text:
You may remember RF's takedown last month of the Vox video auteurs' latest bit of anti-gun agitprop. The Voxen artfully used cherry-picked and questionably relatable data to make their case — yet again — against Americans' Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms. It was egregious enough, in fact, that our friend Steven Crowder felt compelled to take a crack at it too, and he hits it out of the rhetorical park. But sometimes we wonder if we're all wasting our breath . . .
We devote a lot of electrons every day to countering inane, illogical, emotional and downright false presentations by the forces of civilian disarmament designed to degrade our Second Amendment freedoms. As the esteemed Mr. Crowder demonstrates, we're hardly the only ones in that business. But does it do any good? Does it change any hearts or minds? Is it all worth the effort?
111 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Is Fisking Anti-Gun Agitprop a Waste of Time?
Never Stop. They won't. The genpop needs to know.
Well said. I especially liked the subtle implication (or did I infer it?) that we're effectively all prisoners.
As is often said, you don't debate for the opponent, you do it for the audience.
This is an extremely important point.
The answer is yes, at least most of the time, as it distracts from the important work of winning the argument pro actively. In other words, anti gunners put anything and everything out there and we waste time thinking about "fishing it" while they dream up more drivel for us to fisk. Public relations is the name of the game and frankly, the Shannon Watts of the world are better at it than we are.
Look forward, not back. Proact, not react. IMHO
"it distracts from the important work of winning the argument pro actively" Very well said.
Not as long as the fisking shows up in Google. What would be disastrous is some naive fence sitter googling a topic and finding only one side.
Right felix, but we should be reaching the fence sitters with our own material first. Again, not reacting to something thats already out there.
We already came out with our material first. It's called the Bill of Rights.
Oh, that's great Michael, way to contribute to the conversation.
I agree we are stuck on reaction. The sticking point is going pro-active with compelling approaches the appeal, not thunder and lightning about "shall not infringe". We need to be attractive, not sticking a finger in the eye of everyone who is not a fanatical believer. We don't take the left by surprise, we keep falling into the same ditch.
Keep at it. Not rebuking bad info is tantamount to admitting that the information is fact. Today, we are already dealing with poor info out there, and if someone is trying to educate themselves on the matter of gun ownership, you don't want them to only be able to find bad information because they will then take that to mean that is the only information out there ergo, it is correct information.
I take your point but your premise is backwards. The best way to reach people is with original content thus being seen as the expert. Reacting is often viewed negatively by the uniitiated. Now, if you are speaking to the choir, then yes, debunking works because they are predisposed to believing it.
There are numerous sources of gun truth out there from the 11 subscriber youtuber all the way up to the NRA. Proactivity is not lacking as I see it. Rebuttal videos are excellent sources of information and the viewer can make up their own mind.
Ever see the "documentary" loose change? See the Popular Mechanics rebuttal? Without the counterpoint, I may have turned in to a "Truther". How about the rebuttal to the "False Flag Sandy Hook" video? Rebuttals do a great service on any topic.
Rebuttals do a great job but mainly target the choir. You're missing the point Michael.
If you look closely, all the defense of gun rights is reactive, even the NRA. Because the masses still restrict their info-gathering to friends, twits, facers and leftist media, supporters of the constitution do not get heard until they are put on the griddle to answer for yet another horrible gun use event. Our side always plays by the rules and behaves (at the national level) rather politely. One tactic we (and I mean all the pro-gun groups) should use is to overwhelm all the social media and news outlets with overwhelming and never ending stories about DGUs, women empowered because they found a means to neutralize a physical disparity between brute strength of men and women, children who are proud and active members of junior rifle teams, and whatever else we can find. Be relentless, persistent and loud. Eventually, the left wall will give enough to take us seriously.
Or just open carry.
I think you make a very valid point, but I suspect that the response from the uninitiated will depend heavily on the quality of the response.
The original statement will be granted a level of deference, as it may be perceived as novel and risk-taking and thus deserving of some leeway.
The response, on the other hand, enjoys a period of calculation and review. When preaching to the choir, you can build on familiar ground, make jokes that the faithful will find funny, and go on a rather brutal attack. When preaching to the undecided and unfamiliar, these techniques become divisive and petty. For that audience, a patient, thorough, and calculated takedown is essential. There are limits, though – you need to be patient, but not too patient (otherwise you are patronizing); you need to be thorough, but not too thorough (otherwise you are being pedantic); you need to be calculated, but not too calculated (otherwise you are being needlessly negative).
It's a challenge, and I think in the vast majority of cases the original content will be better received. But, for those with the time and inclination to do it well, the well-crafted response will win the day.
Nicely done.
I doubt anything will change the mind of the anti's. That's not the goal though. The goal is to educate the people in the middle who are still forming an opinion. If all they ever see is declarations of a public health crisis because 33,000 sons and daughters are slaughtered all the time then that is what they will start to believe is true. A good thorough fisking not only educates those in the middle with the facts, it also unveils the deceitful, agenda based motivations of original author. Even dumb people don't like to be treated as though they are dumb. This is why pointing out that the anti's are lying is a double win.
No, it's not a waste of time. Never give up, never surrender! It is better to have your principles shot out from beneath you than to simply roll over and stick your @$$ up in the air.
Just be civil and let the Statists screech and gibber and fling poo in their arguments; we'll stick to the High Road.
+++ for the "Galaxy Quest" reference
TY! It fits better than, "By Grabthar's Hammer!" so I used it.
Never stop. When we do, it gives the perception that they won. Perception is reality.
Well, I finished my "community service", (Legal Aid, usually two-three days a week) for the month, and this is just the topic to jump back in with.
It has been invigorating to joust with people on this blog, but in the end I know the truth. My side owns the culture, owns the media. We will soon own the Supreme Court.
The value to pro-gun supporters taking on every news release or gun sense video might be in using pieces from the blog where you refute the need for improved gun safety, and attack the information we put out for the public. You gotta believe your ideas will not be publicized in the way you want, so sending some of these blog postings to the "undecideds" might be helpful, here and there. But you will not ever get the wide spread circulation you want.
Tearing down a line of reasoning might be fun, is always possible, and might prove useful in isolated cases, so, to answer the question…you are pretty much wasting time not being part of the movement to make things safer for non-gun owners. What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not "go ballistic", will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated "gun grabber" that having guns in private hands is not something to fear.
That would be a good, no?
If you think provoking a civil war makes anybody "safer" you're deluded. Oh, and you won't own the SCotUS… Ever… Trump is going to be nominating a person to fill the current vacancy and we will make sure that there are plenty more for him to replace, just like you did with Scalia.
Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning.
"Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning."
And the ones they hold most precious above all others.
We're nowhere near that point, *yet*.
Gun rights are currently ascendant, and will continue that trajectory for the near future.
What your side, 2A, needs to be most concerned with, is adding the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. When the suspect list in a crime reaches the tens of millions of people, your immediate problem will be easy for even you to see…
"Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning."
Let me pretend to take you seriously. History since 1865 shows the people of this nation do not want a repeat, will not take up arms against the government, will not even support armed response after what are considered horrifying instances of government tyranny. Past is prologue; doubtful the law abiding in this country will suddenly become a rebel mob.
Oh my, such enthusiasm.
Do you really think the Republicrat Senate will do anything to cooperate with Trump? Take a look as how successful Jesse Ventura was as governor of Minisoda. Legislature hated him and very little got done for Jesse. Then he lost his office.
McConnell and others are not wild-eyed radical conservatives, they simply want to stay in office and go to the parties. The Senate will be faced with appointing a reasonable compromise justice, or deal with Hillary's nominee. The Repubs might retain house and Senate, but even so they cannot refuse to confirm a replacement for Scalia forever. The world won't stand still.
With Hillary as president, there will be so many executive orders that it will make your head spin. All the while, our side gets closer to holding the power for generations.
Remember while "your side" is sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to hear our arguments: those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
First Captain Obvious educates me that we live in a democracy during a Hotels.com commercial, then this guy teaches me that my rights and opinions are a pointless waste of time. This has been a very difficult week. Now I have to spend the weekend burning all of my literature about US history and ridicule myself for years of thinking that individual responsibility, personal accountability and liberty are important. I have been a fool all along.
See how much better that is than fisking his post? Submission is always a better answer.
Oh man, don't give up and run away. Takes all the fun out of it.
Don't worry. I don't believe you any more than I do Captain Obvious from the TV commercials.
That's obvious.
But maybe not prudent.
Tearing down a line of reasoning might be fun, is always possible, and might prove useful in isolated cases, so, to answer the question…you are pretty much wasting time not being part of the movement to make things safer for non-gun owners. What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not "go ballistic", will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated "gun grabber" that having guns in private hands is not something to fear.
2Asux, I don't speak for criminals intent on harming others (with guns or otherwise). I speak for myself. Your statement is completely unjust/unfair. You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities. This is why we have individual rights. We are not a collective – we are each unique. Blanketing anti-gun legislation over everyone in attempts to stop an extremely small percentage of criminals and crazy people is simply not just. We must be judged individually – not as a collective. It is really simple logic and as a nation we should not be victim to Majoritarianism and it's ever increasing hatred of options and freedom as the democratic party progressively approaches.
Well said.
"2Asux, I don't speak for criminals intent on harming others (with guns or otherwise). I speak for myself. Your statement is completely unjust/unfair. You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities. This is why we have individual rights. We are […]"
"Well said."
– If you don't like how the public perceives you, do something to change it.
"If you don't like how the public perceives you, do something to change it."
Why would I care how the public perceives me?
I care about my rights, and the rights of my fellow citizens.
Look dude, we get it, you will do anything to bend and when necessary, ignore the clear content of the constitution, because you don't care about it. All you want is to get your way – to empower the state at any level, any time and in any way.
Let me know when you want to accept the constitution; I care about it and have no issue with you having your rights, you need to start standing up for other people in the same way.
And don't bother responding, I know exactly what you will say already. Don't care, not going to even read it.
"And don't bother responding, I know exactly what you will say already. Don't care, not going to even read it."
The debate is not about you, but the audience !
Actually, I think the Supreme Court got Heller just about right: individual right to keep arms in the home, for self-defense. Maybe accepting the court's decision would help the pro-gun effort. While most over here want all guns gone, period, you might be surprised at the change in attitude if gun ownership were limited to the Supreme Court declaration. Self-defense in the home is tough to argue against (there will always be those who blindly believe that a person can run away from a home invasion, every time; they are sadly fanatical. Recurring, professional safety training and certification, guns for the home, hunting. Someone would get my vote for such a circumstance. I would join pro-gun people in that effort.
"You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities."
My statements hold up a mirror, describing how you appear. Reality is not real, but the perception of what is real. If I believe you are an idiot, then in my reality, you actually are an idiot. Objective evidence to the contrary does not always alter someone's perception.
Personally, my overarching concern is reducing to near zero the number of dreadful "accidents" that kill the innocent (drive-by shootings "in the hood" are not accidents). I don't find a home with the gun owners, so I look for someplace where gun safety is as lofty goal.
2A is right about one thing; we are wasting our time reacting to false arguments. Lots of commenters here say "never stop" and I agree that we should continue to present our case but proactively.
2A is right about one thing; we are wasting our time reacting to false arguments. Lots of commenters here say "never stop" and I agree that we should continue to present our case but proactively.
I think that posting here on TTAG and on youtube as Crowder has is greatly beneficial. I speak to lots of people that don't keep up with political issues, barely watch the news, and in general have no idea what is going on. They briefly see some sign or some clip, or a presidential speech, and immediately think the following:
► Guns are bad.
► Crime and homicides in this country are on the rise.
► Gun control is the solution.
And it's comical. When I speak to them about it – I implore them to do their own research and to make no mistake that the mainstream media has an agenda. This plants in their mind a seed, not that they are wrong, but that they might be wrong. As they do their own research that seed grows and after some time, some thinking, and their own logical deductions of what is moral to them, what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, they reach some conclusions. And that is a good thing. They transition from being an ignorant mindless sponge of political propaganda ready to enslave everyone, to a somewhat educated person on the subject with better cogent arguments from which they have reached some logical conclusions. They have not spent much time deep thinking, so they are still opinionated tyrants ready to vote to force people to accept their opinions, but at least they have gained some knowledge of the subject and argument, and can at least see some pros and cons. In my opinion, it is at least in a better direction than before.
Well, you got one thing right: your side does own the media. As for the culture, save for the frothing-at-the-mouth/mad-as-hell type of leftists who scream the loudest and thus draw attention to themselves (something most gun owners are not really willing to do), if you own the culture then explain to me Trump?
Wait. Never mind. Don't bother. I don't find debating with you invigorating. Frankly, it's depressing as you seem an articulate person whose intelligence has been co-opted by the belief that you can change human nature with the stroke of a pen. But, that's left-leaning statist lawyers with future political aspirations for you.
I wish you the best of luck, but if your personal goal is to lower gun violence in our country then you're barking up the wrong tree. Your community service time would be better spent in outreach to families living in communities where the parenting of children no longer exists. It may not get you as much attention (and thus elected someday) as shrieking about guns does, but if you want to know where the violence problem lies I'm quite certain it isn't with the people you spar with on this site.
"Well, you got one thing right: your side does own the media."
Not as much as they used to. They own traditional media, but talk radio infringed on that first, and internet has made a big difference also.
They own a lot of the media yes. Not all of it.
People always forget that news outlets are not all there is to "the media". Most important, we own programming. Look at what we have available, and how few programs would be considered supportive of so-called "traditional values". Saturday mornings are probably the absolute best training ground. The culture is becoming more skeptical of old fashioned ideas, resistant to the notion that only the privileged should be allowed to have nice things, opposed to the idea that life should be mostly work and hardship. Old fashioned values made people labor away until they were too old to live much of a retirement, and with too little resources to enjoy what life was left. Living in the now is more attractive and satisfying.
This is the culture we own.
So ham and cheese hot pockets, my little pony, and back to trolling TTAG commenters huh?
You need a friend man. Preferably a gun friend.
Again with the "trolling".
I ask once more, "Is trolling defined as opposing viewpoints posted here?" If so, boo on you. If not, then "trolling" is a wrong assertion. Either way, slinging a label does not dent the cause of common sense gun safety.
i have no problem with opposing viewpoints, but when you forecast the future, generalize and group gun owners with criminals when you know that is wrong and make comments by design to provoke a response – then you are trolling.
It would seem you don't like the image pro-gun people project. I am just reporting what we see; gun owners can be just as dangerous as gang members.
" What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not "go ballistic", will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated "gun grabber" that having guns in private hands is not something to fear. "
Statistically speaking, we're already there. It's not our fault that you refuse to see it.
"Statistically speaking, we're already there. It's not our fault that you refuse to see it."
You and I know the statistics. The problem is that the rest of our nation does not know the statistics.
Our fundamental problem: we fail to provide simple, accurate, and useful information. We don't need to endlessly debate all of the supposed statistics and other numbers coming out of gun-grabbers. We should be hammering the two most important trends to the masses:
(1) Violent crime has been decreasing for 23 years (since 1993) and is at the lowest level in nearly 50 years.
(2) The number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has been steadily increasing since forever.
Those two trends alone sink just about every gun-grabber statistic, argument, and premise.
Ideally, we would also impart these two additional factoids to the masses:
(1) Criminal gangs are responsible for about 75% of all violent crime in our nation, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved.
(2) Firearms are utterly unavailable to the public in Japan and yet their suicide rate is notably higher than the suicide rate in the U.S.
These four indisputable FACTS based in numbers/statistics are exceedingly easy for anyone to understand. And they just happen to destroy the basis for pretty much every gun-grabber argument that has ever been floated. It leaves them with nothing but pure emotion.
Oh, and if you want a more specific factoid in defense of modern military style semi-automatic rifles, just tell people that violent criminals use their hands and feet more often than ALL rifles AND shotguns to kill people. This is absolutely true and verifiable in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
(Our counter to gun-grabber emotion is the topic of a different post.)
Oh boy, some real meat to tackle here.
That statistic about violent crime decreasing? The obvious come-back is, see…life is safer already, statistically speaking, so there is no need for walking around with a gun. Since no one can say undoubtedly that only because citizens carry firearms are violent crimes trending down, if we try to make the case it is guns, we open up to the counter above,
The number of firearms sold is on a huge upswing. Unfortunately, we have no indisputable facts that link increased sales to increased number of owners. Besides, flaunting the fact that gun sales are "through the roof" only compounds the fear of anti-gun goobers that even more irresponsible people are buying guns. Let's not go there and stab ourselves in the back.
"(Our counter to gun-grabber emotion is the topic of a different post.)"
This is where we go so wrong. The anti-gunners are beating us with emotion, while we pound facts. Emotion can never be separated from our counter to anti-gun groups and/or individuals. We have tried facts, facts, "shall not be ingringed" to death. We are not winning when the pro/anti split in the populous is barely a majority opinion. We should want to understand how we got to this poor position.
The facts about gang violence plays right into the anti-gunner strong point. The blame gang violence on a society that is too rigid, too self-absorbed (like they are not), to uncaring about the hidden underbelly of the richest nation on earth. The blame gang held guns on legal gun owners who could not control their firearms, or are making a profit from arming gangs.
The Japanese suicide rate might be a good thing to highlight more often.
I hope you never have to bury your statistical fail. But if you do, be honest enough to tell us whether then you still believe a premature funeral for a loved one is a fine trade for gun rights.
That is exactly where your facts and logic fail, 2A. You're treating violence as if it were the cause for itself rather than the consequence of human behavior. The arguments of the pro-fascists sound like someone who repeatedly places their hand on a stove and then blames the fire while demanding that flames be banned.
I am talking only about so-called "accidental deaths", and how they are dismissed as statistical anomalies with no personal implications for anyone. Gangs and other criminals are a whole different subject. However, for the gun sense movement at large gun owners represent a threat as reprehensible as gangbangers. Statistics are mathematical constructs, and devoid of human element. Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness. Dismissing the human trauma of accidental gun deaths reinforces the image you so desperately want to pretend is not there.
"Statistics are mathematical constructs, and devoid of human element. Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness."
I have never seen such an absurd statement as this. You are really crossing the line here between irresponsible ill-informed do-gooder over to lying power grabbing maniac.
Statistics are mathematical constructs? Can you support this with some sort or logical argument? No you cannot. Statistics are a scientific tool that is used across any number of fields to describe, analyze, test and otherwise deal with large populations of varying data sets. These are not abstract things, statistics are facts. You don't like that? I don't care. This is what they are, and your babbling that these things are some sort of abstract 'mathematical construct' is meaningless and you know it.
