Ask Mar
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
mofgimmers
- Reliable
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 am
- Location: Manchester
Agreed. There's the old adage 'you only hurt the ones you love' but i don't buy it.Ratbert wrote:Agreed with Mar. Violence against women is unacceptable. Any violence is. If he loves you as much as you say you love him, then why did he hit you?
Dump him Simbo.
It's not needed, it's wrong and no amount of heart to heart chats will ever ever rectify it.
Get rid of the thug now.
Viva La Portable Radio!
i think that if you feel scared around him, either when he's drunk or sober, then i'd get rid.
obviously you want to be with somebody you love, but you've got to feel safe with that person and feel that they'd protect you, not assault you.
obviously you want to be with somebody you love, but you've got to feel safe with that person and feel that they'd protect you, not assault you.
Last edited by keveh on Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
mofgimmers
- Reliable
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 am
- Location: Manchester
Dr. Karl,
Of course they are. When I took them, they were really hard. Now they're just a bunch of panzy exams my cat could pass.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think so. They're getting more trivial which is a detriment to the education of the teenagers taking them but whether or not they're easier is another matter. The exam board is a shambles for A-Level results and more than likely people taking A-Levels are likely to come across some begruntled teacher in their college who is marking someones exam paper across the country. Its down to this that we'll never really have a clue as to whether or not they're getting easier. The country shouldn't have teachers marking the paper, they should have independant bodies marking them instead.
The amount of pressure on the exam board will tell you how hard/easy the exams will be. Its not representative of the education students have.
Of course they are. When I took them, they were really hard. Now they're just a bunch of panzy exams my cat could pass.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think so. They're getting more trivial which is a detriment to the education of the teenagers taking them but whether or not they're easier is another matter. The exam board is a shambles for A-Level results and more than likely people taking A-Levels are likely to come across some begruntled teacher in their college who is marking someones exam paper across the country. Its down to this that we'll never really have a clue as to whether or not they're getting easier. The country shouldn't have teachers marking the paper, they should have independant bodies marking them instead.
The amount of pressure on the exam board will tell you how hard/easy the exams will be. Its not representative of the education students have.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Dear Mar,
Is it scientifically possible that the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11th 2001, purely as the result of being struck by two planes and the resulting fire, and without the help of any additional 'demolition' explosives?
Is it scientifically possible that the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11th 2001, purely as the result of being struck by two planes and the resulting fire, and without the help of any additional 'demolition' explosives?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
good pointMar wrote:Luna,
I hear what you're saying but I don't know what you're asking me for. Although if you want to know something AC/DC have stopped producing because they've discovered internet movie forums from which they're contracting you're English teacher to get at you.
so what your saying is i should kill my teachers? cause i been trying but those buggers wear lead jackets! Biting seems to work though...
Crayola,
I'm no structual engineer but it can be argued that the resulting weight of the collapse of the top of the towers can have a damaging effect on the strain took by the other floors.
I watched some program explaining it all and that the weight bearing structure wasn't suitable for the accident and that the top of the building did eventually cause the struts to buckle and force extra weight causing the buildings to crumble.
So the way they were talking about it I suppose it is arguable that it could collapse without the help of additional explosives.
I'm not too sure thats the way it happened though, anyone whose played Jenga knows that if you pull out load bearing peices of a Jenga tower it'll end up falling to the side where you pulled it. The towers fell straight down and that never seemed right to me. But if I was gonna entertain such notions i'd look more into the missile shaped hole that was left in the pentagon that was apparently a 'plane' (check out the wingspan).
I'm no structual engineer but it can be argued that the resulting weight of the collapse of the top of the towers can have a damaging effect on the strain took by the other floors.
I watched some program explaining it all and that the weight bearing structure wasn't suitable for the accident and that the top of the building did eventually cause the struts to buckle and force extra weight causing the buildings to crumble.
So the way they were talking about it I suppose it is arguable that it could collapse without the help of additional explosives.
