Meet Local Singles in Iowa Dating Site - DoULike.com
Online Iowa Personals Date Iowa Singles
Iowa Dating, Iowa Singles, Iowa Personals
Iowa Dating Sites - Meet Compatible Iowa Singles who have ...
Free Iowa Personals Female Singles in Iowa
Iowa free dating site - online dating in Iowa
Iowa Personals - Craigslist Iowa Personals
Iowa Singles: Free Chat & Online Personals in Iowa
Iowa free dating site for singles in United States! Join one of the best online dating site among other 100% free dating sites and meet single men and women in Iowa (United States). Meeting members at our dating service is totally free. Just add your profile, browse other personals of peple seeking like you for online dating, love and romance. There are thousands of active singles on DateHookup.dating looking to chat right now. We have all type of personals, Christian singles, Catholic, Jewish singles, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, pet lovers, cute Iowa women, handsome Iowa men, single parents, gay men, and lesbians. Browse Female personals and singles in Iowa free. Serving the online dating community since 1996. 100% Free Online Dating! Home Female Ads Male Ads View Photo's Search Join Now! Iowa Personals - Female Dating Free Online Dating > Male Dating > Female Dating > Iowa Singles ... I am a single female with 2 teenagers that keep me busy. I like ... Free classified ads for Personals and everything else. Find what you are looking for or create your own ad for free! And with hundreds of thousands of classifieds ads posted daily in Iowa, DoULike personals is your gateway to quality dating. Each profile is scanned, each bio description is fact-checked, and each photo uploaded is manually verified. You simply won’t find anything like this on other personals alternatives. Iowa Dating: Why Choose DoULike.com? Unlike many other Iowa dating sites, DoULike creates immense possibilities for singles dating locally. We take time to verify user profiles to make sure there are always the real people behind them. Also, our flexible filters and sophisticated algorithms increase your chances to meet your perfect someone online. J.K. Dobbins Will Pay Off Sooner Than Expected Sam Wallace September 16, 2020 NFL Iowa dating and matchmaking service for Iowa singles and personals. Find your love in Iowa now. ... I'm a single divorced woman that's beautiful both inside and out with a big heart. I am loving, caring and down to earth with a huge sense of humor. I love helping the less privileged kids and orphans and also love the Online Iowa Personals is a unique online community that takes all the hassles and burdens off from dating Iowa singles from all over the Hawkeye State. The site has a countless number of Iowa singles looking for love and friendship and ready for new possibilities. Tired of paying for online dating sites? You can find fun, attractive men and women from Iowa for FREE right now. Just click on the city in Iowa nearest to you to meet quality singles looking to chat. Mingle2.com is one of the top free online dating services to meet people from all over Iowa.No gimmicks, no tricks, and no subscription fees!
As requested: Paula Abdul claims a 1992 plane crash took her out of the spotlight. The NTSB has no record of it ever happening.
2020.09.17 17:45 ketchupsunshineAs requested: Paula Abdul claims a 1992 plane crash took her out of the spotlight. The NTSB has no record of it ever happening.
On the Paula Abdul post a couple weeks ago, I commented that I had a write-up that was almost ready to go. This goes far more in depth than that post and was heavily requested so hopefully it does not get removed this time. In July I saw this comment and decided to look up the plane crash story, expecting it to be easily explainable one way or another. But instead I wound up with differing accounts from Paula Abdul herself, articles claiming she was lying, and lots of random gossip. So I figured I’d try to piece it together myself. The story goes like this: In 1992 1, Paula Abdul was flying from a performance in St. Louis to Denver while on her Under My Spell Tour (sometimes called the “Spellbound” tour, the name of the album she was promoting at this time). Then, over a cornfield in Iowa, Abdul in 2019 said the following took place:
“It all happened when I boarded a seven-seater plane and an hour into the flight one of the engines blew up and the right wing caught fire and everything went black...I woke up in the hospital only to find that I had crushed my cervical spine, leaving me partially paralyzed.”
She also stated that she underwent 15 spinal surgeries as a result of her injuries both from this and prior incidents. But 2019 was not the first time she told this story. According to Abdul in 2005, she took one day off and she continued to perform. The 2005 account mostly matched her earliest mention of the accident in 2003. Then, in 2019, she described waking up in the hospital, partially paralyzed. The story changes in bits every time, and there is no documented mention of it at all before Abdul’s 2003 NBC interview. It’s stranger the more you read about it, and there don’t seem to be concrete answers. What we do know for sure is that Paula Abdul’s career took a hit shortly after the time she claims the crash took place. Abdul’s next era following Spellbound, Head Over Heels, was her worst selling release. She was divorced twice between 1994 and 1998. Between her Spellbound era and about 1996, Abdul seemed to stay out of the spotlight. Part of this was due to her seeking treatment for her bulimia in 1994, which came with rumors that she was being treated for opioid addiction at the same time. Her career and personal life seemed to have gone downhill after her Under Your Spell tour, and it’s debated whether this was because of her plane crash, or whether the plane crash was invented to sweep this under the rug.
There are a few aspects of Abdul’s story that are pointed to as proof that she is lying. Dates: Abdul claims to have performed in St. Louis before the fateful flight, heading to Denver, and to have boarded immediately following this performance. Her own website does not list a St. Louis tour date (although there is a date for Greenwood Village, near Denver, on June 10, 1992). The Wikipedia page for the tour uses the same dates as Abdul’s website. This has been used by some theorists as proof that the whole story is fabricated, since it gives the appearance that there wouldn’t have been a St. Louis to Denver flight at all. However, while Abdul’s own website lacks any mention of these dates, there is some evidence she may have flown from St. Louis to Denver between June 19 and June 22, 1992. 2 Rich Juzwiak at Jezebel dug up records that give us a possible date for the alleged crash. The Jezebel article cites a St. Louis Post Dispatch article from June 21, 1992, talking about a Paula Abdul concert the previous Friday at the Riverport Ampitheater. This sets a date of June 19, 1992 for St. Louis. The same Jezebel article also cites an Entertainment Weekly article from September 25, 1992, which refers to Abdul performing a show at the Fiddler’s Green Amphitheatre in a suburb of Denver on June 22. Abdul’s website lists no shows between the June 10 show in Greenwood Village and the June 23 show in Seattle. This means that there is a gap that these other two shows fit into, although it is odd they aren’t listed as part of the tour despite being part of the tour. EDIT: As referenced in footnote 2, the Jezebel article had an edit claiming that a reader had found a Kansas City Star article listing a June 20, 1992 date at the Sandstone Ampitheater in Bonner Springs, outside of Kansas City. I couldn't find this as I was writing, but u/bookdrops dug up this Springfield News-Leader article from June 19, 1992 that references the same June 20 date at the Sandstone Ampitheater. This means that there was a date between the St. Louis and Denver shows that have been found, and to me this rules out there being a St. Louis to Denver flight at all. She could have mistaken Kansas City for St. Louis or misremembered, but her stated flight path doesn't seem to have happened. Possible drug addiction: Abdul’s 2009 Ladies Home Journal interview describes her spending Thanksgiving 2008 weaning herself off of a painkiller addiction:
The rumors that her sometimes-bizarre behavior was fueled by drugs just may have been true. Abdul was taking heavy-duty pain killers, though she claims she never shot an Idol episode under the influence. But last Thanksgiving, determined to overcome her habit, she checked into the La Costa Resort and Spa, in Carlsbad, California, to wean herself off her medications in one fell swoop. "I could have killed myself.... Withdrawal -- it's the worst thing," she says. "I was freezing cold, then sweating hot, then chattering and in so much pain, it was excruciating. But at my very core, I did not like existing the way I had been.”
Fans and tabloids during Abdul’s run as an American Idol judge oftencommented on her strange behavior, although she was quick to explain it away. The LHJ interview had direct quotes from her talking about her struggle with drug addiction. ...And then Paula Abdul went on record saying she had never said those things. In fact, according to her, she has never even been drunk. Abdul does not seem to have refuted that she went to a place called La Costa in Carlsbad, California, but she was adamant that it was just a normal spa and she had been there for only three days. While there is a rehab center in Carlsbad called La Costa, the article refers to “La Costa Resort and Spa”, which is an actual resort and spa. Despite Abdul’s denials, there is still rampant speculation that she is or was addicted to painkillers. There’s certainly no clear-cut evidence proving she was ever an addict, but it’s also nearly impossible to disprove something. Especially when there is so much circumstantial evidence, such as her “strange” behavior that the tabloids latched onto. Worth noting for this point is the fact that Abdul has consistently been open about her diagnosis with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, an incredibly painful condition. This, in conjunction with her (also consistent) story about a cheerleading accident in high school followed by several smaller car accidents over the years, means that Paula Abdul already has a pretty good reason to be using painkillers. RSD and any severe chronic pain can sometimes also cause people to seem “spacey” or “loopy”, which could also explain why so many people thought she was acting strange during the time she was on American Idol. Crash records: The strongest piece of evidence cited by those who believe Paula Abdul is lying is the lack of evidence. There seems to be no record of this crash ever having happened. Her tour ran from October 1991 to August 1992 and despite having searched accidentrecords3 for that timespan I have been unable to find any record of this crash. I’ll admit to not being knowledgeable about aviation records, but it also seems telling that no one else has been able to find these records either. Abdul has denounced those who doubt her claims and while I can’t speak definitively, I would think she or her publicist would have pointed to an NTSB report if there was one. Additionally, Abdul has been quoted several times as saying the plane landed in a cornfield in Iowa. This doesn’t fit with her claim that the flight was from St. Louis to Denver. The flight she claims to have taken is pretty much straight west, and crashing in Iowa would require a significant detour north. Not impossible, but certainly implausible at least from a layman’s understanding of air travel. There is an NTSB report for an eight seater (not seven) plane crashing into a field in Nebraska (not Iowa), a full month before the Under My Spell tour began. It also seems to have taken off in Nebraska with an intended destination elsewhere in Nebraska, rather than going to either St. Louis or Denver, and it crashed shortly after takeoff rather than the claimed forty minutes to an hour into the flight. I cannot find any news about what Abdul would’ve been doing in Nebraska in September 1991, so I don’t believe this is the accident. There is also a record of an accident in Englewood, Colorado on June 10, 1992. Paula Abdul had a concert in nearby Greenwood Village on the same day, but the description of the plane and accident do not match her story at all. These two are the only records that I have seen that match any part of her story, and neither is a good fit.
Theory 1: Paula Abdul was actually in some sort of incident on a plane in 1992, but has embellished what happened and this is why no one has been able to track down records of the event. The most common theory in this camp is that the plane experienced some turbulence, she wasn’t wearing her seatbelt, and she experienced an injury. This possibly compounded with previous injuries (such as the cheerleading accident she often mentions in conjunction with the plane crash story) and caused severe harm, but the plane did not crash. There’s a lot of overlap between this theory and the others, and how much overlap exists between theories depends on who you ask. Theory 2: Paula Abdul was not in any aviation accidents in 1992 and she is using this story to cover up painkiller use and/or her extended absence from the limelight before her American Idol job. One of these theories revolves around the idea that Paula invented the plane crash in 2003, after regaining the limelight as an American Idol judge, to give herself an excuse for falling out of the public eye and to distract from the downturn in her career and personal life during this period. The other, more popular theory, is that she used the plane crash as an excuse to either explain away her loopy behavior during her American Idol years as non-drug related (if you believe 2005 USA Today “I have never been addicted to anything” Paula Abdul) or to excuse it as being caused by medication prescribed to her for her injuries. Theory 3: Paula Abdul is telling the truth about being in a crash and her story was brought into doubt due to some unfortunate gaps in information, such as the NTSB records being incomplete/the accident not being reported at all, her own choice to keep quiet for an extended period of time, and miscommunications about whether or not she was using pain medication. There is enough room for the basic story to be true. Admittedly, the story has changed so much that at least some versions will be lies even if one version was the truth. If this is the case I will certainly apologize for fueling speculation otherwise...but I would consider this the least likely option.
Regardless of whatever the actual story is regarding the plane crash, it’s pretty clear that Paula Abdul struggles with chronic pain and I do not intend to make light of this at all or to shame her if she has struggled with addiction. It’s just very strange that there is no proof of this event ever happening. Did Paula Abdul get injured on a plane in 1992? Was she covering for a painkiller addiction, and was that part of why she went to rehab in 1994? Was she covering for being out of the spotlight? Is Paula Abdul actually sober like she claims, and is her strange behavior actually just her being Paula Abdul rather than drugs or alcohol? Was this a ploy for attention that ripped off of Gloria Estefan’s accident? Why did it take eleven years after the alleged accident for there to be a single documented mention of it? I’m very curious what everyone else thinks about this case. My personal theory (which is based as much on gut feelings as it is on actual information, since the info is so spotty) is that she was on a plane during the Under My Spell tour, wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and was injured when the plane experienced turbulence mid-flight. This compounded her existing spinal injuries and her condition deteriorated for several years until around 1994 her health problems prevented her from working. She took a break from the limelight to recover, came back for American Idol, and decided to embellish her story to garner sympathy and distract from the other issues (the relative commercial failure of Head Over Heels, her divorces) that contributed to her break. I’m unsure on whether or not she had an addiction to painkillers but I lean towards “no”. Her story of using alternative medicine in response to her injuries from the crash partially convinced me that the strange behavior people point to as proof of her being on drugs is actually just her being herself. She seems like a bit of an odd duck.
1 Some articles list 1993 as the date of the crash, including some quotes from Abdul herself, but in the grand scheme of things this did not seem particularly significant. The tour she mentions ran from 1991 to 1992, and most articles state 1992. Because of this I am assuming that this is a mistake rather than an actual lie. Specifically the 2009 Ladies Home Journal interview says she was in a car accident in 1992 that caused a neck injury, and places the plane crash in 1993. This is the closest thing to a “contradictory” date I have seen but it also is not a quote from Paula Abdul herself. Make of this what you will. 2 According to an edit in the Jezebel story, there was a Kansas City Star article claiming Abdul had performed in Kansas City on June 20, 1992, which would basically rule out a St. Louis to Denver flight. However, I’ve tried searching and can’t find this article. If anyone is able to find it I’d be happy to edit it in, but I’m not including information I can’t verify. EDIT: Link to confirmation of Sandstone Amphitheater concert, so there is now proof of this and I have edited the post accordingly. 3 This specific link has a disclaimer that records have only been natively uploaded since 1996. So although there are pre-1996 records available on this site, there is no guarantee that these records are complete. The other link provided does not contain the same disclaimer and has far more complete records, but I have no way to verify that they are 100% complete.
2020.09.05 02:11 danlang36 [M4R] #CedarRapids - A long shot from the cornfields of Iowa!
Hey there, and welcome to my somewhat awkward, somewhat charming (ideally), somewhat acerbic, and entirely honest post on this here subreddit. Let me first confess, I do not, in fact live in a cornfield, we just have them here. So. Sorry if that’s what drew you. My bad. Let me also confess that I’m hoping R stands for relationship and not a gender I’m unaware of—I tried to post this with [M4MorMM] or something, to indicate that I’m interested in guys single or coupled (or throupled, I suppose?), but my post was removed by the little bot person. Sooo... hopefully this headline works? I digress. I’m Daniel—though I’ve gone by Dan or Danny as well—and I’m a gay cis dude who just finally read about polyamory (rather than just thinking about it a bunch and only having a vague awareness of what it was/could be) and found it really resonated with me. If this were Grindr, I’d be a guy with pics and actual information in my profile. Though if this were actually Grindr, I’d have already run out of charact Anyway, if you were hoping for pictures (and let’s be honest, who wants to consider dating someone when you don’t know what they look like?), there are a handful in my posts on various subs. Now that I’m writing this novella of a post, I’ll probably try to post a few to my profile also. But maybe don’t hold your breath. Anyway again, I realize this is a long shot because Iowa is pretty small and I honestly don’t know how good I’d be at maintaining something long distance, especially in the age of Covid... but I’m just eager to explore connections with people, particularly people who understand and embrace polyamory. I also realize this is a long shot because this sub is fairly heavy with posts from and for women. And while I love you all, ladies, I’m just not sexually or romantically attracted to you. And yes, your incredibly gorgeous and amazing bisexual husbands will make me want to reconsider that, but I’m pretty shoved over on the good ‘ol Kinsey Scale. Okay, I figure I’ve rambled enough about whom I’m looking for. A little about me. I taught 8th grade English for three years and now work with teachers (in the same school) as an instructional coach. I liked teaching better, hate that we’re going back to school in person at the same time as I recognize being in person is better for kids in normal circumstances. And ultimately, I want to do other things - write, and make videos, mostly. I dabble in both currently. I do like my job, I just like other stuff better? Otherwise I’m pretty nerdy. Trek over Wars, though I enjoy Wars as well. My frequent game rotation lately is Animal Crossing (Switch), Overwatch (X-Box), and No Man’s Sky (PC), though I haven’t played NMS lately. Tend to be a homebody, but don’t mind being outside, depending on the level of discomfort you want to subject me to 😂 Netflix, reading (young adult and fantasy mostly), writing (young adult and fantasy mostly), an occasional D&D game (though not for a while—shit’s been rough lately! Ask me what a derecho is!), and hanging with friends (up close if we’ve had to break quarantine already, or at a distance/masked if not). Have three cats, a house that I’m selling to a friend soon, and a fairly decent life. I’m hoping to find someone(s) to share the good, work together on the bad and the mundane, and create the great. Say hello if that might be you(s)! PS - Also a long shot because I wrote so much, and people who read all of it will either be very much my people, or very much not. And that’s just the people who actually will read it! 😂
2020.09.05 02:02 InsertUsernameHere02[Event] The Long March
With the end of Tom Cotton’s first term coming, the Democratic Party is preparing itself once again to go through a clown-car primary to find out who will lead the party against the incumbent president. Most democrats are quite confident that they can win - Cotton’s approval has consistently gone down while in power due to the total refusal of Democrats to support his agenda, in a reversal of the Republican strategy under the Obama presidency. This primary would be interesting for a wide variety of reasons - it would be the first contested primary since 2020, the first one since the covid recession, and also, interestingly for pundits, the first one since Iowa stopped being the first in the nation caucuses. After the disaster of the 2020 caucuses, Iowa switched to primaries, and the DNC made them move their date to Super Tuesday, letting New Hampshire come first. In order to maintain a connection with their Rust Belt states, however, as well as allowing Democratic voters a voice, Illinois has been moved to the second primary, before Nevada or South Carolina. A dozen various people have announced that they will be running. In the early crop, the pundit class is convinced that the primary has already seen its two largest contenders - Gavin Newsom, former governor of California, and Pete Buttigieg, former candidate and Cuomo administration member, who has spent the four years since Cotton entered the white house essentially campaigning to be president. Interestingly, Kamala Harris did not announce in this early wave - causing many to wonder if the former Vice President would enter the race at all. However, she announced in April, and quickly surged to the same tier as Buttigieg and Newsom. A week later, Sylvia Santana, governor of Michigan, announced her intention to run. She announced the campaign in Detroit, saying “this is not just a campaign to be the nominee, but a campaign to reforge the entire Democratic Party, from an institution of neoliberal corporate governance, into a tool of the working class.” The campaign has quickly become associated with Our Revolution, and many of its staffers have deep ties to the DSA. Most interestingly, it has endorsed a primary challenger against every sitting “corporate democrat” in national office, and has endorsed numerous candidates in primaries over Republican-held seats. Santana has made it very clear that she views the Democratic establishment as her enemy first and foremost, and one that needs to be beaten before the challenge can be taken to the Republicans. A month into her campaign, retired Vermont senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Santana and puts out the following statement: “8 years ago, I ran for President. At the time, I believed that while the Democratic Party was too controlled by big money, they had good intentions. I was wrong. The only way to change this party, and this country, is the path my good friend Sylvia has adopted. A full political revolution. This is former Senator Bernard Sanders, and I am endorsing Governor Santana for President.” This message unified much of the left of the party behind Santana, but it was still considered nearly impossible for her to win by most of the pundits. The New Hampshire primary was the first in the country, and the one where the full might of the clown car was still present. The votes broke down along the following lines. Santana received 36% of the vote, and handily won the state. Buttigieg won 19%, and managed to take second. Harris received 16%, and Newsom received 12%, with the rest distributed among the rest of the clown car. Newsom dropped out that night (along with most of the minor candidates), stating that his focus will be on the campaign to make California into seven states (notes: see calimorenia post) and that all three candidates have now agreed to back the plan. He also, interestingly, endorsed Buttigieg, which was seen as quite a blow to Harris considering that he should have been supporting her due to her California roots. Next came Illinois, second for the first time in a competitive primary. People are totally unsure of how it will vote – predictions range from Chicago machine politics sweeping it for Buttigieg, or black voters winning it for Kamala, or Santana winning on a rust belt coalition. The final breakdown saw Santana receiving 46% of the vote, Harris receiving 24%, and Buttigieg receiving 19% (map). However, despite the fact that Buttigieg and Harris seemed about evenly matched, with Harris actually winning in delegates, Harris dropped out 3 days after Illinois and endorsed Buttigieg. Unknown to the public, Buttigieg promised her the position of Attorney General in a Buttigieg administration in a closed-doors meeting. The next phase of the race was seen as the real gauntlet for Santana. Nevada was a blowout (58-37) for Santana, but the real victory was her taking of South Carolina in an incredibly close matchup - and in spite of the aging James Clyburn’s endorsement of Buttigieg. Santana won it 51-46, and quite importantly, a higher percentage of her voters were black than the overall electorate, allowing her to avoid the bad-faith criticism that other left-wing campaigns had faced for failing to reach out to this group. At this point, Santana was seen as nearly unstoppable. However, Buttigieg had already rallied his donors, and engaged in an absolute blitz of ad spending, all slated for the days between South Carolina and Super Tuesday. The two camps head to Super Tuesday, knowing that this would decide whether the race was essentially over, or if it would be a long hard fight for the nomination.
* It was too close to call on the night of; recounts eventually found that Buttigieg just barely won ** Oklahoma was delivered by the socialist stuff Liquid has been working on + native stuff *** Texas was won off of a similar trend as what won Santana the Nevada primary - Latino voters of all ages consistently voting for a social-democratic agenda **** Vermont was close enough that many believe that Sanders’ campaigning - he showed up at a couple rallies and appeared in a number of ads in the state - was probably what turned the state At this point, the media was split between shrilly insisting that the race wasn’t over, and looking into why Santana was able to win. Ultimately, it came down to three factors. The first was that the fact that Cuomo lost to Tom Cotton convinced a lot of people that without some kind of intervening factor (like the recession), right wing populism would only lose to left wing populism The second was that “young” people kept their beliefs, and Santana won the 55 and under demographic by huge margins in every single state, just like Sanders won 45 and under by huge margins 10 years ago. And the third was that people had stopped trusting the mainstream media in the Democratic party. In 2020, 70% of Democrats trusted the media - by 2028, it was only 30%. In the same time, Republicans went from 30% trusting the media in 2020, to 10% trusting the media in 2028. As a result, in the words of one Vox article, voters “rejected the opinions of those who understand the wider reality of this country, opting instead to believe that what they and their liberal friends wanted will somehow win over conservatives in the upper peninsula and western Pennsylvania.” The fact that the primary was now essentially over meant that Santana would cruise to victory even in states that she probably would not have won before. This, however, was when the Santana insurgency strategy fully paid off. By associating her campaign with the socialist primary challenger in every district, the voters who went in to vote for Santana defaulted to voting for the person whose name they associated with hers for the congressional primaries. Across the nation, incumbent corporate democrats were unseated, in scenes reminiscent of the 2020 New York congressional primaries. After winning the primary, Santana turned her attention to the general election. Cotton’s main campaign planks were doing the things he said he would do in his first term, and investigating the “unfair FAIR package,” to determine just how much of it was, in fact, blatantly rigging the elections. Santana, of course, ran on the same positive policy message she had brought with her for the primaries, promising transformative change and a radically fairer and kinder society. Meanwhile, American Party candidate Marco Rubio desperately tried to appear relevant - barely making it to the debates - but was severely undercut by Cottons foreign policy managing to secure up the Republican vote. Election night came and went, and the result shocked the entire nation. It was expected from polling that Santana would win - what was unexpected was the absolutely insane level of victory Santana achieved. She won with more than 400 electoral votes, and totally smashed the congressional and senatorial elections as well - Democrats achieved massive majorities in both houses, so large in fact that Santanas insurgents represented more votes than the Republican party itself, although not quite outright majorities without the corporate democrats. The future is quite bright indeed for Santana, as the first woman president sets about preparing to transition the country from the insanity of the Cotton presidency to a new order. The reason Santana’s victory was so large was a combination of a) the Unions and progressives going from abstaining like they did in 2024 to full-fledged campaign outlets for Santana b) the recession and Rick Snyder scandal totally undermining Cotton c) the hardcore American party voters (maybe 5% of the total outcome) refusing to put Cotton as their second choice and d) mass engagement and mobilisation raising turnout for Santana in a way that dwarfed even th Obama 08 campaign.
2020.08.28 15:00 DarthEquusThe History of Medicalized Circumcision Part 2: 1885-1899
In this brief period, circumcision rapidly transformed from an experimental procedure of antiquity into a nearly unquestioned cure-all for every ailment imaginable. Doctors also began to scrutinize the possible applications towards women as well. In reference to the promotion of genital cutting by men like Remondino, Hutchinson, Johnson, Freeman, Lehman, and others, Jonathan Cohen (2011) wrote: "one of the most fascinating stories of the institutionalization of medical male circumcision is the discursive use of the Jews as racial proof of the benefits of circumcision, with a complete ignorance of sociological factors."
1885: ~10% of the American male population is circumcised
1887 Lewis Sayre, after promoting preventative circumcision for almost 20 years, finally limited his circumcision advocacy to therapeutic circumcision only rather than "indiscriminate" circumcision. His idea of therapeutic circumcision did still mean overdiagnosing infantile phimosis, but this was still an enormous improvement from his previous influential recommendations of totally non-therapeutic, preventative circumcision. [On the deleterious results of a narrow prepuce and preputial adhesionsTrans. Ninth Internat. Med. Congress] 1887 M. A. Rust addressed circumcision in writing about the history of cultural mutilations:
"There is not a single tribe of savages on the face of the globe who do not disfigure parts of their bodies, and hardly a part of the body susceptible of disfigurement which has not been disfigured. This is not done in accordance with individual fancy, but in strict conformity to inexorable tribal rule. Ornamentation lies at the root of many, but not of all of these mutilations. A great number of them entail such an amount of suffering and torture that, in order to establish them, to enforce submission and co-operation, potencies awful and mysterious must have been at work, striking fear into every individual heart. Once established, the obligation became as automatic as the daily walks of an ant. Circumcision is the most ancient and widely spread mutilation in existence, and it is practiced in all the five parts of the world, though to the greatest extent in Asia, Africa, and among the savages of Australia. Of civilized nations we note about one hundred and thirty millions of Muhamedans, and about ten millions of Jews, and the Christians of Abyssinia. It was practiced in Mexico at the time of the conquest of Cortez, and, according to the accounts of modern travelers is still in use among Indian tribes in Nicaragua and on the Amazon. No wonder that the origin of a mutilation so barbarous, so repulsive, and, at the same time, so widely spread and so tenaciously adhered to should have so repeatedly formed an object of inquiry and speculation. Muhamed found circumcision already an ancient usage among many of the Arabian tribes; he took it up for reasons akin to those for which Paul dropped it. It had prevailed, since time immemorial, among the Abyssinians, when they embraced Christianity. Travelers who make inquiries among savage tribes generally obtain for answer that it is a tribal custom which has always been; they cannot conceive why other reasons should be demanded."
[Mutilations. Gaillard's Medical Journal v. 45.] 1887 Angel Money writes:
"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurous effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts."
[Treatment of Disease In Children, Philidelphia: P. Blakiston, 1887. p.421.] 1888 John Harvey Kellogg (yes, the cereal guy) promoted irrational fear of masturbation and "spermatorrhoea." For girls, he warned that masturbation caused breast atrophy, uterine cancer, and insanity. He recommended circumcision and other surgical punishments for both boys and girls to punish and discourage masturbation. He also wrote positively of cauterizing the clitoris with acid to alleviate masturbation in girls. It's notable and often forgotten that he was promoting cutting the genitals of older children rather than infants. He wrote positively of the Jewish practice but also noted its tendency to scar the meatus (meatal stenosis). He advanced the propaganda that ancient genital surgery had always been performed for health. He also advocated the use of male chastity belts. The next entry after circumcision is castration as if to imply it was also the next genital surgical option should circumcision fail to produce the intended result. Like Kellogg, Hutchinson had also suggested castration as the next and more extreme option to cure masturbation.
"In younger children, with whom moral considerations will have no particular weight, other devices may be used. Bandaging the parts has been practiced with success. Tying the hands is also successful in some cases; but this will not always succeed, for they will often contrive to continue the habit in other ways, as by working the limbs, or lying upon the abdomen. Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed." "In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control."
"The subject of the paper was itself suggested by a long and personal observation of the changes made in man by circumcision. From the individual observation of cases, it was but natural to wish to enlarge the scope of our observation and comparison; this naturally led to a study of the physical characteristics of the only race that could practically be used for the purpose. This race is the Jewish race. On carefully studying into the subject, I plainly saw that much of their longevity could consistently be ascribed to their more practical humanitarianism, in caring for their poor, their sick, as well as in their generous provision for their unfortunate aged people. The social fabric of the Jewish family is also more calculated to promote long life, as, strangely as it may seem, family veneration and family love and attachment are far more strong and practical among this people than among Christians, this sentiment not being even as strong in the Christian races as it is in the Chinese or Japanese. … Actual observations show them [the Jews] to be exempt from many diseases which affect other races; so that it is not only that they recover more promptly, but that they are not, as a class, subjected to the loss of time by illness, or to the consequent sufferings due to illness or disease, in anything like or like ratio with other people. There is also a less tendency to criminality, debauchery, and intemperance in the race; this, again, can in a measure be ascribed to their family influence, which even in our day has not lost that patriarchal influence which tinges the home or family life in the Old Testament. Crimes against the person or property committed by Jews are rare. They likewise do not figure in either police courts or penitentiary records; they are not inmates of our poor-houses, but, what is also singular, they are never accused of many silly crimes, such as indecent exposures, assaults on young girls…."
1890: ~15% of the American male population is circumcised
1890 Herbert Snow, a London surgeon published a 57-page book, one of the first intactivist volumes of the modern era. He called for "the abolition of an antiquated practice involving the infliction of very considerable suffering upon helpless infants; and sanctioned, on very questionable grounds, by men of eminent authority.
"No sane man who possessed the advantages of a sound and entire prepuce would willingly sacrifice it without just and sufficient cause being shown."
1890 The Orificial Surgical Society "was founded by Edwin Hartley Pratt, a surgeon at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago. The organization was largely concerned with orifices below the waist, and provided training for surgery of the prepuce, clitoris, and rectum, the latter organ being given special emphasis. It was obsessed with the idea that most diseases were caused by tightness of the preputial or anal sphincters. … By the 1920s many of the member physicians had their licenses revoked." —Wallerstein Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy 1980:38 — See also: Rutkow IM. Edwin Hartley Pratt and orificial surgery: unorthodox surgical practice in nineteenth century United States. Surgery. 1993. and Moments in surgical history: orificial surgery. Arch Surg. 2001. 1890 William D. Gentry declared that phimosis in men and uterine disorders in women caused insanity, blindness, deafness, dumbness, epilepsy, paralysis and criminal behavior adding that "the genitals of either male or female are the centres of the nervous system". [Nervous derangements produced by sexual irregularities in boys. Trans American Institute of Homeopathy. v.43.] 1890 Jonathan Hutchinson wrote that the foreskin encouraged masturbation and "adds to the difficulties of sexual continence" and can even cause insanity. For evidence of the latter point, he pointed to the case of an anonymous surgeon committed to an insane asylum for compulsive masturbation. Adult circumcision was useful, he wrote, for breaking men of the habit of masturbation, but early childhood circumcision was ideal in his opinion. In closing, he wrote: "Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to many patients of both sexes" referring to the difficulty of getting the general public to accept the idea of doctor's electing to sterilize patients without their consent. [On circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Arch Surgery.] 1890 A review of Pogorelsky's Ritual circumcision of the Hebrews stated:
"As regards the predisposition to the acquirement of neuroses, the foreskin plays the same part in the male as the ovaries in the female." Sayre traced reflex paralysis and contracture of the lower extremeties; Erichsen, spasmodic diseases, to congenital phimosis. Further, hypochondriacal persons with inclination to commit suicide, individuals who suffer from uro-paraplegia, nervous tremor, chorea minor, neuralgia, hysteria, hallucinations and paresis have been cured by circumcision. Although circumcised persons contract gonorrhea more easily than uncircumcised, yet syphilis less often; the sexual desire is less in the former, hence crimes against morality are rarer."
