If we are being forced to choose, I have to say the woman betrayed the man, for the simple reason that she came prepared with the parachute. The man could have not-jumped simply out of a momentary fear, or a last-second hesitation (or eight-second hesitation), but the woman knew she was not going to die as soon as she packed the parachute. (Operating on the reasoning that while she could have chosen not to open the parachute, why would she pack it if she wasn't planning on using it?) The man can still commit suicide by jumping, if he wants, but she can't.
This would be a similar difference as between "pre-meditated murder" and "manslaughter".

Though there are some important questions to ask that are not made obvious in the description (joke?): Did they count to three simultaneously, or one after the other? Did the man also have a parachute? Was the pact to "commit suicide [together]", or was the pact to "jump off a building?" How tall WAS this building? Were there any third parties nearby who might have given either of them pause? For example, did they leave any children behind? If life was so hard, where did the woman get the money to spend on the parachute? (Assuming lack of money was one of the problems.) Did the man in fact jump later, after he saw that his wife/significant other abandoned him to die? (That would depress me.) Were either of them on medication, and/or had serious mental problems? (Like paranoia or inability to trust.) Were penguins involved in any way whatsoever?

In this case, not being able to answer directly IS a direct answer. If you still love someone (still, as in you know you've been loving them for a while) then it should be obvious to you.

That's exactly what I mean - humans have nothing to compare themselves against. We're just one sample, and until we find more samples of this supposed rational and moral complexity elsewhere (that occurred naturally, not through training, genetic manipulation, or other influence by humans), these claims are theory at best.

ru saying u wuldnt if i askt?

#5 is a deal-breaker for me. If we are going to communicate... we need to be able to communicate. I require a woman who has received a basic second-grade education in spelling and grammar, thanks.
If it looks like we have nothing in common, or she won't mention that kind of hobbies and interests she likes, that's usually an indicator to me that 1) she's a scam account, or 2) she's not willing to have a basic conversation with me.
Another bad indicator is that she wants me to do something before she'll have that conversation with me - move to a different chat service, visit another website, subscribe to something, etc.

Now I'm personally guilty of this last point, because I regularly invite women to find me on Valve Software's Steam service, if they already use it themselves. I'm sure this sounds suspicious to a woman who's never used it before, but I've found Steam to be very trustworthy, and I use Steam a lot more than I use any dating site. My only excuse is that I phrase it as an invitation, and I'm perfectly willing to chat with them on the site email if they respond.

Kind of a small experimental population upon which to base such large claims, if you ask me. Are humans the control population? And if so, what other populations are we being compared against, exactly?

Yeah... starting off a conversation thread with "I can't start a conversation!" is kind of self-defeating... But that doesn't stop any of us from responding!

I think I could be okay with one of my exes "going gay" after breaking up (or breaking up because they determined they were "going gay") as long as I didn't feel like I was being toyed with while we were in the relationship. As long as I wasn't "the last hurrah", or the guy she picked just to make sure she didn't like any kind of guy/male.
She can not like my gender all she wants (after all, I like women, so I couldn't really blame her, could I?), but if she doesn't like me individually just because she isn't physically attracted to men generally, that seems kind of shallow. There should still be the possibility of us being friends.

Though it would be even weirder to see her with her new beau (belle?) if we met on the street or went out as a group.

That's... kind of the definition of a bad parent, isn't it?

My reasonably-certain guess is that the pets, including the ferrets, were there first, and the baby is the new development. (A month old, it says.) The ferrets probably thought that the baby was intruding on "their" territory, and had to get rid of it.
In any case, you should never leave a baby alone with any pet for more than 10 seconds, even if you're ABSOLUTELY SURE that the pet is "nice" and "sweet" and "kind" and won't harm the baby. Anything might set the pet off - we laugh at the videos where a baby pulls a cat's tail, and the cat freaks out... but I wouldn't risk a baby's health on the assumption that the cat won't strike back. Either that, or the baby is going to harm the pet.
Ferrets ARE naturally vicious animals, just like any predatory animal. If the parents had that many pets, they should've known better. I hope that little girl gets into a foster home no matter the outcome of the investigation.

Nice guys do finish last.
It is a courtesy to let the lady finish first. More than once, if you can manage it.

Faux shizzle.

I'm going to make the mistake of taking bashajones' first post at face value. The real, legitimate military widowers do need love. Maybe moreso than the rest of us - they've been through military service, which is generally full of dehumanizing order-spewing commanding officers and getting shot at. Add on to that the loss of wife or husband (who, chances are, you hadn't seen for several years, being on a tour of duty), and that's got to be an extremely lonely existence. Tack onto that the types around the country who rage at any military maneuver, and treat the common soldier like a common murderer, and sometimes it's not just lonely, it's hostile.
Isn't that exactly the kind of things that ex-military widows and widowers try to avoid by getting out of the military?

I maintain that a lot (not all, but a lot) of the male profiles who go around trying to pick up women immediately, to get them on services like Skype, or to get their phone numbers, etc, are scammers or frauds. Very much like the female profiles who are scammers or frauds, and try to get males to text to a certain phone number, or go on Yahoo! Instant Messenger.
Because if these males are not scammers or frauds, I fear for the future of our species (my gender in particular), my sanity, and the typing skills of these latest generations.

Ahh, yes - I read this same report from a different source yesterday.
In order for the mother who delivered the bill to have a case, she needs the following proofs ("prooves"):

That the mother had to pay the ski establishment in advance, instead of on a child-who-showed-up basis.
(If she did not have to pay in advance, that means the ski establishment charged a fixed fee, and she would've had to pay that fixed fee no matter how many children showed up.)

An agreement or contract that said the boy's father would pay the given sum in advance (no more, no less) whether or not services were rendered.(This way the parents of the child who didn't show up would be out of pocket, not the mother of the birthday boy.)
(Verbal-only agreements do not stand up in a court of law without several witnesses; even then, I don't think it's counted as "hard" evidence. This is why people always say "get it in writing".)

That the parents of other guests of the party had to pay the same amount in advance.
(Otherwise she's discriminating against the boy and his father for not showing up.)

That the other parents did, in fact, pay the same amount in advance. If they didn't, she has to show that she has served them with similar invoices.
(Further discriminating against them, picking on them out of all the other parents who didn't pay.)

Several females have responded, and they say size matters in height, in capacity for emotion and compassion, and the size of the bed...
But none so far have commented on the size of his MIND... HMMMMM.
Not all of them can have a pretty face, too, ladies!

Quixotic.

Quail.

Qualify.

Tactical.

Bah. Damn.

Opalescent.

Hmmm... Dare I?

My favorite word to describe the part of a female's anatomy that makes her female.

Or, if that doesn't work, quagmire.

EDIT
I SWEAR that those two words came up at random, and have no connection whatsoever.

>.>

Quirky.