Your photo makes me think of bad family weddings. Please tell me it wasn't taken in Cornwall.

Sarcasm is the cream on top of the humour coffee.

You're famous!

I can

So do I get to share?

Of course, defining each is entirely subjective, and thus practically impossible. I would suggest that measuring intelligence is related to our own. We want to be with somebody who can stimulate our minds, hold their own against us, and be able to engage us in conversation. In long term relationships in particular, this would outweight attractiveness, simply because a hot bod does not a relationship make. Of course, because it is subjective, intelligence could be measured as anything from 'able to understand and discuss my love of beer' to ambling conversations about quarks.

And of course, most people don't want to be with someone who is substantially more intelligent than themselves. We need someone to reinforce what we consider our strong points, not overwhelm them.

Attraction I would probably label as more of an ethereal quality. It's not easy to put into words. Is it chemical? Is it biological? A lot of people say they have a type, when they intellectualise the process, but on the same strength you may find their partner goes against that type. They just have 'something'.

You can be attracted to somebody on a physical level, and an emotional one, and both can, and will evolve. You can be attracted to somebody inexplicably, and find them intellectually lacking. You can be attuned to someone intellectually, but the spark isn't there.

In an ideal world, we're looking for them both, but I have my doubts as to how realistic, or even ideal, the concept is.

Great topic!

Maybe she just feels a little off kilter with phoning at this stage. I wouldn't automatically assume it as a bad thing. If she wants to continue talking online, then do so and see what happens. Hearing someone's voice makes it real, and maybe she isn't comfortable with that at the moment.

People have different time frames.

CONGRATS! It looks awesome - he did an incredible job!

*gasp* You'd go for her over kate? You sinner!

Yeah, I'd pretty much say the same...only I find it isn't the parties, or the sex that's the issue, it's the people I have mostly found at them.

I'm all for promiscuity, in principle. It's just unfortunate there isn't a screening test for morons beforehand.

LOL I think Hurley is pretty cool, and I hope they do elaborate on his storyline. I was sad when Libby died. He needed a love interest.

So what is the fun you describe as irritating?

Alright, I've been deliberating over my reply. Part of me wanted to say 'well mostly I don't define myself by any traits a chart would tell me I possess' but then that's just being a smart ass.

I'd say your description is pretty nail-on-the-head for me too.

I'm all of those things (and damn proud of it). And I know how to have fun. My fun, as you say, doesn't often gel with the fun of common perception. Give me a book, some damn good coffee, and a pen, and I'm sorted for at least a good week.

Attention? Yes. From someone I respect. Attention for the sake of it makes me uncomfortable.

Another Capricorn here.

The world can tell me Nicole Richie is the greatest thing since sliced bread and I'm not about to believe it.

I'm sure Britney has some notion that she's out of control, but there's a world of difference between knowing it, and making that connection to getting help, or doing something about it herself.

But for the record, before I head on out of here, whether she's crazy or not, or ends up without her kids for good, it's not really where my interest is.

I just find the reactions to it all fascinating.

Cheers for the discussion!

I'm not sure if you're understanding the notion of being 'abnormal','crazy', 'nut job'...whatever else you want to label it.

By definition, reality is skewed, logic has been thrown out of the window with the bath water, and the person is incapable of making decisions, let alone being responsible for themselves.

Hence lockdown.

Therefore, to follow on, if she recognises she is crazy, in her crazy capacity, then her percpection of it can't be trusted.

I'm giving myself a headache.

She likely is crazy, at least by common definition, which is the entire point. How could a person who is crazy recognise their own crazy behaviour in any sort of non-crazy way?

I could see Sawyer surviving past Hurley. Sawyer is the eye candy. Not to mention if either him or Jack were to die anytime before the last few episodes, the lurrrrveeee triangle would collapse.

Did you perhaps think that maybe it's in public because the media are always in her face?

Did you ever consider that being a 'nut' would imply one doesn't have the capacity to be rational, and therefore it's not exactly logical she would seek help?

Your argument is a little circular.

Nah, he's not going to die. He'll be there until the end.

I think they'll all be back in the US and realise how much better their lives were on the island. It will turn out to be some big conspiracy and they'll beg The Others to let them go back as part of their group.

And we'll find out it's really a cross between The Truman Show and Battle Royale.