Montell Williams on the Dr. Oz program today suggested that there were three myths about men - - lies about men that women routinely believe as gospel truth. The first is the adage “Once a cheater – always a cheater”. Montell states that certain men take a certain amount of Time to find their Soul Mate and to “get it right” but once they “get it right” – why would they want to jeopardize a perfect relationship with the right woman? Well, I can think of one big one. Men crave variety. It’s built into our genes and in the past was an evolutionary necessity of nature and genetics. I mean when you look at certain men such as Tom Leykis, Rush Limbaugh, or Newt Gingrich, one is very inclined to want to use the Dr. Phil adage of “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”. Many women I am convinced, keep encountering unfaithful men because it’s in their karma and they are being cosmically punished for something. The whole thing with people like Newt is maybe they haven’t cheated with their current wife- - yet. But although you may not know the exact timing of it, you know they’ll be out cheating again before you know it. So the point goes to the women on this one. The next one is that men fear domineering women. I could have told you this one is bogus. The whole “hard to get” thing has always been a lure for me and I can only assume that other men, as many women pursuing men, view it the same way. A man does not just want to be stimulated sexually. Hopefully when he finds his soul mate he’s in love with the whole person and not just a physical body, Gene Scott’s remarks not withstanding. They want “the other” in their lives. If they wanted a prostitute they would go out and get that but they don’t want that and they are looking for something else. In the realm of “the best way to get to a man’s heart is through his stomach” I am inclined to side with Montell on this one. They may love Mary Jo’s cooking and be seen eating dinner at her house every evening but in the evening they go out for “other kinds of satisfaction” with Betty Sue. But I will agree with the three things that men basically want in a woman. They want loyalty, they want ego support, and they also want sexual attraction. If you haven’t found all three of these in a woman, then I suggest you keep looking. (Selah)
Someone may ask what the greatest lie told about me is. Well it’s a lie that has become quite popular, to the point of obsession, I believe, that “Under no circumstances should you be an enabeler”. Well Jesus said to feed the hungry and to house the homeless and to minister to those sick or in prison. And he didn’t say you had to make them fill out a half a dozen government forms to do it. Compassion is a practice Jesus said to bestow on all, whether they were worthy or not. The Lord will in time reveal their lack of worthiness if it’s there, and the Lord will deal with them personally. Neil Savedra said that if you visit an alcoholic in jail you are “enabeling him’ and if you aren’t careful he may “manipulate you”. People think that by being stand-offish with me they are somehow- - - well what they will say is that it isn’t them but the Lord who is “testing” me to make sure I’m really “worthy” because God being a person of limited knowledge doesn’t know that already. Am I perfect? No. Sometimes people say “You’d be an OK guy except for this one Thing” and the thing seems to be different with every complainer. But for instance I have led a sexually exemplary life the last ten years but I don’t feel any closer to God, but farther away from him than ever. Of course I have had my problems with substance abuse with alcohol and tobacco and occasionally, pills. But aside from these issues of the flesh I have led a double life as a Christian in other ways. I used to write these weirdo letters via snail mail to the media. Also I liked to listen to secular music on rock stations. Now this is less of an issue because there has been just crap on these past fifteen years and I get my music now from either CD’s, Yahoo, I heart radio, CBS radio or LAST.FM or You Tube. The fact is that “being an enabeler” is not a bad thing. Indeed I knew I’d never make it as a Christian on my own unless I got Help from somewhere and there is a long list of unanswered prayers to God that if he only responded to would have made me a better Christian. Many people, though, are emotionally committed to their lies, and to change is more than they can face.
There is that new Earth like planet in the news now where it is 71 degrees in temperature in a star system I never heard of. (Almost all planets mentioned by astronomers now seem to be from star systems I never heard of) People wonder what’s doing with Mal Evans and all those people from various extra terriestrial realms. Well I haven’t heard a peep out of them lately. Perhaps it’s just that if you see a prospect of the “Real Thing” so to speak, then all the mental extrapolations, hunches, and impressions go out the window, at least for the time being. But I haven’t written that stuff off. I know it really gets under Christian’s craw out there that their might be other worlds out there besides earth because it assaults a cherished tenant of their Theology. Of course it’s a theology found nowhere in the Bible any more than the earth centric view of the Universe is taught in the Bible. People become so attached to their own mental fantasies they can’t face the real world as it exists in the twenty first century. (Selah)
We’ve gotten questions from our readers concerning certain logical errors I may have made. You’ve heard the classic Star Wars expression, “These aren’t the Droids you are looking for”. But what if your computer tells you, “These ARE the variables I am looking for” but they aren’t. I have a program involving wages and the figuring of Overtime pay. One thing about computers as opposed to humans and that is if there you are following instructions at time the correct procedure is to do Nothing and move on. But the computer does not know NOT to “Do nothing”. It will see a situation, an equation. And it will look for variables in to complete the equation so it can finish its task. The only thing is they are the wrong variables. They are variables from a previous problem. But computers don’t have bad logic. The people that program them do, and I fixed the problem. It’s just like the saying “Guns don’t kill people, People do”. I have a date adding and subtraction program that occasionally puts out really strange answers. But I chalked it up to “There is nothing wrong with the program - - it’s just a logical defect in the English language”. Commander Data would look at the figures and say they were quite valid. Some of you take issue with my Kurtosis example of the four circle quarters. This is the one where the graph takes on the shape of a double decker Jell-O mold. You would argue that if one averages out the circles into a straight line you would have a giant triangle. And in this big triangle you could position four 45 degree triangles triangles, three at the points and one at the center. Now here the 45 slant lines would be the shorter lines and the right (horizontal) lines would be the longer lines. If you slice every triangle vertically now and have eight and the lines of the triangles would be flip flopped. Now the long lines would be the 45 degree lines and the right angle lines would be the short line. You would now have six triangles within standard deviation. And therefore leaving off the last two would make standard deviation. Of course doing the math this is now a 3 to 1 ratio and no longer 2 to 1. But since the line was only half way up the triangle you would say to me “The kurtosis is not two under your formula, but four, which is two squared”. Nice try. The thing is, even forgetting the ratio error, if you got rid of the innie and outie circles you would be changing the distribution of the data so it was no longer the chart. So you would have to exercise some Geddy Lee "tree justice" and slice in to the outie circle - in other words, the SD line would move tword the center. Hypothetically, if you swapped out every Innie line for every Outie circle line, so that the figure now looked like the top of a Frostie Freeze ice cream cone - with a point, the kurtosis would rise, and you've got two choices HOW it would rise. Either you do the whole "tree equity" thing and slice into the outie circle and keep the diameter of said arcs equal, or else you make the "innie" or top circles bigger and the outie's smaller, which would enable you to keep the SD line right between the circles, but in either case the SD line would have to move away from the apex to accomodate more data from the area that needed borrowing from. If one eye balls kurtosis readings in Wolfram, one sees that the "essential" nature of kurtosis is the SD data entry figure ratios, and not the other stuff. Capish? Too bad. Anyhow the proper procedure is to carve a little into the center triangles to get the necessary two thirds sample and no more. This should work out to 1.414 as a ratio between bottom to point and point to apex of the chart. Someone else thinks I mislabeled the shading thing under the data line as being the “mean” when in reality it’s the median. Point goes to questioner on this point. I made an error. The answer (about the dividing of shading) is in fact median. My error came when I envisioned a “flat liner” data graph where every reading had an equal number of people on it. So it would be a “flat liner” data graph with a kurtosis of one under my system and the square root of three under wolframalpha.com. In reality you wouldn’t have squat doing this to the chart because once again “It would no longer be the chart. The correct answer is median. Just think of the shading under the line as individual faces of all the people taking the survey and this will clarify it for you. And finally some take exception to portraying “Eternity” as a vertical time line, but rather it should be s horizontal line where you expend NO time, but still have all the time you will ever need, forever. I thought about this but as I explained once, you can’t do this on a four dimensional space-time frame. You need to add the fifth dimensional element. And you know, don’t you (at least Star Trek says so) that each space-time frame has its own molecular “signature”. But you still have another big problem. You’ve heard the adage “Nature has a commonality throughout the Universe because it’s the same God who designed it”. Well, this one is a big Ditto for the fifth dimension, too. If there is a fifth dimension it was designed by the same God who designed every other dimensional time line. Since none of the others could be called “Heaven” this one couldn’t either. Billy Graham, and lets pray for his good health, is known for saying “With God - - space is different. There could be a freight train going right through this arena right now and we would never know it”. Of course Rev. Graham assumes the existance of "Heaven". Yet in the Bible there is no record of anyone ever having died and gone to Heaven and come back to tell about it. So if the Bible alias "God" doesn't even believe humans for sure go to heaven, don't object if we scientists are entire agnostic on the whole subject of the afterlife. Some say they are "called" by a God whom no objectivist can measure. For something to register with humans one normally thinks of some material gateway to the brain so that said stimulus enters our thought process. I myself have spoken of contact by the dead by some means of something within man no scientists has measured. That’s a nice theory. What Rev Graham is alluding to is the discontinuity of space. I might not even raise this issue except this discontinuity of space phenomon, or “there are two objects that appear to occupy the same space but each one is utterly unaware of the presence of the other”. Sketch likes to use this. I have postulated such a thing of not just a space-time signature, to go with the previous fifth dimensional example, but in this case it would be kind of an “event horizon” signature. Each one of us sees a minutely different “event horizon”, which takes on the shape of a hallowed out slightly convex cone to accommodate a theorized curvature of space [distances] caused by the expanding Universe over time. The idea is that this is “our space” but space outside our light event horizon would be “someone else’s space” that we are destined never to see. But somehow if space were folded so we came in physical proximity with it- - it would not interact with our world but you would need some sort of “Portal” to reach it, like in the “Dune” movie. Such a theory is highly theoretical, but it does provide an interesting mental exercise. Others say that the very nature of space is altered merely by the position of the physical objects and not just gravitationally but in sort of a Chinese feng chue positional proportional sense, much as how Astrology is theorized to work. (Selah)
No comments:
Post a Comment