need a guys advice, not a womans... chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: need a guys advice, not a womans...

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 17 (view)

need a guys advice, not a womans... Posted: 6/7/2009 10:26:26 AM
Okay, you have a kid. Taking your abusive ex back would be exposing the kid to the threat of physical harm, and to the emotional harm of seeing his/her father whale on his/her mother, along with all the lovely screaming. What the hell are you thinking? It should be about the kid, not about your ex or your hormones. Cheers, Mike (get a grip, take a cold shower, focus on preserving your child and your sanity)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 49 (view)

Blown Off Posted: 6/7/2009 10:19:40 AM
she kept spurring me with excuses of this or that, or agreeing to only to cancel the day of- Three strikes and she's out. Cheers, Mike (she made the decision after the first date; take a hint)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 11 (view)

Using humor as a wall Posted: 6/7/2009 10:16:43 AM
Personally, I prefer to use humour as a doorway that leads to a bedroom. Cheers, Mike (humour is a glass ceiling; those who don't laugh don't get above it)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 48 (view)

If you were a Flower Posted: 6/7/2009 10:13:18 AM
The Fraser River: widely traveled, hidden depths, useful, rocky bits. Cheers, Mike (oh, you didn't mean something that flows?)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 32 (view)

Why [b]DO[/b] men send unsolicited pics of their penis? Posted: 5/23/2009 1:12:35 PM
Because men are visual and love to look at naked women bits, they think women are the same in reverse. Basically the guys aren't smart enough to realize that most women will run screaming from this whether they like looking at naked man bits or not. Cheers, Mike (alternatively, they sent pics out like that, get responses from gay men posing as women, have their behaviour validated, and keep doing it)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 15 (view)

Why are people still Fishing? ~~~~ Re: Intimate Encounters Posted: 5/23/2009 1:08:09 PM
Well, according to many gay men, lots of straight men won't pass up a free BJ even if they are looking for women. And the statistics show that there are a lot more women that have affairs than approve of having affairs. Likely, your youthful correspondents are playing the odds that many women that advertise as not wanting a hookup, wouldn't be averse to having one with the right guy, or the right now guy. Likely, they are right and have had hookups with women stating the opposite. In other words, you might consider talking with your gendermates about their real versus publicized behaviour before slagging the low literacy rate. Cheers, Mike (saying they don't allows them to feel guilty without having to feel guilty about it)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 93 (view)

What are the benefits of getting a divorce in an Amicable split? Posted: 5/21/2009 6:48:11 PM
See Child, in Biblical teachings Divorce is a NO-NO, like if you had A.I.D.S. or were a heroin addict, or something that is NOT with the Biblical Code! Yup. That's right. AIDS (identified first in 1959) is prohibited in the Bible (written by various authors between 3000 BC and 300 AD then edited by committee between 1604 and 1611). And heroin (first synthesized in 1874) is also Biblically prohibited. Yes, the Bible, written by dozens then edited by committee, predicted future addictions and diseases specifically. And that's why divorce is anti-marshmallow, anti-buttercups and anti-puppies. Cheers, Mike (coming soon: anti-plushy)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 697 (view)

Are US Men Obsolete? Posted: 5/18/2009 4:14:36 PM
Wow. A lot of antedeluvian attitudes are coming out on this already nonsensical thread. (Of course men aren't obsolete: parthenogenesis hasn't been perfected and it's unlikely to become common.) There certainly are a lot of folks that seem to be longing for the days when men were men and sheep were scared. There are posters that are accusing others of ad hominem attacks who obviously have no idea what that means (as a clue, here's an example "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.") There are posters that are frothing at the mouth over feminazis, and in the process making themselves increasingly unattractive to ... well... everyone. And there is some sane, evidence-based discussion going on. Here's to more of that. Cheers, Mike (I still like my first answer ;) )

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 33 (view)

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Posted: 5/18/2009 9:23:42 AM
I stand up, and answer. Oh yes, every single day. To the One whom is deserving of my love and obedience. Mis~fit, apologies but you really are deeply off topic. The original post might be off-topic for the BC forum, except that Eckhart lives here, so it gets a bit of a pass. The original reference to the bible might have been on topic in a compare-and-contrast sort of way. Your protection of Christian rights to speak is irrelevant to the topic. Please feel free to not thump the Bible and instead turn the other cheek, preferably silently. Cheers, Mike (As the Dom said to the Sub, "Turn the other cheek.")

