I'd have to agree with you 100%. I had spent a long time in high stress jobs (I was a teacher, but working in residential treatment programs, which included long hours and a LOT of stress). I quit and started looking for what I wanted to do. I had some crappy jobs with bosses who were in serious need of therapy (and a few good jobs/bosses). I was in one job that was pretty good, but I was learning to hate it. I got along well with the boss (only boss I've ever said "F*ck you" to his face -- both of us would blow off steam when needed) said he had to let me go because my work was getting too bad to allow. I agreed, told him I was within a few weeks of quitting, so he helped me get my business up and running.
Basically I learned I am not one who works well for others and that I HAVE to do things my way. (You can psychoanalyze that however you want!) I am a writer, first and foremost (I came VERY close to selling to Star Trek: TNG a few times!), and I realized I had to start creating the life I wanted and that worked for me if I ever wanted any happiness. I realized if I didn't, I'd be angry at everything and everyone, and living on Pepto.
I know there will be a time when I use medications again, but at this point I don't need them. Sometimes I get headaches from lack of sleep, and meds have NEVER helped me with that (actually, meds never were a help to me with headaches and other symptoms like colds). I've learned how to "release" (I can't think of any other word for it) headaches through meditation, or by figuring out what is causing me the headache (as in where is the stress coming from), and being able to deal with it.
I've seen times (like this month), when my entire family comes down with a stomach flu and is sick for several days. I don't know if it effects me, but during that time, I did have two days I was exhausted and had to take long afternoon naps. I don't know if that was how my body dealt with the infection, or if it was from something else.
If/When I need it, I'll use meds, but for now there's been no need. You are right about letting the pendulum stop in the middle. It just seems like it hasn't reached the end of the arc and isn't ready to swing back yet.
Oh, and I never used meds as a cructh. I used them when needed, and may have taken them at times in anticipation of how bad I expected a backache or something to get, but I was basically to damn cheap to spend much on meds unless I needed them.
Sleep is a tricky thing. For a while, when I was starting my business, I'd go for a long time with only 5 hours a night. When I made it through a crunch, I'd sleep 10-12 hours a night. Now I'm back to my regular 7 hours a night (which has always been about "normal" for me).
I would like to get to bed earlier, but now I get to bed around 1-2 am and get up about 7 hours later. I'm also lucky to be able to NOT have to set an alarm clock!
I don't bother with most supplements. I take a few vitamins (like vitamin C), but I stopped taking ALL medication about 3-4 years ago, and stopped all caffiene a year after that.
I've found that I no longer get sick and am in much better health overall than I was before. My guess is because I let my body do what it should, and not get used to artificial aids that are often not as good as what the body can do anyway. I'm 42, and am often told I look 30. When I have my backpack on my shoulder, as I do frequently, I am still mistaken for a student at one of the local universities. I've had gray hairs -- they show up during stress, then fade a few months after the stressful events. My barber has noticed this, too.
I'm not saying I've found a fountain of youth, but I have noticed dropping out of the 9 to 5 world, running my own business on my own terms, and not letting meds fix everything in my body seems to have made a HUGE difference in how I feel, how much energy I have, and (according to others) in how I don't look anywhere near my age.
It's not my way -- the $30 hair trimmer, that is. I use one for my dog and on my beard, but I prefer the barber ship. It seemed like this responder missed understanding the point of the post. I'm not into hunting, or a grease monkey, or many of the "things" stereotypically associated with "manly men" (or even manly men in tights...), but there was something about the conversations in a barbershop when only men gathered there that was different. It was like a different version of guy's night out. There was just a type of "male bonding" that isn't there anymore.
I also prefer being able to sit and relax and, for a change, let someone else do the worrying for me. Maybe it's got to do with having my own business and having to make decisions about it all day long, every day -- even when I'm supposedly not working, that it's nice there's a place where I can let someone else do something for me and have to make the decisions.
Okay, I'm out-geeked with facts. (Of course any emotional reactions/comments/feelings/attitudes are not mentioned at all -- is that because facts are all that matter?)
Did you know that in almost 80% of the cases where married couples buy a new or used vehicle that it is the woman who calls the shots and makes the final decision?
Not when I was married. I stuck with my faithful Jeep pickup and she had her own POS Nissan (which looked really slick, with incredible creature features, but which started falling apart just about when the warranty ran out -- hence it was a POS). It's likely I'll be married again in the not too far distant future. I have enough that I'll be driving what I want and she'll be driving what she wants. If we have kids, we'll do the mini-van thing -- but I will not drive a chick car.
here are some very interesting statistics pertaining to women:
Good for you, you like and respect women. But what's that got to do with whether a car is a chick car or not?
