Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]Zk, the woman is my friend and she’s always been nice to me. She likes me because I convinced someone to support her in a past endeavor when other people were against her. Anyway, I choose to see her side rather than just reduce her situation to that of a kept woman.
She’s very intelligent and capable. I thInk her intrinsic worth is quite high.[/quote]
What’s the “intrinsic worth” of the old guy ?[/quote]Whatever’s in his bank account! 😉
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=kev374][quote=Blogstar] NO 4 EVER MARRIES AN 8….EVER. No 8 EVER MARRIES A 4.
[/quote]Are you really sure about that? I know a guy who is literally obese and not good looking at all by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Software Engineer making I would guess at least $150k/yr. He was however he married a smoking hot Asian girl but she makes good money herself – possibly around $80-90k/yr. Yes, it’s true that he wined and dined her to the extreme and he is a BIG spender in that regard.
But how is this even an equal match? He is probably a 2 looks wise, she is probably an 8. And her explanation was that she married him because he was a nice guy and treats her right. So, are you sure that these superficial characteristics like looks and money are what people use to find each other or is there something more deep that connects us together?[/quote]
The sum total doesn’t have to do with looks, I am poking fun at that. So , yes there often is something, or some things more deep, LOL . Maybe the woman is almost as impossible behind closed doors as chubby hubby is kind. Maybe it takes an extremely kind and patient person to deal with her. It could be anything …positives or negatives, innocent and sinister, …they balanced out.[/quote]Bingo, Russ!
Participant[quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi]
I understand that a sought after woman expects at least 2 carats. [/quote]If a woman “expects” at least 2 carats, she’s only sought after by idiots, in my opinion.[/quote]
Call them what you will, but these “sought after” women, who are usually incredibly beautiful (real or fake), are often sought after by the wealthiest of men. They might expect 2 carats or more, but these men will expect these women to spend an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy on their looks. It’s a full-time job for these women, and incredibly stressful. As Russ said, it’s a fair trade. (Not a trade I’d ever care to partake in, FWIW.)
Most people have an oar in the water and are willing to pull hard, but we all differ on how we define what that means and how we prioritize these things. It could be money, looks, doing work around the house, being kind and forgiving, being a great parent and/or caretaker, being an incredibly loyal friend and/or wise confidant, etc.
We all prioritize and value things in a variety of ways. The best we can do is make a conscious decision before we get married to seek out a person who has the traits that we find most important. We also have to understand that everything has a price; there are pros and cons with every choice. Too many people get wrapped up in superficial “love” (lust) without understanding that marriage is an incredibly complex partnership, and that is why we end up with such a high divorce rate, IMHO.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=kev374][quote=Blogstar]If you are at all sincere about it, you should never marry someone who doesn’t believe in the water seeks it’s own level idea. Even if they think they are marrying up, that silly notion is only going to last for so long.[/quote]
What exactly is the definition of “your level” though… is it money, looks, education, something else? This is highly subjective depending on what exactly what each individual values the most in life.[/quote]
Sum total = same level, that’s the point . All the other things are just single points …not so relevant on their own , good for ego trips but they don’t build very good cases against water seeks it’s own level.
Just move on , don’t make a case against your prior girlfriend especially to other women. I personally could care less what most “Facebook friends “really think…that seem rather immature to worry about it.
Your friends don’t care what the hell happened between you and this woman and your enemies won’t believe you.[/quote]Totally agree with you, Russ. Most couples are fairly balanced, though it might not be very apparent to those on the outside.
ParticipantSure, you can choose to do whatever you want. Do realize that you are disclosing intimate details about yourself to all kinds of people when you disclose these details to friends. They will often mention “a friend” (or even use your name) when telling a story that relates to something another person is saying. Most of the time, people don’t mean any harm when they do this; they’re just relating to others and using stories the’re familiar with in order to bond with one another and help each other out with various issues.
Your previous girlfriend sent you an email after six months…so what? Just have a chuckle (or see if she might have had a point) and delete it. It’s just not that big of a deal, IMO.