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 21 (view)

What are the benefits of getting a divorce in an Amicable split? Posted: 5/18/2009 9:15:49 AM
Having glanced through the thread a bit more, there are some advantages to not getting a divorce besides the financial ones for you and your amicablex (what's the right word for the ex-couple during a mutually sane and adult separation?) 1. You'll rapidly eliminate all the women that think separated = married and won't have to go through the hassle of dating them. 2. You'll have a handy get out of jail free card for your commitment-phobia. "Sorry, honey, you know I love you but I can't take this to the next level because I'm not really divorced." 3. You'll always have that frisson of uncertainty about what to right on forms demanding to know whether you're married or not. 4. You can enjoy the apparent attention that married men get then spring the safety unraveller: "Actually, we've been amicably separated for 7 years." Cheers, Mike (get a divorce when one of you needs it for some future concern)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 24 (view)

I need a push, please help. Posted: 5/17/2009 8:02:20 PM
DTMFA. (see Dan Savage for explanation in the event you're not already familiar with the acronym. Cheers, Mike (Dan's greatest two additions to the language: DTMFA and Santorum)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 7 (view)

What are the benefits of getting a divorce in an Amicable split? Posted: 5/17/2009 8:00:17 PM
Ontario, Canada experience report. My ex and I split remarkably amicably. We had a notarized separation agreement: $20? When she decided she wanted to re-marry, we went down the joint divorce path: 1 lawer, <$1000 cost, she picked it up as she was the one who wanted it. Amusingly, the day it became final we ran into each other on a Toronto subway platform and shared a happy divorce hug. Cheers, Mike (she kept my 2 syllable last name when she married a 4 syllable last name)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 4 (view)

Small Town Dating! Posted: 5/17/2009 7:44:50 AM
Well, at least you're straight. In another thread a while ago, a lesbian was bemoaning the small dating pool in her town. Seriously? Move to a city. The vast majority of towns of 16K are headed for serious declines over the next 30 years, or at best ex-urban enclaves of the wealthy. If you stake your future and your future love life to it, you'll likely end up being at the wrong end of demographics. Cheers, Mike (the women won't come to Mohammed, so Mohammed must go to the women)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 25 (view)

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Posted: 5/17/2009 7:40:11 AM
What I find amusing about Eckhart is that he keeps his lover/partner/something in a separate condo in the same building he lives in. Apparently he likes his space and privacy and can indulge it. Cheers, Mike (makes separate bedrooms look intimate)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 79 (view)

What’s the best piece of advice you ever received? Posted: 5/16/2009 6:25:11 PM
Free advice is worth every penny. Cheers, Mike (More interesting to ask is what is the best advice you received that you didn't follow.)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 12 (view)

Why do some women like to get choked while having sex? Posted: 5/16/2009 7:27:05 AM
There are two types of choking during sex: 1. real choking -- asphyxiation reducing oxygen flow to the brain to the point of unconsciousness -- dangerous 2. dominance choking -- acting as if you are choking her -- the threat and apparent danger add a charge. As you weren't really choking her and she liked it just fine, this sounds more like what she was after. As with most dom-sub play theatricality and imagination are more important than reality. Cheers, Mike (I'd find it kind of weird too)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 19 (view)

OPEN RELATIONSHIPS Posted: 5/15/2009 10:27:14 AM
Hi Kozmick . . . I'd apologize for the self-righteous flamers on the thread, but they think they're in the right. No help for them. Something you have to understand about the internet: just because something is on it doesn't mean anyone will find it, or that if they do find it they'll do anything about it or care. You just aren't important to the vast majority of people. Post on a site like POF or Lavalife and you'll probably never be outed by anyone unless you attract the attention of the press in a big way for some reason. As someone pointed out, there are 330 people from your town listed on the site looking for love and sex. Do you think any of them are going to say: I WAS ON A SEX SITE LOOKING FOR SEX AND SAW THAT KOZMICK WAS ALSO LOOKING FOR SEX! Unless you and your partner have large scale public lives -- think public office, leading major evangelical churches, running the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan, become a mass murderer -- or are planning to have a very public life, then fill your boots. Cheers, Mike (as a suggestion, look at the profiles of the 330 people in your town on POF; any idea who they are based on their posts?)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 50 (view)

