the_tiger_striped_cat

oh yeah . Just jokin I agree completely. Believe it or not HBK, but this pain will hopefully be good for you. Events like this put a mirror in front of you. You should know that a mature man would not say things like "I don't take rides from strangers", or play these constant games over and over again. You two are attached to each other in a bad way, you are in denial, and I bet 2 to 1 that you end up contacting her again. But please, prove me wrong. I think you have a lot of self discovery that you need to engage in. I also bet it doesn't work with this other guy. me too. I figured I'd do it with a bag over my head. That way there's no mess for people to clean up. Agreed.

Oh come on. I know you can do better than that. There are general rules. That's all I'm looking for. I know everyone is different but. Wires or no wires? Round glasses or squareish? Jeans or no Jeans? Is there such thing as Mature shorts? Who cares if everyone has a different face, should I get giant thick black frames? Of course not . All thing equal, what are you're likes. I'm trying to find out what not to get as much as what I should get. I'm just looking for general fashion advice. Even if you know nothing about me, you can still point me to the right direction. These people know nothing about me specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=22&pname=styletips.html But they can still give me general tips.

1) I need to get glasses. What styles, frames, brands, etc. do you think looks good on a guy? 2) I'm a graduate student and pretty much anything goes fashion wise (no screened Ts with logos, and less Ts in generals). With my move to glasses I'm looking to put together a more mature wardrobe. I'm thinkin of moving to more collared shirts and button ups. Can shorts every look mature on a man? How about this guy: link removed If he does look mature, what makes it so? How about jeans? I figure if I wear nice button ups with jeans, its just as good as kakais? What do you think? If anyone has any pictures they can find on the web as examples, I would appreciate it. you could look at link removed link removed link removed Sorry the question is so general.

Thank you for tackling such a difficult question. So, all things equal--same person, same psychology, same everything--do you think that the longer someone pines for someone the more they loved that person. Note: I'm talking about everything equal, and don't think I'm talking about myself. I'm dating around. I want to know, that's all. But I don't believe that everything happens for a reason. If you do, maybe you should google for "Nick Berg". But I do see what you are saying. Thanks again.

What if wasn't looking for a relplacement. What if he gave hime self time to heal, let's say for a year he didn't date. Then he tired to look for someone. Take two people that are PERFECT for each other A and B would of had the PERFECT life together. Now say person A met person C first. With this person A has a decent relationship. Say they care enough to stick it thorugh until marriage and then some years after until they divorce. It really sucks that A and B didn't get together because it really would of worked great. But what happens to B? A would of been B soulmate. of course he would never have known this because C had A first. Now say C dumps A so B really does have a chance with A? So how long before B falls in love with A. A week? Ok maybe not. A month? A year? Depending on the timeframe B knows more and more about A is more likely to fall in love, and A gets more and more attached to B and forgets about C more and more. But say there is a minimum timeframe whereby B would go back to C if C asks for B back, because B is still attached to C (rationally or irrationally in love,you pick). Lets say that C just ask for B back right before this threshold value is met. So B has a hard time leaving A but eventually goes back to C. A goes back for any number of reasons from attachment disorders, to actually still loving C. But the point is that A and B never had a chance together. Now how does B act? Of course it will be proportional to how much B is ABLE to love A. If B is the type that doesn't love that much---some people are likke that-- B won't pine for A much at all. But if B does have a lot of love to give, wouldn't B pine for A for a long time. First of all, you have to accept the premise that B could love A to that level. That years later B still misses A and the signature of his love is that B is still going through pain. I want to know if you believe that its possible for B to go to pain for years out of true love, or if it's because he's obessing? Is it at all possible for B to be mature and go through really really bad pain. Or does bad pain just mean that he must be obsessing? And if you don't accept that premise, let me modify it. Let's say that A still has feelings for B, and C. A doesn't even knokw that B knows. So As indecisiveness drags B through hell. Is it possible now for B to through this level of pain, being constantly reminded of As love for B?

