100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Okay I have a question...
|
|
In public, like at a beach, or at his house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Race relations.
|
|
I never encountered "the good old boy" syndrome until the late 90's. Then, I was a neophyte stockbroker looking to make my mark. The Caucasian "powers that be" were not readily inclined to hire Hispanics over Caucasians. The entire process was odd, eerie, and unsettling. I have since left that profession and entered another one. I get along with other races better than I do my own ethnic group. I have a problem with Latins/Mexicans/Illegal Aliens that surreptiously enter this country, operate undocumented, and assume servile/menial roles. There is nothing wrong with being poor and having modest means. There is nothing wrong with being less educated; individuals sometimes have to abandon their education to work. But, I do have a problem with individuals who are present in this country illegally, unlawfully, and can't or won't assimilate themselves to American society. maybe they weren't ready to hire YOU because YOU were not good enough or as good as the people who got the job over you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are getting older. The older you get teh fewer of those type of women there are out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
so I texted him right. . ..
|
|
Was that really necessary to slam people from Orange County? actually no, not really. I am not saying all people from the OC are pretentious, but it is the attitude I get most when I visit there. Just not my type of people I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
9erguy
on
Wed 09/15/10 04:43 PM
|
|
I am not fashionable, I like white tee shirts because I don't even have to think about what I am going to wear. I care more about how I look naked than how I look with chothing on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
so I texted him right. . ..
|
|
I'm lost in this one as much as the other one. Anyway....I wish the best  Read post #346, and then you'll understand. I've read it all....still don't get it I guess. Like him one minute, bad kisser another, etc.  I believe Ocean dug him (1st date), and was sorta stood up for 2nd date. As a result, she bashed him on the thread that someone referenced, and now she's seeing him again (I think.....). It's kinda like a "soap opera"..so wtf do I know at this point?! Correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. OBlue........it's been a long day!!! we went out twice as in met up---both times had a fun time, got along. there was no 3rd date scheduled so not sure about being stood up. . .what I mentioned on the earlier thread was i dont understand when you have a great time with someone (and it was a non-sexual) and everything goes great and then you both agree to call each other the next day and doesnt happen. . .sends mixed signals. I get by most of your confusion that many of you are not from big cities and have a hard time following busy stories. Sorry. You are really stuck on being from "The OC." It is really not that cool a place, sure the bus system is great, but the people there are amazingly pretentious and think they are somehow better because of some lame reality show. The weather and beaches are much nicer in san diego. That being said, if it is just a friendship don't get all worked up about when he does or doesn't text. I go for weeks at a time without talking to my friends. If you want relationship rules to appily you have to at least make it a little sexual, otherwise you get friendship rules. Which is text whenever you feel like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was too, but he almost worked up the courage to get it out. I don't think you need to worry about feeling foolish. Well, last I saw or heard from him was Tuesday morning at 4:30 a.m., he has not textd me or called me. :( 1) don't say "I love you" until he says it first. Let him know that you want to stay with him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you say something cool and unexpected that really resonated with him? Did you say "I love you too, as a friend?"
I guess it is one of those things that slips out, like when a girl says "I love you." during sex. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question for the masses...
|
|
I have a question for you?
Have you ever went to teh store on a 19th of september to pick up anehiem chilies, tomatillos, jalepeno's, and a pork roast to find the short large breasted brunette bending over to get milk. Then ask her how her day is going and recieve the responce "fine" as she quickly walks away?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What scares you off?
|
|
Me not driving a car this year seems to be the deal breaker for the last five or seven women I have tried to go out with. Southern california is a very materialistic place. East Coast too. Sold my benz..now drive a VW Jetta, women couldn't care less anymore. And at that point on i refuse to let the know that I got another car and a motorcycle too. They failed the materialistic-test so it's too late after that. The funny thing is, the only thing I would use my car for is to say yes to the question "do you have a car?" and be able to get a date. I have a wal mart about 50 feet from my house, three bars/resturants, a sushi place, a liquor store, a grocery store, a costco, two starbucks, five fast food places, a department store, and a home depot within a mile of my house. Driving to the places I walk would actually take more time. The bus outside the walmart takes me to a train that can take me anywhere in southern california. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What scares you off?
