Re: Are We Really Capable of Meaningful Relationships?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:27:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. Complicating matters these days is that my beard seems to go from brown around the ears to blonde underneath the chin and mustache, so I cannot have a mustache or a goatee or it won't "match."And now there is gray in both of them too.Tom

Actually I was born with very blonde hair hair too. It was so blond it was almost white. It darkened as I got older as well. My facial hair tends to be very dark, even black with a few red hairs mixed in.

[Guest guest]

I have no problem with growing a beard or mustache, but now my hair is

starting to thin. I also have a few strands of grey hair.

Tom

In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:15:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ojmalm@... writes:

I really hate loosing my hair while I still can't grow decent

sideburns!

Come to think of it, my hair has begun to thin as well. Still can't

grow a decent beard or mustache though.

[Guest guest]

I have no problem with growing a beard or mustache, but now my hair is

starting to thin. I also have a few strands of grey hair.

Tom

In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:15:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ojmalm@... writes:

I really hate loosing my hair while I still can't grow decent

sideburns!

Come to think of it, my hair has begun to thin as well. Still can't

grow a decent beard or mustache though.

[Guest guest]

That brings up something I've been wondering about, if we mature

slowly and look younger for our ages, do we go gray later, too? I

would think that that would depend on family genetics--supposedly my

great grandmother died at 67 with hardly any wrinkles or grey hair

and my grandmother and father look young for their ages, so it might

just be that--but at 41 I don't have any grey hair, only a few

strands when I'm under too much stress. Of course, 41 is not that old

for not having grey hair.

>

> In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:15:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> ojmalm@o... writes:

>

> I really hate loosing my hair while I still can't grow decent

> sideburns!

>

>

> Come to think of it, my hair has begun to thin as well. Still can't

> grow a decent beard or mustache though.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think so. I have more hair than my father did at my age, and less

gray hair.

You can't see my hair in this picture, but this is what I look like:

http://photos./group//vwp?.dir=/MEMBER+

PHOTOS & .src=gr & .dnm=Zoologist+conducting+a+hike+1.jpg & .view=t & .done=htt

p%3a//photos./group//lst%3f%

26.dir=/MEMBER%2bPHOTOS%26.src=gr%26.view=t

If this link doesn't work, sign into the group, click on Photos, then

Member Photos, and click on the Zoologist photos to maximize their

size.

How old do I look to you?

Tom

P.S. I am 36 going on 37.

>

That brings up something I've been wondering about, if we mature

slowly and look younger for our ages, do we go gray later, too?

[Guest guest]

I would say about 29 or 30, though it's hard to tell from a couple of

pictures. You do have a certain look about the eyes (not physical

but mental) that suggests someone about your actual age. You have an

Aspie look which I can never describe in words except that it does

include smooth-facedness.

I would add my picture but uh, I don't have a digital camera. I

don't even have a computer and hardly use my cell phone or any other

pieces of technology (I'm very un-technological!)

> >

> That brings up something I've been wondering about, if we mature

> slowly and look younger for our ages, do we go gray later, too?

>

[Guest guest]

I would say about 29 or 30, though it's hard to tell from a couple of

pictures. You do have a certain look about the eyes (not physical

but mental) that suggests someone about your actual age. You have an

Aspie look which I can never describe in words except that it does

include smooth-facedness.

I would add my picture but uh, I don't have a digital camera. I

don't even have a computer and hardly use my cell phone or any other

pieces of technology (I'm very un-technological!)

> >

> That brings up something I've been wondering about, if we mature

> slowly and look younger for our ages, do we go gray later, too?

>

[Guest guest]

I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. Complicating

matters these days is that my beard seems to go from brown around the

ears to blonde underneath the chin and mustache, so I cannot have a

mustache or a goatee or it won't " match. "

And now there is gray in both of them too.

Tom

My hair is a light brown and very fine which would make any grey hard

to see. All I do notice is there seems to be more and more of it on my

keyboard. I have a few grey hairs in what facial hair I have though.

[Guest guest]

>

> " I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. "

Me too, and it got curlier. Are you my long-lost half-brother? My

father was quite the Don and you look like my family (not intended

to be an insult to your mother!)Or maybe you are just my Aspie brother.

