Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: 15,000 Gov. emails revealed - 1000's registered on Gov't. and military servers
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
15,000 Gov. emails revealed - 1000's registered on Gov't. and military servers
Posted: 8/29/2015 10:19:31 AM
Analysis of the data hacked show that of the 37 million accounts, only 12,000 were real women, 68,000 were fake female profiles probably generated by the site operators, and only a relative few accounts were active.

Be nice to know the actual statistics of other sites. My experience on POF is that only a small number of accounts are in current use, and that many who created accounts years ago just don't bother to close them down. Makes me wonder what the real value of the site is in business terms.

I also find it spectacular that millions of men actually pay up to interact with a hopelessly small number of real women. What a brilliant fraud!

I suppose that the god news is that, in general, women don't appear to have much interest in cheating, or if they do, they don't make use of web sites to find hookups.

Men, on the other hand, are scumbags......:)
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 1607 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:40:42 AM
No point in worrying about the questions they add. Just reply with anything you feel will improve your chances.

Not only do I wear Crocs, I wear cheap imitations of Crocs.

Probably the reason my sex life is suffering...
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 241 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/25/2015 12:18:39 PM
People are always ready to accept the cult of personality basis of history. Of course, when one examines the details of almost any significant advance in human thought or art, you quickly see that that advance happened within a context of many other trials and trends that made the advance possible. Without the thousands of years of development of mathematics and the advent of technologies capable of delivering observations, none of the advances in modern physics would have happened.

Humans mark consensus about advances with things like the Nobel Prize, or other awards in other disciplines. Who gets the credit is determined by vote of one kind or another and while the myriad of failed efforts are rarely given credit, the fact that these failed efforts cleared the way for others to advance is, IMO, just as significant as the efforts that succeeded. Without the knowledge of the failures, time an effort would be wasted repeating needlessly the failures themselves.

Of course Einstein's insights did not coalesce out of a vacuum. There is no point in trying to qualify his achievements, as if he never existed, some other personality would have emerged and been credited with insights to the way forward. The idea of the atom was originally documented by Plato, and the ancient Greeks certainly knew about the problems of observation and the difficulties of the geometry of reality. These concepts have reached their current refinements thanks to many contributions over the millennia, and there is really nobody in particular that deserves all the credit to the exclusion of all the others.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 222 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/24/2015 12:44:51 PM

*Come to think about it all the free sites seem to be hook up orientated here-lol


Strange, in my years on POF I have received exactly zero propositions, and just about every profile I have read has indicated that the women are not here for sex!

Must be your location. I should move there, I suppose.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 219 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/24/2015 8:17:08 AM
It has to be true that at some level every person participating in the dating scene is looking the improve their lives in some way, otherwise, they would not engage in the complexities of the hunt. The sought improvement could be economic, emotional or social, and its sort of arbitrary to draw a line along any of these dimensions and call it a red flag. Let's face it, if you bind with someone, it will involve a certain cost and benefit along any or all of these dimensions, so your perception of a red flag is just an expression of your own perception of the other with respect to your own values.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 216 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/24/2015 7:19:50 AM

If so, then oh dear. I had more respect for you than your post deserves


Well, I suppose we could discuss the basis of terms used in communication, however, I stand by my post. Like all of the scientific community that resulted in the long term development of what eventually became known as quantum physics, discussions between the participants resulted in steady advances in the knowledge of the various quantum phenomenon.

The basic point here is that "visibility" to a scientist is more precisely "observability". This is not a function of the human eye, it is function of experimental observation. The fact you can't see a virus with your bi-focal does not mean it is invisible.

Einstein is best known, in my humble opinion, for the theory of special relativity and for the e=mc2 equation, the latter being a scale factor relationship, not intrinsically related to quantum physics. Heisenberg is best known for the uncertainty principle, a basis of the development of the consequences of quantum physics.

There are, unfortunately or fortunately, many other views of reality in the world of physics, and the discussion will be ongoing for many years, in my opinion, before any firm conclusions crystallize about things like action at a distance. In some senses, the uncertainty principle is not different from Zeno's paradox, and while its elaboration has provided modern physics with many apparently deep insights, it remains somewhat unsatisfactory.

We should remember that 100 years ago physicists were still publishing papers about the aether, 50 years ago the (undefined) cosmic vacuum, and today dark energy. All theories, never observed. There is a lesson there.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 181 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/21/2015 1:06:01 PM

You also forgot about quantum physics.


Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

Einstein developed a theory about the structure of the space-time continuum. Quantum physics was developed by other people (Bohr, Heisenberg and a host of others).

Proposing a theory presents an opportunity for observations which will either confirm or invalidate the theory. Observations have so far confirmed Einstein's theory, but even he did not "believe" it in the sense of a religious belief. He died trying to solve the problems he recognized with his own theories.

Even allowing for your totally irrelevant and factually incorrect comment, many geniuses either were insane or became insane, where the label "insane" is a rather sloppily defined technical term that I did not use. People can be mentally ill without being "insane" in the vulgar sense.

To be quite clear, there are no reputable scientists that "believe" their theories in the sense that the religiously inclined "believe" in God, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, etc. Scientists "believe" that a theory is a working explanation of an observed phenomenon, and then only until other observations are made which demonstrate that the theory is not complete or correct.

Religious enthusiasts and the mentally ill believe things for which no observations exist, or in many cases even possible, and refuse to change their minds even when faced with hard facts that prove their beliefs are erroneous.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 178 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/21/2015 10:14:57 AM
Nope. That is a form of mental illness, if they are illusory.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 174 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/21/2015 7:17:58 AM
I continue in amazement as to how the huge majority of humans can ardently believe in something for which there is absolutely no objective evidence, while refusing to believe in somethings for which there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence.

Oddly, belief in the unobservable that is not labeled religion is labeled mental illness.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 128 (view)
 
The board was much better with moderators
Posted: 8/18/2015 1:41:34 PM
^^^^^ Well, it sure sounds to me like you are racing in your group rides, and I would be the first to agree that quality machines can improve performance.

My point was that if testosterone is not an issue, there are plenty of main stream mass produced machines these days that will meet all of your needs. You don't need a carbon fibre bike to hit the bike path on a warm afternoon, or even to train up reasonably for pleasure cycling.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 125 (view)
 
The board was much better with moderators
Posted: 8/18/2015 1:15:01 PM
Unless you race, spending a lot on exotic bikes to save a couple of pounds in weight it, to me, pointless. What I notice is that its getting harder to find mainstream bikes with drive components that will stand up for 30 to 40 years, a pretty common thing up until bike manufacturing moved to Japan and bike marketing became like running shoe marketing.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Dealbreakers and +'s in a profile
Posted: 8/18/2015 1:06:47 PM
Well, I see a lot of female profiles along the lines of +2 years to -20 years in their filters, and these ladies are over 60! I also know a few female profiles where the ages declared are -5 to -10 years below the actual age. I have not had occasion to study up much on male profiles, but my general conclusion is that age values, like "body type" values and pictures are highly unreliable indicators of the true situations of the people who set up the profiles.

All this makes me fairly confident that the social engineering efforts of the site developer are based on a lot of completely false data, and so probably have no particular usefulness.

Personally, I don't think age, per se, is a critical factor in relationship success, however, I do believe that physical appeal can be a determining factor. As there are a large number of attractive (at least to me) women even over 70 out there, I can't really see where age comes into it at all, except for the fact that it is very unlikely that 30+ year relationships will develop between the over 50 set, for all of the obvious reasons.

You can still enter into relationships for a good time in your dotage, if not so easily for a long time....

Whatever happens, it is not going to be like when you were 20 something, driven by the desire to reproduce. At least for most of us...
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 63 (view)
 
Weird questions
Posted: 8/4/2015 7:24:24 AM
You people have such interesting lives. I just have to wonder where it all went wrong for me. I just never experience any of this stuff......
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 848 (view)
 
What do 50+ men want?
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:42:00 PM
Exactly which man wants a woman he considers stupid?

What a ridiculous thread this one is....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 221 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/30/2015 10:12:15 AM
Aw, what a shame that the graphic has no explanation as to what the labels are supposed to mean. The graphic appears to me to be a classic case of range normalization of different populations for the purpose of displaying differences in the sub-populations within a global sample. Usually, the only conclusions to be drawn are about the distributions of the sub-groups, not their relative between group strengths. From that graphic, you can't tell anything about the "bigger picture". It does not allow anyone to discern which of the sub-groups is dominant in the sample. You don't know what the "bigger picture" actually is, except for perceptions based on your self declared prejudices.

The other thing about the graphic is that if anything, it displays conditional probabilities of incidences. Given an assault happened, and given that the assault had a sexual component, then its much more likely to be a man assaulting a woman. Of course, nothing is said about the probability of either the first given or the second given.

