Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

100% agreed with you, Eldron. Especially that last bit!

Fixed

A good, hearty red wine or a peaty whiskey would be my choice, personally

97.8 this morning, so down 1.7 this month. Nice 'n slow.

This, with an even bigger dose of this.

"All" being 3, the Commie GT and the Norco?

????????????????

Yeah, you can love someone without liking them, and then later on down the road the love turns to resentment if the liking doesn't return. Yeah. 100%

LOL. Just means that you may be slightly more conscientious than Cogito. Which you're perfectly allowed to be.

Thanks for the clarification, and the bold bit, I agree with to a certain extent. BUT. It's a good thing. Women SHOULD be more assertive in the workforce, as it'll lead to better success in promotions and salary hikes (simplistically speaking, and in general. Greater levels of assertiveness correlate to higher levels of success in the corporate environment, according to many studies I've read) Also, there are women who are more aggressive / confrontational / "cold" etc than the average man. There are men who are more amiable / conscientious / kind than the average woman. That doesn't mean that if those 2 people are in a relationship, they'll fight / resent each other over time. It just means that people are the same, but also different. What ruins marriages and relationships is no communication, loss of respect, cheating, incompatability and many other things, INCLUDING the ascribing of certain rigid roles to a certain sex.

Eish, bro. That's a bit too "old testament" to be honest. It's not as cut and dried as that, and there aren't any pre-determined roles that MUST be filled by men / women. Gen's right in that she is able to make her own choice in terms of how she lives her life, and if she's found a partner that complements and enhances her particular traits and personality, then that's awesome. But a relationship's success isn't based upon genders "abandoning" their pre-ordained purpose.

100% agree, Amberdrake. The bold bit, for me, has been the biggest difference. And for my son.

Dude, really interested in how it rides. Those are some serious figures. And you're what, 3 or.4 years into the development cycle, if you include the hardtail?

It's like group therapy, but in a less formal environment

It shouldn't be, but then I don't care if my other half* makes more than me. But, I think it must be said that if it DOES have a negative impact on a relationship, that the 2 people were not compatible to begin with. *hypothetical and / or previous

Yeah, same can be said for men. There are certain jobs / posts / tasks for which the vast majority of men are less likely to fill, due to the general traits that men posess. I'm not saying that they'll struggle to adapt, nor do I think "struggle" is the right term; just that it's not as simple as saying there's no such thing as male / female roles, nor is the term "male role" or "female role" entirely accurate. I'd prefer to say "roles for which females are generally more pre-disposed towards than males" and vice versa, and even then it only caters towards the general population, not the outliers, and doesn't allow for personal responsibility in a relationship, where tasks / chores etc should be equally split. I personally think that the current thinking of "there are no differences between men and women" is a dangerous slope, and does injustice to both men and women alike.

Aggressiveness / antagonism (less empathy / less kindness / lower co-operability) / Risk-seeking / physical to name a few. It's not sexist, male and female humans in general have traits which are largely similar. However, there are differences in how those traits are presented / favoured in males vs females. For example, males are generally less agreeable (or more confrontational) than females. Females are generally more conscientous than males. Males are generally less risk averse than females. Males are generally more physical (stronger) than females. That's not to say that SOME females are more confrontational than SOME males etc, but those are the outliers, and if we were to take the average, men are far more confrontational than females. The same (or inverse) can be said of all the other traits that we humans posess. In life, these traits result in an overall personality and life experience, which may lead some to be more successful in certain areas than others. Ignoring this, when discussing things like the gender pay gap (which is there due to a multitude of factors, not just sex / gender) or the prevalence of men in armed services or fire brigades and STEM fields is disingenuous and misses the overall point - that men and women are different, and these differences should be celebrated, not vilified, or flat-out ignored as some extreme leftist groups want to. It's also not to say that women would be better in the workforce if they were more like men (cos, again, differences need to be celebrated and identified for the different benefits that they bring to teh table) but we also need to consider that if some women were more confrontational (willing to ASK for a raise / promotion / overtime etc) then there may be a shift in how often women were overlooked for pay raises / promotions etc. But, having said the above, it's also a very difficult idea and concept to discuss, because as soon as someone brings it up, or wants to discuss the hard points or bring in some nuance or context, they get shot down with cries of sexism and mansplaining etc (like that internal study memo by that guy at Google, which was 100% correct but shot down cos OMG sexist AF how could he say we're different I'm #triggered!) It NEEDS to be discussed. The lack of women in STEM fields (and many others) is worrying, due to the difference in how men and women (in general) approach things differently, and how those differences in approach could benefit us all. EDIT: Not sure I agree totally with Cogito's post entirely (I think it's far more complex than that) but there is room for discussion and learning around these matters & concepts (on all sides / in general / whatever) #offtopic and a VERY interesting field / concept / study, and this is a good place to start. https://fee.org/articles/jordan-b-peterson-isnt-criticizing-women-when-he-discusses-agreeableness/ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/jordan-peterson-gender-pay-gap-exist/

Yeah, but that's the total overall cost of man hours, experimentation, research, equipment costs and so on, and that's for a single sample. If you scale that up to multiple samples over a long period of time, the avg cost per serving will come down extremely fast.

ARGH, Feck! That's not cool, man. Heal up fast!

Not at all. Answer the questions to the best of your ability (ie know what answer they're looking for and answer accordingly) and BAM. You're in.

That's kaaak cool!!

They like it for the back. Which in 2.3 guise j thoroughly agree with.