I Must Be Strange... Posted: 5/15/2009 10:14:23 AM
Am I an alien? Nope, but you are doubly limiting your options of finding happiness with someone, first by staying in a limited dating pool a long way from others, and secondly by refusing to share one of the fundamental pleasures of life for your own reasons until a long term commitment has occurred. Expect to have a very long search and to stay celibate and relationshipless for a long time. If your basic reason is Christianity, I'd suggest getting on a Christian dating site. They exist after all. Good luck. Cheers, Mike (and there are pretty straightforward mechanisms to avoid STDs and have fun, btw)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 26 (view)

Dating a woman in my office? Posted: 5/15/2009 10:07:24 AM
Come on folks. A/ we are talking adults, not high schoolers B/ vast numbers of people meet their life partners through work... after all, people spend tons of time at work and meet lots of people there. Why count it out as a social setting? OP, this is one of those rules that most people that speak against have broken or would break in an second. Question 1: do you need to be discrete due to company inanities (Mormon bosses for example?) or office bullies or just disapproving and nosy co-workers? If the answer to that is yes, then invite her out to something you're already doing on the weekend (assuming you have interests outside of work). If the answer is no, start with inviting her out to a coffee or lunch. Cheers, Mike (go for it)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 595 (view)

Are US Men Obsolete? Posted: 5/15/2009 9:57:06 AM
Yes. Luckily men aren't obsolete in Canada. Cheers, Mike (that 49th parallel makes all the difference)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 25 (view)

is it right to pursue real chemistry or is it plain stalking? Posted: 5/15/2009 9:54:24 AM
a penchant to date lady truck drivers, dreams of penning fantasy novels, and sometimes a little socially retarded . . . He ballroom dances He said he told her his situation upfront You're saying he told her all that and she went on a date with him? Oh wait, maybe she found all that out on the date and realized she wasn't interested. And had a convenient excuse: "you're still married". Cheers, Mike (it's called a white lie)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 18 (view)

How do you define status and do you seek it? Posted: 5/15/2009 9:40:57 AM
If you have a constricted comprehension of a word then you are living in a kind of intellectual poverty...of your own making. Hmmm... so why do you keep telling people that they are wrong in their definitions of the word 'status' on this thread? Have you taken a vow of intellectual poverty? Cheers, Mike (along with your vow of pretentious self-aggrandizement?)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 27 (view)

Age differences in dating - What's the gap for you? Posted: 5/15/2009 9:36:04 AM
third friend 68, he too only dates women in their 50s, he's in great shape and likes the younger looks. Also thinks older women have to much baggage. My personal opinion is that someone over 30 that doesn't have visible 'baggage' has baggage of a different, subtler and likely scarier sort. But really, what kind of baggage would a 60 year old have that a 50 year old wouldn't? A few more wrinkles? Cheers, Mike (personally, I like all my baggage to come from Tumi)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 12 (view)

How do you define status and do you seek it? Posted: 5/14/2009 2:11:35 PM
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Wikipedia it already) and the sociology is pretty convincing that all people whose more basic needs are met -- Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging -- have a need of Esteem. Esteem is relative both to a person's perception of them self and perception by others of them. The second portion is related to status. Most people in the First World are doing fine on the first two and usually the first three levels of Maslow's Hierarchy. Having higher status in the eyes of others is a key driver for us rich folks (look here for a bit of perspective http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php). The person you are shagging/dating/married to is one of the aspects that other people judge you by. Your shaggee/friend/partner can add or subtract status in the eyes of others. Of course, the trick with all of this is that it varies substantially by individual and peer group. I used to be higher-status for some women I dated because I was counter-culture and bohemian. That worked for them and their peer group (and was mostly okay for me). Other women fixate on material possessions and wealth as key indicators of status. It's a bit shallow, but it works for them and their peer groups (as long as it's only part of the mix). In other words, a status inflating arm-ornament in one social circle can be a status deflating ball-and-chain in another circle. Cheers, Mike (only be wary of people that are entirely status-focused whether pro or con)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 20 (view)