[Guest guest]

That's a funny coincidence. My hair has been blonde and is now dirty blonde. I had whitish hair that couldn't lay flat as a young child. VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:27:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. Complicating matters these days is that my beard seems to go from brown around the ears to blonde underneath the chin and mustache, so I cannot have a mustache or a goatee or it won't "match."And now there is gray in both of them too.Tom

Actually I was born with very blonde hair hair too. It was so blond it was almost white. It darkened as I got older as well. My facial hair tends to be very dark, even black with a few red hairs mixed in.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

:

> Are you my long-lost half-brother? My father was quite the Don and

> you look like my family (not intended to be an insult to your mother!)

LOL!

Sorry, but this was one of those unexpected funny things that must have lit

up the humour center in my brain with delighted surprise!

Inger

[Guest guest]

Inger's comment about hair changing color reminded me of an article I read some time ago.

When you look at animals (mammals), they all have certain traits that are, for lack of a better word, called the "Cuteness factor". This factor makes the baby more appealing to the adult so that it is more likely to like it and take care of it. These traits vary a little from species to species, but some traits are common. Large eyes, fat cheeks, light coloring are among the most common. These traits largely fade within days or weeks after birth.

In humans, the most common traits are the prominant eyes, fat cheeks, small forehead. Blonde or light hair and blue eyes are other traits, though are more common in some races than others. The hair and eyes often do darken or change color over time.

Even though this pattern has only recently been identified by scientists, others have clearly figured this out long ago. Take a look at some of the most famous and favorite cartoon characters. Bugs Bunny has exactly those traits as to some of his companions to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe that is also why girls in Japanese anime all have such huge eyes, even though they look really bizarre in real life (there was a woman who worked at a store here in town that had eyes almost the size of an anime character compared to her head and it was rather spooky, like you kept waiting for them to fall out or something).

[Guest guest]

My hair turned from blond to brown as well. The trait runs in my

family and in my husband's family as well. I think the tendancy runs

in people of Norse/German decent. Maybe it's an aspie trait.

Ilah

> >

> > " I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. "

>

> Me too, and it got curlier. Are you my long-lost half-brother? My

> father was quite the Don and you look like my family (not

intended

> to be an insult to your mother!)Or maybe you are just my Aspie

brother.

>

[Guest guest]

My hair turned from blond to brown as well. The trait runs in my

family and in my husband's family as well. I think the tendancy runs

in people of Norse/German decent. Maybe it's an aspie trait.

Ilah

> >

> > " I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. "

>

> Me too, and it got curlier. Are you my long-lost half-brother? My

> father was quite the Don and you look like my family (not

intended

> to be an insult to your mother!)Or maybe you are just my Aspie

brother.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 9:35:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, BSTL@... writes:

As for our rights, we have them from birth. This is the United States of America, where we are SUPPOSED to have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. And if anyone stands in the way of our right to that pursuit, then they're un-American. When the industry avoids those with AS, and hires psychotics like Stern and Rush Limbaugh, then they're not really Americans. Most American broadcasters are anti-American, anyway.

Actually this is incorrect. The original inspiration for this line was Adam . His ideal was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property". He believed this is what movtivated people and was the guiding force behind the "invisible hand" of the market. The Founding Fathers fully believed in this, but knew the "Property" would make the Revolution a hard sell the the middle and lower classes who might have seen the Revolution as simply a revolt of the elites. So instead they replaced "Property" with "Happiness".

Of course they did not mean liscencious orgies of "doing it if it feels good". They meant the Happiness of doing good and being responsible. It quite honestly sickens me to the core that self-absorbed hedonists use this one change to justify the worst of their excesses. The Founders expected people to act like responsible humans and not like drunken monkeys and end up a degraded and collapsing society like the Romans.

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Tom.

I also have to say that there are a lot of "rights" people think they have, or don't have, that have nothing to do with the Constitution. Your official, legal rights are there in the Bill of Rights and some of the Amendments. That's it, period, end of story.

People don't have the "right" to drive, the "right" to riot, the "right" to be licentious. People DO have the right to their own thoughts and opinions, the right be judgemental, and are completely free to succeed or fail based on their actions and choices.

The Constitution is a compromise. It is a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists had their say with the previous Articles of Confederation government. That was a dismal failure because none of the states would cooperate with each other. The Constutition was designed to allow some freedom to the states but also bind them more tightly together. For the most part it has worked, except as stated in other posts when some localities began nullifying certain laws they didn't like. That lead to the Civil War. I'm not sure that would happen again in the same way, but I do see the creation of Paris like ghettoes full of unassimilated foreigners on the dole being quite likely, because that is exactly what those places are establishing with their existing policies.

