???

It doesn't make sense to draw it parallel to the bottom of the glass. Only to draw it relative to the horizontal surface. It's like a stove on a boat. It's on gimbals, so stays on the same plane as the gravitational surface of the earth, not to the heeled angle of the boat, in the case of a sailboat.

I also draft plans, and can rotate images in my head, and picture the other side of something. It seems simple to me.

Not even remotely.

As this post has done with some style, I might add. :-)

Touchy overly sensitive metrosexuals have swallowed the bait purporting that women like all that.
Caring about the woman you love, and holding her purse are two VERY different things.

LOL! Bambi is cracking me up. Yes it is men's fault because they treated their women as property for centuries, which made women (out of necessity) develop and hone their communication / manipulation abilities. That in turn, created resentment in women which grew over the centuries. Men are the one's whose brains get scrambled by the mere hint of boobies. Women used what they had to gain some form of Freedom, which all of mankind has a right to have. To boil it down to the 19th amendment is laughable, seriously. Women would not have had the "touchy / feely" tendencies, had they not been kept a prisoner beneath a mans thumb. Men can blame themselves for being A#@ holes for so long that they drove women to seek liberty. I do believe in gender roles, which women might have been happy in, had they not been made to feel they were subhuman in said roles.

Agreed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVovq9TGB...

Yeah, the heavy makeup has its drawbacks. That song is definitely classic. Have you ever seen the original lineup in concert? I had front row once, at the now long gone Tiger Stadium. I was right in front of Gene. I was lucky he didn't get any stage blood on me. The hair on my arms was moving to his bass line... I couldn't hear properly for 24 hrs... those were the days. :)
Here is one of my favorites. I even know a few of the riffs! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeUosbCla...

bambi,
I AM a woman.. and every single woman I know including some I would consider dingbats would not draw the the water level parallel to the tipped side of the glass or the bottom of the glass.. they might pepper you with questions about whether or not the circumference of the glass was the same at the top and bottom, if the 30 degree angle was from the vertical or horizontal axis, etc. who ARE these women you ask? I'll give you an experiment. have a particularly attractive woman dressed tastefully but with a fair amount of cleavage exposed walk up to a guy with a map and ask him to show her on the map where she needs to go. now, time it. Repeat experiment with women and see how quickly the directions are given accurately

Sorry. I have no pictures or a time machine. Here is a photo of someone famous I've been told I resemble today.... only I'm older and grayer...
http://media.photobucket.com/user/onevis...
Strange... it would be so easy to do at Halloween, yet I have never ... Oh well, enough indulging my rock fantasies...
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smXctlhgc...

Khalling: I apologize if I sound like I'm placing or assigning any type of fault. What I was trying to say was that the socialist/communist system was, throughout all but the last few years of our race's evolutionary development and history, essential to the well being of the reality of the family unit in that the resources needed were typically brought to the unit by the man, hunting and exploring for new resources for protein necessary for our brains evolution, while the woman with child had to spend a significant amount of time closely caring for that child, typically 10 to 12 years, and the others that came. In a socialist/communist system, I understand it to be one in which resources are available to and spread between all involved regardless of effort or skill expended to obtain those resources. In the family unit thought to exist, with a few exceptions, for the vast majority of our race's and our ancestor's evolutionary development, such a system was essential to the survival of our race.

I in no way wished to imply that it's OK for women to be irrational as long as they stay in some kind of role or that a 'proper' role for women led to irrationality on their part. I don't think it's OK to be irrational for any human being, except maybe a small child. I also believe that any and all humans ought to be able to strive for any role or activity in life that they want. My father passed when I was 51/2 leaving my mother with 5 stair-stepped boys to raise. I can certainly remember watching her come out of her irrationality and become a very solid rational human, but it took her about 10 years. Though not extensively educated, she was a very sharp lady, but still had to struggle mightily. But I do think that there exists sufficient evidence to show that men's primary roles throughout the race's history has selectively evolved, in general, to certain innate biological characteristics and abilities and even restrictions that, again in general, require them to perceive and analyze planning and problems in a more expanded nature than women. There does exist identifiable, measurable, and certain physical and biological differences in the female and male brain and perceptions.

