Ginger_Warrior

This could go wrong in so many ways. I'm not sure about outrage, all of our phones have GPS technology more or less, so meh.

People who put washing in the dryer and then just leave the house, meaning no one else can use it until they get back. People who use my Xbox controllers for their own consoles after I've gone to bed and don't return them. People who think the living room sofa is a place to store dried washing, or a coat hanger for their soggy clothes when they get in. People who stay up past 11pm and don't close their door to keep noise to a minimum. People you use the kitchen table as a temporary cupboard because they can't be bothered unpacking their shopping. I got my own list of housemate frustrations.

Anyone fancy a creepy article about Taiwanese gamers dying at their screens? Of course you do. Tomorrow is my last day at my workplace before I leave for university. It's the first job I've had and I've been doing it for over a year now. It's in care so I meet the same clients and staff more or less on a weekly basis. I'm no good at saying goodbyes, so I probably won't enjoy it. :sad:

"All Americans have a prosperous future [...] a free nation of people pursuing their dreams." ... "It's not my job to worry about them, I'll never convince [the 47% of Americans not paying income tax] to take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

He's defended the comments in public.

That's one of my niggles in RPGs. The fact that everyone actually talks, except YOU. Link: "I don't get it."

Say Romney does win--he wants to inspire lower income families to improve their own status, just like any progressive leader does. Are messages like that really the way to do it? I just wonder how my own history would be different if Thatcher had said "Forget it, you'll never be able to afford buying out your council house anyway."

Why are you blaming the media for that? Obama is in control of his political image right now; Romney isn't because he didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut less than two months out of an election. How is that their fault? In all honesty, it sounds like you're deflecting responsibility away from "your man", when actually, what he's facing right now is a crisis of his own making.

I'm not sure whether the claims being reasonable are that relevant to the election. In an election, winning arguments doesn't really matter. It's how people see you in light of the claims you make. Stating the above has made Romney seem as though he doesn't really understand why so many Americans are in poverty, or why richer people should pay more income tax in a tax system which is truly progressive. Justifying this point further by talking about his own family's rise to wealth makes him appear aloof and obsessed with translating his own success story onto the whole country. That might appeal to conservatives (edit: I say that quite loosely, actually, for it only appeals to some conservatives) but for the middle ground you speak of, it's not good to be seen in this way during an election.

I'm so happy the host of the show remained rational and held both sides equally accountable. I was afraid he'd spend the whole show criticizing the man for his behavior and acting like the woman was some poor, innocent victim... when in fact they're both in the wrong. The Jeremy Kyle Show is very crudely constructed to provide twists like that; that's what researchers are for, but you're right. I don't necessarily think 'wrong' is the right word though. In relationships, you often find that one person needs the other person's madness. Time and time again you see a person going after another person with exactly the same flaws as a person they were previously involved with. In news that's no way related, Rihanna might be getting back with a man who punched her, slammed her against a car window and held her into a headlock until she barely just escaped unconsciousness. I think I'm right in saying she saw domestic abuse when she was a child too. See my point?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NbxYPFv847M All seriousness aside, I'm guessing this isn't what you've visioned of open marriage.

MCWiki says you're right--experience was 1.8 Beta and enchanting was 1.9pre4. It's more that 4J have some discretion in what gets added to the 360 version, so they could refuse to put enchanting in at all if they decided it was unreasonable to do so. It's not as simple as Mojang saying, "You will put this in, or else get lost and give us our money back"; 4J have already said they're not copying the PC version verbatim and will be adding their own twists. After a lot of prodding, 4J haven't confirmed enchanting will end up being in the 1.2.3 proper update, which seems a bit strange when they've said experience will.

I only want stone bricks... :cry: Enchanting is the funny one. They've already confirmed experience will eventually be in the Xbox version, but they've refused to confirm enchanting... the [bleep] is it for then?

It's a shame the 1.8.2 update's going to be a while off ("weeks" still, as of this week just gone). It puts into perspective further still the claim 4J made that the Xbox version would eventually catch-up to the PC version. The 1.7 update took longer than they expected and this has taken even longer, relative to the time taken to update the PC version. At least the next update after 1.8 will take us straight into the released version. I find that when building stuff, it's better to build the essentials first. In other words, build what the building is actually for. So if it's a house, build the floor space and add the furniture, and then build the walls/remove all the dirt around it because you ended up building into a hill. You wouldn't do it in real life for obvious reasons, but there aren't any thieves on MineCraft, and the rain doesn't cause wooden things to rot either. Playing with friends is fun so long as people are reading off the same page. You can have half the people trying to build stuff that they want saving, and the other griefing each other because they're not expecting the game to be saved. What's your XBL gamertag btw?