Age differences in dating - What's the gap for you? Posted: 5/14/2009 1:58:39 PM
I go with the perv-age rule for men: - Divide your age by 2 and add seven years. - If the woman you are dating is younger than that, you're a perv. Note that this rule doesn't say whether you are a perv in your own eyes or others. That seems to work out well for me, but then I'm not an age perv. Others are, and they should follow the golden rules of all relationships that aren't expected to last: 1. Don't pretend it's anything but sex and games. 2. Leave them in better shape than you found them. There doesn't seem to be an inverse rule for women, oddly. Well, beyond the school boy prohibition which is really a pedophilia prohibition, not an age gap prohibition. Most cougars should follow the golden rules above too; not every pretty young thing they pick up in bars is completely crass, shallow and only wanting a quick bang. Some of them have feelings too. Cheers, Mike (for people that need math help, I don't date women under 30 and I don't date women that need math help)

UrbanX

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 36 (view)

Brainiacs Better in Bed-- what say you? Posted: 5/14/2009 1:48:53 PM
It took an entire STUDY, with over 2,000 women.. to find that out?? If you were a researcher looking for dates, what question would you ask and test group would you study? Here are some anti-patterns to suggest why the researcher might not have been so dumb: - Hypothesis: unattractive women dislike sex. Study assembled 1000 women deemed in the bottom 10% of attractive women in Britain. (Researcher discovered the opposite, but joined a monastery, swearing life-long celibacy.) - Hypothesis: women that don't bathe hate sex. Study assembled 1000 women with known body odour issues. (Researcher discovered the opposite, but has taken to washing regularly with lye soap, resulting in acid-etched skin syndrome -- A.S.S. for short.) - Hypothesis: Uber-butch lesbians don't want to have sex with men. Study assembled 1000 women with close cropped hair, saddlebags and Harleys. (Researchers determined the hypothesis was correct but reported several broken bones gathered during interviews.) Cheers, Mike (an excuse to interview 2000 intelligent women about their sex lives? C'mon, that rocks!)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 16 (view)

Women, Sex and Cars Posted: 12/6/2008 8:30:05 AM
Amusingly, the study was sponsored by British insurance company Hiscox. None of the press I read on it indicated what Hiscox' intent was for funding the research. Cheer, Mike (does anyone really know Hiscox' motivation?)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 158 (view)

omglol Posted: 12/3/2008 7:00:27 PM
Oooh, oooh, can I drop into GradBoy's next long-running thread, make snide remarks, contribute nothing of value, then leave? Nah, I think I'll continue having a useful or at least amusing posting history. Cheers, Mike (feel free to take this in the non-literal sense)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 153 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 12/3/2008 3:03:22 PM
when you considered if there was a G-d, did you prove it for yourself, or did you read the arguments in a book, or on a website, and just accept them without questioning if those arguments were faulty? I thought long and hard, argued both sides of the coin, attended church, read most of the Bible and a lot of pro- and con-arguments before making my personal choice and did that while finishing with advanced maths and sciences from high school before moving on to post-secondary science and technology education followed by an English major later (where I read the Bible in a couple of translations a couple more times for historical, literary and social perspectives in addition to other religions' scriptures). Your assumptions about me are of a different class than my assumptions about you: mine are supported by your posts. I agree completely that there is no empirical evidence sufficient to disprove the existence of a god. That's why I tend to refer to myself as an agnostic who acts like an agnostic. That said, there is no empirical evidence that is even remotely supports the existence of a god except in the eyes of those that are pre-convinced of the existence of one. This lack of empirical support doesn't eliminate the possibility of the god hypothesis being true, but it makes it so vanishingly unlikely that for me it is sufficient to be getting on with. You have faith which you challenge regularly. I have a lack of faith which is equally open. Similarly, the ID hypothesis might conceivably turn out to be the correct one as well. However, the lack of empirical support for ID and evolution's lack of a need for the unnecessary god entity (with the innumerable other unsupported entities that it requires) also make it so vanishingly unlikely that it's not worth considering unless someone does turn up something. So far, all arguments for ID don't pass muster. As we look back through the biological record we find that Occam's Razor supports the simpler solution of unguided evolutionary forces every time until we get to the yet-to-be-settled question of abiogenesis. I'm pretty sure that will be settled in the same way. ID continues not to be science and continues to be something that should be excluded from science curriculums. And Scorp, as I defined my terms very clearly and my specific concerns about ID, and as you've been very clear in your support for ID as a supportable theoretical alternative to ID, it's disingenuous of you in the extreme to assert that the politicization of creeping religious and anti-scientific trends in the US is irrelevant. Oh, one more thing. Cleaning budgets in hospitals are extraordinarily difficult to blame on 'science' as you did above. Similar to other posts where you trend toward conspiracy theory whoo-whooness, statements like this detract substantially from any credibility you might be trying to maintain. Cheers, Mike (as alway, Scorp's regular stalking horses ignored)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 20 (view)

