Citation to a legitimate source for this 'presented-as-fact' statement? It *seems* to fly-in-the-face of actual, factual legitimate research.


http://www.medicaldaily.com/men-may-age-faster-due-drop-estrogen-how-losing-sex-hormones-makes-you-feel-old-256482 Note the "men-may-age-faster" part of the website's address.

http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v2/n5/full/100149.html Note the "Why men age faster but reproduce longer than women" in the title of the research paper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3310878/Men-age-faster-because-of-Stone-Age-sex.html Note the "Men-age-faster" part of the website's address.

Well, Mr. Pompey69, who was born - NOT in 1969 - but in 1980, I cannot for the life of me fathom why you are not getting positive responses.


I hope the women snap out of it soon, climb down off their high-horses and develop some sort of clue as to what it is they want AND learn to recognize A Good Man when one arrives.


Hope your online luck changes, soon!

According to Merriam-Webster: "ignorant = 1a: destitute of knowledge or education;
1b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence;

2: unaware, uninformed"


According to the actual definition of the word, no - you are not "ignorant", as you are aware of the existence of books, you just don't care to partake in them. You find other venues and mediums to obtain your knowledge and education of the world around you.

Heigh!!!


Welcome OP...and good luck!

Heigh!!!

I still want a unicorn that poops marshmallows.

Jus' sayin'.



Here's to both of us getting what we want, OP!

You asked for personal experience stories, so here goes...

Back during the first "Persian Gulf War" which started in 1990, I was dating a Sunni Muslim expatriate from Libya. We dated for about two years; we were serious enough that he asked me to marry him.

When the war broke out, there were tensions between us. I'm kind of a 'Rah-Rah' American girl and spent evenings watching the televised video OF the war. Needless to say, that made him uncomfortable. He spent the time explaining to me about the "evil, imperialist Americans".


We went through two Ramadans together. During both month-long periods, good Muslims (which he claimed to be) are engaged in deep, spiritual growth; given that we were serious and having sex on a regular basis (but not on Fridays, their Holy Day), we couldn't see one another during these times. Both times, he made it not-quite-two weeks before caving in and sneaking off to see me.


He wanted 9 children. I told him he should HAVE 9 children and dreamed of the millions we'd have, what with him being the first man to give birth to nine babies in his lifetime. Turns out he meant he wanted ME to give birth to all of 'em.


He described to me how life was in his Muslim household. For instance, at dinner time, the women (who'd spent the day cooking the food) would gather together and eat in the kitchen after serving the men, who ate together in another room, where they discussed important things, like politics, the economy, and the such. The women talked about raising babies, sharing recipes, knitting, and the such. Women were not allowed to share in the important discussions, including things involving her own household. According to him, any good Muslim man values his wife's opinion, but as a good Muslim wife, she knows to offer it up only in complete privacy - the best time is when they are bedding down for the night, when he can give her is total attention.


After we broke up, I discovered that he'd had a fiancee to whom he'd been betrothed in his youth, by his family. She, too, was Muslim and came from a neighboring hometown in Libya. At the time he and I were dating, she lived some 400 miles away, so he didn't get to see her very often...and he most assuredly did not have sex with her, as they weren't married yet.

Even later, I found out that this is a pretty common occurrence: Muslim men, who are betrothed at birth/in youth to Muslim women, are encouraged to emigrate and become involved with Western women, in a sort of 'sowing-your-wild-oats' ritual before settling down with their one-and-only-intended.


MY personal experience; your mileage may vary. As others have indicated, it ALL depends on the two individuals involved.


Best of luck - and love - to you!

Ummmm...unfortunately, the forensics DO prove it...and collaborate the officer's version.

Two shots were fired while the officer was in the car; the suspect's body matter was found both inside the police car AND on the outside of the police car's driver's side door...placing the suspect EXACTLY where the officer testified he was.

More shots were fired as the suspect was fleeing and one of them hit him; the officer testified he fired off shots in the suspects direction and knew that one hit him because he saw his body jerk. After hitting him, the officer testified that the suspect then turned and began coming back TOWARDS the officer for several feet, closing the gap between them and thus, closing the gap between the suspect and the gun. The forensic evidence shows a trail a blood leaving the car, moving several yards away and then a trail of blood doubling back and returning in the same direction from its furthest away-point. The officer testified that's when he then fired off several more shots, including the fatal shot to the suspect's head, which entered the skull from the top of the head. This supports the scenario described: that the suspect was lunging towards the officer, in a football tackle-like move.


It appears that you are choosing to provide a new definition for the term "a fleeing suspect" - one that better supports your fictional account of the events, so as to better support your agenda.

I would imagine "online dating" or "online relationship" last longer than 'in real life' "dating or relationship"


since the two people never actually really ever meet face-to-face, so in all reality the other person can be whoever they want to be and/or whatever the other wants (needs?) them to be.




Best of luck to you online, OP!!!

Nahhhh...he didn't "move around after being shot"; the forensic evidence proved he went away, after being shot, and then turned to head BACK in the direction from which he'd come - he returned TOWARDS the gun. The forensic evidence shows he was then shot AGAIN, this time in the head, and THAT'S where he (finally) fell.



I gave you the citation to a legitimate source regarding the current laws in Missouri in ANOTHER thread in which this same topic was discussed.

In addition to providing a hotlink (so all you had to do was click on the hypertext), I also quoted, verbatim, the verbiage so all you had to do was read it, without lifting a finger or flicking your wrist.



There's really no reason to continue to deny that that IS The Law with which the Grand Jury was working.

Unless, of course, there's another agenda upon which YOU'RE working.

Nothing of importance tells the tale of towers.

A shooting star stands upon somebody else's legs.



Welcome and best of luck to you, OP!

Colorful clay is scene as omni-present, much like candy - while any idea is not yet ready to die.

I'm extremely disappointed that the President of the NBA has forgotten so much about The Law and the purpose of a Grand Jury to pander to *popular*, ill-informed opinion.

ANY Grand Jury's ultimate end-goal is determine if prosecution is worth the time, money, and effort to possibly secure a conviction. Since the law in Missouri says that any citizen may shoot - to kill, if necessary - anyone whom they believe is about to commit a felony AND allows for police officers to shoot - to kill, if necessary - fleeing suspects and the forensic evidence shows the halted suspect was fleeing and then back-tracked towards the officer


successful prosecution to a desired 'guilty' outcome could not be achieved.


Oh, and if you feel like I'm repeating myself - and the facts of the matter - incessantly...I am.

Every single time you bring up another *fascinating* aspect of this same, old, tired story which ignores all the facts of the matter in an attempt to spin it into something it is not...

...and can never be.




Wonder which one of us will grow tired of it, first?

Dang it...this is getting us nowhere.

Time for a different tactic.





Is your number bigger than a bread basket?!?

Ahhhhh, OP...sometimes we women create success, all on our own, even without a man in the foreground.

Shocking, I know.




Best of luck to you.

*Interesting*. You missed a few. But, the ones that were left behind, were simply targeting me rather than the topic


so it's all good.

I can agree with THAT statement, but that's not what fleta said, which had been called into question. I think everyone can agree we all want world peace, but that wasn't being discussed here, either.


Fleta said 'whites don't riot, break stuff, and burn stuff due to racially-charged motivations'.


Before my quote was completely bastardized, THAT was the sentiment I'd agreed to; as long as 'white folk' enjoy White Privilege in a nation built upon and catering TO it,


there is no reason FOR 'white folk' TO "riot, break stuff, and burn stuff" due to racially-charged motivations.

I would LOVE to see the citation to a legimate source that confirms that in Oakland it IS "in fact...all DONE BY WHITE PEOPLE".



I'll (patiently) wait. But, not for too long. MY family will be here to celebrate our Thanksgiving tomorrow and I've got to start cooking at about 10:00AM.

Actually, I agree with BOTH fleta and massage.

Fleta is correct; 'white folk' DON'T take to the streets like 'black folk' do.


It's one of the perks of White Privilege; we're 'in on' The System, so we know how best TO effect "Change".


Strip us OF that Privilege, and we'd be a marauding band of derelicts, too.




A whole BUNCH of white folk got together and threw a whole BUNCH of money-making, capital-creating tea into a bay, once in our history.

Rumor has it 'white folk' torched a whole BUNCH of stuff during that time when they [felt they] had no voice. A whole BUNCH of 'white folk' south of the Mason-Dixon line did similarly, almost 100 years later, when they [felt they] weren't being heard, too.


Do I condone/agree with what the 'black folk' are doing? Absolutely not. I know the RIGHT (read: effective) way to create change. But I *understand* that if 'black folk' feel like they are nothing more than animals being hunted down in the streets

admonishing them to "stop acting like animals" is probably counter-intuitive, at best.


Oh, and by the way, the current laws in Ferguson, MO DO support, condone, and legalize 'being hunted down in the streets like animals'.


Factually-speaking, of course. I've provided the links before; I'm NOT doing it again, since I'm the only one who religiously DOES provide links.