|
|
Me not driving a car this year seems to be the deal breaker for the last five or seven women I have tried to go out with. Southern california is a very materialistic place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
Edited by
9erguy
on
Wed 09/15/10 12:18 AM
|
|
Back to the book "The Mind and the Brain"........I found the arguments about consciousness very interesting. Whether consciousness is a product solely of the brain or if it exists independent of the brain. For the record I have read more books than just the one, I just found it as the most relavent to bridging the gap between behavioralism and a form of psychology that does not reduce man and his thoughts to what can be observed objectively. I think consciouness is an interaction with the brain, so independently it is plausable that the stuff of the mind still exists, but without something to recieve/translate it would not be considered consciousness. Like a TV signal without a TV. There have been studies of Buddist monks that could quite almost all of their brain's neurons, which would not be possible if the brain fires at it's own will. And for the record I had never heard of the term "stolen picture." before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
|
|
Ok you're not explaining your thoughts well.. The brain was built to fire so yes, God set it up that way.. That being said, what your "eyes" see when watching TV, you do not "get" until it travels to the brain and hits the neurons and fires back the understanding of what you're seeing.. right...then the brain decides when and how those eyes will react. it doesnt matter the exact process, what matters is that your eyes are being controlled by something that can calculate in nanoseconds, risk, reward, consequences, truth or deception. therefor they (eyes) are not a dependable measure of truth... I am not saying that people's eyes don't lie, it was more about the poetry of the statement. The real subject was about the sterility of written communication with strangers in an attempt to get to know somebody. Through written words you can hide your facial expression, re type what you said, delete something you feel the other person might not like, etc. There is more to communication that what people say, especially when they have time to really think about what they say, then go back over and say it a little better. If there was a thirty second pause after you asked a question that would tell you soemthing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
|
|
I don't understand how you can think a giant man that lives in the sky, that sent his heavenly son, who died, then came back to life so he could help everyone live in this imaginary land with this giant being in the sky, but only if you believe in him based on a book that he did not even write, without any proof whatsoever. Yet you find the idea of the brain being reactionary to thought particles as impossible. How do you know whether or not I believe in the "giant man" in the sky? I don't believe we've had that conversation... Certainly not within this conversation... AND my beliefs are based on what I've learned in my studies.. I didn't just read one book and jump on the band wagon.. I have read numerous books, some recient, some as old as the books that you talk about reading. Your profile says you are a christian. The basis of christianity is that Jesus dies for our sins, was resurrected, and through believing in him you go to heaven to be with he and god. ahhh you're an assumption maker.. How do you know I didn't just say that to attract the boys?  My beliefs are not what we were discussing.. We were discussing the "brain".. I stated my knowledge and studies of the brain... If you'd like to know about "my beliefs" I will tell you.. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus.. I believe that God did a fabulously AMAZING job at making life and that the brain is an incredible thing and I know my thoughts come from my brain and without my brain I would not have thoughts.. I believe in adaptation as everything must adapt to survive... I do not confuse "adaptation" with evolution.... You have not answered the question of why the brain fires, unless you just did with your answer "god did it." which has no place in a scientific discussion. Here is a metaphor to help you understand what I am trying to say, because I must not be explaining properly. I am not saying the brain does not think, I am saying it is not the origin of thought itself. I think the brain is like a TV. We both agree that there are pictures on the TV (thoughts from neuron patterns), but I feel there needs to be a signal send to the TV for the pictures to arise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
|
|