Block and Banish the Bloc Québécois Posted: 12/2/2008 5:16:46 PM
There should be a rule that states if you want to be a national party in the House of Commons you should have to run nationaly, it doesn't have to necessarily be in all ridings, as quite honestly that could be fiscally difficult for some, but at least in a certain percentage of national ridings. The approach to campaign finance funding that Harper should have used was to restrict the $1.95 per vote to organizations that ran in a minimum of, say, 40% of ridings in every province. This would have required the Bloc Quebecois to expand federally or wither and die. The Liberals and the NDP would have been behind it too. All three 'real' parties would have benefited by siphoning votes off the BQ in Quebec. It wouldn't prevent start up parties from going national. It would be doable without any constitutional changes, so it has the advantage of being possible. Basically, a substantially reduced BQ in a maximum of two elections. Sadly, or maybe not, Harper totally misplayed that hand. Cheers, Mike (and to think he was perceived as a tremendous political strategist and tactician only a week ago)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 12 (view)

Maybe im to picky Posted: 12/2/2008 11:44:01 AM
Well, all the literature suggests that small town girls shag married men, settle for sub-standard local boys or move to someplace with a reasonable dating pool (cities). Cheers, Mike (your odds are slightly better than the lottery, but that's not saying much)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 138 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 12/2/2008 11:35:18 AM
Per Scorp: In other words, from scientific perspective, ID is such a flimsy house of cards that a quick scan is sufficient to find that it is not science. Ah, we agree. Per Scorp in the same post: Merely by applying logic to science, one finds that there is much to support the notion of creation by an intelligent source. Ah, we don't agree. Modern ID is an interesting series of thought experiments especially when separated from overt religious dogma by skilled rhetoricians, but the empirical supporting evidence provided for a given mechanism having been intelligently designed, such as the eye, has always been found to be carefully and narrowly selected and contradicted by other empirical evidence from fossil records or living organisms. It's been useful from a scientific perspective to have the challenges, as clearer statements and more supporting evidence have usually been required to refute the ID positions. It's certainly evocative as myth and story and has been the basis of some decent and lots of bad science fiction (and one outstanding quote: "42"). Simply put, if the logic is solid, and is supported by the evidence, then that proves the existence of G-d, not the other way around. I agree that if the logic and evidence were solid, an intelligent designer -- maybe your God, maybe an extraterrestrial race -- would be a viable theory. They aren't however. As I alluded to and you digressed madly from, the entities multiply more than exponentially in that scenario. I'm intellectually honest, and you're hobbled by a belief in a Creator and an addiction to scripture despite your very lengthy and redundant claims to an open mind. (All of Scorp's favourite kitchen sink argument hobby horses snipped.) Cheers, Mike (an open mind is no good if it's so open your brain falls out)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 38 (view)

