(June 10, 2015 at 8:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Randy: Yes, I have you on ignore and just take the occasional peek. Fair enough, I shall stop discussing you and your posts. I apologize if I have been rude or caused upset, that wasn't my intention. I found some of them to be interesting talking points but on reflection I shouldn't have been discussing them while having you on ignore. Sorry about that.
Hey I had a psychotomy! I mean an epiphany. I've always thought of sexuality as being a "sliding scale", but I realized today that's too simplistic. That would make it seem like someone right in the middle is less attracted to men and to women than the corresponding straight ends. So I was thinking it should be two sliding scales, going from 0 to 100, one for attraction to men and one for women. And the two are independent, they don't have to add up to 100 or anything. So for example maybe I'm 95 women, 8 men, say. Is that a decent kind of model? Someone who's bisexual might be 90 women 85 men, or 70 women, 98 men, or whatever else. Would any of our bisexuals be willing to comment on whether that makes sense or if I'm talking balls?
Rob-
Quick comment...and I'm late to work!
I spent a couple of hours reading all of the threads in which Tim O'Neill has posted. Every post.
I have to say, he covered a lot of ground and answered a lot of questions that pop up here over and over and over...some were yours, of course.
If you have not reviewed that recently, it might be interesting for you to go back and re-read all of that again.
He's an atheist. No question about that. But he argues for the historical Jesus brilliantly.