I don't understand how you can think a giant man that lives in the sky, that sent his heavenly son, who died, then came back to life so he could help everyone live in this imaginary land with this giant being in the sky, but only if you believe in him based on a book that he did not even write, without any proof whatsoever. Yet you find the idea of the brain being reactionary to thought particles as impossible. How do you know whether or not I believe in the "giant man" in the sky? I don't believe we've had that conversation... Certainly not within this conversation... AND my beliefs are based on what I've learned in my studies.. I didn't just read one book and jump on the band wagon.. I have read numerous books, some recient, some as old as the books that you talk about reading. Your profile says you are a christian. The basis of christianity is that Jesus dies for our sins, was resurrected, and through believing in him you go to heaven to be with he and god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
Edited by
9erguy
on
Mon 09/13/10 10:04 PM
|
|
I don't understand how you can think a giant man that lives in the sky, that sent his heavenly son, who died, then came back to life so he could help everyone live in this imaginary land with this giant being in the sky, but only if you believe in him based on a book that he did not even write, without any proof whatsoever. Yet you find the idea of the brain being reactionary to thought particles as impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
|
|
I disagree.. Neurons form complex and ever-changing webs which make possible the speed, flexibility, and durability of our *thoughts*. Rather than being completely centralized in one place in the brain, mental processes are "distributed" (i.e., they occur throughout the brain) and can use different pathways, which is important for *managing many different thoughts* as we must do. Right, I am not saying that the brain doesn't fire neurons which in turn become thoughts, what I am saying is that it is very possible that said electro charges are a reaction to finite thought particles we don't have technology to ditect yet. They don't "just fire because they do." Twenty years ago that "ever changing web" was thought to be fixed neuron patterns, but through more extensive work and better technology it was proven that the thought patterns could in fact be altered in adults too, not just children. Neurons that fire together wire together, and through using the brain a certain way the patterns that were developed in childhood could in fact be altered. The question is if the brain was the alpha and omega of the thought process what makes this change possible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
Edited by
9erguy
on
Mon 09/13/10 09:36 PM
|
|
YOU can believe whatever you'd like but scientists would prove you wrong and well have for like ever.. The brain is not relative or someone's perception.. If your brain doesn't work then YOU don't work.. I mean really, what is so difficult to understand about that? Unless of course you've done absolutely no reading whatsoever on the brain and how it works.. If that is the case then I can recommend some books or classes for you.... I can also recommend a book for you. It is called the mind and the brain by Jeffery Schwartz, he is the director of psychology at UCLA. A person cannot function without their lungs or heart, but that does not mean they use their lungs to think. the old theories of fixed brain patterns are being disproven even today. Everybody thinks they have it all figured out until something new comes along. First cells were teh smallest unit, then atoms, then quarks. Pluto used to be a planet. I am not saying a person can function without the brain, I never said anything of the like, I said that the brain is reactionary to the mind, not just a randomly fireing organ that "just does because it does." Sure the theory of neuroplasticity and mind stuff has not been proven, but it has not been disproven either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are internet people real
|
|
Eyes are organs that are controlled by muscles; organs have no sense of right and wrong and muscles can be trained, so I would think one would have a more reliable barometer than this. Perhaps someone’s actions or history? The question you should be asking yourself is what is controlling the muscles, It is not the liver, stomach, intestine, or most organs that are considered reactionary. the eyes are also reactionary, the real question is what are they responding to? why should i be asking myself anything? this is your theory. but for the sake of argument....the brain is controlling the muscles and the brain can and does lie. the brain can and does deceive. this is why i feel it is better to evaluate over time, not an instant reaction or two. if the brain lies what tells the truth? the brain tells the truth as well as lies.. Ultimately it all comes from the brain... I believe a little differently. Im not a behavioralist, I believe in the quantum theory of the human mind. That thought acts upon the brain, and the brain is reactionary to the finite thought particles that we don't have the technology to ditect yet. I do think the brain is reactionary to the mind, not the mind itself. To deny man of his better half i feel is a narrow way of looking at things. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