Meaningful vs Meaningless sex Posted: 12/2/2008 11:00:40 AM
The point Marlayna and Stevie Alice should be taking away from this is that people's definitions of this -- as with everything else related to relationships -- vary. Keeping that in sight when talking with people that they'd like to have long-term relationships is very important. Your assumptions will cause as many problems as other people's actions. Cheers, Mike (define your terms, don't assume common definitions)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 131 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 12/1/2008 4:57:48 PM
In fact there are no known natural occurring processes by which you could create the first cell in nature, it had to have been manipulated to make the very first one. In fact, there are several competing scientific hypotheses related to the creation of the first cell and various scientists are working on defining and performing experiments to determine which one is correct. Look up abiogenesis on Wikipedia for a reasonable summary of hypotheses which do not contradict known physical constraints of the universe, provide a good explanatory basis for logical assessment and are subject to validation through experimentation. These hypotheses arose through studying the building blocks of life and the progression of chemical and physical environments on Earth as it settled from spun off solar matter into its current form over billions of years. Then there's the Creationist theory. It violates innumerable known physical laws of the universe and requires supernatural and unprovable entities acting through irreproducible and indeterminate mechanisms. The only way in which this hypothesis could have come about was through faith in creation by a god being twisted over and over to fit our evolving knowledge. Occam's Razor -- I'd suggest you look it up as well -- strongly suggests that one of the competing scientific hypotheses are correct rather than the supernatural hypothesis. Cheers, Mike (science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but is much more open to useful questions)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 6 (view)

Do androids compromise people's comfort zones ?? Posted: 11/30/2008 2:39:14 PM
There's an hypothesis which -- at least in Japan -- they're starting to be able to test empirically referred to as the "uncanny valley". It states that as humanoid robots get closer and closer to human-looking, at a certain point the average person will feel revulsion for them. After that point, they will have normal (relatively) feelings toward the highly similar android. The graphic in the Wikipedia article is worth a quick scan for the visual and examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley Cheers, Mike (took me a while to find the reference; I read about this at least a decade ago)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 8 (view)

It seem like Christmas is changing? Posted: 11/30/2008 2:28:41 PM
The midwinter festival has always been changing. In the European tradition, it was paganism appropriated by Christianity and has now been substanially appropriated by commercialism. The celebrations, rituals and artifacts have varied across geographies, religions, sects, ethnicities and time. Your nostalgia for the christmas you remember is similar to nostalgia for a river at a moment in time: like midwinter celebrations, the river is always unique to each moment. Cheers, Mike (let's be nostalgic for Saturnalia while we're at it)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 28 (view)

I feel like I'm overmatched here... Posted: 11/28/2008 2:31:54 PM
Just hope that the pictures were ... uh... recent and ... uh... of her. ;) Cheers, Mike (apparently women have been known to bait and switch too)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 34 (view)

What familiar pattern sabbotages your intimate relationships? Posted: 11/28/2008 2:13:54 PM
Spelling flames. Cheers, Mike ('sabotage' has only one 'b')

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 3 (view)

Stephen Hawking coming to Canada Posted: 11/28/2008 1:28:41 PM
Whoo whoo! There was a rumour to that effect a year or two ago. Great to see it coming true, even if only for a few weeks a year in a special research position. Cheers, Mike (“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” Stephen Hawking)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 28 (view)

Sea to Sky Toll Booth Posted: 11/28/2008 1:17:49 PM
I have a couple of comments, having done the Friday Race to Whistler a couple of times before giving it up to preserve my sanity as well as having been to a few European winter Olympic sites. The first is that the problem wasn't the road with the exception of a couple of rock fall areas. The problem is the drivers. The high-incidence of accidents reflects a resort that attracts risk-taking adrenalin junkies (that would be me too) with fast cars and trucks. The road could be a four-lane superhighway and the accident rate and death toll would be higher. The second is that the Sea-to-Sky was already a much better and safer road than those leading to European ski resorts that have hosted the Olympics, but they were not required to upgrade their roads dominantely because they have real rail systems that lead to their resorts. This is a very North American concern. Finally, the Sea-to-Sky has been expected to be closed to private vehicles during the Olympics, meaning that all those risk-taking adrenalin junkies won't be on it. Instead it would be buses, service vehicles and some VANOC limos. Watch for changes to this eminently sensible idea with the Athlete's Village challenges. The solution should have been to spend a subset of the money on the rockfall areas and a bunch of money on the rail system to twin it and get it into the Main St. Terminal and been blunt about zero private vehicles to Whistler. However, wisdom rarely prevails when it comes to highway expenditures. Cheers, Mike (and they're making a great road boring to drive)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 110 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 11/28/2008 11:38:44 AM
you are not going to get closer to the original story than that Apologies, but that is of course your faith-based opinion. From the outside of your faith looking in, it's a bunch of irrelevant scriptural quotations and interpretations, and we are much closer to the true story through science. Cheers, Mike (the geology and history of the Earth do not align with the Bible unless you stretch the scriptures until they shriek with agony)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 5 (view)