I'm not too sure thats the way it happened though, anyone whose played Jenga knows that if you pull out load bearing peices of a Jenga tower it'll end up falling to the side where you pulled it. The towers fell straight down and that never seemed right to me. But if I was gonna entertain such notions i'd look more into the missile shaped hole that was left in the pentagon that was apparently a 'plane' (check out the wingspan).
Luna,
You shouldn't kill your teachers. They're not worth the effort. They are worth giving a break though. Its bad enough they're stuck teaching kids for a living and having to put up with all sorts of mouthy teenagers who think they know better. There life's bad enough as it is. Let alone getting some sort of nasty infection as a result of student bites.
You shouldn't kill your teachers. They're not worth the effort. They are worth giving a break though. Its bad enough they're stuck teaching kids for a living and having to put up with all sorts of mouthy teenagers who think they know better. There life's bad enough as it is. Let alone getting some sort of nasty infection as a result of student bites.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
I think you are correct in as much as you have said. I should have added to the end of my question "in the manner and remarkably short amount of time that they did."
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
MunchingCrayons,
I don't know whether the building would've collapsed without the result of additional bombing. But there are more things to take into consideration than just the effect of the plane crashes on the building. Take for example the stampeding hoards within the building. The buildings supposed to support a certain number of people on each floor . The higher people get on the tower the more strain there would be on the impact area. When the fire started people were spread sporatically throughout the floors, when the fire started building up rather than people fleeing it people would I suspect have climbed higher to get away from the fire.
More weight higher up, more strain, more weight, easier collapse. Sadly though, I can hypothesis all day and still reach no sound conclusion.
I honestly don't think it would've collapsed the way it did, it seemed to go straight down whereas buildings would fall in a stack motion breaking each level on its way down. Instead it just seemed to fall all the way.
To answer you're question. My answer would probably be a 'no' it couldn't, and thats the way the experts predicted. Unfortunately they think they were wrong, but I don't. If I was taking down two buildings, I wouldn't leave it up to the planes aswell. Every plan deserves a contingency plan.
I don't know whether the building would've collapsed without the result of additional bombing. But there are more things to take into consideration than just the effect of the plane crashes on the building. Take for example the stampeding hoards within the building. The buildings supposed to support a certain number of people on each floor . The higher people get on the tower the more strain there would be on the impact area. When the fire started people were spread sporatically throughout the floors, when the fire started building up rather than people fleeing it people would I suspect have climbed higher to get away from the fire.
More weight higher up, more strain, more weight, easier collapse. Sadly though, I can hypothesis all day and still reach no sound conclusion.
I honestly don't think it would've collapsed the way it did, it seemed to go straight down whereas buildings would fall in a stack motion breaking each level on its way down. Instead it just seemed to fall all the way.
To answer you're question. My answer would probably be a 'no' it couldn't, and thats the way the experts predicted. Unfortunately they think they were wrong, but I don't. If I was taking down two buildings, I wouldn't leave it up to the planes aswell. Every plan deserves a contingency plan.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
The thing is, most of the experts dont't think they were wrong, not the least the main architect who designed the buildings. I'm no expert in demolition, but I imagine it would take a while to survey the right supporting columns/girders etc - how then was the decision made to 'pull' Building 7 on the World Trade Complex, as a quick response to an alleged fire hazard it was posing (even if it was quite some way away from the two main towers and received far less damage than other buildings which were much closer, but not owned by Silverstein, the bloke who owned all 3 of the buildings which 'collapsed' and who received a massive insurance payout for his troubles.)
Anyway, I apologise for dragging this onto your thread. I just thought I'd see what your prodigous research skills made of it all.
Anyway, I apologise for dragging this onto your thread. I just thought I'd see what your prodigous research skills made of it all.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Batman,
Of course he's a thief. Anyone producing such a low quality show raking in those sort of audiences on such low production costs has got to be. Just think of all those poor people who have there time taken away on such trivial dribble. If he's not stealing your time he's stealing your patience.
And, sadly.. people's crop circles.
Of course he's a thief. Anyone producing such a low quality show raking in those sort of audiences on such low production costs has got to be. Just think of all those poor people who have there time taken away on such trivial dribble. If he's not stealing your time he's stealing your patience.
And, sadly.. people's crop circles.