Any of my friends will tell you I'm heavily liberal, but there are 2 areas where I'm strongly rooted to male traditions, and am unlikely to change: 1) I will NEVER own or drive my own chick car, and 2) I will always prefer a barber shop run by men, with male barbers, for men, without stylists. On #2, it's not about whether women can do a job, but that it was nice to walk into a barber shop on a Saturday morning and have "male" conversation going on, and I've never seen it the same in a shop with women barbers.
A woman isn't going to get all gushy over you 'cause you have a 454 under the hood.
Actually, I've never used a car to pick up women. (Although they do think I look cute in my pickup with my golden furred terrier sitting on the seat next to me, looking out.) My current girlfriend was attracted to me because I wasn't the typical groping, aggressive, testosterone filled male who needs horsepower to substitute for anything. She liked that I listened, am sensitive to her needs, and that she can trust me (among other things).
I like driving a vehicle with horsepower. I love being able to flick to 4WD with the pull of one lever and can go offroad into the mountains on weekends. I use it to get away from the city and definitely prefer a vehicle that can deal with the off road trails in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
The only chick car I've ever seen that can come close to that is one you mention: the original Beetle.
Admittedly, in face to face conversation it's impossible for a 300-lb. guy from Detroit to pretend to be a fifteen year old girl, but the point stands. It's the same as any other forum: watch out for falseness and pretension, and don't take anyone at their word.
That's an obvious example. On the other hand, it's easier for someone to create a false personna on the net, and it takes longer to detect because, whether we realize it or not, that first impression sticks.
3) Was this an online dating service?
Together is (or was) a "real life" service.
I don't see a huge advantage to having an online service run by someone with a masters in psychology or family counseling, because it's so difficult to apply anything they've learned in their studies to Internet dating.
Maybe not, but maybe because you don't know what someone with a masters (or even practical experience in treatment) knows. The dynamics of a healthy relationship apply, whether over the Internet or in person. It makes a big difference. For example, their application procedure can specifically screen out people who are trying to put up a front. While it's possible with many services to say you're sensitive, and write info that sounds sensitive, a test like theirs doesn't ask if you're sensitive. It asks a bunch of questions, checks for consistancy, and determines if you're sensitive, insensitive, or insensitive and pretending to be otherwise. (And, before someone takes that literally, that is just an EXAMPLE -- the same would apply to MANY traits.)
Try OKCupid. The system is pretty straightforward.
Looked it over, even signed up. And exactly what is there in OK Cupid to make sure I'm not lying through my teeth about who and what I am?
When I was dating, there were a number of things I'd want to find out quickly about someone so we didn't get excited about each other, then a few months later find a dealbreaker. Things like what's her religion? How tolerant of my beliefs is she? Does she want kids? How many? Is she interested in me because I own my own business, or because I almost wrote for national TV, or does she like me for my other values, other than money or status? Does she save every penny, or does she waste all her pay?
All of these things are screened for automatically on eHarmony. I don't have to ask questions that can offend a first date, like, "Are you interested in me for money, or because I write poetry?" (okay, that's an oversimplification and exaggeration), but the point is many of these topics are not ones you can comfortably discuss with most people until you've dated a while.
It's absolutely free. No "Premium Memberships" crap.
Other than FOSS, you get what you pay for. I'd rather have someone who knows the dynamics of relationship interaction screening out the many women I don't want to meet than have to browse profiles with pictures 10 years old and try to figure out what a person is really like from an enhanced description of themselves.
I met my girlfriend there, and I resent the implication that this automatically means our relationship is "screwed up".
Hmmm... You seem touchy on this topic. Maybe you're the one in 1,000 that works well. On the other hand, if you know you have a good relationship, why is this enough of a tender spot for you that you have to justify it, much less, even pay any attention to what I say?
I'm not a psychologist. I taught emotionally disturbed teens. That included being qualified to give a lot of tests for learning abilities, IQ Tests (not that IQ tests are actually worth while, but you get a lot of other info that tells you a lot about the person than just an IQ number), and a few other tests. Added to that, I had to be able to understand and use the results of a good deal of other tests, which also included becoming familiar with the testing methods used, as well as the tests. (If you stay in some types of residential treatment for a long time, you have no choice but to learn the whole thing, take extra classes, and sometimes add another degree.)
