Balls For The Blind

A man comes home early in the day from work when he looks up at his home's roof and realizes that there is a bear on top clutchn onto the chimney. Unsure what to do and fearful that the bear may fall, he runs inside and calls 911 which dispatches and animal control unit to the mans house. 5 min. later the animal control van arrives and a man comes out unloading a ladder, a bat, a shotgun, a pitbul, and a bear cage. the home owner shows the man the bear on the roof and curious of the animal control officers possessions, asks before the man climbs up...'i get the ladder, but what are the other things for?' the bear guy says 'well, the ladder is obviously to get me to the roof, the bat is to knock off the bear, and you see that pitbul, hes trained to grab the bear by the balls blinding him in pain and drag him into the cage over there.' The home owner is shocked by this and says 'ok, i get that, but whats the gun for?!' to that the bear guy replies, 'thats just in case the bear knocks me!
*THE GUN IS FOR YOU...'me?!' replies the man. the bear guy says 'yeah, if the bear knocks me off u damn well better shoot that dog!'



im an animal lover people, its just a joke...sorry about the wording up top, ran out of room and didnt know i could add on...


STAR IF U LIKE IT!

that's very funny!!!!! lololololololol

great joke...

oh i also stared your question

:<)

2008-02-10 10:48:21 by ¡¿ʇɐɥʍ ʎɐs

Aniamtion Mechanics

I'm in karate and i'm a purple 1st degree. When were at school playing dodge-ball, i have a 290 degree vision. I can see a ball on my sides and in front of me. I can dodge them like nothing. however, the balls in back of me are a problem. I can hear the noise but for whatever reason, i can't seem to dodge them. Anyone know how i can practice at home so i can dodge the balls in my blind spot.
i'm sorry. I meant 260

thanks for answering my question and try having someone play dodge ball with u at home in the yard..in front and back of you i hopethid helps you

2009-06-29 18:43:09 by Yoshiflame

i was told :though i already knew: that ball pythons see infrared light. the person said that by using an infrared heat lamp that it must be blindingly bright in there to my ball. is there any truth to not using infrared bulbs for pitted snakes?

Infrared heat output and it's strength is better for reptiles that require heat for deeper tissue penetration. Examples of these reptiles are monitors, tegus, iguanas, desert species and crocodilians. A red reptile bulb is low-vis to reptiles. You can use a red reptile bulb for your ball python but, is does not need to be an infrared bulb. Infrared does not have any color rendering indexes or visual light characteristics. Your ball python has labial heat receptors along the upper half of it's snout just below it's eyes and nostrils. As you may know, these receptors are used in conjuction with sight, scent and sound vibrations to help detect the heat signature of prey whether a ball python is hunting during the day or at night. Infrared is not a blinding light for pitted snakes or any snake. The heat wave produced from a pure infrared exposure is just a bit too strong.

2009-09-17 05:18:43 by skitls05

Y'know, I've often wondered, and I suppose you have too, what makes people round the world believe the way they do? Since their language is all so different although the words are all the same, while some dress up in fancy clothes and others still hunt wild game. Many people around the world busy with their lives, large and small, black and white, strong and weak, yet everyone appears to be the same until they start to speak. Their lives are all so different although the future is all the same, while some just live for the moment as others live through poverty and shame.

Some say God created the world with all creatures great and small, and all things bright and beautiful bouncing like a well aired-ball. Blinded by their religion believing in a thousand year old book, these people live their life alone afraid to take a closer look. Some say life evolved on the Earth and so they live by words of science, exploring their natural world within living a life of religious defiance. Others just do not care either way out to make a buck, bending the rules of society with nothing in mind but money and luck.

So here I stand upon the Earth looking for answers to life, trying to live with all the above leading to nothing but strife. Asking myself in search for the truth, just what makes people round the world believe the way they do?

The question is Why do you believe in what you do?

Yes, language separates people of the Earth more so than any other factor. If people can't communicate then how will they ever understand other cultures?

It's interesting that you bring this up in R & S. All religions seem to be cultural. For instance Christianity grew culturally through word of mouth, just like any other secular concept. Same for every other religion. You don't see Hinduism strangely showing up in the Amazon jungle unless Hindus themselves brought it there and taught others.

Why doesn't God just teach everyone around the world all at once instead of relying on word of mouth?

