Anything with Michelle Pfeiffer in it has traditionally been my favourite posters. I guess these days I'd go with Tricia Helfer, she makes a terrific poster. And why yes, there is a theme. Tall? Blonde? Way out of my league? I'd love to see you on a poster

The internet is like a jar of jellybeans and one of the jellybeans is shocked and intimidated by all the colours of the other jellybeans they're stuck in jar with. He just wants all the jellybeans to be different shades of other blue jellybeans like him or maybe some red ones and green ones in defined groups, to be interesting but definitely not this crazy assortment of any insane colour all over the place and they're all dramatic deviations from each other.

What's crazy is outside the internet the majority of people believe everybody else is just a different shade of jellybean, with maybe one or two other colours in defined groups. Hence shocked when stranger helps carry shopping, then runs off with shopping. It's like the first thing people will joke about on an internet forum and yet the last thing anyone would think of at the supermarket, is one of the two an alien species interacting?

Point is half the crazies on the internet would seem remarkably like your regular neighbours in person, you just don't see them with an open door on their thoughts in person so often so can safely assume they think a different shade of your jellybean instead of a deviant incompatibility, which is far more objectively logical.

In other words the internet teaches us only to be more scared of your neighbours from now on

I think any social commentary would recognize the traditional chaperoned courtship of polite society as the assumption of mainstream has been replaced by fast food take out and the age of serial killers.

Man or woman, it's just not streetwise to routinely go around giving any impression of being indebted, to even the smallest degree with random strangers. Not everybody thinks in a reasonable way even if they appear to act generously. I have personally known people who become enraged if others do not realize they owe a debt when such a person has been generous towards them and that is a frightening situation for a vulnerable woman to place herself in with a physically overbearing stranger.

In modern dating environments it is simply streetwise to meet on neutral grounds at least initially to size up the person you may become alone with. Two people with the same sort of crazy are probably going to be fine together but if their crazy is different to your crazy they may become dangerous to you, thinking they're justified for some irrational reason. They could be a simpleton who aggressively demands sex as repayment for a meal, or they might just try to teach you a lesson like leaving you stranded in an unfamiliar area. These things happen often enough to hear about them routinely from women in social discussions.

Some women apparently give up on dating without introduction completely because of dismay at every guy who invites them out expecting sex before they've even met, as if accepting a meet at all is an agreement in a sex contract.

Personally I'm a guy so I'm around a lot of guys and yeah, mostly arsehats. Prob about 2% of my entire work industry I'd let even look at a good female friend without bailing them up on a wall, I see what they do to other chicks and it's not even a malicious attitude, it's just not giving a **** about other people that drives them to be terrible to everyone. It also means you can't identify the danger unless you watch their behaviour for a bit, initially in conversation they seem fine, even chill. You have to pick up on it or you're in for a big surprise. You don't want most of those guys buying you dinner, they straight up tell each other it's paying for sex and women are all kinds of b1tch if they don't give it up.

Wait wait wait, gift bag? Does it have licorice?

The question and the profile pic are just so perfectly matched

Just don't tell Nicole Kidman it makes you look younger or mercenaries will start tailing you.

Hi there

I love lamp.

13C/55F
night time
raining
as always watch out for killer spiders, snakes, fish, octupii, platypi, jellyfish, crocs, sharks, giant eagles, giant lizards and large angry women.

Well it seems a bit non-sequiteur for Stone to make a comment like Nazism killing more Russians than Jews since the primary qualifier for mass execution on the Eastern Front was being a Russian Jew, the first ghetto massacres were Jewish sectors in occupied Soviet cities and a good number of new inmates at death camps were being shipped from the Eastern Front on the return trip of supply trains, since Himmler himself had noted too much psychological toll on his troops performing mass killings personally, so preferred the use of industry to murder.

However it is certainly true that Soviet intellectuals and public officials of any kind were also marked for summary execution, in fact the Ukrainian SS Gauleiter (provisional governor) remarked in his diary words to the effect, "I like to meet Soviet prisoners over dinner, but if I see one at my table who is my equal I must have him shot immediately."

My point is I think it's splitting hairs to get caught up in how Nazis justified mass murdering civilians in occupied territories when the act itself, no matter who you're doing it to is unjustifiable. Anyone who can build death camps is way beyond any need to split hairs over who they hated the most.

With that said, it is totally fair for Jewish people to make citation of the affair. And equally fair for modern CIS populations to do the same, in turn for their like sufferings. And that each would be more concerned about their own experience, being so incredibly horrific, to be expected to also doll out more emotional energy with sympathy for other demographics that also suffered, unless they were feeling emotionally generous. I mean, say you mourn your own G-Grandparents, maybe you're already drained too much to also mourn your neighbours on their behalf, and all the ones in the next county, the next country and halfway across the continent. Maybe you've only got enough energy to worry about yours, being such a terrible thing, tortured to death, etc. Drain the life out of anyone just thinking about it happening to your own family.

