Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: don't know if he's going, but he sure is coming
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 46 (view)
 
don't know if he's going, but he sure is coming
Posted: 10/4/2014 11:11:26 AM
You're welcome, Lilliputtian. It's not an easy one to pronounce for an English speaker, taken as it is from Eastern-European Slavic languages.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 104 (view)
 
HeforShe UN speach by Emma Watson
Posted: 9/29/2014 1:01:30 PM
Wow - I certainly didn't interpret Miss Watson's address as male-bashing in any way. She started out, and continued to touch back to, the idea of a world where neither gender was placed in an inferior or subservient position. I myself have mentioned here that men have benefited MORE from the advances women have made than women - and it's because the changes that benefited men took place sooner.

One of the most brilliant and successful changes in the workplace was the realization that the often-denigrated "soft skills" in human resources gave women moving into the field the ability to embody the changes that were needed. Alas, one of the downsides was that many men saw this as discrimination against them. And I'm not saying that was never the case, either.

- - -

Those "horrendous outcomes" are not seriously to be blamed on the education of women; they are the result of men not being educated about human equality. If men are told they have to be conquering dominators, they are likely to feel like oppressed failures if they are not. The solution to this is not keeping women down, obviously, but to educate all humans to understand how an egalitarian society works.

---

The 2-income household problem is very real and there are serious obstacles to solving it. The principal issue is not employment - when more people work, there are more goods and services produced for everyone.

It's real estate and housing that get bid up to consume as much income as anyone can spare, and thus leave the single-income family or single person in the dust. Housing supply is very inelastic, and the supply of usable residential land is strictly controlled. Because of the entrenched vested interest of those who control housing and own property, there is a powerful disincentive to do anything to stop the real-estate-pimps' spiral sucking the life out of everyone as we become increasingly urbanized. This is why real estate is the most popular get-rich-quick scheme, and why it is so unproductive and destructive.

A society's standard of living cannot rise if one crucial market is so manipulated to absorb as much as anyone can earn; two-income families can't get ahead when they only bid prices up. Getting rid of the overly privileged status of real-estate investments by eliminating tax incentives, subsidies, mobility restrictions and capital-gains exemptions is almost impossible because of the large number of prosperous, influential voters who benefit so much from the endless bubbles and bursts.

On the other hand, getting resources allocated to making living away from those high-priced urban centres is increasingly difficult, particularly with the concentration of employment and its shift to service industries necessitating mobility that extremely doctrinaire environmentalists and budget-conscious cities oppose. Regional governments that do not set themselves against city-core boundaries can best oppose this trend. That's how a clown like Rob Ford got elected mayor - he was the only candidate available to Torontonians who was not owned by downtown big-city developers.

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 42 (view)
 
don't know if he's going, but he sure is coming
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:25:20 PM
I think you mean "shtetl," Lilliputtian.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 74 (view)
 
HeforShe UN speach by Emma Watson
Posted: 9/27/2014 12:00:04 PM
Vicki159: "Im not greatly religous and dont have a practicing religious background but I do not know any religion that states this, its the culture around the religion thats making this happen."

In fact, this is EXACTLY what the churches intervening against laws permitting spouses to be charged with rape argued in the era of the Rideout trial.

I stated that religion AND most cultures both imposed this to prevent shared resources from being used to support individual children - though religiously-imposed rules, being Divinely-Inspired, are much more resistant to change when reason and circumstance have moved on.

The Bible certainly has been reported, translated and interpreted in a variety of ways - but ALL of them claiming to be the one true, inviolate and unchanging Truth. And "only through me [the church, as interpreted by every church] can you know God" means YOU - the individual - does not get to interpret and judge; you get TOLD what it should mean.

I'd say this about how much equality we want promoted by laws: how much we want laws to promote equality is a matter of debate. NOT having laws that CREATE and ENFORCE inequality gets a lot of general agreement.

NOT JUST TO VICKI:

There are in fact two distinct principal common types of female genital mutilation.

The first is clitoridectomy. (Even I am not sure about how to spell that.) It means simply the removal of the external cl1toris, rendering sexual pleasure reduced or near-nonexistent. This stops women from demanding that their sex partners do anything to pleasure the women, and turns sex into an entirely male-focused activity; it also reduces any pleasure-based desire to be unfaithful. (Loss of pleasure does nothing to discourage sex with non-marital partners for material gain or as a result of rape.)

The second is infibulation, the suturing up of part or most of the vag1nal opening. This is practised to provide a tighter vag1nal opening, which along with the practise of "dry sex" through the use of astringents to inhibit vaginal lubrication, increases frictional stimulation of the pen1s at the same time it created pain and bleeding for the woman. Childbirth after infibulation results in massive tearing and bleeding, often fatal, and is followed by a new infibulation to restore the one-sided situation.

ON EMMA:

I always bemoan the fact that people turn to cultural influences from the world of arts and celebrity, whose members may in fact be informed and intelligent but are, sadly, not necessarily so. In fact, the most successful performers are as a group very poorly educated, as getting to the top often involves devoting all one's energies to self-promotion. Emma Watson, as it happens, is very well-educated, intelligent and articulate, and ANYONE who can provide a cogent and well-intentioned argument in any debate is welcome in my book.

But being rich and famous (whether or not they have any talent - I mean, Kim Kardshian? WTF?) shouldn't make us accept insanity from practitioners of survivalism, misogyny, extraterrestrial religions, nationalist hatreds, anthropomorphizing of nature or financial crime. If what they say doesn't make sense, it still doesn't make sense.

ED BEAR

Ken Dryden got a law degree - he was in my university when I was. At the same time, though, every NHL hockey team still had sessions in the locker room where the literate players would read letters from home to the illiterate ones.
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Do you know what you want ??
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:19:39 AM
It's not that uncommon for folks to have "contradictory" seeking and intent fields. When PoF introduced the second one, it became clear that the options offered in the drop-down menu were NOT what appeared on the profile page ... and all the users who refused to provide income information were unable to change those fields, once entered.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Income inequality
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:14:28 AM
I quote:

"New point: most rich don't hoard money. They invest and keep reinvesting their assets and liquid assets for more and bigger returns. It is a fallacy to think the rich have big money. Sure, their bank accounts hold a hundred times or more dollars than mine; but a billionaire (1,000,000,000) will have 100,000 to a million in the bank, and the rest (about 999 million) is invested in stocks, bonds, buildings, businesses, and artifacts and personal items that may appreciate in value."

DUH. Keeping, investing and accumulating IS hoarding money. All those assets that increase in value ARE hoarded money, rather than SPENT money.

Not investing in business activities that aren't likely to make money is avoiding spending money. And those businesses are not likely to make money because the potential buyers have no money.

Again, our economy pumps money uphill. Tossing the right proportion of it downhill (mostly through progressive income tax that takes a larger proportion from those who take in more) keeps the system running. Trickle-down is simply a like that has been repeated often enough that it can always be quoted, like the lie that "a rising tide lifts all boats."
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Do you know what you want ??
Posted: 9/24/2014 5:19:39 AM
Hmm... as of now, our thread-starter's profile says he's a Catholic and a free-thinker, looking for friends.

That might leave quite a few people wondering where he wants to go.

Never hurts to make it clear in your post - and whether you are still interested in knowing people who don't fill your ultimate hopes. That goes double if you really are looking for friends, and won't discard people who aren't sheet-mussing prospects.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Girl ignored me. Need some advice.
Posted: 9/24/2014 5:13:49 AM
Lots of people are nice and friendly but, if they detect an unwanted interest, try cooling things down to send a message.

And - just saying - if you have a FaceBook account, you will NEVER have a sane, healthy relationship! {where's that running-away icon?}
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
HeforShe UN speach by Emma Watson
Posted: 9/24/2014 5:05:28 AM
Feminism's roots are in egalitarianism; those who alienate half of humanity are seriously limiting themselves.

I can confidently aver that I think Ms. Watson is on the right side, in my personal judgment.

Religion - and most cultures over historical times - have made women subservient to men based on the idea that "he (note it's always a he) who pays the bills calls the tune." If the society isn't going to support children, it has to make men stick around and support them and the women who have much less choice in the matter. And those who pay the bills often feel entitled to rule in their bought-and-paid-for (as they see it) household.

Birth control, and the acceptance of women as workers in control of their own lives and resources, is what's started the changes we now enjoy.

Gloria Steinem was among those who wondered why men would oppose gender equality when they stood to benefit so much themselves. The fact that they mostly DO understand that in western cultures is a huge part of why so many changes have come to pass.

The churches and arch-conservatives still want men to be chained to responsibilities that will keep them from fighting for their own interests (and those of others who are not part of the ruling class, women included).

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Welp, I'm an idiot.
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:54:43 AM
One of the best things that Markus does is warn everyone on PoF that ANYONE who asks you for money, or to buy anything, is a scammer - and report them!

Hope you warned you credit card company to watch for more billing from that - if the slimer was in fact doing a deal with the pizza place or one of its employees, they now have your info.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
I am very confused and trying to understand why this happened?
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:51:07 AM
Frankly, I just don't bother with people who never answer their phone, check their messages or reply to texts or e-mail - but call only when they want to see you.