Most of the tests in the magazines you've seen are simple tests that I'm sure you've noticed are almost what is often called "no shit research." It's the kind of stuff the gov. spends millions on and comes to a conclusion (like "pet owners have fun playing with their pets") and everyone hears the results and says, "No shit!" A lot of the tests in mags are more to appeal to a point of view than to be valid.
While a lot of people call it pop psychology, you might want to look into the Myers-Briggs test. I've found versions online that you can take for free. It breaks down everyone into 4 general and 16 specific personality types. It's not about who is compatible with whom, but it does give you an interesting insight into different types of personalities and how other people think -- which helps with communication.
From what you're saying, you spend your time dealing with the 'lower end of the scale'
Actually, no. But I realized my post would be long enough, so I didn't go into detail. I won't go into what I do part-time, other than to say that it's work I love, and even though my own business does well, I still enjoy my part-time job. I see people in good relationships, but I've seen the same patterns over and over from Internet daters and personal ad daters. I've seen patterns in my real life that indicate the patterns are "normal". For example, I used to be in a singles group that was made up of average to above average people, in regards to intelligence (a big part of the montlhy gatherings involved discussion of current events and/or relationship issues -- it wasn't just a meat market), and people there who had tried web sites or personal ads found a lack of success in generally the same percentage of others I worked with.
If personal ads and dating services truly didn't work then why are they still around?
Because they make money. Because there are always people who can't find a date or sex partner and they're willing to try anything other than honestly risking a relationship. Because there are more people everyday who are getting old enough to use them and are willing to pay to take a chance. Because there are more newly single people every day (from divorce or whatever) who haven't dated in so long they think they can use personals or websites to special order the perfect match and get it without any effort (you'd be surprised of how much of this I see).
Dating sites offer a shot at romance and/or sex. There will always be millions of people willing to pay for that, even if they haven't heard everyone raving about them.
I'd have to agree. If you want to try Internet dating, or personal ads, or dating services:
DON'T.
It's that simple. In my part time job I deal with a HUGE number of people in troubled relationships. Here's some of what I've learned from my experience with dating businesses and seen from people I've worked with:
1) On Internet dating, people chat, e-mail, and talk on the phone. If you do try this, meet the person ASAP. Otherwise you don't get a full image of them in your mind and your imagination fills in the blanks with wishful thinking, instead of the fully rounded personality of a true human, complete with foibles. This is especially true for long distance relationships.
2) A large amount of what you see online, in personal ads, through a dating service is misleading. People often either present themselves as they think will look good, as they want to be, or as they see themselves (which is often inaccurate). Then they try to maintain that personality while they're with you.
3) Dating services can be as bad, or worse, than anything else. I tried Together (this was over 10 years ago), and ended up meeting a lawyer elsewhere who helped me sue Together because they did such a rotten job. I got back more than I paid them!
4) Most of the online services are run by people that know little about relationships and how intricate they are (other than their own experiences -- which does not show most of us how delicate many other relationships are). They are more into marketing than into helping people find soulmates (which is really a stupid term and leads people to think there is just one person for them and this person would be a perfect match).
5) If you have to try this, try eHarmony. I saw another thread where someone said they only match Christians. Not true. I took 45 minutes once to take their tests, and register for 1 month to see what they had. Their questionaires are valid (that's from someone who spent about 10 years working in treatment programs), they do a good job at weeding out kooks and people too unstable for a healthy relationship, and they do a good job at matching you with people who are close enough for you to feel comfortable. They won't match a Buddist with a 7th Day Adventist (unless you, as a Buddist, say it's okay!). Actually, one difference is eHarmony picks your matches, based on what psychologists know works. Their tests are complex enough to make it hard to mis-represent yourself (or be fooled by others), so instead of being fooled by the hot blonde who will suck your wallet dry without ever giving you a thing (and who seemed compatible), eHarmony will match you with people highly likely to get along with you.
I have never seen good matches come from dating services (just complaints), rarely from personal ads, and hardly ever from web sites. I have, though, seen many people who have ended up in screwed up relationships through all of the above.
I used to be a landlord. Even with a police report, it can take 30-60 days to get someone evicted (at least in VA) -- or longer. It is not easy to get someone out of a building. If their name is on the lease (either alone, or with yours), unless you can prove they're breaking the law (and a police report doesn't prove the law was broken, but an arrest would), you probably won't be able to get an eviction.
Actually, I learned from experience. I used to include words like "program" or "programming", but found that it greatly limited the useful answers I got.
Interesting. That's the first I've ever heard of Quakers that didn't vote.
You don't know anything like whether they're a programmed or unprogrammed Meeting, or if they're under Friend's General Conference or Friends United Meeting, by chance, do you? (That would tell me just how conservative their Meeting is and what branch they're in.)
In their eyes, and the eyes of those doing the brainwashing, it is a just cause. I don't agree, and I don't feel their actions can, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, be justified.
One person's political movement is another person's holy war, and someone else's thorn in the side. It's a function of point of view.
And yes, anyone too afraid to live their life for a cause instead of dying quickly to get it over with and kill others, is a coward.
Actually, there are a number of times Quakers have boycotted Quaker Oats. They may have the name, but they don't have our backing, and, as far as I know, have no connection with any Friends (as Quakers refer to themselves or other members). Maybe, at one time, they may have been run by the Friends, but that influence is gone. When your religion is one of non-violence and a company that uses the name starts giving away Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger toys in cerials, it is not amusing. That's be like a company naming itself Christian Oats, and giving away Al-Queida martyr toys in with cerial.
Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.
Maybe there is a complete misunderstanding of Quakers in this forum. As I said in response to the other post, (link to other post).
To be honest, and I'm not trying to troll, your comment shows you have almost now knowledge of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Of all the Quakers I know (and, yes, I'm one), almsot every one of them, every time, will make sure their actions are in concert with their beliefs and what they feel is the right thing to do -- at least in issues of conscience.
As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide.
Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she should be listened to, since it is God speaking through that person, in the unique way that person understands God and him/her-self. For this reason, I could not imagine a Quaker telling his class to vote, and not allowing an alternative assignment for someone who sincerely felt it was against his religious belief.
I don't see why this is funny, unless the fact that Quakers are such a small minority that most people know little about them and making comments that show their lack of knowledge on a topic is funny.
Susan B. Anthony, for example, was a Quaker. The Religious Society of Friends has been at the forefront of many political movements. Quakers believe that each individual is important and that it is our duty, as individuals, to speak up for what we believe is right.
It's not, "Quakers vote? Since when?" It's more like a surprise if a Quaker DOES NOT vote.
And no, we're not the ones who use a horse-and-buggy to get around. You're thinking of the Almish. I know Quaker developers, lawyers, professors, doctors, business owners, and members of many other professions.
I have heard people from almost any group I've been in say they don't vote, but I have NEVER heard a Quaker say that, or talked to one who ever passed up an election.
Why is the fact that she's a Quaker relevant, anyway?)
Because the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a LONG history of social activism and one of the cores of Quakerism is the belief that every individual counts and it is important that each person act according to his or her conscience.
Quakers have been at the forefront of political movements to empower individuals and recognize equality since the 1600's, when George Fox started them. (For example, Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker.)
It might be in a case like this (which, it seems a lot of us don't consider a valid study).
My point is that most people USING a language and searching for help or info on that language aren't likely to include "programming" as a key word.
I know when I find results in a search, I rarely see someone write "java programming" on the web page or the post to whatever forum. It's more like, "I've got a problem with a network connection, here's the code, here's the error, what do I do?" And the answer posted is usually direct, hardly ever with words like "java programming...requires that you..." or any other phrase using the word programming.
In other words, in actual searches people are doing because they USE a language won't include the phrase "programming".
Another point, while I'm thinking of it: it might be possible that languages are searched not because they are popular, but because more info is needed. So if there are no searches for BASIC (okay, it's only an example), it's because one book covers it, but in C, or Java, there's info on so many special uses, special header files, or specific info on obscure API calls that programmers HAVE to do a lot of searches to use the language.
I was thinking something like that as well. I know when I'm looking for answers for problems in Perl or Java, I do NOT use a term like "perl programming", I just use "perl" or "java".
It seems to me most queries using a language name and "programming" would be from people with little experience in the language and trying to find general info.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to agree with you 100%. I had spent a long time in high stress jobs (I was a teacher, but working in residential treatment programs, which included long hours and a LOT of stress). I quit and started looking for what I wanted to do. I had some crappy jobs with bosses who were in serious need of therapy (and a few good jobs/bosses). I was in one job that was pretty good, but I was learning to hate it. I got along well with the boss (only boss I've ever said "F*ck you" to his face -- both of us would blow off steam when needed) said he had to let me go because my work was getting too bad to allow. I agreed, told him I was within a few weeks of quitting, so he helped me get my business up and running.
Basically I learned I am not one who works well for others and that I HAVE to do things my way. (You can psychoanalyze that however you want!) I am a writer, first and foremost (I came VERY close to selling to Star Trek: TNG a few times!), and I realized I had to start creating the life I wanted and that worked for me if I ever wanted any happiness. I realized if I didn't, I'd be angry at everything and everyone, and living on Pepto.
I know there will be a time when I use medications again, but at this point I don't need them. Sometimes I get headaches from lack of sleep, and meds have NEVER helped me with that (actually, meds never were a help to me with headaches and other symptoms like colds). I've learned how to "release" (I can't think of any other word for it) headaches through meditation, or by figuring out what is causing me the headache (as in where is the stress coming from), and being able to deal with it.
I've seen times (like this month), when my entire family comes down with a stomach flu and is sick for several days. I don't know if it effects me, but during that time, I did have two days I was exhausted and had to take long afternoon naps. I don't know if that was how my body dealt with the infection, or if it was from something else.
If/When I need it, I'll use meds, but for now there's been no need. You are right about letting the pendulum stop in the middle. It just seems like it hasn't reached the end of the arc and isn't ready to swing back yet.
Oh, and I never used meds as a cructh. I used them when needed, and may have taken them at times in anticipation of how bad I expected a backache or something to get, but I was basically to damn cheap to spend much on meds unless I needed them.
Sleep is a tricky thing. For a while, when I was starting my business, I'd go for a long time with only 5 hours a night. When I made it through a crunch, I'd sleep 10-12 hours a night. Now I'm back to my regular 7 hours a night (which has always been about "normal" for me).
I would like to get to bed earlier, but now I get to bed around 1-2 am and get up about 7 hours later. I'm also lucky to be able to NOT have to set an alarm clock!
I don't bother with most supplements. I take a few vitamins (like vitamin C), but I stopped taking ALL medication about 3-4 years ago, and stopped all caffiene a year after that.
I've found that I no longer get sick and am in much better health overall than I was before. My guess is because I let my body do what it should, and not get used to artificial aids that are often not as good as what the body can do anyway. I'm 42, and am often told I look 30. When I have my backpack on my shoulder, as I do frequently, I am still mistaken for a student at one of the local universities. I've had gray hairs -- they show up during stress, then fade a few months after the stressful events. My barber has noticed this, too.
I'm not saying I've found a fountain of youth, but I have noticed dropping out of the 9 to 5 world, running my own business on my own terms, and not letting meds fix everything in my body seems to have made a HUGE difference in how I feel, how much energy I have, and (according to others) in how I don't look anywhere near my age.
Oh, stop being a Claven.
It's not my way -- the $30 hair trimmer, that is. I use one for my dog and on my beard, but I prefer the barber ship. It seemed like this responder missed understanding the point of the post. I'm not into hunting, or a grease monkey, or many of the "things" stereotypically associated with "manly men" (or even manly men in tights...), but there was something about the conversations in a barbershop when only men gathered there that was different. It was like a different version of guy's night out. There was just a type of "male bonding" that isn't there anymore.
I also prefer being able to sit and relax and, for a change, let someone else do the worrying for me. Maybe it's got to do with having my own business and having to make decisions about it all day long, every day -- even when I'm supposedly not working, that it's nice there's a place where I can let someone else do something for me and have to make the decisions.
Funny, I never said it was due to insecurity. Why did the topic spring so easily to your mind?
As for a buzz cut, who said manliness was the issue here? Is there some reason you bring it up?
Okay, I'm out-geeked with facts. (Of course any emotional reactions/comments/feelings/attitudes are not mentioned at all -- is that because facts are all that matter?)
Did you know that in almost 80% of the cases where married couples buy a new or used vehicle that it is the woman who calls the shots and makes the final decision?
Not when I was married. I stuck with my faithful Jeep pickup and she had her own POS Nissan (which looked really slick, with incredible creature features, but which started falling apart just about when the warranty ran out -- hence it was a POS). It's likely I'll be married again in the not too far distant future. I have enough that I'll be driving what I want and she'll be driving what she wants. If we have kids, we'll do the mini-van thing -- but I will not drive a chick car.
here are some very interesting statistics pertaining to women:
Good for you, you like and respect women. But what's that got to do with whether a car is a chick car or not?