Sadly, the text of the article shows that the numbers of reported incidents for males and females is about the same. It also states the women are more likely to report than men. To me that says that its most likely that substantially more men are assaulted than women. Even if it is true that incidents are under reported by women, that would only amplify the situation.

I tend to believe that its intrinsically easier for men to sexually assault women, where "sexually assault" is defined as rape through various forms of penetration. That, in itself would explain the difference between male and female experience. Its a pretty meaningless distinction within the context of spousal violence discussed in the study. The implication in your analysis is that some forms of violence are more significant than others, something I do not see a justification for. Its just another attempt to sensationalize the idea of the woman as victim, the man as threat.

All your conclusions based on your analysis of the articles in question have no basis in what is presented in the articles. Its your beliefs. You are a preacher. No reputable analyst would support any of your conclusions.

Really, you would be hilarious were it not for the faddish distortions of the facts that this type of commentary produces.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 207 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:36:12 PM
Well, its clear to me that you do not have any reliable understanding of the English language. You are also prone to all kinds of truly bizarre conclusions.

I don't expect anybody to assault me, especially when it comes as a result of a third party action (i.e the security guard). Every time you post another twisted interpretation of something said, you dig yourself deeper into a hole.

If you had nothing to gain, why even continue the discussion? You obviously gain from your posting here. You may not be a technical politico, but you definitely don't like anyone questioning your ideas, and you definitely can't stop yourself from exuding ridicule and hostility while twisting the words of other posters.

You don't know what "most people believe" in real life. I am a pretty normal main stream individual and I don't believe anything you believe. You still can't show a single study supporting your position.

Where I live, a statistical majority of the population believes in a series of sacred myths, all of which have been proven false by their own intelligencia. It has not changed their beliefs one iota. The response when confronted by these facts is identical to your repertoire of responses. The studies are flawed, statistics don't prove anything, everybody knows what is really happening, the others are racists, blah, blah, blah. I have lived it all my life. Its boringly predictable. Its the reason this place has become a social and economic backwater. People prefer to live within a comfortable denial of reality rather than to confront life as it really is.

Its a fundamentally intellectually dishonest form of human behaviour.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 203 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:58:59 AM
So, you said:

Oh, and do you have any studies on random female on male violence? No? That's because it doesn't exist.


Now you say:

I said that female on male random violence by strangers was practically non-existent


I suppose that your attempt to rewrite history is not one of you methods of justifying your own beliefs? There is a huge gulf between "doesn't exist" and "practically non-existant". But maybe English comprehension was never your forte.

I could go through your posts and demonstrate all of the other flaws, mis-quotes, aspersions, insults, fabrications and other stuff, but, I have a life, and there are obviously others who can see through your diatribes.

Of course, the incident to which I referred had a context. I noticed a woman defacing university property with some sort of political slogans, and I stopped a security guard to point out her activity. The security guard told her to stop and to get off the campus. She ran over to me and punched me in the face. The guard restrained her. I walked away.

Now, doubtless you will post some more of you BS along the lines of it was my fault that the event happened. Women should be able to deface private property with impunity, after all. They are oppressed victims who deserve nothing but caring support, and certainly should never be questioned by obtuse, hulking cretins of the male persuasion.

I get it. You are a person like those who are anti-vaxxers, immune to facts. Prone to pounce on statistics out of context and sensationalise them for your own political or social purposes. Basically, you are like the large majority of human beings on the planet. Facts will never change your behaviour, but some social fad or belief will. Witness the brutal deaths recently reported in India and Pakistan, of women killed as witches, or as apostates. Belief in completely groundless ideas, and their promotion for political and social purposes, kills people, and kills women preferentially. You are exactly the kind of believer that results in this kind of behaviour.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 198 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/27/2015 12:48:23 PM
What you have here is:
1) A bunch of men and women, some of whom spent years dealing with situational violence, others who have researched various and numerous studies and presented the results of such studies, all of whom showing support at various levels for the concepts that rape is relatively rare and the females are pretty much as prone to violence as men.
2) One poster that has stated that she believes otherwise, questions the bases of studies, and comes up with anecdotal evidence for her position while not supplying any studies or other third party facts to support her case.

