Is that "tickle" or "talk to"?

Sports caster. (Seriously, you should look into that. You've got the face for it.)
I think Pansytilly should post next, because I've got a kicker of an idea for the new picture.

"From the heart" is all well and good... but when I cook, it's usually "from the stomach".
It's just about the oldest school there is, but I think an important aspect of a relationship is the ability to provide food, shelter, and companionship, hearkening back to the days when humankind had to fight for every scrap. To me, that is the most primal and touching thing about a relationship, and everything else is gravy (to go on your mashed potatoes that I also prepared out of a box!). That's the reason why I began to start to learn how to cook in the first place.
Well, that and I was hungry.
One of the best things about knowing how to cook, I think, is that it works for you, individually, as well.

I would have to amend "we all start with physical attraction" to "physical attractiveness is the first and easiest thing to notice about people". I don't think it's a deciding factor for as many people as we might think - I've been turned off of plenty of attractive women online and in real life (okay, more women online than in real life) because I got to know them a little better, or read their profiles, and either nothing else caught my interest, or they actively grated on me. (That's "grated", not "gyrated".)
In other words, you don't have to risk losing THAT much in the gamble if you take a little time to examine the odds better.

Anybody who believes animals don't have souls has never had a pet they cared enough to spend time with.
I hope you and your dog have a great, long friendship to come.

Tournados of beef!

My first serious girlfriend and I actually had somewhat of a similar situation (though it was she who moved to Europe for a while).
Three years later, she hit me up in World of WarCraft, of all places (which should tell you a lot about who I was and about who she was back then), and asked if we could get reacquainted because "I was the only one who knew her".
I made the mistake of breaking things off with her again a week after she came back into my life. I thought I had pretty good reasons for it at the time, but lately I've been pondering if those reasons were good enough.
When it comes to love and friendship, it's probably better to take a chance than not. If this is her "first offense"... do you think she deserves a second chance? (Though keep in mind it's a BIG first offense.)

As far as sex on the first date goes, I'm pretty happy with being a slave to that particular social convention. If you can't wait 'til the third date, then it's not dating you're after. I like to actually LIKE a woman before I have sex with her - some of the funnest times I've had is when one of us tells an inside joke in the middle of... things... and we both bust up laughing.
It makes women jiggle in interesting ways.


I've always felt his description of Eve was... profoundly lacking in important details.

I wouldn't say no to a source for that. From what I'm reading, England and France were never actually at war during Elizabeth I's reign. England occupied northern regions of France while Mary was queen, but were then retaken by the French without a declaration of war or (much) bloodshed. Afterwards, Elizabeth I spent several years trying to get in good with France, as the relationship with Spain deteriorated.

The closest I find is this:
"France had given military help to Scotland during the ongoing problems between England and her northern neighbour. In fact, the only thing that seemed to help out England with regards to France was Spain. While England and Spain had a good relationship, France could not afford to antagonise England for fear that Spain might attack from the southwest. Likewise, France could not afford to attack Spain without risking a war on two fronts if England attacked from the north."
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/elizabeth_france.htm

--------

"Elizabeth engaged in a long series of diplomatic maneuvers against England's old enemy, France, and the new enemy, Spain, but for 30 years she managed to keep the country at peace.

In 1559 she concluded a treaty ending her sister's unfortunate war with France and refused the marriage offer of Philip of Spain. The next year the Treaty of Edinburgh initiated a policy toward Scotland, successful in the long run, of supporting the Protestant lords against the Catholic party. By lending unofficial aid to French Huguenots she managed for some time to harass France and Spain without involving England in an actual war. As part of her marriage negotiations she later supported the duke of Alen�on's participation in the Dutch war against Spain."
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/elizabeth-i-queen-england-reign.html


If you are correct, then this means a woman in power had no problems going to war - and it was the advice of her male councilor who helped her end it.

Impala!

Elizabeth I had no living male relatives. That's how she got to be queen in the first place. She was known as "the Virgin Queen" because she never married - if she did get married, her husband would hold more power than her. (Primogeniture, you know.) She was one of the most independent monarchs to have existed. Her advisors just about demanded that she get a husband, or at least a consort, so that she could have a baby to secure continuity of the throne. She didn't, because if the child was a boy, he would be named king as soon as he turned 18 (or maybe younger).
English royalty in the 1500s and 1600s was much different than it is today. Elizabeth went on "progresses" around the country, where she was hosted, fed, and boarded by whichever noble she chose to drop in on - completely at the noble's expense. She used this as a tactic to bankrupt nobles who did not support her, by staying with them and demanding all the most expensive things.
An English monarch still had the power to appoint and dismiss nobles - or send them into battle to get killed. The monarch could put out a "levy", which basically meant a military draft. Those soldiers she spoke to at Tilsbury were probably levied, and they were levied to repel a Spanish invasion. She didn't just roll over and hope for the best (even though it turned out that way).

I will concede that she did a hell of a lot of stuff to hold on to power, but what power she had was pretty much hers.

Grumpy. Like the sun is in your eyes. Also sideways.

Not at the idea that people in power don't make their own choices, just that it doesn't seem to advance the discussion if it's true.
Even people in power still have choices. They can always say "no". They're usually just not willing to deal with the consequences, so they say "yes".

Hey, now - I'm just promising to BE ABLE TO cook. I make no guarantees as to quality!
Who here likes macaroni and cheese from a box? :D

Then it sounds like you're making a case that nobody in power makes their own choices.
I'm pretty sure Elizabeth I, for example, didn't have someone tell her what to say in that speech, considering it was extemporaneous.

Blondey111, if you're going to qualify, theorycraft, and try to find excuses for everything we're showing you, I kind of wonder why you're asking the question.

Yeah, but if you've known some of the women I've known... Grr, baby!

I want to bang my head against the wall, but my heart says facepalm.

I say we reserve judgment on the officers until more information gets released. It could simply have been a miss on another target. With both officers undercover, there's no telling if either knew about the other's mission. There are so many things that could've gone wrong that we don't know about.

Frankly, I don't see what either of those pictures proves. The women could just as easily be making love as making war - depending on the women.

... where's the dang wink smiley...?

Something slightly more recent for you, then.
According to the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm ), when President Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq in 2002, the following female Senators voted "yes" to grant him that power:

Blanche Lincoln, Arknasas
Dianne Feinstein, California
Susan Collins, Maine
Hillary Clinton, New York
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Olympia Snow, Maine (both Senators from Maine, both female. Doesn't prove very much more, but I thought I'd point it out)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas

(To put this in a little bit more context, there were 100 Senators in the United States in 2002. 11 of these were female. 8 of 11 female Senators voted "yes".)