Christopher Landry's Comments
While you make a good point, I brought up my question specifically because there is no 50/50 sharing of responsibility in the spreadsheet. He designed it to be a "it's all her fault" evidence roll. That's where I take issue. If it had been written by a woman complaining about her man(or even a gay couple), I would feel the same way. If one cannot even address the possibility that they may share blame in a relationship dilemma, they aren't being honest with themselves.
Rarely is a relationship issue one-sided, as we see in this spreadsheet.
Rarely is a relationship issue one-sided, as we see in this spreadsheet.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
He's probably just that insensitive about other people's perspective. Makes me wonder how their relationship made it to this point without her realizing this sooner.
So many unanswered questions.
So many unanswered questions.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
So... every choice is a bad choice?
Why only one animated Batman? Where's Batman from "Batman: The Animated Series" That one was probably better than any of the ones on this list. Even the one from the animated Justice League series (any of the 3, including the one with the side-kicks becoming heroes in their own right) was a good Batman.
Why only one animated Batman? Where's Batman from "Batman: The Animated Series" That one was probably better than any of the ones on this list. Even the one from the animated Justice League series (any of the 3, including the one with the side-kicks becoming heroes in their own right) was a good Batman.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
From an adult's perspective, given the expense of getting a seat at a table there and how far ahead you have to reserve it (about a year, last I checked), I would react the same way to what she describes. No apology for irresponsible parents here, if your kids can't behave for a few minutes at a fancy dinner setting, you and your kids are ruining the experience for everyone else at the restaurant.
There are plenty of places at WDW for kids to be running all around bopping one another with plastic wands. Teaching your kids to know when to sit still and when to run around is part of the job description when you become a parent.
There are plenty of places at WDW for kids to be running all around bopping one another with plastic wands. Teaching your kids to know when to sit still and when to run around is part of the job description when you become a parent.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
My first question upon reading the spreadsheet was "What did he say or do, exactly, to initiate sex?" I suspect that around 50% of the issue is her drawing away, and another 50% or so is how he chooses to get her in the mood.
Speaking from my own marriage, I can usually tell if my wife might be receptive before I initiate anything, and I know how to initiate in a way that will make her more receptive. With this guy, we have no idea, since he only records her responses and nothing of how he chose the time and his actions in the initiation.
It makes me think this guy is probably going about it all wrong and is either hiding it or unaware of it.
Speaking from my own marriage, I can usually tell if my wife might be receptive before I initiate anything, and I know how to initiate in a way that will make her more receptive. With this guy, we have no idea, since he only records her responses and nothing of how he chose the time and his actions in the initiation.
It makes me think this guy is probably going about it all wrong and is either hiding it or unaware of it.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
John Farrier is coming...
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
You heard it here first. John Farrier is officially declaring war on Neatorama for the ownership of his cubicle. Wonder how long he holds out before he surrenders.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I wonder why he left off the solid cores for all of the gas giants. I'm sure he must be aware that those planets aren't just big balls of gas floating in space.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I would like to know how many followed all of his instructions, too. As in, stopped doing everything else and only payed attention to the video. I'll admit, it wasn't until he specifically mentioned not letting it run in the background while you do other stuff that I actually stopped doing other stuff to put my full attention to the video. That's about 15 seconds in before I really started watching the video.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
That E Coli experiment sounds promising, thanks for pointing it out. I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
If I was a professional reviewer and being paid to review such things, I would be tempted to go through the papers myself. If they could prove there weren't any silent crickets at all before the parasite arrived, this would be the first event I've heard about that could truly be called evolution through adaptation (information added to change a species in a novel way) and not specialization through adaptation (information removed to make a species more specialized). As I said, I'm not a creationist, but I find it interesting that the only cases of evolution we can find are of extinct species, even in insects with rapid breeding cycles. Specialization is really easy to find, in contrast.
It's kind of like trying to figure out how life started in the first place. We have some rough ideas of how it could possibly happen, but we can't seem to devise a test that works without us priming the solution with RNA or at least some RNA-related long-chain proteins.
But science is interesting in part because of the things we have yet to find that we are pretty darn certain are still out there. Lack of proof for a theory isn't the same as proof that a theory is false. Though, we've seen our fair share of theories that we were certain of proven false when new evidence or ideas came around.
Proving it, in this case, wouldn't be too difficult, considering they have at least one nearby neighbor species on other islands, and we're talking about an insect rather than a mammal or reptile. They could easily generate millions of the things over many generations (5-10 years, like they suspect was necessary in the real world scenario) and test them to see if any silent crickets naturally occur without the parasite's presence. Then do the same number of generations with the presence of the parasite, and see if silent crickets happen, or something else, like total eradication, or a specialized song that the parasite doesn't like. If they have enough generations and enough total population, it would be enough to say they've scientifically tested the case thoroughly.
