Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

RE: Can anyone help me understand this?

Let's see if I understand this. You actually expressed your feelings? You told her you love her?? God, you're lucky she didn't work you over with a baseball bat! Next thing you'll be telling us it that you stop and ask for directions!

In all seriousness, doing those things is only going to annoy an insane person...assuming they were done with a certain decorum (it wouldn't do to jump on a couch and proclaim your undying love, for example ).

The Momentum Style of Love vs. Steady State Style of Love

I have a feeling a may have to imbibe a bit earlier today...

The Momentum Style of Love vs. Steady State Style of Love

Thanks, Laura, for those, uh...weather-related insights.



But would you care to share with us a brief glimpse of your own "love styles"? I'm sure many CS male posters would be dying to hear them.

RE: SHOULD I EXCEPT A KNIGHTHOOD FROM THE QUEEN FOR BEING THE BEST FORUM POSTER ON CONNECTINGSINGLES.COM

The Momentum Style of Love vs. Steady State Style of Love

The Momentum Style of Love vs. Steady State Style of Love

We all know there's a process we go through en route to being in love and, perchance, making a lifelong romantic commitment. Though there are doubtless certain universal elements in that process - getting to know each other, learning to appreciate the other's virtues as well as their faults - my observation is that there are different ways, or perhaps "styles," of reaching a kind of critical romantic mass, where we believe we have found love and possibly a lifelong partner (the two aren't necessarily one and the same).

The Momentum Style of Love, I think, is the classic method of achieving critical romantic mass - or at least it's the one most of us are familiar with - and goes something like this: you grow increasingly enamored of someone until you feel that they should be a constant and (possibly) permanent part of your life. You want to spend more and more of your time with them, and begin to desire more or less constant contact with them, to the point where you can't imagine their not being a part of your life. Since you so very much dislike living apart from them, you decide you want to join your life with theirs (that usually means, at a minimum, living together).

Another style of reaching this critical romantic juncture, which I'll call The Steady State Style of Love, features a slower, more steady accretion of common purpose: though not experiencing the sharp and powerful emotional buildup of the Momentum Theory, over time your lives mesh and you develop strong feelings for each other, to the point where joining your lives permanently appears the right thing to do. People in this style of romantic relationship typically date for long periods and aren't in a rush to "consummate" their relationship through marriage (or other formal lifelong commitment). Their relationship isn't so much based on the intense mutual longing/"can't live without you" kind of emotions which typify The Momentum Style, but rather stem from (in my observation) a calmer, more practical mutual valuing or perhaps from the belief that they are better off together than apart and thus believe they should formalize that state of affairs.

I'm not sure the above "styles" are exhaust all the possible methods of falling in love, so I'm asking my fellow CSers to describe their own experiences on this subject. Did you achieve critical love mass quickly on a more or less linear curve, or was it a less sharp and "bumpier" upward curve? Or "other"?

RE: SHOULD I EXCEPT A KNIGHTHOOD FROM THE QUEEN FOR BEING THE BEST FORUM POSTER ON CONNECTINGSINGLES.COM

I think she may require that you concede that Ali was the greatest, Gilly.

RE: Esse is percipi

You usually have one, shrouded by your innocent smile, L.

RE: Esse is percipi

What I'm getting at is that Berkeley believed that only through a form of pure perception unsullied (insofar as possible) by conceptualizing, can we best apprehend reality.

RE: Esse is percipi

Also, Berkeley would absolutely agree that some (if not all) of our perceptions are inaccurate, so it's not as if what he's saying is opposed to your idea that our perceptions can be untrue (which I take to be the main point of your thread, Laura).

RE: Esse is percipi

RE: Esse is percipi

Morning, L.

You are "suggesting" that "if you perceive something, it exists" is the converse of the Berkeley claim, aren't you? I'm saying that since Berkeley is not claiming that one's perception causes anything's existence, that this wouldn't be the converse. The converse might be something like: "What we think is waht is actually real, not what we perceive" (I mean, that would be the opposite of B's stated beliefs as summarized in the quoted statement).

RE: Esse is percipi

In all seriousness, Berkeley wasn't suggesting that in some sense perception creates a reality - in the sense suggested by quantum mechanical interpretations (well, more accurately, New Ager interpretations of quantum mechanics) - but rather that perception is our only true way of knowing reality. "To be is to to be perceived," in other words, isn't saying that reality is created by what we see, so the converse you suggested, Laura, isn't quite applicable in the way you've imagined it.

RE: Esse is percipi

RE: Esse is percipi

Enfolded within a philosophical suppository?

RE: Esse is percipi

RE: Esse is percipi

I for one see life as being all about me. Therefore...?

RE: healthcare

RE: healthcare

Why is complaining or criticizing someone necessarily amount to "whining"?

RE: healthcare

You're right, Kid. That's why I would rephrase the question as: Why is Obama not logically consistent? (Americans grateful for my saving their honor can send me money donations to an address I will happily furnish offlist.)

RE: The Bald Eagle Soars

Clearly not an Obama fan.

Seriously, nice image, I.

RE: LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP – A NEW SUCCESS STORY ?

RE: LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP – A NEW SUCCESS STORY ?

Touche, G. But only occasionally.

RE: LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP – A NEW SUCCESS STORY ?

I love you guys! I think you made a very wise decision to open up your parameters, Gabrielle. My lady made a similar decision - she was looking for someone younger and sans facial hair...but got me. And I think - I hope! - she feels good about her decision! Life is too bloody short, no?

RE: Me and MY Romantic Heart

Well, the problem, Sweetly, is how one defines "romantic." What one persons considers to be romantic, another might consider sappy or clingy (for example).

RE: Avatar

LOADS of people saw the similarities (and of course they were intended!).

RE: INTERESTING COMPARISONS BETWEEN JESUS'S LIFE AND HORS'S LIFE

Well, this basically identical myth that precedes the Jesus myth ought to be a devastating blow to the belief that Jesus was a uniquely divine being, IF - and this is a fairly large if, as you may note - that belief were based on logic and evidence.

That not being the case, it won't have any effect whatsoever (save some passing annoyance, perhaps) on Christians.

RE: Don’t Be Fooled: Republicans Love Government Enforced Healthcare

As opposed to how honest it was in the past.

RE: Name protocol in the forums.

I know what you mean, T.

RE: Trust..

It's funny, because you definitely behave yourself here, in my observation, Polar.

Still...while I wouldn't recommend accepting an ultimatum from a guy about your participation here, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to curtail your participation or even take a break from CS (and other single sites) if such participation made your SO unhappy.

I do believe one's SO should have some say in your socializing with other guys or being on a singles list. It's really a matter of priorities - more important to have fun on a singles site, or more important to focus your attention on your SO.

Yes, I know, he or she's just being "insecure." True, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop one from being sensitive and respectful of one's SO's feelings, no?