Very vivid.

Thank you for sharing this.

Hmm, sounds like the geeks all agree with it.



Robin, I didn't mean to imply successful meant materially successful in any way. The article used that word to describe, well, socialites.

Socially successful = outgoing, life of the party, popular (regardless of material success)
Socially awkward = the geeks! (rich or not)


As far as my personal experience, I will say that out of my relationship there was one person I was with that I would consider one of those really attractive, everyone-likes-them ladies. And thought I don't think she was less emotionally committed all the time, her commitment did seem to wax and wane a lot more than in my other relationships.

Ah, I think I get what you're saying now. I think the statement "requires supernatural causation" is probably the antithesis of science. I still think it's a mistake though to say that science rejects anything, just because there's no scientific evidence for it.

Using your own example of "Jesus died for our sins", lets look at the reverse:
"Jesus did not die for our sins"

Science isn't capable of proving that sentence to be true either. But that doesn't mean that science rejects the idea that Jesus didn't die for our sins.

It would be illogical to declare something false, simply because it can't be proven. That would lead to all kinds of contradictions.

According to this article:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080212-dating-success.html
socially successful people (or those that are great for dating), tend to be unhappy with their relationships and have low levels of emotional attachment, basically for the same reasons that made them good at dating.

I think this quote sums it up pretty well:
"They appear to have an outlook and way of achieving their goals that makes them attractive to us socially but that prevents them from being particularly happy or loyal in their romantic relationships."

I'm wondering if that matches up with everyone's experiences. Have the people you've been really attracted to been less committed? more likely to cheat?

Have you had a really great relationship with someone that was socially awkward, or that you just weren't that attracted to at first?

The question itself seems to misunderstand what the scientific method is, namely, a way to understand that which we have observed. Science is fully capable of rejecting "accepted science" in favor of new evidence (see: Newtonian gravity). Personal observation is a part of science. So, if someone can personally observe evidence that god exists in a way that can be reproduced, then that would be scientific evidence for god. That would be an acceptance of god, but I'm not sure how that's a rejection of "accepted science". There is no scientific law that states that god doesn't exist.

If I understand the original question correctly... you like to watch videos of women, but you also dream of becoming a woman.

That sounds like you identify as a gay woman to me, I'm not sure where bi would come into it.

Unless you're saying you want to be with women both as a man, and as a woman. In that case, uh, that's a new one on me. Bravo.

I've really enjoyed reading what people write here, and thought I'd participate.

Thanks to everyone for the kind words, and the warm welcome.

Thanks ArtGurl.

All is haze and gray and mist.
Floating free, this body's separated state.
Seated swiftly in the never was
the might have been.

It overwhelms me,
these colors drift and time is split.
And each effect is all
I could have asked.

As each perfect moment follows next,
I cannot acquiesce.
I wonder, how could this,
ever truly be?

So I greet the dawn,
perfection flies,
and breathe a quit sigh,
For all that's haze and gray and mist.

That math only works if every penny of that three dollar is pure profit. It would actually look something more like this (these numbers are just made up, but I think it gets the idea across):

$3.00 paid at pump by consumer.
$0.10 was profit for the gas station your bought it at.
$0.50 went to local & state taxes.
$0.50 went to federal taxes.
$0.50 went to distribution costs.
$1.00 covered the operating costs of the "big oil" companies.

That leaves $0.40 in profit (I suspect it's less than that), per gallon of gas pumped. So, using these numbers, paying 20 cents less at the pump would cut profit in half.

I really like this.

Nearly Lost You between the sheets

Has worlds largest collection of Beanie Babies.

I'm not sure that the internet ruined dating, but I'm not sure it's really helped out either.

The authors basic take seems to be that online interaction encourages relationships that are superficial, compared to those that are developed in the "real world" on "real dates". I've always felt that someone who uses terms that way, as the author did 7 times in 9 paragraphs, is showing a Luddites bias. The accusation of course is that online relationships are built only upon fantasy, lies, and self-aggrandizing. Yes, that does happen. It also happens in person. Online dating has, perhaps, streamlined the process, but there are plenty of face-to-face speed dating events as well.

Making a deep meaningful connection with another person is a difficult thing. It takes courage and self discipline to honestly express and expose who you are to another person. That leap of faith is always difficult, whether it's across a table, a phone line, or a cable modem.

This is some kind of social experiment isn't it? Like standing on a busy street staring up at nothing, and counting how any other people stop and stare with you?

From man to machine - bts

Looks like halfway between St. Louis & Joplin is... Fort Leonard.

Who names a fort Leonard?

Another Missourian.

<-KC


...I always wondered why the Joplin sign says:
"Welcome to Joplin. Population: Liz"

Beg and Borrow.. bts

center-balance