Goddamn.
Whatever else, I'll always know that I can fucking TEACH. What a rush leaving a classroom when I know I've nailed it. . .
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Monday, August 22, 2005
Mild
I find myself mildly depressed, and I have some doubt as to whether the intake of massive depressants will solve the problem.
It is a nice evening. It has rained, and an army of crickets chirps away. The temperature tonight will almost approach that of a civilized city, and tomorrow will be the coolest day since I arrived.
Nevertheless, I seem to lack purpose. I look forward to the event that will shake me out of the funk (and by this I mean more than the mild depression), but the event never seems to come, or, to be more clear, the event comes again and again, but the funk never ends. So, I look forward to the next event.
This is not as bad as it sounds, for the waiting is pleasant, and I am happy to do more of it. Sometimes, though, I wonder about the future.
It is a nice evening. It has rained, and an army of crickets chirps away. The temperature tonight will almost approach that of a civilized city, and tomorrow will be the coolest day since I arrived.
Nevertheless, I seem to lack purpose. I look forward to the event that will shake me out of the funk (and by this I mean more than the mild depression), but the event never seems to come, or, to be more clear, the event comes again and again, but the funk never ends. So, I look forward to the next event.
This is not as bad as it sounds, for the waiting is pleasant, and I am happy to do more of it. Sometimes, though, I wonder about the future.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Alcoholism
I've noticed that I'm drinking more. I had planned to become a raging alcoholic around age 37, dying with an estranged wife and kids who hate me by age 44. My career hasn't quite progressed as far as I'd like, so I'm having to delay those goals a bit. Unfortunately, I seem to be drinking a lot in my new locale (the wages of loneliness?). In order to stay on the path, I'll need to take care. . .
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Players
Difficult to find players in new locale. Even the comic book guy at the local hobby store seems wary of nerds.
Troubling.
Troubling.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
What's Wrong with Revenge of the Sith
I must humbly disagree with Matt regarding the merits of Revenge of the Sith.
The best light saber duel in the Star Wars series comes in the worst film, The Phantom Menace. The battle between Obi Wan, Darth Maul, And Quai Gon remains unmatched. I was not impressed by the light saber combat in Revenge of the Sith. Lucas violated the central precept of on screen fencing; it's not real fencing. Fenching is not a terribly entertaining sport to watch, because it takes place at a speed no reasonable person can follow. I found that all of the light saber duels in Revenge of the Sith were too fast, and too hard to follow. This was a problem in itself, but created a second problem. Because the duels ended so quickly, none carried the psychological impact of Vader's battle with Luke in Empire, or Darth Maul defeat at the hands of Obi Wan in Phantom Menace. When Count Dooku died, I should have been emotionally invested, but I was not. I really ought to have been invested in the final duel, but again I felt unmoved (although it was kind of cool that Obi Wan defeats Anakin when the latter attempts the same move that Obi Wan pulled on Darth Maul in the first film).
This was not my only problem with the film.
While Hayden Christiansen displayed genuine menace as Darth Vader in the second half of the film, his performance was bookended by weak points. As others have noted, Anakin's conversion to the dark side took place with far too little preparation. This is perhaps not wholly correct; there is some preparation, but Lucas sabotages the narrative by having Anakin betray Darth Sidious to Mace Windu and the rest of the Jedi Council. I'm all for the occasional treacherous lieutenant, but this behavior made Anakin seem skittish, indecisive, and even a bit flaky. Sith are not indecisive, and the narrative would have been better served by a more linear move to the dark side.
The reconstruction of Darth Vader was visually interesting, but the conversation between Vader and Sidious undercuts its power. I demand a modicum of dignity from my newly minted evil servants, but Darth Sidious apparently requires none from his. Far better than the "Noooooo" nonsense regarding the death of his Senatorial tart would have been a reaction similar to the one Vader has at the end of Empire. Instead of raging and destroying Piett, Vader simply walks away following Luke's escape.
That's grace. That's dignity. That's the dark side of the force.
Since we're on the subject, let's discuss Vader's tart. While Matt correctly notes the problems created by the lack of a Han Solo figure, he doesn't mention the almost complete absence of a strong female lead. Leia was a princess, and she knew how to boss people around. Upon being rescued from the clutches of Grand Moff Tarkin (whose appearance in Revenge of the Sith is all too brief) she insults her benefactors and takes commmand. That's a woman. Padme, in comparison, is a doorstop. Indeed, such attachments on the part of one of my prime servants would arouse deep suspicion as to his discernment. Dies of grief? Not worthy of Vader's attention.
