Thanks, Plei. Sadly, that site does not meet my friend's needs, which is a location with lots of reasonably priced pretty things. The boyfriend is all caught up in the Wedding Industrial Complex and freaking out about the thought of spending thousands of dollars. She would like to show him that hundreds of dollars is fine.

That's when you physically drag the guy to quirky antique malls. My modest antique wedding set was under $800 at one.

Or point her here: [link]

Ooh, that's a good one, thanks! Granted that apparently Monday night was the first skirmish, but she emailed him the link to a $400 ruby ring on eBay that she really liked, and he was still all alskdfj;alsk.

There's little use in trying to normalise inside and outside competition. Boxing is competition. How do you normalise for outside the ring? What happens in TKD and karate competition depends entirely on whose rules you're using in which federation. How do you normalise that?

Well, the problem with the original study is that it's comparing apples and oranges. What I was trying to do was riff on the research question, and attempt to fix the problem with the study by looking at it apple-wise, and orange-wise.

(I would suggest that boxing has a long tradition of stand-up fighting before it became a formalized, competitive sport. Kids on a playground, and their parents in a bar, have been assuming a boxing stance -- hands up at the face, jabbing with the closed fist, aiming for the head -- for a long, long time.)

I don't mean to be cranky. I just find your narrow-focus interrogation of my general-approach discussion overwhelming, and not conducive to the kind of riffing that I think works in Natter. In a formal debate, what you did would be fine; but instances like this, where you respond with considerably more literal seriousness than I think is necessary, can throw a chill on the conversation. Different conversational styles, I know, but I remember that time we talked about conversational styles, and you were surprised to find out that your style can sometimes make people squirm. I'm telling you: the above made me squirm.

No harm, no foul, just squirm.

but she emailed him the link to a $400 ruby ring on eBay that she really liked, and he was still all alskdfj;alsk.

Well, there's always the gumball machine option.

Well, there's always the gumball machine option.

It seemed like they were having a fairly weird post-feminist discussion about the whole thing, honestly. "How come I have to buy you a present? What do I get??" "My hand in marriage. Anyway, I like jewelry!" "But they say three months' salary! That's crazy!!" "Yes, it is crazy. I don't want that." "But, but... a'lksjdf;aljksdf."

Well, the problem with the original study is that it's comparing apples and oranges. What I was trying to do was riff on the research question, and attempt to fix the problem with the study by looking at it apple-wise, and orange-wise.

I don't think the study was trying to determine effectiveness. They were just measuring the force generated by different martial arts techniques. They're looking at it from a scientific standpoint, not who's going to win in a street fight. In which case, I think it's valid to say "A trained boxer can punch this hard, while a karateka punches this hard, so boxers punch harder." Granted, I don't know how many practicioners of each art they studied, as force can vary from person to person. Ideally they should have multiple from each art, each with a different height and weight, and then match that height and weight among the practioners of all the arts. It's possible some techniques generate more force when applied by people with different body mechanics.

silly cutiehead couples.

What Kalshane said.

The question/method you're proposing, Nutty, doesn't seem like it can be applied to anything. So I ask more details.

I would suggest that boxing has a long tradition of stand-up fighting before it became a formalized, competitive sport. Kids on a playground, and their parents in a bar, have been assuming a boxing stance -- hands up at the face, jabbing with the closed fist, aiming for the head -- for a long, long time

That's not boxing. That's punching. Lots of people punch. Boxing is when you say "Okay, no elbows, no kicking, no punching below the belt, etc, etc." It's the rules that set it aside from just striking with a closed fist.

I punch lots. I avoid boxing, because even when I'm limited to just punching, I won't play if I don't get to punch legs and groin. Boxing doesn't interest me, except in their focus on sweet footwork.

I apologise for making you squirm Nutty. I hate things I don't understand, especially when they're on topics I do. So I get bulldoggish, but it's unemotionally so, and it still isn't something I remember that other people don't feel unemotional about it.

It seemed like they were having a fairly weird post-feminist discussion about the whole thing, honestly. "How come I have to buy you a present? What do I get??" "My hand in marriage. Anyway, I like jewelry!" "But they say three months' salary! That's crazy!!" "Yes, it is crazy. I don't want that." "But, but... a'lksjdf;aljksdf."

I've had this conversation. In the end, I suggested an 'engagement computer' that we could both use. Seemed practical to me, though having to buy something to solidify a commitment is a strange thing.

we had a similar conversation and decided that we would get me a ring when I saw it and said WANT. I wanted to get him something too... but my finances precluded it for a long time... and then we bought a house... but we had a very fun and mellow engagement process.