Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Squall

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Personals / Re: RAF Diet meetups
« on: November 01, 2008, 05:58:23 am »
if we all grew our own food, built our own homes, and manufactured our own machines from metals we extracted and prepared ourselves, why would we need money?

Not one person in the history of mankind has been able to do all these things by him/herself. If we all went back to doing self-sustaining things, the level of technology we would enjoy would be absolutely dismal. I'm gonna fudge some numbers here but its purely for illustrative purposes. The division of labor has basically allowed ten people who specialize their industry to provide for a thousand more. By comparison, in unspecialized economies, if the produce of ten people working separately were added up, it probably wouldn't even be enough to support half of them. Ricardo, Smith, Turgot, the Spanish Scholastics have been dealing with these things for centuries and its basic economic theory.

Money doesntmake sense to me.

Money was a natural out-growth of ever-widening trade. When you trade with people you do not intimately know, there is no way of telling how much of his product you get for his, because neither of you were there to witness each other's contributions to your respective communities. Money serves the purpose (among others) as being a store-house or value.

Honestly, it strikes me as a survival mechanism invented by people who couldn't take care of themselves.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Money was not invented by anyone in particular, and especially not by government decree. In point of fact, considering that all economic transactions are mutually-beneficial, if you were to add up all voluntary purchases and sales throughout all of history, you would find that everybody was properly remunerated. I exclude "sales" to governments because they are coerced (taxes) but you could readily argue that taxes (even horrible ones) are the fair price for living in a particular society.

Maybe because they were too busy managing the peons...

This sounds like a reference to either bureaucrats or greedy corporate types or both. As far as bureaucrats go, let me assure you, the vast majority of government agents have absolutely no capacity to innovate. They are the epitome of inefficiency and stagnation. Such a useful device as money--which has allowed civilization to flourish to the point it is at--would've never been developed by one of them. And as far as greedy corporate types go, remember they only get to keep their jobs and get rich if they do their job well. That is, if they satisfy consumer demand better than their competitors.

Not to pick on you Python, but many people are under the assumption that doing everything for yourself is "better" than the current system. What they lack is an understanding of comparative advantage and opportunity costs, which sadly, most college professors barely cover. Think of it this way: without money we would probably still be stuck in some crappy neolithic farming village eating nothing but tubers for our entire lives. No sanitation, no internet, no hope, and a guaranteed death at 30 from something silly like arthritis.

Personals / Re: RAF Diet meetups
« on: October 17, 2008, 11:56:31 pm »
Italy sounds like a good spot to me especially mid summer. Good quality food, good weather and good kitesurfing!.

The East and West coasts of the states sound good too.

I'm beginning to sense a common thread here ;)

Northern Italy sounds awesome, but might pose a problem for some Americans (like me) who have to make due with a tanking currency. I would imagine exchange rates would be crappy. That being said, Europeans would probably have more purchasing power here as their national monies seem to be stronger. I read some articles a while back saying that New Yorker businesses no longer exchange their euros and pounds for dollars because the favorable exchange rates (to Europeans) has led to a boom in tourism, and they just trade their foreign currencies back to the tourists.

So ... maybe New York (state) as a focal point? This might make the trips longer for Australians, but most everyone else could get there easily. Just a consideration ...

Journals / Re: Yuri recovery
« on: October 17, 2008, 01:45:41 am »
Dr. Blake F. Donaldson in a book called Strong Medicine, says: during the millions of years that our ancestors lived by hunting, every weakling who could not maintain perfect health on fresh fat meat and water was bred out. I can’t escape my fate…

The only advice I can offer here is to tell you not to buy into bad genetics so soon. If the statement you attributed to Dr. Donaldson is true, then you should be fine because anyone with faulty genes would have died long ago before becoming a (distant) ancestor of yours, or anyone else. There shouldn't be a person on Earth who can't digest meat and fat with a reasonably healthy digestive system.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: EGGS
« on: October 16, 2008, 11:49:21 pm »
I found out I and my 5 year old boy are allergic to fake eggs / un-fertilized eggs / chicken menstruation.

I keep seeing this occasionally. Are unfertilized eggs really just chicken periods? Man if that's true, I'm gonna have some serious fun telling everyone who's eating eggs that!

