Baabaara.GabonX wrote:Your wife's name wouldn't happen to be Mary would it?
Moderator: Community Team
Baabaara.GabonX wrote:Your wife's name wouldn't happen to be Mary would it?
Strange as it is for Neoteny and I to agree on anything, he was dead-on. It's a self serving take on things obviously invented by someone who considers himself one of the dogs. I've seen much more applicable animal/personality schemes. The best I've seen is Smalley and Trent's "Lion/Otter/Beaver/Golden-retriever" scenario. It stresses how the dominant characteristics of each group can be either a strength or a weakness depending on the needs of the situation.Neoteny wrote:It's a very simplistic analogy that serves only to stereotype and to justify the existence of those who consider themselves the dogs.
add me to the strange mix of agreement..daddy1gringo wrote:Strange as it is for Neoteny and I to agree on anything, he was dead-on. It's a self serving take on things obviously invented by someone who considers himself one of the dogs. I've seen much more applicable animal/personality schemes. The best I've seen is Smalley and Trent's "Lion/Otter/Beaver/Golden-retriever" scenario. It stresses how the dominant characteristics of each group can be either a strength or a weakness depending on the needs of the situation.Neoteny wrote:It's a very simplistic analogy that serves only to stereotype and to justify the existence of those who consider themselves the dogs.
Edit: Also, people are generally not all one thing, but are usually a mixture. And yes, the world IS, or rather, people ARE, complex, and don't generally fit into some pidgeonhole.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
For the record, I didn't come up with this, but it rang true.daddy1gringo wrote:Strange as it is for Neoteny and I to agree on anything, he was dead-on. It's a self serving take on things obviously invented by someone who considers himself one of the dogs. I've seen much more applicable animal/personality schemes. The best I've seen is Smalley and Trent's "Lion/Otter/Beaver/Golden-retriever" scenario. It stresses how the dominant characteristics of each group can be either a strength or a weakness depending on the needs of the situation.Neoteny wrote:It's a very simplistic analogy that serves only to stereotype and to justify the existence of those who consider themselves the dogs.
Edit: Also, people are generally not all one thing, but are usually a mixture. And yes, the world IS, or rather, people ARE, complex, and don't generally fit into some pidgeonhole.
Yes. I'm the 3rd or maybe the 1st to completely agree with neoteny on this.Neoteny wrote:This is apparently my awesome thread.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
your best friend is a saber-tooth...strike wolf wrote:I think it goes without saying that I'm a cat person.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Obviously infallible logic, there ..... NOT!GabonX wrote:Hint: if you disagree with this thread, opposed the Iraq war, and supported the current administration you are a sheep
No dragonsSnorri1234 wrote:i'm a dragon.
If you have the capacity to defend, or to physically offend you are a dog or a wolf.Krueger wrote:Or it could be that we have the ability to shift from one animal to another.
You could be a sheep until you need to defend your family, then you become a dog.
You could be a sheep until the opportunity presents itself, poof, wolf.
Yep, shape shifting animals works well. I think that everyone has the ability to be whatever is necessary for any given situation.
We all decide for ourselves what we do, be it good or evil.
What about mouflons? You don't want to get hit by those horns, even if you're heavier than them.GabonX wrote:No dragonsSnorri1234 wrote:i'm a dragon.If you have the capacity to defend, or to physically offend you are a dog or a wolf.Krueger wrote:Or it could be that we have the ability to shift from one animal to another.
You could be a sheep until you need to defend your family, then you become a dog.
You could be a sheep until the opportunity presents itself, poof, wolf.
Yep, shape shifting animals works well. I think that everyone has the ability to be whatever is necessary for any given situation.
We all decide for ourselves what we do, be it good or evil.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
I'm not quite sure that you are aware of what you are saying anymore. I'm fully capable of defending myself and others, but choose not to do so under an organization that carried out operations that do not mesh with my concept of defense (the military under the past administration). That makes me both a sheep and a wolf according to your criteria. Consistency does not seem to be your strong point.GabonX wrote:If you have the capacity to defend, or to physically offend you are a dog or a wolf.Krueger wrote:Or it could be that we have the ability to shift from one animal to another.
You could be a sheep until you need to defend your family, then you become a dog.
You could be a sheep until the opportunity presents itself, poof, wolf.
Yep, shape shifting animals works well. I think that everyone has the ability to be whatever is necessary for any given situation.
We all decide for ourselves what we do, be it good or evil.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.