Speaking of Grand Moff Tarkin, it takes them 19 years to build the first Death Star, and only four to build the second? I would have the contractors associated with the first executed. . .
I was similarly troubled by the political situation described by the film. I cannot understand why the Senate so readily believed that the Jedi had moved against Palpatine and the Republic, nor can I grasp why it granted supreme lifetime executive power to Palpatine with so little fuss. From the first two films, we are to believe that the Senate was corrupt, obstructionist, and mind-bendingly slow in the face of a crisis. I can believe that Palpatine controlled some, and bought off others, but I cannot understand how he came to win virtually unanimous acclaim. Palpatine seemed not to have this level of control over the Senate 19 years later, when it apparently played some obstructionist role.
Then again, Jar Jar Binks didn't get any lines. That's something.
Now, the good. First and most importantly: Lightsabers. They kick ass. The lightsaber combat in this film is by far the best in any of the films.
The best light saber duel in the Star Wars series comes in the worst film, The Phantom Menace. The battle between Obi Wan, Darth Maul, And Quai Gon remains unmatched. I was not impressed by the light saber combat in Revenge of the Sith. Lucas violated the central precept of on screen fencing; it's not real fencing. Fenching is not a terribly entertaining sport to watch, because it takes place at a speed no reasonable person can follow. I found that all of the light saber duels in Revenge of the Sith were too fast, and too hard to follow. This was a problem in itself, but created a second problem. Because the duels ended so quickly, none carried the psychological impact of Vader's battle with Luke in Empire, or Darth Maul defeat at the hands of Obi Wan in Phantom Menace. When Count Dooku died, I should have been emotionally invested, but I was not. I really ought to have been invested in the final duel, but again I felt unmoved (although it was kind of cool that Obi Wan defeats Anakin when the latter attempts the same move that Obi Wan pulled on Darth Maul in the first film).
This was not my only problem with the film.
While Hayden Christiansen displayed genuine menace as Darth Vader in the second half of the film, his performance was bookended by weak points. As others have noted, Anakin's conversion to the dark side took place with far too little preparation. This is perhaps not wholly correct; there is some preparation, but Lucas sabotages the narrative by having Anakin betray Darth Sidious to Mace Windu and the rest of the Jedi Council. I'm all for the occasional treacherous lieutenant, but this behavior made Anakin seem skittish, indecisive, and even a bit flaky. Sith are not indecisive, and the narrative would have been better served by a more linear move to the dark side.
The reconstruction of Darth Vader was visually interesting, but the conversation between Vader and Sidious undercuts its power. I demand a modicum of dignity from my newly minted evil servants, but Darth Sidious apparently requires none from his. Far better than the "Noooooo" nonsense regarding the death of his Senatorial tart would have been a reaction similar to the one Vader has at the end of Empire. Instead of raging and destroying Piett, Vader simply walks away following Luke's escape.
That's grace. That's dignity. That's the dark side of the force.
Since we're on the subject, let's discuss Vader's tart. While Matt correctly notes the problems created by the lack of a Han Solo figure, he doesn't mention the almost complete absence of a strong female lead. Leia was a princess, and she knew how to boss people around. Upon being rescued from the clutches of Grand Moff Tarkin (whose appearance in Revenge of the Sith is all too brief) she insults her benefactors and takes commmand. That's a woman. Padme, in comparison, is a doorstop. Indeed, such attachments on the part of one of my prime servants would arouse deep suspicion as to his discernment. Dies of grief? Not worthy of Vader's attention.
Speaking of Grand Moff Tarkin, it takes them 19 years to build the first Death Star, and only four to build the second? I would have the contractors associated with the first executed. . .
I was similarly troubled by the political situation described by the film. I cannot understand why the Senate so readily believed that the Jedi had moved against Palpatine and the Republic, nor can I grasp why it granted supreme lifetime executive power to Palpatine with so little fuss. From the first two films, we are to believe that the Senate was corrupt, obstructionist, and mind-bendingly slow in the face of a crisis. I can believe that Palpatine controlled some, and bought off others, but I cannot understand how he came to win virtually unanimous acclaim. Palpatine seemed not to have this level of control over the Senate 19 years later, when it apparently played some obstructionist role.
Then again, Jar Jar Binks didn't get any lines. That's something.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Saruman
Lance is a bit off. I'm there on his critique of Lucas, but quibble with his Lord of the Rings interpretation.
