| Welcome to the Point of CounterPoint | ||
Come on in. These guys are just getting started. Two different points of view, though not always that far apart...still, it should get good.... |
||
|
Greg Says: |
Marc Says: |
|
|
05/16/2000 Marc has clearly been overly-influenced by too many years in urban areas. Unfortunately, that influence has clouded his judgment and left him open to doing things which sane men just shouldn't do. Hopefully, this ongoing public exchange will force him to recognize just how far off he really is. |
05/16/2000 No question about it. Whatever Greg thinks, it's clearly influenced by his far-too-rural upbringing. He lacks a certain broadness of thought which can only come from having experienced life for a while.
|
|
5/20/00 On relationships.... |
||
|
It really is rather obvious I think why women tend to emanate in a relationship as the “brainy” one. I mean, put aside the possibility that it might actually be true that women are in fact generally a little brighter than her male counterpart, at lease in most relationships. Now consider the fact that it is in the MALE’s best interest to let this misunderstanding slide by. If the woman realized that her male partner was as bright as she, HE would have to do more of the household finances, take care of the kids, organize schedules/flights… you get the picture.. NOW who’s the smart one? |
Have you ever noticed that in every married couple that you meet, the woman is always smarter than the man? ALWAYS. Think about it for a bit...the people next door, your boss...your co-workers...your parents? Any exceptions? Didn't think so. Why is that, do you think? I suppose the woman would have to be smarter than her mate, in light of some of men's shortcomings. Given then general propensity of man to avoid marriage in the first place, it should be a given. It probably makes life easier if the woman is smarter than her partner because then she can easily get her spouse to believe that whatever it is she wants is really his idea anyway.
|
|
5/24/00 On Microsoft.... |
||
|
We need
Microsoft split the heck up, tomorrow, no, today. Whenever. It’s
getting boring seeing every soccer mom, every small mom and pop
business, and every college library lab computer using the same old
crappy Windows 98 and Microsoft Office. I miss the days of DOS and
WordPerfect for DOS. Back when other OS’s were also viable options.
Users don’t understand that it doesn’t have to be the nature of
computers to have to reboot 4 times a day due to illegal operations and
blue-screens-of-death. MAC is inherently superior in quality and finish,
as well as BeOS, Os2 and
UNIX. But will these others ever show up at Joe Smith’s business? Not
on a user’s desktop. Likely only in the server room where quality and
reliability take precedence over cuteness, familiarity, and
idiot-proofing. So the end result is everyone suffers bug-ridden life at
their desktop and I.S. departments suffer supporting it all because 99%
of company management and 75% of users are unwilling to invest the TIME
( we won’t even discuss the software cost SAVINGS ) associated with
learning something that is just plain better, or even considering the
possibility for that matter. God forbid anyone stray from the little
paperclip man who winks at you in your Microsoft Word application just
before the screen goes blue---OOOHHH the thought..You might just find
something you like better, and Gates’ie wouldn’t want that to
happen. |
I've been trying to figure out just how this whole Microsoft anti-trust thing makes any sense. I mean, how does breaking up Microsoft do me any good? Is there any reason that I *want* to deal with competing operating systems? No. Do I want a better operating system? Sure. Call me when it's ready. I don't want to sit through the battle. I just want a unified standard for all of my applications when it's done. Of course, whoever wins the battle will have the lion's share of the market, which will only mean...another anti-trust suit. Sounds like the ultimate outgrowth of an anti-trust suit is another anti-trust suit. Stop spending my taxes on a stupid endless circle..... |
|
6/11/00 On Raising Children....
|
||
|
Hey, maybe people like to work. Maybe people feel fulfilled by putting in an honest days' labor. Maybe people like having nice things in their lives, have you thought about that? It costs money to raise children, and it costs even more to give them more than the basic necessities. It's not just about buying a house, it's about buying a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school system. It's not just about getting a car, it's about getting a car that will get the kids to their destination safely. Besides, it's not as though the children are being abandoned. Lots of kids are better off with professional day care providers, for any number of reasons. For starters, they are professionals. In addition, the atmosphere in many daycare centers actually encourages the early development of social skills. It's not like the kids sit around all day doing nothing and being abused. They are cared for, taught, and nurtured. In some cases, I'll bet the daycare providers are better qualified to provide childcare than many parents. The beauty of living in a free country is that you can choose what you want to do. You are not restricted in the number of children you can have, or how you choose to raise them. You can even teach them at home if you want. Just because you have a specific view of how things should be doesn't mean it's right for everybody. |
Why are so many people letting other people raise their kids? Doesn't it strike anyone else as just a little bit odd? I mean, if you're going to go to all the trouble (and PAIN, ladies.. let us not forget the pain..) of having kids, why let someone else be the primary influence on their lives? Sending them to daycare? So you're going to see your child for all of maybe 4 hours a day, if you're lucky. That's a good way to bond and have a deep influence on your child. Mind you, I'm not saying that the woman has to stay home. I'm saying one of the parents ought to actually be raising the kids, providing a sense of discipline, and actually teaching them meaningful things in life. Gender doesn't matter. If neither one of you is qualified to do that, then maybe you shouldn't be having kids. What if you can't afford it? I can understand and empathise with everybody who has to work. Everybody wants to be independently wealthy. I know I do. But face facts, most of us are never going to get there, no matter how hard we work. So maybe it's time to re-evaluate some priorities here. Rather than worrying about getting more, why not ask yourself if you already have enough? I just think that there are a lot of people out there who think they need a lot more than they do. You'd be surprised how little you can live on and still be happy. Forgo the big screen TV with surround sound! You can do without the SUV! And you'll be surprised how much money you could save if you stopped buying take-out and ready-made foods. And for crying out loud, does anybody really need a house with over 2000 square feet of floor space? You're not the Waltons, you know! Focusing all your energy on making more money is not a means of attaining happiness. It is a means of postponing it. Personally, I think the answer is Happy Fat Economics..
