Jodi Arias Trial chat & forums.

Show ALL Forums

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Author

Thread: Jodi Arias Trial

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 226 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/24/2013 3:21:35 PM
But she's going to prison, she's not going to be studied or be a subject to learn from, she's going to be locked up and will spend her time making up stories and trying to get any attention she can. Even if she were legally insane and put in an asylum, she would never be the hope for some break through in science. Yes. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are many instances where the study of living criminals in jails, has added tremendously to the ability of our society to protect ourselves and move forward. The most obvious example, is the science of profiling, which has helped us stop and capture serial killers and other sociopaths MUCH more quickly...because we had access to interview the ones held in prisons. All we knew from the ones who were rapidly put to death, is that all their neighbors were "stunned, he seemed so normal and likable." The fact that many of them DO crave attention, has meant that they have cooperated in studies. Even when THEY hoped that they were manipulating their way into gaining freedom, they still gave us valuable information, which allowed us to catch more like them.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 17 (view)

How bad is it for Democrats Posted: 5/24/2013 3:14:41 PM
Anyway, as for what problems the Democrats ACTUALLY have (as opposed to what people who already thought they were communists and devils in human disguises), that would include --their apparent inability to call the GOP on their games (fear of being caught playing their own, or just ineptitude? You pick); --they are copying the GOP in tactical errors, such as ignoring the needs and desires of some sections of the electorate (notably the rank and file of the military), on the assumption that "those people will vote for the other guys anyway." ; --copying the GOP again, by pursuing agenda items from the distant past, rather than attending primarily to the immediate challenges the average American faces; --continuing to think that the GOP as it is, will put the country first, and compromise on anything, therefore they continue to hold back and change even their few good ideas, into bad ones, in hopes that by screwing things up, the Republicans will finally take their heads out of the sand, and start acting like statesmen again.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 7 (view)

How bad is it for Democrats Posted: 5/24/2013 4:51:19 AM
On a more serious note, for all of the Presidents I have lived through, the scandals associated with them (or not) did follow a general pattern. That is, the ones who actually did contribute directly to the bad things, tended to get blamed for them by the electorate. The ones who did not, tended to get excused. Not always, of course. Johnson got enough blame for VietNam, that he decided not to run against Nixon. Nixon beat Humphrey, who inherited the blame. Nixon then pulled the Watergate Coverup, which destroyed his second term entirely. A combination of the economy, and poor political management , and the Iranian Hostage mess made sure that Carter would only have one term. No scandal per se, just s successful effort by the GOP to make everyone think that the problems were all Carter's fault. Reagan was special. No way around that. Perhaps because of his acting skills, perhaps because the Democrats were so inept that they failed to point out how Reagan's "supply side economics" was more like Roosevelt Recovery, deficit spending-like-there's-no-tomorrow economics; perhaps the luck of the dot com boom fantasy occurring during his first term, all combined to allow him to entirely avoid all blame for the Iran Contra mess. No question that he ignored the Constitution, and essentially bribed American enemies, but since a member of his support staff stood up and took the fall for him. And since the American People came to view the I.C. hearings as grandstanding by the Democrats in an attempt to get a replay of Watergate, they even put Bush into office after Reagan left. Bush didn't have Reagan's charisma, or his luck. The dot com fantasy started to deflate, and people started to realize (without really putting their finger on it) that the GOP really had NOT brought the good times they claimed to, economically. Bush's scandals were more from bad speeches than anything else, with his "no new taxes" pledge so quickly broken, and his "I want to be the Education President," followed by zero effort to improve education, and his famous surprise at discovering that for decades, the rest of the "peasants" had gone to the grocery store and had scanners price the purchases. But the economy was failing, and the Democrats were finally clever enough to put a nominally economic conservative (Clinton) into the race, so we got eight years from him. He weathered his sex scandals, and the Whitewater mess, for the same reasons Reagan did so well: he was charismatic, and the GOP was obviously using their hearings for political grandstanding, and not to help the country. Theeconomy wasn't that bad, and seemed to be improving. But things were bad enough, that Gore couldn't quite garner enough support to get past apparent GOP election tricks in Florida (had he won enough of the rest of the country that wouldn't have mattered, so I myself don't put THAT much fuss into the chad mess), and so we got our eight year Bush 2 nightmare. Bush 2 was possibly the worst Presidential Administration of my entire lifetime. He took over a country with a recovering but reasonably balanced economy, a healthy military, and the least challenge by large foreign powers of all time, and by leading us badly in every single sector, managed to give us at the end, a worn out depleted military, thousands dead in a war for entirely fantasized reasons, the worst world-wide reputation I have seen, and the economy in complete ruins. Like many before him, the fact that he was responsible for so many bad things did not come to light during his time in office, so he escaped being saddled with as many scandals directly. Plus again, his endearingly incompetent public speaking style gave him a bit of charisma, of a sort. However, clearly, enough of the entire nation did decide that they were so in need of getting him out, that they would be happy to take either the first woman, or the first non-white President, over anything that the GOP offered, so we got Obama. Now we have these two "scandals," the attacks in Benghazi, and the IRS mess. The GOP is working fastidiously, and in their usual a-factual, who-cares-what-really-happened-lets-blame-the-Democrats way to try to make sure that they get stuck to Obama. The story is still unfolding on both "scandals." So far, it's a dead heat between the Democrats claim that Benghazi was a tragedy that they handled as well as they could at the time, and the GOP's attempt to manipulate what few facts are available, to pretend that everyone in the White House was watching it all on CNN as it happened, and having a party. No telling yet whether it will ultimately prove to qualify as a real scandal, or just as another tragedy used by all politicians to try to get more votes for their side, or against the other. The IRS mess again, is still under investigation. Since the targeted groups were nominally conservative (Tea Party and all that), it easily has the appearance of a politically motivated error. But since the exact situation involved is not an attempt to use the IRS to SHUT DOWN any organization, but rather over whether or not these groups should have tax-free status, to help them run obvious politically motivated organizations, it's not clear at all that this is about favoritism or any attempt to influence elections. So far, it LOOKS like a political scandal from a distance, but the details are too off to be at all sure what, if anything, it really is. And again, the GOP is posturing like crazy about it, though they might have learned from previous errors, and toned this down a bit, but at this point, we still don;t know if this even IS a real scandal, linked directly to Obama. So we will still have to wait and see. If the economy continues to heal as it seems to be doing, and the GOP continues to offer only bribes to the one percent and cuts to everyone else's benefits, as a way to "solve" our other problems, it might not matter what the truth about either "scandal" ends up being (unless it's the kind of direct evil manipulations we've not seen since the Watergate cover up by Nixon). After all to this day, we STILL don't blame Reagan for what damage his people did to the economy, we STILL don't blame Bush 2 for the thousands dead from the mistaken re-invasion of Iraq, and we still don't care how much schtupping of the help that Clinton did while in office.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 221 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/23/2013 8:48:19 PM
It will just take longer to decide her final fate. It's still clear to me that she is functionally insane. I know that's not the same as legally insane, but still. My approach to what to do about misbehavior of any kind, is pretty much pure practicality, especially when dealing with those who are obviously incapable of guiding their own lives, or learning from their errors. No one who thought, as she clearly did, that a rational way to deal with her BF was to stab him numerous times, slit his throat, and shoot him, is going to ever become a trustworthy free citizen again. I generally prefer Life (as in actual Life sentence, not the "twenty years, and then we'll look again" version), to the death penalty, simply because you can only kill someone once. I like flexibility. Plus, more can be learned to help the rest of us, from a live, but safely fenced in miscreant, than from any amount of post-execution guesswork by onlookers.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 2 (view)

