Who are your neighbors? Are you friends with them, barely say hi, or avoid them altogether? Tell us a story — real or invented — about the people on the other side of your wall (or street, or farm, or… you get the point).
Howdy ho neighbour! No, no such luck. No wise man quiet neighbour on the other side of the fence for me. Well I don’t have a fence. My parents and I live on the 7th floor of a small building and right now we have no neighbour opposite us as the apartment is empty. But it will soon be occupied by two cops; one of the apartment owners / residents has just been promoted to high court judge and hence he will be getting official security in the form of two policemen who will accompany him on his trips and who will stay in the 3 bedroom unit opposite us until he gets new quarters.
Some of the others aren’t people who I would normally associate myself with. At one time the neighbours opposite us were ok enough for small chats but mostly everyone here keeps to themselves. We have some fundamental religious folks in a couple of the apartments, related to each other, and well I wouldn’t normally talk to them but for the fact that they are neighbours. Some neighbours give out food or sweets during festivals and holidays and we do the same for other festivals. I say hi to a few of the kids in the building and that’s about it. I am cordial and polite and smile when I see them but never more than a casual 2 minute conversation.
I don’t like a couple of them, they are assholes. You get a good mix even in a small building like ours of 14 apartments.
If you could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Why?
Well there are quite a few ones. What the heck is the word attrited? There is no such word but the MNC world in India uses this word a lot. I guess we could make it a word, start a new dictionary and add this word in. But until then, stop using it.
Blessed is another one. What the fuck are you saying that for? To say that your god preferred you over all those other millions? Yesh! I feel “blessed”. I am gonna puke. To say the least a lot of very religion connected words ought to be banned. Blasphemy as in the religious term; not only should it be banned but it should be laughed outta society as a whole. No such thing as a blasphemy charge. Killing is bad, a cartoon or a joke isn’t!
Oh another thing, and it’s not just one word – it’s several, usage of Hindi words in English sentences. Words like gyan, dil, ishq do not belong in a sentence in English. Unless you are saying the name of a Hindi movie while speaking in English. Also stop mixing them up in your film titles. You sound retarded!
Burnley suffered, what would seem like a cruel, defeat at Turf Moor as Arsenal secured victory with a controversial Laurent Koscielny goal in the final act of an intriguing match. In added time, Theo Walcott headed across goal towards Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain whose effort went in off what appeared to be Koscielny’s elbow. As well as a possible handball, there was also a hint of offside with captain Koscielny standing on the goalline. Michael Keane had Burnley’s best chance, heading on to the crossbar. But despite the Clarets’ fine defensive display, with Keane in particular impressing as they shut out Arsenal until the 94th minute, they came away with no points for their efforts.
The win allowed Arsenal to close the gap on league leaders Manchester City, who lost 2-0 at Tottenham in one of Sunday’s earlier kick-offs, to two points while overtaking Liverpool to claim third place. Manager Arsene Wenger admitted his team were fortunate in victory but with this result at Turf Moor, and convincing victories over Chelsea in the league and Basel in the Champions League in the last week, the north Londoners have hit a fine run of form, extending their unbeaten stretch to six league games. Immediately after the match, Koscielny – who was credited with the goal – said he did not know whether he had handled. “I tried with my right foot and I don’t know if I touch it with my hand,” the Frenchman said. Even though Burnley did not appeal for handball at the time, their manager Sean Dyche said afterwards the ball “quite clearly” hit the defender’s hand. To add to the confusion Arsenal’s winner caused, Oxlade-Chamberlain celebrated as if he had scored but the England international’s shot did appear to hit Koscielny’s arm before it crossed the line, while Dyche even suggested that it was the Arsenal captain who kicked the ball on to his own arm.
As another caveat, if it were the case that Oxlade-Chamberlain did kick the ball on to Koscielny’s arm, the defender would have been in an offside position. “You have to question the added time, the corner and whether it should have come in, the handball and question whether we should have dealt with it,” added Dyche. “It’s a poor way to end a game.” But no matter what the theories or Dyche’s thoughts, referee Craig Pawson saw nothing wrong with the winner which secured Arsenal a fifth successive Premier League win and ensured another win for Wenger as the 21st year of the 66-year-old’s reign began. Arsenal were their usual selves in possession – accurate, quick, dominant – but their pleasing-on-the-eye play would often break down as soon as they closed in on the Burnley box, in the first half especially.
The visitors had just one shot on target before the break – a trifling Mesut Ozil attempt in the 16th minute – and so organised were Burnley in defence, it quickly became clear why Dyche’s side had conceded only five goals in their last 17 league games at home before this match. Ozil was as disappointing as he was effervescent in the 3-0 win over Chelsea, his game summed up with a wayward shot which sailed into the stands when there were better options available to him. Wenger admitted his team were jaded after three matches in eight days. As the match progressed, the Gunners threatened more with Alexis Sanchez their most dangerous player, forcing a low save from goalkeeper Tom Heaton and then striking the bottom corner of the post after Burnley had failed to deal with an Ozil cross.
We’ve all heard that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Do you agree? is all beauty contingent on a subjective point of view?
I agree completely. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though there are some things that are common throughout. Some women are considered classic beauties and mostly throughout the world most men and women would agree that those women are really beautiful. Same goes for men (though I have no interest in that aspect). But there are some women who may not seem all that beautiful to most folks or to some folks but I feel that they are absolutely gorgeous. Especially because they are kind-hearted, nice and sweet.
What about nature? I guess that is almost universal though I tend to like some places more than most. Sunsets, sunrises, animals, birds and even insects – I tend to find beauty in them. Snow capped mountains and even cities or towns; some shots of the fading light hitting the snow can look awesome. Waterfalls, forests, lakes, meadows, plateaus, planets, nebulas, galaxies, asteroid – they can all look beautiful too.
What about other things? Cars, bikes, boats, ships, buses, planes, trains, spaceships, starships! So many many things I find beauftiful
Now here is a firm favourite of mine ever since I first saw this beauty on tv back in the early 2000s. During the mid-22nd century, the Klingon Empire operated a type of small warship known as the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. This class is one of the earliest class of starships encountered by Earth Starfleet during the early 2150s. The first encounter occurred on the outer perimeter of the Sol system in early 2153. Starfleet, however, had known of the existence of these ships as early as late 2151.
This Bird-of-Prey design was revamped over the next two centuries, and was used to represent several different variations of this class that were collectively known under the same name. Comparable in design to its sister classes, the Raptor-class scout and D5-class battle cruiser, the exterior design of the Bird-of-Prey utilized the same basic avian design, including vaguely feather-like hull plating on its wings. The bulk of the ship’s overall mass was incorporated in the aft section of the ship. The bridge module was located on a bulbous forward section, which was separated from the aft section by a relatively thin ‘neck’ that attached to and flared into the aft portion which swept down below the main body, forming wings.
Located on the caudal section of the ship were the ship’s shuttlebay, impulse engines and two warp nacelles. The port and starboard nacelles were directly connected to the extreme upper aft section of the ship, perpendicular to the impulse engine. (ENT: “The Augments”, “Divergence”) The offensive arsenal of the Bird-of-Prey was rather impressive, for the time, as the ship possessed at least eight forward disruptor banks, including a twin pair of neck-mounted disruptor cannons, a pair of wing-tip mounted disruptor cannons, and a 360º rotating turret containing twin belly-mounted disruptor cannons. The class was also equipped with dual photon torpedo launchers, positioned fore and aft, and defensive shields. (ENT: “The Expanse”, “Borderland”, “Cold Station 12”) This class, however, had minimal aft weapons.
Prior to the refitting of Enterprise, one Bird-of-Prey was more than a match with the NX-class; however, it was unable to repel three older Earth vessels at one time. After Enterprise was upgraded, it was nearly an even match with the Bird-of-Prey. (ENT: “The Expanse”) This class of Bird-of-Prey could outgun an Orion Interceptor, two to one. (ENT: “Borderland”) This class of vessel was equipped with tractor beam technology. It had one emitter located on the underside of each wing that, when used in conjunction, could be used to manipulate a ship to its belly docking port. (ENT: “Borderland”) Unlike the Raptor class, this class of Bird-of-Prey was equipped with escape pods. The Bird-of-Prey’s escape pod hatch was also located on the belly of the ship. (ENT: “The Augments”)
One major flaw of the Bird-of-Prey’s design was found at the nape of the ship’s neck and primary hull; a direct hit on the main plasma junction, located above the sensor array, could disable the entire power grid. (ENT: “The Augments”) The shuttlebay was located on the extreme aft of the ship, directly below the impulse engines. It was large enough in capacity to store a Denobulan medical ship. (ENT: “Cold Station 12”, “The Augments”) Like the Raptor-class scouts of this era, live food was kept aboard these Birds-of-Prey in the targ pits, presumably adjacent to the galley.
Located in the “head” of the forward section of the vessel, the bridge, which was plated with dispersive armor, was one of the most protected sections of the ship. (ENT: “The Augments”) The configuration of the Bird-of-Prey’s main bridge shared with many features found in contemporary designs. In the front of the bridge, against the forward bulkhead, was the ship’s viewscreen. Directly behind the viewscreen, near the center of the bridge was the captain’s chair. Directly behind the captain’s chair, was the entryway to the bridge, with two manned consoles located on either side of the doorway. Along the perimeter of the bridge were several stations, each designated for a specific task.
How do you handle conflict? Boldly and directly? Or, do you prefer a more subtle approach?
I think it depends on the situation and where you are and who is with you or without you. It blows my mind as to how confidently and arrogantly with a lot of boisterous aplomb some people, mostly guys, will strut and huff and puff when surrounded by a group of their cronies but when it’s them one on one or with just a single crony or two, they calm down and may seem quite docile and humble and reasonable.
So I would say let’s do more one on ones or small groups of around the same size to see what I would feel is a more balanced debate. Also let’s be bold but not harm anyone or make it seem too personal. Let’s try and keep it non-confrontational and respectful but also call a spade a spade.