Stevie..
Part of being happy is being unhappy. They're mutually inclusive, but never at the same time. When someones happy its because they've been through such and such which made them unhappy and they've just come out of it. Keeping a woman happy is just too tough a task to keep up. Sure you can provide for her and you can make her laugh, etc, etc. But if you're not having the moments that really ache then I don't think it will work.
When you go through difficulties with someone and come out cherishing each other it makes you all the better for it. Now i'm not saying start arguments for arguments sake, but if you're not having that feeling that emotions are being affected strongly by the other person then you're likely to struggle. You've often heard the addage before of 'he pisses me off so much, but I love him'. Well that rings true, when you fall for someone emotions are running high, they're always on your mind and it makes you feel young again. Keeping that sort of feeling is hard to do, but if you get it coming back then you're onto a good thing.
What I do suggest you do is learn how to be better in bed. I don't care how good you are now and don't really want to know, but everyone can be better in bed. Taking the time out to find out a few new things helps and shows that you actually care. Plus it keeps things fresh and good and if you manage to get talking about it, it can be reciprocal.
Its about getting a decent footing and the right woman. You find the right girl, you keep her satisfied, you're there for her and you're onto the right sort of thing I think you're aiming toward.
Another thing I do stress, you have to listen. Not just to the constant waffling about trivial crap you couldn't care much about, but listen to the things that they're trying to tell you, the sort of things they never stress directly. Listen to intonation, exaggeration and let them tell you things and be supportive. Women prefer tackling problems themselves are better left to themselves. They come to you because you're the one closest to them and hope you can listen to their problems in the same way that another woman could. No doubt you're likely to say what she should do about something, hell its the guy way of going about things, but chances are you're better off listening to their problems and adding fillers (stuff like 'i understand', 'uh huh', 'sure', 'i know what you mean', 'she did, that bitch', etc).
Now i'm sure women can correct me if i'm wrong, and please feel free to do so, you know, whatever helps.
P.s. Women are crazy.. don't ever tell them that frequently.
Part of being happy is being unhappy. They're mutually inclusive, but never at the same time. When someones happy its because they've been through such and such which made them unhappy and they've just come out of it. Keeping a woman happy is just too tough a task to keep up. Sure you can provide for her and you can make her laugh, etc, etc. But if you're not having the moments that really ache then I don't think it will work.
When you go through difficulties with someone and come out cherishing each other it makes you all the better for it. Now i'm not saying start arguments for arguments sake, but if you're not having that feeling that emotions are being affected strongly by the other person then you're likely to struggle. You've often heard the addage before of 'he pisses me off so much, but I love him'. Well that rings true, when you fall for someone emotions are running high, they're always on your mind and it makes you feel young again. Keeping that sort of feeling is hard to do, but if you get it coming back then you're onto a good thing.
What I do suggest you do is learn how to be better in bed. I don't care how good you are now and don't really want to know, but everyone can be better in bed. Taking the time out to find out a few new things helps and shows that you actually care. Plus it keeps things fresh and good and if you manage to get talking about it, it can be reciprocal.
Its about getting a decent footing and the right woman. You find the right girl, you keep her satisfied, you're there for her and you're onto the right sort of thing I think you're aiming toward.
Another thing I do stress, you have to listen. Not just to the constant waffling about trivial crap you couldn't care much about, but listen to the things that they're trying to tell you, the sort of things they never stress directly. Listen to intonation, exaggeration and let them tell you things and be supportive. Women prefer tackling problems themselves are better left to themselves. They come to you because you're the one closest to them and hope you can listen to their problems in the same way that another woman could. No doubt you're likely to say what she should do about something, hell its the guy way of going about things, but chances are you're better off listening to their problems and adding fillers (stuff like 'i understand', 'uh huh', 'sure', 'i know what you mean', 'she did, that bitch', etc).
Now i'm sure women can correct me if i'm wrong, and please feel free to do so, you know, whatever helps.
P.s. Women are crazy.. don't ever tell them that frequently.
-
Batman
-
CrazyHorse
- Immortal
- Posts: 10572
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: Up above the streets and houses
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests