100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > actionlynx
|
Topic:
Conspiracy theories
|
|
What about that filthy nonce Jimmy Saville, who came from and lived in, that's right, Leeds, where I'm from. Who kept score on a wall in the back of a record shop in Manchester, with fat Cyril, the M.P. Who was given free rein of the hospitals, where he also often visited the morgue, because he was into necrophilia too. Invited to Christmas dinner with the prime minister, knighted by the Queen. A gang of local detectives going around every Friday for roast beef, whiskey and brown envelopes. Yeah, the beast of Yorkshire and the beast of Lancashire where at it for years . We all knew But that's just a conspiracy theory, right? Or Princess Di, there's another Based on what I've read, I'm fairly certain the allegations against Jimmy Savile are true. Too many accusations. 450 alleged victims. A fair amount of circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy? Perhaps. But I don't think it was an organized one. Lots of questions raised within the places that officially turned a blind eye. As far Princess Di? No comment. I don't even want to risk involvement in that mess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Hangout app
|
|
I have never used it.
I have used several other apps though. I have 5 right now, but I only use 4 of them. So far, I have had zero problems with any of the ones I use. And of course, I max out an security settings that are available. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spend way too much time online.
 Seriously, I don't watch t.v. Everything I watch is online. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Wed 04/10/19 10:26 PM
|
|
I looked up the compensation.
$500 - $1000 per episode (There are 11 - 12 episodes per season) And only the American part of the couple gets paid. Nothing for the foreign partner. Travel expenses do not appear to be covered at all. Personally, $12,000 per season is not enough to entice me to put intimate details of my private life out for the world to view for personal entertainment. Especially when I will need at least 1/4 of that money just to pay for the trip. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you actually involved with the show? Or are you just passing the word along?
Because this could be interesting given my situation. I'm just nervous about putting it on t.v. She would like me to visit at the end of this year around Christmas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
When I closed my eyes without reading beyond the OP, that was the first number to pop into my head. Purely random? Coincidence? Or some kind of subliminal suggestion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I'm bored.
Almost all of my cleaning is done. No place I need to go. Can't find anything I want to watch. I can't afford to spend money right now. No interesting nearby places to go for a walk. Etc. Etc. I really wish I could just go play some chess with my friends, except I can't afford to waste 1/3 of a tank of gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is any one good at interpreting dreams. I've had the same dream twice recently. It starts off, I am in the supermarket, when I realize that I am totally without cloths. no one seems to take much notice of the fact, in fact everything else is normal. I am trying to get home desperately, but people keep engaging me, someone asks for directions, someone else asks the time, there is a large delivery when I get home. I must have insecurities I guess. Surfacing from the murky recesses of my unconscious. Does any one else have this sort of dream? Without reading what others have said, here is how I might interpret it based on what I've learned about psychology: You lay yourself bare to people, an open book, but nobody cares. They only take notice of you when they actually want or need something from you. It stresses you out, makes you feel anxious, so you want to get home where you can relax. But even when you do get home, you never get a chance to unwind because there is always something else you need to take care of or do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My memory
I can't remember what happened to it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? Who?? When?!
Oh....Phew! Nobody has won yet. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason, I have never liked how I look when my face is clean shaven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I thought it said something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time away from the Woman smothering him. That is SO TRUE in so many cases, Toody. If you smother a man, generally you will push him away. He needs some independence. And in my experience, women also don't like to be smothered. Pampered perhaps. But not smothered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing beats with ones personality,a combination of right attitude and character,who cares much about someone's physical appearance then? That's how I think now. I didn't always think that way. But then I met some women whom I did not find physically attractive, but they could turn me on just through conversation. That's when I realized I need mental and emotional stimulation just as much or perhaps even more than visual stimulation. Through one of my friends here at Mingle, I learned that there are 2 word for this: Sapiosexuality and Demisexuality If you can turn me on through a combination of intelligence and emotional bonding, then appearances may not even matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
|
|
I am happy to address any and all of your questions... I was brainwashed to think we were spinning on a perilous rock through a vaccuum once too.. then I learned about science... observable, testable, repeatable... All your questions have been addressed.. but I can only get to them one at a time.. first I will tell you.. Bodies of water are always level on the surface and the Earth's surface i scovered in 70+ % water.. Water requires a container .. as do opposing pressure systems... So where is your container for the water on your spinning ball or that keeps your pressure systems from equalizing ? Every photo you have ever seen of Earth from space was ART... not a real photo... same with satellites and the ISS... all CGI Here lies the problem. You offer to answer questions, then you get upset and call names when someone disagrees with your answer. You talk about science, but you do not follow empirical methods. Therefore, your science ends up flawed. When someone points this out, you belittle them. And to claim all photos from space were CGI? That technology did not even exist when the first photos were printed. My dad was involved in the development of that technology. In fact, my dad designed and installed the communications systems on Air Force One back when Nixon was serving his first term as President. Computers were still using archaic analog technology. I used to have the punch cards from them myself. Digital technology was only just beginning to be researched. The compact disk was just a concept at the time, and nothing more. Therefore, the digital technology for CGI wasn't even around yet. If my dad were still alive, I would have him explain this himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Mon 04/08/19 04:42 PM
|
|
Thinking about...
...too much. My mind needs a rest. Then again, so does my body. It has been an eventful -- and stressful -- 24 hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Mon 04/08/19 12:10 AM
|
|
I would really like to see some feasible explanations of gravity, centrifugal force, and centripetal force from the Flat Earth crowd.
Centripetal force is what keeps water from flying off of a round Earth. Gravity is the "string" that tethers it. Centrifugal force is what would cause water to fly of a rotating Earth if there was no gravity. Basic high school physics. And yet based on one post already presented by a certain Flat Earth proponent, a round Earth must have no gravity. (The pour water on a spinning globe argument) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
House keys
|
|
It's possible that someone like the real estate agent dropped the keys, somebody found them, and placed them on an old nail.
Just to be safe, I would change the locks. It doesn't cost much, and it's easily DIY. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
|
|
There is utterly no point in arguing with someone who cannot fathom the word "context".
Every piece of so-called evidence provided thus far has been taken wildly out of context. A photo of a map proves nothing, no matter how many times you show it. Nor does placing Admiral Byrd in front of a flat map mean anything. You are creating your own fictional context based on what you WANT to believe. It is called CONFIRMATION BIAS. Study LOGIC before claiming to be an expert at deductive reasoning. Learn about False Premises and Slippery Slopes and Straw Men. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies to which you turn a blind eye, and try to deflect by pointing fingers at anyone who disagrees. As I said, typical brainwashing tactics. It's called GASLIGHTING. So there is no point in arguing. "The [denial] is strong in this one..." -- Darth Vader (what he was really thinking) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
|
|
‘This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.’ Here is another government document, this time from the FAA, entitled … that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA here. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/about/campus/faa_host/labs/tgf/media/AircraftDynamicsModel.pdf  Not even close to what that report is saying. Anything under Mach 3 cannot escape gravity, and therefore effectively follows a linear trajectory because they fly at a specific cruising altitude. Meanwhile, craft that can achieve sub-orbital, orbital, or even escape velocities follow a ballistic trajectory like ICBMs, rockets, or the space shuttle. Back in the 1980s, Lockheed was developing a ballistic airliner that could go from NYC to LA in 45 minutes. Why would they waste billions of dollars in R&D if they were privy to proof of a Flat Earth? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