Review of Pogorelsky M. Ritual circumcision of the Hebrews in The Medical Times. v.17. 1890.] 1891 Peter C. Remondino published a book of circumcision activism in which he vilified the foreskin at length as a malign influence and "moral outlaw." Repeating the false circumcision-prevents-masturbation meme, Remondino wrote, "the practice of [masturbation] can be asserted as being very rare among the children of circumcised races." According to Remondino excising foreskin would not only discourage boys from masturbating, but immunize them against tuberculosis, cancer, syphilis, polio, idiocy, forgetfulness, impotence, unwanted erections, wet dreams and just about any medical problem you cared to mention.
"The prepuce seems to exercise a malign influence in the most distant and apparently unconnected manner: where, like some of the evil genii or sprites in the Arabian tales, it can reach from afar the object of its malignity, striking him down unawares in the most unaccountable manner; making him a victim to all manner of ills, sufferings, and tribulations; unfitting him for marriage or the cares of business; making him miserable and an object of continual scolding and punishment in childhood, through its worriments and nocturnal enuresis; later on, beginning to affect him with all kinds of physical distortions and ailments, nocturnal pollutions, and other conditions calculated to weaken him physically, mentally, and morally; to land him, perchance, in jail or even in a lunatic asylum. Man's whole life is subject to the capricious dispensations and whims of this Job's-comforts-dispensing enemy of man."
"In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensibility of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function of the organ or to constitute an objection...It is well authenticated that the foreskin...is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children... I conclude that the foreskin is detrimental to health, and that circumcision is a wise measure of hygiene."
[The Hygiene of Circumcision. NYMJ. 1891;53:484-485.] 1892 Circumcision was not the only proposed cure for masturbation. Some physicians such as David Yellowlee detailed another version of punitive and supposedly therapeutic preputial infibulation:
"Some direct operative interference, which shall prevent masturbation and show him that he can live without it, may be of much service. The best form of such interference is so to fix the foreskin that erection becomes painful and erotic impulses very unwelcome. To accomplish this, the prepuce is drawn well forward, the left forefinger inserted within it down to the root of the glans, and a nickel‐plated safety‐pin, introduced from the outside through skin and mucous membrane, is passed horizontally for half an inch or so past the tip of the left finger, and then brought out through mucous membrane and skin so as to fasten outside. Another pin is similarly fixed on the opposite side of the prepuce. With the foreskin thus looped up any attempt at erection causes a painful dragging on the pins, and masturbation is effectually prevented. In about a week some ulceration of the mucous membrane will allow greater movement and with less pain, when the pins can, if needful, be introduced into a fresh place."
It should be pointed out that Yellowlee's advocacy of infibulation was not limited to the treatment of inmates in lunatic asylums, and was, in fact, directed at parents, whose duty, he declared, was to prevent their children from adopting ‘the secret vice’. [In Tuke DH ed. A Dictionary of Psychological Medicine. Vol. 2. London: J&A Churchill, 1892: 784 – 6] 1893 Mark J. Lehman claimed Jewish boys were healthier. He noted it was "an open question" whether tuberculosis, cancer, syphilis, and "scrofula" were not "one and the same disease," and whether "such a simple measure as general circumcision" would not be the answer to all "insidious and filthy diseases." He called for immediate universal circumcision of all male infants. [A plea for circumcision. Medical Review.] 1893 An unnamed author for The Journal de Medicine de Paris provided a look into popular thought of the day on female circumcision (meaning only non-excisive incision here) writing:
"A certain Dr. Morris, of Boston, the land of Yankee notions, has discovered an ingenious method of making the most waspish and shrewish women models of gentleness and modesty. He proves by statistics that eighty out of one hundred American women of Aryan origin in New England have the gland of the clitoris adherent, in part or totality, to the prepuce. The result of these adherences is an imperfect development of the gland, and to this is due a weakness of sexual desire and various nervous perturbations. These troubles are dependent, in the first place, on an irritation of the terminal branches of the erectile nerves of the gland brought on by the adherences, and in the second place to irritation caused by the retention of smegma. This double irritation leads to masturbation, to the perversion of sexual desire, and finally to reflex neuroses.The preputial adherences of the clitoris are, according to Dr. Morris, the only and direct cause of the reflex neuroses from which thousands of New England women suffer, and he adds: "We can now understand how the most irritable young girl, the one who is most disagreeable and hysterical, may be made gentle, charming, and become endowed with a thousand feminine graces, by the simple rupture of the bands that bind down the clitoris [clitoral incision]." The therapeutic deduction is perfect, and we do not doubt that all husbands in New England who have shrewish wives will now employ Dr. Morris to break up these adhesions of the clitoris, and bring peace to many a suffering Boston household."
[Adherent Clitoris in all Shrewish Women. Cincinnati Lancet-Clinic. Translated from J Med Paris.] 1894 Peter C. Remondino claimed circumcision would curb the "predisposition" of black men to rape white women. Remondino's proposal was supported by several medical journals including the Maryland Medical Journal and the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (now the New England Journal of Medicine).
"From our observations and experience in such cases, we feel fully warranted in suggesting the wholesale circumcision of the Negro race as an efficient remedy in preventing the predisposition to discriminate raping so inherent in that race. We have seen this act as a valuable preventive measure in cases where an inordinate and unreasoning as well as morbid carnal desire threatened physical shipwreck; if in such cases the morbid appetite has been removed or at least brought within manageable and natural bounds, we cannot see why it should not—at least in a certain beneficial degree—also affect the moral stamina of a race proverbial for the leathery consistency, inordinate redundancy, generous sebaceousness and general mental suggestiveness and hypnotizing influence of an unnecessary and rape, murder and lynching breeding prepuce."
[Negro rapes and their social problems. National Popular Review vol. 4 p. 3.] 1894 Darby (2005) wrote: “eleven boys confined in a Kansas mental institute were castrated for persistent masturbation.” When the press was critical of this, "the Kansas Medical Journal defended the institute's action” writing “this abuse weakened the already imbecile mind and destroyed the body” (Darby, 2005). 1895 Charles E. Fisher, a homeopathic doctor, wrote:
"In all cases in which male children are suffering nerve tension, confirmed derangement of the digestive organs, restlessness, irritability, and other disturbances of the nervous system, even to chorea, convulsions, and paralysis, or where through nerve waste the nutritive facilities of the general system are below par and structural diseases are occurring circumcision should be considered as among the lines of treatment to be pursued." A like rule obtains with reference to female children. In general practice the sexual organs in both sexes should be carefully examined by the general practitioner in early infancy, and at various times throughout child-life, with reference to the correction of deformity or unnatural conditions that may be present. ...the clitoris is often firmly bound down by an adherent hood; numerous reflexes arising therefrom. It has become quite the rule the examine the sexual organs of male children at or soon after birth, but, on the other hand, it is equally the rule to neglect to examine girl babies. As children of the weaker sex grow their more delicate nervous systems begin to show the effect of genital irritations, and many a case of chorea, confirmed headache, nervous jactitations, paralytic weakness, unusual irritability, melancholia or other abnormal state of the nervous system long remains uncured because of the failure to make careful examination of the condition of the genitalia and relieve irritations and adhesions at this site."
[A Hand-Book On The Diseases of Children And Their Homeopathic Treatment. Chicago: Medical Century Co. 1895] 1895 Edgar J. Spratling began his article explaining that part of the great evil of masturbation was that it might lead to being sodomized in an insane asylum. He advocated tight circumcisions to prevent the skin from being able to move, a natural feature of the human penis which facilitates masturbation. If not tight circumcision, cutting the nerves to the penis could also be used to blunt the individual's sexuality, and he advocated that surgery as well, but it was a more delicate surgery compared to circumcision.
"In women the road to its cure is an endless and monotonous journey, for nothing short of ovariotomy will be found to deserve even the term palliative; clitoridectomy, anatomically and physiologically, could be but a failure, blistering [i.e., cauterization is] only [a] cruelty. Among men the case is not so hopeless, for there anatomy is partly in the operator's favor [meaning male erogenous sensitivity is easier to destroy]. Of the treatments we might speak of blistering the glans penis, but only to condemn it as an uncalled for cruelty; the possible beneficial effect is so transient, while the untoward effect is often so lasting upon the patient mentally in the way of a feeling of resentment, that it is doubtful if one could ever justify such a proceeding. Complete section of the dorsal nerves of the penis (as I have previously advocated) is a rational procedure, but rather too radical for constant routine practice. The cases require the greatest care in the selection for this operation, and even then with all due care one will generally have to encounter the most strenuous objections and later the bitterest reproach and condemnation from the patients and from their relatives—though the object sought may have been obtained [at the expense of causing penile numbness and impotence]. [In cases of masturbation] circumcision is undoubtedly the physicians' closest friend and ally. "To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained. "The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch."
[Masturbation in the Adult. Med Rec.] 1895 T. Ritchie Stone strongly advocated circumcision for all male infants in his pro-surgery review. [Circumcision. Maryland Med J.] 1896 An editorial in a scientific journal lists reasons for circumcision as everything from bed wetting to elephantitis.
"Local indications for circumcision: Hygienic, phimosis, paraphimosis, redundancy (where the prepuce more than covers the glans), adhesions, papillomata, ecaema (acute and chronic), oedema, chancre, chancroid, cicatrices, inflammatory thickening, elephantitis, naevus, epithelioma, gangrene, tuberculosis, prepupital calculi, hip-joint disease, hernia. Systematic indication: Onanism [masturbation], seminal emissions, enuresis [bed wetting], dysuria, retention, general nervousness, impotence, convulsions, hystero-epilepsy."
[Medical Record, Circumscisus, Medical Record, vol. 49 (1896): p.430.] 1897 S. G. A. Brown of Pennsylvania repeated the same Semitophillic sentiment as Remondino:
"The Jews, who perform this operation on the eighth day after birth, are, from actual observations, known to be exempt from many diseases which afflict other races. Their children are hardy, and grow up to manhood and womanhood strangers to disease, perfect in body, sound in mind, and with a morality above condemnation. It is rare that they figure in silly crimes, police or divorce courts. That an appendage like the prepuce which under various conditions, as phimosis, short frenum or preputial adhesions, is the leading factor in the production of enuresis, dysuria, impotence, calculi, cancer, syphilis, phthisis or various other reflex neuroses, can be considered as a natural physiological appendage, is absurd in the extreme. In order to render the rising generation healthy, mentally morally and physically, we must pay attention to this redundant tissue, and advise its early removal. Fully three-fourths of all male babies have abnormal prepuces."
[A Plea for Circumcision. J Orificial Surgery quoted in The Medical World] 1898 T. Scott McFarland of Missouri reported on the circumcision of a two-year-old girl with precocious puberty and anomalous symptoms of irritation. In closing he added that he had "circumcised as many girls as boys, and always with happy results." Note that circumcision meant prepucectomy for either sex until the 1980s. The more severe form of genital cutting more familiar to people today as female circumcision/FGM meaning clitoridectomy was then called "[clitoral] excision" or the oddly overgeneralized, "operative procedure". [Circumcision of girls. J Orificial Surgery.] 1898 Edwin H. Pratt wrote:
"The condition of the foreskin of boys has received more or less attention, at least since the days of Moses, who is reported to have inaugurated the practice of circumcision of the male portion of the human race. But the girls have been neglected. Without presuming to pose as their Moses, I do feel an irresistible impulse to cry out against the shameful neglect of the clitoris and its hood, because of the vast amount of sickness and suffering, which could be saved the gentler sex, if this important subject received proper attention and appreciation at the hands of the medical profession. All up-to-date doctors realize the importance of the proper condition of the foreskin in the male and of securing it during infancy. The foreskin must be completely loosened, if it is too long amputated and if it is too tight slit open, in order to avoid the dangers of infantile convulsions, of hip-joint disease, of kidney disease, of paralysis, of eczema universalis, of stammering, of dyspepsia, of pulmonary tuberculosis, of constipation, of locomotor ataxia, of rheumatism, of idiocy and insanity, and of lust and all its consequences. But the poor girls, who have an organ called the clitoris, anatomically corresponding to the penis of the male, with a hood corresponding to the foreskin of the male and just as sorely in need of [surgical] attention, and just as prolific of mischief when neglected as the corresponding parts of the male, have been permitted to suffer on in silence. The same list of diseases which have their start in nerve waste caused by a faulty foreskin in the male is duplicated by the female sex from identically the same cause, in addition to other troubles peculiar to the female organization from which, of course, the male are exempt, and yet it goes on almost entirely unrecognized. Chorea, so frequent in young girls, chlorosis, which comes a little later on, and hysteria, which is also a common affliction, in addition to the same diseases from which boys whose foreskin have been neglected are liable to suffer, have their organ almost invariably in faulty conditions of the hood of the clitoris. It is such a simple matter to secure a normal condition of the hood and its clitoris, and its neglect is fraught with so much and such serious mischief to the gentler sex, that the sin of omission which is being constantly and everywhere committed is painful to contemplate. Doctors are not easily educated out of their beaten tracks. So let both sexes have a start in life and be entirely freed from the sexual self consciousness which inevitably comes from impinged nerve fibres about the clitoris and its hood as well as at the glans penis and its foreskin. ... A vigorous sympathetic nervous system means health and long life. What surgical interest have we in this fact? It can be told in just one sentence. The weakness and the power of the sympathetic nerve lies at the orifices of the body. Surgery must keep these orifices properly smoothed and dilated."
"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision... He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures."
[Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision. Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp.249-251.] 1898 Emmet L. Holt advocated for circumcision under the following reasoning:
"Circumcision should be done if phimosis exists, and even where it is not, the moral effect of the operation is sometimes of very great benefit."
[The Diseases Of Infancy And Childhood. New York: D. Appleton. 1897:696-698.] 1899 Denslow Lewis, a Chicago gynecologist, presented evidence for the benefits of female circumcision (prepucectomy) at a meeting of the AMA in 1899. In “a large percentage” of women who failed to find marital passion “there is a preputial adhesion, and a judicious circumcision, together with consistent advice, will often be successful.” He treated 38 women with circumcision reporting “reasonably satisfactory results in each instance.” [The Gynecologic consideration of the sexual act]
2020.08.26 01:10 Henry1502incSeen some pretty depressing posts on here, here's a success story:) (I hit the tinder dating lottery)
Ok so this post has 3 parts, my story, my strategy, and my advice to you all, mostly guys. 6ft, 25 years old black guy, slim build (used to be incredibly in shape), used to have more money than I knew what to do with, traveled, and pretty dry humor. Lives in Northeast USA. My story So during lockdown, I matched with a couple girls while watching 90 day fiance. Met up with one (had fun, no sex, period), chemistry was on point, but trust and insecurities on her end killed it. Although she's always left the door open for me even as she flies to and from DC and SF frequently. Matched with another girl (2) who just rejoined tinder, her first day back, and we just clicked. Not going to lie, I was still playing the field, I assumed she was too because a lot of women from my experience do despite saying otherwise. Anyway, matched with a couple more, chemistry's there for most. Damn, having quality options is stressful as fuck as a guy. You go through weeks, months of drought, and boom, a bunch of women show up out of nowhere suddenly interested. If you don't pick one fast enough, they all drop you all at the same time, it's like they are all synced up, its soooo weird and unfair. Personally I don't know how some guys manage to have multiple people on rotation. It's like a full time job. Anyway girl 3 and I are planning a trip to LA and Phoenix deep into lockdown and then my money dries up from the stock market, I was really hoping NY would go down in flames and NVDA (Nividia, semiconductor company) would print gold. I timed it wrong and lost 90%. Girl 2 is even more interested in me now for some reason. We get really close. Turns out last guy really hurt her, and I was there at the right place and time, and listened. She ends up really trusting me. --I'm talking bout setting up joint investment accounts (she gave me her social security number, she could find out mine). She has access to the account which has all my money in the account. TD Ameritrade kept asking, dude are you sure you trust her lol, she could cash out and disappear with you're money. In this account, my profits have shot up. I'm a lot more conservative now that I know she can see my losses. --I'm talking bout, her offering to pay for everything to see me. --I'm talking bout her telling me when she found out she had a trust fund, the exact dollar amount, and when the split payments become available (27 yrs, 32 yrs, 37 yrs). She said just be honest and treat her good. --I'm talking bout her offering a 3sum with her female best friends who are all down. --I'm talking bout her offering her bank info and i'm like nahh i don't need it now lol (I made $1200 last monday on the stock market with nvda, I was complaining and asking if i can send her my profits so i don't overspend, she was like want my bank and routing info to wire it into. I was sooo taken back with how comfortable she is with me). Honestly, at this point, I really trust her. She's learned to compromise with my quirks (depression/lack of communication especially when I have a bad market day). I'm learning to deal with her very "real" life with some off the wall depression and other issues. She's the type of person you would have never guessed because they always seem so happy. We're not even in an official relationship... she's tried unsuccessfully by giving me ultimatums lol. She's kind of ok with it now, but I'm sure that'll change when covid fears go away. Strategy Tinder Plus works in the sense that it puts you in front of new women before the avalanche of guys can penetrate her screen. You're basically paying for speed, options, and visibility. If you can afford it, boosts and super likes seem to work for me, less now than before. It speeds up matches as well. Coffee Meets Bagel used to be the best OLD app 5 years ago but now they basically try to extract as much money out of guys as possible. For example, you can pay like $5 to send a girl a single rose pedal (6 i think completes an entire flower), but most women on the app often have over 100+ guys in line already, there's no guarantee she will even see you're grand gesture, or that she will match with you. 99% chance you lose all you're money. Bumble had so much promise. As a guy we should all want bumble to succeed. They never will but we can dream. The problem with bumble is, after you swipe right on every women, you'll get 4 matches. The two woman you're least attracted/interested in will be the ones who message and put in real effort........... Maybe 1/2 you find attractive will send you a half ass hey message. Every. Single. Time. But usually they expire without a conversation going anywhere. I guess this is what a lot of women mean when they say quantity isn't always the best thing. Hinge is pretty chill. A lot of women on the app surprisingly use it for hookups (please don't flood the app), a lot actually are open to some kind of relationships, it's refreshing. Not to sound like an asshole here but the app doesn't seem to have the most attractive base. I think it's largely where I am, because my god Pittsburgh is popping. As a normal guy, hinge may be you're best bet. I would pay a pretty penny to know what percentage of their base filters based on race and other characteristics but wouldn't admit it in person. My advice This is going to go against what many people think but please don't give a fuck when you're on tinder or most of these apps. I feel like some of you are overthinking things a lot and stressing yourselves out. Find a good boilerplate message that isn't used to much, with fillers to swap out names, and you're on you're way. Claim ignorance if people say they've heard it before lol. I can't tell you just how many times coming in aggressive, not caring, or messaging with a tinge of assholeness has worked. Keep you're bio short and simple. 5 things about yourself. 3-4 pics of yourself, 1 of you doing something or with friends. Steal (borrow) a dog. Claim you're terrible ex stole you're dog and xbox when ya'll split. Now you both have a common enemy (you're ex and her ex's). Shamelessly use everything to you're advantage. If you have a prestigious job, find a way to say it in you're profile. If you're in grad school, put that shit in, you've got vision and are going places! Put you're salary/income if you make a lot, trust me it works, if it's high enough for you're age and location, its the equivalent of saying you're a Harvard Alum, people sit up and take you slightly more seriously. Ex: $100k salary for a 22 yr old guy in Ohio is a flex. $150k for a 27 year old in SF? You might as well be homeless, $300k TC or GTFO (I'm joking, not really, coastal cities are expensive af). Stop putting women on a pedestal, they are just people. Look we've all been there, especially if shes beautiful. But you would be surprised how much goodwill you get from some really attractive women for having the balls to approach, not say something stupid, not try to buy her, stand you're ground and not be a push over. For ex: I'll go out looking like a bum (it helps to have a Mercedes), approach a woman saying something dumb like, "let me guess, you are an overworked grad student?" If she's interested, she'll give you 20 seconds to shoot you're shot. Next thing you know, you're taking about her program, and how she just got back from xyz country, and has been in the peace corp or teach for america. Don't be clingy. This one took me too long to understand. Say you meet someone you're interested in, the initial contact/conversation went well, don't linger. Give out you're contact, tell her to have fun with her friends and go do you. She will reach out and circle back if she's interested. If she's not, you at least got done whatever you wanted to and didn't waste you're time putting all you're eggs in one basket. Honesty and directness does sometimes work. Avoid people who don't want meetup within a week or two. The longer you spend talking without meeting, the greater the chance you'll never meet or you two won't work out. Honestly, if a woman want's to meet you, she will see you same day, and definitely same week. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you or is an outlier. Women who are extremely busy but interested will turn you down but will say I am free these days around these times. That's the key difference. If they aren't interested, they won't give you a chance. Chances are they're talking to someone else and or meeting up with another guy. Same rule applies during Covid. Seems like women in super liberal areas are the last holdouts. I remember complaining to my friend in Miami about women not wanting to meetup, she was confused because everyone in Miami gave 0 fucks, and were meeting up at bars/restaurants that everyone knew were open illegally. If you ask some women in DC and SF to meetup somewhere you'll get a lecture about how we're in a pandemic..... You do realize it takes at best 18 months to rush a drug, most usually take 10+ years before hitting the market. Are you really telling me you'll be the only person not meeting anyone for 18+ months while most of the country is going on as usual? (I disagree with how some southern states are handling covid/reopening). Lastly dating for some guys in my opinion is wayyyy harder. But some of you complaining are a bit unbelievable. Like I sit back and think, man you white guys have it soo much easier than everyone else on these apps. Many women on these apps absolutely treat you guys better and prioritize over other groups. I've seen a run of the mill average white guy, getting bodies thrown at him, whereas say a black guy gets crickets. Unless said black guy embraces/fits the stereotype which is incredibly annoying. Or said black/latino/asian guy lives/visits an area where they are seen as a unicorn. For me, Newfoundland Canada, god's best kept secret gift to the world. Next is Tennessee, Iowa/South Dakota, small town America, and Bali.
2020.08.24 00:16 kchiang4I've broken up so many times, but this time I didn't do anything wrong! I still want to salvage this.
Long Story: I've (28 y.o.) been in a relationship with this girl (28 y.o.) for 1.5 years. She is a doctor and is very passionate about professionalism and taking care of business (chores and responsibilities) as soon as possible, something she feels that I lack. She is introverted, a home body, and only has several close friends. Born into a well-off upper-middle class family in a small town, she is extremely close to them and calls her parents on a daily basis. Her parents never abused her and would usually give her whatever she wanted as a younger sibling. Because of this, she is a very secure person, which is why I feel that she doesn't need to be in a relationship in order to feel whole. M ex and I met through a mutual friend. We clicked well at my friend's dinner party, and things became intimate really quickly. She seemed to really appreciate the physical aspect of the relationship more than I did and would ask for it almost on a daily basis. Admittedly, I was not used to her sexual appetite and even had to ask for break days. The women I’ve been with in the past were very conservative. That, along with requesting her to work out with me and dress up for me (jeans instead of sweats, lingerie in bed), may have led to her feeling that I don't find her attractive. A few key aspects that contributed to the breakup: She wants to live in a small town, but she knows how much I love bigger cities. I've been trying to convince her to move to California, but she refuses. That’s not a deal-breaker for me. Secondly, she is a very frugal person, and believes that our spending habits differ too much, even though I haven’t spent on anything unnecessary in the past year or so. Third, she does not care about maintaining appearances, and possibly took offense when I suggested for her to dress up for me (jeans instead of sweats, lingerie in bed). The second point is where I figured that it’s hard for her to change first impressions. She makes permanent judgments based on first impressions and follows her intuition and feeling. She won’t let anything dissuade those impressions easily. I also noticed that she judges and criticizes most people, and possibly doesn’t really care about the circumstances. She's only been in two relationships: one was a short-lived long distance relationship in high school. She broke it off due to the distance. The second relationship was with someone she met in grad school. She broke things off with him after a year because she did not believe he cared enough about her. She’s been single for 6 years before we met, and just started her career when we got together. We lived at her place instead of mine. She insists to live at her place due to the stressful nature of her career. She convinced me to sleep over on a daily basis, making room for my stuff. I never really liked her place, and couldn’t feel in my element, taking care of chores and business. It felt more like me staying over as a guest and her taking care of her stuff. (Later on, I tried being more involved around the place.) She was definitely type-A personality with cleanliness, but the way she treated me and how bubbly/lazy/chill she was when we hung out tricked me into believing that she was very laid back, which led to problems. In my head, I would just simply be enjoying it with her and hanging out/kicking back, but she was holding me accountable for how unorganized I was. Our first break up occurred when we were out at an event with a group of people. She noticed me eyeing another girl (and I admit that I was) for a majority of the event's duration. When we arrived home, she requested that we break up. However, she didn't admit the reason was due to the girl I've been eyeing. Instead, she blamed that we were too different people. I begged for her back and it worked. A second break up occurred when I had a scheduled flight with the departure date the day after her birthday. I had forgotten about the flight date and had to spend most of her birthday packing and preparing for my trip. Again, I begged for her to stay and it worked. Three weeks into this trip, we planned to call each other at 9 PM, and I did not arrive at my hotel for this call. I was under the impression that it would be okay to call away from my hotel room (I was at a train station on my way back) as long as I was talking with her on the phone. Little did I know that being at my hotel mattered to her. I guess in this case, I did not match my promise word for word. I managed to beg for her back again. I begged for hours on the phone for her to reconsider, and she did. A month after coming home from the trip: The next break up occurred when I came back to her place late at night (waking her up when she had to sleep for 7:00am work). She was so furious that she didn't want to listen to whatever reason I had. I came back late because I was hosting some international students for a tour and did not want to rudely leave the group abruptly, especially when a visiting professor treated us out for ice cream. This was the first time we spent a breakup apart. I wrote to her saying how I accepted the breakup and gave her her space, returning her stuff, asking her to forgive me and to remain friends. Because of this, she kept in touch, initiating contact. She invited me to hang out two days later and ended up getting back together. She understood that this case was not my fault during our talk and admitted that stress at work caused her to overreact. This is the 10 month mark of our relationship, and at this time, we talked about her expectations, how important it is for her that I'm on time, and for me to pick up after myself more. A few months later, another breakup occurred. That day, she texted me from work, "What do you want to do for dinner?". I responded, "let me think and I'll get back to you". Little did I know she expected me to know the time she gets off work (5:00 PM), and to be at home by that time. This was not communicated in the texts. I had to beg her to hear me out and that a meet-up time was not communicated. The next day, she was calmer, and finally listened. At this point, we both decided to work on having clearer communication. The latest breakup occurred when I had to go out of town for business-related trips during weekdays for three consecutive weeks. Lately, I've been noticing that she has not been initiating texts. At the end of the second weekend, I came back home later than the agreed upon time by 10 minutes (10:40 PM). She knew I scheduled with friends for a celebration, and we agreed 10:30, but I came home 10:40. That night, she did not talk to me, but after a couple hours of lying in bed, things became very intimate… The next couple days, we were talking again, and those nights were also more intimate than usual, with her asking for sex each night (more than usual). After that weekend, I left for my last week of the business trip. During those weekdays, I would text her, and she would reply back enthusiastically. However, I noticed that I was always initiating texts, and that she would not initiate texting like she used to months before this. I decided to stay silent, give her a chance to initiate a text, but she did not initiate anything. On my last day, I texted her, and she texted back with enthusiasm to random questions I had. Upon arriving to her place and meeting with her, the tone of her voice didn't match the texts. I was greeted with a stern and short "hi". When I asked her what was wrong, she said that she wanted to break up. She told me it was nothing that I did wrong this time, but she felt like we were too different, and that she enjoyed her time away from me more than the time with me. I tried to reason with her that maybe we just need more time to ourselves and that we've been spending too much time together. She wouldn't listen, and I felt that nothing I say would be able to change her mind. I could tell that she made up her mind. So, this time, I did something different. I walked out of her apartment without begging. Immediately, she asked for her keys back and I gave it to her. Two days later, she dropped off my stuff and asked for her stuff back looking unphased and neutral. I tried to seem unphased by the breakup and tried to portray positivity. A month goes by without a word from her, so I write her a letter thanking her for the breakup. I also wrote about what I've realized about my problems in the relationship and what I've done to change. I also asked if she was willing to meet up. She said she was happy that I was doing well and suggested that we meet later on. Her reason was that she doesn't want to spread COVID to me. Three weeks go by and no word from her yet. So far, I've worked on myself, worked on healing. My strategy was to re-attract her back by being positive and making her feel a sense of joy and fun when being around me. One of her biggest complaints throughout the relationship was she felt I was not taking my studies seriously, that I didn't clean after myself well, and she felt like she had to be the one taking care of me. It's these things that I tried to work on too. ---------------------------------------------------------(4 months later) ----------------------------------------------------------- It’s been 4 months of no contact. After the 1st month, I sent a letter, in which she agreed to meet up again, but for months she did not message me back. 3 months in, I texted her how proud I was that she was in the front lines of covid and wished her well. She was receptive to that message and said thanks. After month 4 passing by, I was pretty much fed up with waiting for her to send me a meet-up message and pretty much planned on moving on. I also decided to move back to California with my family, but as a last ditch effort, I asked her if I could meet her by returning some stuff of hers. She didn’t respond. So, the next day, I sent her a message saying that it wasn’t only about her stuff, but that I wanted to see her one last time before I went back to California. She sounded surprised, and said OK, and that she was sorry for missing my message yesterday. She claimed to be busy. When we met, I could tell in her body language that she was really happy to see me, almost submissive-like. I was able to convince her to take me back, even though she put up some resistance initially. We caught up, and I showed her how much I’ve changed. I was much more confident with her and made her laugh a lot. I told stories and we caught up. I talked about how I started investing, found a new job, and started tackling student loans. I acted more responsible around her apartment and gave her space to herself when I noticed she was busy. I could tell she was impressed. We saw each other for a total of 5 days. The first day, she weakly pushed my advances away, but we were like two magnets and became very intimate. After, I talked to her about the idea of getting back together. She was reluctant but agreed. I stayed overnight. The second day, I came back to her place after doing some more packing at my place, she wanted to stop what was going on and not see me, but I was able to charm her into the idea of seeing each other again. The third night, she told me to come over later in the evening around 8, and that she’d text me when since her parents were visiting. She texted me at 7 pm that she was heading home, but by the time 8 arrived, she messaged me to stay at my place for the night since she was tired… I agreed. The fourth night, she texted me when she was heading back from work. I stayed over at her place. We were intimate again and talked more about our plans. She even told me that she informed her mom that we were talking again! I could tell that her brother was also informed, because he started to interact with me on a game the three of us used to play. On our last night together (5th day), she reserved the evening starting from 6:30 pm for us. At this point, I felt like for sure we were getting back together. We agreed to meet up in September some time, where then I would fly back to her. We were very amicable towards each other and happy. However, when she dropped me off for my flight before work, she was furious that I put her in a time crunch. Timeliness was one of her peeves, and was a reoccurring issue she had with me, which contributed to several break ups. This incident was different though compared to previous times I was late to things: The night before, I asked her if she could take me to grab breakfast at a drive-through before taking me to the airport. She said no because she wanted to sleep in more (she's a doctor with a busy schedule). The next morning, we both woke up earlier than we planned without the help of the alarm. So, I asked her if we were able to go grab breakfast and she agreed. As we got there, we turn the corner into the drive through and it didn't look bad, until we noticed that the line took longer to move than we anticipated. After that, the whole ride to the airport was tense. She didn't look at me, stared straight, was quiet the whole ride. I checked the gps, and it said that she would get to work on time (she normally gets to work on the dot, maybe a couple minutes early due to wanting the most amount of sleep), but in her mind, she was late. In my opinion, the feeling of being rushed is what angered her not whether she was late. When she dropped me off, she told me that "you haven't changed at all" and drove off. The next couple days, I tried messaging and calling her to apologize. On the second day, she messages me to never visit her again, that she firmly believes that we're not compatible, and that this was a learning experience for the both of us. (I also noticed that her brother stopped interacting with me the day that this all started). After I received this message, I texted to her that I wanted to call her one last time. I try calling her, but no pickup. So I leave a voicemail explaining my feelings, how confused I was, and felt like we had a connection. I asked her to call me back if she changed her mind. The next day (today), I texted to text her: To be fair, neither of us foresaw that the drive-through would be so slow at 6:45 AM until we were in line. The judgement to get food was a team call. We both had equal accountability in this, but for me, extended fasting is painful, and I didn’t want to lose weight. I was also motivated to try and stay fit for your pleasure. I apologize to you earlier as a cultural habit of courtesy and politeness for inconvening you. And to show empathy conveying how you may have felt. I understand you are sensitive to any time-related issues where I’m involved, given past incidences, but I am a changed man! The past few months, I clocked in to work 10 minutes early ever since I started in March, recorded on ADT. I cooked and cleaned after myself, taking care of the garbage and recyclables at your place while managing my own business. Please let go of this incident Alice. Give me a fair chance to prove myself. Would this text message have any effect? I'm totally devastated. I want her back, and we were so close to getting back together. Bottom line is, I don't feel like I was at fault, and I hoped that she would see that. However, my apology saying I would never do that again may have triggered her to send the above message... Even after her message, is there a chance to reconciling? During those 4 months of no contact before our meet up, she never contacted me, and was very committed to moving on... What can I do after I give her space again to calm down? I know she was hesitant to take me back, and felt betrayed, but it wasn't entirely my fault. She had a part in it when she agreed to take me to get food. She could have communicated that breakfast was no longer a good idea! The previous times I was late, I was at fault because I arrived late to events. She then deleted me from social media and texted to me that she will drop off my remaining stuff at her place to my friend’s place, since she knows I will be back in Iowa. She said, “to be clear, I have no intentions of seeing you again.” She is now stonewalling me and not replying to texts and calls at all, unlike before. Please note: I realized that she is an extremely stubborn person and avoids conflict - not willing to communicate and talk through problems. She trusts her intuition and feelings wholeheartedly over discussions. I also noticed that stressful work schedules make her blow up easier… but the problem is, she voluntarily over-stacks her schedule with too many hours because she likes to work! She loves the money, and then spends a significant amount of her free time sleeping. Still, I love her to the ends of the Earth. I love her preferences in staying home, having passion for healthcare, sexual appetite, and not being materialistic or too crazy about social media. I love that she’s highly intelligent, practical, and beautiful, and that we share the same cultural background. We’re both uncomfortable with attention and big weddings. I don’t think I’ll easily find a better fit than this. I regret not asking her to meet up before I made plans to move back to cali. Had this been the case, and me staying at her place, I’m sure there would have been more time for us to redevelop our connection for a more stable relationship. She would have had more time to notice my changes instead of making assumptions that I never changed.