Off Topic / Re: Nutritional Link to Violent Crimes?
« on: October 10, 2008, 01:37:38 pm »
Your criteria for ruling out other factors is very vague and the example does not prove your point.

To be honest, there wasn't a point I was trying to prove, only a family of variables to eliminate for the sake of scientific study. People who kill to survive are certainly bad people, but they are at least responding to a biologically viable stimulus: i.e., don't die. Never mind if they will or will not survive based on the crime they commit, as long as they perceive a threat to their own survival and a need to commit that crime. Despite their willingness to commit crimes we can (arguably) say that their brains are reacting rationally to some sort of valid stimulus: I am poor. I need money. I will steal money from someone and kill them if I have to to get it would be an understandable (though not forgivable) line of reasoning. What is more difficult to understand is why someone would kill simply for the sake of killing, with little or no payoff.

We can just as easily assume that the armed robber killed the clerk for fun and that the money is just a prize.  In giving the criminal a motive we've created and accepted a non-testable hypothesis.

If our hypothetical armed robber's primary motivation for killing the clerk was fun and not money, then there would be no reason to exclude him from this study as his (or her) ability to reason is probably impaired. Also, the idea is not necessarily to assign motive, but to glean it from study of these types of individuals. Motives that have economic rationale, IMO, would not be suitable for the study because their brains are working fine (although they are still jerks); crimes without rationale and that suggest some sort of synaptic misfiring would be perfect.

Also, it might not be that difficult to establish correlation. For the very worst offenders, serial killers, serial rapists, etc., getting good clean data is probable I should think, considering that many of these types are very methodical to the point of pathological OCD in everything that they do (especially crime). They are liable to eat the same things, at the same times, with very little variation. Self-reporting should not be an issue either, since there are no awards to win, and telling the data collector the "right" combinations of foods gets him out of prison no sooner. I would think someone asking a serial killer what they ate would seem extremely mundane. And even if they wanted to lie about what they ate, what criteria would they use to base their fabrication on? To be safe, a data collector could just omit what he really wants to know about the criminal (i.e., dietary habits).

I agree in advance that I am generalizing the serial killer/rapist mental state. Obviously I am aware that the possibility exists of just such a criminal without OCD tendencies. But I would hazard to say that most fit the general mold. After all, many of them are caught on the basis of not being able to vary their routines enough, therefore ultimately giving themselves away. But given an extreme propensity for obsessive tendencies as well as acting to such violent extremes, often without any rational reason, these types of people would be perfect for studying possible links between poor nutrition and anti-social behavior, IMO. Hell, submitting to such a study is the least they can do for society anyway ...

So I guess my hypothesis is: Poor nutrition causes varying degrees of anti-social behavior; furthermore, good nutrition may play a role in mitigating anti-social behavior.

And I liked that article!

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: October 10, 2008, 08:00:26 am »
By lower flank pain, do you really mean to say right upper abdominal pain, just under ribcage?

Actually, I meant pain in my lower back toward the side. I associate this with kidney issues, but pain seems to be the only symptom I have. I have never peed blood, urinated frequently, or had really bad itchy skin. This could also just be lower back pain, but I thought I noticed a correlation between eating a high-fat meal and having some pain later. I'll need to watch this more closely and vary some factors to know for sure, but I was just wondering if anybody else had this kind of deal.

But, yes, Kristelle, I do have gall bladder issues from time to time. When it was bad, I would have an incredibly tight feeling directly in the center of my chest, like my sternum (xiphoid process) needed to pop or something. Other times there was just a tightness in the mid-right torso. Its a good thing the gall bladder is on the right side of the body, because I would've convinced myself I had major heart issues otherwise!

Off Topic / Nutritional Link to Violent Crimes?
« on: October 10, 2008, 07:51:27 am »
More than a few nutritionists believe that nutrition plays an important role in brain chemistry, almost to the point of determining whether a particular individual will function normally in society or whether that individual will have a hard time "playing nice" with others. Even between these, though, you'll find a division between those who believe that nutrition has the greatest impact during childhood and those who say nutrition throughout all life is significant in determining sanity.

What I thought would be interesting is looking for correlations between poor nutrition and violent criminals. I must clarify though, that we should factor out non-psychological factors as much as possible. For instance, a scenario involving an armed robber killing a convenience store clerk for whats in the cash drawer would probably be better classified as economically motivated, i.e. stealing money in that person's opinion was easier than simply working for it. Correlations should be looked for in those violent offenders who appear to commit crimes for the sake (or thrill) of committing crimes and not simply for the payoffs.

Anybody got any stories, articles, etc.?

General Discussion / Re: Salt is a chemical
« on: October 10, 2008, 02:47:22 am »
The Bear's link doesn't appear to have anything diet related in it. All I see is silver, enamel, and some Grateful Dead stuff. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot?

I had never encountered 'the Bear' before coming to this forum, but I have to say, the guy sounds like an ass. The only two messages I've read from him to members here were highly dismissive and almost seemed to go against keep a questioning attitude. Both indicated that the questions were pointless and that if you don't like the lifestyle go somewhere else. One of the criteria I use in adding/changing nutritional habits is what the average disposition is of the people who have been doing it. Are they calm? Healthy? Happy? Vegetarianism turned me off because a lot of the veg eaters I knew seemed like ticking emotional time bombs. And I'd have to say, whatever the Bear says will be taken with a grain of salt by me because his lifestyle choices have obviously not been working for him if he's such a crab. True, there could be mitigating circumstances, but I'd be suspicious.

Salt is in ALL tissues, the blood is not different in any way. Animals bleed out when torn apart by a carnivore, very few of which bother to kill their prey before eating them.

Not all the blood is lost and not all carnivores tear apart animals so completely as to spill all of their blood on the ground. Considering that blood is a source of good nutrition that is easily obtained once the animal is killed, it would seem odd of Nature to select for berserker-style carcass mutilation in carnivores. A more likely adaptation would be the ability to quickly deliver a killing blow, bite, or swipe without needless wasting of the energy in their fresh kill. Consider also the tremendous amount of energy needed to 'tear apart' another animal. What would be the point? Also, many animals lap up anything they spill on the ground, and some (cats) have highly abrasive tongues that can lick just about every speck of organic matter from any surface (even dirt).

Considering humans: in order for paleolithic humans to 'tear apart' their prey, they would have to kill it then gather around it, and immediately start hacking away at it with the sharpest implements they have. That would not be machetes, BTW, it would be flint tools. True this was probably done later when the kill was being dressed, but once again, they have the choice in wasting such a nutritious resource, or conserving it by being careful in their dressing methods. I highly doubt humans engaged in such wasteful activities. And, if they did not, then they would have had copious amounts of blood to ingest. Furthermore, if blood was consumed for a long time (millions of years) then our bodies are most likely adapted to having it, along with its high sodium content. Supplementing with good salt therefore should not be frowned upon. However, if you've gotten by without it, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

Off Topic / Re: ravenous
« on: October 10, 2008, 01:42:58 am »
Cannibalism was, apparently, very much a part of the Palaeolithic Diet that our ancestors practised.(though there are other claims that the bones were either eaten by other mammals, not humans, or that humans simply scraped and cleaned the bones of the dead prior to burial).

This is something I've never come across in literature. I've read of modern primitives engaging in cannibalism in isolated areas as a ritualistic practice tied to warfare, but never as a widespread phenomenon. Do you have links regarding the paleolithic practice of it?

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: October 10, 2008, 12:54:10 am »
I've been eating some white lamb fat recently. Not sure if its suet or hide fat as Slanker's didn't say, but its kind of weird. First of all, the stuff is sticky as hell. Its like peanut butter only 18,000 times more annoying. I had a decent portion in the afternoon with some beef chili meat and it wasn't until I woke up this morning that it had finally all gotten out of my mouth. Needless to say, using my tongue to scrape fat particles for hours on end has left my mouth feeling dry and tender, especially the top of my tongue and the roof of my mouth. Other than that, I recall feeling very panicky after eating some yesterday with a barely noticeable breathing difficulty. It took about an hour for that to go away. I've noticed similar things with beef suet, whether its partially cooked or completely raw. Also, it seems like I get a recurring lower flank pain a little while after I eat the stuff that lasts for a few hours.

Are all these things normal? I wonder if I'm overdoing it. I think for the time being I'm just going to eat fatty chili meat without any extra fat added to it until this stuff gets sorted out. Maybe I need to get much better fat or something?

Info / News Items / Announcements / Re: Glucose / Fructose
« on: October 05, 2008, 07:49:11 am »
I do not believe that an all carnivorous diet is one that we have evolved on for any length of time as a species.

