Nice piece of advice I saw on the show Scrubs, nurse carla was (again) giving love advice to doctor barbie and mentioned, don't lay out all your crazy on a guy too soon, you have to dish out the crazy in small doses so that he's already fully committed before he realizes you're insane.

wise words. you go ahead and keep some of those secrets.

darn my fudgy fingers hit "report post" before "quote", I navigated back a page straight away so I don't think the "report post" mistake registered, but my apolegies if it did.

I was going to say, whilst you certainly seem to have the right approach the problem could be many have the same attitude towards a romantic spark at first meeting, which is all well and good but it's glamour, illusion and not very sincere unless you give yourselves time to interact for a bit and generate a genuine attraction on other levels, which affect the way a person physically looks to you (visual attraction is an intellectual construct and is continually being reprogrammed through experiences and influences).

Often in date scenarios women tend to be ridiculously impatient and dare I say it, initially contemptuous of their proposed partner. Body language is governed by moods and transient psychology and aren't actually accurate forms of communication, yet that first glance, if you've made her feel feminine and desirable at onset, moods and psychological tactics and nothing whatsoever to do with personalities, yet the primary means to be dismissively or acceptably judged by women on a first date. Your whole personality judged by which chess piece you moved on a board.

Ten minutes into a sit down conversation an endearing look laced with sexualized attraction is going to be genuine and sincere for the first time so far, but women have generally judged and either friendzoned or made baby plans about you long before then.

Get it straight that you're also seeking a sexual relationship unless you're looking for your mother or something on here OP, but that clearly you would like to take the sexual side of a sexual relationship a bit more slowly than some people have expressed in messages.

That's fair enough, but keep in mind everybody looking for a partner is also looking for sex, it's all about the rate at which you'd like to develop that side of things, and some people just want to dive right into it. If you don't, simply decline that offer and go onto the other ones.

If you instead go looking for guys who aren't looking for sex in a sexual relationship, what then are they looking for? A serial killer victim? A sexual relationship includes sex, but you are perfectly correct in the assumption that it doesn't have to start out with that. For some it does, and those people aren't for you. That's all there is to it.

A most pleasantly forum appropriate thread posting.
Science and philosophy is also simply about liking nice things.

:)

An organization of self governing people are rising up against government?
It's non-sequiteur because the only way that statement makes any sense is it's about disassociation of personal issues and "down with the establishment" is the denial to start acting responsibly so you don't have guilt.

Everything is government you twats. You pet the dog and give him treats when he practises being house-trained? That's government.
You control yourself when a hot chick walks by and don't rape/murder her in a fit of sexual frustration? That's government.

It's like talking to retarded people.

Gravity with Clooney and Bullock was irritating. Astonishing cinematography, horridly implausible characters and utterly superfluous yet irritating dialogue.
Another version in the long line of Warner/etc. prepackaged box office blockbuster plotline versions for any and all film genres: take a completely useless moron who whines incessantly and is completely determined to get everyone around them killed, and place them in a survival situation with some intelligent people which, implausibly sacrifice themselves so that nobody but the moron survives.
Ultimately it's better to be stupid because if you were intelligent you'd have to sacrifice yourself to save a stupid person anyway?

For some reason americans seem to love this plotline in paying droves. And no other.

Anyhoo, from this moment about halfway through the film was no better than that ridiculous Mission to Mars thing, with the tear jerking "mission commander implausibly sacrifices himself" that made me stop watching and go do something else more entertaining.

1. It's inalienable. Inalienable as in inverse-alienable. It's not unalienable as in undone-alienable which makes no sense.

2. the act of enforcing the exclusive facilitation of individual liberty by conspiracy or subjugation or any means whatsoever is the very definition of government-over-man.


The problem for democracy fighting totalitarianism is that totalitarianism is ultimately a democractic state. All governments are always physically overwhelmed by their populations, and exist purely by popular assumption amongst their populations.

Otherwise they're just more wackos on street corners shouting stupid things.

Tell you how the British did it (formed empire, enforced monarchism then parliamentary oligarchy). An indictable offence is Sedition, literally the crime of challenging the absolute "rightness" of the current political system. It's a capital offence by the way. And was reinstated as part of the Commonwealth's support of the US led NATO-coalition in the War On Terror.

So really, thanks for that you arse monkeys. Your little hate masturbation for the muslim world and middle east managed to set back our Australian government about 150 years in terms of political reform you backwards little retards.

Throw in quantum entanglement for two completely different, identical truths.


yes, it hurt my brain just thinking it.

I thought all the serial killers came from Des Moines, or went to school there or buried someone there or something.

The only way this really affects your personal world is by adding drama to it. People who cared about you personally, like a boyfriend or family, they would wonder why you want to chase drama and be concerned about how grown up you are...I think.

Transparency is one thing, a scene from a soap opera is completely something else. The thing about The Drama is it gets people worked up and angry and potentially dangerous, all over things everybody is just making up inside their own little heads. There is no giant beast attacking with tooth and claw, there is child abuser abusing a child before you to be stopped, there is really no urgency or survival situation at all, but The Drama incites those kind of instincts in people socially and that leads to police domestic calls and stabbed victims.