Online dating versus meeting in public...bar etc. Seems that Public is easier. Posted: 5/23/2013 8:28:41 PM
Of course. Everyone. But I think you have the reasons why a bit wrong. In person, the women and the men can instantly see you, size you up, and know that you are approximately whatever age and size you would otherwise only CLAIM to be online. Like the old saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," an actual face-to-face encounter is worth a thousand online messages full of questions and promises. What you don't realize, comparing the two, is how many people in real life, that you instantly discard, after barely even noting their existence. But online, you have to pour through their details and put in a lot of work (assuming you see a picture that doesn't repulse you) to decided against them, therefore it seems to be, and is, actually more work. Imagine trying to meet people in a live venue when you are blind and deaf, and you will come closer to a direct one to one comparison.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 19 (view)

Men not interested in women their own age? Posted: 5/23/2013 3:49:18 PM
The most obvious reason for this is missing so far, so I'll toss it in. It isn't that "men in general are not interested in women their own age," it's that when you go to a dating scene of any kind, whether online or not, you will tend to run into all the people who want someone, and have yet to have found them. Naturally, right? Okay, and what kind of people are most likely to accumulate in higher quantities in dating venues? The ones that are looking for people who aren't looking for them, of course. Therefore, logically, people who are well matched (which will tend to include those in search of someone of similar age) will tend to appear in reduced numbers, even if they vastly outnumber the total of all people overall. It's a bit like asking why there are always more things caught in your drain filter that are LARGER than the holes in the drain filter, really.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 204 (view)

yet another reason why republicans are hypocrites Posted: 5/23/2013 4:47:27 AM
I don't know why people keep thinking the bugaboo here is that the Federal government is eagerly on the verge of "nationalizing" all of our industries. It just isn't even remotely on the horizon. The fear of it is a manufactured Red Herring, manipulation of the framing of unrelated proposals. Talking about it all the time, is one of the ways that the GOP makes themselves look so nutty. But since it's so familiar to their followers, it rings true every time, like a bell tolling on Sunday calling them to worship the unseen.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 4 (view)

Still heartbroken after a year Posted: 5/23/2013 4:21:57 AM
It's all about how you invested yourself. You'll have to ponder it out yourself, but it's a bit like investing monies. If you see a financial opportunity, and you put your spare change into it, and it goes bad, you will shrug your shoulders and take it in stride. If you had instead, also put your two-month mortgage payment into it, you will sweat a bunch more when it fails, and sullenly wait to treat yourself to pizza delivery until you rebuild that pad, and you wont let yourself invest in anything for a while after that. And if you put in your spare change, your retirement package, your mortgage pad, and took out a loan against your full equity, when THAT goes bad, you will freak out, and not let yourself even SEE a checkbook until many many years go by, and you get it all back. With love, it can be the same way. If this was not just a situation where she was lots of fun, but no more or less than every other woman you'd known, you would probably ache for a bit and then be back by the next month. But if you had reached the point where you had tied your sense of understanding of love itself, your ability to judge other people, your hopes and dreams of love ever after, and/or your entire self-confidence about existence into the other person, then "getting back on the horse" is going to require a lot more than another "horse." Maybe you even feel resentful against fate, or god, if you believe in one, and so you are angrily holding yourself back as soon as you start to like someone. "I'm not going to dance for THAT sick Master of the Universe's entertainment again!" And so on. What's the first thing you think of when you stand looking at a potential next try, right before you turn away? That's where the problem is.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 84 (view)

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Posted: 5/22/2013 11:45:52 PM
Is this all referring back to the ongoing investigation into the IRS mess? That investigation has a long way to go. And with the IRS' long standing and thoroughly established pattern of planting it's head firmly into the ground before treating all sorts of people as guilty until proven innocent, it's going to take a lot of sifting to prove that this was really the exact sort of political manipulation that lots of folks think it was. The more I hear and read about it, the biggest problem is that pretty much any political group can now get tax-exempt status, simply by pretending that proselytizing, lying, slanting information, and pushing personal agendas during an election cycle, is actually a form of "public welfare education," as long as they stop short of ending their hype and lies with "this message paid for by the vote-for-our-guy committee." Personally, I think that Congress needs to rewrite the limitations on what constitutes a political group, and what is a social welfare group just a leeeeetle better. And by the way, how in the world does this have anything at all to do with Hillary Clinton?

