Topix Chitown Regulars

Posted in the Chicago Forum

Comments (Page 3,866)

Showing posts 77,301 - 77,320 of95,931
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78309
Jan 8, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you something...
How much proof would it take?
ANY.

Make certain however that it is empirical PROOF, not just belief. The fact that one believes does not equal proof.

Think of it like this. You have a ring, you believe that it is gold. It can be tested. When tested, the evidence will prove that it is or isn't. BELIEVING that it is, is not, prof, it is only belief. The ability to test gives us the evidence to say yes or no.

When you have ANY testable proof, any testable evidence, not belief, not things written in a book by fallible, corruptible, human beings, then talk to me. You want me to believe in something, freaking PROVE it. Saying it is so does not MAKE it so.

“suffers from formicophilia ”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78310
Jan 8, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
ANY.
Make certain however that it is empirical PROOF, not just belief. The fact that one believes does not equal proof.
Think of it like this. You have a ring, you believe that it is gold. It can be tested. When tested, the evidence will prove that it is or isn't. BELIEVING that it is, is not, prof, it is only belief. The ability to test gives us the evidence to say yes or no.
When you have ANY testable proof, any testable evidence, not belief, not things written in a book by fallible, corruptible, human beings, then talk to me. You want me to believe in something, freaking PROVE it. Saying it is so does not MAKE it so.
Can you prove where homosapiens came from? Or are there just theories written in a book?

“This is SPARTA!”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78311
Jan 8, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You're trying to compare three people together in a room to someone making a phone call? I'll not argue such an analogy. Are you saying a man's wife SHOULD be at his beck and call?
Careful how you answer...
You might pzz off the torch-wielding feminazis
Lets try this in a way edogg can easily understand(hopefully).

Lets say your girlfriend decides to try something new and instead of throwing chairs at you, she sits in one and calls her friend up. While shooting the breeze with her, you walk into the room and have to ask her something. Is it acceptable to you that she simply ignore you and wave you way until she gets off the phone? What if her friend is trying out this sitting in chairs thing also and they are sitting there together, in the same room, talking, and you are not home and give her a call. Are you cool if she lets it go to voicemail cause she's having such a nice conversation and does not want to be interupted by you?

To me, they are all the same act and extremely poor treatment of your spouse and not acceptable.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78312
Jan 8, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
Let's move the convo from the phone to the living room. If the wife's friend was in the house, is he supposed to wait till she leaves before he can ask his wife a question?
All's tonka is saying is that it is husband/wife courtesy that if one calls the other, you answer. You want to call that courtesy a control issue, and tonka sees it as a sign of respect for your spouse. Since he applies the same standard to himself as he does to her, there really is nothing controlling about it.
<quoted text>
Not the same thing. If a friend is in the room, would he interrupt a conversation or wait for the lag in conversation? That is what I see the comparison.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78313
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Lets try this in a way edogg can easily understand(hopefully).
Lets say your girlfriend decides to try something new and instead of throwing chairs at you, she sits in one and calls her friend up. While shooting the breeze with her, you walk into the room and have to ask her something. Is it acceptable to you that she simply ignore you and wave you way until she gets off the phone? What if her friend is trying out this sitting in chairs thing also and they are sitting there together, in the same room, talking, and you are not home and give her a call. Are you cool if she lets it go to voicemail cause she's having such a nice conversation and does not want to be interupted by you?
To me, they are all the same act and extremely poor treatment of your spouse and not acceptable.
You wait until someone is off the phone. If it is important, spouses have expressions that tell each other if it's more important than what they are currently doing. I learned when I was young you do not interrupt a conversation. Unless it is very important, it is downright rude to interrupt. I don't care who you are.

Now, to completely ignore someone without a gesture (pointer finger up meaning one minute) would not be right. However, the spouse is still rude (unless it is very important) for interrupting.

Eh, different strokes and all that.

I see it as a spouse should already know they are important to each other and should not need constant validation. That's too needy. Not saying you should never validate the importance of one another, however.

“This is SPARTA!”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78314
Jan 8, 2013
 
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the same thing. If a friend is in the room, would he interrupt a conversation or wait for the lag in conversation? That is what I see the comparison.
What? Not the same thing? It is exactly the same thing. Just a differnt avenue of communication. If the friend was in the room and he walked in, you expect him to wait for a lag before he asks his question. I would expect her to see that he would like to interupt and she would voluntarily stop her conversation to ask what he needs.

Personally, I would give that courtesy to anyone who walked into the room while I was having a conversaton, but I would give it to my wife without question. I would expect that courtesy as well from most, but without question from my wife. I can't imagine any casual conversation being so important that it can't be put on hold for a minute.

And lets not start twisting the scene into me expecting her to put some deep emotional my-mother-is-dying-my husband-has-cancer-i-lost-my-j ob-and-daughter-got raped conversation on hold the minute she sees me or my number. I'm talking about normal how-are-things-going type conversations.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78315
Jan 8, 2013
 
So what??? the spouse only answers 1/2 the time?
and again, you are introducing "hand gestures" Something that cannot be seen when calling. My point (and tonkas I believe) is that stripped down to the basics, it is simply a conversation and is it wrong to expect that a spouse should pause whatever conversation they are in, to listen to their spouse and address them?