When choosing between drama and no drama, avoid the drama. If you need to inform somebody of something do so maturely and don't be emotionally involved, but you will wear any consequences and they're all your responsibility.

Say you got it all wrong, seemed malicious and developed an angry stalker who meant you harm over it. Stranger things have happened on college campuses in the US, it's hardly a stretch. And the whole thing about people hurting each other in particularly illegal ways is they tend to believe they're justified and the other party is always the bad one, they're the victim acting out. Everybody on both sides says this.

Don't even walk through doors like that. They're obviously dark places you wouldn't want in retrospect.

You'll find your assumption of a person's intent significantly affects the way you feel about their annoying behaviour.

Regardless of how authoritive we believe our assumptions, the most you can ever know another person is what you assume about them and what they choose to tell you. Even your parents.

When it comes to an assumption of their intent, which drives the emotional reaction to their behaviour, it is merely your own construct. Half of what you believe they are doing, all the parts involving their train of thought, feelings and intent, is simply not true. It is something you made up. And it is this which drives how you feel about it.

Now, when I snap my fingers you will be a rooster and recall none of this.

Are they concerned that the plate may abduct a small child or interfere with old people sexually?

shugenja lore might suggest fear is merely a thought left without expression.

paranoia, now that's usually associated with guilt. I believe the intent of "no fear" as a positive social statement is really "no paranoia" but the articulation is dumbed down for pop-culture.

...but for the religious: it's about politics.

Is there a time politics are no longer necessary, and will we all be waring SS badges on that day?

The math favours the existence of sapient life elsewhere in the universe, however the math doesn't favour any means to ever know of them, or contact them, or interact with them ever.


For the alien conspiracists, NASA had a nice little study of the effects of extended astronautical operations on the human psyche and what they found was the more isolated you are, the more calories you burn maintaining a healthy psychological state.

Life has a really really hard time starting up if there's none of it anywhere else anywhere. The open-system nature of physical observation (the exrapolated physical universe) elicits life is virtually impossible if an isolated occurance in any universe.

Just distract them with old classics like "hey look over there" or "now I think we can both agree it's a bit warmish for clothes right now"

Poor little things, it's hard for them to concentrate on things for long and that's where our superior masculinity can shine though with a single mindedness to score some snatch.

welcome to the facetious booth.

The priorities your policies are designed to preserve are more important than the policies themselves.

We call this "political reform".


On the subject matter as just a bloke's opinion, let's say Australian soldiers were being held? I'd want the primary focus of parliament getting them back. I believe cold war concepts of national security are in desperate need of political reform personally, so consider the current NATO-coalition concept of national security to rate second place to having POWs returned in a fake war. They're not POWs, they're foreign invaders according to the "insurgents" (read: locals), I don't think Geneva Convention is going to be observed.

And fair enough. The whole Middle Eastern affair should've been handled markedly differently since the 90s. The NATO beligerence just got worse since the Soviet collapse, how is that progressive?
The CIS/Kremlin is just as bad.

Maybe being the two nuclear superpowers of the world kind of drove both your national identities a little bit crazy.

Indeed, and bouncing off that, quantum interaction is what you get escaping perfect order (zero state energy field), entropy is not a "running out of puff" it is a "falling with increasing rapidity".
It's perfect order which requires effort to maintain, the act of falling away from it, seeking a rest state causes a physical state of an open system field, I mean the very first thing that happens is GR wraps it all up in a singularity/expanding universe of quantum interaction.

So complex evolutionary diversity is for the living, to live, to fall with increasing rapidity into living. That also you're a part of the entire process, of its very mind.

One thing to keep bouncing in conscious thought when dealing with passionate topics which do have genuine scientific association, is that All Groupings Present Diverse Variation. Just as true for scientific direction and individual personal agenda within the same fields of science.
For example within archaeology, palaeontology and social sciences most of all exists distinct politics to such a degree that subcultures exist within the field with completely different opinions relating to the facts present.
In palaeoanthropology the British universities teach that hominid civilization began with the worship of religion, demonstrated by burial of the dead and construction of altars. The American universities teach that civilization began with the development of speech, significant of cognitive communication.
Makes for interesting arguments, and also means you can still disagree with a scientific opinion whilst being perfectly scientific, but it's uselful to have some peer reference or be prepared to show a lot of math.

Let's see if I've got it straight, Pacific (you do appear to have your very own personal articulation of english after all):

If you've got a massive ego, working on the presumption that you would seek out other people with massive egos to date, what do you do when you have a personality clash?

Well, the idea is to pick someone compatable as a primary requisite whether or not egotism is involved in your life.
You're just basically wondering if you can just pick someone with an ego as big as yours and not worry about compatability.

And wow that's an extra big ego to even think like that O_o


Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with having a massive ego, each to their own, the world and people are ideally diverse, ego is not a dirty word according to The Skyhooks (70s music), so it shouldn't be a secret. One can be proudly egotistical and that's just fine and lawful and all the rest.
But if it wasn't a secret, if you were normal about yourself, then you'd have seen straight off the very topic question is its own obvious answer. It is literally an answer rewritten as a question.