One has to conclude that you are lying, isn't that interesting. And you know it.
You are lying, in an effort to convince other people to take away the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and to defend themselves and their loved ones, and their property. Is that about right?
Do you even know what a 'mathematical construct' is? Can you describe it?
'A man was killed.' Fact.
'In a population of 10,000, xxx% of them have been killed on average over zzz time period.' Fact.
These are the same things; facts.
Do you understand this? FACTS. Statistics are a proven, scientific field all unto it's own. They are well understood by mathematicians, scientists, engineers, doctors, and most people who have taken high school statistics classes. Apparently you missed class this day.
"Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness"
You, are an idiot. I don't know any other way to say it.
Statistics are a mathematical construct (let me help you out, here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035597884443
Statistics are a tool.
Statistics are not people, they do not represent people, they are not stand-ins for people. Are you afraid to recognize that your family, your loved ones are deemed mere mathematical entities, of no particular value over another mathematical entity?
I asked you a simple question: when one of your family become one of the "statistically insignificant", are you going to tell the survivors that the accidental gun death of that loved one should not be considered really important because that death was just a statistical anomaly?
It is so easy to be dismissive of someone else's life.
"Statistics are a mathematical construct (let me help you out, here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035597884443"
Please explain what relevance this paragraph you linked to has to the discussion. And let me be clear, when I say 'please' I mean do it now or admit you are a fraud and a liar. I am quite serious, as I will explain.
Let me make this very clear, like I am speaking to a 3rd grader, so that you can understand me.
This means you cannot respond to either of my questions; "Statistics are mathematical constructs? Can you support this with some sort or logical argument?" or my other question: "Do you even know what a 'mathematical construct' is? Can you describe it?" by providing a link to a page on the internet that itself contains a paragraph of text – without actually making an argument that addresses one or both of the questions presented to you.
You did neither of these things, in fact, it appears to me that all you did was to google the phrase 'Mathematical constructs' and pick something from the results of that search that appears to discuss the topic in question.
As doing this search shows that the page you linked to IN FACT COMES UP SECOND in that list of results, I have to say it seems pretty obvious that this is exactly what you did.
In my opinion, this is evidence of total guilt, and that's all I really care about, my opinion. I do argue however that in my opinion I am absolutely correct. You cannot make any logical argument supporting your case, you link, randomly to quite literally (well off by one that is) the first thing that comes up in google that resembles an argument for you – but in truth it's not an argument, it's just a scientific research paper that happens to contain the phrase in question.
These are not the actions of a reasoned and learned person, arguing in good faith with someone. These are the actions of a fool, floundering around and trying to stay above water, hoping to distract and to deflect. You are doing nothing but pounding your fists on the table and crying "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right, listen to meeee!".
But you are not right. You are a fool, and a liar.
Go on and prove me wrong. Present your logical and supported by evidence argument. Take your time. That you do not and cannot do this shows me to be correct. (by the way, that right there is an example of what a logical argument supported by evidence *means*, just so you know).
This not only shows that you cannot respond with substance to either of the two questions you were asked, but it also shows you to be an irresponsible – and worse, a person who is arguing in bad faith. That is to say you are only trying here to show off, to throw out responses and content so as to confuse the issue, to make sure there are anti 2a responses in the web pages that result from the discussions on TTAG, or whatever reason you have for doing this. Clearly however, you are not engaging in discussion with integrity, fairness and a genuine interest in sharing beliefs and honest learning.
In other words you are a fraud. Your only purpose is to distract, you are a liar, you are a deceitful dishonorable opponent. And what is worse, you are not just engaged in some minor argument about the function of some silly trivia; you are discussion one of the most important things that exist in the civil society, the freedom of man. And as you lie, you obviously would cheat, who knows how low you might go in your efforts to disarm and to defeat men of honor seeking to preserve life, to protect the innocent, and to claim that right that was put there by our founders specifically for this very reason.
You are a liar, and unworthy of anything but being ignored. Which is how I will treat you in the future. I suggest all others adopt the same policy. 2Asux should likely be banned, it is what I would do if this was my resource. But it is not, and this is the decision of someone else. He should not be given a platform to make any progress in his dishonest efforts to defeat us. Responding to him simply gives him that little bit of legitimacy that makes these people appear to be genuine when they are not. Ignoring him is the best policy.
If you read the link, the definition of mathematical construct was right there. The construct is a purely statistical tool, nothing more, nothing less.
The point you keep missing is 500 dead people are not an "insignificant statistic" to their loved ones. You and so many others here are quite willing to scoff at 500 people dead from gun accidents. Being opposed to improving gun safety makes you less of a human being, reinforces the image that drives the most strident of those trying to improve common sense gun safety. Your ranting tells the story. You are incapable of holding a serious, rational discussion about gun safety. Here is something a gun organization did that is moving toward what I have been proposing, and good no SAF: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/saf-hails-passage-suicide-prevention-bill-olympia/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=031916chronicle&utm_campaign=CH031916-safhailspassagesuicidepreventionbillolympia
BTW, no person is free to do whatever, whenever, without consequence.
You're starting to get pretty concerned about Trump winning aren't you? It's kind of like when your enemy suddenly asks if you want to surrender. That's when you know you have him by the balls.
Trump or Cruz would be acceptable because either would be completely ineffective because their own party hates them. We might not get our agenda moved forward, but a Trump or Cruz presidency would ensure we don't lose ground.
"The value to pro-gun supporters taking on every news release or gun sense video might be in using pieces from the blog where you refute the need for improved gun safety"
I'm going to stop you right there, because what the anti side believes is 'gun safety' is not the same thing we call 'gun safety'. And just look at the statistics. Sure firearms accidents are always bandied about by the media, they do, afterall, perfectly fit the narrative that all gunowners are irresponsible idiots who should be disarmed or even institutionalized in the interest the public safety, but are a materially insignificant cause of injuries, healthcare costs and deaths when compared to pretty much everything else. Meanwhile industry-supported programs like Eddie Eagle and Project Childsafe have explicitly helped cut firearms accidents in half over the last 30 years.
What you call 'gun safety' isn't education and support based, it's rules and barriers and confiscation based. What you call 'gun safety' is a bag of shit that you continue to call 'pretty flowers' in order to make it more palatable to the masses.
And this is also why there is no damned "conversation". Antis have to always spin words to have another meaning. To us "gun safety" means what it says on the tin: being safe around, and with, guns.
To the antis, "gun safety" means "eliminating guns under the guise of public safety". But it's *said that way* to make it sound further from what they actually want, which is an all out ban.
After all, what rational person can argue with "gun safety"?
It's wordplay, and they have to do it every time. "Assault weapon". "Mass shooting". "Gun safety". "Gun violence". Words that strike emotion and are used as argument fulcrums, but don't actually *mean what they seem like they would*.
If the antis are winning the culture battle, it sure as hell wasn't done on the up-and-up.
But 2ASux kinda said it himself there. That it doesn't matter because they're "winning, owning, and getting what they want". I suppose, though, that wars, even culture wars, aren't fought fairly anyhow.
"I suppose, though, that wars, even culture wars, aren't fought fairly anyhow."
Your point being?
"…what the anti side believes is 'gun safety' is not the same thing we call 'gun safety' "
"…firearms accidents are…a materially insignificant cause of injuries".
I think this is where we derail ourselves. I can understand how sluffing-off the nightmare imagined by anti-gun advocates is so off-putting that they will never listen to anything else. People are not afraid of healthcare, cars, or just about any other form of personal action. People do understand just how devastating a gun can be. People are afraid of guns. If we continue to dismiss this concern, we will always look to be uncaring, callous, heartless, brutal people. Statistics comfort us, but for the however many (500?) accidental deaths caused by guns, or "mass shootings", if you or your family is part of the "insignificance" you will have a different viewpoint afterward. We ignore this fear at our peril.
Or we call it what it is. Irrational, phobic behavior, and we back it up with irrefutable fact. The other side even claims it's winning the culture war, when all evidence, inevitably under-reported by the media, points to exactly the opposite. Support for more gun control is waning. Rights are expanding across the nation, save a few ultra-blue holdouts. Public sentiment and momentum are on our side.
"Public sentiment and momentum are on our side."
I wish there was incontrovertible evidence to that effect. It still seems like a tug-o-war. My concern is we are imagining ourselves into ultimate defeat.
Never stop. Always worth it. You can never persuade the antis with reason, but other, reasonable people can be persuaded by truth, IF it is presented to them.
But does it do any good? Does it change any hearts or minds? Is it all worth the effort?
Yes. They will never relent with their lies and propaganda to progress their agenda to their vision of a perfect utopia where everyone is supposedly "safe" and living in blissful ignorance. They are text-book blue pill matrix pods. Disputing their lies is always worth it. We must always continually fight. If we aren't going to fight it, it is the same as acceptance of the blue pill.
Keep it up.
I've been helped by it. I can't be the only one.
Same. It was arguments like these that DID win me over.
I can speak from experience that reading comments and listening to arguments has helped form my opinions a lot. And the anti gun videos are often so afraid of people calling out their crap that they disable the comments on their videos. That has to mean something.
It means protecting emotions is very important to the left, because that is all they have (but is does feed the masses).
Crowder's gun show loophole vid has over 1.5million views… i'm pretty sure he changed a few people's minds on the issue.
Beats me if it helps. I think a lot of dim bulbs need a "come to Jesus" moment. I come here mainly for politics and need no reinforcement.
Never stop. Never give up.
(And Mr. Crowder is brilliant)
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."
Attributed to Edmund Burke
The answer is yes, otherwise people are only exposed to the generated artificial opinions and lies of an industry of paid, professional posters(astroturfers) designed to sway public opinion on-line.
I've been exposing anti-gun cultists as liars and idiots since the bulletin board and FidoNet days, and even before.
You're never going to change the "mind" of a "movement" anti-gunner. BUT, by exposing him as a liar, a fool or both, you will influence bystanders who will no longer accept what they say without question.
I NEVER miss an opportunity to humiliate an anti-gun cultist, ESPECIALLY if in the process, I can expose him or her as a racist, anti-Semite, misogynist, homophobe, etc.
Not long ago, I tied an anti-gunner on Cleveland.com into such tortured knots, that he was reduced to pretending that he was unaware that "literacy tests" were used to prevent Blacks from voting, in a futile effort to keep afloat his laughable claim that gun controls haven't been and won't in the future be targeted against Blacks and other minorities.
The bystanders DO notice.
"The bystanders DO notice" Special interests count on this as they pay posters to troll online forums spreading misinformation and disrupting legitimate debates/conversations.
"The bystanders DO notice."
yeah, those same bystanders, given all the information about Hillary will vote for her anyway. back in the day, the speaker of the US house was a man named jim wright. he got pushed out on account of some shenanigans misusing his office. people in texas were outraged, and proclaimed that even if he was a crook, he brought prestige and money to texas.
Do not stop. I criticize the authors of this site from time to time, but one thing y'all do to perfection is destroy the anti's entirely. You also bear the burden of having to fisk through that complete bullshit and remain sane afterwards. Honestly, I couldn't do it. I'd probably have an anyrism. You doing it means we don't have to, and can use your destruction of their arguments in real life, when we encounter the stupidity in person.
The Pro 2A side needs something as flashy and exciting as what the anti-2A folks do but full of facts not bologna. I love me some John Lott but he's dry as a week old bagel, we need someone very fun and articulate to make a fact based video about the US "gun violence problem" that will thoroughly debunk the antis.
I remember one Bill Whittle did a while back…can't search for it from this computer, alas.
+100 !!
Fisking is a worthwhile activity, but it's not the best or most important way to "win hearts and minds." I'm an engineer–I am all about data and stats–but I've yet to meet anyone who is either heavily influenced or emotionally connected to statistics. Systematically breaking down and refuting articles is an interesting exercise that probably helps people who care about an issue reinforce confirmation biases and understand the nuances of a topic, but it's not the kind of thing that's going to trigger any epiphany for a fence-sitter.
For hearts and minds, you have to make it personal. That's why taking newbies shooting remains one of the most powerful things we can do to win. We're letting people form their own opinions and experiences, and we're providing a quintessential *positive* experience with guns. That does more to undermine the notion that "guns=bad" than even the most elegant fisk could hope to accomplish.
How's that internet meme go — "Why not have both?"
Our fisking of gun-grabber "statistical" propaganda should be simple, accurate, and easy to grasp … and limited only to directing people to these facts:
(1) Violent crime in the U.S. has been decreasing for 23 years (since 1993) and is at the lowest level in nearly 50 years.
(2) The number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has been steadily increasing since forever.
(3) Criminal gangs are responsible for about 75% of all violent crime in our nation, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved.
(4) Firearms are utterly unavailable to the public in Japan and yet their suicide rate is notably higher than the suicide rate in the U.S.
(5) Violent criminals use their hands and feet more often than ALL rifles AND shotguns to kill people.
(6) Plenty of other countries in the world (both developed and undeveloped) have higher murder rates (including murder with firearms) than the U.S.
These six indisputable FACTS based in numbers/statistics are exceedingly easy for anyone to understand (and verify for that matter). More importantly, these six facts do a fantastic job of broadly characterizing the reality of our world and destroying the premise of every gun-grabber claim of which I can recall. And believe me, I can recall a LOT of gun-grabber claims.
That is all we need. Chasing down and fisking all of their "data" is a fool's errand. It will take forever and people's eyes will glaze over before we have a chance to establish even one error in their "data".
If you struggle to remember those facts, then you must at least be able to communicate the monumental significance of the state of Vermont, because the following description all by itself basically encompasses all of the above facts and destroys the premise of most, if not all, gun-grabber claims …
Vermont basically has no gun laws whatsoever — no licenses, registration, or background checks to acquire firearms and anyone age 16 or older who has no criminal record can legally carry firearms openly or concealed in public without any license, permit, or any other vetting from government. And yet Vermont perpetually has an extremely low violent crime rate, always vying for the lowest violent crime rate of any state in the United States. For example Vermont's murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in the United States … as was Vermont's murder rate where the criminal used a firearm for the murder weapon. In fact Vermont's murder rate where the criminal used a firearm for the murder weapon was statistically the same as all the countries in Europe … which of course have draconian gun control laws exactly opposite of Vermont. This fact alone tells us that gun control is meaningless in the calculus of violent crime and murder.
the suicide rate in gunless South Korea is higher than the US suicide rate and murder rate COMBINED.
The Vox bit is pure propaganda and though Crowder did not mention it, think about the presentation itself. Did that not remind you of some of the sales propaganda videos trying to sell you on buying some type of report on how to save your retirement from the coming disastrous whatever?
It reminded me a bit of Scientology "educational" videos put out under shell organizations (narconon, etc), really. Kind of creepy.
"What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not "go ballistic", will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated "gun grabber" that having guns in private hands is not something to fear."
Substitute "gun owners" with "government" and I might agree 🙂
"Substitute "gun owners" with "government" and I might agree :)"
Ok, I'll concede the substitution because both conditions would get the result.
Care to elaborate on the reply?
My point is that individuals w/ gov. positions, and government entities acting as entities, have "gone ballistic".
This rarely gets acknowledged by the civilian disarmament crowd.
Furthermore, the potential is always there. Yet, there is little talk about disarming, or even, reducing arms for gov. entities.
Last, almost no one in either camp mentions how civilian weapon ownership is often enabled by weapons procurement by gov. entities. A gun anywhere is a potential gun everywhere. A gun is a gun and the mental carve-out or exception that many people have in their minds is largely artificial. Many civilian owned guns exist because they (or guns like them) were first in the hands of a cop or soldier.
I would go for a completely disarmed nation. No guns for police, no guns for military, no guns for civilians, permanent jail for criminals who use guns, gun round-ups in known high-crime areas. That just might get us to near-zero accidental gun deaths.
Might change the mugwumps, usually not the hard core.
Yes. Keep telling the truth. It's the interwebz age and the msm is dying, in large part due to their outright lying about issues.
We are winning the culture war. Go to any range and see the minorities, young and women outnumber us ofwg.
Look at the numbers and types of guns being sold.
Look at the number of states that are now constitutional carry.
In november Trump will be the new president elect.
you must continue. never give up. never, ever, ever give up.
your goal is not to change minds, it's to inform the undecided.
To change their mind? Yes i think it's a waste of time. Anti gun & pro gun will never agree. Nevertheless, if they don't rest, then neither should we. So I guess in that sense it isn't a waste of time.
"To change their mind? Yes i think it's a waste of time. Anti gun & pro gun will never agree. Nevertheless, if they don't rest, then neither should we. So I guess in that sense it isn't a waste of time."
Wouldn't your recommendation constitute doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
Not really. Even if you can't convince your opponent to change his mind, you still have to defend your position from his attack. Also you might still be able to educate others that haven't made up their minds.
"Even if you can't convince your opponent to change his mind, you still have to defend your position from his attack. Also you might still be able to educate others that haven't made up their minds."
We haven't been trying that, like, forever?
Seems to be repeat of a repeat.
"Wouldn't your recommendation constitute doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?"
If you can't convince a robber to stop on his own, you still have to stop him from robbing you.
"We haven't been trying that, like, forever? Seems to be repeat of a repeat."
Yes. Like I said, as long as they don't rest, neither can we. If you don't stop the robber from robbing you, you might as well give him your money.
Never give up. Never surrender. Never retreat.
It's not about changing their minds. It's about the audience.
Thank You For Smoking nailed this:
Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say…
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument… so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: …but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best…
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
[points into the crowd]
"Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
[points into the crowd]"
Doesn't that presume there is a crown of undecideds who are "listening"?
I think the idea that there are bystanders who can be persuaded is largely a hope, rather than a reality. On top of which, the number of undecideds who frequent any forum looking just for "information" to help them make a decision is so small as to be politically invisible.
Holding a debate in a hope to reach the "audience" is no where near as effective as a positive, tenacious public campaign designed to "win hearts and minds". Our side depends on niceties while the other side aggressively campaigns. In the real world, right does not make might; might makes might.
Lazy, careless and incompetent Doctors, Nurses and Healthcare professionals murder 250,000+ Americans every year. That's 25 times the gun homicide rate. Shouldn't our efforts focus on that debacle rather than firearm ownership ?
No. It's a waste of time.
Mark Twain said that "a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Answering anti-rights BS puts you in a reactive mode. You essentially become "the second man to walk on the moon," the man whose name the general public never remembers.
Instead, spend the time creating brand-new pro-rights agitprop, or donating money to someone else who is. Let the antis waste time trying to debunk YOU. Put another way, one John Lott is worth 20 Wayne LaPierres.
This tactic isn't just limited to agitprop. I've lived through times when our state organization's annual political activism was totally centered on reacting to bad bills in the capital, trying to defeat them all. Turns out tht the smarter tactic was to flood the legislature with good bills instead, forcing the antis into defensive mode. They got to waste their time reacting to our initiative, and as a result, weren't able to press their attacks.
Gets it.


text:
Maybelline New York Define-A-Line Eye Liner Reviews
HelpppppI got the navy blue one it smudged and fades quickly is it just the Color I bought???? I really wanted to like this eyeliner. — 4 years, 4 months agomakeuppolice | 4 reviews
Terrible linerThis is one of the worst eyeliners I have ever used. The color of it is very rich and black, but that is the only good thing about it. I used it to tightline my upper lash line, and for the rest of the day it is literally smudging off onto my undereye area. I have rarely used any products in my life that give 'raccoon eyes.'I even tried putting UDPP (eye shadow primer) under my eyes and a lot of e...read moreyeshadow to try and keep it in place, but NOTHING helps. Really disappointing because I tend to like Maybelline products a lot. This eyeliner is terrible, terrible, terrible. I'm going to just end up throwing it out. — 5 years agoshellie_andersonanderson | 1 reviews
Define-A-LineI don't like using this product on my waterline, my eyes are not watery but this eyeliner seems to wear off not long after it has been applied.. On the inner and outer upper last line it looks great, It smudges a lot.. I do not perfer this I'd rather use a pencil liner than this retractable liner, its very smooth and soft.. but it smudges easily and wears off quickly. I'd rather use Rimmel Special Eyes Pencil or Rimmel Special Eyes Pencil. — 5 years, 3 months agoheather_nichole | 8 reviews
worstworst eyeliner ever. It smudges soo easily. — 5 years, 6 months agoNYdesichick | 5 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 1 of 1 people said helpful
Doesn't last longIt's okay - easy to put on and not very expensive, but my biggest issue with it is it fades fast and it smudges. I find myself needing to wipe liner off my lower lids through-out the day when I wear it. It does look nice when you first put it on, but that doesn't last very long (be prepared to touch up often) — 5 years, 10 months agooopylovesyou | 17 reviews
Works wellGoes on smooth, dark, makes a nice line, and lasts well! Overall, no complaints. — 6 years agos503226 | 16 reviews
It's fineI purchased this eyeliner in a two for one deal and I'm finishing up on my first tube. I have oily lids and it does tend to smear on my lower lids. I've kind of corrected the problem with setting it with an eyeliner to make it last. On my top lid it tends to slightly disappear, but it's not enough to ruin my entire look. Overall, I'm fine with it. I am not planning on repurchasing it because I want to try the revlon colorstay — 6 years, 2 months agoimadime | 9 reviews
The Perfect Find!I found a perfect eyeliner for me, finally! It goes on smooth with the intensity of a liquid, but with the control of a pencil. Just what I was looking for! I have this in Ebony Black. The smudger works beautifully and the built-in sharpener at the end is so convenient and works great. I also love that now that I've used some of the product, I can twist it down inside the tube to keep it safe...read more when replacing the cap. This wears great on me, but I have dry skin. From other reviews, it sounds like if you have oily skin, it may run throughout the day. The only, tiny, issue is that it doesn't always come off perfectly with my facewash. But it's fine after I wash again in the morning. And I'm sure make-up remover would work too. I would recommend this product to anyone! — 6 years, 10 months agojayboo5 | 76 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 2 of 2 people said helpful
Did not hold up all dayI purchased this eyeliner after a friend of mine recommended it to me. The price seemed right, so I gave it a try. The shade I first tried this product in was Chestnut Brown. It looked like Chestnut Brown in the container, but it looked reddish orange and not very fattering on my eyes. Also, it smudged halfway through the day, requiring me to either put on more eyeliner and use more product, or to...read more use eyeshadow on top of it and be required to use 2 products when one should have been enough to do the job. I would not recommend this product. — 6 years, 11 months agokhalexander68 | 5 reviews
VERY SMUDGEABLE!I bought this because of the attractive green packaging, it was a spur of the moment purchase! I wish i had researched this product a little more! At first, i was pleased due to the pigmentation of this eyeliner (btw i got it in Ebony Black). It was dark and went on smoothly and didn't hurt if it got into my eyes. I thought this was going to be my new favorite. But, i noticed that after two hours ...read moremy eyeliner was completely smudged and running down my waterline. It was horrible. I tried this eyeliner on my top lid too, and i ended up with a black *eyeshadow*. I will not repurchase again, Maybelline this is not your best. — 6 years, 11 months agoDollFaceXoxo | 9 reviews
to top
My Reasons for Reporting This

