n.j. governor resigns, admits gay affair
thu aug 12, 9:51 pm .
trenton, n.j. - in a stunning declaration, gov.
I was thinking that too, Stinkypantz. He's awful darned cute.
Well, the gay thing is obviously a non-issue for me, and I've never seen any logical reason why infidelity makes a person unfit to hold public office. But the fact that he gave a job to a lover who had no actual qualifications for that job, that's really dodgy. Stupid, too. Gosh, New Jersey sounds like a very exciting state.
things are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.
example: if i offer you dog piss or a dove bar is that really a choice?.
only possible things happen.
I tend to believe in fate AND free choice, even though I know it's a paradox (but I love paradoxes). We do have our natures, but we can choose to go against our natures. I've noticed, however, that events often seem to have a way of bringing us back in line with our natures whether we like it or not.
I don't see why we necessarily have to see god-thingy (if there is one) as being omniscient and "knowing" it all ahead of time, anymore than we have to see him/her/it as necessarily only good. Perhaps god (whatever it is, if anything) does not "know" things at all, maybe he just is things. But then, I don't really understand what "knowing" is, exactly.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
I didn't notice. I can be very irritating anyway so it's understandable
Ah, English men, sigh. Maddening yet adorable, and vice versa.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
FD: (edited to add name)
Yes, but the point was that some people do experience something they call mystical or god or something outside the normal things we experience with our other senses. That experience may or may not point to an outside source of the experience. But the fact that we can't measure such a possible source or its possible effects doesn't logically mean that it's just not there.
I would have edited my post for possibly sounding bolshier than I really meant to, but you copied it into your message so there's no point. Please excuse me anyway, I got a little irritated, but shouldn't have been rude.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
FD
I don't understand this. How would you know if you were standing in front of a mountain?If we can't measure them, they are indistinguishable from nothingI can't see how this statement can be supported. I can be standing in front of a mountain and simply not have the tools to measure it. You might say, but the tools exist. And I would answer that the mountain existed before the tools existed, or could have.
What? I don't understand what you don't understand. I experience the mountain, or think I do, whether i have tools to measure it's height. Surely my point was obvious? Or are you just winding up the silly American cow?
this is really for the guys, but i know the woman here will have some great insights for us stupid men so i hope y-all will offer up your best.. when the woman i am with starts to tear up or cry i feel totally helpless and useless.
this is one of the most dreaded situations i as a man can ever find myself in.
my older brother, the retired police chief, would get angry if a woman started to cry when he was writing her a ticket, he felt it was an act.
It just about kills me to see anybody cry. I hardly ever cry but if I do, I don't want to be cuddled, I just want to be left alone to get on with it. But if someone tells me off for crying I will NEVER forgive them, nothing makes me angrier. I am rarely inclined to cry for purposes of manipulation, as it seems childish and dishonest and only pisses people off anyway. I did try it once with a bureaucrat in a difficult situation, and he was hard as rocks, told me to get a hold of myself. I guess I'm just not that cute when I cry.
If a man cries I find that very sad, and if an old man cries it's just heartbreaking. One thing I have learned about men is if they do cry (genuinely, not manipulatively), they really don't want you to crawl all over them with comfort. A slightly sympathetic look and a sock on the arm is plenty. Have I got that about right?
woo hoo, robyn!
three years of ecstasy in apostasy.
okay well, maybe it wasn't all ecstacy.
Hail to the Emperor (Empress?). 
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
Of course we can measure emotions. Dogs can measure emotions.
Um, how? You can measure some physiological effects and say they correlate to the emotions, but I don't see how you can measure emotion. Not empirically anyway, only anecdotally. But heck, maybe I missed a new development. Edited to add:
If we can't measure them, they are indistinguishable from nothing
I can't see how this statement can be supported. I can be standing in front of a mountain and simply not have the tools to measure it. You might say, but the tools exist. And I would answer that the mountain existed before the tools existed, or could have.
i thought about this topic last night for the board when watching one of my favorite movies.. 1. the man from snowy river- the part when they are going after the expensive colt and they get to the edge of the cliff and all the other riders stop and "jim" keeps going and leaps down the cliff after the wild horses.
i absolutely love that part of the movie...everytime its on i have to watch it, if not just to see this part only.. 2. love and basketball- when she tells him she will play for his heart...awwww first time i started crying.
and then the music they had playing in the background made it even worse.
DantheMan,
Fargo - The scene where Marge has the blonde sociopathic bad guy in the back of her cruiser, she's talking to him and he's not responding - "Don't you know that there's more to life than money? Don't you know that? And it's a beautiful day." Frances McDormand was so great in that movie.
are you my long lost brother? That's the exact first scene that came to my mind. That very one.
Also:
The scene in Wings of Desire where the boy is being harshly scolded by his mother and the angel passes through and you get the feeling the boy has maybe sensed him and gotten a little comfort.
There's a movie called Kolya, about a boy who's mother flees some communist country, I'm not clear which. She leaves her little boy behind in the care of a man she barely knows, he's probably an ex-lover. He doesn't want care of a child, he's just a drinking philanderer, although a perfectly decent person, but not a parent. There's this scene where he puts the kid in the bath, which has a European style shower fitting, with a flexible cord so you can move it around. The man goes out, and from outside he hears the boy talking to his mother on the shower head, crying and begging her to come back. I can cry just writing about it.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
FD: So you're saying that since we have no criteria for measuring mystical experiences, we should believe and behave as if they must necessarily signify nothing? We can't measure emotions either, but they often signify very important things, or so it seems to me.
