Lunch with two Sicilians. Retired.Ex cop. I asked my favorite cop question: how old does a kid need to be before you can tell he’s going to be a criminal. Answer: “Seven”. I get the same answer from every career policeman. Why? ‘Cause it’s just true. If you haven’t got a boy ‘set’ by seven, maybe by four, you’ve failed. Boys are much easier than girls, but the margin for error boys is very small compared to girls.The world can tolerate cheap, nasty, and crazy girls. It cannot easily tolerate reckless, uncaring, and violent boys
Form: Short Note
-
THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN RAISING BOYS IS SMALLER THAN GIRLS Lunch with two Sicilia
THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN RAISING BOYS IS SMALLER THAN GIRLS
Lunch with two Sicilians. Retired.Ex cop. I asked my favorite cop question: how old does a kid need to be before you can tell he’s going to be a criminal. Answer: “Seven”. I get the same answer from every career policeman. Why? ‘Cause it’s just true. If you haven’t got a boy ‘set’ by seven, maybe by four, you’ve failed. Boys are much easier than girls, but the margin for error boys is very small compared to girls.The world can tolerate cheap, nasty, and crazy girls. It cannot easily tolerate reckless, uncaring, and violent boys
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-18 12:33:00 UTC
-
“Men Are Lean, Mean, Problem Solving Machines”.
Boys are easier to raise than girls. Really. But they are. Because we are SIMPLE. It seems to take until women have late teenage boys before they realize that MEN ARE SIMPLE. “Men Are Lean, Mean, Problem Solving Machines”.
-
“Men Are Lean, Mean, Problem Solving Machines”.
Boys are easier to raise than girls. Really. But they are. Because we are SIMPLE. It seems to take until women have late teenage boys before they realize that MEN ARE SIMPLE. “Men Are Lean, Mean, Problem Solving Machines”.
-
UNIVERSITIES ARE HOMOGENOUS AND LIBERAL (except in the only degrees that matter)
UNIVERSITIES ARE HOMOGENOUS AND LIBERAL
(except in the only degrees that matter)
(via Hicks)
https://www.nas.org/articles/homogenous_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 17:33:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030507827650080768
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/39389273_279119466018284_79112885833
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/39389273_279119466018284_7911288583380533248_o_279119459351618.jpg
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-16 19:58:00 UTC
-
We are just producing opportunity. An opportunity that doesn’t come around very
We are just producing opportunity. An opportunity that doesn’t come around very often. The opportunity to change the course of history. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-16 19:01:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030167736205430784
Reply addressees: @enlightdark
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029836654796787713
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029836654796787713
-
The Problem of Symbolic Existence
THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLIC EXISTENCE Or to quote my long time friend Frank Lovell, Knowledge of unicorns exists, even if unicorns do not exist. And even this statement depends upon how we demarcate between Knowledge with Information. We actually don’t have a vocabulary for existence as idea or information other than ‘symbol’. And symbol is often confused with ‘glyph’. So, assuming we demarcate symbol and glyph unicorns exist only symbolically while horses exist existentially. So for existence we have grammars: || platonic < symbolic < constructive(operational) <- descriptive(existential) -> analogistic > literary > and fictional(isms) ||
