Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=kev374]
And she wonders why I bailed on her. Do you see how absolutely irrational this woman is? LOL![/quote]Are you asking us, Kev? Or are you asking yourself? Because you’ve pretty much gotten our answer.
I could easily be wrong, but I wonder if your lack of connection with women on your on part of the socioeconomic ladder has anything to do with a basic insecurity on your part. Maybe you don’t feel like you deserve a woman who’s more reliable and more financially secure than the ones you’ve been dating. Like I said, I could be wrong. Something to consider.
Participant[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]
I think Russ’s point system takes into account “nice guy” and “treats her right.” He might be a 2 looks-wise, but he sounds like a somewhat higher number than that, in totality. And maybe she’s got other issues. Maybe they’re both 6s. Or 7s. Or 9s. Or 4s.
I have these friends (a couple). He’s a 3 looks-wise. She’s a 9. He’s an unbelievable guy. Super energetic, extremely giving, incredibly nice, makes a boatload of money. She’s ok, but a bit shallow. She doesn’t deserve him, even though she’s the 9 and he’s the 3. Happens all the time.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Svelte, you’re a lucky man. I think there are a few of us lucky couples here (including UCGal, Rustico, scaredy, flyer, etc.). We’re maybe not singing our spouse’s praises here, but we’re not the ones complaining, either…at least not seriously. [/quote]My wife caught me saying great things about her and about our marriage a few times. She is vastly smarter than me socially, and I encourage her to occasionally nudge me in the right direction. She gently informed me that very rarely do people want to hear how great your wife or your marriage are. Particularly if theirs isn’t great. And, since it’s really hard to tell whose marriage is great, whose isn’t, who’s faking it, etc., it’s better just to keep it to yourself.
Also, I totally concur with scaredy’s rowboat metaphor.
“Marriage is a rowboat. Do not marry someone who does not have an oar in the water and who can pull hard.” – scaredycat
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]zk,
I pray you are right and I am wrong. This is something I do not want to be right about. I hope the government is handling infection in a competent fashion and that the public is protected from this and other diseases that are being brought in from other countries as well as our own homegrown seasonal varieties. I remain hopefully skeptical based on how this first case was mishandled. Perhaps the various agencies involved will learn from their errors. [/quote]Totally agree.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
This is why I am skeptical, since you like to know these things: “U.S. officials initially described the number of people potentially exposed as a handful, and on Wednesday said it was up to 18. But on Thursday, the Texas health department said there were about 100 potential contacts. However, Dallas County officials said more than 80 had direct or indirect contact with the patient. ‘We are working from a list of about 100 potential or possible contacts,’ Texas health department spokeswoman Carrie Williams said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/02/us-health-ebola-usa-exposure-idUSKCN0HR18720141002The way I understand math, 100 is more than a handful and that is what I consider as lack of transparancy.[/quote]
Interesting points. It could be, as you say, lack of transparency. It could also be incompetence and stupidity and poor communication. It’s probably a bit of all of them. I don’t think any of that rises to the level of major conspiracy, nor do I think there will be a major conspiracy.
My view of how ebola spreads and what the potential is for the current situation is informed by scientists, not the government. Scientists, as a general rule, get their view from the science of a situation, not the politics of it. There are some scientists out there whose view of how ebola spreads is scarier than the government’s view. But even those scientists think a widespread outbreak in this country is highly unlikely.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]zk,
You have your weltanschauung and I have mine. I do not want to argue with you because it is a waste of time or to quote Heinlein: “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
[/quote]
Well, Zeitgeist, if you want to say I have a simplistic world view, and if you want to compare my ability to debate with that of a pig to sing, you certainly have that right. But if you can back neither of those points with any evidence, then it says a lot more about you than it does about me.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
If you don’t want to read my posts why not just ignore me and look for posts that are more aligned with who you are.
[/quote]
What gives you the idea that I don’t want to read your posts? No, I enjoy debating those with whom I disagree. That should be obvious. If I’ve given any indication that I don’t want to debate, by all means point it out. I’m pretty sure you’ll come up empty handed. Yet again.
[quote=Zeitgeist]By the way, “The man who brought Ebola to the United States from West Africa 18 days ago has died in Dallas. Thomas Eric Duncan succumbed to the virus at 7.51am today at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. His fiancée Louise Troh spoke out in anger shortly after his death and called for a full review of his medical care. Reverend Jesse Jackson, who appeared in public with Duncan’s mother, raised the specter of legal action against the hospital as he contemned Duncan’s treatment.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785245/Dallas-Ebola-patient-dies-Thomas-Eric-Duncan-succumbs-deadly-disease-bringing-America-Liberia.html#ixzz3FaSRpyIz%5B/quote%5DYeah, chances were he was going to die. He had ebola. And of course Jesse Jackson was there threatening legal action. There were lots of cameras. If you think any of that is relevant to my point that there won’t be a widespread outbreak, I think you’re wrong. But I’d love to hear your reasoning so that we can debate it.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]
Your world view is simplistic.[/quote]
[quote=zk]
I’m very curious to hear why you think that.[/quote]Nothing, huh, Zeitgeist? That’s what I thought.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]Medical staff in Texas must be better practitioners of Standard Precautions – or, very lucky indeed. This one in Spain caught it from a known patient. My heart goes out to her and her family.
And no, Spain is not about to be wiped from the face of the Earth but nonchalance should not be the order of the day.Concur. Nonchalance greatly increases the chance of new cases of the disease.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
No, I’m not calling you naive. I’m calling the theory naive.[/quote]
What “theory,” exactly, are you calling naive?
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist][img_assist|nid=15152|title=See no evil|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=75][quote=zk][quote=Zeitgeist]Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but I know what you’re speaking: Gibberish.[/quote]
Your world view is simplistic.[/quote]I’m very curious to hear why you think that.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but I know what you’re speaking: Gibberish.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Decontaminating a chair isn’t “causal contact”? Then what is casual contact, in your opinion? And if someone can pick up this disease by touching an object that was touched by a sick person (supposedly, it can live on a surface for many days), what makes you think it can’t live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?[/quote]Decontaminating a chair, if it’s full of blood, is not casual contact.
A chair with blood on it is more than just “an object that was touched.” It’s an object that has a large amount of bodily fluids on it.
[quote=CA renter]what makes you think it can’t live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?[/quote]
Science.
Edit: After further research, apparently it might be possible to get it if someone sneezes directly into your face and gets enough fluids in your eyes or mouth or nose. But that’s not the same as the virus being truly airborne, and it’s not an easy- or common-enough method of transmission to result in a widespread outbreak.
Participant[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.
-
AuthorPosts