A government is a contract people the people and the government. It states the powers and limits the government will have and what the people will surrender to the new order. In the US we actually gave up very little and had prime rights garaunteed. It simply disgusts me that on the one hand people will throw away their True Rights, like the right of political free speech, in exchange for trash, unfettered access to pornography. Indeed the proliferation of so-called rights belittles the meaning of the True Rights. As a result, people don't even care it the True Rights are eroded so long they keep their "right" to pornography, partying, "free" government services and so on. Those people are going to be in for a very rude awakening very soon when they realize they trade a handful of diamonds for a bushel of glass beads.

[Guest guest]

Maybe that's why all here have experienced this. I'm German and

Norweigan but I'm also a mutt: also Irish, English, ish, French,

Native American, African. I've heard that a lot of AS are of Northern

European and Scandanavian descent but I wonder if that's just because

these areas know more about it. I know a lot of blacks who are AS

(of course they could be mixed with other things).

> > >

> > > " I was born blonde and my hair turned brown over time. "

> >

> > Me too, and it got curlier. Are you my long-lost half-brother?

My

> > father was quite the Don and you look like my family (not

> intended

> > to be an insult to your mother!)Or maybe you are just my Aspie

> brother.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You're dead wrong, Tom. The nation's broadcasters have NO RIGHT to

be prejudiced. They should be required to take cultural sensitivity

training before they ever go to work in a broadcast station.

As for our rights, we have them from birth. This is the United

States of America, where we are SUPPOSED to have the right to the

Pursuit of Happiness. And if anyone stands in the way of our right

to that pursuit, then they're un-American. When the industry avoids

those with AS, and hires psychotics like Stern and Rush

Limbaugh, then they're not really Americans. Most American

broadcasters are anti-American, anyway.

They don't know what AS is, anyway. They cannot tell. Therefore,

they have no right to pre-judge us. Just look at the resume.

Discrimination against those with AS is ILLEGAL under the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 12:32:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

Maybe this is an indicator (see: Romans) that our society is at it's end.

It could be a symptom of it, but I don't think the end is inevitable. We could stop it if decent people woudl stand up and say "ENOUGH!!" to the foolishness that is dividing and weakening the country. I don't think it will happen though. When societies are in bad shape it is rare that anything will be done to save it. Rather it will fall and usually be replaced by a dictatorship.

[Guest guest]

This is why crime statitistics are normed and reported per 1,000 or per 100,000. This gives a fixed comparision for different time periods. Looking back though it is possible to say that crime is somewhat lower than in times past. n England actually had a higher crime and murder rate than today, well as of about 10 years ago anyway. There were also still many bandits and highwaymen who would stop travelers and rob or even kill them. For that matter, muggers frequently killed or badly wounded their victims because it was easier to rob a wounded person.

I agree that people have become too materialistic. Don't get me wrong, I like my things too, I just keep them from running my life. Of course I say that and there are stacks of book all over the place that I need to neaten up. But on the other hand, I'm not breaking my neck to get a new HD Plasma screen tv the size of my house, or the latest video game counsole, the kind that you have to be a octopus the work the controllers (people only come with two thumbs but the thing has 3 controls for movement and half a dozen buttons besides). My computer is old and getting kind of slow, but I'm thinking about upgrading the video card rather than bother with a new one, since I'll be getting a laptop for travel. For that matter I might not even upgrade this one if I can get a laptop with a good enough video card to play the newer games on.

What really upsets me though is all the people who are going into debt to buy these things. Basic personal finance says that's a bad idea. Sure you can take a loan and buy some fancy things, but you'll be paying not only the cost of the item but also the cost of interest. So, that new thing is costing more than the original price. It would be much better to save up the money that would have gone to the loan payments for several months an then buy the thing. By that time the price probably would have come down anyway or something newer would have come out lowering the price even more.

[Guest guest]

,

I wasn't saying they have a right to be prejudiced I am just saying

that they ARE prejudiced and that the rights you are speaking of are

largely smoke and mirrors (and i will explain this shortly).

I agree that they should take cultural sensitivity courses.

As for your rights under the constitution, yes, every American is

afforded certain rights. But the constitution can be and has been

ammended, Marhsall law can be instituted under certain pretences,

and if those pretences do not exist, corrupt governments could

certainly fabricate them.

When you go to bat in a baseball game, regardless of what your

batting average is, you are always three strikes from being struck

out. That levels the playing field for everyone who steps up to bat,

and considering that you technically can ONLY miss three swings,

that's not many chances at all.

Your rights as they have been given to you under the constitution

seem solid and permanent, but they only hold as long as they go

unammended by congress, unobstructed by Marshall Law, and are not

destroyed by an overthrow of the government. So there are three

pitches being thrown at you. Your situation is always as tenuous as

a batter at the plate.

I see the constituion as more of a compromise than anything else.

How I see it is that every citizen is different, and because of

these differences, they would all be at each other's throats unless

they were guarenteed by constitutional law that in certain respects

they were equal and that, being equal, they all had certain rights.

Thus you say in such a document " These are the ways you are equal,

and these are your rights. "

But the rights hold up only as long as people want them to, and only

as long as the government holds out. Additionally, it is NOT the

government's responsibility to ensure that you afforded these

rights, but is IS your responsibility to tell the government when

you THINK your rights have been denied, and even when you do so, the

burden of proof is on YOU, not the person or entity you are accusing

of denying you your rights because they are innocent until proven

guilty. This holds true even when you make the government the

defendant.

It is the misconception that we are " free " and the illusion that we

have " rights " that keep us subdued, productive, and happy, which is

actually a good thing, because if the citizenry of the American

public took off their rose-colored glasses and looked around them,

they would see what Pavlovian dogs they have become as the result of

government oppression under taxes, government over-spending, and

subjugation under absurd laws, and they would try to overthrow the

government immediately.

Tom

You're dead wrong, Tom. The nation's broadcasters have NO RIGHT to

be prejudiced. They should be required to take cultural sensitivity

training before they ever go to work in a broadcast station.

As for our rights, we have them from birth. This is the United

States of America, where we are SUPPOSED to have the right to the

Pursuit of Happiness. And if anyone stands in the way of our right

to that pursuit, then they're un-American. When the industry avoids

those with AS, and hires psychotics like Stern and Rush

Limbaugh, then they're not really Americans. Most American

broadcasters are anti-American, anyway.

They don't know what AS is, anyway. They cannot tell. Therefore,

they have no right to pre-judge us. Just look at the resume.

Discrimination against those with AS is ILLEGAL under the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 3:29:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

Yes, we've become a soft society addicted to comforts and pleasures--no one wants to risk those or put themselves on the line. And how many governments have we seen replace governments that were the same or worse in cycle after cycle on the earth?

I think the problem with the governments is an ancient illness. History shows that new governments are typically full of furvor over coming into power or establishing themselves. Over time, this furvor fades and corruption and indifference sets in. Eventually this gets so bad that the government either collapses or is overthrown by a new order and the cycle repeats.

The Ancient Chinese saw this. After the Empire was established by the Chin Dynasty, things went very well for some time. However, they eventually became inept and corrupt and were overthrown. The next dynasty started well but the cycle still repeated. The Ancient Greek City States had much the same series. They would start out bold but over time they would become corrupt and decadent and fall. We saw it with the Romans too and many others.

What we are seeing now is more or less the same. What we are seeing is the politicians exploiting universal suffrage to stay in office. It works like this. Let's say X has money. X also has a vote but only 1 vote. Then let's say there is group Y and for the sake of argument there are 5 people in the group. Group Y doesn't have the money of X, but they have 5 votes between them. Along comes P, the politician. In Democracy, it is a zero sum game and zeros are what matter (the more zeros after the first number on the vote tally the better). So P looks at this and decides that giving Y such and such program would win their votes, but to get the money for it, he has to take it from X. Here's the math: Tax X = loss of X's vote but giving X's money to Group Y = 5 votes, result is P wins the election.

This is what most Western governments have been doing since before WW2, and since then with abandon. The politicians will tax industry and the "rich" and middle class to pay for programs to buy themselves votes. This cycle goes on and on and the bill gets higher and higher, as do taxes, until the economy can't take it and folds, just like the Soviet Union. Then all those people are dumped into the cold without their trusted benefits and they are in trouble.

What we are seeing as far as entertainment becoming so course is a bait and switch. What is happening there is entertainment is being allowed to push the envelop so to speak so that it will come in conflict with the censors. When the censors try to clamp down, there is cry about violation of Freedom of Speech. Well, the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to apply to smut and violence, but rather specifically to political speech, which is technically all the First Amendment is meant to protect, along with freedom of religion. A fight over how much nudity to show on TV distracts the people from the fact that the politicians are eroding the true intent of the Amendment by shutting down political free speech.