I’m just throwing in my two cents here — hoping to be helpful — not trying to offend you or anything. I wish you the very best in this situation, and in whatever relationships you have in the future.
…
Also, regarding that move to Atlanta, I’m going to fourth (or fifth) the suggestion that you try the Bay Area. It’s an awesome place, and there are so many opportunities there for tech types. Not as fond of Atlanta.
Participant[quote=kev374]My friends are history… I blocked them from my FB. Good riddance![/quote]
Sounds a bit overly-dramatic and unreasonable to me. You are forcing people into a “social war” that they had no hand in. They likely have zero desire to be a part of your breakup or romantic drama. If they like your previous girlfriend and enjoy her company, why should that exclude them from having a friendship with you, too? Who cares if they are still friends? As long as they’re not conspiring against you (and I doubt that they are), just let everyone be.
Your previous girlfriend didn’t do anything to harm you — no cheating, no abuse, etc. If she had, then I would agree that they shouldn’t continue having a relationship with her, especially if they are intentionally feeding her information, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
If you were really over her, you wouldn’t care about what she thinks or what she knows about your current life.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Never date anyone who uses the word “ex” at all.[/quote]
A very good and thoughtful point, but most people just use the term because that’s the norm. You’re right about it not being appropriate, though.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]I have to disagree with a lot of the posters on this. I think that if you had a very close, longer-term relationship with someone, it’s best to have some closure. Both sides should be given the opportunity to vent and/or decide if they want to continue with some kind of post-relationship friendship. Many of the people I’ve dated weren’t for me right in a romantic sense, but ended up being pretty decent friends. I know a lot of people who’ve maintained good friendships with exes.[/quote]
CAR I see your point – but it doesn’t always work like that in the long run.If one party is more clingy/needy after the breakup or in denial that it’s over, it can get really ugly.
Like you – I stayed friends with some exes… but it wasn’t possible in every case.[/quote]
Agree that some people can be truly nuts, but I’ve always tried to avoid those right up front, as there are usually some signs…like extreme, almost violent, obsessive anger toward exes. Never went past a first date with those (and some were indeed very scary).
I’ve been pretty lucky with the people I’ve dated, and most were really decent people. In my experience, if people feel like they are being respected and listened to, they tend to be pretty rational. That’s why I’ve always spent a lot of time listening if I was the one who broke it off. Always remained available for as long as it took and never cut anyone off abruptly (without continuing in a romantic sense, and always made that part clear). Never really had a problem, at least not anything major. Probably one of the main factors is that I never had a third party in the wings — no cheating, games, etc. And I’ve always been honest and straightforward about the reason(s) for the relationship not working. Based on what I’ve seen, people tend to fly off the handle if they feel tricked or betrayed; if everyone is respectful and cool, it rarely seems to end in a psycho, stalker blow-up. Just my personal experience.
One benefit of hearing them out is that I’ve had the opportunity to learn from my mistakes. Sometimes, they’ve had valid points — like my inadvertently making them think the relationship was more than it was based on certain things I had said. Listening to their complaints has given me an opportunity to change some things that might not have been right on my part.
Not saying it’s always been perfect, and some didn’t end with any kind of friendship, but nothing particularly ugly, either. And since there was always a chance that I’d run into them at a later date, since most of the people I’ve dated lived within a 5-mile radius of me and/or tended to hang out with many of the same friends from our youth (or we worked together…yikes!), always thought it best to leave things in the best way possible. FWIW, most of the friendships I’ve maintained with exes ended once I got married. Still run into a few once in awhile (still hanging out with the same friends from our youth), and it’s cordial, but nothing more.
The scariest men I’ve ever experienced were those with whom I had *never* had any kind of relationship, including the crazy stalker I’ve mentioned here before who followed me around for almost three years! 🙁
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]As for how contagious this disease can be…this pertains to the most recent journalist/cameraman who is being flown to NE:
“She said her son did not know how he contracted the virus.
“He took all the necessary precautions and he was very aware of the precautions to take,” she said. “He helped decontaminate a car and he was wearing protective [gear] but he thinks maybe some water splashed on him.”’