You can't get anywhere discussing things with a believer. Its characteristic of believers that they are not influenced by fact. The people who believe in a flat earth are resolute in their convictions. Of course, they have no satellite photos of a flat earth and will argue that photos of round planets are a hoax, trick photographs, or are the result of some very unusual optical effects affecting satellites. They will gladly explain so using their cell phones while driving their cars guided by their GPS systems.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 141 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/24/2015 6:41:39 AM
My own opinion on violent tendencies between the sexes is based on the fact that the male and female body are, aside from the sexual aspects, essentially identical biological machines. The large body of medical diagnostic procedures does not distinguish between the sexes except in the obvious cases related to the sexual apparatus. For this reason, I find that any large departures in behaviour patterns promoted for political reasons (women are victims, for instance) are suspect.

Indeed, in the average case, women are statistically smaller and physically weaker than men, however, the gap in physical prowess is not sufficient to preclude physical violence by either one of the sexes against the other. Even within the male sex, physical size is not a particularly good predictor of the outcome of a physical altercation. As the old joke goes, "Its not the size of the weapon that is important, its the fury of the attack!"

Having been involved with a large number of both male and female people in various sporting activities, the only aspect of physicality that I noticed with any consistency that differed between the sexes was that because of smaller body size, women tended to lack the same endurance as men, although I am completely aware that there are females that can easily outperform men in many types of situations requiring physical prowess.

The issue with newoldgirl is not that she is stupid, it is that she is fairly intelligent and reasonably educated to the extent that she can deploy an array of facile techniques to attack the positions of those who don't share her views. These include questioning the facts by posing generic questions without support of other facts, imputing conclusions to others for which there is no basis in their statements nor knowledge of their actual ideas, employing politically and socially loaded adjectives and adverbs to any neutral information presented to cast such information in a negative, naive or absurd light, and conveniently omitting to address points made for which she has no reasonable way of denying their truth. You see this all the time on the media every time a politician, bureaucrat or religious enthusiast appears to defend some absurd position.

To me, the concept of equality of the sexes is deprecated, eroded and discredited by social and political fads that strive to emphasize sex based differences. If women are victims, and men are not, then obviously we need to arrange for the defense of women with all kinds of tailored politics and social norms. If people are victims, then we need to arrange for the defense of people, regardless of sex, through different politics and social norms. My own preference is for the latter. Its the only strategy that saves everyone and avoids the types of mess that the history of divisive politics has produced.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 122 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/23/2015 1:19:48 PM

And yet, after just ONE study that suggests that women are just as physically violent as men you accept that. I guess that's just what you want to believe.


Wow. Again, putting words in my mouth. I have made no comments about that study at all.

You, on the other hand, have made strong comments about that study, which, I would expect, you have never read and have no knowledge about its quality, nor have you even tried to find if there are other studies with similar results. Wake up! Its YOU that wants to believe things and you are clearly unwilling to accept any contrary opinions.

As to whether women would or would not share their experiences with me, how would you have any idea about that? For all you know I may have spent my life as a therapist of some kind hearing of the intimate details of peoples lives. You have no idea about the nature of my relationships with the women in my life.

Every time you make a comment it is based on completely unfounded assumptions about others. According to you, no woman would share her intimate experiences with me (I am a man, after all), but they hold forth to you about such things. What a load of sexist crap.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 120 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/23/2015 10:32:48 AM

What part of this is giving you such difficulty?


I have no difficulty at all with your statement. What I do have difficulty with is your insistence in the first instance the female against male violence does not exist, then using the facile obfuscation technique of confusing statistics with facts. Statistics are not events, they are mathematical distillations of facts. While one study does not make a trend, its infinitely better than conclusions based on zero studies. It can be true that many studies with consistent results may indicate something about the likelihood of an incidence of a fact, however, it has been shown time and again that even where a large number of studies have demonstrated something, the impact on people's beliefs, opinions and common sense has been insignificant. The trivial example is belief in God. You can do a zillion studies that show there is no evidence for God, yet most of the planet is firmly convinced of the existence of such an entity.

There are legions of similar examples. People, in general, only espouse studies they agree with based on things like common sense, but the common sense of the masses results in things like obesity, excessive consumption of useless homoeopathic products, the widely held beliefs that women are inferior beings, and the idea that Elvis is alive and well somewhere.

Its all sloppy use of well known techniques designed to support a particular point of view. In fact, you can have no knowledge of the frequency of female on male violence, not only because it goes largely unreported by the male victims, but because in the current politically correct view of the woman as victim nobody is even interested in doing studies, or indeed looking at the results if such studies were done.

In my life, 1 instance of a few minutes is insignificant in terms of a statistic, although when it happened, it hurt, was unexpected, and was entirely inappropriate to the situation. Indeed, its a very rare event. However, the statistics presented at the beginning of this altercation clearly show that the probability of a woman being raped in her lifetime, even if we presume that 3/4 of incidence are not reported, is, in the US, a very rare event in the grand scheme of things. Women may well go through life in constant fear of attack, but, on average, it just won't happen.

Of course, the statistics could be completely wrong, but my own experience has been that of the many women I have known through life, none of them has been raped. Those are facts. Surprisingly, the pretty well correspond to the statistical evidence.

Now, perhaps your life is filled with women who have been raped, beaten, abused and generally been made victims. If so, you and they have my sympathies, and I certainly in no way condone the situation. However, it would appear, if this is a true set of facts, that your particular life is rare indeed.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 105 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/22/2015 1:07:49 PM

Just because you read it somewhere on the internet doesn't mean it's true, even if it fits your agenda.


It appears to me that anything you might read that is contrary to an opinion espoused by NOG lacks common sense or intelligence.

It also appears that my life experiences have no validity, however those of others are golden.

Common sense, eh? You can't have it both ways. Either studies tell the "truth" or, if you don't like the truth, they are false.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 92 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/22/2015 5:56:30 AM

One study can say anything. Common sense, life experience, and intelligence says something different.


The problem with this attitude is that while a study throws up facts, common sense, life experience, an intelligence throws up opinions. This argument has in the past resulted in the murder of thousands of people for things like witchcraft. It still happens today.


Oh, and do you have any studies on random female on male violence? No? That's because it doesn't exist.


Well, here is my life experience: I have been physically assaulted exactly once in my life. It was by a woman I did not know while walking down the street.

Using YOUR justifications, I would be forced to say that random female violence against men does exist. It happened to me!

Of course, I generally prefer to look at statistics before making a judgement. Common sense is known to be unreliable, intelligence is highly variable from person to person, and personal experience depends on the specific path in life you happen to travel.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 65 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 2:03:52 PM
So now BA is attacking the character of another male participant. Gee, is there any clearer proof that women can be more aggressive than men? Neither I nor CC have impugned the character of any of the women in this discussion.

Now BA is trying to put words in my mouth as well. What next? Branding me as an agent of evil? Accusing me of being a serial killer? Good grief!
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 62 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 1:45:45 PM
I think that if you ask any policeman, you will find that the vast majority of violence between the sexes is not the result of predators randomly choosing victims. The criminalists first candidates for the guilty parties are people known to the victim and within their immediate social circle. There are rare cases of random violence, but its not the rule. Typically, to be violent towards someone, you have to have some emotional reason, and its hard to be emotional about people you don't actually know and interact with.

I think that most men want to and act to protect their loved ones, and are not intrinsically aggressive to females. Men certainly have a physical advantage over most women, but that, in itself, does not mean they are more aggressive. Aggression in women may not take a direct physical form, but there can be no doubt that women are human beings, and consequently act out their emotions as do men. Sit in a divorce court some day and observe the bitter attacks by both sexes.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 59 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 1:28:34 PM

I can't believe how cavalier some men are about sexual assault & crime.


I can't believe how intellectually dishonest some women can be when discussing politically correct fads. I can't believe how readily some women resort to smearing those who demolish their polemical diatribes rife with unsupportable bullshit.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 56 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 1:14:14 PM
I see. The statistics you present are not representative of people in general, and anecdotal experiences of your personal life in NYC are a much more indicative representation of what really happens in the world. Well, why bother presenting statistics? Your personal experience is clearly the only thing that matters.

The only BULLSHIT here is your own. Go live in an area of high unemployment, rife with social problems (drugs, alcohol, unemployment, poor education) and there is no doubt that the probability of experiencing crime, violence, rape and whatever will be higher. Of course, if you live on a farm in Iowa, it will be lower. We all have to be aware of the danger of life. You are just engaged in an effort to sensationalize them, and to project your own views on others, despite the fact that your own stats show that to be a very unreasonable approach to life.

If you think you have a monopoly on life experiences in risky locations, you are sadly delusional. If you believe that your experience gives you a truth about life in general, you are even more deluded. All you can report on is YOUR life.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 51 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 12:53:34 PM
Since you brought it up, lets look at your FBI/US numbers. In 10 years there were 637,560 rapes. That is 63,756 per year. Assuming that 3/4 of rapes are not reported, a statement that has no verifiable statistical measure, that would mean there are about 63756 * 4 = rapes per year in the US. The US population is about 320 million these days, so the percentage of people raped is 0.079 %, about half of the UK numbers you shot out. So, based on these values, an American living for over 200 years would be raped 1 time.

That is probably the reason so many Brits have moved to the States. Its obviously much safer......

Of course, if the 3/4 of rapes are not reported value is not true, and we only analyse actual numbers, then its 8 time more safe to be in the States than in the UK.

As to most serial killers being men, no issue there. Men are supposedly known to be generally more aggressive than women, or at least that is the common myth. At the societal level, however, there is no male equivalent to the commonly used saying "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned!". That, to my mind, would bring into question the idea that men are, in fact, intrinsically more aggressive than women.

I don't need stats. You have provided enough for a detailed analysis of your position.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 49 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 12:31:28 PM
Many men get raped and abused and don't report it. Yawn.

I did not ignore any of the stats you published. You just don't like that they show that in general, people need not worry for their safety.

Google the statistics on the perception of crime statistics vs the reality. Yes, people get robbed, but most never do. Yet, people are worried about crime rates, eve although they are generally in decline.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 12:28:06 PM

how could anyone marginalize her experience?


I certainly did not marginalize her experience.

Jumping form wierdo phone calls, not threatening in any direct sense (as she stated), to the issue of rape and serial killers is a rather extreme attempt to sensationalize her experience.

Let's just all be paranoid wrecks as we go through life. After all, you never do really know your neighbours, co-workers, friends and relatives. Anyone of them COULD be a serial killing rapist woman beating child molesting pervert. Most likely, however, they are just sitting down with a coffee worrying about you.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 12:16:44 PM
Well, let's see...

Population of the UK is about 65 million, total rapes is about 80 thousand. That gives the percentage of the population being raped is about 0.12%, or something like 1 in 1000. Assuming that the total rapes are indicative of independent single unrelated incidents (as in there are no instances of the same person being raped multiple times by the same perpetrators).

That implies that the typical person can expect, if they live 1000 years, to be raped once.

It also implies that the vast majority of people will pass their entire lives never experiencing being raped.

It also implies that the probability of not being raped in your lifetime is 99.9%.

Statistics are a wonderful thing. What does the statistic that 20% of women are victims of "some form" of sexual violence actually mean? Its not rape, apparently. There is not much doubt that many women are leery of unwanted male attentions. So are men, but there is no press on that subject.

The use of misleading statistics for political purposes is a particularly unfortunate characteristic of human life. In most instances, the message being delivered is either completely misleading or totally one sided. The result is irrational views of reality.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 43 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 11:21:15 AM
Well, my point is that "many men" do know that kind of feeling.

If your post was not about feeling threatened by anonymous invasions of your personal privacy, what was it about? Most of it was about your reaction to a situation, a few words were about the wierdo OP.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
It looks like POF has already made some changes.
Posted: 7/21/2015 10:00:13 AM
^^^ I think ANYBODY who received anonymous calls from someone who spouted intimate knowledge of their lives would be, at the very least, unsettled. I certainly would be. To suppose its only a female response that men would know nothing about is pretty indicative of how you view men and women, and not in a very constructive light.

For a man, there is nothing as scarey as a crazy woman on his case. Even if she is not crazy, if she is harassing him, its scarey. While I do not think that men, in general go about terrified of women, there is no doubt that they can be a worry if their behaviour is in any way odd. Anonymous communication is always unsettling.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 114 (view)
 
Retirement and the worker bee
Posted: 7/20/2015 6:57:50 AM
Whether you work or not is not likely to be a barrier to finding someone. Its more of how you react to the opportunities that present themselves. If you happen to meet someone you can always retire if you really want to be with them all the time.

Go out more. Take an interest in who you run into.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 1481 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 7/17/2015 5:26:54 PM
I can think of no greater pleasure than the harmony between a man and a woman. Respect man not be the essential ingredient, but it sure does prolong the pleasure of the relationship...
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 1447 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 7/16/2015 6:08:57 AM
Well, forums are not real life.

I completely fail to get all this stuff about men and women being enemies. It just is not true. The reason this dating site could sell for half a billion dollars is that men and women want to be together, an in a big way. Always has been, always will be.

We don't need more barriers between the sexes, we need more sex between the sexes.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 233 (view)
 
Photos
Posted: 6/18/2015 11:36:19 AM
If you don't think your woman is drop dead gorgeous, you are not with the woman of your dreams.

I always find my woman friends gorgeous. Always the woman of my dreams.

Sadly, I have dreamt a lot over the years.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 171 (view)
 
Photos
Posted: 6/17/2015 1:27:22 PM
^^^^^^Yet another phony profile to be used to hurl insults.....

I wonder how long it will be here...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, who cares what is in your eye?
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 772 (view)
 
What do 50+ men want?
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:54:11 AM

I had a Red Wedding nightmare last night..


I had red wine last night, did not dream about anything....:)
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 169 (view)
 
Photos
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:51:38 AM
Nobody that I ever met from a dating site looked like their photos. Some were much better looking, some considerably worse looking. In the end, it really depends on the personality of the person and their attitude. Everybody posts the photo they think shows them in their best light.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 167 (view)
 
Photos
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:41:50 AM
Yes, well, the truth is that I am such an attractive looking guy that if I posted a pic my inbox would always be overflowing with messages causing the system to crash frequently, forcing POF to delete my account and forcing me to recreate my profile every other day.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 150 (view)
 
Photos
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:56:33 AM
Blonde Angele was a fixture for so long on these forums, I was amazed that she(?) disappeared and did not come back. Originally claimed to be from small town NY, then, suddenly, out in the mid-west with a changed personality. Perhaps she(?) really did disappear, and someone took over her(?) profile?

Don't tell me that people here have multiple profiles! Who would have thought!

I suppose it could all be a case of transgender. Woman in the East, transition in the mid-west, man in CA....Nothing really surprising there.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 1009 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:50:01 AM
Only thing intimidating is you handle....

Anyone who finds someone capable and comfortable with taking care of themselves intimidating is crazy. None of us is guaranteed, even in childhood, that we will be taken care of in life. What puts me off is adults who clearly can not manage to take care of themselves. I have already raised my children, thanks!
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 768 (view)
 
What do 50+ men want?
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:44:58 AM
CC, are you sure you did not fall asleep with the TV on while watching either Game of Thrones or Return of the King? White horse, billowing grass, stunning beauty....crappy endings.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 177 (view)
 
Interests of women over 50y/o
Posted: 6/15/2015 8:29:26 AM
I find that women make great friends. Making them feel good about themselves makes them feel good about you, and more often than not, you get laid regular.

Who in their tight mind cares about a few bucks for coffee or lunch or dinner? In case you have not noticed, making a bank feel good about you never gets you laid, and women are much more loyal friends than banks when you run out of money.....
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 846 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/12/2015 6:57:02 AM

You had it backwards.


Indeed, if the samples are not "normal", the statements about the "average" may not be true, but the same statements about the "median" would be true. Not quite backwards, but somewhat sloppy. :)
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 826 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/11/2015 3:09:04 PM

Example....if the median IQ of women


There is a big difference between the median and the average. The original statement was about the average, and is absolutely true. Medians are a whole different ball game, and one needs to be very careful about the use, particularly with IQ values.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 815 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/11/2015 1:44:05 PM

Half the women are of below average intelligence? How did you arrive at this conclusion?


That is a mathematically true fact. If it were not true, then the average intelligence would be wrong.

Half the men are of below average intelligence as well. Another mathematical fact!

Half of all Americans make less than the average salary. Half of all Canadians are shorter than the average height of Canadians. Half of all relationships lst shorter than the average length of a relationship........

Half of all forum posters are dumber than the average forum poster!

Half of all boiled eggs are cooked for more time than the average time boiled eggs are cooked!
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 804 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/11/2015 12:18:29 PM

I know whether or not I'm intelligent...just wondering
what others use for their litmus test.


I just talk to them. If the conversation strains, lags or stalls, I stop talking to them.
After a while, the only ones I have conversations with are the ones that I find intelligent.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 736 (view)
 
Are 21st century, western women intimidating?
Posted: 6/10/2015 11:30:15 AM
Sounds like a trivially easy problem to solve:
1) Read the contact messages you get
2) Decide if you would want to meet
3) If no, meet the guy
4) If yes, ignore and block the guy
5) Don't tell anyone about the cats
 
Show ALL Forums