You're obession comment intrigues me. So is this at all possible. Lets say that this guy looks for love so dilligantly. He really looks hard. He's mature, his tears for this girl are the same tears you'd see from the husband kneeling beside his wife that is dying of cancer as he clutches her hand. Maybe it's not true love, it may never be that strong. But if after years of trying so hard to move on, trying if he still does cry for her. Is he still obsessing? How does one tell the difference? Now before you get so pessimistic and say to yourself, "She didn't care for this guy one bit, he's obviously obessing, and he's pethetic becasue she doens't care about him." Well everyone needs to understand that we don't live in a perfect world. People make bad choices, end up in bad relationships, get divorced, and sometimes don't realize their true feelings. It could be possible if things worked out differently that they would be together. And let's say for argument sake, that she is unsure about the life with her fiance. Let's say it's the type of relationship where the engagement almost is broken off, or is broken off. Is that what makes the man's tears nobler? I almost want to say yes. But why would how she feels have anything to do with how genuine the love from the guy is. Why are his tears less virtueous the less and less she cares for him. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

Ok this is going to be hard to ask, but I expect it will be interesting. Hypothetically, say I guy gets his heart broken by a girl. He fights for her, he lets her go, and he still loves her after she moves away (lets say she goes back to her ex that she knew longer and was still attached to). Say the girl still thinks about the guy after she leaves him. Not enough to go back to him, but enough to wonder if she's making the right choice. But say this guy cries for her for years. He goes through a pain that only a few on this forum have been through. It doesn't take 6 months to get over her, it takes years. All the while he's still looking for true love. He believes that "the only cure for a woman is another woman." He recognizes the fact that if he found someone he could fall in love with that he might have gotten over this girl faster. But since he didn't he still went through unbelievable pain. When I say he cried for years because of her, I mean this literally. He even writes in his final words to her that he will always love her, even when he's married with children, he will still love her (in a special way of course, loving his wife more). But I have a question. Did he truly love her? Is it possible to love someone like Romeo and Juliet did, rationally? How does he know it wasn't some psychological problem? Maybe it's something from his childhood. Maybe he was just attached to her. People stay in bad relationships for 10+ years because they are attached to the person. So what do you think is the evidence (or signatures) that this person really did love. That the pain was only because of pure, unadulterated love, and not from any other reason--just love. Maybe possibilities are: -he still actively is searching for someone else -he only wants her to be happy -he never hates her (I've seen many people end up hating there exs, maybe this is a good one). -he And maybe as a follow-up question. Say a year later or maybe 2 she comes back to visit the hometown. Say she brings her now fiancé. All three of them meet for the first time. How does this guy act? If he really does love her in the strongest and matures of ways, how does he act around the girl he would die for when she is introducing the man she is going to marry? What if she asks him point blank, "Do you still love me?" How does he respond. How do you expect someone who is unbelievably strong yet has the strongest of mature loves act? Does he hold back the tears or is he naturally happy that she is marrying? Sorry this is so long, but I guess I would appreciate general comments. How do you know you have the strongest of loves and it's not something else?

Thanks for your responses!

Anyone ever break off an engagement? If so, why?

Im curious about quality. Not quantity. If it's just "the think you do" to say "i love you" before you go to bed every night, then that just isn't as meaningful as some other situations. I'm curious. When do you say it? But I'd say once a day is well above average. Although you're the only respondant so far.

This is a survey not a advice request. How often DO YOU say it

How often did/do you say "I love you" to a SO. At the end of a phone call? Before you go to bed? Let's say that these two count less. But hey, I want to know of often these 3 words are exchanged. Do men say it more often, or women? Discuss... UPDATE: To get the correct responses. I guess this quesiton is directed at someone who is or has been in a long term relationship. If you haven't then please refrain from responding.

Was it ambigous when you started NC. If you begged and pleaded and cryed and wrote poems, then did NC, and then sent her the card, I bet she might miss you. But don't get your hopes up too much. The think about certain women, is that they can still miss you, still care about you, still want to spend time with you, even call you, send you emails, and make it sound like you'll get back together one day, but EVEN THEN, there maybe something holding them back, fear of commitment, something you did to her, issues she has, or in my case attachment to an ex boyfriend. Good luck though.

I agree with a second opinion. If they screwed up the first time.... it's rare for someone your age to have cancer. Some cancer is hereditary though. But you're young, you probably caught it early I've imagined going through what your going through. You're strong than I am for this. You will be in my prayers, but no matter what happens I KNOW everything will be fine.