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 1677 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/22/2013 11:33:49 PM
The main way we disagree, I think, is that (at least the way you choose to express this) is that you seem to think that ONLY, as well as ALL liberals are that way. Since I long ago gave up putting allegiance to causes above clear-eyed observation (goes along with trying to be factually accurate, and culturally neutral Historian), I came to clearly see that if you take the labels off of people, and look at how they behave and express themselves generically, that ALL fanatics behave pretty much the same. There are at least as many self-blinded conservatives under foot, as there are self-blinded liberals. They differ with reach other primarily, in exactly WHO and/or WHAT they refuse to recognize properly.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 24 (view)

Embrace the Madness Posted: 5/22/2013 5:56:07 PM
I will admit, I did used to joke that I wanted to put an ad in the back of some pulp magazines, back when I was younger. I would have said WHO ARE THEY????WHAT DO THEY WANT??? SEND FIVE DOLLARS TO: Iwilltellyoueverythingnow P.O. Box 1234, My Bank Account, My State Then if anyone sent any money, I say truthfully that "they" were me, and that what "they" wanted was five more bucks. So thank you. I would never actually do it (especially since I'd get either kilt daid or prosecuted, but it was a joke. Mostly.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 19 (view)

Where to meet when some distance is involved? Posted: 5/22/2013 3:25:55 PM
^^^ I think you missed that this is to be a FIRST MEET, gtomustang. How can either person be "that much interested" in someone they've never even seen live? If this was third or even second time, yes, I could see making a judgment like that. But not for a FIRST viewing. Anyway, I'm on the record. If you feel you have to ask, just say no now.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 1675 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/22/2013 3:08:34 PM
yeah, yeah. If you wait long enough, and watch the news carefully, no matter who predicted what, and how extreme, distorted, and filled with fantasies and lies their views are, sooner or later something will happen that they can CLAIM proves them right. That goes for right wingers, left wingers, M.O.R.'s, religious nuts, anti-religious nuts, players, sincere people, homophobes, hetero-haters, paranoid schizophrenics, conspiracy theory fanatics, and on and on. None of it proves that the person who "predicted" it was as right as they pretend to themselves it does. This latest was an as yet incompletely investigated attack of some sort. So someone wants to claim it proves ALL liberals are fools? Right. When we catch yet another male conservative, right wing, anti-equality, homosexual-hating congressman chasing little boys... someone will say THAT proves that all conservatives are liars. Who is right? Poppycrock.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 11 (view)

Will Seperated Be Removed??? Posted: 5/22/2013 5:20:57 AM
^^ Yep. Here in Virginia, Legally Separated is the same as divorced, from the law's viewpoint. I am not allowed to have a say in what my wife does, who she sees, what she spends, and vice versa. It's written right into the Court documents that I paid hugely to get. But I know that in some other states, a legal separation is rigidly controlled, and is more like locking both people away from each other (and everyone else), and hoping that they will get so desperate for human company that they agree to pretend to like each other again. I hope I will be allowed to stay (my wife, after rushing at warp speed into kicking me out and setting up an independent household, is now waffling about the final divorce, because it costs a lot of money...plus she has no trouble finding guys who don't care that she's only legally separated). But it's all up to how The Big Fish interprets us. I sure wouldn't mind adding a filter to stop separated people from messaging you. Last thing I want, is to annoy.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 216 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/22/2013 4:41:14 AM
I'm questioning the justice system in allowing it. It seems bizarre to allow her to continue to plead for her case AFTER she's been found guilty. Why has the US court system allowed itself to become part of this circus? I think this is a side effect of something that is an important, and positive part of the American Judicial system. That is, that we try NOT to allow politics of the moment to sway judges. To do so, we have made many judges beholden to no one at all, in hopes that we can get closer to pure, and uninfluenced fairness. A common side effect of this, is that judges (being fallible humans) can get big-headed about their power, and make choices which they convince themselves are all about their independence, but which are really all about their vanity. Some others too, will allow too much leeway to defendants, for fear that they will appear to be too draconian. Still the same basic thing, a human in a judges suit is still a human, with all the potential failings. But it is important that we keep the judges separate like that, and able to annoy the hell out of us at times. Otherwise, they would be as they are in the nations where we see them parrot the thoughts of the latest dictator, and ignore everything else.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 12 (view)

Human tendency to exaggerate (do we prefer fantasy over reality?) Posted: 5/22/2013 4:29:18 AM
A couple of things: I think ideals has a lot to do with it, but when you see female figurines made by ancient cultures that had grossly extended breasts, belly and genitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines) then it's hard to imagine that as ideal. They seemed to have deliberately exaggerated certain anatomic features to extreme lengths while downplaying others. I would say it's largely symbolic (says what's most important to that culture), but way exaggerated nonetheless. Yes. Symbolic, no doubt. But two things about that...one, we have no evidence to support the idea that the entire culture that created those exaggerated figurines, also insisted that their reality match it. That is, we do not also find representations of female leaders and wives of leaders, similarly shown to be grossly corpulent. Two, a lot of what gets said on shows like that, not to mention in Anthropology and History text books, is due entirely to the modern writer's interpretation and guesswork to try to explain the finds. (There is an old insider joke amongst Archaeologists about this...they say "if you find an artifact, and you don't know what it is, and don't want to admit that you have no idea, put down in the records that it was a religious icon of some sort.") In connection with the claim that the Greeks first perfected exact replica statuary, and then sequentially decided to switch entirely or predominantly to exaggerated stuff, is a made-up fantasy by the writers of the show. Then, just as now, there were always artists making very realistic representations, along side those who erected distortions. Further, it ignores the influence of politics and power, to claim that this is due to a general Human need or habit of distorting things. Take a look at the Soviet Union, for a more modern example. For entirely political reasons, the power brokers there, insisted that ALL art be distorted to support the rulers. What was produced had nothing at all to do with any general or unique Russian desire to distort things. And keep in mind too, as the producers of such shows usually forget, that what we have to work with from the past, is only a tiny part of what was originally in existence. Art created in stone survives millennia. Art on paper or wood may not last a single generation. If anything, I would suggest that the fact that the Greeks DID produce exact and realistic art, at ANY time, would prove all by itself that there is no innate urge to distort reality. If there were, there would be NO evidence of realistic art to look at.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 14 (view)