Also, keep in mind that most humans are inherently conformists. There is good evidence for this. Humans like to conform to groups just like ants or zebras. Maybe that has worked for us since there is "safety in numbers" but it doesn't make for people challenging the ideas of their culture.

Maybe the future can be different though.

2009-12-07 18:25:44 by Einstein59

Philadelphia Jan. 3. 1793
DEAR SIR
The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots, and the Feuillants as the Monarchical patriots, well known in the early part of the revolution, and but little distant in their views, both having in object the establishment of a free constitution, and differing only on the question whether their chief Executive should be hereditary or not. The Jacobins (as since called) yielded to the Feuillants and tried the experiment of retaining their hereditary Executive. The experiment failed completely, and would have brought on the reestablishment of despotism had it been pursued. The Jacobins saw this, and that the expunging that officer was of absolute necessity, and the Nation was with them in opinion, for however they might have been formerly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they were come over from their hope in it, and were now generally Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands, the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen. The reserve of the Pres. of the U.S. had never permitted me to discover the light in which he viewed it, and as I was more anxious that you should satisfy him than me, I had still avoided explanations with you on the subject. But your [letter] 113 induced him to break silence and to notice the extreme acrimony of your expressions. He added that he had been informed the sentiments you expressed in your conversations were equally offensive to our allies, and that you should consider yourself as the representative of your country and that what you say, might be imputed to your constituents. He desired me therefore to write to you on this subject. He added that he considered France as the sheet anchor of this country and its friendship as a first object. There are in the U.S. some characters of opposite principles; some of them are high in office, others possessing great wealth, and all of them hostile to France and fondly looking to England as the staff of their hope. These I named to you on a former occasion. Their prospects have certainly not brightened. Excepting them, this country is entirely republican, friends to the constitution, anxious to preserve it and to have it administered according to it's [sic] own republican principles. The little party above mentioned have espoused it only as a stepping stone to monarchy, and have endeavored to approximate it to that in it's [sic] administration, in order to render it's [sic] final transition more easy. The successes of republicanism in France have given the coup de grace to their prospects, and I hope to their projects.—I have developed to you faithfully the sentiments of your country, that you may govern yourself accordingly. I know your republicanism to be pure, and that it is no decay of that which has embittered you against it's[sic] votaries in France, but too great a sensibility at the partial evil by which it's object has been accomplished there.

Interesting...... Jefferson is clearly answering someone who has written him several letters in the past. They are writing each other about the French Revolution. I'm sure that the Correspondent is Lafayette. I always loved trying to decipher the contents of letters.

The correspondent is hot with anger against the Jacobins (...extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France)

Jefferson seems to be defending actions that occurred during the so-called" Reign of Terror" . After all, the Guillotine killed tens of thousands during this time. Jefferson states "In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent......) Here he is essentially saying that the ends justifies the deaths of any innocents -- because you have a Free France at the end of all this madness........The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood?

Also - the correspondent must have asked about the nature of President Washington's opinion on this issue. Jefferson answers the Pres. did not offer an opinion until now but disagrees with you and warns that the Correspondent's thoughts on the subject are contrary to US thought and policy. Lafayette was a leading figure among the Feuillants, which was a group who tried to turn France into a constitutional monarchy,

This letter is not about the D of I directly -- it touches on the nature of Jefferson. Jefferson rotes about the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, what does that mean when he tells Lafayette -- sorry but a bunch of innocent people in France have to die in order for France to finally turn out as a republic. Also - shut up - your opinion about the actions of the Terror is not how the USA sees it (me, Washington & 99 out of 100 US citizens). Also - you're giving aid and comfort to our American enemies at home who want to have a constitutional monarchy in the US -- so pipe down. (See the sentence beginning with "These I named to you...."). And in the end, Jefferson lets the Correspondent know that he (the Correspondent) is a great republican BUT he's just being too sensitive about the "partial evil" (all the killing) that had to happen for France to stay a republic.

I always read letters aloud especially because the language is so much more formal and anarchic.. Also, break them apart into Writer and Reader/Correspondent (I used different colored highlighters to separate sentences that applies to either the Writer (I think) vs what he was telling the Reader (YOU should do or think this).

Hope this helps.... Thanks for posting something out of the normal and really interesting!!!!

2008-08-09 10:42:35 by Bri