MetallicAguy - Desired is correct. Doing crunches will help you with a tone stomach, but it won't reduce the fat there--and if you got a lot of fat covering up the muscles, it won't matter how many crunches you do. This is called "spot reduction". Search for it on google. It is widely believed to be a myth, although my mom swears by it. You lose fat all over. You've never seen someone with a skinny tummy and fat legs/arms. Have you? So to lose fat (first obvious loss will in your face, then will probably END with your tummy--but you do gradually lose all over) you need to keep a calorie deficit. I mean excersise and diet, burning more calories than you take in. A pound of fat weights about 3000 calories, so you can probably lose about 2 lbs of fat a week with a -1000 calorie diet (depending on the calories you burn in the day.) xXillusion - even though you're not fat, you'll probably have to do a similar traning routine to someone who is a little fat. You'll probably do more crunchies or stomach workout though and less dieting. But if you want to be tone, you have to lose body fat. Get your body fat percentage checked - many gyms should do it. For women the minimum body fat is like 13 percent. So if your bodyfat is like 22 percent, you actually might need to lose a few pounds, to be tone, even if you don't consider yourself fat. But either way, you'll definitely have to workout your stomach. I'm not sure the best thing for you, you should probably do a variety of excercises. Leg lifts, "building a bridge" with your body (only elbows and toes on the ground for 1 minute, crunchies, crunchies with weights, jackknifes (google "abs jackknifes" without the quotes) and other. Just do an intense ab workout for 10 minutes a day for a month (and do something cardio if you can). If you notice no difference (take pictures), then change it up and try something different. Good luck

Ladies. If a guy is wearing a button up shirt (lightblue,with nice jeans, untucked). Do you prefer him to have his cuffs unbuttoned or buttoned? Thanks again, Tiger

Anyone do one of these things? Can someone tell me how they work, or any surprises you might have experienced? Any tips besides the obvious and platltudlnous? sorry about the double post.. stupid back button

Your life is going to end some day too, so why live? This is not true. Some people think this because the law sometimes seems to punish ignorance. But look up actus reus and mens rea. And there's something called criminal neglence, which is not treated as the same as something like murder, and we have insanity pleas. But let me ask you, can you honestly hold the boy responsilbe for stealing a cupcake when he was too young to even know what stealing meant? But the argument goes MUCH deeper than that. I want you to tell me why they ignored the signs. Is the correct thing to do to follow a path that leads to God? If it is, why would someone do the wrong thing? Why? If someone ignores the signs, then why did they do that. Basically, for every response you give me, I want you to ask yourself, "Why did they do that?" Because the answer is that they didn't fully understand the signs or the implications, if they did then they wouldn't choose the wrong path. I mean why would someone ACTIVELY choose HELL, it doesn't make sense at all. If the principal asked me, why didn't you listen to all those other people, I could give a thouand reasons. One of the reasons is, "I am inherently evil so I will always through the ball at the kids head." Another one is, "Even though I saw all the signs, I must of not have understood them because I did the wrong thing, but I'm supposed to do the right thing, so I must of made some mistake in my judgement, because we all agree that my judgement isn't correct. Yeah i guess that's a way to get out of it that I forgot to mention. All of this assumes that God punishes (or saves you from Hell) justly. But God punishing someone for something they didn't even know is wrong (ignorance) is not just. So if you want to say that God doesn't punish justly then you don't have to worry about the paradox.

