The fishing trawler was called Providence in the movie with a reg # on the hull of PD 100.
In reality, the vessel used for the film was named Martha David. Since the movie production, she's been sold and likely under a new name and registrationName %26amp; reg no of boat used in film true north?
PLEASE? THANKYOU?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Is it true that women used to be strong and powerful in medieval times but now adays they are merely objects..?
There certainly were strong and powerful women in medieval times, but not all women were strong and powerful. And there was objectification of women then as now. probably though the majority of women were reasonably content with their lot, as people in those days were more likely to make the best of things than to complain endlessly about this or that being unfair etc.
Women's rights were limited in medieval times (though so were the rights of most men). children of both sexes were much more under the authority of their parents than they are nowadays, and women were expected to obey their husbands (as they were in most societies until very recently). Marriage however was more of a partnership then than it is now, since both man and woman performed vital roles in keeping the family going, contributing to the family economy etc. Nowadays most people can manage all right on their own, and mothers seem happy to raise their children alone etc, so marraige as a partnership seems to be less important to most people.
Nowadays women have more opportunities to get higher education, have careers etc(so do most men), though whether this has actually made them happier is perhaps doubtful (there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction about). However, judging by the number of books around on how to get a man, how to keep a man, etc, many women still seem to hunger for marriage. The fundamental desires of life seem to remain the same.Is it true that women used to be strong and powerful in medieval times but now adays they are merely objects..?
Not exactly, no. While women may not have behaved quite as wantonly as women (not ALL women, either - just some) behave today, they were far from ';powerful';. That was the feudal era - the vast majority of people were poor serfs with no rights and very limited freedoms. The ruling class was not a large class, and they were the ones who held all the power, often ruling over the serfs harshly. Women as well as men were oppressed and powerless unless they were lucky enough to have been born into the upper crust.Is it true that women used to be strong and powerful in medieval times but now adays they are merely objects..?
Your question is half correct. In the medieval times, women used to work very hard so they were quite stronger than the average women of today. But nowadays, women don't work that hard as they can easily depend on their man as his income is sufficient. So you might think that they are good for nothing except being a sex object but that's not true. They still have feelings you know.
True. Women have become weak and dainty things over time, requiring the strength of a man to keep them safe and attend to their most feminine needs, such as un screwing jars and removing spiders from the home.
In medieval times they had large swords and wore metal panties to protect their honour. Now they carry mobiles and wear thongs.
WOMEN ARE OBJECTS IF THEY ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE OBJECT. Not all women allow themselves tobe that and are very strong, strong enough to do what it takes. but I do agree some women allow themselves to be objects because they don't want to go and seek better for themselves.
';Their softy weakness is obviously a sign that they're being coddled too much--too much modern luxury. The two biggest differences: 1) Once they bled on folded rags, but now have disposable tampons. 2) Once they sh*t in bed pans or drafty, smelly outhouses, but now have climate-controlled in-door plumbing.';
Bulge Savier, are you saying that men still sh*t in bed pans or smelly outhouses? I haven't met one that does.
Everyone has more luxury now, it's 2009.
Their softy weakness is obviously a sign that they're being coddled too much--too much modern luxury. The two biggest differences: 1) Once they bled on folded rags, but now have disposable tampons. 2) Once they sh*t in bed pans or drafty, smelly outhouses, but now have climate-controlled in-door plumbing.
And yet nothing is still ever good enough for them...curious.
I think that perhaps it was the other way around, where women in medieval times were mere objects of desire and love, and the men where honorable and chivalrous and the sole providers. =P
Women will only be objects until society stops teaching us that they are, and when the feminists stop teaching us they are too oppressed and can't help themselves.
no it was the other way around
women in medieval times were seen as objects of desire/love
but nowadays women are becoming more equal in terms of jobs, equality etc
No in medieval times they were commodoties who were sold by their fathers to other men for wealth often as young a 12.
If you think women are ';merely objects';, you're totally missing out on the true essence of a woman.
Well, I'm sorry you see women as objects.
since when did women become objects?
did u know that u just offended yourself saying that you see them as objects!
Women's rights were limited in medieval times (though so were the rights of most men). children of both sexes were much more under the authority of their parents than they are nowadays, and women were expected to obey their husbands (as they were in most societies until very recently). Marriage however was more of a partnership then than it is now, since both man and woman performed vital roles in keeping the family going, contributing to the family economy etc. Nowadays most people can manage all right on their own, and mothers seem happy to raise their children alone etc, so marraige as a partnership seems to be less important to most people.