Saruman did delve long into the history and making of the Ring, and long searched the Anduin for it. He dispatched his Uruk-Hai near and far to track it down. It was important to him, but not critical to his betrayal of the Lords of the West. Had Saruman found the Ring, he likely would have dispensed with Sauron and ruled Middle-Earth himself. Believing the Ring lost, but still recognizing the power of Sauron, he completed his betrayal. I rather think that Saruman has kinship with Denethor, but lacks the basic decency that Denethor has, and thus falls completely under Sauron's spell. Recognition of the power of Sauron arouses envy in Saruman and despair in Denethor.
Jackson's treatment of Denethor and his sons is the weakest element of his adaptation. In the extended version, Faramir comes off somewhat better, but Denethor remains little more than a pathetic villain. Jackson's treatment of Denethor is tied to his rich treatment of Theoden, who emerges as the most interesting character in the last two segments. Denethor and Theoden both lose a favored son, and both experience despair in the face of overwhelming power. Both make suicidal decisions at the end, although Theoden's is more productive. Jackson may have felt that humanizing Denethor would have simply resulted in Theoden redux, but I believe he could have drawn some powerful contrasts.
At the very least, he could have shown Denethor under the power of the Palantir, thus giving some cause for his deep despair.
In Lord of the Rings there are plenty of other ways for characters to lose their ways and their souls than putting on the ring. Putting on the ring doesn't do the same thing to every character who wears it either. Hobbits, for instance, get cranky and pathologically anti-social. But Saruman doesn't care a fig about the Ring. He doesn't need it. He's already got the power he needs; what he wants, apparently, is worshippers. He talks of sharing power with Sauron, but he probably thinks he can get rid of Sauron when the time comes. Saruman wants to be a god on earth and he sets out to remake the world by destroying it. How neo-con of him.
Saruman did delve long into the history and making of the Ring, and long searched the Anduin for it. He dispatched his Uruk-Hai near and far to track it down. It was important to him, but not critical to his betrayal of the Lords of the West. Had Saruman found the Ring, he likely would have dispensed with Sauron and ruled Middle-Earth himself. Believing the Ring lost, but still recognizing the power of Sauron, he completed his betrayal. I rather think that Saruman has kinship with Denethor, but lacks the basic decency that Denethor has, and thus falls completely under Sauron's spell. Recognition of the power of Sauron arouses envy in Saruman and despair in Denethor.
Jackson's treatment of Denethor and his sons is the weakest element of his adaptation. In the extended version, Faramir comes off somewhat better, but Denethor remains little more than a pathetic villain. Jackson's treatment of Denethor is tied to his rich treatment of Theoden, who emerges as the most interesting character in the last two segments. Denethor and Theoden both lose a favored son, and both experience despair in the face of overwhelming power. Both make suicidal decisions at the end, although Theoden's is more productive. Jackson may have felt that humanizing Denethor would have simply resulted in Theoden redux, but I believe he could have drawn some powerful contrasts.
At the very least, he could have shown Denethor under the power of the Palantir, thus giving some cause for his deep despair.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Mickey Kaus Ought to be Beaten to Death
Do you think we could convince Kim Du Toit to give his award back?
Norma Desmond says, "I am big. It's the pictures that got smaller." OK. But if the pictures got smaller doesn't Desmond, you know, look even bigger on the smaller screen? She should be saying. "I am big. But the pictures got bigger still!" I'm all confused! ... 2:05 A.M.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Movie Meme
From Kat.
DVD Movies Owned? 81
Last Movie I Bought? Wonder Boys
Last Movie I Watched? Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
Five Flicks That I Watch that Mean a Lot to Me: Badlands, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Lost in Translation, Sonatine, The Thin Red Line
On to Dave Noon and What is the War?
DVD Movies Owned? 81
Last Movie I Bought? Wonder Boys
Last Movie I Watched? Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
Five Flicks That I Watch that Mean a Lot to Me: Badlands, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Lost in Translation, Sonatine, The Thin Red Line
On to Dave Noon and What is the War?
Friday, May 13, 2005
To be Judged
I have been judged in my time.
Oh, how I have been judged.
However, no judgment made upon me has ever found that I should be subject to bad daytime televison.