2020.08.23 20:55 kchiang4Multiple breakups but I still want to salvage this.
Long Story: I've (28 y.o.) been in a relationship with this girl (28 y.o.) for 1.5 years. She is a doctor and is very passionate about professionalism and taking care of business (chores and responsibilities) as soon as possible, something she feels that I lack. She is introverted, a home body, and only has several close friends. Born into a well-off upper-middle class family in a small town, she is extremely close to them and calls her parents on a daily basis. Her parents never abused her and would usually give her whatever she wanted as a younger sibling. Because of this, she is a very secure person, which is why I feel that she doesn't need to be in a relationship in order to feel whole. M ex and I met through a mutual friend. We clicked well at my friend's dinner party, and things became intimate really quickly. She seemed to really appreciate the physical aspect of the relationship more than I did and would ask for it almost on a daily basis. Admittedly, I was not used to her sexual appetite and even had to ask for break days. The women I’ve been with in the past were very conservative. That, along with requesting her to work out with me and dress up for me (jeans instead of sweats, lingerie in bed), may have led to her feeling that I don't find her attractive. A few key aspects that contributed to the breakup: She wants to live in a small town, but she knows how much I love bigger cities. I've been trying to convince her to move to California, but she refuses. That’s not a deal-breaker for me. Secondly, she is a very frugal person, and believes that our spending habits differ too much, even though I haven’t spent on anything unnecessary in the past year or so. Third, she does not care about maintaining appearances, and possibly took offense when I suggested for her to dress up for me (jeans instead of sweats, lingerie in bed). The second point is where I figured that it’s hard for her to change first impressions. She makes permanent judgement based on first impressions and follows her intuition and feeling. She won’t let anything dissuade those impressions easily. I also noticed that she judges and criticizes most people, and possibly doesn’t really care about the circumstances. She's only been in two relationships: one was a short-lived long distance relationship in high school. She broke it off due to the distance. The second relationship was with someone she met in grad school. She broke things off with him after a year because she did not believe he cared enough about her. She’s been single for 6 years before we met, and just started her career when we got together. We lived at her place instead of mine. She insists to live at her place due to the stressful nature of her career. She convinced me to sleep over on a daily basis, making room for my stuff. I never really liked her place, and couldn’t feel in my element, taking care of chores and business. It felt more like me staying over as a guest and her taking care of her stuff. (Later on, I tried being more involved around the place.) She was definitely type-A personality with cleanliness, but the way she treated me and how bubbly/lazy/chill she was when we hung out tricked me into believing that she was very laid back, which led to problems. In my head, I would just simply be enjoying it with her and hanging out/kicking back, but she was holding me accountable for how unorganized I was. Our first break up occurred when we were out at an event with a group of people. She noticed me eyeing another girl (and I admit that I was) for a majority of the event's duration. When we arrived home, she requested that we break up. However, she didn't admit the reason was due to the girl I've been eyeing. Instead, she blamed that we were too different people. I begged for her back and it worked. A second break up occurred when I had a scheduled flight with the departure date the day after her birthday. I had forgotten about the flight date and had to spend most of her birthday packing and preparing for my trip. Again, I begged for her to stay and it worked. Three weeks into this trip, we planned to call each other at 9 PM, and I did not arrive at my hotel for this call. I was under the impression that it would be okay to call away from my hotel room (I was at a train station on my way back) as long as I was talking with her on the phone. Little did I know that being at my hotel mattered to her. I guess in this case, I did not match my promise word for word. I managed to beg for her back again. I begged for hours on the phone for her to reconsider, and she did. A month after coming home from the trip: The next break up occurred when I came back to her place late at night (waking her up when she had to sleep for 7:00 am work). She was so furious that she didn't want to listen to whatever reason I had. I came back late because I was hosting some international students for a tour and did not want to rudely leave the group abruptly, especially when a visiting professor treated us out for ice cream. This was the first time we spent a breakup apart. I wrote to her saying how I accepted the breakup and gave her her space, returning her stuff, asking her to forgive me and to remain friends. Because of this, she kept in touch, initiating contact. She invited me to hang out two days later and ended up getting back together. She understood that this case was not my fault during our talk and admitted that stress at work caused her to overreact. This is the 10 month mark of our relationship, and at this time, we talked about her expectations, how important it is for her that I'm on time, and for me to pick up after myself more. A few months later, another breakup occurred. That day, she texted me from work, "What do you want to do for dinner?". I responded, "let me think and I'll get back to you". Little did I know she expected me to know the time she gets off work (5:00 PM), and to be at home by that time. This was not communicated in the texts. I had to beg her to hear me out and that a meet-up time was not communicated. The next day, she was calmer, and finally listened. At this point, we both decided to work on having clearer communication. The latest breakup occurred when I had to go out of town for business-related trips during weekdays for three consecutive weeks. Lately, I've been noticing that she has not been initiating texts. At the end of the second weekend, I came back home later than the agreed upon time by 10 minutes (10:40 PM). She knew I scheduled with friends for a celebration, and we agreed 10:30, but I came home 10:40. That night, she did not talk to me, but after a couple hours of lying in bed, things became very intimate… The next couple days, we were talking again, and those nights were also more intimate than usual, with her asking for sex each night (more than usual). After that weekend, I left for my last week of the business trip. During those weekdays, I would text her, and she would reply back enthusiastically. However, I noticed that I was always initiating texts, and that she would not initiate texting like she used to months before this. I decided to stay silent, give her a chance to initiate a text, but she did not initiate anything. On my last day, I texted her, and she texted back with enthusiasm to random questions I had. Upon arriving to her place and meeting with her, the tone of her voice didn't match the texts. I was greeted with a stern and short "hi". When I asked her what was wrong, she said that she wanted to break up. She told me it was nothing that I did wrong this time, but she felt like we were too different, and that she enjoyed her time away from me more than the time with me. I tried to reason with her that maybe we just need more time to ourselves and that we've been spending too much time together. She wouldn't listen, and I felt that nothing I say would be able to change her mind. I could tell that she made up her mind. So, this time, I did something different. I walked out of her apartment without begging. Immediately, she asked for her keys back and I gave it to her. Two days later, she dropped off my stuff and asked for her stuff back looking unphased and neutral. I tried to seem unphased by the breakup and tried to portray positivity. A month goes by without a word from her, so I write her a letter thanking her for the breakup. I also wrote about what I've realized about my problems in the relationship and what I've done to change. I also asked if she was willing to meet up. She said she was happy that I was doing well and suggested that we meet later on. Her reason was that she doesn't want to spread COVID to me. Three weeks go by and no word from her yet. So far, I've worked on myself, worked on healing. My strategy was to re-attract her back by being positive and making her feel a sense of joy and fun when being around me. One of her biggest complaints throughout the relationship was she felt I was not taking my studies seriously, that I didn't clean after myself well, and she felt like she had to be the one taking care of me. It's these things that I tried to work on too. ---------------------------------------------------------(4 months later) ----------------------------------------------------------- It’s been 4 months of no contact. After the 1st month, I sent a letter, in which she agreed to meet up again, but for months she did not message me back. 3 months in, I texted her how proud I was that she was in the front lines of covid and wished her well. She was receptive to that message and said thanks. After month 4 passing by, I was pretty much fed up with waiting for her to send me a meet-up message and pretty much planned on moving on. I also decided to move back to California with my family, but as a last ditch effort, I asked her if I could meet her by returning some stuff of hers. She didn’t respond. So, the next day, I sent her a message saying that it wasn’t only about her stuff, but that I wanted to see her one last time before I went back to California. She sounded surprised, and said OK, and that she was sorry for missing my message yesterday. She claimed to be busy. When we met, I could tell in her body language that she was really happy to see me, almost submissive-like. I was able to convince her to take me back, even though she put up some resistance initially. We caught up, and I showed her how much I’ve changed. I was much more confident with her and made her laugh a lot. I told stories and we caught up. I talked about how I started investing, found a new job, and started tackling student loans. I acted more responsible around her apartment and gave her space to herself when I noticed she was busy. I could tell she was impressed. We saw each other for a total of 5 days. The first day, she weakly pushed my advances away, but we were like two magnets and became very intimate. After, I talked to her about the idea of getting back together. She was reluctant but agreed. I stayed overnight. The second day, I came back to her place after doing some more packing at my place, she wanted to stop what was going on and not see me, but I was able to charm her into the idea of seeing each other again. The third night, she told me to come over later in the evening around 8, and that she’d text me when since her parents were visiting. She texted me at 7 pm that she was heading home, but by the time 8 arrived, she messaged me to stay at my place for the night since she was tired… I agreed. The fourth night, she texted me when she was heading back from work. I stayed over at her place. We were intimate again and talked more about our plans. She even told me that she informed her mom that we were talking again! I could tell that her brother was also informed, because he started to interact with me on a game the three of us used to play. On our last night together (5th day), she reserved the evening starting from 6:30 pm for us. At this point, I felt like for sure we were getting back together. We agreed to meet up in September some time, where then I would fly back to her. We were very amicable towards each other and happy. However, when she dropped me off for my flight before work, she was furious that I put her in a time crunch. Timeliness was one of her peeves, and was a reoccurring issue she had with me, which contributed to several break ups. This incident was different though compared to previous times I was late to things: The night before, I asked her if she could take me to grab breakfast at a drive-through before taking me to the airport. She said no because she wanted to sleep in more (she's a doctor with a busy schedule). The next morning, we both woke up earlier than we planned without the help of the alarm. So, I asked her if we were able to go grab breakfast and she agreed. As we got there, we turn the corner into the drive through and it didn't look bad, until we noticed that the line took longer to move than we anticipated. After that, the whole ride to the airport was tense. She didn't look at me, stared straight, was quiet the whole ride. I checked the gps, and it said that she would get to work on time (she normally gets to work on the dot, maybe a couple minutes early due to wanting the most amount of sleep), but in her mind, she was late. In my opinion, the feeling of being rushed is what angered her not whether she was late. When she dropped me off, she told me that "you haven't changed at all" and drove off. The next couple days, I tried messaging and calling her to apologize. On the second day, she messages me to never visit her again, that she firmly believes that we're not compatible, and that this was a learning experience for the both of us. (I also noticed that her brother stopped interacting with me the day that this all started). After I received this message, I texted to her that I wanted to call her one last time. I try calling her, but no pickup. So I leave a voicemail explaining my feelings, how confused I was, and felt like we had a connection. I asked her to call me back if she changed her mind. The next day (today), I texted to text her: To be fair, neither of us foresaw that the drive-through would be so slow at 6:45 AM until we were in line. The judgement to get food was a team call. We both had equal accountability in this, but for me, extended fasting is painful, and I didn’t want to lose weight. I was also motivated to try and stay fit for your pleasure. I apologize to you earlier as a cultural habit of courtesy and politeness for inconvening you. And to show empathy conveying how you may have felt. I understand you are sensitive to any time-related issues where I’m involved, given past incidences, but I am a changed man! The past few months, I clocked in to work 10 minutes early ever since I started in March, recorded on ADT. I cooked and cleaned after myself, taking care of the garbage and recyclables at your place while managing my own business. Please let go of this incident Alice. Give me a fair chance to prove myself. Would this text message have any effect? I'm totally devastated. I want her back, and we were so close to getting back together. Bottom line is, I don't feel like I was at fault, and I hoped that she would see that. However, my apology saying I would never do that again may have triggered her to send the above message... Even after her message, is there a chance to reconciling? During those 4 months of no contact before our meet up, she never contacted me, and was very committed to moving on... What can I do after I give her space again to calm down? I know she was hesitant to take me back, and felt betrayed, but it wasn't entirely my fault. She had a part in it when she agreed to take me to get food. She could have communicated that breakfast was no longer a good idea! The previous times I was late, I was at fault because I arrived late to events. She then deleted me from social media and texted to me that she will drop off my remaining stuff at her place to my friend’s place, since she knows I will be back in Iowa. She said, “to be clear, I have no intentions of seeing you again.” She is now stonewalling me and not replying to texts and calls at all, unlike before. Please note: I realized that she is an extremely stubborn person and avoids conflict - not willing to communicate and talk through problems. She trusts her intuition and feelings wholeheartedly over discussions. I also noticed that stressful work schedules make her blow up easier… but the problem is, she voluntarily over-stacks her schedule with too many hours because she likes to work! She loves the money, and then spends a significant amount of her free time sleeping. Still, I love her to the ends of the Earth. I love her preferences in staying home, having passion for healthcare, sexual appetite, and not being materialistic or too crazy about social media. I love that she’s highly intelligent, practical, and beautiful, and that we share the same cultural background. We’re both uncomfortable with attention and big weddings. I don’t think I’ll easily find a better fit than this. I regret not asking her to meet up before I made plans to move back to Cali. Had this been the case, and me staying at her place, I’m sure there would have been more time for us to redevelop our connection for a more stable relationship. She would have had more time to notice my changes instead of making assumptions that I never changed.
2020.08.23 00:51 NamNguyen56I DON'T LIKE BIDEN (A Handbook for All American Citizens!) I DON'T LIKE BIDEN (A Handbook for All American Citizens!)
![img](iyovvyk4vmi51 " I DON'T LIKE BIDEN (A Handbook for All American Citizens!) .📷📷 In the end, former PTT Joe Biden was victorious. The Democrats have officially appointed Biden to represent the campaign against President Trump. Of course, in four decades as a senator and eight years as a vice president, Biden was involved in countless political decisions, big and small, how much success is unknown, but failure or error is infinite. That's why I do NOT like Biden. America cannot be quite good with a president like old Biden, all his life doing wrong, wrong. Biden's deluded mistakes, writing three dictionaries are still not over. Stories related to Vietnam have been discussed many times already. Some of Biden's great tools still tried to twist the ribs of his spine to find a way to justify him not against the Vietnamese refugees, but it seemed that he had not convinced many people. In short: ➥ During the Vietnam War, during the three years as a senator before the VC took the South, old Biden always voted ANTI-all economic and military aid to the RVN, not skipping a single vote to prevent TT Nixon helped the RVN in any way. For the refugees, Mr. Biden has never voted to accept any one cent of the budget to aid the refugees, twice voted against the relief / reception of refugees (April 18, 1975 - May 23, 1975), once without voting for the aid budget (5/6/75), just once signed an innocuous resolution welcoming refugees who have entered the US, are in Guam and Wake (May 8, 1975). That one time was held by Biden's supporters as evidence (only) of Biden supporting refugees. (first) ➥ In addition to that innocuous vote, this man challenges anyone who finds ONE concrete evidence that Biden has supported the RVN and supported Vietnamese refugees throughout his political life. (please do not be confused with later voting in favor of VC). Her attitude and point of view towards China are so much to say that it will probably be the subject of another article. Only Biden has confirmed that \"TC is not a competitor to America (no competitor) but a good friend (good friend) of America\". (2) Because of the limited framework, this article will also be skipped, not to mention the thousands of jokes, wrong words, jokes, stammering. President Trump's Campaign Committee is composing a 'collection' of Biden's most famous gossip, which is welcome by readers, does not laugh and does not eat money. If the ability to make jokes is a necessary ability to be the president, Biden is obvious ... wa-li-fai than 'Hoai Ninh' far (because Hoai Ninh knows his fate does not dare to race with Biden. of the DC party to run for US president). Here, we are only discussing the wrong political decisions or his hat-changing tricks. Is there any wrong place in this article? I would like to ask readers to frankly point out each other, no need to jostle each other. * ⭕️ SUBSIDIES The To Sang group recently released a statement in support of Biden, which read “We need a President from the Democratic Party to maintain good Social Security policies such as Welfare, Food Stamps. v ... v, to help old Vietnamese refugees like us \". Elderly refugees need benefits, not wrong. But supporting Biden is… wrong. Biden for more than 40 years, has always called for cutting benefits, especially SSA old money, including Medicare and Medicaid. In 1995, TNS Biden declared \"When I called for freezing government spending, I wanted to include social security money, ... Medicaid, Medicare, veteran benefits\" (original: \"When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans' benefits ”). (3) ⭕️ TAXES Mr. Biden in a live televised talk at the Poor People's Forum recently solemnly promised to immediately revoke President Trump's tax reduction law. Here are the concrete consequences: ➥ Some of the low-income middle-class populations exempt under Trump's law will have to pay taxes again. ➥ All middle-class people and people with higher incomes will get tax increases again. ➥ All large and small businesses get profit tax increases; ➥ Many large corporations will close their stores again, move overseas to evade taxes; ➥ Unemployment rate will escalate again; ➥ The economy will slow down; ➥ The stock market will slide and pension and old money funds will be lost. (4) [Please review lesson 1: DTC's Tax Reduction Law, December 2017 to see how additional taxes will be paid] (5) ⭕️ VISION A few refugee parrots chew on our side's slogan “Discrimination is one the bad, never good! ”. Biden was very majestic and said President Trump was the most discriminatory president in American history. If Mr. Biden is elected president, he will take this title of discrimination out of the hands of President Trump immediately. Below is the stigma achievement of Biden. In 1974, the new congressman Biden collaborated with TNS Robert Byrd of Virginia [TNS Byrd was one of the great leaders of the DC party in the 1960s and 70s, later discovered to be a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan. , a discriminatory white group specializing in killing blacks], openly opposes the 'busing' policy that requires elementary and secondary school students to go to school on the Golden State bus. This was the federal government's policy to end black and white discrimination in schools at that time, which was strongly opposed by the white people. (6) Recently, during the first TV debate among the DC candidates, TNS Kamala Harris attacked Biden brutally about Biden's white anti-busing stigma, darkening him. apologetic face to face. In 2006, Biden complained, \"You can't go into a 7-11 (Seven Eleven) store to buy anything if you don't speak English with an Indian accent\". One accused statement reflects the stigmatization of Indian descent by the fact that a large number of owners of Seven-Eleven stores in Delaware state are of Indian descent. (7) Surely now that the Indian people are too strong in the US, so find a way to atone, invite the Indian-born Mrs. Harris to join the partnership? In 2007, Biden, when he first heard that Obama was running for president in 2007, said \"Obama is the first African-American presidential candidate, it is also bright and clean, ...\". (8) Imagine Trump saying this! Old Biden patted her chest in the 1960s (when Biden was about 25 years old) once took to the streets to protest with the black people fighting for civil rights with the pastor Martin Luther King. Biden has never been in the streets like that because of the TTDC. 100% lie! (9) Then recently, it emerged that the old man said that the Negro people did not vote for him ... \"you ain't black\"! Quickly helped by TTDC to store it in the closet, not repeat again. Imagine President Trump telling a white man not to vote for him \"you ain't white\"! (ten) Recently, when asked by a black journalist if he had tested the 'cognitive test' to see if his mind was still sane - like President Trump did - Biden said, \"Oh, why should I do that? ? So before interviewing me, did you go to test for drugs in your body? Are you an addict? ”. (11) This sentence is of heavy stigma because everyone knows that many black people are addicted to drugs. ⭕️ CORONA TRANSLATION OFFICE Mr. Biden was against President Trump's measures from the very beginning. Please reiterate some background facts: ➥ January 6, 2020: President Trump told the CDC to warn Americans not to travel to China because of the epidemic there. January 17, 2020: President Trump ordered a strict examination of the health of all people from China through 3 major US airports (then 2 more airports). January 18, 2020: DTCTC announced a new epidemic that has just begun in China and warned Vietnamese people about Vietnam to celebrate Tet. [ https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/p/tin-tuc-a.html] ➥ January 21, 2020: a Chinese-American infected first after returning from Wuhan to the US. Both the Senate are fighting about the harassment of President Trump, news about viruses that have not been published, have not been published, nor are anyone reading. January 27, 2020 (3 weeks after President Trump warned Americans not to travel to China, and a dozen days after the VCP warned the Vietnamese!): Mr. Biden praised China for being very innocent and honestly announce the restrained news being translated to the whole world, and affirm that there is no reason not to travel to TC. January 31, 2020: President Trump gives a ban on Chinese tourists from entering the US; for those who have a good reason to enter the United States, or for Chinese-Americans who return to China for Tet and need to return home to America, he makes them subject to a 14-day ban on the palace after entering the US. That same day, he ordered the Department of Health to issue a state of urgency and set up a special committee to deal with the epidemic. That same day, Biden, in a speech given in Iowa, immediately attacked President Trump for his hysterical xenophobia and fearmongering. (12) To be clear, 10 days after the first infected person in the United States and one month before the first American death, President Trump has taken the decision to prevent the Chinese people from entering the US, as a concrete measure to block translation, while old Biden has not seen anything, still worried about praising China. Dr. Fauci, the protagonist responsible for dealing with the epidemic, claims President Trump's early measures have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. That is, if Biden was the president then the decision to stop would not be issued, the number of people died now was hundreds of thousands higher. This is we have not discussed the story of old Biden lying when accusing President Trump of cutting the CDC budget and the USAID agency, is a local matter. ⭕️ ANTI-POPULATION During the eight years as deputy apostle, Biden thoroughly supported President Obama's immigration deportation policy, showing off his achievements that Obama expelled the most illegal immigrants of all modern American presidents. Now the wind changes, the DC party denounces President Trump's immigrant deportation policy as discrimination, Biden no longer dares to show off his expulsion championship record. The Mexican-born journalist Jorge Ramos asked if Biden had regretted helping President Obama to expel millions of immigrants, he replied very wisely, “Yes, at that time many migrants were deported, but I was just a deputy President \"(verbatim\" I was just a vice president \"). An excuse clearly stated the status of selling the inferior crime of old Biden. Old Biden in recent debates, has once again performed his 'forgetful' talent. When talking about immigration, he aggressively condemned President Trump and asserted that \"we [the Obama / Biden administration] do not lock children in iron cots, we do not segregate families, ...\". Sorry, baby cot was not invented by President Trump, President Clinton or President Bush, but by President Obama, confirmed by a series of images of children in iron cribs at that time. The press has already been published. (13) Also apologize to Mr. Biden, that the family isolation law was not invented by President Trump, but the agreement between Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno with the court in a 1997 immigration lawsuit, applied. from that time to Bush, then through Obama, to Trump. (14) ⭕️ CUTTING THE POLICE BUDGET In the current riot against the police, the rebels demanded cut off the police budget. Old Biden initially looked down on this gang, speaking he did not accept because the role of the police is still very important. Strongly criticized by the rebels - including the black population and young white radicals whom she desperately needed votes, she changed clothes, called for a part of the police budget to be transferred to communal programs Association and health care help people of color. Shortly thereafter, the National Police Association (with more than 1,000 police organizations across the federation) criticized Biden and supported President Trump, he again decided to withdraw, stating that he did not intend to cut the scene budget. close, just want to transfer money -redirect funds- only. How to transfer money to another target without cutting anything? (15) ⭕️ SUPPORTING FRANCE Old Biden was caught up in the so-called Hyde Amendment - Hyde Amendment, which was approved 40 years ago. This is an amendment whereby the federal State will not pay abortions for women who are receiving Medicaid health insurance for low-income people, called MediCal in California. Old Biden previously supported this amendment, now, obviously very serious crime in the radical DC party. Old Biden struggling not to know how to handle, finally spoke up, now he is against the Amendment Hyde and confessed that he was a big mistake. (16) ⭕️ COMPETITION FOR Gay During nearly 40 years in the Senate, Biden was anti-gay marriage, always upholding family values, defined as a combination of two people of the opposite sex. In 2012, before the height of the struggle of the gay people, Biden changed clothes, loudly supporting the homosexual people and gay marriage. Then blatantly declared \"my whole life, I have fought for homosexual people\". (17) Here, please open brackets to talk about the story, clearly showing the status of old Biden: In 2012, President Obama was re-elected, severely threatened by Governor Romney, the rate of support on both sides was close. President Obama changed his strategy, wanted to attract gay groups, met the advisory board, made a strategy to support same-sex marriage that he and Biden were both against, to get votes from this group. According to the plan, a week later, he will hold a press conference to announce the new policy. Biden old tricks, the day after the press conference announced he supported gay marriage. People who rub the mahjong call this a story of 'spreading your upper hand'. President Obama was angry, called Biden to adjust for a match, chased Mr. Biden, changed other deputy candidates, then Biden apologized to President Obama. (18) SEX OF SEX The latest story, heavenly but was quickly buried under 10 yards by our side: sexually harassing Ms. Reade, her former assistant. (19) The brutal thing is that while the TTDC and especially the anti-Trump madmen all day long talking about Trump immoral, flattering about 'catching butterflies', Biden is accused of being true. not just impulsive. American politics today are partisan far beyond all rational possibilities. Sen. Kamala Harris, who fiercely beat Judge Kavanaugh outright about his alleged sexual harassment, after Biden was accused of harassment, stated \"I believe you have accused Mr. Biden.\" . However, when Biden invited him to join the partnership, Mrs. Harris was as fresh as a flower and immediately accepted. Another anonymous woman was more frank, almost \"Mr. Biden raped my daughter, I still vote for him\". That's new! What do the refugees have more morality than the sage think? But the champion must be journalist Katha Pollitt wrote in The Nation newspaper: \"Even if Biden boiled and eats a baby, I still vote for him.\" That is worthy of being crazy about the real thing! When did the anti-Trump crazy refugees follow the example? It seemed like bluntly declaring \"Even if Mr. Biden helped the CSBV win, made me lose his country, insulted me, did not allow me to enter the US as a refugee, I still vote for him\". Another question for the elders still embracing the Four Books Ngu Kinh: what do you think about Biden's family morality when his second son caressed and openly lived with his sister-in-law who had just become a widow. father, leaving his wife and three children, but the father, old Biden fully supported? (20) ⭕️ FOREIGN CURRENCY In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The whole world condemns. President Bush established a huge military force with the participation of nearly one million troops from 35 countries around the world. The US Congressional bicameral voted to allow President Bush to fight. TNS Biden is a rare voice against because it is said that Saddam has hundreds of thousands of extremely friendly Guardians and also has very dangerous chemical weapons for American soldiers. After 9/11, the world believed that Saddam had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that threatened the US and the world. President Bush was voted by the bicameral parliament to fight Iraq to eliminate this threat. TNS Biden cheerfully supported. With the discovery that Iraq does not have an arsenal of collective killers, the war is seen as a great mistake because based on the world's false intelligence was deceived by Saddam. TNS Biden then refused, arguing that he was deceived by President Bush, thinking that the US just \"threatened\" to send troops over to protect weapons inspection teams, not to fight for real. In 2010, the New York Times wrote an article, sarcastically asked \"When was the last time PTT Biden true about anything?\" (When was the last time Biden was right about anything?). (21) In 2011, listening to the words of the radical ladies Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, President Obama beat Libya and killed President Khaddafi, then ran away, leaving the ambassador to be killed, leaving a chaotic Libya. with half a dozen militant Muslim groups fighting and killing each other for nearly 10 years. President Obama later admitted it was his biggest foreign policy mistake. PTT Biden supported most strongly against Libya and later praised it as a great achievement of Obama. (22). In 2012, the Obama administration was reported to have found Bin Laden, but not 100% sure. President Obama meets with the National Security Council in principle to consult with everyone, but in fact, the way to cover the blanket, push the committee to take responsibility for decision, after success, President Obama beats his chest to show off. If you fail, it will be the committee's decision. President Obama, according to the majority opinion, decided to raid, and it is true that the real Bin Laden, this man was killed. Biden was against the raid to kill Bin Laden because he was afraid of false news that he ran into Pakistan. (23) ⭕️ 'TAKING ONLY' TTDC tries to bring out the image of a serious, mature, honest and honest Biden ... although it is often mistaken, but absolutely honest and virtuous. Isn't that awake? Newsweek magazine, the radical anti-Trump type is dead, recently published a long, disturbing post about Biden. According to Newsweek, Biden's prankster-plagiarism proves that he does not have a vision of leadership, does not have a clear policy or path of his own, but only knows how to gather people's opinions. Which is most dangerous, are the opposing opinions that she still put all of her in the porridge pot of her heart. Initially, he ran to run as President Obama for the 3rd term, promising to continue doing all that President Obama has done but not yet finished. After failing continuously in the first preliminary elections, he did not mention Obama anymore, and began to turn left to contend for the votes of the old husband of Sanders and his wife Warren. He defeated two communist grandmothers, the main part thanks to flattering the black people in South Carolina and initially won here, eliminated the two dignitaries, but looking at the experience of Mrs. Hillary lost her election because of her young radical electoral block. Sanders then boycotted Ms. Hillary, who played the disgrace card, cooperated with Sanders in a protocol, gave in to the extremists a lot, especially in the medical program, she opened the door. for the 'Medicare For All' policy of the radical left-wing radical, accepting the majority of students' college debt forgiveness,pledged to choose radical women to stand with the consortium, ... Then he turned to the conservative voters of President Trump, 'temporarily holding' President Trump's America First chant to chant US purchases. Newsweek recalled that Biden in the past had a record of stealing from his law student days, and then when he ran for the presidency in 1988, stole the entire speech of the leader of the British Labor Party, Neil Kinnock. (24) ⭕️ Courage the Founder Group, denouncing \"Mr. Trump went into the basement [15 minutes] when people came to protest in front of the White House, proving he was a coward\". How brave is Biden hiding in the basement of the house for almost half a year? ⭕️ CORRUPTION Biden, personally, has not been directly involved in any corruption case by the press. However, his intervention for his son Hunter Biden in a hundred million silver transactions with Ukraine and China has never been fully cleared by Biden. Many questions have yet to be answered. We invite readers to read the article on DTC about 'luggage' of old Biden. (25) ⭕️ CONCLUSION Mr. Biden is a man who has been rolling around in politics for nearly half a century, has a treasure trove of achievements for his opponents to find trash, especially he specializes in gossiping, making mistakes, accumulated mistakes. story. The Washington Post had to write, \"No, Biden is not just a trivial machine, he's a Lamborghini of gossip\". Lamborghini is the most expensive 'super luxury' car. (26) Ignoring all these minor missteps, Biden is now punching his chest to run to save America because this country has so many basic bad conditions such as color discrimination, poverty, immigration, gunfire bullets, ... All of these are great problems that date back to countless centuries. The question is that Biden has been sleeping in the highest positions of government for almost half a century, what part of his responsibility in those affairs? What have you done during the past half century? Why do we just wake up? Looking at the process above, how can a specialist who make wrong decisions, specialize in misleading, can effectively oppose the COVID translation, stop riot, control the Antifa and the Lo Lo, and restore the economy? , fending off Russian and Chinese hegemony, cutting a cow's tongue in the South China Sea, handcuffing Mr. Warm Warm,…? In conclusion, the CCP would like to borrow from Mr. Robert Gates, former Defense Minister of President Obama: \"Biden's achievement is a long chain of wrong decisions\". (27) President Biden ??? !!! Sincerely respect Uncle Sam. @ andrew An Nguyen (from Vu Linh) <> <> <> DOCUMENTATION ") (2) https://thehill.com/hilltv/442351-an...tely-incorrect (3) https: // theintercept. com / 2020/01/13 / ... cial-security / (4) https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...iest-americans (6) https://nymag.com/intelligence2019. ..explained.html (7) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-...ffle-feathers/ (8) https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/ (9) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ts-and-sit-ins (10) https : //www.chicagotribune.com/colum...lji-story.html (11) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...f-hes-a-junkie (12) https: / /thehill.com/homenews/campaig...virus-outbreak (13) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...re-obamas-idea (14) https://www.heritage.org/immigration ... trations-fault (15) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...defund-embrace (16) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/u .. .amendment.html (17) https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/pol...ex-marriage/2/ (18) https://www.reddit.com/neoliberal/...ired_by_obama/ (19) https://www.theguardian.com/world/20..._b-aplnews_d-1 (20) https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/201...en-ex-kathleen (21) https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...g-call/332431/ (22) https://wbsm.com/obama-backed-this-l...unsel-opinion/ (23) https: //www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...bin-laden-raid (24) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...em_143788.html (25) https: //diendantraichieu.blogspot.co...-cu-biden.html (26) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e70_story.html (27) https://www.realclearpolitics.com /en..._question.html
Thanks to everyone who filled out the survey! I was hoping to get some insight into what's bringing people here and how we can improve, and I think we mostly met that goal! You can go on a deep dive into the results below. In general, people come here because of the sense of community and how nice everyone is. Ways we can improve: more engagement with each other and with the band (I lost count of how many people asked for Rian's AMA lol). The mods will work on what we want to do with some of these ideas and go from there. 81 people filled out the survey. Last year, we had 65 responses. I linked the results to the last survey, but I have not yet gone through to see what's similar and what's different. Disclaimer #1: Some comments were lightly edited for clarify or spelling. Disclaimer #2: Next time I think I want to do a survey, someone please remind me how much freaking work it is to put all the data together. Disclaimer #3: My comments are in bold, as are the top selections for each category. I was a little sassy. Reminder: There are controversial opinions about the band and normal song opinions. You're welcome to respond to anything but remember to be nice and respectful. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and mostly everyone is here because of how welcoming the community is.