I think "all-carnivorous" should probably be qualified better. Strictly speaking, I'd say your statement is right, Satya. We certainly do have the ability to easily digest and assimilate small amounts of plant and fruit matter. But whether a member of a paleolithic society was all-carnivorous or omnivorous probably had more to do with season. In areas with harsh winters, I would imagine that in wintertime the daily staple was some form of preserved meat/fat ration, possibly intentionally left over from big-game hunts in the fall. Then in the spring and summer, the diet would have switched to omnivorous as small game proliferated and berries were ripe. Mind you, this example better fits the setting for northern Europe/Canada, than say savanna hunters in Africa. But I feel safe saying that wide swings in diet were conditional on seasons and that with few exceptions, no society was 100% carnivore.

I don't think it would be a bad pursuit to follow something akin to this either: changing dietary styles with the season. However, I also don't think that one should consider just the season. If some paleolithic societies were exclusively carnivorous during harsh winters, it could just have been due to much lower activity levels. What is there to do really when you can't hunt or gather? I seem to keep coming across a growing body of anecdotal evidence saying that all-carnivorous diets do wonders for preventing muscle wasting. Consequently, the same societies may have eaten considerably more berries (not apples, bananas, or oranges) and possibly tubers in less lean times, when they would have been more active. Maybe tailoring dietary swings would be better off according to activity levels? But then it might be prudent to give your system a "break" occasionally in the form of an artificial "season". I don't know if we have a physiological calendar regarding a rhythm in seasons, but if we do, being exclusively omnivorous or exclusively carnivorous all of your life may be problematic (but not as bad as being exclusively anti-carnivorous ;))

General Discussion / Re: What are you eating right now?
« on: October 02, 2008, 01:43:44 pm »
I had some two week old raw liver last night. It smelled bad (which bothered the GF far more than me) but had a very tangy and sharp taste. It wasn't bad. I'm gonna have the rest for breakfast tomorrow. I was a bit worried though since I haven't aired it out for many days.

This makes me wonder: is there a considerable difference between meat that is aired out regularly and meat that is not? Is it a difference between aerobic and anaerobic fermentation?

General Discussion / Re: high meat
« on: October 01, 2008, 08:00:56 am »
now, here's my own theory:
the overgrowth of yeast, mold, or other fungi in high meat results in some sort of gluconeogenesis, whereby high meat ends up being high in carbs

by ingesting a lot of any kind of carb, fluid or solid, the body becomes serotonin resistant... & depression ensues

You are suggesting that the body will become high-meat resistant then? Has anybody who eats high meat on a regular basis noticed a building resistance and/or depression?

Welcoming Committee / Re: Greetings from Sarav...
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:54:38 am »
Not all Indians are vegetarians, but I believe there is a large "nutritional sub-culture" of Indians who practice vegetarianism. From what I understand, it also takes on a sort of quasi-religious aspect. Feel free to correct me on this, though, Sarav. And welcome!

General Discussion / Re: Mixed Blood
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:49:33 am »
This is something that I have wondered about, too. I do think that some changes are possible, however slight. I don't believe that any large changes have had a chance to occur, though.

If there is enough time for physical changes on the outside. There is enough time for internal changes too. Correct? Enough time for humans to get diverse on the outside, but not on the inside? That doesn't make sense.

I understand the temptation of equating these two types of changes: digestive and appearance. One change involves elements of the metabolic system: stomach, intestines, etc. The other involves skin. We are talking about organs, but we can't necessarily say that if one organ can change over short periods of time, then other (all) organs can do the same. This might be the case, and it might not, but making an external change and an internal change interchangeable (pun intended) because they sound the same is a logical fallacy. IMO, much more research needs to be done in this arena. If people are susceptible to different genetic tolerances of food, then that's something we would all be better off knowing about.

There are, however, some decent arguments regarding short-term digestive changes. Like Kristelle pointed out, some people can digest lactose. She also alluded to chronic disease being the result of these kinds of dietary changes. One argument along these lines is that early in the Neolithic period, the massive dietary shift away from carnivorism and toward grain eating might have resulted in a large number of deaths of people who absolutely could not handle the new foods. As long as they died before reaching the age of reproduction (ie. problematic birth, childhood issues, etc.) then they would not have had a chance to pass this massive food intolerance on to future generations. Those that did survive to reach reproductive age would have been our ancestors, and thus, most people tend to have some measurable tolerance to "unnatural" foods, at least for awhile. I guess you could call this Artificial Selection. Note, however, that chronic diseases that can kill you at the age of thirty (due to sub-par nutrition) would not have been bred out, and would have been passed down as most people tend to reproduce when they're young (and apparently) healthy. Tolerance might have been passed down but complete adaptation would probably take far longer to achieve.

And as far as skin goes: remember that its the organ that takes the most beating on a consistent basis. Unlike the digestive system which could depend on the same foods for millions of years long ago, the skin was always and is always exposed to vastly different environments. It seems logical that if anything were going to change in the short term, it would be the skin, eyes, hair, etc.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Glycogen on a raw carnivore diet
« on: September 25, 2008, 12:52:08 pm »
I believe that recovery time may be a HUGE factor in this zero carb deal. Especially after some of my recent experiences above anerobic threshold. Have a huge training session one day then do nothing for a few days so your glycogen levels can be replenished. This makes sense in terms of killing a woolly mamooth and then feasting for a week.

Still early days and I really don't know what I'm talking about!

I think you definitely know what you're talking about, lol. I've read some articles that would tend to agree with you. They basically posit that paleolithic man would have been more adapted to short, extremely powerful bursts of energy rather than extremely long, low power trickles (like marathon running). Its far more likely that big game hunting would have followed the former scenario, and most likely not the latter.

Just one comparison between a long-distance runner and a sprinter does it for me. Most sprinters are very well built and seem full of vitality. Marathon runners, by contrast, look kind of meek to me, almost sickly ... and damn skinny.

Anyway, I've read that paleolithic man's exercise regimen consisted of hunting, dancing, and lots of rest in between. I know dancing sounds weird, but some writers believe that it was very common. Maybe good for stress relief, or maybe important for the community's reproduction rate ... who knows.

Journals / Re: Keith's Journal
« on: September 24, 2008, 12:21:34 pm »
Good luck on asking this girl out! I'd like to offer any tips I can, but really its just a matter of confidence ... and experience, lol. Just don't tell her about how much you love those raw lamb hearts  ;).

Journals / Re: Squall's Journal
« on: September 24, 2008, 11:55:04 am »
I'm finding that eating all raw is hard for me. I'm having serious hunger issues, but the thought of eating raw (especially suet) makes me want to gag ... either that or just not eat.

I don't think suet was a good idea. I'm going to get hide fat next time. Even the blandness of the ground beef I'm eating is unappealing. The suet is really sticky when I chew it. Its almost like glue in my mouth. I'm finding that I'm having serious cravings for any cooked food: fatty, salty, sugary, I don't care! Partially cooking is more pleasing to my palate but leaves me feeling heavy. Oh, I'm also consuming beef liver uncooked in the morning. Its been the least surprising of all, as I was sure that I would not like it from the beginning.

It makes me wonder how long these cravings for cooked food will last. This is normal right?

General Discussion / Re: Bitter Sweet Legumes
« on: September 24, 2008, 05:44:31 am »
Legumes are forbidden on a paleo diet, whether cooked or raw, for a reason.

But what's the reason, though?

General Discussion / Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« on: September 22, 2008, 10:48:34 am »
I'll have to research the biochemistry but ptyalin may very well chemically interfere with the digestive action of other enzymes based on pH or other chemistry factors.

I was gonna post some stuff that I thought might help you from wikipedia when I stumbled on some contradictory information.

The following was taken from the Amylase entry under ?-Amylase on that site:

In animals, it is a major digestive enzyme and its optimum pH is 6.7-7.0.

The following was taken from the Alpha-Amylase entry, under Salivary Amylase (ptyalin)

Optimum pH - 8.3

Thought that was funny. If I get the inclination I'll check the discussion pages to see if anyone noticed that or if there are any plans to synchronize some entries. Maybe biochemistry isn't well represented on wikipedia?