Without regular employment, I find myself watching TNT's daytime schedule while I hatch my evil plans. I rarely rise from the crypt before 9, meaning that I miss the early morning episode of Angel. I cannot abide Charmed, although I do find that the Alyssa Milano and the Rose McGowan. . . move my undead bones. I am fond of ER and I can tolerate NYPD Blue. I cannot, however, bring myself to watch Judging Amy.
Why must the powers-that-be ruin a fine and appropriate slate of programming with two hours of tripe? I do not know. I am forced to rouse myself and change the channel, as I cannot abide even the sight of this show. I most often turn to Spike, where I watch Deep Space Nine.
Oh, how I have been judged.
However, no judgment made upon me has ever found that I should be subject to bad daytime televison.
Without regular employment, I find myself watching TNT's daytime schedule while I hatch my evil plans. I rarely rise from the crypt before 9, meaning that I miss the early morning episode of Angel. I cannot abide Charmed, although I do find that the Alyssa Milano and the Rose McGowan. . . move my undead bones. I am fond of ER and I can tolerate NYPD Blue. I cannot, however, bring myself to watch Judging Amy.
Why must the powers-that-be ruin a fine and appropriate slate of programming with two hours of tripe? I do not know. I am forced to rouse myself and change the channel, as I cannot abide even the sight of this show. I most often turn to Spike, where I watch Deep Space Nine.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
British Imperialism: An Interview
Yesterday I sat down with British Imperialism, whose recent rehabilitation on the Right has sent waves of irritation through the Left. I was curious how British Imperialism felt about this newfound-celebrity, following as it has upon fifty years of bitter resentment.
RV: Mr. Imperialism, thank you for sitting down and having a chat with me. I understand that your time is precious.
BI: Oh, not at all, Raoul. To be frank, not much to do these days. Falkland Islands, I suppose, and that Northern Ireland thing. Some excitement back in 1997 with Hong Kong, majesty of Empire and all that.
RV: How do you manage to keep yourself busy?
BI: Well, always plenty to do, lots of friends. Just yesterday played some bridge with German Militarism, French Prestige, and Stalinist Tyranny.
RV: That's good to know. So, I'm curious as to what you think of your recent rehabilitation on the American Right. On Saturday, May 7, John Hinderaker stated that "It's great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism." As I'm sure you know, the work of Niall Ferguson has been received well by the American Right, and Dinesh D'Souza has consistently held to a pro-colonial line.
BI: Well, I'm rather of two minds, you see. It is good, no doubt, that someone will stand up for old British Imperialism; my countrymen certainly won't, lousy buggers. I've had a hard time over the last fifty years, have been consigned to the same dreary dustbin as French Militarism and International Socialism. Dreadful pair, those two. What with even Stalinist Tyranny being revived by Mr. Putin, it was rather nice to hear that someone was thinking about me.
RV: I imagine so.
BI: Yes, yes, quite. Good to see, also, that someone was trying to come up with something positive to say. It's been quite a bore hearing about all the brutality, racism, and class domination, you know.
RV: But you're also skeptical?
BI: Why, yes, just getting to that. I find it rather odd that you Yanks are speaking so well of me. Why, I had always thought that the American experience was rather a poke in the eye, 1776 and all that. You Yanks have always been a bit wobbly about the imperialism thing, Kipling and Roosevelt notwithstanding. If you had stepped forward back in 1945, I might still be in full bloom, sun never sets and all that.
RV: Some American conservatives have tried to answer this concern by talking a lot about the unity of Anglo-Saxon civilization.
BI: Yes, and that's another thing, these people calling themselves conservatives. They're revolutionaries! Just the other day, I saw some of them drag the New Deal back behind the barn. Heaven knows what they did to him. Conservatives want to conserve things; these people just want change, change, change. It's rather disconcerting. Never felt too comfortable with conservatives myself, didn't get along with Edmund Burke, for instance. John Stuart Mill, more our pace.
RV: They have been rather outspoken in favor of freedom and democracy.
BI: And all that's rather a contradiction, now isn't it? Back in my glory days, we would sometimes SAY that all of this was for the good of the subjects, but I don't believe anyone ever really believed it. More about saving a particular way of life, I think, one where free labor and free land came in handy. Also the wealth, always the wealth. God and King, to be sure, but land and diamonds never hurt, either.
RV: Nevertheless, you must be happy that they've stepped forward in your defence.
BI: I suppose, but they are rather whiners, aren't they? This Hinderaker chap, he seems to think that standing up for me is some great achievement, as if I couldn't defend myself from a few comparative literature professors! Presumptuous, really. They might have asked me first before taking up a collection in my defence. And they whine and they whine and they whine. They control the whole of the government on your side of the pond, the media and the military as well, and still they whine. This is why you Americans will never amount to anything.