Male: 27 people / 33%
Female: 4 people / 58%
Non-Binary: 7 people / 9%
US: 47 people / 58%
Europe: 2 people / 3%
UK: 12 people / 15%
Asia: 5 people / 6%
South America: 2 people / 3%
Australia: 5 people / 6%
Canada: 5 people / 6%
Northern Ireland: 2 people / 3%(1 person was born in Ireland and now resides in Northern Ireland)
New Zealand: 1 person / 1%
State (if in US)
Alabama: 2 people
California: 4 people
Colorado: 1 person
Connecticut: 1 person
Florida: 1 person
Illinois 1 person
Kentucky: 1 person
Maryland: 2 people
Massachusetts: 2 people
Minnesota: 1 person
Nebraska: 1 person
New Hampshire: 3 people
New York: 5 people
North Carolina: 3 people
Ohio: 6 people
Oregon: 1 person
Pennsylvania: 4 people
South Carolina: 1 person
Texas: 3 people
Virginia: 1 person
West Virginia: 1 person
Wisconsin: 1 person
Under 15: 9 people / 11%
16-18: 13 people / 16
19-24: 30 people / 37%
25-29: 19 people / 34%
30-34: 9 people / 11% the best age group, am I right?
35+: 1 person / 1%
How Long Have You Been Listening to ATL?
Less than a year: 11 people / 14%
1-2 years: 6 people / 7%
3-5 years: 19 people / 24%
6-10 years: 16 people / 20%
10+ years: 29 people / 36%
First Album/EP You Listened To?
The Party Scene: 3 people / 4%
Put Up or Shut Up: 9 people / 11%
So Wrong, It's Right: 19 people / 24%
Nothing Personal: 27 people / 33%
Dirty Work: 4 people / 5%
Don't Panic: 6 people / 7%
Future Hearts: 9 people / 9%
Last Young Renegade: 3 people / 4%
Wake Up, Sunshine: 1 person / 1%
Where Does ATL Fit Into Your Favorite Bands?
They are my favorite: 38 people / 48%
Tied for favorite: 18 people / 23%
Top 3: 10 people / 13% is it weird that I mod this sub and my answer is down here?
Top 5: 6 people / 8%
Top 10: 7 people / 9%
Not a favorite but still like them: 1 person / 1%
How Many Times Have You Seen ATL Live?
0 :(: 33 people/ 41% This is sad and we must fix it
1: 8 people / 10%
2: 8 people / 10%
3: 6 people / 9%
4-5: 7 people / 9%
6-10: 11 people / 14%
10+: 8 people / 10%
Do you watch/listen to Crash Test Live/Full Frontal?
Yes: 22 people / 27%
No: 32 people / 40%
Sometimes: 23 people / 29%
Used to watch FF, but don't watch CTL (2 people)
I was a guest on Crash Test Live
The Party Scene: 1 / 1%
Put Up or Shut Up: 1 / 1%
So Wrong, It's Right: 11 / 14%
Nothing Personal: 15 / 19%
Dirty Work: 2 / 3%
Don't Panic: 12 / 15%
Future Hearts: 11 / 14%
Last Young Renegade: 7 / 9%
Wake Up, Sunshine: 20 / 25% this makes my heart so happy, even though I think WUS stole most of the Don't Panic votes.
Least Favorite Album/EP
The Party Scene 25 / 33%
Put Up or Shut Up 9 / 12%
So Wrong, It's Right 7 / 9%
Nothing Personal 0 / 0%
Dirty Work 9 / 12%
Don't Panic 2 / 3%
Future Hearts 7 / 9%
Last Young Renegade 16 / 21%
Wake Up, Sunshine 0 / 0% I would like to point out that last year, a handful of people voted "the new album we haven't heard yet" as their least favorite album. I hope you are feeling shame now.
A Love Like War
Backseat Serenade (2)
Bottle and a Beat
break your little heart
Cinderblock Garden (5) this is really too varied to be significant but Cinderblock Garden is kinda the winner
Coffee shop soundtrack
Dark Side of Your Room
Drugs & Candy
For Baltimore (3)
Glitter & Crimson (5)
Hello, Brooklyn (2)
Irony of Choking on a Lifesaver
Jasey Rae (4)
Last Young Renegade
Let It Roll
Lost in Stereo
Melancholy Kaleidoscope (2)
Monsters (ft. Blackbear) (3)
Old Scars / Future Hearts (4)
Paint You Wings (2)
Return The Favor
Six Feet Under the Stars (3)
Something's Gotta Give
Somewhere in Neverland
The Reckless and the Brave
The Girls a Straight Up Hustler (2)
To Live and Let Go
Trouble Is (2)
Under a Paper Moon (2)
Wake Up Sunshine
Least Favorite Song
A Love Like War
Bad Enough For You
Bail Me Out
Cinderblock Garden (2)
Coffee Shop Soundtrack
Come One, Come All (2)
Damned If I Do Ya (10 Year Tribute Version)
Drugs and Candy (2)
Good Times (2)
Ground Control (3)
I Feel Like Dancin' (4)
Idk something from PUOSU
Most of the party scene and put up or shut up (sorry)
My Only One (2)
No Idea (3)
Something from LYR
So Long Soldier
Somethings Gotta Give
Stick, Stones, and Techno (5)
That Girl (3)
The Irony of Choking on a Lifesaver
Too Much (10) RIP sweet summer child
Toxic Valentine (2)
Favorite Opener - this band has some great openers. I went with Reckless but it was hard to choose!
The Party Scene 0 / 0%
Coffee Shop Soundtrack 8 / 10%
This Is How We Do 0 / 0 % isn't someone here obsessed with this song? where were you on this one?
Weightless 25 / 31%
Do You Want Me (Dead?) 11 / 14%
The Reckless And The Brave 12 / 15%
Satelite 2 / 3%
Last Young Renegade 10 / 13%
Some Kind of Disaster 12 / 15%
Sticks, Stones, and Techno 2 / 3%
Lullabies 2 / 3%
Poppin Champagne 7 / 9%
Therapy 5 / 6%
Heroes 10 / 13%
So Long and Thanks For All The Booze 2 / 3%
Old Scars/Future Hearts 28 / 35% yes, correct.
Afterglow 11 / 14%
Basement Noise 13 /16%
Favorite Part of ATL
Lyrics 5 6%
Music 16 / 20%
Live Show 5 / 6%
Everything 53 / 65%
lyrics and music and how well they fit together and create the perfect mood foreach song
Depends on the song, I like some for the lyrics and some for the sound more
Least Favorite Part of ATL - this is why we're all reading this post, right?
Dick jokes and general immaturity. I get it's how they are, but I don't find it super entertaining.
Dick jokes between songs live, but only because I like to watch the shows out loud at home with my parents nearby 😅
Does the bougie farm count? In my esteemed opinion: yes, yes it does
Don’t tour in my country.
How they toy with my heart
I hate how messed up the m&g system used to be. I was in the hustler club for a year in 2013-2014 and found it impossible to get m&g and have heard from friends that it’s only gotten worse
I worry they're still friends with men in bands that have been accused of sexual misconduct They need a stronger stance on this issue for sure!
It's not about them, bit sometimes Stan twitter can get really intense about topics So intense.
Jack acting like a 12 yr old
Jack's attitude is pretty annoying Quarantine Jack is giving me life, though! He seems like he's doing great!
Standing on shoulders for SGG lmao
That I haven't seen them live
That we aren’t neighbors I personally would not want to live near that much manure. Maybe the other guys aren't so bad.
The bra-throwing, especially in their earlier days. It's super uncomfortable knowing that heaps of those bras come from underaged girls and whatnot. But I'm glad to see that the boys have matured heaps since they started out!
The dick jokes can get kinda old at times now
The fact that I'm 15 and they're o l d I take offense to this o l d comment
The fact that they always seem to skip over Ireland when they go on tour...
The fact that they never come here!
the ugly merch and the ignoring of The Party Scene and ttwtridwte ep Stop putting your faces on all your merch, guys.
The younger fandom
They've stopped touring certain cities
Too Much lmao this is so specific and I love it
When I’m not at a concert
the immature Blink a la 1998 thing they still sometimes do
They don't come to Canada enough!
Throwing bras on stage
Most of the merch isn’t very good tbh NO. MORE. FACES. ON. SHIRTS.
Bonus tracks that don't get released where I am :(
Jack’s 13-year-old jokes. Get some new material please.
"Stan" culture in general.
A Love Like War (2)
Bad Enough For You
Bottle and a Beat (15) We're on the right side of history here
Future Hearts B-Sides (2)
Get Down on Your Knees and Tell Me You Love Me
How The Story Ends (5)
I Hate That For You
Painting Flowers (2)
Take Cover (5)
Vampire Shift (6)
Your Bed (3)
Favorite Song to Hear Live
Backseat Serenade (2)
Cinderblock Garden (2)
Damned If I Do Ya (Damned If I Don’t) (2)
Dancing with a Wolf
Dark Side of Your Room (2)
Dear Maria (4)
Do You Want Me (Dead)?
Everything is Fine
Jasey Rae (4)
Kids in the Dark
Lost In Stereo (4)
Six Feet Under The Stars
Some Kind of Disaster
Something's Gotta Give
Somewhere in Neverland (4)
Weightless (6) but like the old way, right?
Least Favorite Song to Hear Live
A Love Like War
Dark Side of Your Room (2)
Dear Maria (4)
Dirty Laundry (3)
Drugs and Candy
Good Times (2)
Lost in Stereo
Missing You (2)
Something's Gotta Give (5) this is on brand for this sub
Time Bomb (2)
Too Much (6)
Dream song to hear live that they WILL NOT PLAY?
...I Feel Like Dancin’
A Daydream Away (5) - seriously!
All of the future hearts b-sides
Bottle and a Beat (4) yes
Coffee Shop Soundtrack
Get Down on Your Knees and Tell Me You Love Me
Is it too early to say Pretty Venom? (2)
Paint You Wing (6) please bring her justice by letting her win DP survivor
Return the Favor (2)
Running from Lions
Safe (I think most of my favs they have actually played live at some point. Haven't heard Safe yet, would love that!) IF THEY DON'T PLAY SAFE I WILL RIOT
Six feet under the stars
STICKS STONES AND TECHNO (2)
The Girl’s a Straight Up Hustler (3)
To Live and Let Go
Too Much (I know they used to play it but I doubt they will again)
Toxic Valentine (3)
Under A Paper Moon (3)
No idea, I guess Konstantine by Something Corporate ohhhhhh-kayyyyy
Do you have a favorite member?
Jack 11 / 14%
Zack 7 / 9%
Alex 20 / 26%
Rian 14 / 18% kind of a disappointing showing for this sub lol
Love 'Em All Equally 25 / 32%
I hate them all, why am I here 1 / 1%
Wow us with your controversial opinions/hot takes: or is it THIS section we're all here for?
ATL should post more on their tiktok. Jack is really good at TikTok
Dirty Work isn’t that bad. It's quite good, with a few exceptions
Favorite Place is easily the best song on WUS.
Getaway Green sucks, SGG doesn't :D
I actually enjoy Bail Me Out lol
I actually like SGG Sometimes I forgot that I actually do like SGG and BS because I lean so hard into the jokes here lol
I can’t stand the new version of Lost In Stereo, the screamed part is just so irritating to me and I skip it every time (I love the original version though)
Dirty Work isn’t their best album, but it’s also not nearly as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, it’s a really fun and catchy album even though the lyrics are kind of dated and cringy sometimes
Pretty Venom is extremely underrated
I do not like So Wrong It's Right at all
I do not think Monsters is the best song from WUS and I believe it is not as good as some fans make it out to be
I don’t like Don’t Panic a lot (it’s not bad but it’s not even close to my favorite), and I really like Last Young Renegade (it’s my second favorite). I also don’t like Clumsy that much (again it’s not bad but it’s not one of my favorites at all) your opinions make me sad but that's okay
I don’t mind the fan club name change hustlers was weird. i said it.
I feel like dancing is a great song and people just hate on it cause its fun and doesnt have a deeper meaning
I hate the farm I don't think this was me.
I hate Weightless, I don't like the singles from Don't Panic that much and Dirty Work has the best deepcuts.
I love Backseat and SGG and love when they play them live SUCK IT lmaooooooo are you Alex?
i really like the song bail me out
Jack is a man child who needs AA wellllll let's not speculate on someone's mental health okay?
Jack is easily the worst member of ATL
Last Young Renegade is great and if you don’t like the album now you’ll go back to it in a few years and love it.
Most of the acoustic tracks on albums aren't good
OS/FH and Hello, Brooklyn are not good songs.
People are way too critical of Alex online. Every other day, people are coming after him for something when he’s only one person. Dude has a million followers and puts his foot in his mouth sometimes. At least he usually owns up to it.
Put Up or Shit Up is way better than So Wrong It’s Right
red streak jack was better than current blonde jack, change my mind
Something's Gotta Give gets WAY too much slander SGG gets way too much shoulder. SEE WHAT I DID THERE?
Sticks, Stones, and Techno doesn't deserve the hate it gets
Super underrated (not really controversial)
the alcohol jokes were funny the first fifty times but i’m honestly tired of them and the constant promotion of their millions of wines etc. i’m not saying i hate drinking or something,,, i just wanna hear some new banter rather than the same three jokes repeated with a wine promo somewhere in the middle.
The fanbase hasn't something against Too Much, but it's one of my favourite songs. Nothing Personal
The farm is awful. I don’t like most of SWIR or LYR I don't think this was me. I like most of LYR and SWIR.
They don't have a single 'bad' song
Three Words/The Party Scene deserve to be recognized by the band while talking about their discography. Also, Dear Maria is and will always be a bop.
"Tidal Waves is a super weak song. obligatory Mark Hoppus features don't need anything besides The Hoppus lol
Dirty Work is a super solid album, though I admit a few songs are hit or miss.
That Girl is a banger of just a funny/ridiculous song.
Everything is Fine / Birthday are great, fun songs.
So Wrong It's Right is overrated, largely due to nostalgia, with only a few shining songs on the album.
Pretty Venom is underrated and is one of the best songs on WUS, better than Clumsy, Safe, and the Seasons at least. It's got a vibe to it that you'd listen to it with big headphones at midnight, while lying on your bed in the dark and staring up at the ceiling.
Too Much and Walls are the best songs on Nothing Personal, Weightless and Damned are highly overrated, Last Young Renegade was a mistake, Glitter & Crimson tries too hard, The Irony of Choking on a Lifesaver is bad These takes are super toasty, but I'm with you on G & C
Too Much is a good song, Nightmares is a bad song
Too much is a much better song than people think it's just too much for me
Wouldn't mind hearing more of Alex rapping! i believe your wish has come true
Alex gets a pass for a lot of things because he's the singesongwriter and people want to like him, but he oozes privilege a lot of the time and is sometimes kind of tone deaf (not musically of course) oh yes this one was me I remember it now
Basement noise is a good song
LYR is a top tier album no matter what anyone says. Also hope they release the B-Sides on Spotify soon
Dirty Work has more bops than flops
People need to stop pretending Dirty Work is good! The joke has gone on long enough!
I don't understand why Dear Maria has so many plays, it's not even the best song on that album
Jack has had the best glow up of everyone in the band.
They need to start referencing New Found Glory in their lyrics again. have you not heard Summer Daze?
Taylor Swift, animal crossing, avatar, animals being bros, rare puppers
Starbucks (I work there), wholesome, blackmagic, sims4, and pretty much the generic feel good ones
JimmyEatWorld, AmITheAsshole, lots of dog subs lol has anything been more obviously me?
hockey, thebachelor, relationships
greenday, emo, mychemicalromance
blink182, dbz, smashbros, nintendo
What other fan spaces do you use? (To interact with other fans, not to follow the band/members)
Twitter: 23 / 52%
Instagram: 24 / 55%
Facebook: 8 / 18%
Discord: 12 / 27%
Other: 5 / 11%
If you use other spaces, how does the sub compare?
Better: 25 / 58%
Worse: 1 / 2%
About the same: 12 / 28%
Hard to say: 2 / 5 %
For interactions with other fans it's the best place, but twitter is better for interaction with the band
I don't do other social media
The sub is the best ever!!!!
They both have their pros and cons and they’re very different sites so it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges
I think the sub is the most active I've seen the fanbase
What do you like about the sub?
Being able to connect with other people who love the band, since I don't know any other ATL fans in real life I feel this
Central to everything and better discussion
Constant user engagement
Cool people, no drama, met my friends Jenna and Alex!, golden people! Hey, that's me!
Everybody is so friendly
Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions and talk openinly about them. The mods are active and participate in discussions, the survivors, and the off-topic posts.
Everyone is really nice and respectful (except in Survivors y’all suck lol) Sometimes people have opinions that are wrong lol
Everyone is very chill and it gives me a place to rant about both meaningless and meaningful things
everyone is very nice and it’s not a very hard place to just drop in for a bit. also you guys do surveys and stuff so that’s cool
Fans on here generally seem pretty respectful of each other and I’ve almost never seen any big fights between fans here
The survivors are really fun and a great way to have fans interact with each other and spark conversations!
Friendly and informative even to people like me who don't interact regularly
Friendly, civil discussions
Getting to know people!
How people are polite
I like how it’s a free space to share opinions and enjoy the band the way it is rather than having people criticize you for your opinion.
I like the song survivor and seeing obscure ATL songs
I like the surveys/survivor stuff
I like the survivors and things that get people involved
I love posting my artwork on this sub. I feel like here is where it really gets love and makes me feel soo happy
Interesting content, the survivor, and we're all awesome!
It’s about a band I like you really said it best
It’s friendlier than a lot of others, and there’s a lot less arguing and harsh words
It’s really friendly and welcoming of new people, there’s no *drama* and it’s a great source of news/updates on the boys.
Keeps me informed about the boys and the band. Plus the polls are fun and I love seeing everyone’s fan art!
Ranking songs and albums, general discussion about the band and news
Really friendly people
Rian reads it gleefully, while withholding his AMA
That you get a response
The community aspect, I feel life everyone knows each other
The frequency of the post and how everyone (especially the mods) keep everything In order and engaging for everyone who frequents the sub
The mods are the best
the niceness and supportiveness of everybody and the song survivor games
The people :D
The people & community are so great & kind
The people are great. Love the inside jokes.
The people are nice and respectful of others opinions, less intense than twitter as people are generally older or more chill. Also love the interactivity of the survivors and surveys! It's the best.
The regular members and talking to them
The sense of community here is amazing. I’ve been in other subs that can get toxic. People respect each other here and that’s difficult to cultivate!
The survivors. Y'all are all generally wrong tho.
Very nice people
Very non-toxic, which is great because some parts of reddit are very much the opposite
People are really nice! Plus everything is very organized
The slightly older demographic!
The mods are nice
Pretty cool people
The vibe of the place. It’s very welcoming and safe.
The quality of the fans here. we are a high quality people
How could we improve?
Definitely more interaction, but that comes with time
I took a while to understand what the Sub-basement noise was about. The info is in the post? Could it be more clearly explained?
Just building subscribers Hopefully Rian has time to make some more alt accounts soon
Maybe not so much posting in the “basement noise” folder bc at times it can just seem a little chaotic but that’s about all That's kind of what it's for, so all those little threads won't be their own posts
Mods are intimidating I get this in real life, too, honestly
Not having to use a computer to get the emojis for flairs you don't!
RIAN'S AMA out of my hands lol
Some recent posts seem lower quality but I think that is just with an increase of newer members.
We need more dudes we are a low %age of dudes but I bet we have more than other places because Reddit's general demographics is mostly men I think
We’re getting there but better monitoring of low qualify posts. The Basement Noise/daily off topic thread is amazing!
Don’t do too many countdowns! Do you mean Survivors?
I'm not involved enough to have a good answer for this.
What would you like to see on the sub for content/activity?
A continuation of the survivors, whether that be singles survivor or album survivor don't you worry, we've got lots of voting ahead of us
AMAs with the band/band members GOOD LORD WE ARE TRYING LOL
competitions maybe for art/covers/etc.? we've done a couple fan art contests and they were pretty well liked so we plan to do another in a few months.
Discussions on songs we tried this before and it didn't really take off. maybe we can try again
Everything is v great
Fan art and more discussions
I always thought it would fun to do daily or weekly trivia.I LOVE THIS IDEA! I don't know enough ATL trivia so let me take it to the mod team
I think we all would like to see the AMA from Rian but that's beyond our control. Rian has forgotten about it lol RIAN!! GET ON IT!
Interaction from the boys 👀 Maybe I just need to criticize Alex more, that's what got him here last time (lol I kid, I kid)
Lyric discussions We used to have these, they weren't really participated in, and we thought maybe ATL songs were too straight forward to really get into
Maybe having more fan contests (Art, song covers, etc.) and maybe (If possible) more interaction with the band themselves
Nothing specific. I just like honest, good discussion topics.
Polls, rankings, facilitated discussions
Rían ama :)
Rian AMA (or any member tbh) I feel like at this point one of the other members could offer an AMA and I'd be like NOPE WE ONLY WANT RIAN. lol
Rians AMA that he lied about hah
The song survivors are super fun to vote in, and I liked the fan art contest too. Cool to read other people's unpopular opinions, and see others' album rankings. Anything that asks for input/opinions from the community is fun to participate/observe. Sadly I don't have any new ideas for more activities. I just want to express my appreciation for these events!
Maybe polls on their music or anything related? Just for fun like weekly or something
Lyric interpretation threads
I'm not involved enough to have a good answer for this.
Anything You Want To Add?
Alex Gaskarth has great hair I'm so sorry, but you're wrong.
Have a good day :)
Have a nice day!
Hi Jenna give feeney a kiss for me DONE AND DONE!
I love this sub
Keep up the good work
Love surveys, love the sub, love my boys. Why am I still awake?
Love y’all <3
Mods are solid and thank goodness for the people who contribute regularly for us lurkers to have things to read :)
RIAN'S AMA lmao
Stream Wake Up, Sunshine by All Time Low okay
Thank you, mods! You have made this sub a great place to be and I love being part of it!
the sub is very well run and the mods I think are very nice
This sub has done so much for me in the last few months. It makes me feel like I have friends in this community! Thank you guys soo much. Also...I'm chancing my arm at this but when a mod slot opens up where can I apply ? Lol
This sub IS my favorite place (other than concerts)
You guys are doing a great job and I love it here!
2020.08.14 14:11 RaginggGamerIssues with entirety of relationship
This is going to be a long one I guess so I hope you don't mind but I don't know what to do from here. Some backstory. Me and my gf met 5 years ago and started dating long distance. I lived in Iowa, she lived in Georgia. The entirety of our few months together was online and she broke it off to be with someone physically. We went our seperate ways and I was with someone and so was she. We talked occasionally but at one point stopped entirely. Fast forward to the next summer when we started talking again and got back together as we were both single at the time. We had some rockiness but we got through it and worked it out. That fall I moved down to Georgia with nothing but hope and moved in with her and her family. They are good people but they were severely poor. They lived in a motel room together in a cheap rundown motel and her dad worked as the handyman for rent+$10/day. I was there for about a week until the owners had me removed from the property because I refused to pay $125/week to live with them and lived in my car for a time. We were still together though and had a strong relationship. They were eventually kicked out as well because her dad stood up for me so we moved to a different motel and lived there together in a room for roughly a month or two. I was working at a Jimmy Johns but was fired and had a severely hard time finding work and eventually we were kicked out and had nowhere else to go and ended up in a tent in someone's backyard. We still were happy with each other though and spent a lot of time together doing things like going into town or walking around to escape what our home life was like. Eventually, as always, the homeowner didn't want us there anymore so we took our tent to the campground in the city and lived there from early November through around February. I was able to work through that time in construction. At one point using my money to get a motel for me and ger for a week to just get away from what were dealing with and I was saving money for a place to rent (cheapest house at the time was around $500-600/month). Her dad eventually ended up using what I had saved to pay the campground fees so I was back with nothing and was eventually fired due to company bankruptcy. During our stay at the campground she was chatting with guys online. I was going to plasma centers to donate for income and she would go along as kind of support as I hated needles but needed money so I was going two times a week outside of work. During this time she was talking to a guy about MOVING DOWN and having me put out. We talked and she said she would stop but instead hid it and kept talking to him. Eventually after several weeks I convinced her to stop talking to him and it was a big enough deal her friends were involved and even put her in the wrong. Things changed though. We were kicked out of that campground and moved to another one until around March or April. I was more and more paranoid she was cheating and stopped being lovey dovey and clingy to more distanced. So as a timeline I moved down in September, lived in motels until November, and in a tent until Spring with her and her parents. We eventually got another motel and I was able to get a job at a pizza place as a delivery driver. Our relationship was unhinged though. We fought a lot, I was distant, I didn't trust her, and would often be verbally abusive to her. I never hit her, I was just mean. To this day I don't know why, I was angry and I regret the words I told her. After a month or two I had enough and my parents wired me less than $200 to move back to Iowa ($200 is a lot to my family). I get back, and me and my gf go back to long distance. This is when she started talking to SEVERAL guys online. She started talking about one guy and when I asked she said it was just a friend, nothing more and I put my trust in that. It wasn't true though. While she never did cheat physically she talked to guys online, shared "images" with them and so forth. I was completely torn and found my way into her snapchat and basically put her on blast as she told all these guys (4 of them) she was single. What I did was childish and was done out of anger and strong emotions. I basically took over her account and posted to her story how she cheated on me and wasn't in fact single. All of the guys backed off except for one. She then played the whole "I don't know who to choose" game and in about a week or two said she wanted to be with me and apologized for cheating. We stayed together and eventually I moved back down into a motel with them. After a month or two I helped them get a house, my gfs birth certificate, ss card, her parents ss cards, etc. (They had absolutely no identification or personal paperwork required to get id). I got a job, my GED, and so on. During my second move down is when I noticed the first big change in me. I started flirting with other women and was increasingly distant with my gf. We would fight a lot but went everywhere together. I caught myself looking at other girls, flirting, etc. I was still mean to my gf but not as much as I was previously. Still though, I was a major a-hole. After about a year I moved back to Iowa after another lengthy argument. This time more dramatically as my car broke down and was scrapped so my mom came and got me. I worked for Dish Network as a technician, saved up, and got an apartment nearby. I then went down and moved my gf up to Iowa. We were happy for time. Or so I thought. I started talking to my ex and we talked for roughly 2 or 3 days. I felt guilty and admitted to my gf and she was upset. We talked through it and stayed together. Fast forward to now. Everything above happened in the last 4 years and things feel worse still. We had a kid together but we had issues with bonding so gave my parents guardianship. We fight a lot, I have been lazy for a time and do little around the house while she does everything else. I don't like leaving our place while she enjoys going places. I find myself attracted to other women and fantasize about them and have occasionally seeked out "intimate" meetups but always stopped myself before going that far. I just want to make her happy. I love her and want to be with her but I don't know why I am the way I am. I used to be loving and clingy but now I don't like being touched much. Makes my skin feel like crawling. I know I love her because any time I think of leaving her or anything I feel incredibly hurt and cry at even the thought. I always think about coming home and hugging her, kissing, holding, going places, etc. but it never happens. I need help because I want to be all that I can be for her. I have never lusted after other women, never cheated, never been mean until our relationship. The longest I have had before ours was 4 months so I don't know what to do in the long run.
Going through old issues of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter and posting highlights in my own words. For anyone interested, I highly recommend signing up for the actual site at f4wonline and checking out the full archives. PREVIOUSLY:
PROGRAMMING NOTE: Most of you know the homie SaintRidley has been recapping the Observers from the 1980s (and if you don't know, now you know). Anyway, he got blasted by storms in Iowa the other day and has intermittent internet and asked me to pass along word that he won't be able to post the latest issue of the 1988 Rewind this week. Hope everything's okay with ya dude!
Dave opens the issue with some high praise, a rare thing for the top story. But this week's episode of Raw was the first time WWE showed real effort in months, with a clear plan to build a Raw vs. Smackdown storyline and to make the brands as distinct as possible. Raw felt like a completely new show, starting multiple new storylines that hint at long-term booking (we're so used to WWE disappointing us nowadays that it's kinda cute to go back in time and see someone buy into the false hope of improvement like this). They also had a super hot crowd, which helped a lot. The ratings also saw a spike this week, due to fans wanting to see what Raw looks like with Bischoff in charge. The announcers were moved away from ringside and stationed near the stage, similar to the old Nitro set. During the matches, the arena was darkened to give it a more old-school feel. Things felt more spontaneous and less predictable than they have in ages. The European title was done away with, unified with the IC title. Dave feels the belt was useless the last few years anyway.