Accents Posted: 5/22/2013 4:07:11 AM
If An accent developed due to say 3 or 4 differnt nationalitys all trying to speak the same language then surely we would have modern day examples of accents developing far from the land they would normally. ? We do. Several such examples have been posted. Not sure what you are getting at there. I am sure Climate/ geography and something plays a big part in a countrys accent Good luck with that. Now, I do think that, as I pointed out earlier, since physiology (i.e. birth defects and injuries) can affect a person's way of speaking, that certainly an environment might cause a shift in an isolated population's apparent accent, without any other accents playing a part. But I know of no humane and sane way to test that. No, I think that you are overlooking how impossible it is for parents to keep their offspring from learning EVERYTHING that is around them, and not just what the parents would have them learn. Especially in a world as interconnected as ours is now, accents are actually fading away all over the place. It's really a shame, since the variety is so much fun.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 1666 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/22/2013 3:59:38 AM
What's the fuss and mystery? Of course there are huge penalties for refusing to pay your taxes. Singling out the health care mess, and pretending that the fact that refusing to pay THAT part of your taxes will be penalized, means that Obama and the Democrats are out to "git ya," is insane. You will suffer the very same penalties if you refuse to pay the portion of your taxes that goes to the Armed Forces (if you are a pacifist, for example), or the portion that goes to fund the interstate commerce department (if you are opposed to THAT particular part of government), or anything else you can name. Making unreasonable, insupportable interpretations of the Constitution to suit personal preferences, rather than to carry out the intent of the people who wrote it and the voters who approved it, is hostile to that Constitution. Right. You keep missing the point that no American has a corner on the "right" interpretation, or on which clause or passage "should" override another, when there appears to be a conflict. One person's "unreasonable, insupportable interpretation" is often another person's "return to the original founders' intent." And if you go too far down that road of "the original founders knew how we should all behave for all time," then you DO get yourself into a situation where you have to explain why you support slavery, and oppose voting rights to all but the landed white males. So sorry that the world failed to evolve to become the ideal that you envisioned, and that you have to put up with living in a country that includes people you disagree with, yet have to legally respect. Just the way things go, I'm afraid. But it is NOT "hostile to the Constitution," just because you don't see things that way.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 7 (view)

What to do? Posted: 5/22/2013 3:45:04 AM
I can never forget an illustrative relationship I witnessed while in my last year at college. Several of us had joined to rent a group house together, to share expenses and to live away from the hyper control of dorm rooms. One of our members moved out, and we allowed another gal to move in, who we had known for some time, and who seemed to be in tune with us generally. After a few months, her long time boyfriend returned from being away on the opposite coast, and joined her every night. And then the horror show began. Every day they would wander through life, tending to college stuff, buying groceries and all that normal stuff. And every night, they would come home, get into ferocious screaming matches in their room, followed by the sound of crashing furniture. The rest of us finally joined together and told them to find another place to live. The sodden mess of broken chairs, ripped cloth, and semen covered slimy muck they left behind for us to clean up, revealed that their relationship was BASED upon the conflict, and the yelling, and the violent fights. For all you know, the same sort of thing applies to that gal and her guy. No doubt not as horrifyingly exaggerated as what I witnessed, but all the same, you have not correctly identified her as " a wonderful perfect gal, trapped in a tragic mismatch with a troll." Too bad we don't have folks tales to warn us about this all-too-common reality. If we did, then a handsome prince would discover that a beautiful princess was trapped in a high tower of a dark castle, he would battle all manner of magical and dangerously violent demons and dragons to reach her. Upon planting the magical kiss of freedom upon her lovely lips, the Ugly Ogre would burst into the room, and say "Okay, honey! Are you hot enough for wild sex with a real man now??" and she would say "You bet!" And the Ogre and the Beauty would then ride off together into the sunset, in search of a new dark castle, leaving the much bewildered prince to ponder what exactly that was all about.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 4 (view)

why did he make plans with me then stop communicating? Posted: 5/22/2013 3:20:15 AM
Op, you have indeed repeated this performance with a previous guy (according to your posting history). What I'm going to point out, is your general behavior, which I've seen a number of people do here, all making the same overall mistake. The essence of your stories, are that you carry around in your head, an encyclopedic list of tiny ACTIONS that anyone can perform, along with a translated MEANING that each act has...in your mind. Then, as you progress through your relationship or date with each person, you take notes, and keep count, of each action they perform ("he held the door, he texted goodnight, he asked about my mum,"etc), attaching more and more meaning to each one. Until by the end of a SINGLE date with someone, you have built a romantic script up, which you expect the guy to continue to follow, as though he is required by the "natural laws" you imagine exist in association with all the "meanings" you have attached to individual actions, to maintain his trajectory of activities in a predictable manner. And then the second he fails to follow your script, you panic and either decide he's a player, or that he's rude, or that he's otherwise deceptive, or that you've done some OTHER act which you didn't manage to include yet on your own "don't do any of these things" list. At the bottom of all of this tremendous burden of data collection and analysis that you have turned your life and relationships into, is the fundamental flaw, that life does not and has never actually worked that way. The entire list of acts and meanings is wrong. Or at least, you have failed to realize that any act, may or may not mean anything at all. Someone can text respond quickly one day, and not another, without either day's response time having anything at all to do with their feelings about you, or their long term goals in life, or anything else. Someone can compliment you on your apparel, and they may or may not mean that because of it, that they want to be with you, or even that you should wear more things like that, and so on. You really need to find a way to get out of the mindset that you can collect data, and analyze behaviors, and deduce an entire world from it. You might not be essentially a "clingy" person, in that you may not "cling" to the other person in your life, but you do cling to thousands of other small things, and thoughts, and beliefs about every little thing that happens. As someone deals with you, they will discover that everything that you are involved with, or that they do, does have lots of other things stuck to it, much like trying to pick up an attractive item from a store shelf, and discovering that it is glued to twenty-seven other items, and that the purchaser can't separate them and get what they are after.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 7 (view)