General Discussion / Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« on: September 22, 2008, 09:49:53 am »
incidentally, here's my own experience with high meat:
~ i tried it for a couple of months
~ i never got around to liking it, but wanted to believe it was advantageous for all raw paleo eaters/devotees/experts/connoisseurs in the know
~ in the us -- so i was told by a sales person at both a meat & a fish shops -- all meat for lawful retail sale is devoid of blood, oftentimes pre-frozen (by usda regulation, liver is always previously or currently frozen), & always thoroughly washed at least with chlorinated water (if not also with detergents or who knows what) >> is it high-meatable at all?
~ eventually i found apparently reliable scientific info which convinced me, at least for the time being, that meat fermentations are deleterious

I've yet to create high meat, but from what I've learned on here liver doesn't end up being so much high "meat" as it ends up being a high soup ... if you can picture a fermented soup of dissolved organ parts (and now picture the smell). It would be high in bacteria but I'm not sure even the inuit could stomach that. Someone should dare Aajonus to drink some of that on Ripley's Believe or Not lol.

Also I believe Tyler said that he's tried using frozen meat for high meat and that he did not get the same effect. I would imagine the quality (grass-fed vs. grain-fed) might also play into it, but I'm no expert. Good high meats might actually be the result of being highly selective amongst the various options.

When I start making high meat, I'd like to chew as much of it as possible, although I won't hesitate to bolt it if my gag reflex starts clicking in!

I'm curious. Did you suffer any negative effects while consuming high meat coco?

General Discussion / Fat Rankings
« on: September 21, 2008, 11:30:25 am »
Can i trouble some of the veteran RPD'ers here to post a ranking of which fats they consider the best? Something like:

1. Brains
2. Hide fat
3. Suet
4. etc.

I'm really just looking for opinions and not necessarily hard science.

Off Topic / Re: Tell me 25 things about yourself
« on: September 21, 2008, 11:21:39 am »

I like this site, too! I remember when I was a kid and learning about astronomy was so fun. Then it just kinda stagnated until I found that site. Its like I'm a kid again!

Off Topic / Re: Tell me 25 things about yourself
« on: September 21, 2008, 08:08:13 am »
1. I have blonde hair and blue eyes
2. I was born in the US South (Arkansas), spent most of my childhood in Alaska, and my teenage years in southern California
3. Although I spent 8.5 years in the navy, I only ever visited Dubai (UAE), Bahrain, and Singapore. And Hawaii, too, but that isn't exactly foreign for me.
4. I'm a software developer working for a large corporation
5. I'm not a large fan of the corporate culture or the market implications of governments insulating business firms from risk
6. I don't have a degree. I consider myself an economics major but have postponed school indefinitely (mainly for real world business experience)
7. I like to read books, but the only fiction I enjoy these days is satire
8. I have a motorcycle I haven't ridden in months ... mainly because its registered in another state (and its expired ... oops!)
9. I hate math
10. I drink coffee out of tea cups and tea out of coffee mugs (trying to quit these though)
11. Most of the rock bands I really like are either run-of-the-mill vegetarians, PETA-supporting vegans, or left-leaning punk rockers. (Is it too much to ask for a meat-eating Libertarian group?)
12. I think politics is a sham, and agree with the saying: 'Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner'
13. The things I'm most passionate about these days are: nutrition, economics, web programming
14. Of all the people my friends know, I'm almost positive they would consider me the weirdest
15. I don't swim very well.
16. World of Warcraft might have destroyed my previous relationship (I've been playing since it came out)
17. Courier New is my favorite font
18. Many women I have met in the past have thought I was gay because I can articulate and I have more than three facial expressions
19. I have a wide screen LCD TV of good quality but I never watch it.
20. I think the majority of television programs are making an already ignorant population even worse
21. I am somewhat of a perfectionist, and could consider myself OCD in many respects
22. I think Western Civilization has been somewhat of a mixed bag for the world, with its peak being between the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century.
23. I agree with boxcarguy07 regarding Ron Paul, although ordinarily I'm of the opinion that politicians are unique in history as being the only members of society who actually get paid to make it worse whereas everyone else works to enrich the lives of others through exchange
24. Many people take my analyses and constructive criticisms of problems in society as being overly pessimistic and contrarian ... but of course I'd never agree with that ;)
25. I'm a giant nerd when it comes to properly declining latin nouns that are still used in modern language (appendix, index, analysis, etc.)

Off Topic / Re: Tell me 25 things about yourself
« on: September 21, 2008, 04:55:34 am »
Is the object to follow your exact format, or to just list 25 things about yourself?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk