It's my camera's self preservation mode. If it were to truly focus, it might just crack its lens.

As someone who has been described as hideous, I think I can field that one.


There are really three reasons:

1. You never know unless you ask.

2. Some women that are extremely attractive appear unapproachable to even the most handsome of men. So, they might not get asked out a lot, which increases the chances of a positive response when they do.

3. The fact that we look bad actually makes them look better, so their vanity might just play into our favor.

Watching them make out with their little dog, and then wanting a kiss from me.

Wow... I cannot believe that not only one, but two people thought I was proposing a real conspiracy. Jesus guys, maybe you see too much into what you read, and should really think about getting out of this particular forum. Especially considering I espoused no links to government involvement at all.

If you want real though, fine. I've heard an actual Marine Corps Sniper say that there was no way that Oswald could have gotten three direct hits with an Italian bolt action rifle in seven seconds. He literally said "it couldn't be done." I'm pretty sure I'd trust an expert sniper over what my government told me to believe in this matter any day.

All I know is I was at Dealey Plaza, on the sidewalk next to the Grassy Knoll taking pictures, my camera slipped from my hand and broke. I feel very strongly that there was some conspiracy behind it, as none of the photographs came out.

It was heavily discussed with my friends at the time (mid- 1990s), and we came to a logical conclusion. Jerry Jones had Kennedy killed so that he could get Deion Sanders under the salary cap - which really was an amazing amount of fore-sight on his part.

Also, it's just as plausible as any other conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Read the profiles? Sometimes they don't ever read the replies to the messages you were sent. I cannot understand how someone asks me a question that I had already answered in a previous message.

Truth then...

I've got a 1/4" deep depression in my right leg the size of a dime. I got it by slamming my shin into the trailer hitch on the back of the truck, and, like a man, I let it bleed until I got home and never went to get the appropriate stitches put into it.

Which story do you want? For most of my scars I try to have at least three stories: The truth, the B.S. story, and the total B.S. story. I generally give people the option of which one they want, but they are only allowed to ever hear one!

Very little. The way I look at it, I was looking for a job when I got this one.

I don't know... I think I'd like to go out with a Miley Cyrus or a Lindsey Lohan. Not because they are "bad girls" or for any romantic reason, but because quite frankly, I think they could both use a positive influence in their lives.


If I have to choose purely based on sexual attraction though, I'd have to say Jenna Fisher (from the Office - American version).

Club Paradise

There are so many good one liners in that movie, and the interaction between Robin and Peter O'Toole is just classic.

It doesn't have to be a free market to have everything for sale. There's an old adage: Everything and everyone has a price, and you'd be surprised how cheap you'd go. That's why greed is considered a "deadly sin," we all have it.

Howdy!

Just click recent posts, find a topic that makes you go "hmm" and start saying crazy stuff. The next thing you know you'll have a bunch of friends. Worked for me!

No one's ever asked me to Skype, but it would depend, as it does require one to give out personal information.

Much for the same reason I don't trust anyone that asks me to "yahoo message," I would feel leery of Skype. If someone isn't willing to use the message system built into the core of the dating site to bring me to a point of being comfortable with them, then I automatically assume that they are up to no good.

I guess what I'm saying is trust has to be built, and if someone isn't willing to understand that I'm not ready to go that far yet, then they weren't for me.

Actually, that's not true, and history bares out its fallacy. There was a reason the Sherman Anti-trust Acts were passed at the beginning of the 20th Century. Large corporations (i.e. Standard Oil of Ohio, Carnegie Steel, JP Morgan Banking) had gotten so large that they were able to actually stop the creation of new business - and their competition in this so called free market - from even opening their doors.

They did this much in the same way the Saudis are currently trying to put "frackers" out of business. You cut the price and even take a short term loss if necessary, in order to put start up companies with smaller margins out of business. Morgan did it with the banks (still are if you ask me), and Rockefeller did it with petroleum just to give examples.

If not for government intervention, these giants would have owned the entire marketplace and we'd of all been working for the "company store." Remember those, especially in the coal industry? Tell me how that is free market, to be so large that you can force your employees into your debt?

Deregulation has caused three recessions and two major depressions. The entire concept of "too big to fail" is counter-productive of the free market system and, in my opinion, the Sherman Trust laws should be used again.

The truth is America hasn't been a capitalist system since the 1890's. Our best growth and prosperity - the 1950's - actually occurred under a system that was more socialism that capitalism. Tax rates for the wealthy were as high as 91%, and the money was used to give housing and education to veterans, and build the infrastructure upon which our country moved its goods. Wages were considered reasonable, as the average blue collar job paid a modern equivalent of $35-40 an hour. Unions were strong then (more socialism) and the concept of a "reasonable profit" pervaded. CEOs only made 20 times what there employees did (as opposed to the 3800 times they average today) so we had a stronger buying class.

The thing about capitalism that is forgotten is that it is not the corporations or the wealthy that create jobs. Neither one of these has ever created a job that wasn't absolutely essential to the profit model. What actually creates jobs is a strong buying class. When employees make a decent wage, they buy things - houses, cars, tvs, clothes, trinkets. It is the ability to make purchases that causes an economy to grow, and if left to its own devices, capitalism will not stay on that course, because it has basic greed at its core.

Reminds me of the line from the musical "Paint Your Wagon:"

Horace Tabor: You can't get a woman for money!

Irish Jack: I'd like to see you get one without any.

To answer the OP's question, it is "strutting" in electronic format. Much like a peacock spreading his tail, the male dating site user must post in the rate my profile sections to say "look at me!!"

Why is it hard? Simple, humans are naturally social creatures, so the idea of letting someone go is scary, especially if one actually cares for the person.

Having been through this very thing, I know what you mean, but how far is too far for you? This kind of behavior won't go away, an established cheater will always continue, especially if you keep forgiving them. So it is best to treat it like pulling off a Band-Aid. Sure, it's going to hurt when you leave them, but it causes much more cumulative pain to allow someone to treat you in this fashion time after time.

In that case, I'll stand by my original statement.

Direct harm (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded area) is already somewhat illegal, but there are many forms of bigotry and hatred that we already give public platforms. Some of those platforms are hardily endorsed by either side of the political spectrum. I'm sure you've heard some TV or radio personality say something along those lines and have said to yourself "that is such B.S.." I know I have.