... even if it destroys the nation.


I didn't say Bush should be in power. I don't like Bush. I just don't think he has done anything that warrants impeachment.


Do you think this president DOESN'T control the CIA?
Why would the operative be punished for not lying to cover the president's lie if this was the case?
Think again....


It doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks. All that matters is what can be proven and in this case, the answer is nothing
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:34:14 PM
For starters, these are only allegations that have not been proven. Even if they are the truth, there is nobody asserting that the White House ordered his reports to be falsified. This is evidence of CIA wrongdoing, not Bush's.

Now I know somebody is going to say "Yeah, but Bush probably told the CIA to do this." Again, this cannot be proven. We can't hang Bush without proof that he personally did something wrong. There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing that has gone on during Bush's presidency, but none has been done by Bush himself and we cannot prove that any was done with Bush's knowledge.

This whole thing is just typical American politics. The Democrats are trying so hard to make it look like Bush is a criminal so that they can claim some sort of victory. If the tables were turned, the Republicans would do the same thing. Americans seem to pick a party and then do whatever they can to rip the other party down. If people used their brains and made up their mind about each individual issue instead of simply backing "their party", we wouldn't be discussing this ridiculousness.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:10:24 PM

Defrauding the War Powers Act (Article 1/Section/Clause 11) is a pretty big one.

They LIED about the Nigerian Plutonium--and ZERO WMD's have ever been located.


Bush went to war based on faulty intelligence. Nobody can prove that he didn't believe the poor intelligence that was presented to him. If he was under the impression that this intelligence was true, he is guilty of nothing more than being gullible.

As for WMDs, many people believe that Iraq had WMDs at the time the intelligence was collected, but they were smuggled out of the country before the war took place. The fact that none were found is not proof that Saddam did not have control of WMDs. Since we will never know for sure, we must assume innocence.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 101 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 2:59:38 PM

My question to the right is why do they feel the need to defend Bush when he could care less about defending you? do you think that disagreeing with him weakens your party?


The Republicans are not "my party" and I am defending him (well sort of). I think this thread has become "do you agree with Bush's politics" instead of "should Bush be impeached".

There are some things that Bush has done that I agree with and many more that I disagree with. Overall, I would rate his performance as president as poor. Making bad policy decisions is not a reason for impeachment though.

Show solid proof that personally committed criminal acts or solid proof that he was aware of criminal acts and did not act and maybe I will change my mind. Until then, he's innocent until proven guilty.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 93 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 10:14:45 AM

Yes thats exactly what we want, because then we can see who's really running this country, and Cheny cant hide his Evils behind a fake stupidity mask.

Let the Penguin step into the light and then we'll see the devil unmasked for the time being so ALL Americans can understand the realities of this administration and never allow it to happen again.

Similar to how Germany will never allow someone like a Hitler to come to power again!
Thank God we wont be bombed day and night to come to this realization (hopefully)


Hitler is an awfully strong comparison. I believe Cheney is a self-interested, evil man as well, but he is nothing close to Hitler. Cheney is motivated by his pocketbook, not by pure hatred. His goal is making money for himself and his friends. While I see that as wrong, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph, let alone sentence, as the atrocious acts and intentions of Adolf Hitler.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 9:58:46 AM

you want Bush out? And Cheney in?


Haha exactly. Having Bush as president is like having Ralph Wiggum in there. Cheney would be like Mr. Burns. I pick well intentioned stupidity over pure evil.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 3/3/2006 9:40:53 AM
that's not true. He IS personally responsible for running a criminal administration. HE's the one who appointed them. HE's the one who's sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. He's failed to act in doing this. He KNOWINGLY has condoned activity on behalf of his administration abridging constitutional rights of private citizens, torturing prisoners of war, committing war crimes in Iraq and starting a war under false pretenses.


Show me solid proof that Bush knew about POW abuse before the story broke. Show me proof that Bush KNEW that there were no WMDs (which is impossible because we still don't know that for sure now). Bush is not a smart man and he makes mistakes because of it. He is not, however, a criminal. At least that can't be proven.


he's ruined the international image of the United States and made us into a military agressor, using torture tactics and murdering innocent civilians.


Ruined your international image? Made you into a military aggressor? I think that was the standing view of the United States long before the Bush administration. However, I don't have a problem with this. The United Nations has no standing army and when it comes right down to it, has very little power. Since they are not capable of policing the world, somebody needs to do it. I'm sure glad that it is the United States and not China who has taken on that job.

Of course it would be ideal if we had an international organization doing this instead of an individual country, but until we have something that actually carries some clout, I, as a member of the international community (Canada) vote for the United States for World Cop.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Police crack down
Posted: 3/2/2006 5:01:20 PM
Nobody here at all seems to have a problem with police searching people without just cause. Is there really nobody out there who has a problem with this? Everybody seems to be saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why worry?" If that is the way you want to look at things, why don't we put surveillance cameras in every room of everyone's house?