The show featured DX reuniting, but ended with Triple H turning heel and giving Shawn Michaels a pedigree. Dave expects it to lead to Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels at Summerslam, but we'll see. This also necessitated Triple H moving back over to Raw, and in exchange, they moved Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman over to Smackdown at the end of the show. Eddie Guerrero had a match with The Rock and also had a segment where they went back and forth on the mic. It was the most confident Eddie has ever been on the mic and he held his own with Rock and came out of the night looking to be a bigger star than ever. The show wasn't all good though. They had a segment where they put D-Lo Brown and Shawn Stasiak in the ring and Bischoff berated them for being boring and buried them for trying to wrestle, which Dave thinks sucked. The DX reunion followed by Triple H's heel turn blew through potentially weeks of storyline progression in only one hour, but that's typical these days. But Dave thinks of all the potential revenue they could have made on DX merch if they'd been given a chance to have even a short few-week run, but alas. He also thought the announcers playing dumb (like Jim Ross having to pretend not to know who the Island Boyz were during their debut, despite the fact that he's written about them a million times in his weekly WWE.com column). Also too much backstage stuff, which is fine for TV, but sucks for the live crowd when they bought tickets to watch half the show on the TitanTron. But overall, it was the best Raw in a long time and the first sign that maybe WWE's latest reboot is going to mean real change. And that's the top story. Raw was actually good for once and it's the biggest news of the week.
daprice82 Editor's Note:No one is going to care, but I have a story about this Raw. At the time, my girlfriend (now-wife) and I were in Peoria, IL for the 2nd annual Gathering of the Juggalos! We were 19 years old and drove there from Memphis in my shitty ol' Chevy Blazer and spent the weekend woop-wooping it up. Well, that Monday afternoon, we left Peoria to drive home. We got maybe 30 miles out of town when I realized that my previously full gas tank was almost empty. Pulled into a gas station, confused, but filled the tank again, and drove on. Watched the tank slowly drain as I drove along and within 30 minutes, I was on E again. I was losing gas somehow. Pulled off an exit and stopped at the single nicest truck stop I've ever seen. This place had everything. It was a gas station, connected to a Subway, with a lounge area that had recliners, full showers, washers and dryers, etc. If you're gonna be stranded somewhere, it was the best option. I ended up calling my dad and he drove 7 hours to come pick us up. So while we waited, my girlfriend and I spent the rest of the day into the night, hanging out in this lounge, sleeping in the recliners, and watching TV. And low and behold, they had the TV on Raw that night. I remember I was dozing in and out and I remember waking up when I heard the DX music hit and groggily staring at the TV like "wtf?" And then I saw Triple H turn on Shawn and was like "Whoa!" and then I fell back asleep and that's all I remember.
WWE announced that it's re-evaluating its quarterly and annual business efforts due to lower-than-expected revenue this year, stemming from PPV buyrates and live attendance plummeting. To keep the company in the black, WWE is making $20 million in budget cutbacks. Most of the cuts are coming from administrative expenses, but the developmental program is going to be hit hard (more on that in a bit). For next quarter, WWE is predicting an overall profit of $1.5 to $2 million. But that is a bit misleading because that figures in the $3.5 million settlement from the PTC lawsuit. If not for that settlement, this quarter would be the first money-losing quarter since 1997 (assuming you don't count the Q1 of 2001, when they had all the massive XFL start-up costs). Plus, they're running twice as many house shows now than they were the same quarter last year, and the numbers are still that bad. There's a ton of year-to-year comparisons here, which is super fun if you're a numbers person but TL;DR - business ain't great.
So what about Japan? Business there is an interesting story also. NOAH has surpassed NJPW in average attendance per show for the first half of 2002, which shows just how staggering of a collapse NJPW has had. The biggest success story of the year has been AJPW, which was on death's door a little over a year ago, with the entire roster jumping ship to form NOAH and the company lost its television deal. It's a miracle they survived at all, much less become as hot as they have this year. The reason, of course, is Keiji Muto (and to a lesser extent, Satoshi Kojima), both of whom jumped ship from NJPW at the beginning of the year and immediately gave the promotion a huge shot in the arm, spiking live attendance by nearly 70% and tripling merch sales. Meanwhile, NJPW is still stinging from those losses, plus they ran Riki Choshu out of the company, made Tadao Yasuda IWGP champion which was a huge flop, they have no good foreign talent, their junior division is stale as can be, and current champion Yuji Nagata is still trying to get his momentum back after a humiliating MMA loss to Mirko Cro Cop on New Year's Eve.
So about those developmental cutbacks. WWE cut ties with Les Thatcher's HWA promotion and also dropped the contracts of several developmental stars there. Among the names cut: Steve Bradley, EZ Money, Jon Heidenreich, Mike Sanders, BJ Payne, Horace Hogan, and several others you probably never heard of. HWA wrestlers Lance Cade and Charlie Haas are being reassigned to OVW, which will now be WWE's only developmental territory. Others, like Shannon Moore, Victoria, and Barry Buchanan are expected to debut on the main roster soon and were kept. In 2001 fiscal year, WWE spent $1.1 on developmental costs and had relationships with 4 promotions: HWA, OVW, UPW, and IWA Puerto Rico. Now we're down to one, with Jim Ross reportedly ordered to cut that developmental budget in half. Dave doesn't like this. With WWE being the only game in town and in need of new stars more than ever, he feels they should be expanding their developmental system rather than shrinking it. Creating new stars is vital to the future of WWE and limiting themselves to one promotion with a pool of only a dozen or so people seems short-sighted. He also disagrees with some of the people who got cut. Not everyone in developmental is going to be a star, but some of them at least deserved a shot (namely Steve Bradley, who had been there for 3-4 years, is still in his twenties, is a good worker and strong promo, but never got a chance on the main roster because he doesn't have the right look). Why some of those people were released while Jackie Gayda and Chris Nowinski are stinking up the ring on Raw is beyond Dave. He also thinks Les Thatcher had a pretty impossible job. He was given a roster full of wrestlers that were mostly leftovers from WCW. Young guys who came out of WCW's Power Plant and worked a fast-paced WCW style that doesn't apply to modern day WWE. Then they had Thatcher, Danny Davis, and Jim Cornette train these guys. A bunch of old school veterans training these young guys in the ways of 80s wrestling. So now they learn a whole new style....which also doesn't apply to modern day WWE. It's a broken system. Anyway, everyone who was cut has 90-day non-competes. Word is TNA is only interested in Mike Sanders, out of the names released.
WWE Vengeance is in the books headlined by one of those classic matches that can single-handedly make a show. The Rock defeated Kurt Angle and Undertaker in a triple threat match to become the first 7-time WWE champion, although Angle was clearly the one who had another star-making performance. Dave nitpicks the fact that Rock pinned Angle (rather than the champion Undertaker) to win the title, but he'll wait and see if it leads to anything storyline-wise first before criticizing it too much (it leads to nothing, turns out it was just a cheap way to get the title on Rock without Taker having to do a job). But it was an excellent match that gets 4.5 stars. Most of the other matches were good too, though some of the booking was weird and doesn't seem to make long-term sense. They teased a feud between the Raw and Smackdown announcers, which Dave thinks is fine so long as it stays verbal. None of us needs to see Jim Ross or Michael Cole in matches. Dave also gives Tazz credit for improving greatly in his commentary role over the last year. He sucked when he first started but he's the best color commentator they got now. They had the first face-to-face meeting between Angle and Lesnar, which is a subtle tease to what Dave expects to be a big time feud in the future. John Cena pinned Chris Jericho in a match that exposed how green Cena still is and Jericho wasn't able to carry him to anything good and the crowd couldn't have cared less about the rookie. RVD beat Brock Lesnar by DQ to retain the IC title. RVD was super over since they were in Michigan. Bad finish but I guess they didn't wanna give Brock the IC title since he's almost definitely winning the world title from Rock in a month. There was a forever long segment with Bischoff and Stephanie trying to woo Triple H to sign with their respective shows. Anti-Americans won the tag titles from Edge and Hogan. That's basically it.
We have a section called "Treatment of Minorities Within Pro Wrestling" by Todd Martin (presumably the same Todd Martin from the PWTorch?). The piece touches on wrestling's past portrayals of race and the false impression that things have gotten better due to the success of people like The Rock, when in reality, the racism is just more subtle. Martin takes a look at WWE's hiring processes. Very few minorities have come up through the developmental program, but it's hard to say if that's WWE's fault. Maybe there's just not many minorities trying to break into the business that way, there's no statistical evidence either way. But you can look at the wrestlers they chose to hire from WCW and how they fared in the WWE system. Midcard comedy wrestlers like Shawn Stasiak got a chance but not midcard comedy wrestlers like Norman Smiley. Nepotism got Horace Hogan a contract, but it didn't do anything for Stevie Ray. Examples like that. Or the Luchadores. Martin argues that, with all the talented Hispanic wrestlers WCW turned into stars, it's inexcusable that so few of them have even gotten so much a developmental offer from WWE. And the only ones who did were the ones fluent in English, which you can argue for. Can't argue size either. Someone like La Parka dwarfs over Crash Holly or Spike Dudley, but WWE has no interest. Wrestlers like Psicosis, Juventud, La Parka, Silver King, and others helped carry WCW through some of its most successful years and none of those guys even got a glance from WWE. Martin asks if Booker T's current jive-talking gimmick is any better than his early GI Bro or Ebony Experience gimmicks? Especially when they have him on TV hotwiring cars and doing stereotypical criminal shit like that? In regards to Eddie Guerrero's current Mexican stereotype gimmick, even Jim Ross recently said that it's taking Hispanic relations back 25 years. If the Booker T or Guerrero characters were portrayed on a normal network TV show with a majority-white cast, they would be seen for the racist caricatures that they are. Martin ends the piece by saying he doesn't believe WWE's decision makers are overtly racist. It's just that the company has created a hierarchy of implicit beliefs about how different types of people are portrayed and they may not even realize that they've built such a system.
Dave adds his own "editor's note" to the end of this piece and says he chose to publish it because of the detailed research and data used and found it a fascinating article that deserves discussion. Dave disagrees with some of it though and argues that some of it is just a difference in philosophy. For example, WWE tried the Lucha Libre experiment before with the Superastros show and crowds were dead for it. WWE and WCW had very different fanbases and presented different products because of it. So it may not be so much racism in that case as it is WWE fans have never shown any interest in that style of wrestling. He also argues against some of the examples Martin used (for instance, Stevie Ray was considered by WWE but he was already in his 40s and was never the caliber of worker as his brother, which is why they passed). But that being said, Dave thinks other parts of the piece make some interesting points that are well worth a read.
TNA week 5 felt like a whole new product due to the heavy influence of Vince Russo. We'll get into that later, but for now, buckle in, we've got a few paragraphs of TNA drama to get through. The first 4 shows presented a product with an emphasis on hard work and long-term angles. This week featured the classic Russo recipe of crash TV and constant, edgy swearing, in an attempt to market "to that 15-30 age group male demo that hates women because they can't get dates and enjoys seeing them harassed and abused." The show ended with a big injury angle to Scott Hall, which is all well and good and might get people interested in next week's show, except it came on the heels of multiple other "serious injury" angles during the same show and by the time Hall did it, it was something like the 3rd stretcher job of the night and it felt meaningless. Same with every promo being filled with curse words. The whole show was yet another example of why Vince Russo needs someone to filter his worst instincts. In this case, that should be Jerry Jarrett, but he was away from creative dealing with budget and legal issues all this week (gonna hear a LOT more about that soon). On that note, just based on very rough, preliminary PPV buyrate figures, production costs, etc. Dave estimates this company is already about half a million dollars in the red, and that's not counting the significant startup costs they have yet to recoup, with estimates that the company is currently losing about $120,000 or more per week.
As of this week, TNA's budgets have been slashed. They've also moved tapings to the smaller and cheaper Nashville Fairgrounds location and signed a 3-month lease. It's reported that switching buildings will save $27,000 per week. They're also eliminating pyro, cut new deals with the production crew, and will be flying in fewer stars, relying mostly on people that can drive. They also don't plan to use managers, will cut back on the TNA girls, and will be using Ken Shamrock and Scott Hall on alternate weeks, since they're the two highest paid guys and it's expensive to have them both on the same show. The Fairgrounds building has been used for wrestling tapings before and never looks good on TV, but TNA is insisting they can dress it up to look good. The budget cuts are expected to be so heavy that TNA's new break-even point for PPV buys will be 20,000 per week instead of 50,000. Dave thinks 20,000 is a much more attainable goal, but if it comes at the expense of the product looking minor league and low budget, it's gonna fail. The building also has no air conditioning and with TV lights, it's going to be brutally hot during summer months. Jerry Jarrett has been posting frequently on the wrestlingclassics.com message board and admitted that they weren't anywhere close to the 50,000-buys-per-week they needed. Here's a post Jerry wrote explaining their plans for the company and the new, Russo-iffic direction:
Jeff (Jarrett) and I are wrestling purists just as many fans here. The difference is that we have put up everything we have in our effort to present an alternative to sports entertainment. Our plan was simple. We believed that there were 50,000 wrestling fans who would pay $10 per week, or $40 per month to have an alternative to sports entertainment. This was based on the fact WWE has from 300,000 to one million fans of sports entertainment who will pay $35 per month to see their product. We were well aware that production values, talent, storylines, content, etc. were all factors that could negatively effect the buy rate. We still thought the market would support us enough to make the plan successful. We are finding that many of the wrestling purists did exactly as I did ten years ago, and that is, go on to something else. We are finding that there are many fewer fans who really want an alternative to sports entertainment than we anticipated. Therefore, we can either attempt to attract a few of the WWE fans, or pack up and go home. We have risked everything in our venture. Therefore, not because of our personal taste, but out of necessity, we are compromising our wrestling purist instincts and attempting to create a broader fan base. ECW did a great job of creating a product for the hardcore wrestling fan. The simple fact was that the base of their fans was not sufficient to keep them in business."
Ray Gonzalez, one of the top stars in Puerto Rico, shockingly announced he's leaving WWC and most expect him to jump to IWA. Gonzalez claimed WWC was late in paying him, which he says breached his contract (reportedly paying him $800-$1000 per week). As a result, his lawyers sent WWC a letter saying because of this, he was quitting the company. Gonzalez no-showed WWC events this weekend. This is going to badly hurt WWC's upcoming Anniversary show because Gonzalez was a major part of multiple top angles that the card was built around. Gonzalez has been the top heel in WWC and arguably has kept the company alive the past 5 years, and is most responsible for getting Carly Colon (Carlito) over as a big star. IWA has already started advertising a mystery wrestler to be the top heel in upcoming shows this weekend, and it's no secret that Gonzalez is expected to debut for the company and be that guy. Dave also mentions several other WWC wrestlers who no-showed events last week because they were late in being paid. Many of them are as much as 10 weeks behind on pay, but this week, they were summoned to the office where Carlos Colon paid them about 5 weeks worth of what they're owed. Lots of death-of-ECW vibes going on here lately.
Lots of rumors that AJPW star Genichiro Tenryu will be showing up at the NOAH show this week to challenge GHC champion Yoshinari Ogawa. Needless to say, this would be a big deal if it happens because AJPW and NOAH basically hate each other. No word on whether this is an angle or not, but given how much Motoko Baba hates NOAH, it seems unlikely. Of course, it also remains to be seen if Tenryu will even show up or if it's all just rumors. Tenryu is currently feuding with Muto over who should have become president of the company, so this could be just a kayfabed angle to make it look like Tenryu is really anti-AJPW (looks like it was just a work, he doesn't end up going to NOAH until 2005).
Dave recaps AJPW's latest Buddokan Hall show, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the company, which featured Keiji Muto wrestling 3 different matches under 3 different gimmicks. All told, Muto worked a total of about 36 minutes between the 3 matches and was banged up like hell the next day. There were also a lot of old legends on the card, like Abdullah The Butcher, Mil Mascaras, Dos Caras, and more. Stan Hansen and Motoko Baba came out to give speeches about the company, with Ms. Baba breaking down crying when talking about her husband, and more. I managed to find most of this show on Dailymotion, enjoy:
While we're on the topic, Dave saw a recent AJPW match with Tenryu defending the Triple Crown title against Satoshi Kojima in a match that many are calling the match of the year. Dave saw it and gives it 4.75 stars and calls Kojima possibly the best wrestler in the business when it comes to carrying the audience on an emotional roller coaster ride. He doesn't agree or disagree that it's the best match of the year, but he sure loved it.
Mitsuharu Misawa suffered a dislocated shoulder in a recent match. Popped it back in, worked the next day, still in pain, went to the hospital because that's what happens when you wrestle again right after dislocating your shoulder. Anyway, the doctors were like, "Hey, maybe don't do that for a minute" but he's Misawa so he vows he won't be missing any dates and then he hit the doctor with an emerald flowsion. Dave doesn't say this, I'm just assuming.
NJPW continues to decline. They held back-to-back shows at the 10,500-seat arena in Sapporo this week. The first night only drew 4,100 fans which was the smallest crowd they have drawn in that city in years. Second night was better, but still only 6,000 fans to see Yuji Nagata retain the IWGP title over Bas Rutten. In another era, this win would have been huge for Nagata but nobody cares when a wrestler beats an MMA guy in a worked match anymore because Inoki pretty much beat that horse to death.
There's talk of bringing back Chyna to work the August Tokyo Dome show for Antonio Inoki's UFO MMA promotion, presumably just to make an appearance (oh, if only). There's also talk of bringing her in for NJPW's September tour and having her beat male prelim wrestlers every night. Needless to say, there's a whole lot of people in the company against that idea. Especially because her loss to Joey Buttafuoco in a celebrity boxing match a few months ago actually got a lot of coverage in Japan, so coming off that and showing up to beat male NJPW wrestlers isn't a popular idea. But Inoki gonna Inoki, so we'll see.
Latest on the ECW bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee has filed a motion demanding that the InDemand PPV company pays them $724,456.40. That total is the money they owed ECW, minus $25,000 because ECW failed to produce the March 2001 PPV they were contractually obligated to produce. This case is a textbook example of why trying to run a PPV-only company like TNA is going to be so difficult. InDemand is still holding onto ECW PPV money from over a year ago. Anyway, of the $724k, a big chunk of it will go to attorneys, back taxes, commission fees, etc. Video game maker Acclaim, who owned a percentage of ECW, is expected to get a big chunk as well. Whatever is left over will be used to pay off existing creditors but there's not gonna be much. A lot of those creditors are just never going to get paid. It's also expected that Acclaim will end up owning the video tape library rights, since WWE hasn't yet made a bid to acquire it.
Former Crockett/WCW wrestler Chris Champion suffered a major stroke and is in critical condition. Champion also wrestled as Yoshi Kwan for a bit in WCW. A lot of people expected him to be a major star in the 90s, but it just never panned out, usually due to his own personal issues (I looked it up, he ended up surviving this go round, but he died in 2018 after suffering more strokes).
If you're wondering what Jim Crockett Jr. is up to these days, he works in real estate in Dallas. When Shaun Assael interviewed Crockett for his book on Vince McMahon, everyone in Crockett's office was shocked because they had no idea that their coworker was once the 2nd biggest wrestling promoter in the U.S. throughout most of the 80s. That's how much he's left the wrestling business behind.
Just gonna paste this quote here: "For whatever this is worth in case this becomes a major historical question down the line, the actual idea to make David Arquette WCW champion came from Tony Schiavone." Dave notes that Schiavone didn't have any decision-making power to make it happen, but he was the one who made the suggestion at a production meeting. According to those there, when Schiavone made the suggestion, Vince Russo's eyes lit up like it was the best idea he'd ever heard and the rest is history. (Vince Russo has confirmed this story himself. Last I heard, Tony admits he was involved in coming up with the idea but he refuses to take sole credit for it).
The Chicago-Sun Times interviewed Greg Gagne's son JP who is a pitcher for Notre Dame. In the interview, he talked about how famous wrestlers used to stay at his house all the time growing up and said that his friends love the story of how he once rode Space Mountain at Disney World with Ric Flair. Hehe.
Shane Douglas is now the booker for XPW and is involved in an angle where owner Rob Black's wife Lizzie Borden is leaving him for Douglas (don't get too close to her Shane, you might lose a thumb! More on that in a couple weeks...). Also, at the first show with Douglas as booker, there was a scaffold match where Douglas came out and shot the guy on the scaffold with a tranquilizer, causing him to plummet to the ring below, which then exploded. Don't worry, I wouldn't write all that without having a video for ya:
Notes from TNA PPV Week 5: Sabu debuted to face Malice in a surprise ladder match. It was fine. Sabu won, which earned him a contract to face Ken Shamrock for the NWA title next week in another ladder match. Don't worry, we have more ladders to come. Jeff Jarrett is being booked like the Stone Cold of TNA and Dave ain't here for it. Francine and Jasmine St. Claire had a shower scene together backstage, later leading to Jasmine in a wet t-shirt. K-Krush cut a promo complaining about being fired by WWE, just in case you weren't aware that most of this roster is full of WWE rejects, they make sure you know it. A 4-way match with a bunch of the young guys completely fell apart with everyone except Christopher Daniels looking totally lost and confused. Dave says rarely do matches even in OVW fall apart as badly as this one did. Another little person match that Dave says was one of the worst matches of the year and was highlighted by one of them breaking a watermelon over the other's head. Negative 3 stars. Even worse, the match went waaaay longer than it was supposed to, which cut into the time for AJ Styles vs. Low-Ki and a match that should have been great ended up being a huge disappointment. Plus a drunk guy in the crowd took away everyone's attention and they couldn't get the audience back. Jerry Lynn attacked AJ with a ladder afterwards because whooohoo ladders! Francine and Jasmine ripped each other's clothes off like every other time you've seen it in WWE. Then Blue Meanie DDT'd her and she did a stretcher job. Brian ChristopheLawlewhatever he is this week cut a long promo trashing his father to continue getting fans interested in a match they can't possibly deliver. Why not just challenge Austin or Rock while you're at it, Dave wonders. Fuck it, if you're gonna do dumb shit, at least go big. Scott Hall vs. Christopher in the main event was bad because Hall just returned from working IWA in Puerto Rico for several days and was pretty much on a drunken bender the whole time. And then Hall did a stretcher job to end the show, which was kinda lessened by Francine having done the same thing 30 minutes earlier. And there we go. After only 5 shows, this shit is already WCW 2000 all over again.
Despite all the publicity they got, TNA also barely made any mention of the angle last week with the Tennessee Titans football players. Apparently the players caught some shit from the Titans GM for it and since they aren't coming back and they can't do a match or anything with them, TNA decided to just forget it happened.
In case you're wondering why TNA hasn't made a play for Scott Steiner yet, apparently he and Jeff Jarrett had been friends for years, especially during the WCW days, but they recently had a falling out of some kind. Hence, TNA has no interest in using him.
The reason WWE is running back-to-back tapings for Raw and Smackdown next month in Seattle is to test the market. WWE did a site check last month at Safeco Field for next year's Wrestlemania, but there's question as to whether the Seattle market will be able to sell out a big stadium like that, so the decision was made to do this. If they have a double-sellout both nights, that'll pretty much guarantee that Seattle gets Wrestlemania. If the shows do poorly, they may reconsider and select a new city (I guess these shows end up doing okay).
The Rock is set to star in another major movie, this time a $100 million budget production based on the video game SpyHunter. The hope is to have the movie out around Christmas 2003, in order to cross-promote it with the new video game coming out around that time. This adds more to Rock's Hollywood plate and it's looking like he's going to be around wrestling even less next year (this movie ends up stuck in developmental hell for years and never gets made, but Rock ends up doing the voice for the video game in 2009 instead).
Dave isn't sure why yet, but the long-planned Hogan vs. Vince match at Summerslam is now off. Dave suspects they may be holding off until Wrestlemania, which is great if they have a long-term plan and now that they're doing the Bischoff vs. Stephanie storyline, Vince is planning to take himself off TV for a little while anyway. So we'll see. In the meantime, the whole mess last week with Triple H talking Vince out of getting slapped by John Cena because "nobody should be laying hands on Vince until the Hogan match" ended up being for nothing.
Notes from Smackdown: in talking about Stephanie McMahon trying to be a babyface, Dave says she's basically the wrong person for this gimmick but she's a McMahon, so what are ya gonna do? He also jokes that "when this thing goes down and I write the book, I think my title will be "Wrestling Promoters Should Be Banned From Having Children: Unless They Don't Allow Them To Work In Their Promotion." I dunno, seems wordy to me. They also did the bit with Stephanie as GM and all the wrestlers backstage watching on the monitors, leading Dave on a Cornette-style rant about how WWE can't even be bothered to separate heels and faces in different locker rooms and it takes you out of the show when they're all sitting around backstage together watching the TV and carrying on conversations. Sure, kayfabe is already dead, but can we at least try to create an illusion of it within the show itself? This was also the last Smackdown before the PPV and there was some discussion over the finish of the Rock vs. Angle match. Paul Heyman and Michael Hayes wanted Rock to lose clean to the ankle lock, since he was winning the title on Sunday anyway and Angle was doing the job. Pat Patterson and Triple H argued against it, saying Rock shouldn't be tapping to anyone, even though Angle's gimmick right now is that he can make everyone tap (even Hogan last month). So instead, we got the Undertaker run-in DQ finish and Dave says this kinda shit is why WWE is unable to create long-term storylines. There was also a bunch of bickering with Heyman, Triple H and Hayes over the finish of the Jericho/Cena match as well, which Jericho was apparently upset about.
In an online chat this week, Goldberg didn't rule out going to WWE but said he hasn't met with anyone in the company. He also said that if WWE had kept Vince Russo, then there's zero chance he would have gone. When asked about Japan, he only said he's considering all offers. Goldberg is said to have no interest in the WWE schedule and is content with the idea of working a few big shows a year in Japan. That's all well and good but Dave says the reality is that the biggest money opportunity for Goldberg is in WWE, where there's several dream matches that would do huge PPV business and earn him far more money than he can ever make in Japan. WWE also gives you the kind of celebrity exposure in America that can open up acting roles. But the problem is, giving Goldberg a reduced schedule could cause some issues in the locker room. Then again, Rock and Hogan are already working reduced schedules.
This week's episode of WWE Confidential was the best of the series yet, focusing on the Bischoff and McMahon relationship. It was weird to see these two, out of character, reminiscing about a time when they legitimately would have gladly killed each other. They even showed Bischoff's 1990 WWF audition tape.
Various WWF notes: Kevin Nash did an interview and said he has spoken to Steve Austin since the walkout and gave his opinion on why Austin left. "I think Steve was burned out. He's got a broken neck, bad knees and a bad back. I know what it feels like when I wake up every morning. And he's had a couple multi-million years. Maybe it just isn't worth it to him anymore." Bischoff did a radio interview and noted he's been in L.A. constantly pitching TV ideas and said there's no interest in wrestling anywhere in Hollywood right now. Vince and Linda McMahon have purchased a new vacation condo in Boca Raton, FL. It's an 8-bedroom 10,000 sqft. condo on the 7th and 8th floors of the Excelsior hotel. The double-unit condo recently appraised for 14 million.
DDP did an interview and admitted that the stalker angle was the most disappointing thing he's ever done in wrestling because he wanted so badly for it to work and it flopped. DDP also said that Steve Austin hasn't called him since he was forced to retire and admitted he was kind of hurt by it. He said he knows Austin is going through a lot right now, but they're friends and if Austin can't take the time to care about what's going on in his life, then he can't be bothered to waste time worrying about whatever Austin is going through either.
NEXT WEDNESDAY:Mainstream stories about wrestling deaths in the works, TNA files lawsuit accusing marketing firm of defrauding the company, Observer Hall of Fame preview, TNA in deep financial trouble, and more...
Whoever said, implied, assumed that any woman single in age 30+ is a woman no one wanted to marry. I’ve seen this common theme on this sub. I’m a single 30 year old woman living in Brooklyn, New York. Guess what, I could have been married by now but I choose not to. Just because you’re single at a certain age, any age really, will never be a direct reflection of your desire to others. I personally chose I move to New York City at age 21, reach my full potential in my career and challenge myself; that’s the choice I made in the first serious relationship of my life that lasted 7 years. He was a lovely person, but our goals for our future didn’t align. He wanted me to be a housewife in Iowa by 25 and I knew I couldn’t actually raise children with him now knowing myself - so I chose to do that. Then, dating in nyc (insert sex in the city theme song). My last serious relationship ended a year ago, it lasted two years and almost cost me my life. When we met, I was struck; like god had sent him just for me. As if I went to build a bear but for a boyfriend. He was everything - we laughed at the same jokes, athletic, travelers, the intimacy was magnetic. But he was a sick person. I ignored red flags. I put up with things I never felt imaginable. He took me to Europe for weeks and Mexico for weeks to make up for the bruises he gave me and lies he fed me. It cost me all my sick days at work to heal from our fights (physically + mentally) but I loved him, you know? Everyone is flawed. Maybe we can work this out... He asked for my ring size and the type I preferred, we named our future children, etc. His actions never changed and one day I realized I had to face the truth - he was sick, I had to go dark on him and never look back. I’m so glad I never settled and never married any of these men, they taught me valuable lessons I know will lead me to the right person. Sometimes if a woman is single at age (insert number) it means she’s had valuable life experiences. Hugs to anyone who needs this
2020.07.31 01:21 vpclordJoseph Lee's Letter to Family and Friends - 2017
Joseph Lee's Letter to Family and Friends - 2017
Joseph Lee August 2, 2017
Almost nine months ago I invited a few of my friends over to my new house to watch the presidential election results. We shared some chips and guac as we watched in horror as our country elected Donald Trump president. I begin my letter here to stress the strength of what we have built. Warren Buffett explained the strength of Berkshire Hathaway like this: “If the insurance industry should experience a $250 billion loss from some mega-catastrophe – a loss triple anything it has ever experienced – Berkshire as a whole would likely record a large profit for the year. Our many streams of non-insurance earnings would see to that. Additionally, we would remain awash in cash and be eager to write business in an insurance market that might well be in disarray.” - Letter to Shareholders 2016 In what can only be described as a mega-catastrophe, we elected Donald Trump president. But despite this wound to our national psyche, we still recorded a large profit. Here are some of the highlights:
I tried really hard to find a cute, young date to watch Fifty Shades Darker with on Valentine’s Day weekend. My efforts in this endeavor were unarguably an amazing success.
Christine welcomed her first child to the world.
Catherine lived in Japan for a year.
In a sharp rebuke of Donald Trump, Susan moved back to Scotland. #NotMyPresident
Keegan wrote a book. Buy it today on Amazon and get free two-day shipping with Prime. The Awakening: A New Revolution Series Book 1, by Keegan Long, ISBN: 9781521886281.
Jill became the general manager of a Marcus Theater in Iowa. She also became engaged to, by what all appearances seems to be, an upstanding young man. I could not be happier for her.
This list is by no means comprehensive and is only intended to give the reader a small taste of the many accomplishments we have achieved this past year. In a year in which we elected Donald Trump president, our ability to make great strides toward achieving the goals we pursue could not be more apparent. It is with this optimism that I write to you once again this year. Thanks for all the support that you provide me, and I hope you enjoy my letter. “Well I heard there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the Lord. But you don’t really care for music, do you? Well it goes like this: the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, and the major lift, the baffled king composing Hallelujah.” – Kate McKinnon
In Love with a Smarter Woman
Two years ago, I explained the great contribution I have made in my friend Josh’s life. (See Burdened in my 2015 letter.) It might be fair to ask, though, what contributions has Josh made in my life? Let me reserve my judgment on that question until I recount a story for you from grade school. In sixth grade, there was an underground gossip newsletter that was published by a few of my classmates. There were multiple issues that were published, but in the final issue – the one that ultimately resulted in some well-deserved suspensions (this issue of the newsletter sexually harassed a young, female teacher at our school.) – an article purported that I was romantically involved with a girl who some people considered to be the cutest girl in the school. The story, of course, was completely false, as I was not romantically involved with the cutest girl in the school, but you do have to appreciate the foreshadowing involved in this whole episode. This story from sixth grade represents the first time I was ever romantically linked to some girl, but anytime I was ever purportedly involved with some girl, Josh always offered the exact same commentary. Anytime there were any rumors of me being involved with a girl, he would always argue, “You only like this girl because she is smarter than you!” Without exception, Josh would always make this same argument. Josh’s contributions here did not go unnoticed. In certain cases, you could probably make the case that Josh was correct, but the funny thing is: Josh never believed it. He never believed any of these young women were smarter than me. Instead, Josh thought that this would be a clever way to help promote modesty in my opinion of myself. He thought the most helpful thing he could provide as a friend would be even the smallest amount of humility. For his efforts in this area, Josh deserves some recognition. At the same time, however, my lack of humility is one of the greatest qualities I possess.