Altering the course of history... in your life time. Posted: 11/28/2008 10:37:31 AM
I would have made Karl Rove and****Cheney gay lovers and activists. Cheers, Mike (and eliminated the anti-vaccination fear-monger campaign)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 68 (view)

Why Do Guys Try To Pick Up Their Servers??? Posted: 11/27/2008 4:48:41 PM
Because a lot of men can't tell the difference between someone who is professionally nice to them and personally nice to them. Waitresses subsist off tips as much or more than their salaries. They are professionally nice to almost everyone. There are studies that show that a female waitress that touches male customers -- on the shoulder or the arm guys -- gets more tips than one that doesn't. Similarly, signing their names on the bills causes slightly higher tips on average. Smiling, eye contact, joking: ditto. I learned this relatively early, but some guys take longer to figure it out and some never do. On the other hand, some guys hit on anything that moves just on principle. Cheers, Mike (don't get me started on actresses)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 39 (view)

Can this work out if shes nearly 10 years older than me? Posted: 11/27/2008 3:11:40 PM
Apologies, but you give no indication that she has any interest in you. It sounds like you have a crush on someone at work and she may or may not even know you exist. Regarding shagging co-workers, since what you have is a job, not a career, it won't particularly hurt you. However, she's a single mom and undoubtedly needs the work and needs the security. She doesn't have your freedom. If you do end up shagging, please be extraordinarily discrete for her sake, especially if you stop shagging. The last thing a single mother needs is to lose her job because some young guy is being a jerk. (Nothing wrong with shagging co-workers if you're both adult about it and you don't work for ~~insert morally strict nutbars here --.) Please also realize that it if you end up shagging it will likely be because she's having fun with a young stud not because she wants a long-term relationship with you. Cheers, Mike (~~ names of former co-workers removed for discretion's sake ~~)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 2 (view)

Fell asleep during sex Posted: 11/27/2008 2:59:37 PM
Once while drunk might be funny at some point in the future. Multiple times is not funny. It might be indicative of a medical problem you should have looked at. It might be a result of a drinking problem you should reconsider. It might be that you pop in two minutes then fall asleep on top of her before she's come because you're an inconsiderate pr1ck. It might be any number of things, and oddly, I can't think of any that are positive. No idea what the problem really is, but yes, this is a big deal. Cheers, Mike (seek help from paid professionals, not random 'net-strangers)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 9 (view)

Meaningful vs Meaningless sex Posted: 11/27/2008 2:33:27 PM
A well-phrased pair of questions because meaning in this sense is always personal, always subjective. There are no objective measures, no universal standards and no agreement. (People that think everyone agrees with their definition on things like this usually believe everyone has the same definition on a lot of things, and should likely be avoided in relationships.) The second axis worth exploring in the question is whether even for an individual meaning remains the same. I'd posit that it doesn't. I've had sexual experiences that were meaningful to me for several reasons, some of which are mutually exclusive, but made tremendous sense at the time: 1. losing my virginity, even though I didn't love the person that took it 2. the first time with a particular short-term lover: down a subway tunnel between opposite direction tracks -- monumental sex and a peak experience in my life 3. the first time with my long-time partner 4. many other times with my long-time partner in the big meaning sense 5. every time with my long-time partner in the sense of maintaining our physical connection and hence helping maintain our intimate connection 6. in a hot tub on a roof in downtown Toronto with another lover -- meaningful in the sense of memorable and very, very hot 7. the one time a very disturbed short term lover didn't dissassociate during sex -- 'lousy' sex in the sense of lights out, very vanilla, no oral, no orgasm for her -- but she was fully present for what turned out to be the only time There are many others, but I'm sure the idea is obvious. Cheers Mike (hmmm... even at least one time having sex with myself was meaningful... likely others if I thought about it)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 12 (view)