The hard part would be figuring out a way to test for silent crickets. As long as that test is trustworthy, it could work. Unfortunately, if the grant is worded in such a way that the researchers only get paid if they don't find silent crickets in the control group, I'd be a little worried the scientists involved would just devise a shoddy test and jump to "Whelp, we didn't find any silent crickets..."
It's kind of like trying to figure out how life started in the first place. We have some rough ideas of how it could possibly happen, but we can't seem to devise a test that works without us priming the solution with RNA or at least some RNA-related long-chain proteins.
But science is interesting in part because of the things we have yet to find that we are pretty darn certain are still out there. Lack of proof for a theory isn't the same as proof that a theory is false. Though, we've seen our fair share of theories that we were certain of proven false when new evidence or ideas came around.
Proving it, in this case, wouldn't be too difficult, considering they have at least one nearby neighbor species on other islands, and we're talking about an insect rather than a mammal or reptile. They could easily generate millions of the things over many generations (5-10 years, like they suspect was necessary in the real world scenario) and test them to see if any silent crickets naturally occur without the parasite's presence. Then do the same number of generations with the presence of the parasite, and see if silent crickets happen, or something else, like total eradication, or a specialized song that the parasite doesn't like. If they have enough generations and enough total population, it would be enough to say they've scientifically tested the case thoroughly.
The hard part would be figuring out a way to test for silent crickets. As long as that test is trustworthy, it could work. Unfortunately, if the grant is worded in such a way that the researchers only get paid if they don't find silent crickets in the control group, I'd be a little worried the scientists involved would just devise a shoddy test and jump to "Whelp, we didn't find any silent crickets..."
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Now that is interesting. It seems to imply there weren't any silent crickets at all before the parasite started killing them off. If that is the case, it may indeed be real evolution and not mere adaptation.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I don't know about that, I'm not a creationist, and even I find this a bit dubious. Culling the species of a particular type and leaving another type behind isn't evolution, it's adaptation. Adaptation is only 1/2 of the evolution formula, the other half is creating something new, which hasn't happened here.
For a human example, if a particular country decided to "remove" everyone within their country that didn't fit a narrowly defined set of attributes, would we say that country has "evolved" as humans, or that they are now less than what they were before since they are now missing the variety that was there previously?
That's all I see going on here. The species of crickets originally included a variety, some that made noise, some that were silent. Now the noisy ones have all been killed, and all that's left are the silent ones that were there all along. Nothing's new has happened, only that one type has been removed from the area. If the killing were stopped somehow, would the noisy ones make a comeback? Perhaps, if that information hasn't been completely removed from their DNA.
And that's where the evolution equation isn't complete here. It's not enough to just remove information from the system: new information has to be entered in somehow (mutation, virus, etc.). That hasn't happened here.
For a human example, if a particular country decided to "remove" everyone within their country that didn't fit a narrowly defined set of attributes, would we say that country has "evolved" as humans, or that they are now less than what they were before since they are now missing the variety that was there previously?
That's all I see going on here. The species of crickets originally included a variety, some that made noise, some that were silent. Now the noisy ones have all been killed, and all that's left are the silent ones that were there all along. Nothing's new has happened, only that one type has been removed from the area. If the killing were stopped somehow, would the noisy ones make a comeback? Perhaps, if that information hasn't been completely removed from their DNA.
And that's where the evolution equation isn't complete here. It's not enough to just remove information from the system: new information has to be entered in somehow (mutation, virus, etc.). That hasn't happened here.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
That's how my schools handled it when I went to high school many years ago. If you broke the dress code on picture day, you didn't get a picture taken. There are many blank spots with names underneath in my yearbooks because of this. Granted, some of those blank spots were just absent that day, but a good portion are people who wore T-shirts with objectionable material on them and the like.
Photoshopping seems like a heck of a lot of extra work for no reason. And produced spectacularly bad publicity on top of it.
Photoshopping seems like a heck of a lot of extra work for no reason. And produced spectacularly bad publicity on top of it.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Southsidecharlie brought up a good point about this. We can infer from some of her answers that he is picking times where she would naturally have a good reason to not be in the mood, such as right after dinner or right after hitting the gym. But we can't know for sure unless he is willing to commit to some introspection and be open about it.
I don't understand why it seems like you can only accept an explanation of the dilemma if the responsibility is all on one person or the other. It's a relationship, most of the time the issue is being produced from things done wrong on both sides.