Home interior design application? Posted: 5/21/2013 7:46:25 PM
Here's a simple one: http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/color/try-on-colors/color-visualizer/ I haven't tried it, but it says you can upload your own photo, then drag and drop Sherwin Williams colors onto it. I've seen other paint sellers offering that sort of thing. I'd recommend looking on the website that serves the brands of paint sold in your area. Whup! Bobby beat me to it. Good show.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 211 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/21/2013 6:35:04 PM
I have observed that some Judges are more fastidious, and control their Courtrooms more thoroughly than others. Plus, it seems to be a matter of timing. Lots of convicts get interviewed on TV hereabouts. Charles Manson has been on many times. And some trials, seem to get turned into show trials. The Simpson trial was a classic, in that sense. Everyone in it tried to profit from the trial and from the TV attention. Celebrity trials appear to turn into show trials like that fairly often. Would that we could return to having to wait for the completion of proceedings to get pictures. Well, maybe it's because I had a friend who lost their job as a courtroom artist.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 47 (view)

Thoughts on Recent Pope-Parody News Story Posted: 5/21/2013 6:22:50 PM
I'm not sure what the high cost of security guards has to do with bishops fussing about half-naked young women, but I am watching with a big grin, wide open eyes, and my chin firmly positioned between my cupped hands, to await an elucidation. This is going to be good, I bet. Does the Bishop have to pay for the guards? No, it couldn't be that, Bishops have plenty of money. And there weren't any Security Guards involved with the story that actually happened, just local police. I just hope it's not that old-fogey style of arguing, where we drag everything to wild extremes, and claim that if someone scuffs the paint on your favorite car, that necessarily Hitler will return from his secret Argentinian hideaway, and inexplicably lead a Communist revolution, and no one will notice because that darn half-naked girl forced us to study her shaving techniques.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 1663 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/21/2013 5:50:09 PM
The notion that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document that has to be re-interpreted to suit changing times is no more convincing now than it ever has been. It can't hide the fact people who take that line are hostile to the Constitution, and anyone in the U.S. who is hostile to the Constitution of the U.S. is fundamentally un-American. How silly to say. Okay, that means that about 98% of all Americans are "hostile to the Constitution," and are therefore un-American. Because everyone "re-interprets" it. Right wing, left wing, and centrists alike. Yes, there are lots of early re-interpretations someone can point to, (such as the Federalist Papers), but that's just according extra value to an opinion, based on how closely related to an original member of the Constitutional committee someone was. And the world has changed. And more important, the reason that the power to amend was written in, was because the founders KNEW things would likely need to be changed. Further, the Supreme Court, as a part of the idea of checks and balances, DOES have the ability to re-interpret the Constitution. It's their primary job. Specious nonsense, I say. Not to mention, that every time someone who claims to believe that, quotes the Constitution and tries to apply it to something happening now, they are simultaneously saying that they are themselves, Un-American, and "hostile to the Constitution."

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 4 (view)

Video's not Buffering (loading) Posted: 5/21/2013 5:07:32 PM
I can't say then. Try deleting and re installing the video "reader" that you need. Also, make sure to run an up-to-date anti-spyware program, it could simply be that too much spyware is crowding out the video streaming.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 2 (view)

Video's not Buffering (loading) Posted: 5/21/2013 4:51:41 PM
What browser are you using? Chrome has a weakness with shockwave.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 13 (view)

Going with the flow vs. Charting the Course? Posted: 5/21/2013 2:55:05 PM
Good luck with it, as a ploy to keep players away. Time and again, they report in here that the first women they choose to lie to, are the ones most firmly stating that sex is off the table.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 8 (view)

Nietzche's Theory of Eternal Recurrence Posted: 5/21/2013 2:52:43 PM
Thanks for that post, Kodanshi. That this was more or less an Einstein style Thought Experiment on Nietzche's part, makes much more sense. I still wouldn't find it involving, since I have come to be bored to tears by "what if" scenarios. And thanks for that Twain quote, Drinks. Very accurate, though it does require actual thought to work. My point about the "History repeating" thing, is that the repetition is entirely in the eyes and minds of those who want to see it as such. If anything, huge mistakes were made in various wars, not because those conducting them failed to "learn from history." Rather, things went horribly wrong because they expected history to be repeated. World war 2 was an obvious case in point. France and the other nations prepared to refight world war one. Hence when Germany launched into a new sort of warfare, country after country collapsed. France in particular tried to "learn from History," and built the infamous Maginot line. We CAN learn from history. But if we act as though it repeats, we'll feel lost almost all the time.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 18 (view)

Embrace the Madness Posted: 5/21/2013 2:34:17 PM
??? I certainly HOPE no one thinks that I have more than one profile. I've always had only this one. I was responding to Trailswhatever, and saying I disagreed with him. Why the confusion?