One of those is the numbers of rods and cones active in the female eye compared to those in the male eye. That difference allows women to perceive many more shades and hues of color than do men. Evolutionarily, that is explained by the typical role of women doing much of the plant and herb searching and gathering, while men were primarily required to search for and identify prey at distance and in camouflage. Both were essential components to the race's survival and were selectively evolved by survival.

Another is the connective tissue between two halves of the cerebrum of the brain, the corpus callosum. In females it is much larger than in males. It is apparently why females, again in general, are better at language and many other societal interactions than males. It's also why men are better at envisioning and analyzing spacial relations than are women. I'm not going to list here all of the accepted, much less those proposed advantages to one sex or the other. I'll leave that to those wishing to research such. It looks like BambiB has much of that detail readily available. It's just factual that these differences exist and are well studied in evolutionary, biological, and psychological science. These particular differences have even been identified in gay and transgender individuals and it's believed that the expression of certain genes result from a misapplication or mistiming of sex hormones prenatal and postnatal. As for your bottom line, yes particular individual women and men are genetically capable of rational self interest, but I'll maintain that certain genes' expression not only are turned on biologically, but also from external stimuli. Thinking and practice. And with this thread, I've certainly learned that there are women on here that are expressing. LOL

Now, as you say, to black breeding for certain genetic traits. I fear that our Southern ancestors took slavery and the management of slavery to heights that hadn't really been explored or reached prior to then. It's little discussed, but much of the wealth of a plantation owner/operator was vested in his slaves and the purchase of new slaves was a costly expense. Large southern landowners didn't have as much cash available as the northern manufacturers and bankers, so it was even more of a problem. The solution for most was to therefore put more effort into maintaining their 'stock' of slaves and breeding themselves for not only replacement of their own 'stock', but also as a source for sales for cash. Selective breeding of human beings is a horrible, Nazi-like practice to think about, but the successful plantation owner was good at it. Many slave owners even made it their sole business including raising 'studs' and brood 'females' with pedigrees as well maintained as those for horses and dogs. Slaves from those breeders were sold at premium compared to a newly enslaved individual. Breaking in the new slave was a speciality that most plantation owners didn't have or want.

And as I've mentioned in the discussion of the evolutionary differences in the 'normally' expressed genes of men and women, particular individuals will differ. One of the major roadblocks in any discussion of this type remains the differentiation of the general vs. the individual.

I agree with you that bussing certainly had some impact, but I maintain that the 'forced' concentration of particularly black families into urban project housing added to significant increases of Aid for Dependent Children programs has been the major contributor to what I feel has been the outright destruction of that particular community's economic gains, educational advances, and societal acceptance in Northern and Western parts of the nation that had been gained by the mid 20th century. While it's true that only small areas of the south had made comparable gains by than, similar programs were employed in that region as well, with comparable results. Most throughout the nation were taxed out of their property and homes rather than 'taking advantage' of urban housing.

While it might be easier to sensibilities to think of the cause as just inept or bad urban planning, I'm afraid that the word evil comes more to mind for me. I agree with your 'Hells Kitchen' example, remember that most of those immigrants were Eastern Europeans and that the majority of Americans at that time were Eastern and Northern Europeans, but your point remains that the 'phenomenon can certainly go across all race lines. But it has happened in different places, again throughout our race's history and it's always turned out the same for the affected minority. I would think that any 'urban planner' knew that history and I wonder ...

But thank you for your response. I will certainly give more thought to opening a thread, but again, I'm new to the site and not terribly familiar with the process.

KYFHO

Too many variables. I keep my options open. :-)

True. Interesting shift. But the question would then be why do so many, present day, abdicate their right? It's a moral obligation in my view. No complaining allowed unless you cast a vote.

Most of my friends, and myself, think for ourselves, earn money, and fall into that "rare" category. I find that I don't really care to be manipulated by others telling me I should feel a certain way, because somehow it's the thing I "should" do, for everybody else.

I am an artist. I don't kowtow to the left's propaganda though. Why should I? Just because I'm creative, it doesn't mean I'm for social irresponsibility. I despise when I'm told that I should feel guilty because of success. Or that I think each person is responsible for their lives and actions, that I am NOT in ANY way beholden to them for their existence.

I vote not for what can be squeezed out of the system. I vote for hands off, fiscally responsible small government candidates.

I guess that makes me a minority thrice over.

They don't call us the "party of 'no'" for no reason. (Not that I'm really part of that party.)

Oh HELL no!!!