RV: Could you clarify that last statement?
BI: Certainly. The lot of you lack the balls for imperialism, to be blunt. This Hinderaker character, and that other annoying one, Goldberg, they put on a good show, but that's really it, isn't it? Just a show. They haven't got a real administrator among them, much less a commander who could crush a rebellion. Not cut out for it, I'm afraid.
RV: Well, let me thank you very much for these enlightening remarks.
BI: Not at all Raoul, not at all. Be pleased to speak with you again some time.
RV: Certainly.
RV: Mr. Imperialism, thank you for sitting down and having a chat with me. I understand that your time is precious.
BI: Oh, not at all, Raoul. To be frank, not much to do these days. Falkland Islands, I suppose, and that Northern Ireland thing. Some excitement back in 1997 with Hong Kong, majesty of Empire and all that.
RV: How do you manage to keep yourself busy?
BI: Well, always plenty to do, lots of friends. Just yesterday played some bridge with German Militarism, French Prestige, and Stalinist Tyranny.
RV: That's good to know. So, I'm curious as to what you think of your recent rehabilitation on the American Right. On Saturday, May 7, John Hinderaker stated that "It's great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism." As I'm sure you know, the work of Niall Ferguson has been received well by the American Right, and Dinesh D'Souza has consistently held to a pro-colonial line.
BI: Well, I'm rather of two minds, you see. It is good, no doubt, that someone will stand up for old British Imperialism; my countrymen certainly won't, lousy buggers. I've had a hard time over the last fifty years, have been consigned to the same dreary dustbin as French Militarism and International Socialism. Dreadful pair, those two. What with even Stalinist Tyranny being revived by Mr. Putin, it was rather nice to hear that someone was thinking about me.
RV: I imagine so.
BI: Yes, yes, quite. Good to see, also, that someone was trying to come up with something positive to say. It's been quite a bore hearing about all the brutality, racism, and class domination, you know.
RV: But you're also skeptical?
BI: Why, yes, just getting to that. I find it rather odd that you Yanks are speaking so well of me. Why, I had always thought that the American experience was rather a poke in the eye, 1776 and all that. You Yanks have always been a bit wobbly about the imperialism thing, Kipling and Roosevelt notwithstanding. If you had stepped forward back in 1945, I might still be in full bloom, sun never sets and all that.
RV: Some American conservatives have tried to answer this concern by talking a lot about the unity of Anglo-Saxon civilization.
BI: Yes, and that's another thing, these people calling themselves conservatives. They're revolutionaries! Just the other day, I saw some of them drag the New Deal back behind the barn. Heaven knows what they did to him. Conservatives want to conserve things; these people just want change, change, change. It's rather disconcerting. Never felt too comfortable with conservatives myself, didn't get along with Edmund Burke, for instance. John Stuart Mill, more our pace.
RV: They have been rather outspoken in favor of freedom and democracy.
BI: And all that's rather a contradiction, now isn't it? Back in my glory days, we would sometimes SAY that all of this was for the good of the subjects, but I don't believe anyone ever really believed it. More about saving a particular way of life, I think, one where free labor and free land came in handy. Also the wealth, always the wealth. God and King, to be sure, but land and diamonds never hurt, either.
RV: Nevertheless, you must be happy that they've stepped forward in your defence.
BI: I suppose, but they are rather whiners, aren't they? This Hinderaker chap, he seems to think that standing up for me is some great achievement, as if I couldn't defend myself from a few comparative literature professors! Presumptuous, really. They might have asked me first before taking up a collection in my defence. And they whine and they whine and they whine. They control the whole of the government on your side of the pond, the media and the military as well, and still they whine. This is why you Americans will never amount to anything.
RV: Could you clarify that last statement?
BI: Certainly. The lot of you lack the balls for imperialism, to be blunt. This Hinderaker character, and that other annoying one, Goldberg, they put on a good show, but that's really it, isn't it? Just a show. They haven't got a real administrator among them, much less a commander who could crush a rebellion. Not cut out for it, I'm afraid.
RV: Well, let me thank you very much for these enlightening remarks.
BI: Not at all Raoul, not at all. Be pleased to speak with you again some time.
RV: Certainly.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Who am I?
