Let's talk some polygens.

[Anarchist]

Let me state for the record that women are far superior at most things then men tend to be.

Hmm...i'm actually not sure i agree with that, but sure we are...

technically were equal, its just a fetish of mine...

As for supporting the troops, I support everyone that says
"Screw you guys,Im going home"
I wish them a succesfull MIA

So, i'm just kinda curious, why don't you support the ones that stay over there, and fight? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, i'm just curious the reasoning.

Well other then not agreeing with war in general, I think its injust for them to be threatened with prison time if they refuse to serve. Most of them would rather be at home watching football then searching peoples homes and risking their lives.

While some are truly commited to the "cause" or just enjoy death, most of them are just allowing the government to use them. Those that resist are standing up against tyranny.

[Iz Man]

Killing someone who points a gun directly at me and picking up a gun to go kill people voluntarily are two entirely different things.

So you would kill if you had to protect yourself. Would you kill to protect someone else?

Oh, I know you're probably one of those feminazis that think women can do everything a man can.

Now, while biologically and anatomically this is true, in terms of ability or potential ability this statement is antequated and false.

It is neither antiquated nor false. Men and women are biologically & anatomically different, therefore the abilities & potential abilities are different. One is not "better" than the other, just different.

How is the freedom for a woman to suit up and fight alongside her fellow Americans BS in any way? I'm sorry, aren't we fighting against people who stop women from doing anything they want as equals to men (including fighting in the military)?

It's BS because it compromises military integrity & effectiveness.
I'm not against women in the military, I'm saying they should not be placed in combative roles.
Fortunately I served in the pre-Clinton, pre-don't ask don't tell, pre-women in combat military, and we were much more effective (Gulf War anyone?). With all due respect to the current military. The reason we were more effective is the military at that time did not bow at the altar of political correctness and was allowed to do its job to the fullest. There was no 7-step process in the rules of engagement, we didn't have to fill out paperwork after firing each round, and women were not in our foxholes or at our gun stations (in the Navy we didn't use foxholes )
Women were put into combatant roles strictly for PC propaganda.
Women just do not possess the same physical attributes that men do, hence the different physical standards for men & women; and here is where the problem lies.
Its not too hard to figure this one out.
The simple scenario:
You just got one leg blown off in combat. You have 2 choices as to who can physically drag you out of the line of fire to safety. A man and a woman. To qualify physically for the service, the woman did not have to run the 2 mile as fast as the man, did not have to do as many situps, and did not have to do as many pushups (and those pushups were done from her knees, not her toes). Who is better suited to save your life?
I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. Women are better suited for different roles than men are. Fact.
Are there women who can pass the men's physical standards for the military, yes; and there are men who cannot even pass the woman's standards. The man who cannot pass the men's standards, but happens to pass the women's standards is kicked out. So the woman who cannot meet the same standards that the man who just got kicked out was held to, should serve along side other men in combat? Whats the difference?
I'd be willing to make exceptions for those women who can pass the same standards as men, but that is not what is happening, and I still would find it difficult to establish policy based on the exception.
This is not sexist. This is rational. I'm willing to accept the differences between men & women, and its wrong to let political correctness dictate policy when it defies logic, reason, and compromises military effectiveness.

[vtmarik]

So you would kill if you had to protect yourself. Would you kill to protect someone else?

Don't use semantical gymnastics with me, the immediate threat of an armed psycho in close proximity and the potential (while some would argue imaginary) threat of faceless men in turbans coming over here and detonating some kind of theoretical explosive are two entirely different scenarios.

It is neither antiquated nor false. Men and women are biologically & anatomically different, therefore the abilities & potential abilities are different. One is not "better" than the other, just different.

Agreed, so why should someone be disallowed from firing a gun? Let's disassemble your argument...

It's BS because it compromises military integrity & effectiveness.

So did integrating the army and letting blacks serve as equals, but I'm assuming you have no problem with that.

I'm not against women in the military, I'm saying they should not be placed in combative roles.

There are no non-combative roles in a military. All roles eventually serve the combat zone and all military personnel are in equal danger of being killed. Who are you to say that a woman isn't allowed to pick up a gun, march into the field, and support her fellow troops directly?

Fortunately I served in the pre-Clinton, pre-don't ask don't tell, pre-women in combat military, and we were much more effective (Gulf War anyone?). With all due respect to the current military. The reason we were more effective is the military at that time did not bow at the altar of political correctness and was allowed to do its job to the fullest. There was no 7-step process in the rules of engagement, we didn't have to fill out paperwork after firing each round, and women were not in our foxholes or at our gun stations (in the Navy we didn't use foxholes )

The altar of political correctness? Times change, societies evolve, social norms are cast aside. Again, I ask, what makes you an authority on who should and who should not be allowed on the battlefield?

Women were put into combatant roles strictly for PC propaganda.
Women just do not possess the same physical attributes that men do, hence the different physical standards for men & women; and here is where the problem lies.

Since you acknowledge that women and men are different, why is it so unusual to have different standards for both genders? A woman is considered physically fit on a different basis that a man is, so why should this be any different in Basic?

Its not too hard to figure this one out.
The simple scenario:
You just got one leg blown off in combat. You have 2 choices as to who can physically drag you out of the line of fire to safety. A man and a woman. To qualify physically for the service, the woman did not have to run the 2 mile as fast as the man, did not have to do as many situps, and did not have to do as many pushups (and those pushups were done from her knees, not her toes). Who is better suited to save your life?

The man, of course. Allow me to posit a slightly different scenario.

You've just had one leg blown off in combat, there is only one person in your unit, a man. While the man drags you to safety, who will give covering fire? Who will follow the angle of the shot and take down the insurgent?

I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. Women are better suited for different roles than men are. Fact.

I'm sorry, but in a situation where we don't have enough troops on the ground, we don't have the luxury of saying that. Fact.

Are there women who can pass the men's physical standards for the military, yes; and there are men who cannot even pass the woman's standards. The man who cannot pass the men's standards, but happens to pass the women's standards is kicked out. So the woman who cannot meet the same standards that the man who just got kicked out was held to, should serve along side other men in combat? Whats the difference?
I'd be willing to make exceptions for those women who can pass the same standards as men, but that is not what is happening, and I still would find it difficult to establish policy based on the exception. This is not sexist. This is rational. I'm willing to accept the differences between men & women, and its wrong to let political correctness dictate policy when it defies logic, reason, and compromises military effectiveness.

Well, alright, since you seem so convinced, I'll try and dilute the argument for you so you can understand it.

Or better yet, since it's been argued before, why would I try to recapture the argument when someone else has already done a bang up job?

[s.xkitten]

*hugs* i love you VT

[vtmarik]

*hugs* i love you VT

*hugs back* We feminists gotta stick together.

[s.xkitten]

*hugs* i love you VT

*hugs back* We feminists gotta stick together.

yep...pretty much...*nods*

[Iz Man]

Don't use semantical gymnastics with me, the immediate threat of an armed psycho in close proximity and the potential (while some would argue imaginary) threat of faceless men in turbans coming over here and detonating some kind of theoretical explosive are two entirely different scenarios.

Oh, I see. There is no terrorist threat. I get it.

Agreed, so why should someone be disallowed from firing a gun? Let's disassemble your argument...

It's BS because it compromises military integrity & effectiveness.

So did integrating the army and letting blacks serve as equals, but I'm assuming you have no problem with that.

Hardly. I would say it improved both. Sounds a bit racist to me VT.

There are no non-combative roles in a military. All roles eventually serve the combat zone and all military personnel are in equal danger of being killed. Who are you to say that a woman isn't allowed to pick up a gun, march into the field, and support her fellow troops directly?

I'm sure you have a lot of experience in military matters . This statement, however, is not true. There are many non-combative positions in the military. That's why they have classifications of combative and non-combative.

The altar of political correctness? Times change, societies evolve, social norms are cast aside. Again, I ask, what makes you an authority on who should and who should not be allowed on the battlefield?

Societies change, yes. The fact that men & women are different does not. I don't need to be the authority, nature dictates who is more suited to fight in combat.

Since you acknowledge that women and men are different, why is it so unusual to have different standards for both genders? A woman is considered physically fit on a different basis that a man is, so why should this be any different in Basic?

Thank you for advancing my argument. The fact that they have different physical standards shows that as a whole, women cannot reach those same standards as men. By doing that, you lower the overall physical ability of the military.

The man, of course. Allow me to posit a slightly different scenario. You've just had one leg blown off in combat, there is only one person in your unit, a man. While the man drags you to safety, who will give covering fire? Who will follow the angle of the shot and take down the insurgent?

Um, another man.

I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. Women are better suited for different roles than men are. Fact.

I'm sorry, but in a situation where we don't have enough troops on the ground, we don't have the luxury of saying that. Fact.

Also not true. So you're saying that there are not enough men to fight, and our only hope is to get women in combat because of sheer numbers?
Your argument is waning fast......WWII was fought with women in a supporting role, both at home and abroad, in the military and as civilians. Without their help, the Allies couldn't have won the war; but it was men on the front lines. We lost over 400,000 and did not have the need to place women on the front lines.

Or better yet, since it's been argued before, why would I try to recapture the argument when someone else has already done a bang up job?

Ah, nothing like bringing in the lefty web sites.
I don't dispute much of what is said in that "article". What they're arguing is women in the military. I never said women should not be in the military.
Just not on the front lines, which the author agrees with BTW; and the idea that our military is so powerful simply because women were allowed to fight is ridiculous. Technological advances & training are the biggest reason for this.
The female fighter pilots, et all, that are mentioned are held to higher standards, hence their success in those positions. Something that I stated in my earlier post. If women can meet the same standards, then let them fight. If they can't, don't let them, just like the men that can't meet those standards are not allowed to.
Answer this. Why are men who cannot pass the PT test given the boot (i.e. not allowed in combat), when women who cannot reach those same standards are allowed to stay? Why don't we just lower the PT standards for ALL military personnel to that of the female standards?

[s.xkitten]

Agreed, so why should someone be disallowed from firing a gun? Let's disassemble your argument...

It's BS because it compromises military integrity & effectiveness.

So did integrating the army and letting blacks serve as equals, but I'm assuming you have no problem with that.

Hardly. I would say it improved both. Sounds a bit racist to me VT.

ummm...not really...when blacks were first intergraded into the United States army, it compromised military integrity and effectiveness. It tore apart our military, because white men refused to fight with black men, ignored them, or tried to kill them. The officers refused to order black men in battle, refused to listen to any black man in an officer position (which were few and far between also)...In boot camp, black men were beaten (worse the the usual hazing), discriminated against, even killed. for a long time (i don't remember the exact dates, i'll look them up for you later), our military fell into complete discord until the blacks stood up for themselves, and some (smarter, in my opinion) white people stood up for them too.

[vtmarik]

Oh, I see. There is no terrorist threat. I get it.

I haven't seen any terrorists in the US, have you?

Hardly. I would say it improved both. Sounds a bit racist to me VT.

And yet when you replace "blacks" with "women," somehow it becomes a bulletproof argument.

I'm sure you have a lot of experience in military matters . This statement, however, is not true. There are many non-combative positions in the military. That's why they have classifications of combative and non-combative.

Right, and somehow they'll be magically protected by the non-combative title when they get blown up or shot at.

The USS Cole had some non-combative personnel on it, if I remember correctly.

Societies change, yes. The fact that men & women are different does not. I don't need to be the authority, nature dictates who is more suited to fight in combat.

Well, the fact that conservatives and liberals on the hill disagree with you should tell you something.

Thank you for advancing my argument. The fact that they have different physical standards shows that as a whole, women cannot reach those same standards as men. By doing that, you lower the overall physical ability of the military.

And lowering the standards of physical fitness and widening the age of conscription had nothing to do with it. I see. It's all because of the damn women.

Um, another man.

So, if we revisit your scenario, the man's gonna drag you out of the firing line while the woman lines up the shot and takes out the bad guy.

Yeah. They really shouldn't be there.

Also not true. So you're saying that there are not enough men to fight, and our only hope is to get women in combat because of sheer numbers?
Your argument is waning fast......WWII was fought with women in a supporting role, both at home and abroad, in the military and as civilians. Without their help, the Allies couldn't have won the war; but it was men on the front lines. We lost over 400,000 and did not have the need to place women on the front lines.

400,000 out of what, 7 million in WWII? Our current situation has 1,048,884 deployed in Iraq (Source). That's a little over one-seventh (14.3%) of the troops involved in WWII. That's a massive gap.

Answer this. Why are men who cannot pass the PT test given the boot (i.e. not allowed in combat), when women who cannot reach those same standards are allowed to stay? Why don't we just lower the PT standards for ALL military personnel to that of the female standards?

Because old guard conservatives like you would prevent it.

We're entering the 21st century, technology is replacing many of the physical challenges that soldiers have faced for the last 70 years. Perhaps it is time to review these facts and change PT requirements across the board, perhaps not.

Ok, let me bring this back down to brass tacks:

Based on the 2003 census, there were 212,000 women in the armed forces. (source).

Let's say, hypothetically, that 90,000 of them are in active combat. Under your argument, those 90,000 soldiers would be repositioned to non-combat roles.

But wait, there are men in non-combat roles too. And they wouldn't be repositioned to combat roles. So in other words that'd be 90,000 less troops on the ground.

Good idea. Let's lessen the amount of support our boys get on the front. I'm sure that'd go over really well.

[unriggable]

I wanted to point out that so many people say they support the troops, when they actually don't take any action...

The best way to support your troops is to urge any future soldiers to not join the army.

[Iz Man]

I haven't seen any terrorists in the US, have you?

Are you living in a cave?
http://www.wnbc.com/news/13431721/detai ... =mainclick
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282885,00.html
these were just in the past few weeks. You need to get out more.

And yet when you replace "blacks" with "women," somehow it becomes a bulletproof argument.

No, because they were black men.

Right, and somehow they'll be magically protected by the non-combative title when they get blown up or shot at.

Its not a question of that. Its a question of whether they can be as effective in combat. Typically close quarter combat. There will be casualties in war regardless of where someone may be stationed.

The USS Cole had some non-combative personnel on it, if I remember correctly.

Once again showing your military genius.
The U.S.S. Cole is a DDG (Guided Missile Destroyer). A combatant ship. All positions, regardless of responsibility, are classified as combatant positions. Be they PN's (personnelman), YN's (yeoman), or whatever. Prior to "women in combat", no woman would be stationed on the Cole because it is a combatant ship.

400,000 out of what, 7 million in WWII? Our current situation has 1,048,884 deployed in Iraq (Source). That's a little over one-seventh (14.3%) of the troops involved in WWII. That's a massive gap.

I don't know what's funnier, Salon spouting misinformation or you actually getting your "vast knowledge" from them.
So there's a little over 1 million deployed in Iraq, eh? Wow, that's something, given there's only ~1.4 million in all 4 branches of the U.S. military combined. The current troop level in Iraq is roughly 120,000.

Answer this. Why are men who cannot pass the PT test given the boot (i.e. not allowed in combat), when women who cannot reach those same standards are allowed to stay? Why don't we just lower the PT standards for ALL military personnel to that of the female standards?

Because old guard conservatives like you would prevent it.
We're entering the 21st century, technology is replacing many of the physical challenges that soldiers have faced for the last 70 years. Perhaps it is time to review these facts and change PT requirements across the board, perhaps not.

Now this is the best one yet! So lets lower the standards for physical fitness in the U.S. military.
Or better yet, lets abolish all physical standards.
Afterall, with technology, they won't need to run long distances, carry heavy objects (or fallen comrades), or get into any hand to hand combat.

Classic. Absolutely classic.

[vtmarik]

Are you living in a cave?
http://www.wnbc.com/news/13431721/detai ... =mainclick
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282885,00.html
these were just in the past few weeks. You need to get out more.

Oh, the whole plot to blow up fuel lines and tanks that could have never worked because you can't detonate fuel without a proper mix with air (which there was none of since it was a closed system)

And yet when you replace "blacks" with "women," somehow it becomes a bulletproof argument.

No, because they were black men.

[quoteI don't know what's funnier, Salon spouting misinformation or you actually getting your "vast knowledge" from them.
So there's a little over 1 million deployed in Iraq, eh? Wow, that's something, given there's only ~1.4 million in all 4 branches of the U.S. military combined. The current troop level in Iraq is roughly 120,000.[/quote]

Well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in the wars since Sept. 11, 2001, according to Pentagon data released to Salon. As of Jan. 31, 2005, the exact figure was 1,048,884, approximately one-third the number of troops ever stationed in or around Vietnam during 15 years of that conflict.

Yeah. Right. They made it up.


[quote="vtmarik"Now this is the best one yet! So lets lower the standards for physical fitness in the U.S. military.
Or better yet, lets abolish all physical standards.
Afterall, with technology, they won't need to run long distances, carry heavy objects (or fallen comrades), or get into any hand to hand combat.

Classic. Absolutely classic. [/quote]

Ok, so you're attacking me and my information gathering skills.

Well, since you've fallen to the level of ad hominem attacks (and since I'm the first one to call anyone on it, considering that you missed your chance) I'm gonna step aside and let someone else debate you.

[Iz Man]

Now this is the best one yet! So lets lower the standards for physical fitness in the U.S. military.
Or better yet, lets abolish all physical standards.
Afterall, with technology, they won't need to run long distances, carry heavy objects (or fallen comrades), or get into any hand to hand combat.

