Richards

http://break.com/index/crazy-parents-let-baby-wrestle-cobra.html It is quite well done and it looks real yet there has to be some catch. Maybe devenomised? camera tricks? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/13/faked.attack.ap/index.html WTF? I can see that this is something that educators need to think about planning for, but staging a fake attack and screaming to sixth graders that "this is not a drill", while they scream, cry and hide under desks? Maybe this could have been handled a wee bit diferently? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Agreed. I am not usually the kind to make a stand and correct dangerous behaviour . I simply avoid people I identify as potential Darwin winners. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I would never say that it is easy. Not by a long shot. Nor would I deny that someone who is only a boxer wouldn't neccessarily do well (wouldn't say he couldn't either). It seems that many of the better ones are not just grapplers or kickboxers or martial artists. The ones that seem to do well are usually skilled in several areas with one dominant skill. If all a guy can do is grapple, he has limitations. If all a guy can do is kick, he has limitations. Same goes for boxing. I do feel that if you took a boxer who had spent countless years polishing his boxing skills, and then trained him in MMA while he kept up the boxing skills, he would have a distinct advantage over someone who did not practice boxing. If a boxer could utilise UFC skills to prevent takedown (or get out of one) and keep the fight where he wants it the MMA guy might be frustrated by the fact that his opponent has something in his repertoire which he has no real defence against. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Tough call. I can only speak for myself, and say that if I were to marry a woman, who already had a child and I had acted as a father to that child, I would still feel that was my son/daughter after a divorce, regardless of bloodline. As for the legality of it, I beleive that when you marry someone you assume joint liability with them (for any liability, be it debt, mortgage, child..etc). I am pretty sure that is the case but maybe one of the lawyer types on here could clear that up. Cheers My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Fine. I think this would be a different scenario. I agree that when you choose to have sex you have full responsibility. I also agree that if you take on a parental role to a child that is not biologically yours, you have responsibility. I do not agree that a sperm donor should be held responsible, since this person is acting in an altruistic fashion motivated by the same interests as someone who donates blood or organs. They should not be held accountable. If a sperm donor can be held liable for child support then at the very least the state should tale responsibilty for informing the donor in advance (not the donors responsibility to find out) that by doing a good deed he may be setting himself up for at least 18 years of financial burden. There should be signs all around the clinic and not only should the person sign an acknowledgement to that effect, that acknowledgement should be a seperate document, not buried in a larger document. A stand-alone document with one statement to the effect of "Although I am an anonymous donor I acknowledge that by donating, I can be held accountable for providing child support for the child" and the peson should sign and date it. Most people would just not see that coming otherwise. The state would have an obligation to tell the guy that his good deed might not go unpunished. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Howdy, Basically what they do is assign a preset value to a certain series of outcomes. Like if you are assigning grades to students you can build a pivot table that assigns A- for any grade between 80 and 84, A for anything between 85 and 89, and A+ for 90 to 100. Hard for me to describe but here are a few links. http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/using/excel_pivot_tables_collins.mspx http://www.homeandlearn.co.uk/ME/mes9p4.html http://www.ozgrid.com/Excel/excel-pivot-tables.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HA010346321033.aspx http://www.exceltip.com/exceltips.php?view=category&ID=32 Alternately if you live near a school (or are a student) anybody from the university's ITM department should be able to get you started on it right away. Cheers My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I kind of saw it that way too but I was not sure. It makes sense if he took a "parental role" in the childs life. So long as it is his actions and not the mere fact that he was the sperm donor then fine. If a state allows an anonymous donor to be held liable then a person should be fully informed of that risk before donating (have them sign a statement to the effect that they have been informed of this). A well meaning person who signs an organ donor card, gives blood, and as a result of his compassion for families who cannot conceive donates sperm should be forewarned of the long term liability he is facing. This should be the states responsibility to inform donors, not the donors responsibility to look it up. A person trying to be a good samaritan should not be hit with such unpleasant surprises. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

If that becomes accepted as law then artificial insemination will grind to a halt due to lack of donors. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Fair enough. But for 95% of the other jobs that get tested for it? Fuck that. Agreed. It does seem needlessly intrusive to require a desk clerk or hair dresser to be tested. My dividing line would be the consequences of drug use on the job. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

It sounds like he did not have sex with her but merely donated sperm via a lab. Is that correct? If so can all sperm donors be held liable? What if you donate anonymously, can someone nail you on child support? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

1. I do not doubt that is it is expensive. That was not the question. The question was how do we know it is more expensive than continually doling out money to people who will not look for work. The returns on cutting back the number of recipients minus the cost of testing might well have a positive net present value. 2. Working people have to submit to it. Are welfare recipients too important to have to submit to the same requirements as those who support them? No it won't. It is just like police roadblocks for impaired drivers. Also it does not have to be purely random. Welfare workers can identify chronic recipients who they suspect of drug use and submit their names for testing. It depends on the job. Pilots, truckers, Surgeons ...etc are in positions where I might want to see some testing. Personally it would not bother me if my job required it. Regarding the value of the testing it would obviously require greater investigation. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Thats fine. I am just pointing out that there is too much black and white on this debate. Again boxing does have vulnerabilities but it seems most UFC fighters utilise some combination of skills with one skill unique to any fighter. Example, most have a combimation of skills but soem tend to focus more in grappling, others on in close fighting with knees kicks..etc. Since very few seem to be endowed with boxing skills there is very little defense to that style. If someone who had great boxing skills but also took the time to aquire some degree of skill in MMA (just enough that he is not defenceless against them) his boxing skills might just help him dominate. Again most of these guys leave themselves wide open when moving forward. If someone had a snappy hard punch he might be able to end one of these matches seconds in. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No. Just the stupidity of two individuals. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I suspect that any forward moving boxer who fights on the inside might be at a disadvantage in UFC (unless he also had some ground skills) but the speedy dancy types might very easily frustrate some of the UFC guys. How do you take a guy down for a submission hold if every time you lunge at him he peppers your face with punches while moving out of range. Eventually, cuts will open, eyes will swell shut and the boxer could be in a position to finish the guy. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I do not doubt that. Saying there is a correlation does not mean that 100% of all people who do it will perform as predicted. There are possibly some people out there who can drive better after a few drinks, but rules aren't made on the exception. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

In what universe? Most of the better boxers started as street fighters. They have the wit to adapt to the new environment so rather than trying to purely box, they will simply apply such skills to a streetfight. A style is not a religion, it is merely one tool that you have at your disposal. Unless you have spent countless hours of every day working that bag, sparring...etc, you have probably never dealt with the speed and accuracy of a boxers punch, so a street fight against one of these guys may not get beyond one punch. A boxer might just send the street-fighter into la-la land before the other guy can make a move. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Where have we seen a representative sample of boxers lose to these guys? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That is a stretch. To suggest that boxers do not have anything to offer is ludicrous. Yes boxers are limitted via the fact that there is no kicking and they do not go to the ground, but they are not helples lambs. If you look at the way many MMA fighters lunge at each other they are wide open for a clean shot. I hear everyone talk about boxers who lost at MMA but how good were these boxers?. If they were any good at boxing they would be making money at boxing rather than trying UFC. It is not a representative sample. I will not get into the boxing vs martial arts thing as there are merits to both but do not tell me that an accomplished professional boxer will be bitch slapped by one of these guys. Never happen. If he does injure his knees in UFC then they will have wasted their multi-million dollar investment. But yes, I would love to say that arrogant Mayweather get his ass handed to him. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sitting in front of my computer. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I haven't looked at the budget projections on this so I cannot argue your point nor confirm it. Can you please post the analysis that shows there is more cost to testing than continually paying people to do nothing? You don't neccesarily have to test them all. Utilize a random testing system, and also allow for tests where social assistance workers suspect there is drug use. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No I do not. I also do not have proof that if you walk outside in the rain that you will get wet, nor do I have proof that if you jump off of a really tall building you will probably die. There have been several studies pertaining to this subject. I quick google search located a couple (I only looked at the summary of each) you can look at. http://www.ccsa.ca/CCSA/EN/Statistics/CanadianProfile1999.htm http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1998-01-01_1.pdf http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1341718 I will not deny that there are many who can function with frequent drug use. I have worked with some. But I suspect that your freinds know when to stop so they can be functional the next day. The problem with the chronically unemployed doper/drinker is that without an actual appointment or job to go to the next morning, they tend to stay up late, sleep till noon and put off the job hunt while blaming their unemployment woes on the government, lack of respect in most jobs, immigrants,....etc. I do know what I am talking about on this, I have known numerous public nipple suckers, including a few distant relatives and the pattern was so obvious that a one celled organism could have seen it. My argument has nothing to do with the relative harmfulness of pot versus alcohol. The fact that you can point out exceptions to the rule does not change the fact that if I work my as off to earn a dollar and the government wishes to tax that dollar to give to someone who is not working, I have the right to demand that there is some oversite. I do not work to carry loafers indefinitely. Have you a source for this claim or is it opinion? Some might venture to say that Elvis is still alive. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Not neccessarily. Not all drug users are twitching crack adicts. Many are habitual pot smokers and boozers who never seem to be able to find work (something to do with never bothering to get out of bed in the morning to look for one). As there seems to be a correlation between being a habitual doper/drinker and being chronically unemployed I think it is fair to demand some rules and supervision. When I lived under my parents roof and got free room and board there were requirements of me (like going to school, getting work and generally preparing myself for independance). At any point if I felt those rules "cramped my style" or infringed upon my rights I was free to leave and pay my own way. Same with people who suck on the taxpayers nipple. If you are too big a man to submit to our besic requirements of welfare recipients then you should be too big a man to take our taxes as a handout. If you are habitually smoking pot then you are not likely putting too many hours into researching the market, looking at potential employers and grooming yourself for such employment. Get a job and pay for your own booze and dope. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree with you but the "rights" brigade will call you a fascist for saying that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Personally I have no wish to go there, and every city has a place where "you don't go there". Unfortunately a trend I have noticed "at least in Toronto" is that the problems that used to exist solely in those bad neighborhoods seem to be encroaching into every neighborhood. It seems that with the passage of time we seem to be regularly adding new streets to the "do not go there" list. Furthermore even if you do not go there, you still run the risk that someone from there, may be in your neighborhood for a crime of opportunity. If they would stay there, I might be thrilled to walk around my own neighborhood defenceless. I am not sure why the desire to have the means to protect oneself is always seen as being synonymous with not using ones head to avoid trouble, and a desire to act out some sort of Charles Bronson vigilante fantasy. It seems tantamount to saying someone who wears a seatbelt doesn't plan to drive defensively. I used to always beleive that if one used their head they could avoid trouble and not need to defend themselves but I almost learned the hard way on a few occasions that this is not always so. Is there a middle ground between pro-gun vs anti-gun. Granted you used to be a cop so I feel at somewhat of a disadvantage in this argument but is there not some merit in a rational non-aggressive person wanting to have a means of protecting themselves if all else fails? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.