Self-Awareness Leads to Empathy
While I might have believed I was the smartest kid in the world in sixth grade, I have not had any false illusions on this topic for a long time now. During six years of studying mathematics in college, I demonstrated a level of intellectual ability that in most cases exceeded my peers in the mathematics department. I have no interest in comparing myself to any of my love interests, but it is incontrovertible that I possess an above average level of intelligence. My intelligence allows me to possess empathy for everyone that I meet. It is probably easy to imagine a teacher or a theater employee getting frustrated with a struggling student or a disgruntled customer, but I never experience frustration in any of my work. I never complain to my colleagues about a challenging student or an unruly customer, and this might seem to be just a reasonable policy to ensure professionalism at the workplace, but it is much deeper than that for me. I do not complain about students or customers because I am never frustrated by them. I never think to myself, “How stupid is this person?” I understand, based on probability alone, that the most likely scenario is that any particular individual does not possess the same level of intelligence as me. I see at least two issues with insulting someone based on his or her intelligence. First of all, this sort of behavior seems very unappealing to me in general. Obviously, hurting some- one’s feelings would be unbecoming, but even if these comments were shared in private and would not hurt anyone’s feelings, I do not want this sort of negativity in my life. Second, intelligence is something that for the most part is beyond anyone’s control. I begrudge no one for their circumstance in life. I understand – I empathize with – people who do not share my mental capacity. I know some of the gifts I have been given in life, but these gifts were not given to me to mistreat those who are less fortunate than myself. My philosophy on this matter is much like Spider-Man’s: with great power comes great responsibility.
The Gospel According to Matthew
Having empathy for our neighbors is an important part of the human experience, but this discussion needs to go one step further. Not only are there people who frustrate us with their ignorance or incompetence, but there are also people who are corrupted by their immorality. I will now address dealing with this latter set of people, as Jesus before me: “You have heard that is was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.When someone strikes on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.” - Matthew 5:38-40 Even if you are not an expert on Christianity, you are probably familiar with this lesson from the Sermon on the Mount. I am always appalled, however, when people quote this passage out of context. When people use the phrase, “turn the other cheek,” they say it to mean you should ignore someone if they slight you. That is not at all what Jesus is preaching: it misses the whole point. Jesus is insisting that you should turn to him the other cheek so he can strike you on that one as well. If you are confronted by evil, you should not ignore it: you should welcome it. If your goal in this world is striving to live a moral life and you cross paths with some- one whose immoral behavior will do you harm, then you should relish this confrontation as the height of the human experience. Suffering an injustice at the hands of evil will only strengthen one’s resolve to live a moral life. Jesus argues if someone wants to steal your shirt, find a jacket for him to take as well. Worrying about your possessions, or other vain and trivial matters, will not help you in your quest to live a moral life. Instead, set out with conviction to lead a moral life. Welcome those who will do you harm, as any injustice you suffer will only help show the righteousness of your endeavors. “He has revealed to you the Book with truth, confirming what went before it: and He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent the Qu’ran.” – Qu’ran 3:3
Singleness of Purpose
I have great news to announce this year. Last year, I indicated I would no longer be teaching evening classes. This year, I am announcing that I will be dedicating those evenings to a rigorous study of law for the next three years. I have already purchased all of the first semester L1 books for the University of Iowa. The goal is to study a minimum of 16 hours every week. To help facilitate this rigorous study of law, I have decided to take the draconian step of reducing my schedule working at the theater from 3 nights a week to 2 nights a week. Expect to find me in my office late in the evening every night. “... he set to work with a singleness of purpose which had not previously characterized his interest in the law.” – Frederick Trevor Hill, Lincoln The Lawyer
A First Lesson on Conditional Probability
“The point is that every girl would have to convince herself every day for the rest of her life that she did not want to go on a date with me.” – Joseph Lee’s Letter to Family and Friends – 2013 Every year I write about how I would like to date young women, and I know some readers may be discouraged about my lack of progress toward this pursuit. Longtime readers will know that it has been 19 years now since I have had any romantic relations, and last year I revealed the supernatural forces that oppose me. So I thought this year it would be good for me to return to the optimism that I expressed in 2013 and share an analytic discussion of the probability that I will date a cute, young girl. Consider the following. It is extremely unlikely over the next year that I will date, say, a cute, nineteen-year-old girl. For argument’s sake, let’s say there is a 1% chance. With that probability, you could just about guarantee that I will not date a cute, nineteen-year-old girl this year. No matter how much I would enjoy that coming to fruition – it just isn’t going to happen. But don’t forget this fact that I explained in 2014: I get more attractive every year. If the probability of me dating a cute, young girl is 1% this year, then it is going to be at least 1% every year for the rest of my life. And here is where a lesson on conditional probability would be helpful. If we only look at this year, the probability of dating this cute, young girl would be 1%. But if we consider the likelihood that I will date some nineteen-year-old girl at any time in the next two years, the probability would be the 1% chance I had before plus an additional 1% assuming I did not get a date in the first year, or 0.01 + 0.01(0.99) = 0.0199. Thus, there is a 1.99% chance that I would date a cute, nineteen-year-old girl over the span of two years. Three years would be calculated the same way, which would be a 1.99% chance plus an additional 1% if I did not get a date in the first two years, or 0.0199 + 0.01(0.9801) = 0.029701. I will stop the lesson here, but go ahead and examine the following table to see the probability that I will date a cute, nineteen-year-old girl over the next 30 years. Figure 1. The Probability of Dating a Cute, Nineteen- Year-Old Girl
I should add one more comment. To anyone who asks, "Why don't you date a girl your own age,” please understand that I would be very happy to date a girl my own age. In fact, people who know me well understand that there is nothing I would rather do than date a cute, thirty-one-year-old girl. The reason I did not consider that case for my example was that the probability would have been much less than one percent: dating a cute, nineteen-year-old girl is a far more likely possibility.
An Update on Our Investments
The final topic I will discuss this year is our equity holdings. While I have been providing quarterly updates, I have not explicitly commented on our investment in the stock market since my first letter in 2012. You deserve an update. At the midway point of this year, we reported equities valued at $271,699.08 and a retirement account of $71,977.51. The entirety of the retirement account is invested in an S&P 500 index fund, and over 98% are from my 403(b) account from Metropolitan Community College. The college provides an employee match of 8.5% of my base salary. Outside of the retirement account, we own 9 different stocks. The best way to summarize these holdings would be to consider four main investments. Each of the following four investments are worth substantially more than the equity I own in my home.
(Apple) Apple is the largest publicly traded corporation by market capitalization, valued at approximately three quarters of a trillion dollars. Apple earns the majority of its revenue from the iPhone, but it also produces other leading consumer electronics and services.
(Disney) Disney is a media and theme park company. On television, Disney owns ABC and ESPN. In film, their properties include Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel Studios, and LucasFilm. Disney operates theme parks worldwide and sells consumer products.
(Visa, Mastercard) Visa and Mastercard are the leading global payment processing companies.
(Miscellaneous) The fourth category is simply all of the remaining stocks we own. This include Berkshire Hathaway, L Brands, Pepsi, Walmart, and Amazon. The one I want to highlight is the newest addition: Amazon. While this is subject to change at any time, my current plan is to invest another $60,000 in Amazon over the next two years and make it another one of our core investment holdings.
2020.07.25 19:38 clmeThe evolving controversy over mandatory masks - some notes on the scientific, legal, and psychological dimensions
UPDATED ON AUGUST 23, 2020 I would like to address the two-pronged idea that (a) wearing cloth masks might help and (b) it certainly won't hurt...So no harm, and maybe some benefit, right? Instead of jumping to this conclusion, I think we should consider this issue in its broader context, bearing in mind that it is unwise to mandate something over which there is active and ongoing controversy within the scientific community itself (i.e. the issue is far from being settled, with evidence foagainst cloth masks all over the place, with just as many studies showing that they may be ineffective or actively harmful (e.g. making other health issues worse) as studies showing some modest efficacy.
1. Aspects related to scientific evidence and cross-country variability in cloth mask policies
The increasing polarised and politicised views on whether to wear masks in public during the current COVID-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions...There is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks...The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions. However, recent reviews using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective...This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.
The evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in reducing viral transmission is very weak. Few studies examine the use of face masks in community settings; those that do find no evidence of reduced transmission compared with no face masks...Efforts to communicate a position so strongly in favour of widespread use of masks in the community...in the face of persistent evidence gaps, risk promoting policy based more on eminence than evidence. The unintended consequences of unequivocal advocacy of a contested position go beyond the downsides of policy implementation: they include the potential erosion of trust in science more generally, when the measures put forward fail to live up to their promise, or result in problems that could be, or had been, anticipated.
The gold standard of evidence in biomedical research is the randomized controlled trial. A systematic review of cloth mask research published in 2020 in the academic journal Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that:
Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
The foregoing finding has been reinforced by a Bayesian analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials. Perski et al., 2020, concluded:
Available evidence from RCTs is equivocal as to whether or not wearing face masks in community settings results in a reduction in clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections.
A most recent systematic review of 18 randomized controlled trials and of 11 other systematic reviews by Dugré et al., 2020 concluded:
This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of potential health risks of face masks by Bakhit et al., 2020, concluded that:
There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence, and effectiveness of face masks. New research on facemasks should assess and report the harms and downsides. Urgent research is also needed on methods and designs to mitigate the downsides of facemask wearing, particularly the assessment of alternatives such as face shields.
Almost 100% of known transmissions of corona happen from extended interaction (home, work, public transit) - you are very unlikely to get it from a stranger passing you by the sidewalk or by a grocery aisle - see here and here.
Cloth masks are ineffective against transmission of COVID-19 through aerosolized respiratory droplets (i.e. smaller droplets <5 μm that remain in the air for hours) and this airborne route of transmission has just been emphasized by many experts to be the most likely primary means of infection. The solutions that would work to address this route are not cloth masks, which can filter only larger droplets (>5 μm), but effective & safe increased ventilation of indoor spaces and avoiding overcrowding. For details, see the recent peer-reviewed letter to the WHO signed by 239 experts, this paper from August 4, 2020, as well as the corroboration from (Donaldson, 2020).
This Finnish governmental report concluded that the majority of systematic reviews of empirical studies on mask efficacy found no benefit to wearing masks.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and most recently Netherlands have also officially recommended against mask-wearing by the general population. Note that here we are talking about the official epidemiological boards of experts of countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Netherlands that have reviewed all that evidence and concluded that masks should not be recommended to the public, let alone made mandatory; these are formal boards of experts with PhDs, not the "unwashed" or "uneducated" masses that believe in conspiracies and fake news. If you worry that this information might be dated, see also this 6th August 2020 article Europe's Top Health Officials Say Masks Aren't Helpful in Beating COVID-19.
As of late July 2020, 19 states in the USA have decided against mandating masks: Wisconsin, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Alaska.
Recent data from US areas with widely different frequencies of mask wearing do not support the idea that cloth masks are effective: e.g. CaliforniaversusArizona, as of late July 2020.
Oxford Univ. Prof. Heneghan explained on 13 August that UK's recent experience suggests masks for the general public have been ineffective.
Widespread use of cloth masks has been pushed by the media as a (putative) solution to a specific problem: the risk of asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission of COVID-19. We have recently learned that the problem is smaller than initially believed. The World Health Organization has acknowledged on 8 June that there is strong evidence from detailed contact tracing showing that asymptomatic transmission is possible, but rare. Under pressure, it has undermined the shred of credibility it had left, by backpedalling the acknowledgment one day later, but the rabbit is out of the bag and independent peer-reviewed empirical research (see here 1, here 2, here 3, and here 4) supports the initial acknowledgment of inefficient asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission (R0 <0.1, compared to R0 of 2-3 for symptomatic transmission; that's 20-30 times less!). Even if one believed that cloth masks work, a cost-benefit calculus of public health policy would still show that healthy/asymptomatic people need not wear them. If alive, Richard Feynman would probably say that addressing COVID-19 with cloth masks is a great illustration of cargo cult science.
2. Psychological, social, economic, legal, and political aspects of mandating cloth masks
The most clever thing that these governors did was to build the morality of “loving your neighbor” into the use of this stupid facial accessory. Most people, if only concerned about themselves, would not comply. “I’ll take my own risks.” But with the “my nose rag protects YOU” mentality in place, they’ve given every citizen who complies the high moral ground and an astronomical sense of self righteousness. If you don’t wear the diseased diaper on your face, you are a cretin, a hateful murderer, a walking leprous pustule distributing your filth all over the environment... and therefore it doesn’t matter how I treat you. It really was a brilliant move and very effective. (Redditor kepc897)
I think the biggest factor is cognitive dissonance. In many (if not most) cases, the reason that people "wear the mask" is because they're afraid, either of the virus, or of "getting in trouble," or of being socially stigmatized / shamed, or even more benignly just of the extra attention they're apt to receive (or that they might feel like they're receiving) as a result of not conforming (e.g., being the only one without a mask in a particular store). So they wear the mask. But the story they tell themselves is not "I'm wearing this because I'm a scared, conformist little bitch." That's not very flattering. So instead they convince themselves they're wearing the mask because they're virtuous, they're responsible, and they care about others' safety. When they see someone else not conforming, on some deep level it triggers feelings of envy and inadequacy because they're seeing someone who isn't afraid. Demonizing that person is a way of reinforcing the story they're telling themselves. (Redditor Capt_Roger_Murdoch)
The interesting point about this collective test we each have to pass, is that it is visible to all. That guy doesn't wear a mask! Let's shame him! The visibility of it all - reminiscent of asking Jews to wear the yellow star in Nazi Germany - makes it easy to single out the enemy within. Redditor thartal has brilliantly captured the spirit of it all with his tongue in cheek "We must kill them before they kill grandma!". The whole exercise of identifying the bad apples among us has the added benefit of giving us someone who can conveniently (and self-servingly...) be blamed and punished: it is easier to punish anti-maskers than to punish the government for how it handled the pandemic, or Mother Nature for the pandemic itself. Meanwhile, the virus does what viruses do, in utter disregard for our security theater and risk rituals therein. Indeed, a sociological analysis of face masks as a risk ritual pointed out that the behavior is counterproductive, to the extent that it fuels anxiety instead of staving it off:
These risk rituals...are more likely to embed rather than resolve the anxieties around which they are organised, even creating a ‘spiral of anxiety’ (Crawford 2004: 505). Existential health risk anxieties are not easily managed and this also goes to the heart of the problem of responsibilisation. Individuals are made rhetorically responsible for problems over which they actually have little control, making the assumption of responsibility as illusory as the protective effects of the rituals that can accompany them... In the abstract, people endorse mask‐wearing as a social act but in reality the imperative of self‐protection predominates.
Wearing [a mask] for show makes me complicit in something I know not to be true (not the reality of the virus, but rather the wisdom of the broader public health strategy since March). It plays into a hysteria that I will not be a part of or endorse. I want people to see I'm not scared to perhaps give them a bit more courage, as well. (Redditor PlayFree_Bird)
Note that being anti-mask is not a selfish or anti-social stance: anti-maskers have ethics and values, just like pro-maskers do, but in their ethical system they rank higher the importance of:
Defending civil liberties/fighting government overreach
Respecting only evidence-driven public policy (i.e. refusing to be part of a charade)
The latter point has two aspects to it: (4.a.) some anti-maskers are aware that we do not have any strong evidence that cloth masks for the general public in nonhealthcare settings are effective (hence mandating them undermines the integrity of the scientific enterprise, basic respect for facts, and the principle of effectiveness in public health policy); (4.b.) other anti-maskers argue that even if masks were known to be effective, using them would be counter-productive because the best strategy is to get faster to herd immunity by encouraging low-risk demographics to live normally. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard Medical School professor of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, has spoken to this issue on 8th August 2020:
As a society we should appreciate young adults who help generate herd immunity by living normal lives and keeping society afloat. Thank you, thank you, thank you. When people throw misguided complaints at you, falsely claiming that you are endangering others, remember that the opposite is true.
Professor Udi Qimron, Head of the Department of Immunology at Tel Aviv University, said the same on 16th August 2020:
I would also ask children and young people to take off their masks.
Going out in public without a mask can be a scientific, political, and moral statement that many of us choose to make even at the risk of being bullied by the pro-mask cult. Genuinely selfish people would find it less costly to just wear the damned mask, even if they didn't believe it works. Contrary to a widespread, but misguided opinion, mask mandates are not a solution to reducing the economic damage wrought by lockdowns. The darker, insidious, long-term psychological and social damage induced by mask-wearing is becoming increasingly apparent even here among Redditors. In short, masks dehumanize (see here 1 and here 2). To illustrate some of the facets of this process:
Forcing the healthy - especially children - to hide their faces in public has devastating psychological and sociological effects that go way beyond mere “inconvenience.” Your overall sentiment is commonly expressed - masks will help us get back to normal by assuaging people’s fears! This is an inversion of the truth. Masks foment terror. They perpetuate an atmosphere of fear, tension, and dread. Definitionally. Widespread mask wearing is dystopian and societally toxic in the extreme. Deny this obvious reality at your great peril. (Redditor WestCoastSurvivor)
Yes, it’s dehumanizing. It sows further distrust in society. Now people are not able to partake in the most basic human connection: sharing a smile, or any facial expression for the matter. Beyond that, the symbolism of masks revolves around disease, germs, contamination, etc. Healthy people wearing masks is just another way to further atomise and divide people, as if that weren’t bad enough already. Overall, the enforcement of masks feels more overreach. This whole fiasco has been characterized by overreach, tyranny and totalitarianism. Wearing a mask is a sign of submission as well as legitimization of a situation that I believe is greatly overblown. I don’t want to play this game at all. (Redditor FlakyDebt)
The concern I have with the way masks are mandated is that by mandating masks, we are setting up a scenario where people are taught to be afraid of other people. People are seen as “potentially infected” and people are now seen as something you need to stay away from. This creates a depressing social atmosphere and undercurrents of fear that I’m worried won’t entirely disappear for a bit even when the mask wearing is no longer mandated. (Redditor blueberryshoes_ )
The issue is mandatory mask wearing by law. The issue is not whether it's effective at improving health outcomes. The problem is that it's not the role of government to prevent (or reduce) all bad things from happening. Making ice cream illegal would arguably improve health outcomes as well but our society values individual freedom of choice. If people choose to wear masks, I'm fine with them doing so. I'm not okay with the government mandating mask wearing, regardless whether it "works". (Redditor mrandish)
A mask, a muzzle, a sign of submission. Who are we submitting to? The virtuous. Who are the virtuous? Those who submit. How do you recognize the virtuous? By the mask. It's a tight tautology. A cave-man ideology. (Redditor horsemintfoxglove)
For many of us it is not just the mandate to wear a mask (a "minor inconvenience" apparently) and the implied loss of freedom that irks, not just the discomfort of wearing one that pains us, not just the newness or strangeness that causes such a visceral reaction, or our frustrations at being told to accept incomplete and constantly developing science as long established fact - rather, it is the loss of identity, the loss of natural social signalling, the very loss of our public social intimacy with each other that is striking many of us to the absolute core. We are so naturally inclined to respond to human faces that we see them in walls and clouds; we yearn for them on a deep, primitive, visceral level. To a huge extent, we ARE our faces. Erasing our faces is dehumanising...Many people are scared of the impact of the virus on human life and angry at those who refuse to subscribe to masks, or at least join in unwillingly. But those of us reacting in all kinds of ways against the masking of humanity are also scared and angry. We are scared of losing that precious contact with our own and others' humanity, scared of losing what it is to be human. Scared, ultimately, of losing many of those things that make life worth living as a human being in the first place. (Redditor FrazzledGod)
The "wear a mask" agenda became fishy to me when they changed it from "mask" to "face covering", and started saying that even a bandana or a scarf or a cut up t shirt will do. Mandating medical-grade masks would make sense. Obviously, there is zero scientific or medical precedent for wearing a bandana on your face to stop disease spread. So then, the question becomes, why are they so insistent on pushing this agenda that you must hide your face? I think the answer is simple - they want people to be dehumanized in the eyes of their fellow man. Instead of seeing each other as fellow human beings with whom there is an emotional or physical connection, they want us to see each other as bioweapons, and they want us to think of ourselves as being bioweapons also. People are a lot easier to manipulate and to pin against each other when they are afraid of themselves and each other. Absolutely disgusting, and it's unbelievable how many people just lap it right up without questioning it when it's framed as a "public health crisis". (Redditor ashowofhands)
3. Looking ahead
In the not-too-distant future technological progress will likely lead to high-quality masks that will actually work. But they will work not only to contain viral particles, but also to dehumanize us. And that's why, even in that future when the science of mask-making will be perfected, many of us would choose not to wear one. But given that the current situation has set up a political precedent for authoritarianism and the curtailment of personal freedoms in the name of public health, the open question remains: will we still be allowed to choose? What can one do about all this?
COVID-19 control must be balanced with basic human rights. People need to be empowered to make informed choices about their own lives and the level of risk they are prepared to accept. Universal public health measures are appropriate only when they are truly necessary, supported by strong evidence, and when there are no other alternatives...Any requirements for mandatory masks must be based on strong evidence...;
Familiarize yourself with the legal protections you already have in your respective country and invoke them when needed - here 1, here 2, here 3, here 4, and here 5 you have examples of these protections for those living in Canada. Based on your local legal framework, write to your elected officials expressing your dismay at how a form of medical treatment - mask-wearing - is forced on people in violation of their right to informed medical consent. Express your worries that your jurisdiction will soon become like North Korea (where you get three months of forced labor if you don't wear a mask) or Indiana (where you get up to six months in prison) or Quatar (where you get up to three years in prison) for not wearing a mask. Protesting anonymously on Reddit is not effective - you need to come forward with your real name in real life and act against this madness through your non-compliance and through your contacting of your elected officials;
2020.07.18 11:23 Pe-CuliusJeaserFormer third party member for a decade voting for POTUS Donald J. Trump
Hey Trump fans, I wanted to share my views as a US citizen that was a former third party member of the current US political climate and global events witnessed. If you liked the message please share it! Thanks for having me! (You can skip to the most important sections in bold if you need to read through it quickly.) My time following politics began some time ago around 2000 in my early teenage years. I was seeing the presidential candidates Bush vs Al Gore and I was hearing him talk about global warming and at the time I could see that there was a real environmental concern in the world. He did not win and we saw that Bush won instead then the 9/11 attacks hit our country and years of war started from there. Next up we had the 2004 term of Bush’s re-election, he won of course. Around 2006 is when I started to research the alternative media coverage and ran into libertarian ideals and the presidential candidate Ron Paul, along with that we had the whole wikileaks and Chelsea Manning whistleblowers fiasco showing us the dangers of the patriot act brought by Bush, the falsified wars for oil and the sweeping dragnet of communications surveillance on American citizens that ensued. Ron Paul had me with his opposition to war declarations being unconstitutional without congress approval with the example of multiple invasions in the Middle East. He was the first presidential candidate I donated money to. He also proposed isolationism or something closer to anti-globalization which made sense to me in terms of helping to curb global trade which caused unnecessary excess emissions in our atmosphere, for the aristocratic tastes of a nation to ship a Fuji apple from Japan to the USA because some rich person really wanted to eat it. Ron Paul ran in 2008 and I was seeing a big support for him online, through alternative media, but in reality it was a different story. The establishment candidates pushed him out of his miniscule spotlight that the Mainstream Media offered him. During Bush’s presidency the libertarians, whose main voice was Ron Paul, were causing a lot of attention online causing the start of the Tea Party. This is where alternative media like Alex Jones (Infowars) and Abovetopsecret (dot) com started to cover things that the mainstream media would not. Ron Paul also wanted to end the federal reserve and that also caused a large online international movement to end central banks and in the usa it was called end the fed, which would bring us back to the gold standard and remove the inflated price of the dollar, I think this would have not worked in our large economy so it was not a popular aspect with me. I still voted for Ron Paul in a swing state instead of voting for McCain or Obama. 2008- McCain and Obama faced off. Obama had won, I heard a lot about the birther movement stuff that Trump had pushed out in the online community. I did not buy it as I saw it was a weak blow, instead I saw that this man (Obama) was willing to sell out the American taxpayers by effectively throwng all the stolen money at the big banks which should not have been bailed out. I joined in the Occupy movement at this time. I saw the way Obama was treating those who were protesting, when he was visiting NYC he made sure to put protestors in “protest zones” making sure they do not get caught in the media coverage, he did not care about his voting base. The occupy movement was crushed as I saw on livestreaming the finance treasurer called for a general meeting of the occupy Wall Street movement asked for a fake vote which somehow made sure the finances raised for the movement go towards Egyptian revolutionaries which were trying to overthrow the Mubarak government and instead put in the Muslim Brotherhood Morsi in office who was far worse, (this was precluding the Arab spring events in Northern Africa and ME countries). He created a new constitution with Sharia law into effect. During the occupy movement, the alternative right wing online media started to say that the movement was being funded by George Soros (wait for that name to come up again later). During these years some other groups started to be created, such as, sovereign citizens, and oath keepers. The views of these groups were too much for the average person and it did not help in gaining much support for the right wing side of politics. 2012- Obama was going for his second term and I saw that he made no plans on fixing the environment as he pushed through the keystone pipeline construction and was not really focusing on green energy. Sarah Palin had co-opted the Tea Party into the Republican party which was a terrible thing as the Tea Party just turned into some offshoot of Alex Jones followers mixed with racist elements, which totally destroyed the initial message of bringing constitutionalism back as much as possible. I saw the whole FEMA camps thing as total hogwash, Alex Jones would have done better convincing the right wing about the real dangers developing in East Asia, but it was just about clickbait and profits for him. Snowden also appeared to show us the massive surveillance being used again by the Obama administration through the NSA. For voting in this election I instead saw that the better candidate was Jill Stein of the green party as I wanted her environmental stance to take priority in policy making. She also wanted to pull us out of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars which Mitt Romney and Obama both wanted to continue. Obama had won and then all the videos showing police violence against blacks started to come online after the Trayvon Martin shooting and I was affected and took sympathy towards this. Along with that we had the BP oil rig disaster which Obama did as little as possible to BP, mostly a slap on the wrist, even though it destroyed so much of the Gulf of Mexico’s wildlife. I started to look at his whole presidency with cynicism and dismay. He had Hilary conduct proxy wars in Libya and carried out more bombings of countries than Bush did. The Obamacare act actually helped me as a private citizen get overpriced medical care coverage when I had a few serious physical ailments. I can say that was the only silver lining I saw in his presidency. The Black lives matter movement had spawned during these four years as more videos of police brutality came online, I was not really interested in the Black Lives Matter movement only trying to see the police brutality ending or reduced. 2015-2016 Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter makes a comeback, Bernie Sanders appeared to me around December of 2014 on Reddit, he made a huge wave with the online community and he had what seemed to be a flawless record in terms of standing up for social issues, against the Iraq and Afghanistan war, opposed the tough on crime act but voted for the crime bill in 1994 (Written by Joe Biden, signed by Bill Clinton) as it also included violence against women act (cracked down on domestic violence & rape) which he supported. He was the first Presidential candidate I reached the donation limit with. In the races he practically tied in Iowa and it seemed that then it was too much for Clinton she was already planning her attack dogs as she saw the threat he posed. She mainly used Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) for her control of primary votes, we saw through online media (like The Young Turks) that in most of the primary voting locations in Nevada, counts were not being done properly in favour of Clinton. Bernie was having a huge surge in donations throughout most of the campaign as many people were giving the federal donation limit, while at the same time Clinton was doing non-stop events at millionaire charity fundraisers for them to sponsor checks for her campaign (as Citizens United has passed into law previously). After Nevada we saw a down surge in Bernie’s chances, for the cherry on top moment Bill Clinton would (illegally walk into voting precincts as a political statement essentially breaking voting laws, but he would get a pass as the former president with little fuss from a majority of Democrats). Not only did I donate the maximum amount possible to Bernie’s campaign but I also joined as an activist and campaign volunteer locally, it was infuriating to see how Hilary, the media, and the DNC piled against him to ensure he loses, in August 2015 we saw Black Lives Matter protestors take the microphone away from Bernie (which they never did to Hilary who supported the crime the 94’ crime bill and called African-american kids superpredators, with “no conscience, no empathy”) and hijack his campaign event which made them lose all credibility as an grassroots organization, and showed they were being directed by outside interests. I remember how many times Hilary would flip-flop on the debates vs Bernie. At first she was for fracking, then his policies against fracking won and she changed her stance, the same regarding medicare for all through a single payer system, she flipped once again and started to say that we can move towards that. Then after one of the primaries around March or April 2016 we were seeing Bernie’s momentum increasing still and then all of a sudden we saw Bernie’s stance in his candidacy waning on by his own doing. At one debate or speech we could see that Bernie was looking very pale white and it was around this time that we suspected death threats were made to his family members by the Clinton family (there were rumors she had a body count), I don’t really know whether that was true but I do know there was a sudden change in his demeanor and how much of a motivational speaker he was despite having a close tie in the states. He went downhill after that and he had a huge following behind him, he didn’t split the Dem party even though he could have easily done it at the time and made a huge boost as an independent party nominee (as he was an independent before joining Democrats) and he endorsed Clinton as the Democratic primary nominee. I stopped following the primaries after that from disgust. He brought up a lof of policy issues that I still wanted to see go through, such as, ending Citizens united, a living wage (this would have destroyed Wal-mart earlier on and stopped so much Chinese imports), and overturning the Glass-Steagle act which destroyed the housing market. Bill Clinton did a lot of horrible things, Brought China into the WTO, enacted the Glass-Steagle act, also the 1994 Crime Bill he signed into law (Written by Joe Biden) which put so many African-American’s into the prison system. I was not willing to support his wife who defended all these decisions as well while she was FLOTUS. Bill Clinton signing NAFTA as well ushered China into US markets and crippling businesses across the united states and causing the Chinese economy to surge much higher at a very rapid pace, it was essentially a looting. China was not following 100 years of progress made in the United States in terms of child labor laws, environmental law, and health and safety workspace conditions laws which allowed them to produce goods in a much larger way along with the Chinese currency being manipulated as well, this put American businesses 2ndin terms of priority for those decades. 2016, Hilary vs Trump I had lost motivation in the races after Bernie was defeated and we were coming to two people I believed were corrupt. Once it came to voting for the next president I wrote in Bernie Sanders name (in a swing state) as a protest vote, even though I wanted Clinton to lose no matter what for her and the DNC parties reputation. Before trump Fox was a giant that was not able to taken down and the entire left-wing media was controlled by Soros and other globalists. We were stuck with bad politicians and filtered/controlled media coverage, it was a desperate time in America and people were looking for something to bring us out of the nonsense. Trump had won. 2016-2019 I had gone through these years seeing President Trump in office and did not despise him nor did I like him. I noticed how much the left wing media could not drop the whole supposed Russia collaboration with the election while the media completely stayed quiet before he was elected regarding Hilary’s missing emails. I left from the USA to India at the end of 2017 and did not look back as I was focused on Volunteer activities for a non-profit organization. 2019-2020 While in India from the end of 2017 I did not focus on anything related to politics and was enjoying my life as a volunteer, and still I am. Towards the beginning of the year Covid-19 makes an appearance in the world originating from China, now we saw a change in the way China is viewed in the world, the floodgates were opening following this timeline of events: Timeline: 14-01-2020 WHO investigations on Covid-19 suggest no sign of human-to-human transmission 01-04-2020 Bloomberg puts an article that China concealed the extent of the virus 29-03-2020 China enforces an extradition bill in Hong Kong (a tool to crush freedom and democracy of the Hong Kong people) 10-04-2020 Japan plans move to pay manufacturers to leave China 15-04-2020 Ambassador Sam Brownback mentions Uyghir mistreatment on twitter 18-04-2020 Trump drafts a WHO resolution to investigate the origin and WHO response to Covid-19 (India supported this resolution, Australia was the first to ask for the investigation in April) 20-04-2020 Nepal draws a new map showing parts of India as within its border to promote conflict (with the backing of Chinese government.) 21-04-2020 border tensions between China and India begin 23-05-2020 China focuses more troops along the China-India border 26-05-2020 protests start in Minneapolis after George Floyd death 04-06-2020on the anniversary of Tiananmen square I read the cable which mentions that students gathered in protest of the Chinese government at the time(1989) were bulldozed and turned into "PIE" then hosed down drainshttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UK_cable_on_Tiananmen_Square_Massacrethe government then is the same government still in power today. 06-06-2020 Mike Pompeo sends a press statement regarding China's exploitation of George Floyd protest to justify abuse of human rights domestically and in Hong Kong https://www.state.gov/on-the-chinese-communist-partys-obscene-propaganda/ 07-06-2020 Minneapolis police force disbanded 08-06-2020 Seattle capitol hill goes into riots and turns into CHAZ/CHOP no police zone until July, one member of Seattle city council Kshama Sawant (Communist [not really a socialist] from India) praises the effort as a protest against oppression. 12-06-2020 read an article describing how ActBlue is a front money funnelling operation for the DNC and BLM, they do not allow Republican's to use the ActBlue donation platform. https://justthenews.com/accountability/donations-black-lives-matter-are-funnelled-through-democratic-fundraising-group 13-06-2020video of an Ex-KGB member, from 36 years ago, describes how a nation can be subverted over time to become anti-democry and anti-nationalisthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA, full documentary can be searched for also. 14-06-2020 (Important) Watched a very important Youtube video clearly showing that the US and India riots are identical and being brought on by Soros and CIA Ford foundation "Answer These Questions [PowerPacked Challenge] Link[Delhi/US]Riots - Part 2"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmpCt-uH7CQ (String) Youtube video channel 14-06-2020 read Forbes opinion article clearly disclosing the ties between media and billionares who influence it "Billionares battle over media influence Koch bros murdoch vs soros buffett ge" 14-06-2020 Read an article how Apple allowed encryption keys to China under pressure from the CCP as they were threatening closing off local supply chains, they never gave the encryption keys to us government. 16-06-2020First Ladakh border casualties between India-China in 45 years, this shows a new level of desperation, one Commanding officer and a few others were killed by the Chinese army. 17-06-2020 Wached the documentary Death By China: How America lost it's manufacturing base 19-06-2020 State-sponsored Chinese cyber hackers starts nationwide hacking of Australia 20-06-2020 Trump retweets news source that Soros-Affiliated Anti-deportation group part of defund police movement 22-06-2020 Watched PBS undercover documentary China's Vanishing Muslims 23-06-2020 - India makes plans to reduce its trade deficit with China by $8.4 billion or 17.3% of its deficit with that country over fiscal 2022 27-06-2020 - Watched FRONTLINE Trump's Trade War 29-06-2020 - Watched FRONTLINE China Undercover Documentary 29-06-2020 - China forces birth control on Uighurs to suppress population by The Associated PressJune 29, 2020 GMT https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP 1-07-2020 - China enforces their Extradition policy on Hong Kong which would cause any protesting citizens to be able to try in a kangaroo court in mainland China. 01-07-2020 - read an article describing the CCP to restore their position as the world’s supreme power by the year 2049, which is the centennial of the founding of the People’s Republic of China https://www.axios.com/china-plan-global-superpower-xi-jinping-5954481e-02c8-4e19-a50c-cd2a90e4894f.html 02-07-2020 -Unlicensed Assault weapons coming from China caught by U.S. customs dept.https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/10800-assault-weapons-parts-seized-cbp-louisville 03-07-2020 - Antifa members start to try to destroy the Portland federal office https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1278962503121133570?s=08 06-07-2020 Black Panther militia march in Georgia, almost all of them appear to have the same assault weapons, it is entirely possible the weapons are being supplied by outside forces (China). 07-07-2020 FBI director Christopher Wray mentions of the nearly 5,000 active FBI counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, about half are all related to China FBI opened a new Chinese counterintelligence investigation “about every 10 hours.” 07-07-2020 Ilhan Omar (Democratic party representative of Minneapolis) calls for dismantilng of the U.S. economy and political systems, what would replace capitalism? Marxist Communism of course. 10-07-2020 California expected to release a total of 18,000 prisoners (including rapists and murders) back into the state due to Corona a decision made by Democratic governor Gary Newsom. While living in India for over two years I had no idea how China was a neighbor, slowly they were creeping into democratic nations to subdue them with cultural subversion, they use Pakistan as a puppet government, they are pushing Nepal (a long time ally of India) into conflict by having them draw a new border map. The Chinese government works to ensure the world focuses on George Floyd protests while they quickly retake Hong Kong under communist rule. While Trump drafts the WHO bill to investigate the source of the virus in China with other countries backing it, attempts to subdue countries backing the resolution starts to happen. It is clear that based on these things we can see how China manipulated the world for many years, while I was in the USA we never imagined what they were capable of. Now living outside the USA I have an outside perspective of the situation with China as a neighbor to India. China had established itself as an innocent giant supermarket and that is how they appeared to be for most Americans that would shop for Chinese products for decades not knowing they were really feeding an authoritarian regime. With the Trump presidency, this point has been highlighted and many countries have felt the wrath of China from speaking out against their actions. They have influenced many nations through economic warfare (if countries speak out the CCP tells Chinese citizens to boycott opposing countries products) and have been committing planned cultural subversion to take away democracy and freedom of other nations by funding/supporting these anti-national groups around the world with the help of billionaires like Soros. Even our corporations are afraid to speak out against China for fear of suddenly losing their supply chains, the pressure than can only come from a government and people which the Trump administration has been doing for some time. I originally had believed that climate change needed to be the top thing to be tackled and that nothing else should take priority, but it appears that we have an emergency on our hands as Communism/Marxism seems to be altering world affairs. We need to support Nationalism in countries that practice Democracy (Like the USA and India) at all costs. These riots and protests are being controlled and coerced by outside forces as I witnessed with the whole Occupy Wall Street movement, in the Occupy movement we saw a fair share of black-bloc terrorists hijacking the movement and painting a bad media image. With the case of Black Lives Matter, they were originally started to radically change the democratic party in a Marxist fashion by announcing defunding the police and giving illegal immigrants the right to vote. BLM has been found to be donating to the democratic party and receiving money from outside countries (kind of similar to how Russia was influencing US elections in 2016 but worse). Along with that they are affiliated with George Soros' Open Society Foundation (on their webpage under the partners section). The financial head of BLM is Susan Rosenberg who is a communist that blew up sections of the U.S. capitol building (she was pardoned by Bill Clinton). She is the finance chair head of Thousand Currents which is receiving funds from Give Lively, Give lively is owned by Jonathan Soros (son of George Soros), contributions are coming into thousand currents from Soros and from Thousand currents to BLM. It is clear the democratic party is trying everything possible to make Trump and the police look bad. Obviously, BLM will not be endorsing Trump, they will endorse Biden and they have a lot of financial power as well. They and the democratic party want to destroy the cities, destroy democracy, destroy capitalism (which goes against communism) all to make sure that Trump does not win again, they are acting on behalf of Communism (China) and billionaires that profit off of this (Soros), This question needs to be seriously thought about: Would it have made sense for us to give Soviet Russia in the 1980's all our technology blueprints, Intellectual property, manufacturing base, and owing debt to them? Absolutely not. This is why we need to decouple from China immediately. Communism plans to take over the country and they are running out of time as the world has opened their eyes to seeing China as a threat after the Coronavirus appeared. My final thoughts are we need to vote for Trump more than ever. *Edit to fix the publish date of the ex-KGB video. *Edit fixed FBI Director's name from Michael to Christhoper Wray.