I am a composite of other, more successful Masters of Evil, including the Dark Lord Sauron, Magneto, Saruman the White, Lord Voldemort, Pat Robertson, Morgoth, Gargamel, Jonah Goldberg, the Arch-Lich Vecna, Lord Foul, Dick Cheney, Lex Luthor, Braniac, Thulsa Doom, Glenn Reynolds, the Emperor Caligula, Josef Stalin, the Lord Humungous, the White Witch, the Emperor Palpatine, Shub-Niggurath, black goat with a thousand young, and Thomas Friedman.
My turn-ons include death, destruction, Pink Floyd, and arcane policy debates. My turn-offs include hippies, frat boys, treacherous lieutenants, and seafood.
I am currently employed as the Avatar of That Which Shall Remain Nameless, Holder of All Secrets. Until recently, I have been on vacation in Eugene, Oregon.
My turn-ons include death, destruction, Pink Floyd, and arcane policy debates. My turn-offs include hippies, frat boys, treacherous lieutenants, and seafood.
I am currently employed as the Avatar of That Which Shall Remain Nameless, Holder of All Secrets. Until recently, I have been on vacation in Eugene, Oregon.
Friday, May 06, 2005
How Republican?
23% Republican. | "You're probably one of those people who still thinks that getting a blowjob is not an impeachable offense." |
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Wise Decisions?
Things are going well. As well as can be expected, anyway.
I always surprise myself when I make good decisions. I think I have grown accustomed to making bad decisions, or at least to believing that I make bad decisions. Good decisions are, thus, surprising to me.
I always surprise myself when I make good decisions. I think I have grown accustomed to making bad decisions, or at least to believing that I make bad decisions. Good decisions are, thus, surprising to me.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Hell
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Third Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Low |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Very High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | High |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | High |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very High |
| Level 7 (Violent) | High |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Very High |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | High |
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
Profile
Your dating personality profile:
Liberal - Politics matters to you, and you aren't afraid to share your left-leaning views. You would never be caught voting for a conservative candidate.
Sensual - You are not particularly shy when it comes to your sexuality. You know what you like and do not feel inhibited.
Intellectual - You consider your mind amongst your assets. Learning is not a chore but a constant search after wisdom and knowledge. You value education and rationality. Your date match profile:
You match with women who have following traits:
You matched the following traits:
Adventurous - You are looking for someone who is willing to try new things and experience life to its fullest. You need a companion who encourages you to take risks and do exciting things.
Liberal - You need a person who has liberal opinions and beliefs. You are engaged by political discussions and would find a liberal viewpoint refreshing in a date.
Intellectual - You seek out intelligence. Idle chit-chat is not what you are after. You prefer your date who can stimulate your mind.
Your Top Ten Traits, Ranked
1. Liberal
2. Sensual
3. Intellectual
4. Athletic
5. Adventurous
6. Practical
7. Outgoing
8. Wealthy/Ambitious
9. Big-Hearted
10. Funny
Your Top Ten Match Traits, Ranked
1. Adventurous
2. Liberal
3. Intellectual
4. Sensual
5. Practical
6. Outgoing
7. Athletic
8. Wealthy/Ambitious
9. Funny
10. Big-Hearted
Liberal - Politics matters to you, and you aren't afraid to share your left-leaning views. You would never be caught voting for a conservative candidate.
Sensual - You are not particularly shy when it comes to your sexuality. You know what you like and do not feel inhibited.
Intellectual - You consider your mind amongst your assets. Learning is not a chore but a constant search after wisdom and knowledge. You value education and rationality. Your date match profile:
You match with women who have following traits:
You matched the following traits:
Adventurous - You are looking for someone who is willing to try new things and experience life to its fullest. You need a companion who encourages you to take risks and do exciting things.
Liberal - You need a person who has liberal opinions and beliefs. You are engaged by political discussions and would find a liberal viewpoint refreshing in a date.
Intellectual - You seek out intelligence. Idle chit-chat is not what you are after. You prefer your date who can stimulate your mind.
Your Top Ten Traits, Ranked
1. Liberal
2. Sensual
3. Intellectual
4. Athletic
5. Adventurous
6. Practical
7. Outgoing
8. Wealthy/Ambitious
9. Big-Hearted
10. Funny
Your Top Ten Match Traits, Ranked
1. Adventurous
2. Liberal
3. Intellectual
4. Sensual
5. Practical
6. Outgoing
7. Athletic
8. Wealthy/Ambitious
9. Funny
10. Big-Hearted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