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Deviant Art
Hi guys & welcome to the new group "Kawaii-Unite"
Well the group was founded this week, so you will see much more soon!
This group should show your cutest drawings! Everything what is cute will be accepted ^-^
ANYONE CAN JOIN IN (just click on the "join group" button)
Here are some information's, you should read before submitting!
You can submit 2 deviations per day, the accepting is automatically!
you have to submit to the right folder, if not you art will be removed!
(You also should choose your drawing with a quality you really want to show!)
You can draw our mascot Kyori, you don't need to ask for, just submit your drawing into the "Kyori" folder ^-^)
What we accept:
Cute/kawaii art
Moe girls & boys, chibis, Fanart etc. (must be 100% yours! (of course you can add textures etc. but the drawing must be yours)
Anything cute! *^*/
What we don't accept
traced/stolen work
No Hentai (sexy is ok but nothing with looking like hentai or really pervert!
anything scary & not cute
Sketches (this mean not colored one without any effort)
Please notice that we accept all cute art, but in the tutorial folder we take only the best so others can learn from it, please don't be sad if your tutorial did not get accepted, that doesn't mean it's bad!
We hope you enjoy our Group


text:
On Saturday night, the San Bernardino Symphony takes the audience on a "Bold Voyage," accompanied by the passionate music of Jean Sibelius and Antonin Dvorak, as well as an orchestral tribute to all veterans and active military.
Music lovers will set sail with Sibelius's Symphony No. 5, a blend of classic and modern symphonic styles, described as "down-to-earth" and "vivid," at the 7:30 p.m. concert at the California Theatre of the Performing Arts.
Maestro Frank Fetta said Symphony No. 5 is a gem.
"Close your eyes when listening to it and you are transported to a Finnish countryside. You can hear the bees and the rustling of the wind, you can envision yourself flying over the rugged pristine landscape," said Fetta, symphony music director and conductor.
"It is an amazing musical experience."
Written 20 years before the 1915 Sibelius piece, Dvorak's Cello Concerto is considered a particularly demanding piece for the soloist.
Ruslan Birykov, a young Russian cello virtuoso, will take on the challenge on the California Theatre stage.
"He is an extraordinarily gifted young cellist," Fetta said. "I believe audiences will experience something very new and unusual in his performance and that is why we were so excited when he agreed to join us for this concert."
Birykov is the only cellist ever invited to perform for 10 consecutive years at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's long-running radio broadcast series.
He studied at the Baku Music Academy in Azerbaijan, at the Tchaikovsky Moscow Conservatory in Russia, and at the USC Thornton School of Music, before founding the Glendale Philharmonic Orchestra. He currently serves as artistic director of the Positive Motions Concert Series in Los Angeles.
The concert will lead off with the Armed Forces Medley, then continue with the classical offerings.
Cognizant of the important role our military personnel and their families have long played in the vitality of the region, the symphony is offering a reduced ticket rate for all veterans, said Anne Viricel, symphony executive director.
"If you think about when Norton Air Force Base was here, there was an economic vitality in the area," Viricel said. "Those folks have gone on to be symphony supporters and having all those families here made it possible for the city to attract businesses, art, music and good schools."
Tickets will be available at the California Theatre box office, 562 W. Fourth St., San Bernardino.
Tickets, which begin at $10 for students, may be purchased by calling 909-381-5388, or by visiting the symphony office at 198 N. Arrowhead Ave.
Tickets are also available online at www.sanbernardinosymphony.org, as well as the theater box office the evening of the event.