Nowadays women have more opportunities to get higher education, have careers etc(so do most men), though whether this has actually made them happier is perhaps doubtful (there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction about). However, judging by the number of books around on how to get a man, how to keep a man, etc, many women still seem to hunger for marriage. The fundamental desires of life seem to remain the same.Is it true that women used to be strong and powerful in medieval times but now adays they are merely objects..?
Not exactly, no. While women may not have behaved quite as wantonly as women (not ALL women, either - just some) behave today, they were far from ';powerful';. That was the feudal era - the vast majority of people were poor serfs with no rights and very limited freedoms. The ruling class was not a large class, and they were the ones who held all the power, often ruling over the serfs harshly. Women as well as men were oppressed and powerless unless they were lucky enough to have been born into the upper crust.Is it true that women used to be strong and powerful in medieval times but now adays they are merely objects..?
Your question is half correct. In the medieval times, women used to work very hard so they were quite stronger than the average women of today. But nowadays, women don't work that hard as they can easily depend on their man as his income is sufficient. So you might think that they are good for nothing except being a sex object but that's not true. They still have feelings you know.
True. Women have become weak and dainty things over time, requiring the strength of a man to keep them safe and attend to their most feminine needs, such as un screwing jars and removing spiders from the home.
In medieval times they had large swords and wore metal panties to protect their honour. Now they carry mobiles and wear thongs.
WOMEN ARE OBJECTS IF THEY ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE OBJECT. Not all women allow themselves tobe that and are very strong, strong enough to do what it takes. but I do agree some women allow themselves to be objects because they don't want to go and seek better for themselves.
';Their softy weakness is obviously a sign that they're being coddled too much--too much modern luxury. The two biggest differences: 1) Once they bled on folded rags, but now have disposable tampons. 2) Once they sh*t in bed pans or drafty, smelly outhouses, but now have climate-controlled in-door plumbing.';
Bulge Savier, are you saying that men still sh*t in bed pans or smelly outhouses? I haven't met one that does.
Everyone has more luxury now, it's 2009.
Their softy weakness is obviously a sign that they're being coddled too much--too much modern luxury. The two biggest differences: 1) Once they bled on folded rags, but now have disposable tampons. 2) Once they sh*t in bed pans or drafty, smelly outhouses, but now have climate-controlled in-door plumbing.
And yet nothing is still ever good enough for them...curious.
I think that perhaps it was the other way around, where women in medieval times were mere objects of desire and love, and the men where honorable and chivalrous and the sole providers. =P
Women will only be objects until society stops teaching us that they are, and when the feminists stop teaching us they are too oppressed and can't help themselves.
no it was the other way around
women in medieval times were seen as objects of desire/love
but nowadays women are becoming more equal in terms of jobs, equality etc
No in medieval times they were commodoties who were sold by their fathers to other men for wealth often as young a 12.
If you think women are ';merely objects';, you're totally missing out on the true essence of a woman.
Well, I'm sorry you see women as objects.
since when did women become objects?
did u know that u just offended yourself saying that you see them as objects!
Is that true the sling used for lifting the cage should be tested annualy at 5 times the cage and working load
,At least 5X, maybe more, just to be safeIs that true the sling used for lifting the cage should be tested annualy at 5 times the cage and working load
the minimum standard is 4.5 times the cage weight but is usually tested heavier. most sre now testing every 6-12 months to remain certified and remain insured
the minimum standard is 4.5 times the cage weight but is usually tested heavier. most sre now testing every 6-12 months to remain certified and remain insured
How to identify true identity of someone using their yahoo user ID?
my friend has been constantly harrassed and get nasty ym's from tiger_man852000. i would like to find out who he is and tell him to leave her alone. Thank you.How to identify true identity of someone using their yahoo user ID?
im sorry yahoo doesnt give out true identitys of people because they dont know. you could just have your friend report the person to yahoo and then block/ignore them from being able to talk to you.How to identify true identity of someone using their yahoo user ID?
i think there is no way to find out who he really is because you could always make a yahoo account and can put names of others and not your real name. tell your friend to change account to avoid the one harrassing her
In the older days of yahoo chat, i believe it was possible to view a user's aliases. However, with all the privacy features, I don't think you can. The best solution would be to report him for abuse. abuse.yahoo.com. Be sure to have your friend include a copy of the message in the complaint. Also, have your friend place him on his/her ignore list. The next message that is received, just click on ignore (should be a button at the bottom of the IM window).