It's just unspeakably rude. If their ears are closed to you, why bother speaking to them?

Yes, there are lots of things that can disrupt one or two contacts now and then. But a regular policy of only initiating contact and never responding is abusive and disrespectful. Right up there with always being late because you would rather let other people wait that do any waiting yourself.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
I'm starting to care for a guy I really like, but I'm afraid. What to do?
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:43:08 AM
Do you want kids? If not, TELL HIM THAT. Otherwise, perhaps he will prove to be exactly what you want in a while. 20 was an age when most girls were starting to marry not that long ago.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Man do women whinge..
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:37:52 AM
Q: How many women does it take to paint a wall?

A: Only one, and IT'S NOT FUNNY!

Lots of things are still funny if one doesn't see hate behind them. The Women's Studio at the National Film Board of Canada once (about 1988) made up a batch of T-shirts that read, "National Film Broads of Canada," and while it certainly wasn't politically correct, it wasn't hateful to them.

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Peace keeping mission?
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:35:33 AM
I don't think the WWII stuff really relates to today's crises. Should we split the threads, or get back to what we started with?
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
My friends wife says I make excuses not to date...but do I?
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:23:45 AM
Is it perhaps a case of Madonna&Whore complex? You know, where anyone who refuses you is a goddess, and anyone who accepts you is worthless and beneath you?

One of the more self-destructive ways to seek miser,y, that is.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Peace keeping mission?
Posted: 9/23/2014 1:02:15 AM
Let's be clear here - we're not talking about "Russia" "wanting" to do anything... it's Vladimir Putin who controls this state and the agenda. He is a hardened power wielder who enriched himself in terms of power and money, and the interests of the country and its people are not anywhere near as high a priority.

DameRight, this is unfortunately a classic case of a bully who knows that his victims/enemies really do not want to fight, and that he can probably get anything he wants by blocking all solutions that avoid war. He learned it from the WWII days of politics and the Soviet political and KGB milieu he developed in. He learned a lot of it from Hitler, yes. This is the sort of situation that forces the most ardent pacifists to show they are at least willing to stand against that sort of threat.

It's why Neville Chamberlain is still caricatured as a sucker; it's why nearly half of North American Mennonite, Amish and native community members decided it was time to go to war. And why many pacifist scientists joined the Manhattan project.

And the world bullies - including the ephemeral stateless terrorist organizations - continue to use that posture.

I've never been a warmonger, but I know that saying you'll never fight back invited abuse from some sorts of aggressors. The best response, if you can manage it, is to assemble a very large group of like-minded pacifists, one big enough to evidently resist the aggressor, and make it clear that if they attack you are ALL willing to stand against them. That's what the idea of alliances and associations in the modern world intends to do.

But we only have to remember leaders like Fidel Castro, who often boasted that when he stood up against the US during what we call the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was ready and willing to face nuclear annihilation. He didn't - the Soviets under Khrushchev had no such suicidal bravado - but he knew his countrymen (raised on revolutionary zeal and fervor) would love and admire him for it.

A big part of the Ukraine disaster was the failure of the political class to sort out their divisions and forge a stable policy. Ukraine's parliament had passed a bill pledging not to join NATO, and reaffirmed that with a vote only a couple of years ago. But infighting allowed the once-disgraced Putin tool to get elected, and not only did he essentially allow Putin to do whatever he wanted, he became a caricature of personal greed and corruption of his own, leading to popular resistance that forced his resignation and flight to Russia.

That scared Putin and allowed him to claim that instability and a pro-western (or at least anti-Putin) coup required his intervention.

Because Khrushchev was Ukrainian, and Ukraine had access to western waterways, it was always one of the most integrated and trusted of the Soviet partners in the Warsaw Pact. As in many other Warsaw Pact nations, Soviet Russians were placed in positions of power and profit to protect against nationalist resentment, though Ukraine probably needed that less than most. (China has done the same thing in Mongolia and Tibet, and of course the US has significant cadres in many countries in its spheres of influence.)

That ethnically-Russian population grew and profited in eastern Ukraine, and it lived in a world where most Good Things came from Russia. That, and regions where borders had shifted regions from one side of the border to the other over the years, made a lot of people fearful of political instability that might lead to ethnic violence - though Ukraine was probably less likely to go that way than any other former Warsaw Pact state. Needless to say, a lot of propaganda flowed from assorted politicians, but Putin had the biggest machine and took over the media once he made his move.

The lesson is that a united, peaceful Ukraine could have both appeased Putin's fears and defended the country better by dealing with the west economically but not joining NATO. And an Iraq with a less divisive leader than Nouri Al-Malachi, with an inclusive government and broad civilian support, would similarly have been a much more difficult place for IS(whatever it is this week) to take over.

Give people to peaceful, safe way out, and they will turn to hate and war. Divide and conquer.

Russia has the fastest-shrinking population in the world, and despite all the repression managed a pretty sizable anti-war march in Moscow this week. Sensible people have to be fear-mongered into accepting war. It's just not the way most people want to live their lives.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 26 (view)
 
What does love feel like to you now?
Posted: 9/23/2014 12:32:16 AM
Over the years, I learned not to fall in love unless it was a sane, sensible thing to do. There's no reason to think that love defies logic - it it does, it's probably not healthy.

This proved to be a useful skill when I got to know wonderful people whose lives would obviously not fit well with mine.

On the other hand, it's starting to get a lot more difficult to remember what love felt like. I can feel the stirring and the longing, but it's been a while since I knew someone I could let it happen with.

For most of my life, I couldn't imagine stopping loving anyone I had ever loved. Now, at 61, it all feels very remote - I KNOW I still love these people, but it doesn't trigger any powerful emotions.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Advanced Search Problem
Posted: 9/23/2014 12:16:06 AM
If you search for "single" you are excluding all the divorced, widowed and separated women, as well as the married. At age 30, that will knock out a lot of people.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Confusing signals from fwb
Posted: 9/23/2014 12:14:28 AM
Whatever the relationship, you have to communicate!

Charlie Brown put it wonderfully: "Love is what you make it." Well, even if it's not love, every relationship is a negotiation that creates something what (one hopes) both (or all) participants want and benefit from.

So - there are no rules - make them! Talk about them! Tell the guy you're happy to boink and nuzzle, but you don't want it to feel like he's going to be expecting the canned standard peddled by churches and misogynists for years.

If you want rules, they're there - in the marriage laws - but don't be surprised if one size doesn't fit all. Get out the scissors and sewing machine and see what fits for both of you.

If the dude says he's cool with that, fine. I wouldn't put too much into fearing affection - after all, it's nice to get along with people and be pleasant. I expect the guy's pretty happy with the arrangement you have, and if you both agree and believe each other, you shouldn't need to be unhappy or worried about being nice to each other. Part of intimacy is also touching, cuddling, kissing, smiling and closing your eyes with happy trust. It doesn't mean you have to shop for furniture and baby clothes. It CAN mean exclusivity, IF you both agree. Or not.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
My friends wife says I make excuses not to date...but do I?
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:59:23 PM
Dude, you need to start seriously thinking about what's in it for the ladies.

What do you want? Hot looks and let you go make money, your profile says. What is a woman going to be valuing in you? Start looking for that in their profiles.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Men did better running the world before women interfeared.
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:53:41 PM
This is one of the best omnibus troll posts I have ever seen. Not much point in taking it seriously.

One could also post it with every reference to "feminism" replaced by "Fox News." :)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Conversation is a 2-way street - Aren't they?
Posted: 8/1/2014 12:49:19 AM
Men are NOT all scum! Only the married ones!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
very frustrated..
Posted: 7/11/2014 12:36:54 AM
Dude, you are saying the same thing as thousands of thousands of other Fishies. Finding someone is one of the most difficult things most of us will ever do. Being on-line doesn't make it easier - it puts you among a multitude of people who look like better choices, and even the least attractive or tolerable people will start at the most attractive and desirable ones.

Finally, don't waste your time of money on pay dating sites. The only thing they offer you is a selection of people so desperate they will pay to meet people. Hardly the cream of the crop, eh?
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Creepy behavior or normal in world of social media?
Posted: 7/11/2014 12:26:07 AM
To PollyGraf, I want to say that looking at (or even collecting) publicly posted non-indecent photos of young women is not illegal in the UK, or anywhere else I know, unless there is evidence of stalking such as contact attempts or harassment. We are NOT talking porn or abuse photos here, as far as three pages of posts tell us.

Many people would be disgusted that someone they don't know or dislike would fantasize about them, but it's not illegal. Anyone is free do decide they don't want to go out with a person who looks at others, but it's not illegal. Anyone is free to decide they don't want to date a whanker, but all they're doing is cutting themselves off from most dateable humans.

Keep in mind that within my lifetime, the average age of first marriage or pregnancy has risen from 17 to 27 in Canada, and even higher elsewhere. Women in their late teens - high-school graduation age - were generally considered at their most marriageable age.

Our society has come around to the idea of more women being allowed to plan their own lives, and a far greater proportion of young people of all genders attend post-secondary education these days. The age of marriage was still 14 until not that long ago here in British Columbia. The cultural hangover is that women are ready to be "married off" as soon after puberty as possible, before they "go past their prime."

There are plenty of old folks and conservatives, not to mention religious believers in life-long marriage, for whom this is STILL both normal and ideal.

On the other extreme, let's note that Japan passed its first law making porn involving youngsters LAST MONTH. And they did it only because of pressure from international law-enforcement agencies. The Japanese have never socially considered pre-pubescents to be sexual beings or shameful, despite their country harbouring plenty of old pervs going to young-looking hookers in school sailor-suit uniforms.

And let's note that they also didn't touch the manga, anime or literature involving young children.
ED BEAR

Glad to see women having more choice than selling themselves off to the first bidder.
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Getting excuses not being able to meet for a first date?
Posted: 7/3/2014 1:30:19 PM
Some people have bad hair days, bad zit days or Women's Problems that make them want to Try Again Later. Others want to wait till they can take off the band-aid from the STD test.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
'cause we let it, in a society that thinks money is proof of success.
Posted: 6/14/2014 4:53:08 PM
I saw a report on TV this week - I think it was CBC - reporting a significant rise in mental health cases and suicides during the recent (and still current) economic downturn. The most notable point was that similarly-developed countries that chose to stimulate their economies and avoid sacking government workers did NOT see similar effects.

A little bit more evidence that it's not all about "incurable" cases not worth investing in.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 85 (view)
 
People addicted to electronics
Posted: 6/11/2014 1:31:24 PM
Thanks, bamagrl68. As everyone can see, I responded with clarification, not anger and personal attacks. Let's hope more of our fellows do, too!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 45 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/6/2014 6:09:37 AM
No, GreenThumbz18, I noted that the deregulation was during the period where Clinton faced a Republican congress, and in fact in his last year.

Barney Frank certainly did support the removal of the two key provisions in Glass-Steagall, but in "the early 2000's" Fannie and Freddy were healthy. It wasn't until the tech-vaporware profits went looking for a home in real estate that the bubble began to snowball (if you will allow the mixed metaphors).

As you say, "Not long after that" the commercial banks tossed themselves into the leveraged-bubble business with the real-estate fervor.

But the major financial de-regulation mania was largely Republican, and in the case of Clinton came from his own centrist position and the Republican congress.

In any case, the creme de la scum are still laughing. The lesson is that self-regulation and the insulation of risk-taking from risk-bearing have always led to disaster for those left holding the risk. Nobody, Rep or Dem, should ignore that.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/5/2014 4:07:56 AM
GreenThumbz18: Clinton was toward the conservative side of the Democratic party (extreme candidates exclude a lot of voters), but the major changes in that direction occurred during his compromises with a solidly republican congress. Remember, he agreed to things like the 5-year lifetime welfare limit?

I certainly disagree with these moves - particularly the deregulation that led to a round of federal bail-outs back in that time - but have a hard time hanging the total responsibility on Clinton. That said, at least congress was capable of compromise back then.

As far as ANYONE assuring ANYONE that things were all right just before the 2008 collapse - they were (a) trying to keep confidence in the market, always a fool's errand when real action is needed or it's too late; (b) idiots. Europe was already in free-fall, the mortgage situation was evident, the warning articles appeared every day, and oil prices were already close to tripled.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Timezone filtration / blocking
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:37:49 AM
What's wrong with dating someone ten miles away but over the time zone boundary?

What's right about dating someone in the same time zone but 4000 miles away across the equator?

Time zone is a poor substitute for proximity, which is itself a weak substitute for accessibility. Just think about a Palestinian boy in love with an Israeli girl just across that grim wall. Or Romeo and Juliet, for that matter!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Judging attraction based on a photo?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:27:03 AM
One of the most important things to see in people is how they treat others who they have no interest of getting something from.

I loved getting to know people in the old BBSes or on forums - you get to see how they react and express themselves with you AND OTHERS. They will be reacting in spheres and topics where they are not targeting their best profile at you because they are trying to please you. If these forums (or some of them) were better organized as meeting places, I would expect to find them a much better way to find out how people express themselves, understand and know their own ideas, carry themselves, handle anger or disagreement, and defuse situations.

That's where they'll reveal their cruelty, bigotry, ignorance, anger, entitlement, kindness, supportiveness, charm and tolerance.

Videos? Can't see how they'd help other than to make judgment by looks less subject to a single perfectly-staged photo.
ED BEAR

All that said, profile read... have you ever considered life in Canada, OpalescentCloud? :)
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
The Mental Health system in America:Why is it failing?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:18:05 AM
Paul K: I am a sexagenarian, and I've seen a lot of extreme behaviour, but I do not agree.

There are now HUGE numbers of people living reasonably normal lives because of psychoactive medication.

Most psychiatrists will tell you that a lot of their patients do not have mental health problems - they are actually normal people with relationship or job problems. Those are often caused by sick OTHER people, and disconnecting from those people is amazingly therapeutic.

Finally, almost everyone has levels of difficulty in their life than they can handle, and levels they cannot. A society that oppresses, tortures or abuses people will drive a lot of people over the edge into either criminal or mentally-driven violence.

The murder rate in the US, compared to so many other developed countries, is frequently cited as evidence of this. I won't pretend to be able to prove this is true, but it's pretty clear there is no absolute line to be drawn in mental health. Dealing with homelessness, persecution, corruption, exploitation, real-estate manipulation and health-care accessibility will help a great many people out of the situations our Original Poster mentioned.

Our societies are replete with people who had problems or "fell down" and have been perfectly functional and happy after getting a helping hand, getting a new job, getting a divorce, or arresting a predator that was literally driving them nuts. It's inexcusable to say helping them is a waste of time.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
When will people learn?
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:09:32 AM
One of my Fishie friends tells me she has forgotten all about dating, because she enjoys playing with and busting scammers so much that she spends all her free time doing it. :)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Guaranteed Success
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:05:56 AM
Look, there is NO guaranteed success, and if you think any answer is bullybleep then don't bother asking.

This is just about the oldest unsolved problem in human relations since the days of clubbing and dragging off to a cave.

And the one the Hollywood Virgin Killer kept asking. He sure didn't find a solution, either. And innocent others - including men - paid the price for his refusal to deal with it.

(By way of constructive help, I think you look a LOT better in the photo without the moustache.)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Where do you seem to ask people out?
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:33:11 AM
Since university - where I had no trouble speaking with anyone and everyone, as we all saw each other a lot and one often seemed to people one had never spoken to - private parties and dinners have always yielded the best outcomes for me. One's known and trusted friends pre-select decent people, and will usually warn you of problem personalities.

One can also meet people several times a successive get-togethers, and get comfortable with each other, before proposing getting together without company. Think about how a general conversation with familiar faces may lead to two or more people saying, "Yes - I'd really like to do that!" That's when you can say, "Yes! Let's!"

And, unlike a bar or club, if you DON'T meet anyone you still have a fun time with friends!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Quick meet first time.Good or bad idea?
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:28:07 AM
Many people have told me I tend to make bad first impressions, but they really value me after only a little getting to know. As such, speed dating or drive-bys would seem a waste of time for me.

And, one way or another, I thing that a pleasant while spent with someone new is almost always worth it, which is the point of a "date" - as opposed to just interviewing potential partners.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:10:17 AM
You should care because your pension funds, your taxes, your government benefits, your home and your job - and those of millions of others - were sucked away.

These people are gambling with YOUR money, not theirs. That's how they face no risk. This is the result of laws that were changed to permit what is punishable in the other examples, such as life insurance or stock overselling.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 37 (view)
 
They're laughing at you-- a peek inside Wall Street
Posted: 5/28/2014 3:46:25 AM
The Savings & Loan scandal was a textbook example of how separating risk from reward leads to failure. The US taxpayers bailed them out, and they did it again with the housing bubble.

The things that were done in the post-tech-boom period were inexcusably made illegal. If you insure a guy's life, with you as the beneficiary, and then shoot him, you go to jail, do not pass go, and DEFINITELY do not collect the $200.

In "The Producers," the producers sold more stock than they had to issue, and planned to go broke to avoid paying it back. When "Springtime for Hitler" became a hit, they could STILL go broke and not pay it back, but they were certainly liable.

But that's exactly what Credit Default Swaps are. Insure against a loss you have NO RISK OF INCURRING, and then act to cause the loss. Corporations were buying smaller corporations and then making them default, triggering default payments. Just two months ago, a company paid another a few million to pay a debt note THREE DAYS LATE. This was a lot more than the late payment penalty - so the smaller company agreed, took the money, and made a big heap of millions for the briber, who had credit default swaps out on the note.

And of course people were being paid for making loans that would never be paid back, and kept their commissions. If you work in a telephone sales boiler-room, you are often docked a standard percentage of your sales for those who will cancel or return the product or service, or don't get paid until the deal or a specific term has passed.

And dealers were re-packaging and re-packaging assets and funds with stack of commissions that were bigger than any profit the investments could have made!

The US congress has failed to produce the new regulations on leverage and risk management that were promised years ago.

If you let them do it, they will. As with the Trust movement and one-sided contracts, people without piles of lawyers, guns and money can only fight for themselves by electing legislators who will. You can't take your business elsewhere when it's a monopoly, or when all the businesses adopt identical business models. (Like using arbitration to enforce things that the courts would beat them up for.)

Democracy was a revolutionary idea that made the wealthy and powerful quake at the idea that the Huddled Masses would kill them all and take their stuff. But now we know that money can buy opinion, and it can buy politicians. The Citizens United decision, and its subsequent expansion of unaccountable cash for mass-produced lobbying and lying, make a mockery of democracy. And the Reagan-Bush gutting of the anti-trust laws and fairness doctrine made it a lot easier.

Here in Canada, where I live, our current Conservative government has spent the last few years trying to do the same - removing taxpayer-funded electoral funding, attacking limits on contributions, and making other electoral law changes that mirror the US trend to voter suppression.

The US Supreme Court has accepted the idea that the voter rights laws are no longer needed, even as attempts to restrict voters' rights were ready to be voted in several of the states even before the decision came.

It has also accepted the idea that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer needed because of the large variety of cable TV outlets, though the result is willful blindness and outright lying in network news.

Abortion-law nibblers are rising out of the woodwork and there's nobody at the top willing to defend what the consensus of social scientists say - that access to birth control and abortion are the largest single cause of the drop in crime over the last three decades.

Unregulated utilities can always make more by failing to serve their customers than by serving them. So they create the closest thing to new Enrons they can get away with.

As long as the guys in those laughing galas control government, democracy can't work. Uninformed or misinformed voters can't use their democratic power.

ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 82 (view)
 
People addicted to electronics
Posted: 5/23/2014 6:59:04 PM
I was not at all defending those who try to "multitask" in dangerous ways or excuse their selfish, inconsiderate behaviour that threatens the life of others. I was just being a bit technical about how computers and brains work, and I hoped to make that clear by mentioning competing resources.

Language skills both require huge resources and the same functions whether talking, listening or reading or writing. It is extremely difficult to do more than one. Real-time closed captioners on TV manage to do it, but if you have tried to use them you'll know the results are rather comic - particularly compared to pot-captioned material.

Simultaneous translators do it, but that's a very, very difficult skill, and few can do it at all well. I've tried to translate to French while watching TV and it's bits and pieces. Courtrooms and the UN, in using the service, make a habit of having everyone speak slowly and with lots of pauses.

Mind you, if someone wants to take selfies on the beach all day and get sunburn/moles/skin cancer, I don't think they're really endangering or offending anyone else.

Texting at the table: I accept that today, people in noisy clubs and bars have taken to conversing in text because vocalizing is pointless. It's why I have never patronized such establishments; I don't dance, I don't grope in public, and without conversation there's nothing to do but throw away money of watered-down or non-existent liquor.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 690 (view)
 
Single (never married at all) men over 45
Posted: 5/23/2014 6:48:48 PM
Well, don't put me on the list of over-fifties who suddenly want to procreate. The notion never took me, and childlessness is the "greenest" thing most of us will ever be able to do.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Awkward First Meet
Posted: 5/14/2014 9:06:56 AM
Bar? Meet people in bars? Why do you think we came to PoF?

There's only one person I've EVER met in a bar and gotten to know in my 40+ years of leagal drinking age... and that one was talking to someone I already knew!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 684 (view)
 
Single (never married at all) men over 45
Posted: 5/14/2014 8:33:30 AM
Wow, we're WAYYY off topic and into the man/woman-bashing!

Pretty much anyone who's left a marriage isn't happy with their experience. That's a bad place to go exclusively looking for opinions on marriage.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Income inequality
Posted: 5/5/2014 12:54:44 AM
I like a lot of Fly's list, too.

But - once again, a rising tide does not lift all boats. Half the world is facing a falling tide at any time, just as half faces rising.

The reason out tax systems favour rich, unearned income is that the rich have learned how to subvert democracy with money. The US is now cursed by yet another round of campaign finance restriction eliminations, and Canada's Harper government is hell-bent on doing the same, following the success of its always-on, election-to-election character assassination ad strategy.

Our economy and business function to pump money from the bottom to the top. If you move money to the bottom, it gets spent, things get bought and everybody works. If you move money to the top, it just sits there. The highest wealth holders really can't spend all their money on consumption, so they have to pretty much keep buying up competitors and concentrating wealth further.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Awkward First Meet
Posted: 5/5/2014 12:33:44 AM
After five months, I would be pretty hurt to be left at the table without any explanation or apology, or even a blunt text saying "go home - just saw you and uh-uh."

All these silly presumptions and signal-to-noise analysis! TALK to people!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Others are divided on whether this is a scam
Posted: 4/24/2014 10:02:05 AM
Well, the degree might be in STEM teaching, or it might just be a broad classification.

Anyway, Bilateral hugs, you are very lucky. You got a message and an invitation to meet. Hang onto your money and important personal details, and go see her. It's an adventure! It's more than you'll probably get for the next 6 months you're hanging out on PoF!

If you read the forums, you'll notice that almost all the threads are started by people asking why nobody sends them messages or replies to messages. You are way ahead! Gambatte!
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 3/6/2014 1:54:57 AM
I guess that's why one so rarely sees a house being driven off its lot.

Seriously, houses tend to go DOWN in value, particularly when new. LAND, or the right to build on it, tends to go UP in value (though they are free to fall, as when there is a nearby natural disaster or economic crash). "You're buying dirt" is what Real-Estate Pimps call it. Condos don't go up much compared to detached or semi-detached homes because so little of their value is their tiny allocation of dirt; that's why new condos commonly fall in value for a year or two.
* * *
For all the people designing formulae for compounding risk, forget it. Nobody will take a mortgaged asset as security for its full value. When credit is sought, piggybacked debt must be disclosed and discounted.

It was specifically allowing that sort of thing to start happening due to more sophisticated "securitization" that multiplied the risk by 2008. Bad deregulation, separation of risk from profit, and misrepresentation of risk.
* * *
Now, on the other hand - inflation IS related to the money supply. (among other things)
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 225 (view)
 
dating without motorcycle
Posted: 3/6/2014 1:41:16 AM
I was at a City Planning meeting her in Vancouver, and in the discussion of parking issues one councilor took off on the complaints he got about noisy unmuffled bikes at night. I reminded him that parking for daytime visitors was not related to nocturnal noisemakers, and as he left I invited him to listen to my bike at the sidewalk outside. (It's a Suzuki Bandit 1200, a 4-cylinder streetbike)

We walked the 25 steps or so to the bike and I apologized to him that I'd already started it before seeking him at the exit. He didn't hear it over the street traffic even when we were standing by it.

Nobody notices the bikes that don't make a lot of noise. That's why we put horns on them.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 90 (view)
 
What's the best way to deal with my FWB situation?
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:25:56 AM
Ah, thanks... seen that one.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Banks and the financial system
Posted: 2/25/2014 12:00:46 AM
Banks aren't payday loan operations or loan sharks. They don't make unsecured loans (though they operate credit-card businesses that DO, charging astonishing interest rates - as do the payday loan operators and loan sharks). Callable business loans are not so simple, but the banks still make sure their debt is always covered.

Banks make a loan by demanding you provide security. They are not permitted to make unsecured loans because they have no upside profit; they only get fixed interest, and a small amount, to avoid risk.

When a bank makes a mortgage, it is in effect doing a hock - it gains legal control of the property (a lien) and is sort of conditionally selling it to you (like a pawn shop), and you have the right to buy it back with interest. Where you get the interest is your problem; if you don't pay, the bank still has your house and will sell it to recoup its cash. If your home's value threatens to fall below the amount owed, the bank will "call" your loan - pony up enough to cover the uncovered amount or get foreclosed right now. Callable business loans, too, take action immediately if the bank thinks the business isn't going to make it, and the banks will close a still-profitable operation if they don't have confidence in its future, just to get what they can before things get worse.

The banks aren't creating money. They are trading value - cash for the security - in a reversible transaction where they get a fee. The client come in with a house, which already has value, and the bank comes in with cash. Only if the house burns down is the value destroyed - and that's why you are required to insure secured property like houses and cars. It's why buying a car on credit not only screws you for the interest, it requires you to over-insure, as it's VERY easy for a car to devalue below its outstanding loan amount. Not so much for a house.

If you borrow money, buy a house, rent it and make money, you are bringing in the wealth you need to pay back the interest; you are creating (rental) value by putting the place on the market to be rented, rather than just sitting in it as it consumes money for maintenance and all the other costs. If you buy a sewing machine and start making clothes and selling them, you are creating value - the clothes.

Printing cash or issuing IOUs (bonds, certificates of deposit, etc.) does not create or destroy value.

In both the S&L and investment-banking disasters, the sensible banking rules were voided and warnings ignored, or pushed aside "to enable freer wealth creation," but all that was created was bad debt. The shysters who sold them got their money even if both the lenders and borrowers ended up bled dry. They lobbied for it, they got it, and they ran off with a generation's life's work of value.

That's why I agree with Buffett - nobody's going to give up those ill-gotten gains unless they're forced to.
ED BEAR
 ed bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
What's the best way to deal with my FWB situation?
Posted: 2/24/2014 11:12:39 PM
drinkthesunwithmyface: It would help if you mentioned the film's NAME! Not everyone is able to stream video.
ED BEAR
 
Show ALL Forums