text:
1-6 of 6 learning difficulties care homes / nursing homes in East Lindsey.
53 West Street, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5JE.
Care home
Spilsby Road, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 6AL.
Mumby Road, Huttoft, Alford, Lincolnshire LN13 9RF.
01507 490294
Email your enquiry
16 Syne Avenue, Seacroft, Skegness, Lincolnshire PE25 3DJ.
01754 764329
164 High Street, Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire LN12 1EJ.
"Purpose built residential home registered for 13 placements for adults with learning difficuties and elderly (without nursing care). 10 ground floor rooms, 1 double en-auite with wet room, I double studio flat/bedsit, 11 single rooms. Clos..."
01507 473071
Lincoln Road, Skegness, Lincolnshire PE25 2EA.
"Homely, friendly, values & respects residents, carers. Highest ethical & moral qualities to enjoy the life of our guests - residents, part of our big family"
01754 768 109
back to directory of learning difficulties care homes / nursing homes in the UK
Use our interactive online tool HOOP to help you decide.
More accommodation directories
Copyright © 2017 Elderly Accommodation Counsel, 3rd Floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP. Registered charity number 292552. Company number 1955490.
Web Development by AccuWeb
FREE advice line: 020 7820 1343
Email: email@example.com


text:
NetWellness is a global, community service providing quality, unbiased health information from our partner university faculty. NetWellness is commercial-free and does not accept advertising.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Eye and Vision Care
How long does it take the sclera to thin out?
If you have scleritis and uveitis, how long does it take the sclera to thin out to the point a sclera patch is needed?
It's impossible to even guess how long scleral thinning would take, because doctors treat scleritis and uveitis aggressively in an attempt to prevent that serious complication.
Ask your eye doctor what caused the scleritis/uveitis; and if he/she is already treating aggressively, ask what is the chance of needing a scleral patch sometime in the future.
Robert D Newcomb, OD, MPH, FAAO
Professor Emeritus of Clinical Optometry
College of Optometry
The Ohio State University


text:
Tennessee DVM case spurs clarification of 'heart shot' law
NASHVILLE, TEN. — Sedation before intracardial injection euthanasia soon will be required in Tennessee after a DVM's highly publicized disciplinary case led lawmakers to push for legislative clarification on the method.
Signed by the governor to become effective July 1, the law specifies that animals must be properly sedated before a sodium pentobarbital injection, also called a heart shot.
Previous language, stating only that animals may or shall be given sedatives, was deemed ambiguous and in need of clarification to ensure humane animal treatment.The law came under scrutiny after William Baber, DVM, was secretly recorded performing intercardiac euthanasia without sedation while working at the Sumner County Animal Control Shelter in Gallatin. A veterinarian more than 25 years, Baber had his license suspended until last month, was fined and put on five years' probation following a disciplinary hearing before the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medicine.
Facing multiple counts of animal cruelty, Baber contended he was unaware that state law required sedation during the procedure.
The new bill, introduced by State Rep. Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville), requires animal shelters and rescue facilities to hold retrieved animals at least three business days, giving owners more time to search for and claim lost pets.


text:
Rustenburg - One hour. 470 food parcels. Thousand of desperate miners. This was the scene that played out in Marikana on Monday as various organisations got together to provide relief to striking North West platinum miners.
A green tarpaulin laid in front of the Amplats Khuseleka miners was covered with clothes, food and nappies.
"Amazing eh? But it's not enough," said Reverend Brian Smith of Northfield Methodist Church in Benoni, one of the main organisers of the campaign to give food parcels to miners on strike.
Behind Smith stood a queue of more than 6 000 hungry people. But Smith's church, the Gift of the Givers, the Democratic Left Front, the Marikana Support Campaign, the Socialist Workers Party UK, and the public, had brought only around 470 food parcels.
"It's better than nothing," said a striker who helped set out the parcels.
Within just another hour, all the goods were gone.
The queues looked like they hadn't moved at all.
A local leader of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union undertook to get the names of people, in order, in the queue.
This food parcel effort was due to go on on Tuesday.
The initiative began a week ago, started by the Gauteng Miners Strike Community and Rehad Desai, of the Marikana Support Campaign and director of the documentary Miners Shot Down. Other community leaders, churches and the general public were asked to donate funds to purchase mealies, sugar, meat and cooking oil for the striking miners of the platinum belt.
More than R320 000 worth of food parcels were delivered to various Impala mines and Amplats's Khuseleka mine on Monday.
Northfield Methodist Church had pledged to keep giving food parcels for the next three months at least, said Smith, who was inspired to take part in the campaign after watching Miners Shot Down.
"There are people (in the strike) that are hungry. Why would we choose not to feed hungry people?" Smith said.
The workers have been on strike for four months now. With no wages coming in, the strikers and their families depended on such donations.
"Gift of the Givers give food to keep the strikers strong on strike," said Tebogo Madikwane, a miner watching over the queues.
"No one's working at home," said Christina Lehihi, whose husband died in the mines.
"I have three boys, two girls, and two grandchildren. How will I buy food, pay for them at school? What must I do?"
Lehihi was too far back in the line to receive anything. "I want that food tomorrow. We are hungry," she said.
Many moms with babies on their backs needed food and milk formula. Right now, one mother said, they fed their babies by adding water and sugar to mealie meal. Their bodies had "diseases" so they did not breastfeed their babies.
The Star


text:
Damen Delivers Fast Crew Supplier to Sea Consult
Danish company Sea Consult ApS has taken delivery of its first Damen Twin Axe as the company prepares to enter the offshore wind market.
Based in Marstal, Sea Consult is a new customer to Damen and this will be the first Fast Crew Supplier (FCS) 2610 to be operated by a Danish company. The vessel already has work at Belgian and German offshore wind farms for the next year and the company's new vessel is expected to be deployed in the next two weeks.
According to Damen, the short delivery time was a major reason the Danish company decided to choose the Damen high-speed catamaran. A Letter of Intent was signed in early June; Sea Consult and its crew arrived at Damen's headquarters in Gorinchem, the Netherlands on June 29 and the vessel sailed with its crew and a Damen engineer to Sea Consult's Danish base, arriving on Sunday evening June 31.
Owner and Managing Director of Sea Consult, Jan Fabricius, was on the FCS 2610's first journey and commented that he was "very satisfied" with the vessel's performance."We had seen the Twin Axe FCS 2610 operating at several wind farms and on television and we were particularly impressed by the Axe Bow." Damen explained that its Axe Bow hull offers low resistance, leading in turn to excellent seakeeping behavior and lower fuel consumption.
The FCS 2610 is very comfortable for the crew in terms of ergonomics and it is known for its ability to operate smoothly in higher sea states, Damen said. Sea Consult is considering the possibility of building up a small fleet of the Damen FCS 2610.
The vessel was built at Damen Shipyards Singapore, which is a Group specialist in high-speed aluminum craft.


text:
KARACHI, Sept 23: The Karachi chapter of All Sindh Primary Teachers Association, Aalmi Tanzeem Ahle Sunnat, Jamaat-i-Ahle Hadees and Noor Bakhshia Youth Federation Pakistan held a peaceful demonstration on Sunday outside Karachi Press Club.
The protesters condemnded the film strongly and demanded strong legal action against the film maker. They urged international organisations to come up with effective legislation to stop such incidents in future.—APP


text:
Ashley Cole set for Chelsea return against Stoke, says Carlo Ancelotti
Carlo Ancelotti insists
Ashley Cole will be fit for Englandâs World Cup campaign after confirming the injured left-back intends to make his first-team return against Stoke later this month.
England coach Fabio Capello has warned Cole he will only pick him if he proves his fitness between now and the end of the season.
The Chelsea defender has been out since February after breaking an Âankle at Everton but Ancelotti said: âAshley Cole is closer to playing.
âI think he will need some days to train and we hope he is available for the game against Stoke on April 25th.
âAshley is an important player for England and after the season they still have a month to get ready, so he will be ready for sure, but I have not Âspoken to Capello.â
Coleâs return will give him three league games and the FA Cup final, should the Blues beat Aston Villa in tomorrowâs semi-final, to prove he is worth a place in Capelloâs squad.
Ancelottiâs comments came after Capello had said: âIf Ashley Cole is only half-fit, thatâs not enough. He needs to play too.
'After three months of being injured he will need games.â
Chelsea beat Villa 7-1 in a recent league meeting at Stamford Bridge but Ancelotti insisted: âIâm sure it will be a different game. We will not think about that match.
'Aston Villa will play a different game. Saturday will be different.â


text:
FAMILIES who want to get away from it all can make their nest at The Briars in Kidderminster, where some of the homes back on to woodland.
The popular development from Elan Homes is ideally located so that residents are able to enjoy the great outdoors close to home while also benefiting from easy access to the town centre and beyond thanks to the strong transport links. Plus with local schools with good reputations nearby, it's perfect for those with children.
It's not just the location that ticks all the right boxes for buyers – the homes enjoy a high specification that needs to be seen to be appreciated.
But with only a handful of properties available, each with four-bedrooms, those who want to move to The Briars need to act fast to avoid disappointment.
Andrew Robertson, senior sales manager for Elan Homes in the North, says: "Choosing a home in which to raise a family can be tricky and people may fear they have to compromise on style or space to buy a home in the right location, but that's not necessarily the case. The Briars is within the catchment area of some fine local schools, several of which have been rated as 'outstanding' by Ofsted.
"The homes are also competitively priced from £259,995 in comparison with other properties in the area as according to Zoopla the average asking price for a four-bedroom house in Kidderminster is £319,654."
If the location, specification and value for money wasn't enough, Elan is offering part exchange to help people climb the property ladder.
Designed to help speed up the home buying process, part exchange is ideal for those who but don't want to be held back from moving because they need to sell their current home.
With part exchange Elan will arrange for the customer's home to be valued by two local agents before making an offer on that property to help facilitate a move. The transaction could be complete in as little as 28 days with no hidden costs or hold ups. The developer will pay for the survey and the agent's fees and customers will even be able to stay in their current property until the new one is ready.
Located in Habberley Road, The Briars is an intimate development of just 13 four-bedroom homes ideally placed between the Worcestershire countryside and Kidderminster town centre.
Easy access to the ring road and the M5 has attracted interest from commuters who work in Birmingham but want to raise their families away from the hustle and bustle.
Visit The Briars sales office, open Thursday to Monday from 10am to 5pm. Alternatively, call 0845 250 8679 or visit the website www.elan-homes.co.uk.


text:
Thousands of Largemouth Bass released into Waccamaw River
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:41:29 GMT —
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources released thousands of largemouth bass into the Waccamaw River Friday.
The DNR hopes the fish, though they're tiny now, will have a huge impact on Grand Strand fishing.
The 50,000 largemouth bass fingerlings were released at the Hagley Landing in Pawleys Island.
Around 10,000 of the approximately two-inch long fish were released from a DNR truck at the landing.
The rest were transferred to a boat so they could be set free over a wider area to help them avoid predators.
"We don't release them all in one spot because they have less of a chance of survival," explained Scott Lamprecht, region 4 coordinator for the DNR freshwater fisheries division. "If we spread them out, they survive better."
Lamprecht said DNR research, done with the help of a Conway bass fishing club, showed problems for the species in the Pawleys Island area.
Large fluctuations in the river level, caused by ocean tides, seemed to limit the native population.
So Lamprecht said restocking gives Mother Nature a hand.
"Fish don't grow quite as fast as they do in other places and their abundance isn't quite as great as they are in other coastal rivers, so we are trying to enhance what's here."
While fishing may be a sport, it's also a revenue producer, generating millions of dollars for South Carolina and the Grand Strand.
"Statewide, recreational fishing in freshwater accounts for about $1.2 billion to the economy. Largemouth bass is a large part of that," said Ross Self, the DNR freshwater fisheries section chief.
The tiny largemouth bass fingerlings have many predators in the river.
Lamprecht said he'd be happy if just 25 percent of them manage to survive to reach maturity.
Those that do will be coveted by fishermen.
"It has for a long, long time been the most popular sport fish across the Southeast, not only in South Carolina," Self said.
Self said DNR research shows most largemouth bass that are caught will be released.
The DNR stocks up to ten million fish in state waters each year, including striped and hybrid bass, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and channel and blue catfish.


text:
Compilation: Selected scenes from different movies.
Production Year: 2016 | Release date: November, 2016
Studio: Wicked Pictures | Director: Unknown
Movie Length: 240 min. in 13 Scenes
Categories: Where: Office
Here's your chance to fuck that hot secretary that you've been dreaming about! Get her out of that skirt, peel off those panties and spread that pussy! She's even nastier than you ever dreamed!
General info: Size: 1846 Mb, Duration: 04: 08: 09, Streams: 2, Full bitrate: 1040 kb/s
Video: H264 (avc1), 720x406, 23.976 fps
Audio: AAC, STEREO, 48 kHz, 151 kb/s
Download video


text:
You have Adblock enabled. Adblock has been known to cause issues with site functionality. If you experience any difficulties, please try disabling Adblock. Close
Add to Favorite List:
Create a new folder:
John and Will
Recognize a pornstar in this video?
Help make pornstars easier to find on Tube8 by telling us who is in this video.
Thanks! The pornstar names will be added to this video when enough users submit the same names.
You must enter a pornstar name that already exists in our database.
- Category: Anal
- Views: 1,943
- Added: 3 years ago
- Description: After a long swim in the cold water, Will and John take a lie down in the sun. John mentions how the cold water shrinks your dick so Will wants to bring things back up to size. He pulls down John's trunks and starts things off with a nice cock gobble. Soo
- Tags: ass, booty
- Pornstars: Add Pornstar
- Favorite by: 1
- Report This Video
Video Comments
All Video Comments (0)
Gay Video Results For:
Sort by:
Sorry, we couldn't find any pages containing
Watch some of our most popular Tube8.com porn videos: Homepage or Category page


text:
DTDAndrew Bogut C FA 5 years ago
DTDAndrew Bogut
Andrew Bogut hit just 1-of-5 shots (including a rare three) to score three points with 11 rebounds, four steals and one block in 28 minutes on Friday against the Rockets.
Owners almost have to disregard his scoring as Bogut is stiff offensively and the Warriors are staying away from him on that end of the floor right now. But for big man stats he has enough upside for those needing a center to give him strong consideration, risks included.


text:
Get TV Today from Time Warner Cable in Ellsworth, ME
By now you've heard that Time Warner Cable is your telecommunications provider in Ellsworth, ME. Are you part of the 94%, or 6,746 people, who still use a traditional screen to watch television in Ellsworth? Or are you part of the remaining 6% who watch television each week on a combination of their smartphone, computer and tablet? Regardless of what you like to watch, Time Warner Cable has a programming package for you.
Choose top rated movies, championship sporting events or even the local news. It doesn't matter because Time Warner Cable has the perfect programming package for you. Get even more features from Time Warner Cable that fit your lifestyle like TWC TV™, which gives you the freedom to watch your favorite TV shows and set your DVR from your wireless devices, no matter where you are.


text:
IRS scandal: IRS feeling the heat from lawmakers
(AP/ABC7) - The Internal Revenue Service is feeling the sort of heat that targeted taxpayers feel from the tax agency. It's the sense that a powerful someone is breathing down your neck.
Republicans in Congress are livid with the IRS over its systematic scrutiny of conservative groups during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Democrats agree that something must be done. Likewise, President Barack Obama isn't at all happy with the tax collectors.
That kind of commonality in Washington is about as rare as a budget surplus. So expect a bumpy ride for the IRS, unloved in the best of times, as a Justice Department criminal investigation and multiple congressional inquiries try to get to the bottom of it all.
The White House on Monday says White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was first informed about an audit of the IRS' inappropriate targeting of conservative groups on April 24 and that she notified senior staff, including Denis McDonough, the chief of staff to President Barack Obama. White House press secretary Jay Carney says Ruemmler "appropriately" decided not to tell Obama at the time because the audit was ongoing.
The audit by a Treasury Department inspector general found that IRS employees singled out groups with names like "tea party" and "patriots" for special scrutiny that delayed their applications for tax exempt status.
Carney said no one in the White House intervened in the inspector general's audit. He says Obama did not learn of the probe until there were news reports about it.
Carney noted that the practice by the IRS workers ended in May 2012.
The central issue is whether IRS agents who determine whether nonprofit organizations have to pay federal income taxes played political favorites or even broke the law when they subjected tea party groups and other conservative organizations to special scrutiny.
Also foremost in the concerns of Congress: Why senior IRS officials, for many months, did not disclose what they had learned about the actions of lower-level employees despite persistent questions from Republican lawmakers and howls from aggrieved organizations.
The IRS is expected to be pesky, even intimidating, to miscreants, but at all times politically neutral. Nonpartisanship is the coin of its realm, perhaps more so than in any other part of government.
"I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives," Obama said in ousting the agency's acting chief, Steven T. Miller.
The president named Daniel Werfel, a senior White House budget official, to take charge of the agency temporarily. Werfel launched a 30-day review of IRS operations, a step unlikely by itself to quiet the storm. Some Republicans want a special counsel appointed to investigate; Democrats are resistant to that.
There's no question IRS actions in the period covering the 2010 congressional elections and the early going of the 2012 presidential campaign have tattered the perception that the agency is clean of political leanings. Whether that was also the reality remains to be discovered.
A report by the Treasury Department's top investigator for tax matters found no evidence that sheer partisanship drove the targeting. But the watchdog disclosed Friday that he is still investigating. His report faulted lax management for not stopping it sooner.
It's a sensitive time for the agency's professionalism to be in doubt because the IRS soon will loom even larger in people's lives. It's to be the enforcer of the individual mandate to carry insurance under Obama's health care law, itself an object of suspicion for many conservatives. To the right, that's insult upon injury from the left.
Any effort from top levels of the administration or political operatives to manipulate the IRS for campaign purposes would put the scandal in the realm of Nixonian skullduggery.
The public record as it is known does not show interference.
At the same time, early IRS assurances that high-level people inside the agency did not know what was going on have been contradicted by evidence that the head of the agency's tax-exemption operation and later its deputy commissioner were briefed about it and did not tell Congress.
As well, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified Friday that he informed senior Treasury Department officials of his investigation last summer. Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday, "No one in the White House was aware."
To qualify for exemption from federal income taxes, organizations must show they are not too political in nature to meet the standard. In the cases in question, applications that raised eyebrows were referred to a team of specialists who took a much closer look at a group's operations. That's normal.
But in early 2010, IRS agents in the Determinations Unit began paying special attention to tax-exempt applications from groups associated with the tea party or with certain words or phrases in their materials, according to the IRS inspector general's report. That's not normal.
The red-flag keywords came to include "Patriots," ''Take Back the Country" and "We the People."
That August, agents were given an explicit "be on the lookout" directive for "various local organizations in the Tea Party movement" that are seeking tax-exempt status. Such organizations saw their applications languish except when they were hit with lots of questions, some of which the IRS was not entitled to ask, such as the names of donors.
In June 2011, after the congressional elections, Lois G. Lerner, in charge of overseeing tax-exempt organizations, learned of the flagging and ordered the criteria to be changed right away, the inspector general said. The new guidance was more generic and stripped of any explicit partisan freight. But it did not last.
In January 2012, the screening was modified again, this time to watch for references to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government."
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are touchstones for liberals, too. But in modern politics, they've been appropriated as rallying cries of conservatives and libertarians. Finally, that May, such flagging ended.
Altogether, specialists reviewed a variety of potentially too-political applications, presumably covering the liberal-conservative spectrum. But fully one-third of the cases were of the tea party-patriot variety. During the height of the flagging, the inspector general says, all applications fitting the conservative-focused criteria went to the specialists while others that should have stirred concern did not.
In short, if you were with the tea party, you were guaranteed a close second look and almost certainly months more of delay. If you were leading a liberal activist group, maybe yes, maybe no.
"Dealing with this was like dealing with tax day every day for 2½ years," says Laurence Nordvig, executive director of the Richmond Tea Party in Virginia. "Like your worst audit nightmare."
His group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2009 and finally got it in July 2012.
Tom Zawistowski applied for the tax exemption for his group, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, in June 2010 when the flagging was gathering steam. He got it in December 2012, after the presidential election.
The IRS asked him for the identity of the group's members, times and location of group activities, printouts of its website and Facebook pages, contents of speeches and the names and credentials of speakers at forums. He said the IRS also audited his personal finances and his wife's.
"The intent of this was to hurt the ability of tea party groups to function in an election year," he said.
An Associated Press analysis of 93 "tea party" or "patriot" groups found that most were shoestring operations, with only two dozen raising more than $20,000 a year.
If the IRS merely rolled over and played dead when it got an application for a tax exemption, the government would be even more broke than it is and big money would have an even more pernicious grip on campaigns.
The IRS knows better than most that politically driven organizations, out to elect and defeat candidates, can masquerade as "social welfare" or other charitable entities under the tax-exempting articles of Section 501 (c) of the tax code.
Or they can align themselves with one, allowing unlimited donations to be raised and the identities of the contributors to stay secret as long as the nonprofit entities don't go too far in overt politicking.
In recent years, advocacy groups have paired their nonprofit arms with "super" political action committees, moves that took hold after a series of court rulings - including the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision - loosened the rules on money in politics.
The rulings gave rise to such pairings as the American Crossroads super PAC with its Crossroads GPS nonprofit on behalf of Republicans in the 2012 campaign, and the Priorities USA Action super PAC with its own nonprofit arm, for Obama's benefit.
Section 501 (c) (3) can be the most lucrative financially for organizations because in addition to conferring tax-exempt status, it allows donations to qualifying groups to be tax deductible.
Section 501 (c) (4) doesn't permit tax-deductible donations but gives groups more latitude to lobby and to dabble more directly in political campaigns as long as "social welfare" remains their primary mission. They can also keep their donors secret, a big benefit over more blatantly political super PACs.
It's all complex, squishy and in some ways subjective, so it might not come as a shock that the IRS would look for shortcuts such as political buzzwords and slogans when deciding what a group is really up to. But the record as yet known does not show that the scrutiny cut both ways.
In congressional testimony about the discredited IRS actions, Attorney General Eric Holder said there is good reason to take a skeptical look at some Section 501 applications but "it has to be done in a way that does not depend on the political persuasion of the group."


text:
music / News
Chris Brown Apologizes for Weed Pictures on His Instagram Account
December 5, 2012 | Posted by
Chris Brown recently apologized on his Instagram for some pictures he posted on his account of himself smoking weed. As previously reported, Brown posted the pics from a smoke shop in Amsterdam, joking that it was medicinal (he actually does have a medicinal marijuana card).
Brown posted:
"Oh Amsterdam y'all are treating me so well! I'm sorry to everyone who got offended to my weed pics. I apologize but if y'all don't like it they don't do it. It's simple. #TeamBreezyKickA**"


text:
- 89 total posts
- 1 review
- 1 discussion
- 87 comments
Reviews & Stories
5 1/2 months post op and going back for revisions. New pics
I am 41 years old and have an 18 year old leaving home soon. I have struggled with my weight for most of my life and at my absolute highest weighed in at 260. I'm 5'6 and over the past 8 months have lost about 45 pounds. My current weight is 196. I hope to be down to 185 by surgery day. I'm very active and over the past couple of years have really tried to adopt a more healthy... READ MORE
Discussions started by something4me
ETT with full back lipo. How do I sleep??
I am having a lipoabdominoplasty with lipo of flanks and full back. I am trying to figure out how to sleep. What position will work best when both front, back and... READ MORE
Recent comments from something4me
Be glad you found out what type of customer service to expect from this plastic surgeon BEFORE you had your surgery. I know you must be disappointed but all things happen for a reason and it sounds like you were not meant to let this... READ COMMENT
Thank u so much! READ COMMENT
I'm so sorry to hear you are not doing well. I am praying for your speedy recovery. READ COMMENT
Thanks island girl. You are already gorgeous, so I am sure whatever you do to your hair will be great. I am actually thinking about straightening mine. Just for something different. READ COMMENT
Thank you nena. I wish I could say that the swelling is a thing of the past but I still deal with it daily. If I eat anything salty forget it! I swell instantly. I mean usually before I can even finish eating whatever it is I can... READ COMMENT


text:
: Android
Voice recognition apps (speech to text)
View Single Post
Eddy R
Edge User
I have been using a different free program for years. ZA PK costs $30. It has been worth every penny.
I have to buy eight android phone or stop reading your post. The brand of the phone and the OS version is because someone up there likes me. Ha ha !
This post has been Ridge and whistle voice dictation only. Repeat this post has been Ridge and only with voice dictation. I have made no corrections. My left in the obvious errors for example (I only purchased one phone).
To be clear. This post is being made on the phone using voice dictation only.
Eddy R
Track Posts by Eddy R via RSS


text:
Here's mine, on a 24" monitor. The 27" just has my toolbar. Most of the time those layer and history palettes are full. The palette on the left is one I built in Configurator to include my most common tools that I don't have keyboard shortcuts for in a single button approach. I rarely use the menu bar, because of that.
2 (or more) monitors generally rock. There's a heap of studies into to (Google away) and a lot of them even show benefits over more monitors versus just one really large one (obviously in photography there are benefits to a very large main monitor for viewing images).Once you get used to it, you will be frustrated when you don't have it.
When it's not photo editing, it could be web page design where I have one screen showing me the current page and how it looks and one page with my CMS open or perhaps some code or whatever else I'm wanting to look at.
Can I check I have this right. You are using two monitors. On the first one is all your edit palettes etc, on the other is the document window with the shot you are editing, and perhaps just the tool bar on one side. If you need to go back to the palettes, from the edit monitor, you move back to the first monitor. Wouldn't it be better if you could have Photoshop configured with two screen views one with the edit and the other with the palettes, and have a hot-key to quickly flip between the two, on the same physical monitor screen? Or are there advantages to having them physically separate? And wouldn't it be better to have a very wide monitor and have my arrangement, but on a wider screen?
Two monitors works exactly like one very wide monitor, when configured as an "extended destktop". I have a 27" screen on the left side and a 24" screen on the right side. They are edge to edge together so as I move the cursor off the right side of the 27" screen it immediately appears on the left edge of the 24" screen. It's very fast to go back and forth between the palettes and the image, especially when using a Wacom pen tablet. All I have to do is move my hand a few inches and I can go from the far left all the way to the far right side of both monitors.


text:
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Threaded View
Wednesday, 14th March, 2012, 05:40 PM #1
Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Intrawebs
- Posts
- 35,764
- Reviews
- Read 23 Reviews
ø Block Morrus
ø Friend+
Creating a retailer-friendly Kickstarter project
Kickstarter projects are all the rage in the RPG community at the moment, and many fantastic projects are getting funded. From RPG sourcebooks to dice, to terrain, the assortment of projects grows continually.
One thing that Kickstarter creators should consider, though, is making their Kickstarter project retailer friendly. Now this doesn't apply to all Kickstarters - some may not be able to make this work (especially those creating print-on-demand books - there's no margin to offer a retail discount), and others are large enough that they're able to raise money for a traditonal print-run. This article is geared towards those smaller projects which aren't intended to go through traditional hobby retail channels. The ones which aren't raising funds for a 5000-copy print run.
Creating a retailer-friendly Kickstarter project is not an easy task, but its far from impossible.
Gary Ray of Black Diamond Games talks on his blog about what a retailer would look for in a Kickstarter project. In short, a retailer would be looking for a 40%-50% discount on a product (plus free shipping); and under those conditions might purchase 3-4 copies. In addition, a retailer is naturally uninterested in the very reward types upon which Kickstarter is based. The retailer wants Kickstarter to work like the hobby games retail channels, and the project creator is not using the hobby games retail channels for a reason.
The difficulty here is that the goals of the hobby retail channel (the retailers) and Kickstarter are not aligned. From the retailers point-of-view, hes purchasing a product; from the project creators point-of-view, hes not selling a product, hes raising funds for one.
So, how can it work for both? Lets look at the projects Black Diamond Games chose to back:
- Journeys to the West offered the book to fans for $50, and five copies to retailers for $75. In addition, five autographed copies were available for $85 total.
- Random Dungeon Generator as a Map offered the poster to fans for $17 and ten posters for $50.
- Gaming Dice in Chocolate and Sugar offered a set of dice to fans for $15 and eight sets to retailers for $100 (not much of a discount on that one).
If your largest cost is your own time (i.e. you make your product yourself), then youre in a much stronger position. You can offer substantial discounts if you dont have a high locked-in per-unit production cost.
So the general template for a retailer-friendly Kickstarter project look like this (make sure you do your math first - you dont want to actually lose money!):
- One of your rewards is one copy of the physical product. It may have other rewards attached (credit rights, input, what-have-you) but retailers wont care about that. View this as a basic pre-order price; this is the retail price of your product, and is designed for FANS (not retailers) to grab a single copy of your product.
- Partway up the reward structure offer a RETAILER reward. This will be 4-5 units of the physical product, have no vanity rewards (no credits, NPCs named after you, creative input, access to private forums, etc.); however it should be set at about 60% of the value of (the basic product x 5).
- You can offer autographed copies to retailers; thats something they may be interested in. Dont add more than a few bucks for those, though, unless youre really super-famous.
- This is obvious, of course, but ensure that the price youre selling to the retailers (60% of the price youre selling to fans) doesnt lose you money. Because youre charging the fans much more, youll be making up the value to them with the rewards that the retailer isnt interested in; for that extra 40% or so, the fan is getting the intangible perks.
Other Advice
There are numerous sources of advice for Kickstarter creators around the web. Here are some useful ones; I'd recommend reading these before enthusiastically launching into your project:
Last edited by Morrus; Wednesday, 14th March, 2012 at 05:48 PM.
vBulletin Message
Similar Threads
The REBUILDING EN WORLD Kickstarter ProjectBy Morrus in forum Publishers, Promotions, Press Releases & Kickstarter AnnouncementsReplies: 335Last Post: Thursday, 26th February, 2015, 07:52 PM
The REBUILDING EN WORLD Kickstarter ProjectBy Morrus in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 115Last Post: Monday, 28th January, 2013, 05:18 PM
My friend's boardgame Kickstarter projectBy RangerWickett in forum Boardgames, Card Games, Wargames and MiniaturesReplies: 2Last Post: Monday, 7th November, 2011, 07:25 PM
The ZEITGEIST Booster Project KickstarterBy Morrus in forum EN Publishing, WOIN, ZEITGEIST, WotBS, & Worlds of 2000ADReplies: 45Last Post: Sunday, 12th June, 2011, 12:31 PM