|
|
08/11/00 On Weird Foods...
|
||
|
I saw someone eating sushi the other day. I couldn't believe that he was actually putting the stuff into his mouth! I mean, talk about disgusting! It's RAW FISH. That is not natural, not normal, and I'm not sure it's particularly safe. Have you ever taken a look at raw fish? Or any other raw meat for that matter? It's slimy, it's not particularly appetizing, and the consistency just couldn't feel good on the tongue. Is it a status thing? Is it a way of showing off how sophisticated you are? Because it sure can't taste good. Put that stuff in the trash bin next to the caviar and that stinky cheese with the moldy skin on it. |
I notice that you don't mention whether or not you've actually tried any of those things, so I'll guess you haven't. Why not? Scared? It seems a shame to summarily dismiss something that might actually be quite good just because it doesn't look quite right. That's the sort of behavior I'd expect from a kid, but not an adult.
|
|
08/24/00 On Survivor...
|
||
|
Lighten up already. It's only entertainment. It's not supposed to be deep, it's not a reflection of society. It's not even important. It's just a show. If you'd relax a minute instead of looking for a reason to fly off the handle, you'd realize that. I, for one, liked the show. The people were interesting, the voting held my attention, and some of the challenges were pretty well thought out. Granted, it would have been a lot better if the self-proclaimed "Fat naked Fag" had not walked off with the grand prize. I would have preferred anyone to that guy. Anyone. He was so conniving, so slimy, so useless. Rudy deserved to win. He was a good guy, and a nice guy, and he's a good American as well. I can't believe he let his hand slip on the last challenge. It was so anti-climactic, so lame a way to end what had the potential to be a very exciting ending to a good, entertaining series. Because that's all it was, when all is said and done. Entertainment.
|
I can't believe so many tuned in so often to watch so little. Seriously. The whole show was basically a popularity contest on a high-carb diet. A collection of whiners, cretins and idiots who were stupid enough to endure small rations, heat exposure, and (worse still) exposure of their lives on national television for a 1 in 16 shot at a million dollars. Only 100 grand for number 2...for this they ate grubs? Give me a break. With all the emphasis on cliques (sure they called them "alliances"...) Survivor was like going back to high school, only with rats. The only thing sadder than the oafs who participated were the oafs who religiously watched each week, agonizing over the trials and tribulations of people they didn't know, and who wouldn't care to know them. It's a sad commentary on the quality of America that this low-quality rip-off of The Running Man can so easily divert us. If CBS is going to give the viewing public bread and circuses, the least they can do is make them more compelling. Put 16 people on an island and give each of them just a knife, a compass, and some fishing line. Tell them that whoever is standing on the beach at sunrise of day 39 gets 16 million dollars and a guarantee of immunity against prosecution. Make it more interesting, and tell them that cannibalism will not be frowned upon. Now *THAT* would be compelling television.
|
|
On the Death Penalty...
|
||
|
Timothy McVeigh is dead. It's about time! Why did it take all those years to put that SOB to death? Whether he worked alone or had an accomplice doesn't matter much to the people who died in the blast. He was there, and he needed to pay for his part in it. The justice system needs to get its job done more quickly. Sure, he was in jail while waiting to die, but it still cost the taxpayers money to feed and clothe him while we waited for the just and inevitable end. Personally, I resent having to pay to support such scum. Maybe if the death penalty applied to all convicted criminals, we'd see a lot less crime. We'd certainly see a lot fewer repeat offenders. |
Painting with the broad brush again, I see...sure McVeigh's crime was heinous. There's no point in trying to defend what he did because there's no reason. But putting someone to death is a serious undertaking. If McVeigh had put as much thought into killing his victims as the justice system put into killing him, perhaps he would have come to realize what a stupid idea it was. Probably not, though. Of course, I'm not sure that we didn't do him a favor by killing him. If you had to choose between dying and spending the rest of your life in prison, which would you choose? |
|
|
What do you think? Let us know |
||