So I don't think we really need to make Israel cry for the CIS nations and vice versa, they've all plenty to cry about for themselves and that's fair.
I think Mr Stone is being a bit sensationalistic if he expects any differently, perhaps as a marketing exercise for his upcoming film.


However I will say that I agree with his contention that Hitler has been popularly misrepresented, although I do not believe it has anything to do with Jewish media ownership, I think well meaning Christians and also good natured secular types are also behind it and I understand perfectly their reasoning, although like Mr Stone I don't personally advocate dishonesty even with good intentions. Explaining what the misrepresentation is and why will clear things up a bit.
Hitler is portrayed as a fool in western propaganda and subsequent media, including current entertainment media bar one film, which was extremely controversial for portraying him as too likable and not foolish enough (the German film Downfall). Even documentarians describe Hitler as foolish, manic, raving, cowardly. Actors portraying him are specifically cast and scripted to be uncharismatic above all, to the extent of being asked to create a distaste among the audience beyond the role of an historical psychopath. The rather ignorant assertion of this tact is that Hitler devotion was a result of Svengali powers and mass hypnosis.
This abandonment of truth and realism is to discourage neo-worship as an antihero, which as the popularity of fictional characters like Darth Vader, or inaccurate depictions of mobsters as rebellious larrikins merely being dealt their hand and making the best of it, shows people can be prone to.

Uncharacterised fact research shows Hitler was certainly a thug and of that, a mere thug, no genius, not even particularly intelligent although at various times, to various degree quite delusional. It also shows he was tough as nails, was the very first to leap over a table and throw the punches in a streetfight and that's where he won most of his fanatical early friendships among combat experienced soldiers and the respect of high ranking officers.
His military record is greatly misrepresented, he volunteered for the single most dangerous field assignment as a message runner, whom were specifically targeted by enemy snipers and expected to sprint across open ground between trench complexes during fire exchange, often skirting or crossing enemy salients. General heroism won his Iron Cross 2nd class and single handedly capturing an enemy machine gun post with nothing but a pistol won him IC 1st class and the offer of promotion and reassignment, which he refused to remain in his dangerous post. It was during this time that some of his most devoted followers from within and outside his company were won and he became popular with introductions. His social networking really started with his fanaticism in the field, although some like his company commander found him unremarkable and didn't understand the popularity. But the section commander did. And it sort of went like that.
During the failed Munich Putsch documentarians often claim he cowardly fled whilst his comrades were killed when facing off against police, eyewitnesses contend however that he attempted to charge at the police line with rounds whizzing over his head and his comrades were forced to drag him away, closing ranks around him as they did so and being wounded/killed in the process.
The description of his streetfight with numerically superior communist rioters at Brunswick talks of a brutal melee in which the nascent brownshirts and Hitler himself readily sustained mortal combat for hours and put down the extremist left wing coup where local police and military were unable to do anything about it. A local Duke and Duchess of the deposed monarchy became fervent Nazi devotees following this battle and this won him more introductions.
He really single handedly fought his way to equal standing among the Freikorps and Stahlhelm, which by comparison were concerted efforts by deposed military infrastructure to provide social order under Treaty restrictions. It is a bit fanciful to assert this was done by foolishness and powers of hypnosis when it is much easier to believe something like that happens with merit. In one explanation you assert everyone is an idiot and the more believable contention is that people aren't stupid and only follow those they have genuine reason to believe in.

And that's both the lesson of Hitler and unfortunately the reason for his misrepresentation. Just as a serial killer can also be a wonderful clown at children's parties and hold down a perfectly healthy family unit and community friendships, whilst they murder compulsively in their spare time; so too Hitler could only have attained his position with genuine merits of character, things to look up to and respect and yet at the same time was a raving psychopath whom was knowingly instrumental in pathological homicides and mediaeval social policies.

