I am probably too old to understand this concept, but with age comes wisdom :)

I know plenty of attractive men who are also good ("nice") guys. I also know plenty of attractive women who value the character of a man more highly than whether or not he has a 6 pack and could pass for Brad Pitt.

I will talk to someone without a photo, if the message or profile or his posts caught my eye & was more literate than "hey, wut's up cutie?" Then again, my advanced age has taught me that looks may fade, but character and personality rarely do. If someone messages or nudges me, and I see something in his profile that is an immediate deal breaker for me, I'll at least respond & thank him politely for his interest, then give my reason(s) why I don't think we'd be a match.

Then again, my grandmother drilled manners into my head with her rolling pin, lol.

Im sorry did I hurt your feelings...Im probably in trouble for telling the truth again...hahhaha


Oh no, you didnt?

you just told us we have no life?

Oh no.

you gone done it now.


(get him!)

am i the only one who notices that SOME of you guys gang up on newbies?

whether it be for perceived rudeness toward a friend (in which case there is a double standard because there is no backlash when the experienced minglers are rude to newbies) or because they posted a thread that may have been done before many times but is new to them... the reasons vary but i've noticed an air of condescension sometimes... just wondering what you guys thought... maybe i'm crazy?

(i'm not sure if this thread is against the rules, if it is i apologize)

hi and welcome

hi and welcome

Hello & welcome, new friend

I'm currently watching another Teaching Company Course entitled: "Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality" by Dr. Robert Sapolsky.

In the very first lecture he addresses the issue of "boxed thought" and he demonstrates how we box up thought using language. He also addresses the historical perspective of how many scientists have fallen into this trap of allowing language to box them in. He illustrates his point using the colors of the rainbow.

He shows that we are taught to 'box in colors' by name (by giving them word labels). And this works well as long as we stick to the fundamentals of this boxed-in system. In other words, give someone a picture of a rainbow and they will pick out the major colors that we have learned to name using word labels.

However, what studies have shown is that people become totally confused when given unconventional views.

For example. Just take the part of the rainbow that we normally associate with the label "Blue". It's easy to pick out this band of light from an entire rainbow. But now just take that blue band and expand it as a rainbow of blue hues. Then give these bands to people to 'label'. What happens with absolute consistency is that people tend to use color names that reach far outside of this blue band. In other words, they'll say that one end of this band is 'Green' and the other end is 'violet'.

In other words, words aren't even dependable in a normal setting. We don't think in terms of words, we simply try to use words to convey our thoughts the best we can. Words are often just relative in their meaning.

Words are not thoughts. They are just a very crude method that we have devised to try to convey what we are thinking about.

excelent.but......is that a yes or a no?

Boys will be boys... it's a disease ya know

....yeah....so ever since I changed my profile pic today I get nothing but e-mails from 18 and 19 year olds asking me to teach them a few things.

What do I look like??? The naughty nanny? The babelicous babysitter? The trampy teacher? SHEEEESH!!!

We are trying not to attract attention to you dude...in your pik...there is an alien probe tentacle over your head from War of The Worlds...

We are hoping you survive!