Classic. Absolutely classic.

Ok, so you're attacking me and my information gathering skills.

Well, since you've fallen to the level of ad hominem attacks (and since I'm the first one to call anyone on it, considering that you missed your chance) I'm gonna step aside and let someone else debate you.

Very Well.......

NEXT

[s.xkitten]

Very Well.......

NEXT

So, I'm curious, do you make fun of everyone who doesn't want to have a particular job? Do you make fun of the people who don't want to be construction workers, or who don't want to be graphic designers? Being the military is a job, just like everything else. Just because someone doesn't want to fight for their country doesn't make them a coward. People have different reasons for not joining the military, and for not wanting to be part of the draft, just as people have different reasons for joining the military. Instead of calling them a coward, perhaps you should simply respect their choice.

Once again your making up stuff out of nowhere. I don't know where you're coming up with this construction worker crap. I never said if you don't serve in the military you're a coward. What I said was if you're not willing to fight when attacked you are. If you won't stand up for yourself or the defenseless then you are weak & a coward. I still stand by that.

This simpleton (DIM) says he would 1) dodge the draft, 2) would not fight for his country, and 3) does not support our troops.
That's a coward.

Umm...is this not saying that because he would not fight for his country, he is a coward. Whether by draft, or by choice, he does not want to fight for his country, which you say makes him a coward. Also, with the 'construction worker crap' i was pointing out that you were calling him a coward for not serving in the military, so do you call men that don't do traditionally masculine jobs (such as construction work) cowards also. Obviously, that was lost on you, but i didn't just make that up out of no where.

And another thing, the part about 'killing is necessary to be a man.' To me, thats just what you sound like. You are all like 'you have to be in the military, if you don't fight for your country, you are a coward.' The military kills people, thats part of a war. Some people don't want to do that, so they don't enlist. Then, you call them a coward for not enlisting. Kinda make more sense now?

Once again, talking out your ass. I never said if you don't enlist, you're a coward. Can you not read English? Now, if you dodge the draft, then you are a coward. Whether you feel its the right thing or not. In the U.S. all able bodied men must sign up for conscription when they turn 18. Its the law. Sometimes it is necessary for the Nation to call upon its citizens to serve. It is the price for living in this country. Fortunately, we haven't had the need for a draft, nor will we in the foreseeable future. You don't like it? See ya.

Actually, they are predicting with the direction the war in Iraq is going, a draft will be needed in the next 5 years. But that isn't the point. The point is that if you refer to the quote above this, you said

2) would not fight for his country,

and then called him a coward. That usually means that you mean that because he would not fight for his country, he is a coward.

And, on a side note, I don't agree with the draft anyway. If you want to serve your country in that way, fine, thats great, I'll support you. But to force men to fight in a war when they may not want to is not right, no matter the cause.

...the only time i played with Barbies, i cut their hair, and ripped their bodies apart.

Why does that not surprise me. Your parents must be so proud.

Nope, they were actually quite pissed. It was an expensive one.

Women can have discussions just as well as men can, just like they can serve in the military just as well as men can. I'm curious why you think otherwise, care to explain?

*****NEWSFLASH*****
Men & women are different
Oh, I know you're probably one of those feminazis that think women can do everything a man can. Guess what, they can't. Just like men can't do everything women can. Women are better suited for some things that men aren't and vice versa. But that's another thread isn't it?

No way. I never knew that men and women are different.

Also, i never said that men and women can do the exact same thing. They can't. But, some women are well suited to traditionally masculine jobs, just as some men are more suited to traditionally feminine jobs. What right do you have to deny them the chance to have those jobs?

*cough*

[DiM]

Very Well.......

NEXT

*cough*

This simpleton (DIM) says he would 1) dodge the draft, 2) would not fight for his country, and 3) does not support our troops.
That's a coward.

first of all i bet you did not even look at my profile to see what country i'm in.

perhaps in my country the army is really sucky perhaps recruits are treated like crap perhaps the suicide rate among recruits is so high you would not belive. perhaps all the idiots and dumbasses have grades in the army and treat any person that has a higher iq like crap. and by that i mean constant beating and humiliation. perhaps the food the hygene and the overall conditions in the army are so crappy that many people get sick or suffer from malnutrition. perhaps the pay is so low you can barely afford to buy you daily pack of smokes. perhaps you'll change your opinion and stop calling me a coward.

think before you write something bad about another person. i invite you to come and join the army in romania if you want to prove your such a brave man.

First, you're right. I did not look to see you were from Romania, I assumed you lived in the U.S. An oversight on my part.
However, I did look and see that the Romanian army abolished conscription as a part of becoming a member of NATO. That means its an all volunteer Army.
You also stated that you would not fight for your own country, and that you do not support the volunteers who joined your military forces. That's just plain wrong.
If your country is that bad, I suggest you start walking; eventually you'll run into a place that you may find acceptable.

yes it's an all volunteer army now. the last conscription was in september 2006 so 9 months ago. you would not belive the desperation of the autorities on the last conscription. even though i'm almost 26 and i'm still a student (2nd masters) even though each year i presented evidence i can't be enlisted because i'm a student, in the last september not only i had to bring the evidence from the university but the phoned at my house and even came at my door to try and take me.
at the moment the only people that go in the army are those that don't have any future like people without education, people that are so poor they can't afford a place to stay or something to eat.
that's why the army is such a crappy place especially for an intellectual. if for some reason you end up in the army and you fellow colleagues find out your a city boy, or a smart guy they'll make your life miserable just because they are frustrated idiots. that's why i don't support these volunteers. these so called heroes.
as for me not supporting my country, well this is a long story. really really long. when i live in a country where the government ass rapes the population and thrives on the misery of the masses it's kinda hard for me to take a rifle and die for my country. i'd rather take a rifle and die trying to shoot every piece of slime that rests it's fat ass on a chair in parliament. thieves imbeciles and ex communists that accumulated vast fortunes on the backs of the population.

yes my country is that bad. and each day more and more bright kids leave and go to live in other places places like usa or canada. i don't blame them they chose a better life for them and their loved ones. at the moment i'm trying my best to fight the system and make a decent living. and i'm doing ok so far. i'd probably have a far better life somewhere else in the world but at the moment i'll stay. if you can imagine my monthly wage is 350$. and i'm finishing my second masters. what would a guy like me earn in usa? i bet even the social welfare is more than 350$ per month in the usa

[s.xkitten]

gosh...i see a recurring theme...

[DiM]

i'm bored and when i'm bored i like debating and man can i debate. i can even convince i petrol pump to buy a box of matches.
not because of my logical reasoning but because of my sheer determination and annoyance

this night at work me and my fellow colleagues debated on the subject of until what age should children be eaten without any law repercussions. i managed to convince them (or get the bored to death) that it should be legal to eat a baby if it is less than 2 years old. the conditions would be that the baby is yours and both parents eat him or the one that doesn't eat should write a legal note stating he refuses his right to eat the kid. tomorrow night we'll continue the debate and i'll try to convince them we should be allowed to eat other people's children if the natural parents sell the kid and are allowed to watch. i think they aren't going to show up to work

[unriggable]

Who thinks marijuana should be legalized? I do. Why? Because it stimulates the food economy.

[s.xkitten]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

[unriggable]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

Bored enough to be on CC!

[s.xkitten]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

Bored enough to be on CC!

not you...him...i don't care about you (as i stated in another thread)

[DiM]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

22.00 arrive at work. chit chat with colleagues do some work smoke and drink cola
23.00 enough work. log in CC
00.00 start some more work
00.05 realize work sucks. log in CC again
01.00 log off CC curse the dice, explain colleagues what CC is. they laugh and call you a risk nerd. start debating idiotic topics
03.00 time to finish work
03.30 work done. go back on CC for a while
04.00 debate some more while watching TV
05.00 debate is over. whatch discovery channel.
06.00 log in CC
07.00 in bed sleeping having nightmares about the dice

[DiM]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

Bored enough to be on CC!

not you...him...i don't care about you (as i stated in another thread)

[s.xkitten]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

22.00 arrive at work. chit chat with colleagues do some work smoke and drink cola
23.00 enough work. log in CC
00.00 start some more work
00.05 realize work sucks. log in CC again
01.00 log off CC curse the dice, explain colleagues what CC is. they laugh and call you a risk nerd. start debating idiotic topics
03.00 time to finish work
03.30 work done. go back on CC for a while
04.00 debate some more while watching TV
05.00 debate is over. *insert sleep here* whatch discovery channel.
06.00 log in CC
07.00 in bed sleeping having nightmares about the dice

like i said, i didn't even want to know...

[s.xkitten]

LMAO...i don't even want to know how bored you guys are...

Bored enough to be on CC!

not you...him...i don't care about you (as i stated in another thread)