Any of my friends will tell you I'm heavily liberal, but there are 2 areas where I'm strongly rooted to male traditions, and am unlikely to change: 1) I will NEVER own or drive my own chick car, and 2) I will always prefer a barber shop run by men, with male barbers, for men, without stylists. On #2, it's not about whether women can do a job, but that it was nice to walk into a barber shop on a Saturday morning and have "male" conversation going on, and I've never seen it the same in a shop with women barbers.
A woman isn't going to get all gushy over you 'cause you have a 454 under the hood.
Actually, I've never used a car to pick up women. (Although they do think I look cute in my pickup with my golden furred terrier sitting on the seat next to me, looking out.) My current girlfriend was attracted to me because I wasn't the typical groping, aggressive, testosterone filled male who needs horsepower to substitute for anything. She liked that I listened, am sensitive to her needs, and that she can trust me (among other things).
I like driving a vehicle with horsepower. I love being able to flick to 4WD with the pull of one lever and can go offroad into the mountains on weekends. I use it to get away from the city and definitely prefer a vehicle that can deal with the off road trails in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
The only chick car I've ever seen that can come close to that is one you mention: the original Beetle.
And you don't have to be embarrassed in front of chicks.
I would be. It looks like a goofy chick car to me. I'd never be caught driving one.
Admittedly, in face to face conversation it's impossible for a 300-lb. guy from Detroit to pretend to be a fifteen year old girl, but the point stands. It's the same as any other forum: watch out for falseness and pretension, and don't take anyone at their word.
That's an obvious example. On the other hand, it's easier for someone to create a false personna on the net, and it takes longer to detect because, whether we realize it or not, that first impression sticks.
3) Was this an online dating service?
Together is (or was) a "real life" service.
I don't see a huge advantage to having an online service run by someone with a masters in psychology or family counseling, because it's so difficult to apply anything they've learned in their studies to Internet dating.
Maybe not, but maybe because you don't know what someone with a masters (or even practical experience in treatment) knows. The dynamics of a healthy relationship apply, whether over the Internet or in person. It makes a big difference. For example, their application procedure can specifically screen out people who are trying to put up a front. While it's possible with many services to say you're sensitive, and write info that sounds sensitive, a test like theirs doesn't ask if you're sensitive. It asks a bunch of questions, checks for consistancy, and determines if you're sensitive, insensitive, or insensitive and pretending to be otherwise. (And, before someone takes that literally, that is just an EXAMPLE -- the same would apply to MANY traits.)
Try OKCupid. The system is pretty straightforward.
Looked it over, even signed up. And exactly what is there in OK Cupid to make sure I'm not lying through my teeth about who and what I am?
When I was dating, there were a number of things I'd want to find out quickly about someone so we didn't get excited about each other, then a few months later find a dealbreaker. Things like what's her religion? How tolerant of my beliefs is she? Does she want kids? How many? Is she interested in me because I own my own business, or because I almost wrote for national TV, or does she like me for my other values, other than money or status? Does she save every penny, or does she waste all her pay?
All of these things are screened for automatically on eHarmony. I don't have to ask questions that can offend a first date, like, "Are you interested in me for money, or because I write poetry?" (okay, that's an oversimplification and exaggeration), but the point is many of these topics are not ones you can comfortably discuss with most people until you've dated a while.
It's absolutely free. No "Premium Memberships" crap.
Other than FOSS, you get what you pay for. I'd rather have someone who knows the dynamics of relationship interaction screening out the many women I don't want to meet than have to browse profiles with pictures 10 years old and try to figure out what a person is really like from an enhanced description of themselves.
I met my girlfriend there, and I resent the implication that this automatically means our relationship is "screwed up".
Hmmm... You seem touchy on this topic. Maybe you're the one in 1,000 that works well. On the other hand, if you know you have a good relationship, why is this enough of a tender spot for you that you have to justify it, much less, even pay any attention to what I say?
I'm not a psychologist. I taught emotionally disturbed teens. That included being qualified to give a lot of tests for learning abilities, IQ Tests (not that IQ tests are actually worth while, but you get a lot of other info that tells you a lot about the person than just an IQ number), and a few other tests. Added to that, I had to be able to understand and use the results of a good deal of other tests, which also included becoming familiar with the testing methods used, as well as the tests. (If you stay in some types of residential treatment for a long time, you have no choice but to learn the whole thing, take extra classes, and sometimes add another degree.)