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 11 (view)

Going with the flow vs. Charting the Course? Posted: 5/21/2013 2:26:24 PM
This is obviously more complicated than just "what are you looking for" sorts of questions. For one thing, timing, and how and what you ask, exactly, can make a huge difference, as we can see just from the responses here. If you were to meet someone the old fashioned way, for example, face to face in a club, or some casual setting, and the first thing you ask them is "where do you see us in five years?", you are likely to cause the closest thing to a perfect match for you ever, back away slowly, and make for the door. On the other hand, if someone initiates a conversation with you, and starts to talk about doing things together, and you ask them in what context they want to get together, it will likely sound much more reasonable. By the way, I agree with Cowgirl 100% too, that there's no such thing as working out a way to tell within five minutes whether someone will turn out to be a "waste of your time" or not. I also agree, that the act of choosing to demand commitments from people who you've never even met, even if those commitments are in the form of general concepts such as show up in our profiles, is more likely to cause every relationship to fail, than it is to help you to ferret out the serious people from the players. Frankly, the players are far more likely to tell you what you hope to hear, than are the genuine, honest, and serious mate hunters. If anything, it might be more rational to use your pointed question in a reverse psychology sort of way: anyone who has a ready answer that sounds perfect, should be discarded immediately. Back to the title question. It gives only TWO options. Demand a prediction from the prospect, or lay back and let them decide everything. Neither idea sounds remotely realistic to me. Relationships that work, all have one main thing in common: they are entirely INTERACTIVE. They are usually balanced too, though in the case of a Dom and a Sub kind of thing, that balance might look funny to the rest of us.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 40 (view)

Letter from Markus Posted: 5/21/2013 4:06:23 AM
A lot of this is about how he goes about doing what he does. For example, as Drinks points out, the new punishing restriction on first emails containing sexual language, causing the person's profile to be deleted, will mean that if you initiate contact by suggesting meeting for an after work drink with "male-rooster" as a part of it's official name, will cause you to be categorized as a pervert and deleted. Markus has also casually mentioned elsewhere that all married people will be kicked out next. If he includes us Separated people, then I will be gone, unless my divorce goes through first (which is unlikely). I support the IDEAS behind what he is doing, but I fear that it is going to be done clumsily, and thus will make a mess of things.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 6 (view)

Human tendency to exaggerate (do we prefer fantasy over reality?) Posted: 5/21/2013 3:56:01 AM
Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that we seek ideals, rather than that we "prefer fantasy over reality." More along the lines that once we find out that something tastes mostly good, that we try to find out how to make it taste ALWAYS good. We are a variegated group as well. I do know that there are people who do prefer to live in a fantasy version of existence, and end up isolating themselves as a result. But in my studies, I see no relationship between that, and religious belief, save that regardless of the subject area, when someone gets too far out of balance, they will lose touch with reality, and damage themselves. In this manner, hyper-anti-theists are as bad as hyper-religious people, and I've even known people who were so transfixed by the idea of achieving perfection of the "middle of the road," that they lost the ability to enjoy anything, to let themselves feel and react freely to anything at all. Thus, exaggeration can take all sorts if forms, including exaggerated "normality." In other words, I would ask, how do you decide when something is an exaggeration, and when it's an attempt at purification or perfection? And is the seeking of ideals, or even just the pursuit of a new-improved reality, really the same as the pursuit of fantasy OVER reality? Another example: we distill various spirits, in order to create a better tasting alcoholic beverage. Is that a part of an attempt to exaggerate, or to prefer fantasy over reality? I think it is at one with the other things cited in the opening post. Don't get me wrong, I think that there very much is a tendency, or a danger that we can upset ourselves, if we CONFUSE pursuit of ideals, with letting go of reality. I just think that it will be best understood, if we define it as carefully as we can, if nothing else, so that we don't carry the notion that "human's have a tendency to exaggerate" itself, too far, and thereby misunderstand reality, even as we seek to more closely recognize it.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 6 (view)

Accents Posted: 5/21/2013 3:35:17 AM
^^^It doesn't surprise me. Here in the D.C. area we have so many different NATIVE accents, that even those who grew up here have trouble understanding each other. Favorite true vignette: I was waiting for someone on a street downtown, and happened to be near a subway entrance. As several people were coming up from it, a young gentleman asked a series of them the same question, but it wan't until the fourth person came up, that he stumbled across one who recognized he was speaking American English. What he repeatedly asked was: "Skoo me mah. Zah teh fo dah neh?" Since I work fixing things, and therefore learned many more dialects and accents than most, I knew right away what he was asking, but most of the people he spoke to thought he was from another country.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 22 (view)

issue with tired man in his late forties Posted: 5/20/2013 5:54:39 PM
There aren't actually THAT many. Just a few mental miscreants repeating the same crimes over and over.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 3 (view)

Nietzche's Theory of Eternal Recurrence Posted: 5/20/2013 5:45:54 PM
The crux of this, at least in this article, seems to be here: it follows from the denial of a god: 1. if there is no god, there is no creation or beginning, and, therefore, time is infinite; 2. the number of things and arrangements of things is finite; therefore, 3. events must repeat themselves, infinitely - hence, eternal recurrence... My own reading of that series of statements, is that the person making them suffers from a limited imagination. Therefore no, I see no logical support for the idea that, because Nietzche can't figure out anything else to do on a given afternoon, that therefore no one ever will. Not to mention, that it inadvertently attributes endless imagination to the god who doesn't exist, which is not achievable by lowly humans. Oh, and minor sore point of my own, I oppose the "history repeats itself" line. I've said it before, I'll say it again: history doesn't repeat, but historians and others searching for patterns of behavior to act against or for, do indulge in pretending it does. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of instances of people failing to learn from past mistakes, I agree with that. But if History really DID repeat itself, there would be no point to trying to learn about it to avoid repeating mistakes..because it WOULD repeat itself, INCLUDING the errors.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 2 (view)