Were not talking constant interruptions, or wailing like a child looking for attention. Just basic if your spouse calls, do you answer or ignore.
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
You wait until someone is off the phone. If it is important, spouses have expressions that tell each other if it's more important than what they are currently doing. I learned when I was young you do not interrupt a conversation. Unless it is very important, it is downright rude to interrupt. I don't care who you are.
Now, to completely ignore someone without a gesture (pointer finger up meaning one minute) would not be right. However, the spouse is still rude (unless it is very important) for interrupting.
Eh, different strokes and all that.
I see it as a spouse should already know they are important to each other and should not need constant validation. That's too needy. Not saying you should never validate the importance of one another, however.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78316
Jan 8, 2013
 
It is the same, conversations on the phone have lots of lags, just as a conversation in person does. How is he supposed to know when that lag is occurring so he can call?
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the same thing. If a friend is in the room, would he interrupt a conversation or wait for the lag in conversation? That is what I see the comparison.

“suffers from formicophilia ”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78317
Jan 8, 2013
 
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>What? Not the same thing? It is exactly the same thing.
Not the same, tonka. I tried explaining it to race. You should not expect your spouse to drop everything and rush to the phone when you call, as you should not expect her to turn away from her friend and rush to greet you at the door as soon as you walk in and get you your slippers and pipe.

If she's watching Jersey Boys when you call, by all means, she should answer the phone. If she's on the phone with her mother asking if her father survived the heart operation, she can call you back. Maybe she's on the phone with her friend who's son just broke his leg in soccer?

Or are YOU the one to decide which conversations she's allowed to engage in when you ring on the other line asking if you should stop for milk?

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78318
Jan 8, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove where homosapiens came from? Or are there just theories written in a book?
Nope. But I can prove evolution. Not to you, nor would I waste my time trying to enlighten you, but it is a fact, unlike the stuff you say you believe. It is scientifically testable with empirical evidence.

One of the main points of studying anthropology is to understand where homo sapiens came from. If we had all those answers then we wouldn't be studying where we came from. We would be studying only other aspects of human beings; culture, language, archaeology.

By the way, evolution doesn't apply only to humans. I know most people understand that, but there are some...<shrug>

“suffers from formicophilia ”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78319
Jan 8, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
How is he supposed to know when that lag is occurring so he can call?
<quoted text>
Seriously? This is your argument?

That's why I said you can't compare people talking in a room (in person) with someone calling on the phone.

Once again, I will not argue such an analogy.

Since: Mar 09

West Palm Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78320
Jan 8, 2013
 
Eh. Gotta go with edog on this one. Only the wife in this scenario knows all the circumstances and should be trusted to make the right call.

If I was on the phone when jasper called, I'd let it go to voicemail. If he called back right away, I'd know he needed to know something right then and then I'd answer. Otherwise I'd catch him when I got home and know he was calling just to say hi and no big deal either way.

“suffers from formicophilia ”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78321
Jan 9, 2013
 

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78322
Jan 9, 2013
 
Meanwhile, tonka is thinking, "This is the last time I vent about my wife to you guys."

“suffers from formicophilia ”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78323
Jan 9, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But I can prove evolution. Not to you, nor would I waste my time trying to enlighten you, but it is a fact, unlike the stuff you say you believe. It is scientifically testable with empirical evidence.
One of the main points of studying anthropology is to understand where homo sapiens came from. If we had all those answers then we wouldn't be studying where we came from. We would be studying only other aspects of human beings; culture, language, archaeology.
By the way, evolution doesn't apply only to humans. I know most people understand that, but there are some...<shrug>
I'm not arguing evolution, but I'll remind you it's still just a "theory."

And our origins can't be proven, yet we exist.

“This is SPARTA!”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78324
Jan 9, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Meanwhile, tonka is thinking, "This is the last time I vent about my wife to you guys."
psssht. My opinion's as unchanged as theirs. No big deal. Speaking of wives...
Boston Celtics vs NY Knicks. KG and Melo battling for position. KG. Big trash talker. Said something to Melo that set him off. No fisticuffs, but Melo was definitely going after him and the refs gave them both T's.

Melo waited outside the Celtics bus to have words with KG. Had to be kept away by coach and security.

What could he possibly have said that would so rile him up?

Word on the web is that KG told Melo that his wife, LaLa, tasted like Honey Nut Cheerios.

Melo goes 6 for 26, Celtics win.

“This is SPARTA!”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78325
Jan 9, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Meanwhile, tonka is thinking, "This is the last time I vent about my wife to you guys."
Besides. You guys aren't real. Just my imaginary friends. A bunch of Snuffleupaguses.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78326
Jan 9, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not arguing evolution, but I'll remind you it's still just a "theory."
And our origins can't be proven, yet we exist.
Scientific theories do not graduate into scientific laws. Theories are rooted in facts. We know things change over time, so evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a way to explain those facts. We explain it with natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, and dozens of other methods that will be defined in greater detail at a later date. A theory is not just a hunch or a guess; THAT is a hypothesis. To be considered a scientific theory, four criteria must be met:

-A theory must EXPLAIN a body of facts.
-It must be able to PREDICT future occurrences of similar phenomena.
-It must be FALSIFIABLE and stand up to empirical experimentation.
-It must be SUPPORTED by a vast quantity of reliable facts.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78327
Jan 9, 2013
 
>>edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not arguing evolution, but I'll remind you it's still just a "theory."
And our origins can't be proven, yet we exist.

Scientific theories do not graduate into scientific laws. Theories are rooted in facts. We know things change over time, so evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a way to explain those facts. We explain it with natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, and dozens of other methods that will be defined in greater detail at a later date. A theory is not just a hunch or a guess; THAT is a hypothesis. To be considered a scientific theory, four criteria must be met:

-A theory must EXPLAIN a body of facts.
-It must be able to PREDICT future occurrences of similar phenomena.
-It must be FALSIFIABLE and stand up to empirical experimentation.
-It must be SUPPORTED by a vast quantity of reliable facts.<<

Oh, I forgot, you're a douche...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78328
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

If we're imaginary, I want to be Jessica Rabbit.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 77,301 - 77,320 of95,931
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••