Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
fredo4
ParticipantVegas lost it’s charm for me when they started trying to “class it up”. In college we used to have some great times scouting out the cheesiest lounge acts and playing those nickle plastic horse racing games while scoring free drinks.
I remember this great tiki bar that was like a plastic tropical plant oasis with a dancing waters show. And prime rib dinners for $2.99. Now, not only is Vegas not classy, but it’s not cheesy enough to be fun anymore either. It used to have a certain innocence about it (despite being run by the mob) that no longer exists.ParticipantVegas lost it’s charm for me when they started trying to “class it up”. In college we used to have some great times scouting out the cheesiest lounge acts and playing those nickle plastic horse racing games while scoring free drinks.
I remember this great tiki bar that was like a plastic tropical plant oasis with a dancing waters show. And prime rib dinners for $2.99. Now, not only is Vegas not classy, but it’s not cheesy enough to be fun anymore either. It used to have a certain innocence about it (despite being run by the mob) that no longer exists.ParticipantVegas lost it’s charm for me when they started trying to “class it up”. In college we used to have some great times scouting out the cheesiest lounge acts and playing those nickle plastic horse racing games while scoring free drinks.
I remember this great tiki bar that was like a plastic tropical plant oasis with a dancing waters show. And prime rib dinners for $2.99. Now, not only is Vegas not classy, but it’s not cheesy enough to be fun anymore either. It used to have a certain innocence about it (despite being run by the mob) that no longer exists.ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
ParticipantI would love to continue this interesting debate, but am moving and will be without internet service for a few days. Dave, you are a formidable(albeit slightly grouchy) opponent. Tg- you really should start a blog, you’re great. You crack my husband Guido up too. I’ll check in next week.
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.
What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.
It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”
I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up![/quote]
Ok, whatever you say Dave. But I’m not the one trying to convince everyone how happy and non grouchy I am.
Participantdupe
-
AuthorPosts