Accents Posted: 5/20/2013 5:28:49 PM
I am convinced that it is a combination of "nature and nurture" as so many things are. Yes, it's a result of various speech patterns mixing, but since we also periodically run into local "accents" which are identical to known biologically induced speech defects...and since people have been known to suffer brain injuries or other neurological problems that which resulted in what is called "Foreign accent syndrome," I have come to think that many sub-dialects and accents are due more or less to inbreeding. One example I have run across is a a peculiar British accent, which apparently is so localized, that it is limited to a certain section of London, near the Thames. It is most easily recognized, because when the speaker says words containing an "R," it sounds as though they were trying to make a "W" sound, and only said teh "R" sound at the last second.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 11 (view)

confidence vs. 'this is b***shyt' Posted: 5/20/2013 5:14:41 PM
This is a deduction of mine only: most women, and men too for that matter, are choosing the wrong word when they say they are looking for a "confident" mate. Especially women. What they are actually after makes much more sense, because it doesn't get so easily confused with brashness, callousness, crudity, or a total lack of inhibitions and sense of decorum that tends to go along with "ready willing and eager to hit on them." What most people really want, is the sense that they are dealing with someone who is, exactly as they present themselves to be, whatever that happens to be. They mean something closer to "stable and openly honest." Or perhaps, certain about both what they want, and why, as well as being reasonably aware that the other person's desires have to be a part of the relationship equation as well. This is why both men and women often find that "playing hard to get" in one way or another, seems to increase the other person's appreciation of them...right up until they realize it is just playing, at which point it instantly becomes a huge turn-off.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 3 (view)

Letter from Markus Posted: 5/20/2013 1:32:53 PM
The only thing I don't agree with, is the seemingly arbitrary fourteen year age limit. I have never tried to chase people outside that range myself, but since I know successful couples who are outside those limits, I would have chosen a different number. I just hope he decides to switch the "Forums" links back on again.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 2 (view)

Human tendency to exaggerate (do we prefer fantasy over reality?) Posted: 5/20/2013 1:22:43 PM
My instant reaction to some of what you suggest, is that it is misplaced here. Misinterpreted. Mainly the thing about Superhero movies. I think the simple reason why there have been a sudden rush of them, is the standard reason why all financially expensive fads happen: 1. technology made it possible, 2. the people who owned the superhero franchises were ready to sell them, 3. One of them made a bunch of money. Whenever that comes together, we will see a bundle of the same things being copied. There was a rush of fake Star Wars movies after Star Wars hit it big. There have been a ton of fake "Rocky" type movies (underdog nimrod wins anyway) since that one worked out. But lets get back to the interesting part: "Human tendency to exaggerate." I suggest a slight shift of verbiage about it. We do exaggerate, but I suspect a lot of that is more or less inadvertent. That is, if something is important to us, our perceptions of it get distorted by our emotional reactions. Artistic types often create what they do, more because they refuse to CORRECT their distorted perceptions, rather than because they purposely set out to add distortion. I saw an interesting graphic illustration a long while back, which might be instructive. I wish I knew where to link to it, but I saw it in a magazine article or a book (yes, a VERY long time ago). It was a graphic illustration of how many nerve endings there were in each section of a human body, shown by a drawing of a human body, with each part sized relative to the others, by the amount of nerve endings in each. It had gigantic hands and face parts, and much of the rest was tiny. I don't recall that the genitals were included (it WAS a long time ago). The fact that our own bodies have imbalances like that, and the fact that our "minds eye" is not under our full control, might play directly into what you are talking about. This might be at least part of an explanation of why all cultures share some forms of exaggeration, at least. I do not think that we are "hard wired" to fool ourselves. That's another area entirely. I'll leave off now, and wait for other input. But this is an excellent subject. Thanks for posting it.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 9 (view)

issue with tired man in his late forties Posted: 5/20/2013 1:05:32 PM
Why use code? Tell him exactly what you are interested in with him, including the limits. The worst he can do is say no. Well, I suppose he could say no, and then hit you with something heavy, but since he's so tired, I think that is unlikely. Seriously, since you don't want anything serious at all, just to more or less make the occasional sexual service visit to him for as long as your fantasy lasts, you have nothing to lose by being direct.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 10 (view)

Would the NFL welcome an openly atheist player? Posted: 5/20/2013 4:41:48 AM
Thanks demi. That was what I was trying to get at, better said. I think this article (posted on and written by someone extra sensitive to the "cause" pf atheism) looked only at the dribble of words spoken by that team rep, and took off from there. There is a long-developed culture to even private enterprise ventures, including sports team franchises. For my entire life, I have seen that all sorts of groups and venture organizations, pay LIP SERVICE to whatever they think the majority in their area of operation believes in. The more intense the demographic is that they wish to appeal to (sell things to), the more thoroughly they will pretend to care about that demo's issues. Thus, even though almost none of the people who you might hear saying how they want "people of faith" to work with them, actually do what is needed to guarantee that they do, they will still say it, almost by rote. Heck, I know a fair number of atheists who still say "god bless you" after someone sneezes.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 9 (view)

Intimate Encounters: I cant message people !! Posted: 5/20/2013 4:25:00 AM
I know im a decent bloke with a lot to offer its a shame P'O'F doesn't think that !! Again, it isn't POF who "doesn't think that." It is the women who have blocked you, by setting their email restrictions such that you can't talk to them. im just saying that if I knew the consequences of clicking one selection on a search on a new site I had joined i never would have done it !! Now there, you have a little sympathy from me. The reason I never ran into your problem, is because I am so slow and cautious, that I read things in the forums for weeks before even thinking of trying to contact anyone, and during that time, I learned about both the existence of I.E. people, and that initiating contact with them four or more times would have the effect you complain of. I still have never initiated contact with an I.E. person, so I am not certain, but as far as I know, POF does NOT have any automated warnings, to alert someone who is about to do so, that he/she will trip the "No I.E." alarm and block themselves from the bulk of the other people here by doing so. Anyway, now that they have segregated I.E. into the only-if-you-pay section, most new people will never fall into the trap again. However, it still goes back to, that you did what you did, and these are the consequences. You are making it workse for yourself by continuing your pretense that you only did it by accident. You might as well join the cheaters of the world, who pretend that they were just walking along minding their own business, and then slipped on a banana peel, and fell naked into someone else's bed. Repeatedly.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 45 (view)

Most of those who claim to want a relationship play the most games ugh! Posted: 5/20/2013 4:12:30 AM
it isn't that sometimes a prospective girl/boyfriend sounds like a smooth player, but instead it's that the players sound like the honest genuine people. That's the goal of being a liar or player - to sound like the honest genuine people. Seeing it this way is the first step...you forget this, and you're in trouble. Brilliant and well stated. That is the key thing to recognize with this phenomenon. Translating this to the thread title, it isn't that "those who claim to want a relationship play the most", it's that "those who most want to play, will pretend to want a relationship." And the trick is, to take the time, and make the effort to figure out who you are actually dealing with.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 1652 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/20/2013 1:38:39 AM
Okay, believe what you want. It's true that some people who have trouble competing, always call for government help to give them an easy ride. That isn't limited to the weak or the poor or the not-so smart though. The rich and the powerful are always trying to get special laws passed to make it easier for THEM to get their way as well. But the way you write, ignores that it is also true that the powerful often abuse their power. Again, I'm talking about human nature applying to EVERYONE, and you seem to apply it selectively, depending on who you like. Heck, it's the reason why our nation was created. It's the reason why we have a Constitution, and the rule of law, rather than the rule of Whoever Happened To Be The Richest And Most Powerful That Day family. You propose to do away with ALL protections, simply because SOME of them are occasionally helping people who really shouldn't be helped. In short, you are still completely misunderstanding what I am talking about. And you are still ignoring factual history. While many regulations get badly written, NONE of them were written out of the blue. They were all the result of abuses being seen by someone, and could not be written into law, unless a majority of our representatives agreed that they were valid concerns. If you want to pretend that abuses by businesses and other wealthy or powerful people never happened, and that history is filled with nothing but weak people somehow managing to get a majority vote in order to use government to persecute the saintly upper class, go ahead. But it would be better if you instead chose a regulation you don't like, and read up on why it was created, and then propose a better solution to the REAL PROBLEM that it was perhaps clumsily put into place to deal with.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 7 (view)

Remove Posted: 5/20/2013 12:59:52 AM
Your logic is, that since you now have to pay to do what you used to do, that therefore you should be excused for having done it. There is no logical connection there. You still did it. And you did it a LOT. And the people who don't want to have people who have do that contact them, STILL don't want people who have done that contact them. What you want gets asked repeatedly. And you didn't do a thread search before asking, just as you didn't read site rules and warnings before you decided to try to avail yourself of Intimate Encounter fun. I suggest you stop typing for a while, and read up in these forums and in the rules, before you trip some of the OTHER limits and restrictions, and find yourself fenced out of everything.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 3 (view)

Does this site actually work or is the messaging system so buggy it's not worth using? Posted: 5/20/2013 12:46:50 AM
How do you know they "don't send?" Lots of eager new people send a ton of messages, and since they think so well of themselves, they assume the site is preventing them from being seen, when it's actually that they are being ignored. I have been here a good long while, and so far as I can tell, the only times a message hasn't gone through, is when I failed to check the other person's restrictions first. But then, I don't do the mass-cut-and-paste thing. I'm selective and specific.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 2 (view)

How to know if I emailed a person in the past? Posted: 5/20/2013 12:38:23 AM
Manually only. If you are emailing THAT many people, you are probably blowing it anyway (i.e. mass mailing cut and paste messages). The only way to keep track of all the people you do that with, is to either write them down, or set up a log in your computer. I'm not an expert, but since this question gets asked over and over, and that's what everyone always says, then I'll chime in the same way.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 15 (view)

Waiting for . . . ?? Posted: 5/19/2013 6:45:35 PM
I never did catch this thread right. I didn't answer the main question. What happens with me is, that as soon as I realize that I HAVE been waiting, I make conscious decision, a determined choice, whether to continue waiting or not. Most of the time, I decide to stop waiting, if there's any way I can manage that. It depends on the exact subject matter. I either discard the goal I was waiting for, or I choose another strategy to try to get to it. My life includes a LOT of waiting. I really hate it. It's been the bane of my existence, in many ways. But I still have to do it, simply because I have never had the wherewithal to avoid it.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 14 (view)

tickley nose syndrome? Posted: 5/19/2013 6:34:15 PM
nerve endings, and how they interconnect, and how the mind works with them can be a lot of fun. I knew a gal once, who I could bring to orgasm every time, simply by gently striking the fronts of her thighs as we copulated. It made love making a guaranteed home run for me. Things didn't work out for other reasons, too bad for me, but it was great while it lasted.

igorfrankensteen

Joined: 6/29/2009

Msg: 8 (view)

Would the NFL welcome an openly atheist player? Posted: 5/19/2013 6:29:32 PM
Actually, I failed to look at the cited article before posting. Now that I have, I would point out that the OP needs to recognize a distinction between "The NFL," and "An NFL Team." The NFL itself is essentially a Billionaire's Boys Club of private owners, who have managed to turn a game into a huge profit generating machine. Because they are just a club, they can set all sorts of rules which would be illegal if they were instead a publicly owned enterprise of some sort. The NFL did not give trouble to the team member(s) mentioned in the article. That TEAM did. Other teams might play things the same way. Because each team is independent in many ways, including how they go about choosing players, some of the teams might demand religious affiliation, others might not. Also, keep in mind that these are money-making enterprises, more than anything else. Therefore the team representatives will say ALL KINDS of things as part of a public relations scheme, without actually giving a damn about anything they have said in reality. It's no different than when someone who produces snack foods, claims in their ads that they care deeply about the health of their customers, and so will always use the finest ingredients, regardless of cost. Only to turn around and go after the cheapest crud they can get away with, and blame the suppliers when adulterated products hit the market.

Show ALL Forums