I would support an Oliver Stone film portraying a more realistic Hitler because I think in this day and age we need to grow up enough to stop treating the general public like retarded children incapable of thinking for themselves or making conscious decisions. We need to recognize that dangerous people like Hitler don't come from alien spaceships, nor are they the bully victim nobody wants to be, it's just as likely to be the footy quarterback nobody messes with, the successful and charming lawyer everybody likes, the heroic medal winner of an Army Rangers platoon.
When we portray Hitler and his inner circle as foolish buffoons all we're really doing is continuing a nasty tradition of socially victimizing the uncharismatic for no reason other than distaste. Hitler wasn't the little bedwetter you bullied in school, he was the scrapper who knocked you out and spent the next three days ranting about it by himself in the yard. And nobody followed him because they had diminished capacity, it was because they had intelligent reasoning. Goering was a fighter ace and proven tactician and combat leader, Ludendorff was a five star General, Duke and Duchess of Brunswick were educated by the world's best private tutors from birth, etc., etc., etc.
And he was also a raving lunatic, not any kind of genius, completely full of crap in any academic conversation and largely, a psychopath that kind of needed a fairly regular punch in the face and told to stfu if you ask me, but that would be illegal. Misrepresented but not misunderstood I'd say.

And as I said earlier, I perfectly understand why.

I guess you could try concealing your willie in relatively innocuous items and presenting them to her. You could put it in a box of chocolates for example and rest them on a waist high table and stand behind the table, then offer her a chocolate.

If there were killer robots from the future chasing people through time, it would be a big factor.

It's a little expensive but if you have a Realdoll made in the likeness of the person's profile photo, then you can feel safe bringing someone with you to the meet and it's also someone familiar to the person you're meeting, you just may have to do like their voice and yours so the Realdoll can join in the conversation.
I mean who would attack someone who turned up outside your house with a Realdoll made in your likeness, holding its dead hand out the window to wave it at you when they arrive?

Complex evolutionary diversity describes our biological machines and if you inhibit any intrinsic system the result is a potential of unnatural psychopathy.

You've probably got bigger problems if you blindly trust someone you've only known for a short time.

Some degree of anxiety in a freshly burgeoning relationship is perfectly normal, the trick is to relax and keep a bead on being true to yourself and with a little patience you start to collect the common grounds between how you each express yourselves until you start to get each other without second guessing what the other might actually mean by what they say every time they speak. Just take them at face value and let it build.

Once you've been in previous relationships it's easy to forget that it's a time consuming process to get to the same place with a new person. We always want to just pick up where we left off with someone new and it doesn't work that way. You have to start all over again from stranger and you shouldn't just plain go around trusting strangers. Get serial killed that way ffs.

Science can only be concertedly described by what it is in practise, which is this and only this and nothing else whatsoever but this:
You must start with a falsifiable hypothesis.
You must show testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature.
Your conclusions must be subject to peer review.

It is not politics, it is not an opinion about anything, it is not a final conclusion about anything, it is merely a method in which to correctly investigate actual phenomenae, in order to provide functioning systems.

The only possible relationship science can have with religion is investigation of modern scriptural references for their historical accuracy with respect to original linguistic forms and cross cultural influences. Science can argue about scriptural point matter but it has no bearing upon any supernatural assertion such as the existence of the divine. It may be relevant to people but it isn't to science, you can't engineer a better television set based upon whether or not there is a God.

Discuss this with your wife, not us feller.

Intimacy is more about emotions and sex can be just mechanical.

Sounds like the hardest person to trust is your own judgement when it comes to picking who to date. This can happen to anyone, don't stress or take it as some sort of judgement, any of us easily fall into that trap. The trick is to notice it before it causes you really difficult problems and take stock on how to improve your selection of suitors. We all have to do this to try to wind up in healthy relationships, it's way too easy not to.
Best of luck to you in any case, try not to take the impression that there's some kind of conspiracy of men against women out there, it really comes down to you picking the wheat from the chaff. You're the one with the power over who you date.

I've heard it said from men and women in happy marriages, occasionally not commonly, that they knew the other was the person they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with from the moment they laid eyes on them. A rather odd thought if it's just lust and a completely pointless statement if a lie.

Not exactly the same thing, but related: I often know in less than a minute of observation whether or not I want to hang around a particular stranger or would much prefer to either distance myself from them or give them a wide berth if I can't. I don't like unpleasant people, nor do I like being around people who just don't get me, both are just pointless trouble.
On the other hand I often know in about the same period whether a stranger is someone I would like to hang around with a bit more, whether they seem familial or just entertaining in a positive way.
Of course and most people I can't get a read on so instantly most of the time, it's just the ones I definitely don't want to hang around or the ones I'd kind of like to that stand right out, often instantly.
It's pretty easy to liken that anecdotal experience with love at first sight, if a woman who was attractive to me happened to also be one of the strangers I feel comfortable with and also happened to be interested in me and single/available, it would certainly be a serendipitous occasion but there also needs to be a touch of circumstantial luck about it, since the rare times that may happen circumstances can easily conspire to render it a ships passing in the night scenario where you barely get to say hello to each other due to present engagement or commitment, she might be a paramedic rendering aid and a little busy to hand out her phone number for example.