What you were referring to is called snipping. If you wan't me to snip more parts of your quotes then I can do that. But after rereading your quotes, it's seems like you're annoyed because I'm replying to all your points. And the article says you can snip posts when appropiate, but for a debate we can look at another resource (I have many) that says: "This set of characteristics leads naturally toward a preference for the traditional Internet (geek/academic/Usenet) style of using carefully trimmed quotes followed by the reply. This allows point-by-point inline rebuttals, minimizes bandwidth use, is a format well-suited for digesting and archiving, and minimizes the ability of various mail programs to mangle an entire thread." My response is ENTIRELY self contained, even someone that wasn't familiar with the discussion can see what I was referring to. But EVEN IF I'm wrong--that bottom posting is the way to go--you definitely haven't shown that it's wrong. It may just be arbitrary. I know it my not jive with your personal preference, but you haven't given me any evidence that I shouldn't do this besides the retorcial response, "...a tad bit excessive, wouldn't you say?" Actually, this makes so much sense that Google decided to revamp their google groups to discussion format: I hope this isn't an appeal to popularity. I mean, Switch and I went through the same things and we came to different conclusions. Why is his opinion more valueable, because it agrees with yours? I think you're confusing the issue. Of coure the A can be good to the person! Don't you susppose there is someone out there that could care less about learning, and only wants go get into the good school. For the other benifits. I eat cookies because I think my enjoyment from them trumps the health risks (too much fat, hyperglycimia, etc.) Again, in my mind the problem is ittsy bitsy, but the rewards are very great indeed. Ok here's the deal. I'm going to keep replying in the same manner, because I think it's effecient. But I PROMISE, PROMISE, PROMISE, that I am not taking offense. How can I prove it to you? Maybe we could start the posts with some friendly banter, to add some levity to the gravity that occurs in discussions like these. Maybe something like this: ShySoul how was your new years? I had a great time! I went out and met a couple of girls. I knew them for a while before, but we danced all night. I really like this oen girl but she's so far away. I sent her an email, so I hope she responds. Actually, one of the other girls wanted me to keep her warm so i was hugging her, but I really wanted to be huggint this other girl. Maybe we can start out with something like that? Socrates was such a great philospher because he didn't let things get to him. And if you read some of his "works" or Plato's dilogues you'll see that they always BSed before debating something. Maybe we should try it. It woudl keep the modarators at bay. HA HA! Do I talk about the cookie that much. I don't know why. I just think it is a good analogy. But Now you make me feel bad about using the example previously But to your point, I think you're wrong. It's truly subjective anyways, so there's not much more to say on this point, but I'll trust that the two couples are separated by an intemacy level factor of 500,000,000,000. And I think other's in the fourm probably would agree with me. I could be in it for the closeness right? I mean, say I didn't care about the sex that much, but I cared about the intimacy, but I didn't see a future with this girl. I mean that's plausable right? Actually, that's why I held that girl on new years, I liked the closeness. I wasn't going to go anywher with here, but it felt really good to be close to a woman again. I think this sounds a little off. I'll say it again. If I go out and do everything: speed dating, online dating, meeting people, and you just stayed at home all day, somehow I'm the one not pursuing love. I'm not settling in any way, shape or form. You're just equating sex=settling which doesn't make sense at all. Good. Then we share many similar beliefs. It's not simple at all. My point is that if you make mistakes, then it's not your fault. And sure God doesn't send you to Hell, but he allows you to go to Hell even though you didn't do anything wrong (remember it's not your fault, it was just a mistake.) Now if you don't believe in Hell then that's a different story. But the paradox still stands. Like I said my paradox was what many Bible believing Christians would have to deal with. But do you believe in Heaven? If so, do you believe in Universal Salvation. I'm not judging, just asking. Well I guess this is one of those points where we have assumptions that neither of us can prove. But again my example: Couple 1) Sees a future with the person, but the sex is HORRIBLE, I mean everything goes wrong, she has physical pain the next day, he develops psychological issues, they both regret having sex so early, she might be pregnant, and worst of all the sex is COMPLETELY selfish between the two fo them etc. Make it as bad as you possibily can, but they see a future. Couple 2) Have a strong emotional connection, they care deeply for each other, they would gladly do anything for each other, they are in the sex only to see the other person feel good. The sex is COMPLETELY altruistic. Moreover the sex is AMAZING, MINDBLOWING. I REALLY find it hard to believe that somehow that Couple 2's sex was meaningless while couple 1's sex was somehow infinitely good. I'll just appeal to what I said above. I was talking about the body not the soul. That was the point. Eesshh. I have no idea how you can show me "soul damage". What if everyone told you to jump of a bridge, would you do it? What if everyone told you to kill yourself, are you telling me that you SHOULD actually listen to those people that are telling you that it's ok. I know you'll say that they are not saying that, but that's the entire point. If someone comes in here and says they want to kill themselves, and then 2 people say don't do it, and 4 say do it, you don't listen to what's popular. You don't kill yourself because of WHAT they say, not because of how many people say it. Are you telling me the suicide forum is suddenly useless if there was only ONE professional responding to all the posts? If appeal to popularity lends any credience to an argument WHATSOEVER it is no longer a fallacy. If you were correct then the following could ALWAYS occur: -"Smoking is OK, everyone is doing it." +"It's not OK, look at all the health risks, that's an appeal to popularity." -"I'm not talking about the ATP fallacy, I'm referring to the fact that it should at least 'make you think'. You have just undone the hard resarch of 1000s of logicians and philosophers. You have to at least concede to this. I know you're wrong in this case. Check it out: link removed Oh man! Now you tell me! Sorry. But I probably would have done the same anyways--you know how much I love bottom posting debates! I really think this is a lot more efficient.

Should answer some questions. Aspartame being dangerous is a myth created due to it's shady aproval by the FDA, the rise in brain cancer (which was shown to be statistically insignificant as far as aspartame was concerned), and a related genetic disorder called phenelkentenuria. Whatever the cause, if aspartame did cause problem then millions of people would have had adverse effects. 10 billion cases of soda are sold every year and 30% of it is diet soda. That's quite a large sample size of people who drink diet soda once in a while that have no consistent adverse side effects. And about your weight. There's something called the Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). The more fat/muscle you have, the more calories are needed to sustain that fat/muscle. So the bigger you are the more calories you burn. After that, it's simple thermodynamics. If you take in more calories than you need then you'll get bigger, if you have a deficit, you'll get smaller. It's true that some people have faster metabolisms, but at your age, I seriously doubt this is the biggest factor her. Go to google and check your BMI (Body Mass Index). I'd venture to guess that your BMI is large for your age/height. Now it's true that BMI isn't all that great of a guide, but it's a rough guide. I'd say that you are probably 15lbs overweight to be in the "healthy" zone. I'm not sure, but check it yourslef. If I were you I would make it a resolution this year to be 15lbs lighter by the same time next year, Or maybe 5% less body fat. Good luck.

that's some great info. Im going to try some of it too.

I know it's really hard. I have the same problem. Get rid of your distractions. Try JUST ONE DAY to work for 6 hours straight in a different locale. Do you have some ADD or other problem or is it just other distractions. Personally, I got rid of my netflix account, and cut my cable. I still screw around with my computer, but I find if I go somewhere else I can usually get work done. Many student that know how to study get in good habits of working really hard and keepin good schedules, you need to go to a library and just work. If you get in the habit of just working for hours on end, it will become easier hopefully.

All I can say, is that I think he needs to see a professional. Most of this doesn't sound normal or healthy.

Masturbation for guys is good to a point because it flushes the system. There is a technical term for this, but I promise. I can find the issue of Men's Health that talks about this. But the same issue also says excessive masturbation can lead to premature ejaculation. But as a question to the OP: do you have the same problem when you have sex on a regular basis? Is this a recent problem? Has it happened since puberty? How often do you masturbate?

Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you said, but remember I view more like eating a cookie than smoking. Sex isn't bad for you like smoking, or eating a cookie. So it's more like the same reason you eat sweets. That's why I do it, and it's much much more because remember I do have an intimate connection with this girl, I just don't think there is a future. But I did have to talk about my "paradox" because your confusing the issue like many before you have: don't know=ignorance ignorance=how can you be cupable in the eyes of God, you didn't do anything wrong. Are the signs obvious or not? If they're not then you can consider this ignorance. If they are obvious then why the HECK would you choose to ignore these signs? I mean we are talking ETERNAL SALVATION here! I can't fathom why someone would CHOOSE hell! unintentionally=ignorance Now I've discussed this with other people before, and those that refuse to accept this paradox (which I believe does have a solution) will only confuse the issue. They'll try and dance around the idea getting into free will, how you make the choice (choice of the sprit), or many, many other ways that only confuse the issue. No matter how you slice it, here's how it goes: 1) The choice towards God is the CORRECT choice. 2) Yet some make the WRONG choice. I don't see how you can dispute these premises. But, why would you make the wrong choice? It doesn't make any sense. There are only two mutually exclusive, collective exhaustive conclusions that are both unacceptable to SOME Christians: 1) You knew what you were doing and made the WRONG choice. 2) You didn't know what you were doing. In 1) you made the wrong choice yet knew you were going to hell. Only those that want to go to hell make the wrong choice. As if you were destined to go to Hell. In 2) you are truly ignorant that you are really going to Hell. If you really did know the full implicaitons then you probably would have made different choices to make the right CHOICE.