…“Ashoka’s father is Dr Mitchell Levy, the medical director of the intensive care unit at Rhode Island Hospital. He told CNN it was unclear how his son got the virus, but added: “He was helping inside clinics disinfecting, whether it was a chair or some vehicle that had potentially been exposed, he remembers getting some of it in his face.”‘
……..
So, the notion that you have to be “digging around” in a sick/dead patient’s blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn’t take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it’s not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.[/quote]
Your conclusion assumes that the man would be honest about his activities. There are all sorts of reasons that someone might not want to admit intimate contact with another person – especially if that person wants to come to the US and is concerned about being labelled as being somewhat at fault for his condition. And, I know I will be criticized for this, but here goes anyway: this guy and his mom are interesting, but not the people I would expect to be rigidly factual. Here is some info about them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779257/NBC-cameraman-Ebola-reincarnation-Tibetan-teacher-mother-married-Buddhist-guru-16.html%5B/quote%5DAll true. I did look into his background a bit when I first saw the story, so knew about the weird family history. Still, the guy has apparently spent many years trying to help those less fortunate, so I’m going to give him some credit. After all, anyone can lie about anything, but we have to trust that most people will try to be honest, at least most of the time (I hope!).
Also, just noticed that he thinks he got the disease while disinfecting (spray washing) a car, not a chair. I need new glasses. 🙁
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
The theory that the government doesn’t intentionally lie (for either benevolent or malevolent reasons) is naive. ;)[/quote]If I gave the impression that I thought the government never lies, I certainly didn’t intend to. I know they lie, and sometimes even for malevolent reasons. But I don’t think that (U.S.) government evilness is the norm or even common. I think it’s pretty rare. There are people who think it’s the norm. And those are the people who are your real conspiracy nuts. And, CAR, I might have given the impression that I lump you in with those nuts. I don’t, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I think there’s a spectrum of paranoia, and those people are way out on the end of it. I think you’re more paranoid than you should be. But, I’m willing to accept the possibility that your fears are justified (and therefore not paranoia), and that I’m less afraid than I should be. I don’t think so, but it’s possible, and I can certainly agree to disagree with you on that. But your real nuts who always see armageddon coming and government conspiracy, I think they’re obviously wrong.[/quote]
No worries, zk. Oddly enough, I didn’t take your comments personally, but thanks for the clarification. Does that mean I’m not paranoid? 😉
All the best!
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
Also, “casual contact” means contact that isn’t sexual or where one wouldn’t consciously expect fluids to be exchanged. And the story about the journalist didn’t say anything at all about the chair being soaked in any blood or bodily fluids. While I’m guessing a patient had used the chair, bodily fluids were not mentioned, and they made a point to say that safety measures were in place.[/quote]
In both the carrying of the woman and the decontaminating of the chair, you’re assuming a lack of bodily fluids. It’s those kinds of assumptions that lead to your invalid conclusions. It doesn’t make sense to use those examples to conclude that the virus is easier to transmit then “they” are telling you it is when you don’t really know what the situation was.
[quote=CA renter]
If someone picks their nose or sneezes into their hand, and then holds onto a stair rail or touches a door handle, it sounds like that’s enough for transmission. This sounds very much like a highly contagious disease. [/quote]
“Sounds like” doesn’t seem like much to go on. What makes it “sound like” to you that holding a stair rail after sneezing into your hand is enough to spread the disease?
[quote=CA renter]
Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us. Their #1 job is to prevent panic and chaos, not necessarily to ensure our safety. If you need evidence of this, just look at the stories above about the guys with the pressure washer and the hiring of private “hazmat” guys from Illinois to decontaminate the apartment — where four people had been living with soiled sheets and towels — FIVE days after this man was diagnosed.[/quote]
No doubt some mistakes were made. But I don’t see how that translates into “the government is hiding things from us to a degree that makes a large –scale outbreak something to worry about.”Unless you have a propensity to see these kinds of things where there is nothing. Conspiracy theorists and paranoids of all stripes are constantly seeing some massive, horrible, world-changing, armageddon-type event on the horizon, but they don’t seem daunted by the fact that they’re basically always wrong.[/quote]
I use the words “sounds like” or “seems like” or “IMHO/IMO” when I cannot say something with 100% certainty but have strong evidence or reason to believe something to be true. More people should try it.
As for those damned “conspiracy theorists”…
There is perhaps no more controversial issue in assessing the limits of political and
administrative discretion than the question of whether it is ever ethical for a public official to lie in the public interest. While we cringe at the thought of legitimating mendacity by public
officials, we have the realistic admonition of Michael Walzer that “no one succeeds in politics
without getting their hands dirty.” This paper will look first at the defense of official deception as
classically articulated by Machiavelli and Walzer. We will then look at the case against lying by
officials presented by Sissela Bok and Maureen Ramsay, with a focus on Ramsay’s extensive
arguments in The Politics of Lying against the “just
lie” theory. We will finally test the feasibility of the just lie theory by applying its standards to a case study based on actual administrative experience where recourse to deception appears to have achieved a good result.”https://www.mtholyoke.edu/sites/default/files/president/docs/EthicsofLying.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/08/23/thirteen-things-government-trying-keep-secret-you
The theory that the government doesn’t intentionally lie (for either benevolent or malevolent reasons) is naive. 😉
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us.[/quote]
Although CAR is arguing that public-sector employees are untrustworthy, I think that there are occasions where they do tell the truth.[/quote]
Wise Piggs have told me not to engage with you because of the way you troll and distort other posters’ words, but I’m going to (regretfully, I’m sure) ignore their advice, once again.
I’ve never said that public sector employees are untrustworthy. Your claim here is another perfect example of your intentional distortions.
The people who come up with the propaganda spread via the MSM are rarely public employees. And those who are “public employees” are not boots-on-the ground workers or union members; they are at the very top of the hierarchy. They are usually elected officials or their appointees, and they are the mouthpieces of those who control the government…these politicians and their corporate masters are NOT union members (making this clear because your intention is always to disparage the unions and union employees).
Yes, some (almost always high-placed) govt officials lie to the public, but it’s usually because their are doing the bidding of their corporate masters and the financial elite. FYI, public officials are distinct from public employees in most cases:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-definitions-of-public-official-officer.aspx
Just so you can better understand the conversations, when I refer to “the government,” I’m referring to public officials and their appointees (and, by default, their corporate masters). When referring to public employees, I use the following terms: public (sector) employees, public sector unions (or union members), boots-on-the-ground workers, etc. When I’m writing about public sector employees as it pertains to a particular group, I usually refer to their particular jobs/titles (teachers, cops, firefighters, nurses, librarians, etc.).
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
No, I’m not calling you naive. I’m calling the theory naive.[/quote]
What “theory,” exactly, are you calling naive?[/quote]
Here is my quote:
[quote=CA renter]
So, the notion that you have to be “digging around” in a sick/dead patient’s blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn’t take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it’s not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.[/quote]
Also, “casual contact” means contact that isn’t sexual or where one wouldn’t consciously expect fluids to be exchanged. And the story about the journalist didn’t say anything at all about the chair being soaked in any blood or bodily fluids. While I’m guessing a patient had used the chair, bodily fluids were not mentioned, and they made a point to say that safety measures were in place.
If someone picks their nose or sneezes into their hand, and then holds onto a stair rail or touches a door handle, it sounds like that’s enough for transmission. This sounds very much like a highly contagious disease.
Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us. Their #1 job is to prevent panic and chaos, not necessarily to ensure our safety. If you need evidence of this, just look at the stories above about the guys with the pressure washer and the hiring of private “hazmat” guys from Illinois to decontaminate the apartment — where four people had been living with soiled sheets and towels — FIVE days after this man was diagnosed.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
I’m not really using the term literally,[/quote]
No, but you were misrepresenting what I said and then calling me naive for having said it.
[quote=CA renter]
but if “rituals on/with dead people” is the primary way of spreading this disease, then how to you explain the cases where people were not “performing rituals” on dead people?[/quote]Other non-casual contact.[/quote]
No, I’m not calling you naive. I’m calling the theory naive.
-
AuthorPosts