2020.07.15 15:19 kjmichaelsClimbing Mount Readmore: Reading Our Top Fantasy Novels Part 23 - 34-30
Welcome to the home stretch. Each month I will be reading 5 books from our Top Novels of 2018 list until I have read the starting book from each series. When we last checked in, I nearly finished the 40-34 range. Now we go from 34 to 30: __________________________________________________ 34. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, Book 1 of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (30 on the 2019 list)
Arthur Dent's home is scheduled for demolition to construct a highway bypass when a curious thing happens: the earth itself is demolished to build an interstellar bypass. Fortunately for Dent, his close friend turns out to be an alien hitchhiker and the two are soon set to explore the strange an unusual galaxy.
It's been decades since I read Hitchhiker's Guide. I think I discovered these in middle school (incidentally, a great time to discover the weird, absurdist humor of Douglas Adams) and fell in love with them. But does it hold up as an adult? Of course it does, what a stupid question I have asked and I should feel bad for asking it even rhetorically. it's difficult to say something new and interesting about one of the most widely beloved comedy books ever written. At the end of the day, you can try to dissect what works about and why, you can quote the funniest parts, you can attempt to write a traditional review, but it almost feels like a disservice to even try. This review ultimately boils down to just "this book is really funny, you should try it if you haven't already" and everything else is just lists of reasons why it is funny which won't be as fun to read out of context so I've opted to keep this review short and sweet instead. Like many zany comedies, the plot is flimsy as hell, being little more than an excuse to deliver joke and joker and gag after gag which, of course, it does with aplomb. Adams fires off jokes rapidly and constantly with numerous asides that slowly pile on to the point that you often get three or more jokes a paragraph when many other comedic novels tend towards something like 3 jokes a page. With such a short length, the novel manages to be surprisingly punchy and fast paced too. The only significant downside in my mind is the that the book just kind of ends abruptly to be continued in another farce. All in all, it's well worth a read if you've never tried it and it is loads of fun.
Why is this a top novel? Because it's one of the funniest sci fi books (or possibly funniest of any books) ever written.
Would you continue on? Continue on? I already read all of these books years ago!
34. American Gods by Neil Gaiman (40 on the 2019 list)
Shadow Moon is released from prison on the same day his wife dies. In his grief, he winds up working for a mysterious man, Mister Wednesday, a stranger with fantastical powers and connections to ancient mythological creatures and gods. Mister Wednesday is the unofficial leader of the old gods
Okay, I can do this, this is the last Neil Gaiman book I have to get through. [deep breath] American Gods is often hailed as Gaiman's magnum opus and I can see why the ambition and the sheer number of cultural mythologies integrated into this story leave people impressed but I personally find the whole book emotionally inert and underwhelming. Characters feel like emotionless dispassionate robots in this book. We learn really early that Shadow's wife died while having an affair with his best friend and soon after that, her revenant appears in his room to talk to him about it. You may be thinking that the main character's wife cheating on him with his best friend shortly before dying when the only thing the main character has expressed any desire for is getting to leave prison to be back with her to live a normal life is a pretty emotionally fraught situation that would leave a lot of open wounds but Shadow and Laura (his wife) just have a calm conversation about what happen and remark with mild surprise about how weird it is that Laura can still show up and talk when she's dead. I don't think this scene needed to devolve into a screaming match but the whole situation is devoid of any emotion which makes it hard to buy into this having been a real relationship, especially not with such flat dialogue as and "You're dead, babe." and "The sex was good. It was really good." There can be power in the subversion of expectations but it's got to be both purposeful and motivated. A husband not being angry at his wife cheating on him could be the set up for an interesting scene but it has to be paired with an emotional response that still feels satisfying. Shadow could just be overjoyed to get to talk to her even one last time and finds that's more important than the betrayal, Laura could be racked with guilt and just trying to make her peace. The one response that doesn't satisfy in any way though is both characters having no particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the whole thing. These are just the aspects that made American Gods not very entertaining to me personally though. I think there are more significant thematic and conceptual failings that make this book a bit of a failure on its own terms. That sounds a bit harsh but I think it's fair because, you see, American Gods wants to be about something: it wants to pointedly critique modern culture, the things we choose to worship, and to examine what makes things uniquely American. This is an ambitious thematic goal but Gaiman has approached this goal in a rather shallow way. I think a significant problem is that Gaiman's choices for New Gods are incredibly crude and one-dimensional to the point of near self parody. When given the chance to come up with what modern gods might patronize, he chooses: media, the Internet, and conspiracy theories as his primary targets (points where they're due: having several gods of conspiracy theories does feel a bit prescient to our current times). This all seems meant as social critique but it feels pretty shallow (it's hard to say if it was as shallow at the time of writing but it certainly doesn't feel sharp in 2020) and arguably those should all be domains of a single god rather than separate gods. It feels like Gaiman has shot himself in the foot by relying on oversimplified subjects that are trying to be clever and insightful but don't exactly reach those levels. It's difficult to say something coherent and interesting about religious worship when you conflate "things people enjoy" with "things people revere." A mid book speech from the God of New Media goes into a bit about how "TV is an altar that people sacrifice their time to" but that feels like swing and a miss for insightful commentary. People don't worship TV, they watch it for fun and that is an important difference. The Romans didn't have a god of circuses, after all and the Romans loved their circuses. The inability to discern between veneration and entertainment muddies the interesting themes the novel is trying to build by profoundly misunderstanding that what a society professes to value on a grander scale and what a society actually spends time on day to day are often at odds. This leads to a weird situation where the Old Gods get to represent the best ideals and sacred beliefs of their time (abstract notions like valor, or all encompassing ideas like knowledge, or even phases of life like beginnings and endings) while the New Gods mostly represent random hobbies and time killers that most people participate in but few people actually hold any respect for (at least the ones we consistently see do, there are also a bunch of gods who represent random utilitarian things like hospitals and telephones who are mentioned but don't really play a role in the story). It's an ugly mismatch that plays into that most tired of tropes - that the past was great and awesome and people believed in things that mattered unlike today where people are shallow and don't believe in anything - even though I am pretty sure this was not Gaiman's intent. It feels like this same premise could have been a set up for a more interesting ending had a little more thought been put in. The shallowness of the New Gods could have been purposeful critique of the shallowness of American culture (which I frankly still think would have been a shallow way to go about this theme but it is at least moving in a more coherent direction) but this is obviously not the case as the New Gods are intended to be significant threats to the Old Gods' power. Another possibility that occurred to me was that it would have been interesting if the New Gods were just shallow distractions for a behind-the-scenes set of real New Gods (which would have been a brilliant use of the conspiracy theory gods as cover and foreshadowing for a deeper, hidden threat). Maybe the real American God could have been a juggernaut composited from a hundred dead gods that swallows Old Gods and spits out malformed and shallow "New Gods" that create rituals devoid of purpose or worship that drains power from all of the Old Gods on purpose. It could have been an interesting examination of America's unique hyper consumerism , commitment to cultural synthesis in ways that aren't always respectful of what came before, and how its culture has come to dominate global culture. And these are just first draft ideas for how to make the New Gods actually interesting and feel like they represented substantial and real aspects of culture that might actually be worshiped. I literally sat at my desk for five minutes and asked myself "Could the shallowness of these gods have worked if approached from a new angle?" and wrote down a few random ideas. It baffles me that an experienced writer with months or years to work on this book came up with things like gods of shopping malls, of freeways, and of credit cards instead and thought that was insightful commentary. So was there anything about this book I did like? Yeah, it's not all bad. Gaiman is super knowledgeable about mythology and his portrayals of old gods seems fairly accurate on the ones I know and I did enjoy just how culturally varied the sources he pulls from are. Most writers stick to Greco-Roman or Norse pantheons but Gaiman is pulling from just about every mythologic pantheon under the sun which is great and makes this world feel more interesting and varied than many similar works do. Some of the aspects of con work and Shadow's time in prison also have a more unique and grounded feel to them that doesn't quite feel at home in this story but that I still enjoyed. I also found a lot of the little insert mini-chapters that show what various gods are doing throughout the world to be highlights. Those sections function almost as short stories and they pack far more emotion and more interesting insights into the gods than the rest of the book does. Maybe this is a sign that I'll like Gaiman more if I try his short stories, maybe his Norse Mythology collection will wind up being his work I like the most if I ever give it a shot. At the end of the day, there's an interesting story here but it's hampered by uninteresting characters and shallow execution. It's certainly not the worst Gaiman I've read (Neverwhere is not losing its place as my least favorite book I've read in this series of reviews any time soon) but it does feel like his book with the most wasted potential. Had Shadow been shunted to the side or made into a more dynamic and interesting character instead of an everyman and if the New Gods had come with more unique and interesting characterizations (they needed a kind of sprawling and interesting mythology to match their Old God counterparts), I think this would have been a truly special book. It's certainly ambitious and written with an eye towards thoughtful social critique in mind but that critique just doesn't land as often as it should.
Why is this a top novel? A story that showcases not just a handful of gods but pretty much all of them was a wildly original premise for the time.
Do you wish there was a sequel? Not really
32. The Gunslinger by Stephen King, Book 1 of the Dark Tower series (38 on the 2019 list)
Roland Deschain is a gunslinger, a knight of sorts who is sworn to chase a mysterious man in black who is implied to be responsible for the destruction of Roland's homeland.
If there's one thing associated with Steve King, it's barely veiled white supremacy and a history of horrible racism that has long marred his service in Congress as the representative of Iowa's 4th district. But if there's one thing associated with Stephen King, beloved horror author, it's probably the legendary bloat of many of his projects. Of his 60 published novels, roughly half are well over 500 pages. Someone needs to edit King down because he's actually a really remarkable writer of shorter works as evidenced by this novel, one of his shortest ever at barely under 200 pages according to my copy. I guess the main draw of this book, aside from its brevity, is that it's one of the more interesting worlds King has created. You learn a decent bit about Roland's homeland, Gilead, and about the order of gunslingers that defended it and about the titular Dark Tower that seems to bind multiple realities to together that Roland seeks. Not all of these elements are pulled off perfectly but it does make for a unique blend of western and medieval that is fascinating to witness. The characters in it are standouts as well. Roland was modeled after Clint Eastwood and King does a remarkably good job of bringing an Eastwood style character to life in prose. You feel a lot of his masked but still raw emotions in his long quest to kill the man who ruined his life and he definitely has a certain charismatic swagger to him that makes him a believable badass well before you ever see him in action. Speaking of action, many of the action scenes in here are quite gripping. It does make a certain sense that a master of horror would be well versed in creating tension but I think it's still neat that King can manage action tension which is technically a different toolbox than he normally works from. It is still a Stephen King novel though and that means we are still in for some weird narrative leaps, gestures at a multiverse that feel a bit underwhelming (though I hear the later books do more with this multiverse concept), and a lackluster conclusion. I don't think these elements are enough to ruin the book (and really, these are well known flaws in many King books from what I understand so once you're familiar with them it's hard not to expect them) but the do drag down what I would wager is a novel very close to being King's best work. There's basically no reason not to try this book. It's short, it's action-packed, and it has a lot of fascinating worldbuilding. If you've never read King, this is definitely one of his most accessible books and it's also far and away one of his most fantasy driven which makes it a natural bridge point for people from this community.
Why is this a top novel? Masterful atmosphere and a great economy of narrative - a rarity for King books.
Would you continue on? Yep.
32. The Darkness That Comes Before by R Scott Bakker, Book 1 of the Second Apocalypse (65 on the 2019 list)
The apocalypse came and went centuries ago but fiery visions of an apocalypse yet to come still plague the visions of sorcerers who live in this day. Now the Nansur Empire has called a Holy War against its neighbor, Kian, and their magical clashes will set the stage for the final battle for the world.
It's easiest to compare this novel to Malazan in that both are wordy tomes that are considered by readers to lack exposition (we'll get to that), tackle weighty philosophical themes, feature a host of characters, focus on epic stories that are unique for the genre, and contain a ton of varied worldbuilding. The problem is that in almost every area, Bakker comes out worse by comparison. The Darkness That Comes Before has a lot of the same problems as Gardens of the Moon but in larger quantities and with fewer saving graces (say what you will about Erikson dropping you in the middle of his world and leaving you to drown in it, he still has a great sense of narrative economy, only dropping in things that are or will be important. Bakker on the other hand sometimes seems to pile on more and more names and locations that don't even reappear in the same book just to give off the illusion of a more expansive world). About the only area where it manages to one up Malazan is that I believe Second Apocalypse has started much closer to its main plot than Malazan did. There are a good number of interesting themes here about war and religion and other weighty subjects but it's sad to read something that is obviously so underpinned by thoughtful and interesting themes but also feels weirdly generic in some areas. The world may be unique but the characters often feel like cutouts whether it's the prostitute with a heart of gold or the ultra violent warrior from a nomadic tribe or the paranoid emperor, these just all feel like such bog standard fantasy archetypes without much additional depth. The real weakness here though is the questionable approach to worldbuilding. I've also read some reviews claim that the book is allergic to exposition but that's not exactly right in my opinion because this book is practically bogged down with exposition only the exposition itself doesn't provide clarity. Here's a real excerpt to give an example:
So far only three great lords had joined the Men of the Tusk: Calmemunis, the Palatine of the Conriyan province of Kanampurea; Tharschilka, an earl from some obscure Galeoth march; and Kumrezzer, the Palatine-Governer of the Ainoni district of Kutapileth.
This odd mix of overly formal explanations riddled with jargon that the readers seems expected to know which will not be clarified in the text reminds me of a very specific writing style: that of technical manuals or academic papers. This is an especially baffling approach when you consider that all of these great lords are killed the chapter after they are introduced with basically no screen time so what the advantage of naming them and giving them such specific locations to have come from is when neither the lords nor their lands serve any narrative purpose remains a complete mystery. The whole sentence, stripped of extraneous details, could effectively be pared down to "The war was led by three generals, one of them was the prince's cousin." This is a remarkably poor approach to worldbuilding. You can't build up a sense of personality and history by just tossing names and locations. Namedropping and endless lists is a dismal way to try to invest a reader in a world. And it's frustrating too because there are glimpses of an interesting world there, I can tell Bakker has clearly put a lot of work into making this world different from standard fantasy worlds but he just is not very good at conveying it. Ultimately, I come away from this book disappointed more than anything else. There are interesting concepts here that are worth writing about and Bakker seems like a smart guy with something to say. It's just a shame that his writing is symptomatic of the worst aspects of academic papers and that he spent his time translating that style to narrative rather than telling a more compelling story. For all its vaunted complexity, I don't find this story particularly complex. There's only a single major plot, all main characters are directly involved with that plot, and the most important bits are always told pretty clearly such as when a battle is happening or who won or why they won. It's not complex, just clogged with details that feel irrelevant because they're not properly foregrounded in the text. I actually find the prologue significantly better and closer to the style of complexity that I had been envisioning with its interesting narrative jumps that leave some action obscured and open to interpretation. Sadly, the rest of the novel doesn't follow this same prose style as much, shifting instead to a much blunter and more direct style. I can't call it an outright bad book even though it was a chore to read but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining who would like this.
Why is this a top novel? Going off of this novel alone, it seems to be the poor man's Malazan. Maybe later books improve upon this.
Would you continue on? I'd need some serious reassurances that the characters get more interesting first.
30. Kings of the Wyld by Nicholas Eames, Book 1 of The Band (24 on the 2019 list)
Clay Cooper is a good man, everyone says so. And so when his old friend and traveling companion, Golden Gabe, comes begging for Clay's help in saving Gabe's daughter from a horde of monsters that are threatening to wipe out an entire city where she is trapped, Clay has no choice but to pick up his famed shield and fight again. As Gabe and Clay reunite the members of their mercenary company (also called a Band) that was once the most famed fighting force in the land, they contend with some of the greatest dangers they have ever faced.
Mixing rock movie tropes of getting the band back together with a classic fantasy story framework? Absolutely genius. That alone might be enough to justify this book's place in the top novels list but on top of that, it's also just a funny and charming story. Granted, I'm not as in love with it as many of our community are, I think the humor can fall flat semi regularly (especially when read on the heels of Hitchhiker's Guide) and that it leans a bit too hard on the wink wink nudge nudge do you get it nature of its concept, but it is certainly an impressively original work that is worth a read. On the one hand, this book has a number of strong attributes to it. Characters are generally fun and interesting, there are a lot of genre jokes that make fun of both DnD style fantasy and also classic rock cliches. This can create some hit or miss results though. I'll admit I got a knowing chuckle out of the line about how "bands these days don't even fight their own battles" which seems like a joke on lipsyhcing or maybe boy bands that don't play their own instruments but I do wonder if this joke is at least a decade out of date. That said, what the narrative sometimes lacks in humor it often makes up for in heart. Gabe's quest to save his daughter is touching and it provides a lot of forward momentum to a type of road trip story that can often feel a bit formless and undermotivated without this kind of ticking clock element. The downsides here are that the plotting is a bit repetitive. The narrative doesn't seem to build the way a typical story does with events naturally progressing from one another even though the attempt to find their other band members theoretically provides the structure for a cohesive narrative. There are a lot of battles and encounters that fall into the story a little more like video game battle encounters, a little at random or a little at whatever point it seems like there hasn't been enough action in awhile. This isn't the worst flaw but it does mean that I found myself skimming over a number of fights whenever it became clear that the scene was action filler. Luckily, there are still plenty of action scenes that are plot-motivated and quite gripping (the coliseum fight comes to mind). As I said, there's a lot of fun to be had here, I think most people will enjoy it if they give it a try but I'm not sure it's the all around stunner, funniest book of the decade that some people make it out to be. If I were giving out numbered reviews (which I am definitely not and have no plans to do), I'd give it something like a 7 out of 10 because it is worth reading but I wouldn't expect anyone to be blown away by this.
Why is this a top novel? It's a funny and unique take on a well trod concept. I can see why it stuck out enough to get noticed.
Would you continue on? Yeah, I would.
___________________________________________ And that's it for this month! Be sure to check back same time next month. As always, feel free to comment with your thoughts on any of these books and their respective series. Contrary opinions are especially welcome as I'd like to know what people saw in these series that I didn't.
2020.06.22 18:18 missfleet2019bored so here's america's next top male model cycle 4. who is your winner and why is it definitely kahlen?
fadeout top: Keenyah, Naima, Tiffany, Becky, Brittany, Kahlen. middle: Michelle, Christina, Noelle, Brita. bottom: Sarah, Tatiana, Brandy, Lluvy. bored so heres a shitpost. I love how these look like varying degrees of queer eye hosts lmao. all 14 of these men have definitely been to a gay club once or twice or 32 times. BRITA Brita look like wentworth miller. He’s balding but that’s ok we stan regardless. He would’ve gone halfway at best bc they would’ve clocked him for looking older than all the other guys, rechecked his file and found out hes actually 42 SARAH Sarah would’ve deff had a much better shot here lmao he looks like that one weird looking guy that’s always scowling like he had a bad lunch from gossip girl (edit: Ed Westwick). He still would’ve gone home early bc he didn’t know how to walk in a straight line. He would’ve blamed Brittany and called him porn prince bc he looked like a whore that week BRANDY Brandy look like he does hair for a living. I like the fit he looks like he’s going for THE job interview. He slays the dog shoot but gets disqualified for throwing that tennis photographer into a fence “IF WE DIDNT GET KICKED OFF FOR FIGHTING SOMEBODY TITOS ASS WOULDA BEEN TORE UP RIGHT NOW” NOELLE Noelle would’ve talked about his son 25 hours a day. He looks great here but he would’ve left like week 2 bc turns out he’s like 4’7” in person and wears flats. They randomly tan him for the 1-800-flowers shoot which is in no way a foreshadowing to the blackface the week after. this is his let me speak to the manager face LLUVY Lluvys cross eyed but we love him regardless. Great person, interesting face, comically bad pictures. He looks like the 14th guy didn’t show up so they just grabbed an intern. He spends his five weeks looking varying degrees of cross eyed - minnie mouse drag king - lluvy as alaska thunderfuck as shelly duvall as alaska thunderfuck - pewdiepie - there are no words - lluvy please..... BECKY Becky is giving me Iowa farmer boy who can’t count to six but loves fishing & jesus. He faints in week 2 after he gives you republican dog walker that sees you selling water without a permit and is about to give you the viral video of a lifetime. Gets eliminated halfway bc he’s more way too chris Pratt actor teas than model but he does win some wicked sneakers after he wins the runway challenge and everyone thinks he’s an asshole. “It’s a pedestrian photograph. It just doesn’t register.... virgin.” TIFFANY Tiffany looks really good here actually. He tries to calm brandy down and give him some tough love about not being so angry all the time bc he went thru anger management after he piledrived some guy at the bar into the ground after he poured beer on his perm in cycle 3. they cut his hair off and everyone lost their minds Everyone in the house likes him but gets cut halfway after tyra realizes he can’t say magenta and screams at him TATIANA Tatiana is definitely the prettiest but he’s really boring and everyone forgets he’s there. Tiffany mistakes him for a couch in week 5. He looks like he surfs 24/7 and eats fish raw. He slays the dog shoot but gets cut when tyra notices him for the first time since Bootcamp. Also bc he does this MICHELLE michelle being the trade of the season I could not believe it. Everyone thinks he’s gonna win after he gets a bleach dye job that destroys his scalp but then he gets scabies and they think he’s gonna kill everybody. He comes out as straight in week 4 and Tiffany/brandy are supportive. Brandys gonna need y’all to know he’s had some fantasies.
Michelle thinks he’s ugly the entire season and the guys don’t help matters bc they lock him in his room until his sores go away. Tiffany’s grandma tells him to read a book. CHRISTINA Christina gets hit on by everyone the entire season and he begins and ends every single sentence with “actually”. He keeps putting cherries in kahlens mouth for like 4 weeks. gets cut after tyra thinks he’s been Nigel competing the whole time - hes staring at something part 1 - he’s staring at something part 2 - christina chill BRITTANY Brittany looks like a typical goofy Floridian frat douche here but he actually (Christina) kills it in like every shoot. Do you see the potential.
He drinks at any giving opportunity and streaks around the house. He knocks back 5 beers at the covergirl party challenge, hangs upside down from the ceiling and wins bc of “tenacity” and takes Keenyah as his plus one. Him and Keenyah are bffs the whole season until Keenyah can’t remember who Nelson Mandela is and Brittany screams at him in the van. He comes second to kahlen and he pulls a leila and falls off the runway. KEENYAH Keenyah look like Rubio from hook. He does decent for the first half until he gains like 3 pounds and loses a tiny bit of muscle and everyone starts fat shaming him. brittany yells at him for not knowing who nelson mandela is so keenyah starts attacking naima and naimas just like wtf. kahlens crying in the corner during all this big surprise.
2020.06.21 02:11 curious_mormonInteresting finds in the Clayton Diaries covering Joseph's lifetime (Late 1840- early 1844), specifically in context of Ehat's notes
I've included the key dates and other points which out to me below. This is a summary of Ehat's notes as published by the tanners and the summary currently available on BOAP. If no quotes are included then the content is the same as it appears in the BOAP link. I'll directly quote Ehat's notes if there are differences of note.
Doctrine & Prophecy (non polygamy, except where specified with a [p])
Nov 8, 1841[NE] - Joseph promised a man that his hand would be healed more quickly if he dipped it in a baptismal font.
May 16, 1841[NE] - "There is no forgiveness for murders" and ""Remission of sins by baptism was not to be preached to murderers."
Feb 9, 1843[NE] - Clayton records the "shake hands" with an angel to know if they're evil doctrine.
Apr 2, 1843 - Clayton records Joseph's teaching that the Holy Ghost is a personage and cannot reside in a man's heart. This appears to be the source of D&C 130:23. Note that there are post-hoc additions revisions of verse 22 which are not recorded by Clayton.
Sep 15, 1843 [p] - Joseph says it's unlawful for a man to take three sisters as polygamous wives; limits to two, except with "express revelation". See the polygamy section for the impetus behind this declaration.
May 18, 1843 - Joseph says that children who die in infancy will not grow up in the next life, will have the same intelligence as we do, and will always remain "separate and single. They will have no increase." Children who are stillborn will have full-grown bodies.
May 17, 1843 - Joseph discusses how he has more knowledge of the heavens than Paul, discusses the "spirit = matter" teaching, and re-translates a word in Genesis as part of his "correcting" a Methodist preacher.
May 18, 1843 - Joseph stated, "I prophecy in the name of the Lord God that in a few years this government will be utterly overthrown and wasted so that there will not be a potsherd left."
July 12, 1843 - Clayton outright states that he wrote a 10 page revelation which sounds very similar to D&C 132. It supports the claim of concubines and Old Testament prophets, and supports the LDS church's position that Joseph brought this to Emma. It also supports the claim that Emma hated and burned it. He calls it celestial marriage. He states Joseph confirmed every word. [Personal opinion: This alone should be enough to discredit the Snufferite position - the BOAP source goes into more detail about several copies being made, and stating the original is in the historian's office - JSPP link here to the Kingsbury Copy]
July 16, 1843 - "He [Joseph] stated Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birth-right & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority."
Apr 18, 1844 - "Joseph prophesied the entire overthrow of this [U.S] nation in a few years"
June 15, 1844 - Clayton recording Joseph saying the "g[rand?] key word was the first word Adam spoke and is a word of supplication. He found the word by the Urim & Thummim - it is that key word to which the heavens is opened"
Polygamy (polygyny & polyandry)
A note here. Clayton's journals completely undermine the Snufferite position on Joseph's polygamy. Not only do his journals show an active polygamous cell including Joseph and other leaders of the early LDS church, but it includes several references supporting the mainstream statements regarding the revelation which would become D&C 132 (as previously mentioned). As this is likely to spark an argument, I will add a (*) next to the dates clearly showing this. The rest are more circumstantial.
Mar 9, 1843* - Joseph told Clayton to send for Sarah Crooks, telling him it was lawful to do so. Sarah would become his 3rd wife, second polygamous marriage.1 - [note the BOAP source goes into far more detail copying an affidavit where Clayton claims, "Eliza R. Snow, Louisa Beman, Desdemona W. Fullmer and others were his lawful wives"]
Apr 27, 1843* - Joseph seals Clayton to Margaret Moon, the sister of his first wife (Ruth Moon), in the home of Heber Kimball. She was his first polygamous wife. He told their mother about polygamy later that evening. They all continued living together with Clayton's mother in law. 2
May 2, 1843 - This entry describes Joseph courting Flora W.[Woodward] and Clayton courting Jane Charnock.3
May 15, 1843 - Clayton confirms that Margaret and Ruth Moon both shared Clayton's bed together. [Note it does not explicitly say sex was involved between the three of them.]
May 23, 1843 - Clayton details the story of Emma finding Joseph and Eliza in the room together. He heard this story from Joseph who explained how Jackson had told on him to Emma. [Note he does not say sex occurred, but he does say Joseph shut the door and held it firm against Emma's attempt to enter while she called Eliza's name four times.]
May 23, 1843 - Clayton refers to "Mr. Simpson" and others about a plot to entrap the polygamists.
June 8, 1843 - Clayton issued a land deed to Heber and Helen Mar Kimball. This would have been a few days to a couple of weeks after their marriage.
July 26, 1843* - Joseph said that a polygamous union could not be undone. This was specifically due to Margaret Moon's relationship with Aaron Young, who wanted to take her as his wife, and her being unhappy in her marriage with William. Joseph denied the separation. (see also Oct 28, 1843)
July 27, 1843* - Joseph told William that he would defend him if Aaron "went to making any trouble" for William and Margaret. - See Aug 11, 1843 where Joseph does just that, defending Clayton and Margaret's relationship to both "Walker" and Emma.
Aug 16, 1843* - Emma offers the partridge sisters to Joseph4 - Joseph is concerned that this is a trap. Also stated that "he [Joseph] knew she [Emma] was disposed to be revenged on him for some thigns she thought that if he would indulge himself she would too."6
Aug 18, 1843* - Clayton recorded that Margaret Moon confirmed to Aaron Young that their (Margaret and Clayton's) marriage was sexual.
Aug 19, 1843 - Diantha Farr "D. Farr" threatens to go to every house and tell them all she knew before returning home to commit suicide. [note Diantha was 14-15 at this time. Officially, she married Clayton at 16, in Jan 1845. William would be 31 at the time.] - See Aug 23, 1843 where Emma found a gold watch Joseph had given Diantha and "abused him much" at the temple and at home. Joseph had to use "harsh measures" to make her stop.
Aug 20, 1843 - Implications of Clayton was using Booths to pursue "S.A" ( Unclear if for himself or others7). Mentions of "M. Aspen who is in trouble", she's being pursued by Parley Pratt, who is making advances to her through his wife. The women told him [Clayton] that when alone they were discussing which of the men would have "more glory" than the others.
Aug 21, 1843 - Emma found "letters" from Eliza Snow in Joseph's coat pocket. She was "very vexed & angry" and pressed Clayton to know if he had given them to Joseph.
Aug 28, 1843 - Joseph met with "Mrs. [Flora] Woodworth at Clayton's home that evening. Clayton mentions that Flora was at his home the next morning. Potentially an overnight visit. [Note Joseph married her that spring; she was 16 at the time].
Sep 15, 1843* - Clayton asks Joseph's approval to take Lydia Moon as a plural wife, the younger sister of his wives Margaret Moon and Ruth Moon. Joseph tells him no, and then Joseph asked if Clayton would give Lydia to Joseph instead. Clayton agrees, and Joseph asked Clayton to talk to her. Clayton follows through on the 17th, but Lydia says she promised her mother she would not marry while her mother lives. He tries again on the 21st. It seems he was not able to convince her.
Jan 29, 1844 - Clayton wants to eject Desmona Fullmer from his home due to her treating his family "unkindly", but she wouldn't leave without Joseph's "council" [Note Desmona had married Joseph spring of the prior year]
Policy & Politics
June 30, 1843 - Joseph preaches on the habeas corpus, tells members they can return violence in self defense (previously barred), and stated the municipal courts equaled unlimited power.
Aug 6, 1843 - Joseph says he didn't take part in the election, but he stated Hyrum had a "manifestation" that everyone should vote for Hoge.
Jan 29, 1844 - The 12 are discussing Joseph's presidential bid. Clayton to be sent on a mission.
Apr 11, 1844 - "Thursday, April 11. ... Afterwards in the Council. We had a glorious interview. Pres. J. was voted our P. P. & K. [King?] with loud Hosannas." [copying in full text as this is blacked out of the Ehat transcript]
June 12, 1844 - Constables first started arriving to arrest Joseph and others. Joseph and Hyrum blamed law, saying he wanted to be sealed and Joseph denied them. Several dismissals based on testimony, and Clayton describes the angry mob as emboldened in their attacks. On the 15th, Joseph would make a vague prophecy of violence for violence, if the mob attacked.
June 18, 1844 - Joseph issued a call to arms, claimed 5000 men strong + volunteers, and ordered the Nauvoo Legion to parade with their arms. "He called upon them as the Lieutenant General of the N.L. [Nauvoo Legion] and Illinois Militia in the name of the Constitution of the U.S. the people of the state of Ill. and the citizens of Nauvoo." The "whole legion" marched.
Other interesting notes
Dec 16, 1842 [NE] - Details of the high council paying Joseph's bonds by mortgaging church owned real-estate.
Oct 7, 1842[NE] - Clayton is officially declared Joseph's scribe, temple recorder, and official recorder of his revelations.9
Apr 2, 1843 - Joseph stated he was "praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the son of man" and claims to have heard a voice telling him he would see Jesus's face by time he was 84. He does caveat this by stating he doesn't know if this is when he dies or if it is the second coming.
May 16, 1843 - Joseph says Clayton has his second anointing, and says only the unpardonable sin can damn him [Clayton] now.6
Nov 21, 1843 - Clayton states Emma had power to prevent Joseph from inducting new members into his lodge, to Clayton's dismay.5 (See Jan 17, 1844 when Clayton was attending the lodge)
June 3, 1844 - Despite being ordered to burn the records, Clayton instead buried them.
June 4, 1844 - Joseph had put the property in the name of the LDS church, but he had taken on most debts and obligations as personal debt which he left to Emma.8
References, additional background, and quotes [Ehat]
Clayton and Sarah met while Clayton was a missionary. He was still married, but they became very close. You can read more on their relationship here, p33. It details the infatuation and his attempt to ignore it until Joseph told him to act on it.
Full text from Ehat's notes is as follows: "At temple A.M. went to Prests. who rode with me to bro. H.C. Kimballs where sister Margt. [Margaret] Moon was sealed up by the priesthood, by the president -- and M [Margaret] to me. ... evening told Mother in law concerning the priesthood" - note that he wouldn't be sealed to Ruth, his first wife, until July 22, 1843; almost 2 full months after Margaret. See also Aug 13, 1843 as it appears (perhaps coincidentally) that this did not sit well with the women's mother, especially as William was courting her other daughter (Lydia)
Ehat notes: "A.M. At the temple office P.M. went to J's to ask him to come to my house & marry Margt. Butter-field to her first husband. He could not come but sent Hyrum. I learned from H. that E. had power to prevent my being admitted to J's Lodge for the present for which I feel somewhat sorry but yet believe that innocence will finaly[sic] triumph I stood as proxy for Edwd. Lawrence. ... Evening I attended the [blacked out] lodge [blacked out].
There are subtle and overt threats to both "Thompson" who "... gave way to temptation & he had to die"; likewise "Brother Knight" and "Brigham Young" who is said would have died if he had not repented. It's unclear what they're referring to with just these statements. More research is needed.
See Sept 21, Oct 7, Oct 14, and Oct 16 in the Ehat or BOAP source, and April 30 in the BOAP source where "S.A" is named ""S. Ann."
This is interesting because in July 12, 1843 Joseph told Clayton to deed all unencumbered lots to Emma and the children. Likewise on the 15th, Clayton deeded half of the Maid of Iowa to Emma, along with 60 lots. Most likely, there's just history I'm unaware of. This source does not make it clear what happened to these lots over the two years, or how it relates to Joseph's overall net worth.
BOAP notes: "President Joseph Smith appointed me Temple Recorder, and also his private clerk, placing all records, books, papers, etc., in my care, and requiring me to take charge of and preserve them, his closing words being, ``When I have any revelations to write, you are the one to write them.''"
[NE] = I did not see this in Ehat's notes, but it's interesting or relevant to the overall picture. Edit: Updated dates to remove ambiguity on he/hethem...
Watch our Update Trailer here: https://youtu.be/8cSHRm5Wsvk The first Update of Summer 2020 is set to be quite festive and has something for everyone! We're expanding the cruiser line of the USN fleet with a light cruiser branch, adding a new exciting project to the Bureau, and introducing new ships and Commanders inspired by the Warhammer 40,000 universe! We're also introducing cross-platform voice chat, so you'll be able to deploy your skills in organizing everyone who's willing to engage! Several important balance changes are also on the platter—read on to find out the details. To begin with the festivities, we're going back to the New York Port, but this time it's all ready for the Independence Day celebrations. See if you can find any Easter eggs! And before you ask, yes—the festive mode is here to stay, right up until the next Update!
The Lone Veteran Campaign
Our new Campaign kicks off the American theme of this Update with the new Tier VII USN heavy cruiser, Wichita—a unique ship with a storied and successful naval career. In the game you’ll find her to be quite sturdy and able to withstand a number of battleship shell impacts when angled. You’ll also find her ballistics and shells to be a bit different from any of her USN cruiser contemporaries. During the course of the Campaign, you’ll also obtain several USN cruiser containers. These may just supply your Ports with the new light cruisers—Tier V Dallas and Tier VI Helena! Moreover, Tier VI Premium cruiser Boise is also waiting to be found in one of them. As usual, bigger containers have tangibly better chances of supplying the ships—weigh them against your expectations on our dedicated container page. Other than the ships, you can expect to receive the “Red, White, and Blue” expendable camouflage to adorn any of your ships in the pattern of the U.S. flag, as well as the common boosters, Commander items, and a new campaign currency to spend in the Admiralty Shop: Liberty Bonds. An interesting perk of this particular Campaign is that you can finish it 1 week earlier! We've added some difficult missions that will really test your abilities and reward you with extra Renown—the Shakedown Trials. Prevail in these, and you'll finish the Campaign early, but you can still finish the entire Campaign in 5 weeks if you skip them. Please note: Tier VII USN Cleveland is not available in this Update, and will be unlocked in the next! https://preview.redd.it/t35px2okvm551.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61457e3ef2f641daafe99ca3b7aedbbf17f42686 Check the available rewards on the infographic or in the text below: Available rewards without Admiralty Backing:
30x common boosters
10x rare boosters
12x Red, White, and Blue camos
1,500 Global XP
235,000 Commander XP
12x Promotion Orders
5x USN Cruiser crates
1x Big USN Cruiser crate
1x American Commander crate
7 days of Premium Account
900 Liberty Bonds
1x Patch background
1x Patch symbol
Value of the rewards without an Admiralty Backing: 19,333 doubloons Additional rewards you can get with Admiralty Backing (2,500 doubloons)
To add even more stars and stripes to this Update, we're literally adding Stars and Stripes! That's right, this new Project features eight Segments that will supply the Stars and Stripes permanent camouflage for several USN cruisers, as well as Iowa. https://preview.redd.it/py83tornvm551.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffa5d13f1a5e3da1f8631ee5bc4c80eb189908df The ships, ordered by Segment, are denoted on the infographic below. Once you're done with the whole project, you’ll also receive Tier V battleship California! This Tennessee-class unit is thick and heavy, and can withstand torpedo attacks with a degree of confidence. She’ll no doubt remind you of several other USN battleships in terms of her other features. Once again, you're free to research this Project at your own pace, as there's no end date for it at the time of writing. The main rewards for the Segments in order:
Patrons become available for all Projects from June 22! All unfinished Project Segments can now benefit from your Commanders, but keep in mind that those Commanders are specific to each Segment, and require a minimum of Rank 4, up to Rank 15 at the later stages.
Researchable ships in the fleet sections of Project Segments can now be navigated to from the “Fleet” screen. You can research and/or buy a particular ship via this method.
Something you might enjoy during the 4th of July celebrations is another reason to lead your USN ships into battle! The extra victory bonuses will be available for Tier III–VII American ships from July 3 (2:05 AM CDT/7:05 AM UTC) until July 6, (6:40 PM CDT/11:40 PМ UTC). The specific bonuses are as follows:
Tier III USN ships: 2x “Red, White, and Blue” camos
Tier IV USN ships: 2x “Red, White, and Blue” camos
Tier V USN ships: 2x “Red, White, and Blue” camos
Tier VI USN ships: 2x “Red, White, and Blue” camos, 1x basic container
Tier VII USN ships: 2x “Red, White, and Blue” camos, 2x basic containers
Warhammer 40,000 Content
The future as portrayed by the legendary Warhammer 40,000 universe is particularly grim in the 41st Millennium. We're taking a closer look at what might have been if echoes of that world reached us and enriched the naval battles of the 20th century. https://preview.redd.it/exza1v0rvm551.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=61293c52bcc7c8557272786587b0dff480c656ec https://preview.redd.it/u6j67zdrvm551.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a9dbbe0d9bd8f91726e901e82169b40f078a7e3 You'll have two new ships at your disposal, as well as two fitting unique Commanders with especially memorable voiceovers and special themed containers for Imperium and Chaos—all of which are exclusively available in the Premium Store. Moreover, both the ships and Commanders can be found in the special themed containers, in addition to expendable camos, flags, and patches. Choose your side! Ignis Purgatio, an Imperium battleship with Justinian Lyons XIII at her helm, or Ragnarok, with Arthas Roqthar the Cold at her helm! While the new ships are based on IJN Nagato, they feature a more vertically pronounced ballistic arc (similar to American ships), faster gun reloading, and a significantly smaller HP pool, but they are nimbler overall. They do require you to take risks! Please note: Ignis Purgatio does not have access to the Aiming Systems Mod. 1, while Ragnarok does. The Commanders, meanwhile, offer you a pair of new skills and as many new base traits:
Arthas Roqthar the Cold (compatible with IJN ships)
Blind Rage (base trait/inspiration) increases your ship’s damage (+20%, static) while the Catapult Fighter is up, but reduces the Fighter's duration (–65%, max). Since cruisers can have their planes in the air for significantly longer periods of time, their damage boost is limited to 6% at the maximum rank.
Avatars of Slaughter (skill) increases the damage that your ship’s superstructure receives (+25%, static), while reducing the damage your citadel receives (–25%, static) and increasing your ship’s shell damage (+15%, max).
Justinian Lyons XIII (compatible with USN ships)
Emperor's Wrath (base trait/inspiration) increases your battleship’s overall damage (+5% max), as well as the chances for your HE shells to start fires while Repair Party is active (+40% max).
Celestine's Blessing (skill) lowers incoming damage to your battleship (–50%, max), while the Damage Control Party consumable is active, but at the cost of said consumable’s duration (–50%, static).
Cross-platform Voice Chat
It's here! Any of your teammates who are willing to participate in strategizing and callouts are now able to do so, no matter what console they are playing on. The basic functionality of the voice chat remains the same: you can switch between your team and Division chats, or turn voice comms off altogether. Just a reminder—in battle, voice chat can be switched between "Division," "team," and "off" on the tactical map screen. Meanwhile, the ability to form Divisions between players from different platforms is still in development, so stay tuned!
We're bringing in more tweaks for this Update to spice things up a little. All of them continue to address Tier VII ships, but fear not—we're on the lookout for overall and inter-tier balance now that Legendary ships will start appearing in battles. So, without further ado:
Chapayev's firepower is very pronounced, but where Kutuzov can be severely punished, her Tech Tree counterpart was able to withstand many a heavy shell thanks to her 30mm-thick extremity plating. To bring things into line and give Chapayev's opponents a better chance at survival, we're setting her plating values to 26mm. This will result in most battleships overmatching her armor at angles, but we don't think it's going to rob Chapayev of her power. Rather, it will make the gameplay more demanding from a maneuvering perspective, which is a natural strength of cruisers. At the same time, we're improving her Repair Party slightly—its cooldown has been reduced to 55 seconds, instead of 60, and the amount of HP restored has been increased by 16.67% per second.
Despite Amagi not losing much in the way of statistical success, her popularity took a big hit and many players suggested that her accuracy was very unreliable. To compensate, we’ve narrowed her dispersion ellipse a little, which should bump up the hit rate for her shells by about 6.5%.
Richelieu has received a 50% increase to her turret HP. This has been done to give her a unique advantage over Jean Bart (which had the same initial turret HP value). Both ships are known for being quite the snipers, but while Jean Bart receives more love from the playerbase, her turrets can be disabled pretty easily when the intention is there. Richelieu will now be able to better withstand such attacks against her turrets. In comparison to Jean Bart she does lack some burst damage, thanks to Jean Bart's Main Battery Reload Booster, but she will now be better able to sustain damage over longer time periods with a better chance of operating both turrets.
Another change is coming that won’t necessarily affect balance directly, but modifies the bigger balance/economy picture: The 25% XP bonus for Premium ships will no longer apply to base XP after a battle, but has been moved to other modifiers. We’ve also increased this bonus to 30% to keep the total XP per battle about the same. The short version is that the only modifier in the team result table is now victory (+50% XP), and your total XP with the Premium ship bonus is now visible only in the “Economics” tab. This means that Premium ships no longer influence your ranking within a team after battle. This applies to Ranked Battles as well, reducing their impact there. Matchmaking hasn’t been left untouched either—specifically, destroyers in Tier IV–V battles (with battle tier denoting the maximum ship tier in a battle). The high tier experiment proved successful, so we're spreading this algorithm to more battle tiers. This means that, from this update onwards, whenever you're in such a battle and there are no different tier divisions present, destroyers will be mirrored in the vast majority of cases. Note that, if the search takes too long, you might see a difference in the number of destroyers per team, but these cases will be few and far between. Uneven numbers of cruisers and battleships are allowed in order for this to work.
Miscellaneous Improvements and Bug Fixes
Several ship traits have been reallocated, and some of the more questionable combinations have been improved. For example, Monarch no longer sports Nimble Aim, but has Greater Heal instead. But remember, traits only perform a descriptive function and have no effect on ships' performance.
Tab titles in the menu are now underscored for improved legibility.
Daily Trials in the Bureau now have a minimum XP requirement. This means that, if the battle is won but a player didn’t participate in it, it won't be counted towards the Trial completion criteria.
In the previous Update, Big containers could drop duplicate ships that were compensated for at their full doubloon price. From now on, there will be no duplicates in these containers.
Personal Missions, such as those that came with Soviet battleships, could erroneously be obtained twice, yet only completed once. The correct behavior for them is single use.
In cases where there are multiple Campaigns per update, if player was in the Campaign menu whenever a new Campaign began, the focus frame sometimes disappeared.
The "Back" button sometimes flashed when a player checked mission progress from the Battle Result screen.
Whenever unlocking researchable ships from another type (i.e. Caledon to Valkyrie), the cursor pointing up didn't fill with color.
The camouflage selection window sometimes faded and became less visible.
The filter description sometimes disappeared when applying filters in the Port.
In the base capture mode, the flag icons for bases sometimes got switched around between the teams.
PS4 only: the "Prioritize party chat" sound setting sometimes, although rarely, resulted in the game crashing whenever a player with this setting activated joined a Division.
A rare bug made it impossible to play the game after reconnecting, having previously been disconnected.
A rare bug made it impossible to launch the game if a player signed out of their Xbox account while in the process of launching the game.
The navigation buttons flashed when switching between the personal and team results on the Battle Result screen.
Other Premium Ships in this Update
Tier V destroyer USS Monaghan, available for doubloons.
Tier VI cruiser USS Flint, available for doubloons.
Tier VI cruiser USS Atlanta, available for 500,000 Global XP.
2020.06.17 23:23 BunchOkStories and Data: Reflections on race, riots, and police
The brutal death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers has sparked protests and riots around the United States. We have witnessed humanity at its finest and at its ugliest. Citizens of faraway nations have expressed solidarity with black Americans; police officers have marched alongside protesters; protesters have defended businesses against looting and destruction. At the same time, rioters have burned down buildings and looted businesses; protesters have been pepper-sprayed and beaten; cops have been shot and run over with cars. At the root of the unrest is the Black Lives Matter movement, which began with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013 and rose to national prominence in the wake of Michael Brown’s death in 2014. My view of BLM is mixed. On the one hand, I agree that police departments too often have tolerated and even enabled corruption. Rather than relying on impartial third parties, departments often decide whether to discipline their own officers; the legal doctrine of qualified immunity sets what many say is an unreasonably high bar for civilians bringing civil-rights lawsuits against police officers. Bodycams (which increase transparency, to the benefit of both wrongly treated police suspects and wrongly accused police) are not yet universal. In the face of police unions that oppose even reasonable reforms, Black Lives Matter seems a force for positive change. On the other hand, the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. I was one year younger than Trayvon Martin when he was killed in 2012, and like many black men, I felt like he could have been me. I was the same age as Michael Brown when he was killed in 2014, and like so many others, I shared the BLM hashtag on social media to express solidarity. By 2015, when the now-familiar list had grown to include Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, I began wearing a shirt with all their names on it. It became my favorite shirt. It seemed plain to me that these were not just tragedies, but racist tragedies. Any suggestion to the contrary struck me as at best, ignorant, and at worst, bigoted. My opinion has slowly changed. I still believe that racism exists and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms; I still believe that, on average, police officers are quicker to rough up a black or Hispanic suspect; and I still believe that police misconduct happens far too often and routinely goes unpunished. But I no longer believe that the cops disproportionately kill unarmed black Americans. Two things changed my mind: stories and data. First, the stories. Each story in this paragraph involves a police officer killing an unarmed white person. (To demonstrate how commonly this happens, I have taken all of them from a single year, 2015, chosen at random). Timothy Smith was killed by a police officer who mistakenly thought he was reaching into his waistband to grab a gun; the shooting was ruled justified. William Lemmon was killed after he allegedly failed to show his hands upon request; the shooting was ruled justified. Ryan Bolinger was shot dead by a cop who said he was moving strangely and walking toward her; the shooting was ruled justified. Derek Cruice was shot in the face after he opened the door for police officers serving a warrant for a drug arrest; the cops recovered marijuana from the property, and the shooting was ruled justified. Daniel Elrod robbed a dollar store, and, when confronted by police, allegedly failed to raise his hands upon request (though his widow, who witnessed the event, insists otherwise); he was shot dead. No criminal charges were filed. Ralph Willis was shot dead when officers mistakenly thought that he was reaching for a gun. David Cassick was shot twice in the back by a police officer while lying face down on the ground. Six-year-old Jeremy Mardis was killed by a police officer while sitting in the passenger seat of a car; the officer’s intended target was Jeremy’s father, who was sitting in the driver’s seat with his hands raised out the window. Autumn Steele was shot dead when a police officer, startled by her German shepherd, immediately fired his weapon at the animal, catching her in the crossfire. Shortly after he killed her, bodycam footage revealed the officer’s despair: “I’m f------ going to prison,” he says. The officer was not disciplined. For brevity’s sake, I will stop here. But the list goes on. For every black person killed by the police, there is at least one white person (usually many) killed in a similar way. The day before cops in Louisville barged into Breanna Taylor’s home and killed her, cops barged into the home of a white man named Duncan Lemp, killed him, and wounded his girlfriend (who was sleeping beside him). Even George Floyd, whose death was particularly brutal, has a white counterpart: Tony Timpa. Timpa was killed in 2016 by a Dallas police officer who used his knee to pin Timpa to the ground (face down) for 13 minutes. In the video, you can hear Timpa whimpering and begging to be let go. After he lets out his final breaths, the officers begin cracking jokes about him. Criminal charges initially brought against them were later dropped. At a gut level, it is hard for most people to feel the same level of outrage when the cops kill a white person. Perhaps that is as it should be. After all, for most of American history, it was white suffering that provoked more outrage. But I would submit that if this new “anti-racist” bias is justified—if we now have a moral obligation to care more about certain lives than others based on skin color, or based on racial-historical bloodguilt—then everything that I thought I knew about basic morality, and everything that the world’s philosophical and religious traditions have been saying about common humanity, revenge, and forgiveness since antiquity, should be thrown out the window. You might agree that the police kill plenty of unarmed white people, but object that they are more likely to kill unarmed black people, relative to their share of the population. That’s where the data comes in. The objection is true as far as it goes; but it’s also misleading. To demonstrate the existence of a racial bias, it’s not enough to cite the fact that black people comprise 14 percent of the population but about 35 percent of unarmed Americans shot dead by police. (By that logic, you could prove that police shootings were extremely sexist by pointing out that men comprise 50 percent of the population but 93 percent of unarmed Americans shot by cops.) Instead, you must do what all good social scientists do: control for confounding variables to isolate the effect that one variable has upon another (in this case, the effect of a suspect’s race on a cop’s decision to pull the trigger). At least four careful studies have done this—one by Harvard economist Roland Fryer, one by a group of public-health researchers, one by economist Sendhil Mullainathan, and one by David Johnson, et al. None of these studies has found a racial bias in deadly shootings. Of course, that hardly settles the issue for all time; as always, more research is needed. But given the studies already done, it seems unlikely that future work will uncover anything close to the amount of racial bias that BLM protesters in America and around the world believe exists. All of which makes my view of Black Lives Matter complicated. If not for BLM, we probably would not be talking about ending qualified immunity, making bodycams universal, increasing police accountability, and so forth—at least not to the same extent. In fact, we might not even have a careful national database on police shootings. At the same time, the core premise of the movement is false. And if not for the dissemination of this falsehood, social relations between blacks and whites would be less tense, trust in police would be higher, and businesses all across America might have been spared the looting and destruction that we have seen in recent weeks. But isn’t this the price of progress? Isn’t there a long tradition of using violence to throw off the shackles of white supremacy, going back to the Haitian revolution and the American Civil War? Didn’t the urban riots of the late 1960s wake Americans up to the fact that racism did not end with the Civil Rights Act of 1965? To start, any analogy to slave rebellions or justified revolutions can be dismissed immediately. Taking up arms directly against those enslaving you is one thing. Looting clothing stores or destroying grocery stores is something else entirely. We must be careful not to confuse the protesters with the rioters. The former are committed to nonviolence. The latter are simply criminals and should be treated as such. As for the riots of the late 1960s, progressives should not praise them for shocking Americans into action without also noting that they helped elect Richard Nixon president, which progressives certainly did not intend; that they directly decreased the wealth of inner-city black homeowners; and that they scared capital away from inner cities for decades, worsening the very conditions of poverty and unemployment that the rioters were supposedly protesting. What’s more, the case for violence rests on the false notion that without it, little progress can be made. Recent history tells a different story. In 2018, the NYPD killed five people, down from 93 people in 1971. Since 2001, the national incarceration rate for black men ages 18-29 has gone down by more than half. Put simply, we know progress through normal democratic means is possible because we have already done it. In a perfect world, I would like to see the yearly number of unarmed Americans killed by police decrease from 55 (the number in 2019) to zero. But the more I think about how we would achieve this, the less optimistic I am. At a glance, copying the policies of nations with very few police shootings seems like a promising path. But on closer inspection, one realizes how uniquely challenging the American situation is. First, America is a huge country—the third largest in the world by population. That means that extremely low-probability events (such as police shootings) will happen much more frequently here than they do elsewhere. For instance, if America were the size of Canada, but otherwise identical, about six unarmed people would have been killed by police last year, not 55. Second, America is a gun country, which makes policing in America fundamentally different than policing in other nations. When cops pull someone over in the United Kingdom, where the rate of gun ownership is less than one-twentieth the American rate, they have almost no reason to fear that the person they’ve stopped has a pistol hidden in the glove compartment. That’s not true in America, where a cop gets shot just about every day. So long as we are a gun country, American police will always be liable to mistake a suspect’s wallet or smartphone for a gun. And we will not be able to legislate that fact away—at least not completely. A third factor (not unique to America) is that we live in the smartphone age. Which means that there are millions of cameras at the ready to ensure that the next police shooting goes viral. Overall, this is a good thing. It means that cops can no longer reliably get away with lying about their misbehavior to escape punishment. (And that the claims of those accusing police in such situations will face objective video scrutiny.) But it also means that our news feeds are perpetually filled with outlier events presented to us as if they were the norm. In other words, we could cut the rate of deadly shootings by 99 percent, but if the remaining 1 percent are filmed, then the public perception will be that shootings have remained steady. And it is the public perception, more than the underlying reality, that provokes riots. Combine all three of these observations and one arrives at a grim conclusion: as long as we have a non-zero rate of deadly shootings (a virtual certainty), and as long as some shootings are filmed and go viral (also a virtual certainty), then we may live in perpetual fear of urban unrest for the foreseeable future. The only way out of this conundrum, it seems to me, is for millions of Americans on the left to realize that deadly police shootings happen to blacks and whites alike. As long as a critical mass of people view this as a race issue, they will see every new video of a black person being killed as yet another injustice in a long chain dating back to the Middle Passage. That sentiment, when it is felt deeply and earnestly, will reliably produce large protests and destructive riots. The political Right has a role to play as well. For too long, “All Lives Matter” has been a slogan used only as a clapback to Black Lives Matter. What it should have been, and still could be, is a true movement to reduce the number of Americans shot by the police on a race-neutral basis. If the challenge for the Left is to accept that the real problem with the police is not racism, the challenge for the Right is to accept that there are real problems with the police. If the level of discourse among our public officials stays where it currently is—partisan and shallow—then there is not much hope. In a worst-case scenario, we may see a repeat of the George Floyd riots every few years. But if we can elevate the national discourse, if we can actually have that honest and uncomfortable conversation about race that people have been claiming to want for years, then we might have a chance. https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Organic_Social
Des Moines Dating, Find Singles in Des Moines Iowa.
Free Adult Personals.wmv
Local Girls Personals
Des Moines Singles, Jack Found Jill Des Moines
DS Singles Events in Kiev - YouTube
Senior Dating Personals - YouTube
Madison Classifieds Personals
Best Singles Tours from #1 Award-Winning International Dating Site! For more info, go to: www.dream-singles.com/tours Dream Singles hosts annual tours for si... Dating Singles on Personals Free Trial is Easy & Free. ... Free To Join - Free Dating Site - Duration: 1:28. FindMeLoveHookup 139,958 ... The Best Cities to Live in for Single Men - Duration: ... Join our Madison dating site, view free personal ads of single people and talk with them in chat rooms in a real time. Seeking and finding love isn't hard with our Madison personals. # ... A great way to find Local Des Moines Singles! Free Trial for all new members! Chat Live with local Des Moines Singles, Today! Jack Found Jill, who will You f... Meet older women over 40 in your area for dating and intimate encounters. Local senior singles are looking to meet other senior people in your area. Hook-up ... Find Local Singles, Free! A great new online dating site in Omaha. Find Local Singles, Free! A great new online dating site in Omaha. ... Des Moines Dating, Find Singles in Des Moines Iowa ... ChristianSingles.com is dating community for singles interested in finding a serious relationship leading to marriage. Encouraging to join only those who want a marriage to be the final ... Free Online free Adult personals Find Single Women Looking For Intimate Dates Free. Category People & Blogs ... Sen. Bernie Sanders Could Take The Lead In Iowa Morning Joe MSNBC - Duration: 6 ...