im sorry yahoo doesnt give out true identitys of people because they dont know. you could just have your friend report the person to yahoo and then block/ignore them from being able to talk to you.How to identify true identity of someone using their yahoo user ID?
i think there is no way to find out who he really is because you could always make a yahoo account and can put names of others and not your real name. tell your friend to change account to avoid the one harrassing her
In the older days of yahoo chat, i believe it was possible to view a user's aliases. However, with all the privacy features, I don't think you can. The best solution would be to report him for abuse. abuse.yahoo.com. Be sure to have your friend include a copy of the message in the complaint. Also, have your friend place him on his/her ignore list. The next message that is received, just click on ignore (should be a button at the bottom of the IM window).
A doctor uses a HIV PCR test to screen for HIV and claim that there is no window period. Is that true?
A lot of Doctors in Taiwan claimed HIV PCR test detects the virus itself rather than the antibodies. Therefore there is no window period. He said that is because if one is exposed to the virus, it will be in their system. So this is the best and most accurate test without a window period. %26lt;--- From my understandings is that you have to get an antibody test after the window period (usually 3 months) and then if your results is positive, they then test you again with a HIV PCR test to see how much virus is actually being produced in your body. I also learned that using HIV PCR test to screen for HIV is not good because during the window period the virus might have not produced much, so might not be able to be detected. Can someone please confirm me is the HIV PCR test in Taiwan used accurately?A doctor uses a HIV PCR test to screen for HIV and claim that there is no window period. Is that true?
It's true that a PCR tests for the virus itself - whereas the Elisa %26amp; Western Blot test for antibodies.
Antibodies can take 3 weeks to 3 months to show up in the blood, (some states still call for a 6 month wondow period.)
There is a window period of sorts for the PCR test though. If you were to become infected tonight, you would not have a positive PCR tomorrow. I think it takes between 7 - 14 days for the virus to reproduce enough to get a detectable PCR test.
I know a few doctors in the U.S. who also use PCR tests rather than standard antibody tests.
Is it good or bad? I think it all depends on how comfortable the patient is with the information %26amp; when they last may have put themselves at risk.A doctor uses a HIV PCR test to screen for HIV and claim that there is no window period. Is that true?
The best way to confirm whether or not you have HIV is to get tested for it every 6 months.
There is a window period for HIV. When someone tests positive for HIV, they usually conduct confirmatory tests (PCR/western blot is usually one of them). Majority of people who are positive will test as positive in the first 3 weeks following exposure. They use 3 months as the window period because approximately 96% test positive in that time frame. To be absolutely sure, test in the 6 months following time of exposure.
It's true that a PCR tests for the virus itself - whereas the Elisa %26amp; Western Blot test for antibodies.
Antibodies can take 3 weeks to 3 months to show up in the blood, (some states still call for a 6 month wondow period.)
There is a window period of sorts for the PCR test though. If you were to become infected tonight, you would not have a positive PCR tomorrow. I think it takes between 7 - 14 days for the virus to reproduce enough to get a detectable PCR test.
I know a few doctors in the U.S. who also use PCR tests rather than standard antibody tests.
Is it good or bad? I think it all depends on how comfortable the patient is with the information %26amp; when they last may have put themselves at risk.A doctor uses a HIV PCR test to screen for HIV and claim that there is no window period. Is that true?
The best way to confirm whether or not you have HIV is to get tested for it every 6 months.
There is a window period for HIV. When someone tests positive for HIV, they usually conduct confirmatory tests (PCR/western blot is usually one of them). Majority of people who are positive will test as positive in the first 3 weeks following exposure. They use 3 months as the window period because approximately 96% test positive in that time frame. To be absolutely sure, test in the 6 months following time of exposure.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Is it true that esctacy was used for horses before a race?
It was a form of amphetamine. But it had nothing like the effects of esctasy.The race horses were to valuable to risk using a drug as unpredictable as esctasy.
Even if it had been around at that time.
It was used up until dope testing in racing became more sophisticated and heavy penalties were applied to all involved.Is it true that esctacy was used for horses before a race?
yeah, but it wasn't the same stuff that is being used now in this day and time.band myspace
Even if it had been around at that time.
It was used up until dope testing in racing became more sophisticated and heavy penalties were applied to all involved.Is it true that esctacy was used for horses before a race?
yeah, but it wasn't the same stuff that is being used now in this day and time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)