Female kitties! Your long reign of gynofelininofascist matrioterror has ended! Over on A Voice for Male Cats Men, JinnBottle has figured out a purr-fect way to put lady cats in their place! (Hint: That place is not on his lap, being gently stroked.) Oh, and this goes for all you human ladies too, or else — POW!
Are you?
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this comment.)
Actually most of the books are in stacks and tubs I got when I moved. I tend to just do alphabetical order by type-fiction in this section here, nonfiction paperbacks here and then nonfiction hardbacks here.
It is not truly that difficult, just really time consuming and tedious.
My books are usually ordered by size, then I put the new ones on top. Then again I don’t have than many books, because for a long time I didn’t buy any, just add some for birthdays and borrowed a lot to the library, and sometimes to friends.
Yeah, I had a brain cramp. I was speaking of Richard III, and I did mean the Battle of Bosworth (1485).
I know I’m late to this thread, but I felt I just had to point this out:
Dave: “It generally seems much easier for women to find sex/love/companionship than comparable men.”
I’m not sure who’s crunching the numbers over at LoveShy, but I’m pretty sure that heterosexual women have sex/love/companionship with heterosexual men EXACTLY AS OFTEN as heterosexual men have sex/love/companionship with heterosexual women.
Tautology shouldn’t be this difficult.
Ugh: Almost! Poly people are there to ruin your math.
I organize my books based on the excellent “pile them on my bed” principle.
Ugh: Dave strikes me as one of the people who believes that only men cheat, so the hot dudes are hogging all the women via cheating on them, and nice guys like him can never get laid. Technically, if all of the hot men have two women, it’s quite easy to have a significant proportion of the male population unable to get laid/a partner.
Unless all poly people are actually poly men whose girlfriends sleep with them, and them only, I can’t see it being skewed that much. I mean, men have exactly as many open relationships with women as women have with men.
Unless LoveShy people live on a commune in which poly is only allowed for men but not for women, I don’t know how it happens that heterosexual women can have so much sex while heterosexual women have so little. If they are on scary commune, they probably have bigger problems than being celibate.
But yeah, I guess when a bunch of guys believes that the entirety of a person’s personality can be reduced to one of three Greek letters, reality’s pretty much out the window already.
It’s not exactly a reality-checked belief at alllllll. But “the alphas are hogging all the women and we get NONE of them” is fairly common, at least among PUA-types.
It’s easy to think only 20% of men are getting laid if your belief system basically only considers as valid the existence of the top 20% attractiveness tier of women (by whatever arbitrary criteria you wan to rank them).
I am not sure if I agree that Richard’s reign would have been better for England by the way.
princessbonbon: I didn’t expect you to. 🙂
It’s hard to get a good look at Richard III, in no small part because the Tudor’s needed to villify him. Looking at the ways in which Northumbria throve under his time as governor there, and the ways he was applying the same style of rule to England as a whole; and then looking at the much more restrictive policies of liberty and property that Henry (and his heirs) put into place, I think the populace would have done better.
But we’ll never know.
It could be or it could be that the economic strife was inevitable. I need to finish Inflation in Tudor and Early Stuart England so I can argue more definitely on that part. I know that the northern part of England did well under Richard when he was in charge of it. I do not know if the southern or western part would have done as well since the two other areas were so different than the southern parts. I do know that southern England was viewed very differently because it never had the border to contend with.
Fuck all monarchy.
That is all.
The real issue (IMO) is that Richard was far more tolerant of individual rights, and less money-grubbing. The level of affection he had engendered in the North was a significant problem for Henry, well after his rule was secured. York defied him a couple of times, in terms of whom they elected to local offices.
Assuming his hold on the throne was seen as legitimate (likely, given the desire to end the civil wars) it’s quite probable (IMO) that a greater social mobility would have been possible.
Henry’s timing was fortunate, and Richard’s tendencies to trust in people bit him in the ass. If he’d been willing to keep the Stanley’s in check (by means of either hostage, or the expedient of not letting him leave; something Henry never showed any unwillingness to do), then the end of Bosworth comes to be very much in doubt. I don’t agree with the idea that his letting Henry extend into Nottingham was folly; it wasn’t so long as Stanley didn’t betray him. But that’s a question of strategy, not one of “what happens if the Plantagenet’s keep the crown.
Even Elizabeth had troubles with the northern counties-the only actual rebellion that occurred during her reign originated in the north. So again, it does not follow that Richard could do a decent job of handling the rest of the country. Especially since they thought he usurped the throne from Edward V (granted it was for a sensible reason, the Woodvilles were horrible and there was not going to be much restraint on them if Edward stayed on the throne.)
I also prefer the breaking of the nobles power that Henry did and unlike Richard, Henry could unite the two sides by marrying Elizabeth of York.
But those are post hoc arguments. Elizabeth’s rebellion was an extention of the, “no prince but a Percy”, and the residual loyalty of the North to the Lancastrians.
And Henry’s breaking of the nobles power came at the expense of individual liberties, and much more grasping taxation, which was something of a drag on the rise of a middle class.
The polity was, all in all, satisfied with his presence; there was no flocking to Henry’s banner; even in his native Wales, which was something of a problem. That Stanley turned coat is what saved his usurpation.
It’s complicated. All in all I think Henry was, at best, no better than Richard would have been.
An adorable little pretty-kitty!
No, I DON’T THINK that she should be euthanized, hanged, drowned, or otherwise killed! She should be loved, pampered, looked after, petted, and cuddled.
Happy now?
So much for all of the nonsense gibberish here on womenbeinghateful(a.k.a. manboobz.com) about my being cruel to kitties–or women!
If one really wants to speculate-imagine if Arthur had not died.
@Meller
Riiight.
“hanged”? Who does that anyway? I concur with Myoo that’s way more specific than it needed to be.
There are people who hang cats? Why?
Oh, never mind, it’s just Meller’s creepy little fantasies seeping out all over the internet again.
Meller: You told me to consider euthanize my kitten because she scratched me. You are a despicable asshat who laughs at the pain of cancer patients and can cordially FUCK RIGHT OFF. Hey, for your next act, maybe you can tell me to never see NephewB again because he likes me to chase him around, making my hip ache.
That was the most out of the blue, O/T self defense I’ve ever seen. To crib from Rutee’s playbook:
womenbeinghateful: see above!
Notice that even when I went out of my way to show how much I appreciated little adorables,(see comment 142661 above) , manboobzettes still slandered and attacked me.
How do you spell spiteful, mean, and vicious? F-E-M-I-N-I-S-T.