I agree! -- Flambers Drugstore

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sun, March 20 2005, 17:44:59
Author: Peter van der Hoog
Subject: I agree!
In reply to: Katerina 's message, "Re: Don't agree" on Sun, March 20 2005, 3:40:09

>U did not give the answer to my question. U just escaped the fields u are less familiar(family pedagogic and psychology) and spoke about the things u know better.

Yes, I choose an angle, I find more interesting.

>The remark was "Hiding unfitness is often observed, especially among
>social animals". My points are:
>1)A person with a strong will won't hide unfitness, he will make others to think that he does fit.
>2) In individualistic society ppl don't have to hide unfitness, they can perfectly stay alone.

Good points but I do not see a conflict with my remarks.

>True, especially if u forget what are ur previous messages about. U made a wrong generalisation "sex on public is considered as "bad taste", I gave u examples when it was not. The point is that everything is relative.

Yes, everything is relative but I like to observe human behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. You don�t, which is your good right.

> To have attractive traits is not enough for being considered as attractive. Style, clothes, hairdress, make up, expression, smile, bearing also play very important role.

Yes, indeed.

>U wanted to say u did not have time to unblock me? I see.

No, I certainly did not want to say that. I haven�t turned MSN on for more then a week. This weekend I did a lot of nice things, went out with friends, played tennis, walked 20 km, worked in the garden, etc. It�s spring and I already have to sit behind the PC, eight hours a day. In my free time I like do other things.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: I agree! -- Katerina, Mon, March 21 2005, 10:11:27
- Re: I agree! -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 21 2005, 14:44:09
  - I can't just take it on faith -- Katerina, Tue, March 22 2005, 3:28:15
    - Re: I can't just take it on faith -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 22 2005, 6:56:08
      - Did I say that? -- Katerina, Tue, March 22 2005, 7:21:27
        Re: Did I say that? -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 22 2005, 12:05:03
        Re: Did I say that? -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 22 2005, 12:09:40
        Re: Did I say that? -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 22 2005, 13:07:03
        Not an integral -- Katerina, Wed, March 23 2005, 2:27:30
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Wed, March 23 2005, 7:04:14
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Wed, March 23 2005, 8:14:11
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Wed, March 23 2005, 13:34:53
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Wed, March 23 2005, 14:49:25
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 27 2005, 11:46:07
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Sun, March 27 2005, 13:11:03
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 27 2005, 18:31:29
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Mon, March 28 2005, 1:39:29
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 28 2005, 4:38:07
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Mon, March 28 2005, 7:52:15
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 28 2005, 8:36:21
        Re: Not an integral -- Katerina, Mon, March 28 2005, 8:58:48
        Re: Not an integral -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 28 2005, 13:24:32
        So I supposed just to take ur thesis as an axiom? -- Katerina, Tue, March 29 2005, 2:42:25
        Re: So I supposed just to take ur thesis as an axiom? -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 29 2005, 12:08:18
        Re: So I supposed just to take ur thesis as an axiom? -- Katerina, Wed, March 30 2005, 3:55:23
        One more off -- Katerina, Wed, March 23 2005, 10:05:48
        Re: One more off -- Peter van der Hoog, Wed, March 23 2005, 13:32:15
        Re: One more off -- Katerina, Wed, March 23 2005, 14:01:27
        You don't have to place yer results here -- Todd, Fri, March 25 2005, 9:25:06
        Re: You don't have to place yer results here -- Peter van der Hoog, Sat, March 26 2005, 6:17:40
        Were u a satanist according to the results indeed? -- Katerina, Sat, March 26 2005, 6:23:42
        Re: Were u a satanist according to the results indeed? -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 27 2005, 6:55:34
        It is just a mirror -- Katerina, Sun, March 27 2005, 7:46:36
        Re: It is just a mirror -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 27 2005, 11:12:34
        Re: It is just a mirror -- Katerina, Sun, March 27 2005, 11:35:52
        Re: It is just a mirror -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 27 2005, 17:59:05
        Re: It is just a mirror -- Katerina, Mon, March 28 2005, 0:46:17
        Re: It is just a mirror -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 28 2005, 11:59:46
        The link to the thread ur started on the forum there. (NT) -- Katerina, Tue, March 29 2005, 3:16:40
        Re: The link to the thread ur started on the forum there. -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, March 29 2005, 11:30:43
        Re: The link to the thread ur started on the forum there. -- Katerina, Wed, March 30 2005, 2:57:29
        Yes, very stupid -- Todd, Mon, March 28 2005, 22:52:42