A
Athletic_fit
Guest
Im loyal...probably to a fault at times.
I dont give up on any thing or any one, esp those im close with.
Ill be there for you when no one else is.
I dont give up on any thing or any one, esp those im close with.
Ill be there for you when no one else is.
F
Flirtinghubby
Guest
I guess my general nature. Being aloof, affable, silly, casual..... Is that one thing? Or did I totes sneak in a bunch?!?!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a great deal of empathy and am able to make others feel better when they are experiencing hard times.
I have a difficult time answering this....the "most" is the toughest part...I'm going to go with I don't really care with how others view me, I know I can embarrass others by being completely ridiculous, I have little shame and am brutally honest, much to the dislike of some people...if you ask me a question, I will tell you my thoughts, and you may not like the answer. I do ridiculous things that others would never dream of, out of fear of ridicule...me...I do shitty dick arts and crafts and love it, I'll dance naked poorly, shave designs in my body hair, craft crappy angel wings out of dry cleaner bags and duct tape, whatever I feel like at the moment, and I'll love every bit of it, without any regret.
J
Jinxy
Guest
And we love you for doing it !! Don’t ever stop x
T
Thalassa
Guest
You're one of the coolest dudes I know.
L
LillyK
Guest
Who is the most memorable famous person that died tragically?
Anna Nicole
Not sure if most memorable. But one of the saddest cases of enabling and misusing.
Not only did those around her provide the environment for her to self-destruct. But you had a Network filming it as it was unfolding. And everyone sit idly by, motivated by self gain. While she destroyed and ended her life shortly.
How did this even become tv ratings. Seriously
J
Jinxy
Guest
Michael Hutchense. Can still remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard of his death.
A talented man with so much to live for and yet he wasn’t able to see a way to keep living.
A
AussieDutchGuy
Guest
Instead of most memorable, im going to answer this as who was the one who took me by most surprise, Alan Rickman's death surprised me and saddened me that id never hear his voice say anything new again
Chris Cornell and Chester Beddingfield
Both great musicians with the deepest commitment. I can only guess how they (and sadly so many others) must have felt to take their own lifes. I believe they died in the same year, and even in the same month wich made it even more sad. I was really down for the rest of that week, never expected that the death of a famous person (2 in this case) could have such an impact on me.
Also I really miss Heath Ledger, his Joker changed cinema forever. Died far too young at the top of his game, the world lost an artist that day.
S
SHM1969
Guest
I don’t really go in for the cult of celebrity if I’m being honest. Nowadays people can be famous for doing fuck all. But when I think of tragic cases I think of the likes of Robin Williams and others who took their own lives feeling they have nowhere to turn to for help or feeling they have no prospects for the future. Chris Cornell etc. And Philip Seymour Hoffman. A damn fine actor
So many to choose from. MLK immediately comes to mind for me. Such an important person and central figure in the Civil Rights movement. He was tragically shot in Memphis, Tennessee. Now whether it was a conspiracy or not I have no idea, but his death was a tragedy.
F
Flirtinghubby
Guest
Christopher Hitchens. He had so much more wisdom, laughs, takes, and takedowns left within him when he died. And his book Mortality which he wrote as he was dying was a fascinating look into the world of someone who knows their health and their life are quickly and surely deteriorating with little to no chance of survival.
Marilyn Monroe
F
friendlystorm
Guest
I have to say that personally, Chester Bennington was huge for me. I grew up very influenced by Linkin Park and he's one of the only people I've literally cried after learning they died.
Some other notable people are Princess Diana, JFK, Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and Kobe Bryant.
L
LillyK
Guest
Do you support social distancing?
Bonus Q: Do you think there's a better term to be used than "social distancing"? If so, explain.
Bonus Q: Do you think there's a better term to be used than "social distancing"? If so, explain.
I might get ripped for my answer, but here goes. I support it to a certain point. I think there was a need (and still is) for stopping the spread of the virus. I believe it can and will help with not overloading the healthcare system.
However, I am not a proponent of extended social distancing (beyond 2 months). The economic impact is already disastrous and will become even more so the longer businesses are closed. People's businesses, jobs, homes, and even their lives are going to be severely impacted the longer we practice social distancing. Suicides will likely go up. People will be starving. At some point the cure (shutting everything down/staying at home) causes more of an impact to society than the virus itself.
I would say if you are an at risk person you should always take the necessary precautions. This goes with any illness or virus.
I know people feel strongly the other way on this issue. I respect other's opinion. Not here to argue, just answering the question in my usual verbose way.
Bonus Q Answer: How about 'Staying at Home' or 'Get Out of My Personal Space'? Crickets... Okay! : )
I think "physical distancing" is a more appropriate term - it describes the action that works. I think it can continue to be practiced - just takes not getting right up on people. Large crowds need to be avoided as a public health risk, the same way overcrowding a place is a fire regulation violation. If there is an issue, then people can die. I believe people are good at adapting to new situations - it's something that we have over the other animals. We aren't good at supporting people in need, but we can get better at it. A virus that is 2-4 times as infectious and what would be 20-30x the mortality rate (a solid 3% of identified cases) compared to viruses we ordinarily deal with, means extra-ordinary measures are needed.
It would be great if this virus kills fewer people than the 1918 virus that had similar dynamics and killed about 1% of the world's population then. That would correspond to about 70+ million today? We have better treatment for the critically ill now but we also have much more opportunities to spread the virus quickly to new areas, e.g airplanes.
edit: oh, the "at risk" part - in this epidemic it is not the at risk people that are infecting each other - it is mostly (and some data points to vastly) the asymptotic people keeping the infection spreading. Without something to actually make the susceptible population (meaning people able to still be infected) protected (by partitioning or getting a vaccine, for example) - the virus will eventually infect 30-50% of the population, over a couple years. Data is hard to come by outside of South Korea which jumped on broad testing (still can't get tested in my county in Kansas unless you are hospitalized already.) Calculations vary and really should not be taken as more than a stab at it - but show 4 to 10 people are infected for each confirmed. So take the positive look, only 1 in 10 get confirmed, and only 30% will ever get infected and only 3% of those confirmed die - that is still 0.09% or about 7 million people worldwide.
If we want out of extra precautions, we need to get the testing done to get the data. Identify more of the people with the virus so they can isolate and keep going on vaccines. Right now it varies widely to make a data-driven decision.
It would be great if this virus kills fewer people than the 1918 virus that had similar dynamics and killed about 1% of the world's population then. That would correspond to about 70+ million today? We have better treatment for the critically ill now but we also have much more opportunities to spread the virus quickly to new areas, e.g airplanes.
edit: oh, the "at risk" part - in this epidemic it is not the at risk people that are infecting each other - it is mostly (and some data points to vastly) the asymptotic people keeping the infection spreading. Without something to actually make the susceptible population (meaning people able to still be infected) protected (by partitioning or getting a vaccine, for example) - the virus will eventually infect 30-50% of the population, over a couple years. Data is hard to come by outside of South Korea which jumped on broad testing (still can't get tested in my county in Kansas unless you are hospitalized already.) Calculations vary and really should not be taken as more than a stab at it - but show 4 to 10 people are infected for each confirmed. So take the positive look, only 1 in 10 get confirmed, and only 30% will ever get infected and only 3% of those confirmed die - that is still 0.09% or about 7 million people worldwide.
If we want out of extra precautions, we need to get the testing done to get the data. Identify more of the people with the virus so they can isolate and keep going on vaccines. Right now it varies widely to make a data-driven decision.
Last edited: