That sort of thing is an irrational, emotional response. He may say that's the case and think that's the case but that doesn't mean that, at a deep emotional level, that it really is. This is complete speculation of course.
It's also possible that he is interested but afraid of a relationship because of past bad experiences. I hate to say it but, if this is the case, he was likely a lost cause from the start.
There are real couples who have met on the internet and gone on to happy relationships and marriage. It does happen. I think it's still the exception but it is a real thing. Mostly, I think online dating is a way for companies that run online dating sites to make money from paid subscriptions to their sites though.
Then why wasn't she supervising him? Nevermind being pecked by geese. Lots worse things can happen to an unsupervised child by a lake. She's lucky he didn't drown.
It's not the boy's fault. He's just a child. It's not your fault either. You were just trying to stop a bad situation. It's the parent's fault. You should have been yelling at her, not the other way around.
In the video clip I watched, one was consistently given a piece of cucumber while the other was consistently given a grape. That's quite predictable. It's just not fair in the sense that they do the same task but do not get the same reward.
Who decides what this unspecified person actually deserves? Who decides this? A lot of people have a very expansive idea of what they deserve and what they are entitled to. A lot of proposed schemes to ensure that people get "what they deserve" skip right over this basic question. Who gets to decide who deserves what?
It's specifically about fairness in rewards. That's a particular type of fairness. It's not terribly relevant to relationships. It's more relevant to the workplace.
What is fairness in a relationship? What sort of fairness are we talking about? Fair in what way?
What does fairness mean in this context and what does that have to do with the video clip?
In this clip, the two monkeys performed identical tasks and got unequal awards which produced resentment. He then invokes it as an explanation for resentment at unequal awards for people who performed very different tasks of very different monetary values. This apparently agenda driven logic makes me very suspicious of this research.
The banning of electronic cigarettes is absurd and idiotic. It proves that the public health rhetoric invoked to ban smoking was bull since the same rhetoric is being invoked to justify banning e-cigs which produce only harmless water vapor. The real reason was and always has been control. They are even invoking the "think of the children" rhetoric absurdly claiming that e-cigs are being marketed to kids when they are primarily marketed as an aid to quitting smoking cigarettes. The entire thing is a load of kneejerk stupidity.
They're certainly known. Well respected? Not so much. That site is notorious for peddling hoaxes, baseless speculation and conspiracy theory nonsense. It's a well known crank site.
Yeah, this theory isn't physically impossible. It's also completely lacking in any real evidence to back it up. It's entirely baseless speculation just like a million of theories about what happened that are physically possible but not based on any real evidence.
This is far from the first plane to disappear without a trace. The ocean is big and dark and deep and mostly unexplored. This is only one of several aircraft that have disappeared in the same area over the decades. No special conspiracy theory explanation is required. The fact that the search area is nearly 3 million square miles is all the explanation needed. The most likely explanation is that it crashed into the ocean and sank to the bottom. The search area is nearly the size of the contiguous 48 US states. It's not surprising that some floating debris wasn't spotted. There's no conspiracy. There's just a tragedy and the reality of trying to search millions of square miles of ocean.
That's not how science works. Nothing is ever settled in science. When someone tells you that this or that is a fact or that the debate is settled on some issue, they are talking politics, not science. It's always a theory, never a fact. "The debate" is never over.
The big bang theory is currently the best available theory to explain the current body of observations. It is very strongly supported by solid evidence and new evidence has given it very strong support. It will be the prevailing theory until one that better fits the current evidence comes along.
Voting isn't sports betting. I don't choose candidates based on which one I think will win. That's just absurd. The entire idea is incomprehensible to me. Do these people not believe in anything? Do they have no principles at all? People like that shouldn't vote.
Better get your own time machine too since you will apparently have to grab her before the disastrous 2012-13 timeline that started the year before last.
Credible evidence of this is very much lacking. Psychological research is sorely lacking in rigor to begin with and the research supporting this is poor even by that standard.
The photos are of a bunch of unrelated objects including a thermal blanket lost from Endeavor. The rest is unrelated bit of history cobbled together to try to prove a pet theory with no real evidence backing it. The entire thing has been debunked but some people don't want to let a good story go. There is no Black Knight satellite and never was. There's just a collection of unrelated bits like pictures of space junk or false radar returns caused by atmospheric phenomenon and a clever story to tie them together. All good hoaxes contain just enough truth to make them superficially plausible.
No. It would cost a ton of money that we can't afford and create hassles without accomplishing anything. The devices would cost a bunch of money. They would be another gadget on your car to break down and cost you money. They wouldn't provide any real security because they would be hacked almost immediately. Things like that always are.
YosemiteMike Forum Posts (37)
RE: He's just not into you...
That sort of thing is an irrational, emotional response. He may say that's the case and think that's the case but that doesn't mean that, at a deep emotional level, that it really is. This is complete speculation of course.