We have a right to privacy and for good reason. We should be able to go about our lives without worrying about who is watching us. There are a lot of perfectly legal things that people do and carry that are embarrassing (I'll let your imaginations provide the examples) and people shouldn't be forced to live in fear of these things being found out.

The right for police to search people without cause would also allow for huge abuses. It opens the door for increased racial profiling and gives less than ethical police officers a way to harrass those that they do not like.

Sure, we may prevent a few crimes from being committed here and there, but is the first step along the way to 1984.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 2/28/2006 7:08:34 PM

If you want to lie and defend him, it's between you and your conscience for letting your country down.

I honestly don't understand how you can call yourself an American citizen and defend a murderous criminal administration like his.


I don't call myself an American citizen. I call myself a Canadian citizen. If anything, it should speak volumes that a citizen of a country that is far more liberal than yours and one that came out strongly against the war in Iraq would be against the impeachment of Bush.

I am not saying that everything Bush did was the right move. I am not saying that wrongs have not been committed while he has been in office. What I am saying is that Bush did not torture any Iraqi prisoners. Bush did not gather any faulty evidence about WMDs. Bush did not respond slowly to Katrina. Bush did not do personally do anything wrong. The only thing he is guilty of is using poor judgement and trusting the wrong people, which is not impeachable.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Would you vote to impeach Bush?
Posted: 2/28/2006 12:39:27 PM
Lying about WMD's to invade Iraq


You can't impeach based on this. Bush was given faulty evidence suggesting that there were WMDs. Being stupid enough to believe poor intelligence is not an impeachable offense.


torture prisons outside the US


There is no evidence that Bush gave orders or was even aware of the torture in Iraqi prisons. Rumsfeld maybe. Bush no.


having his administration blow the cover of a CIA agent


Bush did not personally blow an agent's cover, nor did he order an agent's cover be blown. He cannot be tied to this in any way.

All of the reasons that you have listed are valid reasons to argue why Bush may not be a great leader, but without evidence or proof of illegal activity or intentional wrongdoing, there is no way impeachment should even be mentioned.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Alexander Keith's
Posted: 2/26/2006 10:31:03 AM
He has done harm. The law was created because some, if not most child porn is made by people who wish to sell the pictures for a profit. If nobody wants to own the pictures, then the number of children being sexually abused for profit diminishes. He didn't personally molest the kids, but he did contribute to their molestation by consuming the result of it.

I agree with the point that we should go after those who actually took the pictures, but we also need to prosecute those who create the market for such filth.

We have many laws that punish people who haven't caused any direct harm if their actions indirectly cause it. Money laundering is illegal. Why? Not because anyone is hurt. In fact, in most cases the only ones who lose money during the laundering process are the criminals themselves. However, allowing it would encourage crimes to be committed.

These laws are very necessary. Why? Because it is a lot harder to find one child pornographer and put him in jail than it is to arrest 100 of those who consume his product and put him out of business. Working hard to catch everyone involved in this ugly business is the only way to limit the number of harmed children.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 25 (view)
 
a film based on the bernardo/homolka murders will soon be released. what are your thoughts on this?
Posted: 2/26/2006 9:54:31 AM
Banning this movie from being released would be a horrible decision. It would open a can of worms that would cause endless problems in the future. We live in a society that values freedom of speech. If you do not want to see this movie because you find it painful or disgusting, you do not have to go. However, if someone else wants to, who are you to tell them that they can't?

Do we really want to end up like China? They banned the film "Memoirs of a Geisha" because it features Chinese actresses portraying Japanese women. That is the path that we would be on if we started banning movies because we don't particularily like some of its aspects.

I know some people will point out the vast differences between the these two examples, but that isn't the point. In the end, if films can be banned because of their topic, then ultimately a corrupt authority can start banning movies because it doesn't agree with its message.

I myself will not view this movie, but I do not want to limit the rights of those who want to see it. That is going down a very dangerous path that I don't want to go down.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
NHL rules.....why the changes??
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:18:22 PM
I think a common misconception is that many of the rule changes are moving away from the tradition of the game. There wasn't a centre red line until 1950, so removing two line passes is technically restoring the tradition of the game. Hooking and holding has only been a serious problem in the league since the early 1990s, so cracking down on it and enforcing the rules only brings hockey closer to its roots. Also, goaltenders playing the puck is a fairly recent development. With a few exceptions, goalies generally did not handle the puck outside of their crease prior to the 1980s, so limiting their handling of the puck is restoring traditional play.

The only real departure from traditional hockey is the shootout. I am not a big fan of it, although I am not as against it as I was prior to the season starting. I do see its intent though. Ties are not exciting and it really isn't possible to play unlimited overtime until a goal is scored. However, I think they need to make regulation wins worth three points in order for this rule change to work. As it is, a game decided in regulation is worth 2 points and one decided in overtime is worth 3 points (two for the winner and one for the loser). That's pretty stupid. All games should be worth the same.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 43 (view)
 
KOBE'S 81:HEROIC OR SELFISH?
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:44:06 PM
It is a great accomplishment to score 81 points. It takes a special player to be able to put together a game like that. With that being said, no matter how good you are, you can't score 81 and play a team game. I have watched two games in my life where someone has topped 70. One was Kobe's game and the other was David Robinson's 70 point game. In both situations, the entire second half was dedicated completely to getting the ball to the star so that he can pad his point total. Nobody else even considered shooting and wasting a trip down the floor for their star.

I see one main difference between the two games though. In Robinson's game, it was the last game of the regular season. The game had absolutely no bearing on the standings as playoff seeding for the Spurs was set. Robinson and Shaq were battling for the NBA scoring title and Shaq had just put up a good game earlier in the day. Robinson needed over 60 points to win the scoring title. Since the game was meaningless for the team, they decided to help Robinson win the scoring title.

With Kobe, the game occurred in the middle of the season. For most of the game, the Lakers were either losing or holding a lead that was small enough that a comeback was possible. Kobe put his own personal accomplishment ahead of his team's and took shots that were less than ideal in order to pad his numbers.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Favourite NHL Team
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:25:49 PM
As embarrassing as it is to admit it the way they have played lately, the Habs.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 3 (view)
 
NHL rules.....why the changes??
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:24:28 PM
I am in favour of most of the rule changes. Clamping down on hooking and holding has definitely improved the game. It doesn't mess with the heritage of the game either. Those rules have always been there and used to be enforced, but for one reason or another, the refs started letting that stuff go over the last 10 or 15 years.

I did not want to see the red line come out myself. I was worried that it would lead to one defenseman hanging way back to guard against the long pass so he wouldn't be able to pinch and keep pucks in at the blue line, which would prevent offense instead of creating it. However, the lack of a red line seems to be working as planned so far. For me, the jury is still out on that one.

The only rule changes that I don't like are those relating to ties. Giving the losing team in OT a point is stupid. Now some games are worth 2 points and some games 3 points. If they want to give something for losing in OT, make regulation wins worth 3 points, OT wins 2 points, OT losses 1 point, and regulation losses 0 points. That way every game has the same value. I agree that overtime should be extended to 10 minutes as well. That would decide more games. I am not a fan of shootouts, but I could stomach them a little bit more if OT was 10 minutes. Fewer games would end up in shootouts that way.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Super Bowl Traditions!
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:16:55 PM
I'm too big of a football fan to go out to a bar for the game. I need quiet so I can actually hear the game. Although it sounds boring, I usually get together with a couple of my friends, order in some food, and watch the game at home.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 185 (view)
 
Homeless : ill of society or blessing in disguise....
Posted: 8/14/2005 12:57:24 PM

Who is 'everybody' when you say everybody is afforded the opportunity to get an education? I know public school is free, but post-secondary isn't.


I know post-secondary isn't free, but with high school, you can get a job that will pay for a place to live.


Could you please elaborate on this affordable housing for me? It can't be much of a place fit for humans if a minimum wage paying job would pay for it.


As for the affordable housing, my buddy lived in a place like that when he first moved to Toronto. While he was looking for a job, he rented a place for $400 including utilities a month just off Yonge St by the Summerhill subway station. All he had was a bedroom and access to a shared kitchen, but it gave him a roof over his head. $400 a month is something that is affordable on minimum wage. You can get even cheaper I assume if you don't live right on a subway line.

When I first moved to Toronto, I rented a 3 bedroom basement apartment with two friends. Again, it wasn't ritzy, but it was clean and safe. The heat worked. It didn't leak. All of the appliances were relatively new. We paid $900 including utilities for the place, so it was just $300 a person. Once we all got settled into the city and got decent jobs, we decided that we wanted to upgrade to something nicer, but it wasn't because the old place was unfit for humans. We were just willing to pay for a little more luxury.


And I have to admit i'm smiling at the point you made about those homeless people and how they 'look' like they could hold down a job at McDonald's. Which look are you talking about? Why not a job at TD Waterhouse; maybe they have an MBA.


The look I am referring to is lucidity. Most of the people I see begging me for change seem pretty normal. Maybe they do have an MBA. I wasn't saying that these people aren't intelligent. I was saying the opposite. I said that most homeless people I see appear to be functioning at a level high enough to flip burgers. If they have an MBA, then I encourage them to make use of their skills. The point was that most people who are begging on the street are capable of so much more, but screwed up their lives. I don't think my tax dollars should go towards bailing out somebody out of a mistake that they made.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 181 (view)
 
Homeless : ill of society or blessing in disguise....
Posted: 8/14/2005 9:07:27 AM
I have to agree with a lot of what j-roc is saying in this thread. For the most part, people who are homeless are homeless for a reason. Everyone in Canada and the United States is given the opportunity to get at least a high school education. That will permit you to get some sort of job to support yourself. If you manage to screw it up, then you deserve what you get.

Granted, there are a few homeless people out there who have severe mental problems. I do feel for those people, however most of those I see seem like they could hold down a job at McDonalds if they wanted to.

Some people argue that its an economic issue and that the cost of housing is outrageous. While housing can be very expensive, there are always affordable options. In every major city I have been to, I have seen houses that have been modified to include 10 or more bedrooms by getting rid of the living rooms. These places are usually dirt cheap, rent month to month, and are inhabited by lower class men and women. A minimum wage job can easily pay the rent at them.

I'm sure somebody is going to bring up the point that those types of places may not be affordable if someone has racked up high levels of debt. To this, I ask whose fault is that? I put the responsibility clearly on the shoulders of the person who took out credit that they could not pay back. Besides, there are bankruptcy laws to help out people who have gotten in over their heads.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a part of the world that affords everybody the opportunity to get an education. We also have many easy to get jobs, such as fast food service. Unless somebody is one of the few who is so seriously mentally ill that they cannot flip a burger, I feel no pity for them at all. I don't think it is mean spirited or cruel in the least. It is simply asking people to pay for the choices that they made in their lives.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Why are you single?
Posted: 8/9/2005 4:50:04 PM

have not found an inteligent male yet, i would settle for an idiot but i can't even find that kinda inteligence around jaxville hehe


Does anyone besides me find it ironic that in her complaint about the intelligence of men in her city, irish spelled the word "intelligent" wrong?
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Bug Reports.
Posted: 8/7/2005 7:26:26 AM

why does philippines now bring up no records when i search for any women from there??


I've noticed the same thing with the Philippines. I emailed POF a week or two ago about it and I haven't received a reply yet. Hopefully they are aware of this and are working on it.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Unbiased opinion
Posted: 7/30/2005 12:55:49 PM
I think there seems to be a theme developing here where people are making it seem like men who are willing to accept women with kids are somehow "better" people. Personally, I would not get involved with a woman who has kids. I don't think there is anything wrong with it either. I am just not ready for that kind of responsibility. Kids are expensive and I am a recent university graduate; therefore, I would prefer to wait until I have had the chance to establish a strong financial base before I start a family.

Although there are men who are ready and willing to accept a woman with kids, I believe most are not. Whether they would prefer a child-free life, feel that they aren't currently prepared for children, or are only interested in raising their own kids, it is a choice they are completely entitled to make. Everyone should be free to live their life for themselves without judgement.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Is anyone else annoyed by this question?
Posted: 7/17/2005 12:09:05 PM
I know exactly what you mean. So many people seem to think there is something wrong with being single. Maybe that's why so many relationships end in disaster. The people are only together so that they can say they have somebody. Personally, I'm completely content being single. I'm not against the idea of a getting involved in a relationship if the right person comes along, but I don't need it to feel complete.

If more people were secure enough with themselves to be single, we would have fewer "status" relationships, fewer people who can't understand how someone can be happy by themselves, and fewer people asking that annoying question.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Not Liking this site at all
Posted: 7/17/2005 10:51:00 AM
I agree that it seems rude not to answer somebody when they email you. I'm sure most people would appreciate an email saying "Thanks for your email, but I'm not really interested" if someone doesn't want to chat or meet up. However, the reality is that there are many more men on these sites than women. Because of that, some women get crazy amounts of mail. If they had to answer every person who messaged them, they would have to spend their whole life returning emails.

Secondly, coming on the forums and complaining isn't going to help your cause. I don't mean to sound mean, but your post makes you sound desperate. From what I've seen and heard, desperation is not a trait women find attractive. Have some patience. If you get two responses a week like you have so far, you will meet tons of people.
 Nexus11
Joined: 7/15/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
People are shallow
Posted: 7/17/2005 10:34:00 AM
I think that it is shallow to look at anyone one dimensionally. I think it is equally as shallow to say that looks do not matter as it is to say that personality does not matter. I think that deep down we all want someone who attracts us on all levels. It just so happens that physical looks are the easiest to judge. We know right away if we are attracted to somebody physically and therefore make initial decisions based primarily on looks. That doesn't mean that other qualities are discounted. It just takes longer to figure them out so people tend to evaluate looks first, then the other qualities as they can figure them out. I don't see a problem with that.
 
Show ALL Forums