It isn't any more. I believe England's wins in the third and fourth ODIs put them back in the #1 spot and South Africa back down again.

I didn't make any judgement on whether it was a bad thing to place that much effort into something, Muggi, and I'm well aware of argumentum ad populum. I was simply mentioning that people tend to take the path of least resistance, and in a society and culture that overwhelmingly endorses monogamy, monogamy requires a lot less effort to explain and justify to other people to the point that they accept the lifestyle you've chosen. At least, a lot less than you've already shown on this thread. You seem to have mistaken me for arguing that either monogamy or pologamy are natural/unnatural. I'm not, I couldn't care less about that argument. I'm simply arguing that for most people, monogamy is the choice that comes easiest. Divorce statistics actually endorse that fact, since they had to be married in the first place, and even if you dispute that, the reason people divorce isn't necessarily to do with them turning polygamous. How many divorcees go on to form another monogamous relationship?

Seems like a hell of lot of effort on your part went into thinking this idea through, and maintaining it as a lifestyle. Which is ironic, because one of the reasons you cited before for all this is that with polyamorous relationships there's "less drama/boredom". I think you've got this all the wrong way round. Societal norms aren't either "natural" or "unnatural". The rationale provided for them, perhaps, but the fact that millions and millions of people do the same thing is very much normal, and just because biology might imply otherwise doesn't change that. For most people, monogamous relationships are just what comes naturally, and so perhaps it's just easier for them to cope with a relationship on those terms. You can argue all you want that polyamorous relationships are the way forward, or that they'll make you happier, surely people want to feel comfortable with what they find familiar as well. It's highly subjective and therefore personal to the individuals involved.

I'd argue it happens anyway. It might happen less if the particular female is sexually satisfied and/or emotionally happy, but it probably still happens. Perhaps a simpler conclusion is that people wish for things they don't already have, and that's just as much reality as the sky is blue.

Not necessarily, no. If I go to a supermarket, but I have to buy Pepsi because they're out of stock on Sprite, does it imply I'm unsatisfied with Pepsi? Sometimes, but definitely not always. It's possible to desire B and still be satisfied with A in the absence of B. In fact, interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article on masturbation (which I won't link to here for obvious family-friendly reasons--the article contains nude photographs of genitalia--but is related to fantasising since people tend to do it whilst doing the other) contains links to no less than four studies to reference a claim that women and gay men in relationships tend to masturbate more. I can't vouch that that conclusion hasn't been cherry picked, and I don't have access to the Cochrane Collection to check, but assuming good faith, doesn't this force you to at least rethink your quoted theory in the light of new information? You have to concede at least one of two things. 1) That fantasising itself may not necessarily be indicative of dissatisfaction, just that we might like to experience something else at least temporarily or without any consequence or distress to ourselves or others, or; 2) Having a sexual partner is actually the cause of said dissatisfaction. At the very very least, you can't argue against the stark reality that some guys and some girls do go for years without having sex with their other halves, and manage quite capably, even if they may or may not be fantasising about other people in the meantime.

If the key word is "requires" rather than "it simply makes it better", then I agree with obfuscator. I've seen too many people abstain from sex until after marriage, and lived perfectly happy relationships before the big day to be convinced that it's an absolute necessity.

I'd reference asexual long-term relationships, but I know you're not talking with them in mind.

I don't find that approach particularly assertive, to be honest. It's actually quite aggressive. "Have sex with me or [bleep] off." A command followed by a threat if the command isn't followed. I know it's probably not what you meant exactly, but it's not necessarily the fact she's refusing sex that's the issue here, it's that she keeps putting Noxx in fairly compromising situations where sex is the only reason to be in that situation and then refusing. Stringing somebody along using the possibility (or lack thereof) of a future sexual relationship. That's what isn't OK. A better approach would be, if things start getting hot again, to say you want to have sex, but that you don't want to take your clothes off unless you're having sex because there's no good reason to otherwise. And if she doesn't like that, then... oh well; that's her problem, because doing otherwise would be submitting to something you don't want to do.

If this is your fourth marriage, does that make you a quadamist? :PhilosophicalDinosaur:

That reply would be an assertive one, right? :wink: We do agree.

Just for the record, I wasn't actually endorsing anyone to "go out and be a prick". There are ways to stand up for yourself and remain polite at the same time. That's called assertiveness, which is generally a good quality to have to sustain any kind of personal relationship, sexual or otherwise.