a sexual question Posted: 11/27/2008 10:16:28 AM
To answer your various questions: 1. Yes, it usually happens. 2. It varies by person based on a number of physical, psychological and social factors. 3. Yes, some people are more affected than others. 4. Stay healthy. Work to be attractive in your own eyes (because that leads to self-confidence which leads to looking attractive to others). Stay in touch with your body. Stay in touch with other peoples' bodies. Cheers, Mike (and then there's the miracle of modern pharmaceuticals)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 57 (view)

She pretended... to get him to marry her. Posted: 11/27/2008 8:51:51 AM
A handful of thoughts, strewn upon the water like chum: Lots of people take up activities while dating because someone they think is interesting is doing them. Sometimes this sticks, sometimes it doesn't. Shared activities lead to other shared activities and that leads to a relationship. She may have been being facetious about lying, frankly, and their relationship may be solid as a rock. Share activities are one of the things that keep couples together and provide opportunities for them to communicate, maintain equity and maintain intimacy. Without any shared activities, relationships usually wither. If she's a fishing widow now because he spends all of his spare time fishing, planning fishing trips or hanging out with his buddies lying about fishing, their marriage likely won't last. Far too little information here to determine which side of the equation this is on. Obviously he has charms and attributes besides the vague smell of fish guts and a spackling of iridescent fish scales for decoration. Cheers, Mike (if she's not careful, he'll be trawling the local watering holes)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 31 (view)

Dating Tips - How to Avoid Psychopath and Narcissists Posted: 11/26/2008 9:07:29 PM
It is a dangerous place and forums of all kinds are riddled with psychopaths and narcissists who cannot wait to find more prey to feed their egos with. Whatever. A statistically low significance issue, and the OP runs away from the subject claiming the topic is 'regressing' and that POF and the forums are 'riddled' with folks with serious disorders. Cheers, Mike (my earliest PS in this thread stands)

Urbanx

Joined: 10/26/2006

Msg: 100 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 11/26/2008 6:27:21 PM
Intelligent Design, you find that it doesn't contradict anything to do with evolution, and actually provides a lot of explanation why it occurred in the first place. Ah, I think finally I understand your point. You think ID is science or at least scientifically arguable. Unfortunately, it starts from and depends upon a set of assumptions regarding external to reality powers using undescribable mechanisms to kick off and continue to manipulate ev0lution. This is a religious argument, not a scientific one. The scientific argument would have to provide a provable explanatory mechanism for the external-to-our reality powers. As no one can prove or disprove the existence of gods except through recourse to scripture, this is unprovable and reason for ID sinking in the scientific marketplace of ideas. The scientific argument would have to provide a provable explanatory mechanism for the mechanisms that influence the ongoing evolution. As no mechanism has been posited, and there is no empirical evidence that has been identified that a mechanism is in action, this is unprovable. In other words, from scientific perspective, ID is such a flimsy house of cards that a quick scan is sufficient to find that it is not science. That's peer review as much as the formal process journals use. It is explanatory of some phenomena in the same way that animist myths were explanatory of lightning. For the same reasons, garage inventors that have claimed to have created energy-from-nothing devices or perpetual-motion machines don't get a lot of time from engineers and physicists: a/ They've seen it before. b/ It contravenes known foundational laws of physics. c/ It has no explanatory theoretical basis. d/ The empirical evidence is missing or weak. e/ Occam's Razor strongly supports alternative reasons for the stated observations. f/ As they've seen it before, they can't be bothered to waste time debunking every instance of it. My apologies, Scorp, but ID is demonstrably not science, it has sunk in the scientific marketplace of ideas and it does not belong in science curriculums in a co-equal way with evolution. It is a faith-based argument of no scientific explanatory value. It is exactly in the category of "The Earth is flat." Your religion may make it impossible for us to agree with that, but this isn't the only place we disagree. At best it is theology with a scattering of scientific terms. Cheers, Mike (I have been trying to figure out your position on this for a while)

Show ALL Forums