Most of the tests in the magazines you've seen are simple tests that I'm sure you've noticed are almost what is often called "no shit research." It's the kind of stuff the gov. spends millions on and comes to a conclusion (like "pet owners have fun playing with their pets") and everyone hears the results and says, "No shit!" A lot of the tests in mags are more to appeal to a point of view than to be valid.
While a lot of people call it pop psychology, you might want to look into the Myers-Briggs test. I've found versions online that you can take for free. It breaks down everyone into 4 general and 16 specific personality types. It's not about who is compatible with whom, but it does give you an interesting insight into different types of personalities and how other people think -- which helps with communication.
From what you're saying, you spend your time dealing with the 'lower end of the scale'
Actually, no. But I realized my post would be long enough, so I didn't go into detail. I won't go into what I do part-time, other than to say that it's work I love, and even though my own business does well, I still enjoy my part-time job. I see people in good relationships, but I've seen the same patterns over and over from Internet daters and personal ad daters. I've seen patterns in my real life that indicate the patterns are "normal". For example, I used to be in a singles group that was made up of average to above average people, in regards to intelligence (a big part of the montlhy gatherings involved discussion of current events and/or relationship issues -- it wasn't just a meat market), and people there who had tried web sites or personal ads found a lack of success in generally the same percentage of others I worked with.
If personal ads and dating services truly didn't work then why are they still around?
Because they make money. Because there are always people who can't find a date or sex partner and they're willing to try anything other than honestly risking a relationship. Because there are more people everyday who are getting old enough to use them and are willing to pay to take a chance. Because there are more newly single people every day (from divorce or whatever) who haven't dated in so long they think they can use personals or websites to special order the perfect match and get it without any effort (you'd be surprised of how much of this I see).
Dating sites offer a shot at romance and/or sex. There will always be millions of people willing to pay for that, even if they haven't heard everyone raving about them.
I'd have to agree. If you want to try Internet dating, or personal ads, or dating services:
DON'T.
It's that simple. In my part time job I deal with a HUGE number of people in troubled relationships. Here's some of what I've learned from my experience with dating businesses and seen from people I've worked with:
1) On Internet dating, people chat, e-mail, and talk on the phone. If you do try this, meet the person ASAP. Otherwise you don't get a full image of them in your mind and your imagination fills in the blanks with wishful thinking, instead of the fully rounded personality of a true human, complete with foibles. This is especially true for long distance relationships.
2) A large amount of what you see online, in personal ads, through a dating service is misleading. People often either present themselves as they think will look good, as they want to be, or as they see themselves (which is often inaccurate). Then they try to maintain that personality while they're with you.
3) Dating services can be as bad, or worse, than anything else. I tried Together (this was over 10 years ago), and ended up meeting a lawyer elsewhere who helped me sue Together because they did such a rotten job. I got back more than I paid them!
4) Most of the online services are run by people that know little about relationships and how intricate they are (other than their own experiences -- which does not show most of us how delicate many other relationships are). They are more into marketing than into helping people find soulmates (which is really a stupid term and leads people to think there is just one person for them and this person would be a perfect match).
5) If you have to try this, try eHarmony. I saw another thread where someone said they only match Christians. Not true. I took 45 minutes once to take their tests, and register for 1 month to see what they had. Their questionaires are valid (that's from someone who spent about 10 years working in treatment programs), they do a good job at weeding out kooks and people too unstable for a healthy relationship, and they do a good job at matching you with people who are close enough for you to feel comfortable. They won't match a Buddist with a 7th Day Adventist (unless you, as a Buddist, say it's okay!). Actually, one difference is eHarmony picks your matches, based on what psychologists know works. Their tests are complex enough to make it hard to mis-represent yourself (or be fooled by others), so instead of being fooled by the hot blonde who will suck your wallet dry without ever giving you a thing (and who seemed compatible), eHarmony will match you with people highly likely to get along with you.
I have never seen good matches come from dating services (just complaints), rarely from personal ads, and hardly ever from web sites. I have, though, seen many people who have ended up in screwed up relationships through all of the above.
I used to be a landlord. Even with a police report, it can take 30-60 days to get someone evicted (at least in VA) -- or longer. It is not easy to get someone out of a building. If their name is on the lease (either alone, or with yours), unless you can prove they're breaking the law (and a police report doesn't prove the law was broken, but an arrest would), you probably won't be able to get an eviction.
Actually, I learned from experience. I used to include words like "program" or "programming", but found that it greatly limited the useful answers I got.
I don't know, anarchist has been used to describe us many times. I know I, for one, am not insulted.
But, then again, I joined the Religious Society of Friends because I was fed up with organized religion.
Interesting. That's the first I've ever heard of Quakers that didn't vote.
You don't know anything like whether they're a programmed or unprogrammed Meeting, or if they're under Friend's General Conference or Friends United Meeting, by chance, do you? (That would tell me just how conservative their Meeting is and what branch they're in.)
In their eyes, and the eyes of those doing the brainwashing, it is a just cause. I don't agree, and I don't feel their actions can, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, be justified.
One person's political movement is another person's holy war, and someone else's thorn in the side. It's a function of point of view.
And yes, anyone too afraid to live their life for a cause instead of dying quickly to get it over with and kill others, is a coward.
Actually, there are a number of times Quakers have boycotted Quaker Oats. They may have the name, but they don't have our backing, and, as far as I know, have no connection with any Friends (as Quakers refer to themselves or other members). Maybe, at one time, they may have been run by the Friends, but that influence is gone. When your religion is one of non-violence and a company that uses the name starts giving away Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger toys in cerials, it is not amusing. That's be like a company naming itself Christian Oats, and giving away Al-Queida martyr toys in with cerial.
Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.
Maybe there is a complete misunderstanding of Quakers in this forum. As I said in response to the other post, (link to other post).
To be honest, and I'm not trying to troll, your comment shows you have almost now knowledge of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Of all the Quakers I know (and, yes, I'm one), almsot every one of them, every time, will make sure their actions are in concert with their beliefs and what they feel is the right thing to do -- at least in issues of conscience.
many Quakers ... have held it for centuries.
As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide.
Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she should be listened to, since it is God speaking through that person, in the unique way that person understands God and him/her-self. For this reason, I could not imagine a Quaker telling his class to vote, and not allowing an alternative assignment for someone who sincerely felt it was against his religious belief.
I don't see why this is funny, unless the fact that Quakers are such a small minority that most people know little about them and making comments that show their lack of knowledge on a topic is funny.
Susan B. Anthony, for example, was a Quaker. The Religious Society of Friends has been at the forefront of many political movements. Quakers believe that each individual is important and that it is our duty, as individuals, to speak up for what we believe is right.
It's not, "Quakers vote? Since when?" It's more like a surprise if a Quaker DOES NOT vote.
And no, we're not the ones who use a horse-and-buggy to get around. You're thinking of the Almish. I know Quaker developers, lawyers, professors, doctors, business owners, and members of many other professions.
I have heard people from almost any group I've been in say they don't vote, but I have NEVER heard a Quaker say that, or talked to one who ever passed up an election.
Why is the fact that she's a Quaker relevant, anyway?)
Because the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a LONG history of social activism and one of the cores of Quakerism is the belief that every individual counts and it is important that each person act according to his or her conscience.
Quakers have been at the forefront of political movements to empower individuals and recognize equality since the 1600's, when George Fox started them. (For example, Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker.)
It might be in a case like this (which, it seems a lot of us don't consider a valid study).
My point is that most people USING a language and searching for help or info on that language aren't likely to include "programming" as a key word.
I know when I find results in a search, I rarely see someone write "java programming" on the web page or the post to whatever forum. It's more like, "I've got a problem with a network connection, here's the code, here's the error, what do I do?" And the answer posted is usually direct, hardly ever with words like "java programming...requires that you..." or any other phrase using the word programming.
In other words, in actual searches people are doing because they USE a language won't include the phrase "programming".
Another point, while I'm thinking of it: it might be possible that languages are searched not because they are popular, but because more info is needed. So if there are no searches for BASIC (okay, it's only an example), it's because one book covers it, but in C, or Java, there's info on so many special uses, special header files, or specific info on obscure API calls that programmers HAVE to do a lot of searches to use the language.
Yeah, but if you're searching for something specific, that will often narrow it down. For example, searching for:
+java +IOException
will pretty much kill any chance of matches including references to coffee or the island.
I was thinking something like that as well. I know when I'm looking for answers for problems in Perl or Java, I do NOT use a term like "perl programming", I just use "perl" or "java".
It seems to me most queries using a language name and "programming" would be from people with little experience in the language and trying to find general info.