By the same token, violent entertainment is allowed to continue. A little of this in the right context won't hurt, but the constant barrage of violence without showing the consequences of it, encourages violence in society. The more crime, violence and chaos in a society, the more people will be willing to give up more freedom in the name of protection by the state. This one way Hitler came to power by promising to end the violence in the street, much of it conviently caused by his Brown Shirts. If things get back enough, people would be willing to allow a just about any erosion of the freedoms so they can feel "safe" again.

Also, they can't teach right from wrong in public schools anymore. Right and wrong may have a "religious" connotation and that is not allowed under separation of church and state. That separation actually comes from a letter written by one of the Founders and is nowhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is a prohibition on an official government church, like the Church of England. Expression of religion is protected by the First, not prohibited by it. Anyway, the result is kids aren't being taught basic rules of ethical and civil behavior. Add to that the violent games and music and lack of punishment when they do act up and you get little monsters running around. This in turn feeds people's fear and willingness to let the government "do something" about it. The media further hypes this with scare stories about kidnappings, childmolesters and home invasions.

It would be nice if the media would realize that freedom of the press is always the first thing to go under a dictatorship. If they would wise up to that, I think the tone of the news would change radically. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Guest guest]

" This is the United States of America, where we are SUPPOSED to have

the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. "

I couldn't help but pick up on this - what if someones pursuit of

hapiness involved hurting others? And looking at the world I am sure

a lot of peoples pursuit of happiness does involve that.

>

> You're dead wrong, Tom. The nation's broadcasters have NO RIGHT to

> be prejudiced. They should be required to take cultural sensitivity

> training before they ever go to work in a broadcast station.

>

> As for our rights, we have them from birth. This is the United

> States of America, where we are SUPPOSED to have the right to the

> Pursuit of Happiness. And if anyone stands in the way of our right

> to that pursuit, then they're un-American. When the industry avoids

> those with AS, and hires psychotics like Stern and Rush

> Limbaugh, then they're not really Americans. Most American

> broadcasters are anti-American, anyway.

>

> They don't know what AS is, anyway. They cannot tell. Therefore,

> they have no right to pre-judge us. Just look at the resume.

> Discrimination against those with AS is ILLEGAL under the Americans

> with Disabilities Act of 1990.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to take a moment to build on 's statement here.

When the colonies whacked down the Declaration of Independence, they

knew they were risking war with England and did so anyway. It was a

perillous proposition for them to do this also because they were

under constant attack from Indians, so going to war with England

would mean the prospect of getting attacked on two fronts instead of

just by the Indians. And no one knew for sure if the colonies could

get the French or anyone else to support them against Brittain.

After independence from England was achieved, it then became time to

create a new government.

The constitution was not drafted in a single day nor was it drafted

for frivolous reasons.

Every aspect of the prior system was examined carefully and the

worst of the old was left out or else modified into something

better, and new good, sensible and reasonable things were added too.

It was with the utmost seriousness and sense of responsibility that

these founders worked on the constitution. They knew full well that

what they created then must be good enough to measure up (at its

core) forever.

And now we have a bunch of self-absorbed over-indulgent lunkheads

trying to use this endearing and dedicated piece of work and

craftsmanship to get high, get drunk, make porn, have orgies, abort

the unborn, and fight for whatever other whims please them or make

their lives easier.

Most of society is already like the Romans, and people like ,

who truly do NEED the true meaning of the constitution to be

enforced, aren't getting it enforced because the self-absorbed over-

indulgent lunkheads are winning the battle to blunt the senses of

reasonable people and replace law and order with anarchy and

disorder.

Tom

Administrator

" The Founders expected people to act like responsible humans and not

like drunken monkeys and end up a degraded and collapsing society

like the Romans.

"

[Guest guest]

wrote:

" Of course they did not mean liscencious orgies of " doing it if it

feels

> good " . They meant the Happiness of doing good and being responsible.

It quite

> honestly sickens me to the core that self-absorbed hedonists use this

one change

> to justify the worst of their excesses. The Founders expected people

to act

> like responsible humans and not like drunken monkeys and end up a

degraded and

> collapsing society like the Romans. "

Tom wrote:

" And now we have a bunch of self-absorbed over-indulgent lunkheads

trying to use this endearing and dedicated piece of work and

craftsmanship to get high, get drunk, make porn, have orgies, abort the

unborn, and fight for whatever other whims please them or make their

lives easier. "

Maybe this is an indicator (see: Romans) that our society is at it's

end.