# How Many of You Placed On Blocklist For Speaking the Truth?



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

How many of you have stated your opinion, on a thread, to the best of your ability to be honest and truthful, and later discovered you have been blocked from further discussion, by the originator of the thread?

I have been placed on "Dan'um Style's" official Blocklist for replying to his Collectivist/Socialist propaganda topic about Wealth Redistribution, through Class Warfare. I noticed that there are a great deal of participation, so I chimed in with this post: http://lumberjocks.com/replies/1706754 . I was referring to Evan Sayett's ground breaking book, "The Kindergarden of Eden", because the adolescent belief in Wealth redistribution never works in the end. It punishes success, and dumbs down incentive.

And just as obvious, Socialism never works. In order for it to continue on, even after failure, it must resort to ever escalating force and then violence to remain in power. And "Dan'um Style" is showing his Collectivist "style" by shutting down dissent in true Collectivist fashion.

How many others have fallen victim to this sort of shutting down of dissent?


----------



## dhaas (Nov 13, 2014)

You should be honored to be on that list. I suspect that most woodworkers are self-actualized and agree with your opinion. I hope I can be put on the list.


----------



## MarcusM (Mar 29, 2010)

gee, John L, maybe you could have tried not being so personally insulting with your remark and just tried to add to the conversation; just saying!


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> gee, John L, maybe you could have tried not being so personally insulting with your remark and just tried to add to the conversation; just saying!
> 
> - MarcusM


That's insulting? I was just stating words of wisdom from Evan Sayat, a former Leftist weenie, who grew up after 9/11. People who believe in income redistribution and Collectivist ideology have a Kindergarden of Eden mentality they learned from early in life. Its call "Utopianism", and has no relation to the Real World of how humans act.

I wrote about it right here: http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-13014.html

I spent a good deal of time perusing the thread, and truth be told, he really does have this adolescent mentality in a Bad Way. And I wasn't besmirching his intellect. Lots of Leftists are highly intelligent. Even Einstein was convinced that Socialism was the way to go, even though its failed everywhere its applied. Its just that there is a world of difference between _Intelligence_ and _Reason_(i.e. common sense). Intelligence is innate, and wisdom is accrued over time. In other words, as one matures.

I'll confess that one of my shortcomings is lack of tact. Its the one thing I almost always got docked for on my OERs. I just tell it like it is. But I wasn't being insulting OR disrespectful.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

I read what there was of your 1st link and I have an above average grasp of the English language, and I own a dictionary. Your diatribe is antagonistic and laced with intentional sarcasm, insulting, ("Kindergarden of Eden" mentality, bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence), along with lack of spelling and grammar skills.

If you indeed have the tools for an actual debate you left them in the back pocket of your other pants.

In case you're bewildered by the 1st 3 lines of my response, it's an attempt to put the statements from your link in perspective; the last line is an insult to your nubbin broin!


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> I read what there was of your 1st link and I have an above average grasp of the English language, and I own a dictionary. Your diatribe is antagonistic and laced with intentional sarcasm, insulting, ("Kindergarden of Eden" mentality, bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence), along with lack of spelling and grammar skills.
> 
> If you indeed have the tools for an actual debate you left them in the back pocket of your other pants.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it struck a nerve? But don't worry, you will not be blocked here.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I can't believe it. Dan'um is a pretty liberal guy when it comes to speaking your mind. Must be a mistake. What do you say Dan'um?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

John, you remind me of a guy I know. He's a genuinely good person, IMO, and we've been friends for nearly 20 years. But he is constantly alienating people because he just can't seem to grasp the difference between stating an opposing viewpoint and making a personal attack. For example:

"Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried, and never will." = perfectly civil argument

"Anyone who thinks socialism can ever work is mentally deficient." = personal attack

To my friend, those two statements are interchangeable. He thinks they both say the same thing. In a way, they do. But in another way, there is a world of difference.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Consider it an honor JohnL.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> "Anyone who thinks socialism can ever work is mentally deficient." = personal attack
> - CharlieM1958


Of course, I never stated anything akin to that. I'm perfectly aware that intelligence and logic are two entirely different things. Most people can't seem to differentiate this, but its true. Intelligence is something that is innate, and added to with practice. Logic, on the other hand, is the result of maturity and application of the "School of Hard Knocks".

Its called Common Sense. Years ago I formulated an equation for this, called the Wisdom Coefficient: http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3496.html?highlight=Coefficient+of+Wisdom

Evan Sayat is Exactly Correct here in that Utopianism is the result of the mind failing to keep up with the physical maturation process. Anyone, who fails to consider the human importance of "self-interest" is living in "La-La Land". Sorry, but its entirely accurate and not meant to be degrading. Its exactly what kindergardeners, and first graders are taught by well meaning teachers. Unfortunately it is laudable, but not practical.

It is self-interest that comes first and foremost, followed by taking care of others once the self-interest is satisfied. That is why there is a Ford Foundation, Carnegie Institute, and other huge charities designed to help others. These leaders in industry took care of business first, and then willingly passed out their wealth to others. And they didn't need any Big Government to make them do it.

I was merely making him aware of the fact that his brain was woefully behind his physical self. He, and millions of others like him, seriously need to go out and purchase some more wisdom. And its really not expensive: there are many books devoted to Free Enterprise and Individual Liberty. And he can start with Frederic Bastiat.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> I can t believe it. Dan um is a pretty liberal guy when it comes to speaking your mind. Must be a mistake. What do you say Dan um?
> 
> - DKV


He's not Liberal at all. He's a Progressive. I know this because I am a certified, dyed in the wool Liberal, in the Frederic Bastiat, John Stewart Mill, Frederich von Hayek tradition. I'm a proud Liberal because I believe fervently in Individual Liberty, which means among other things, a government broken down to its Lowest Common "Functional" Denominator.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

For the record, my views on the subject of socialism are a lot closer to yours than to Dan's.

Having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you think when intelligent people disagree it's always because one is logically correct and the other logically incorrect? I don't. Personally, I think people's opinions are influenced by their own perspectives and life experiences. For that reason, two intelligent, logical people can look at the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions.

In my experience, I'm in trouble when I start viewing my conclusions as *the truth*. I'm not likely to be capable of learning much at that point. I find it much more enlightening to engage someone else in a less judgmental manner, to try to see why he came to a different conclusion than I did. It probably won't change my opinion, but I may at least walk away with a better appreciation for his.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> For the record, my views on the subject of socialism are a lot closer to yours than to Dan s.
> 
> Having said that, let me ask you a question. Do you think when intelligent people disagree it s always because one is logically correct and the other logically incorrect? I don t. Personally, I think people s opinions are influenced by their own perspectives and life experiences. For that reason, two intelligent, logical people can look at the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions.


The reason why two intelligent individuals, attempting to apply logic, may not agree is generally because of a lack of facts with one or more of the two.

I'll give you a scientific example. As a physical anthropologist, who studied early hominids, I am very familiar with the earth's climate, and how the last series of glaciations have affected early man. I'm also quite knowledgeable on how genetics and natural selection have helped early humans adapt to their environment. Consequently I know for a scientific fact that we are still in the middle of a major ice age, the Pleistocene, which has been going strong for the last 2.5 to 3 million years. I also know ,through reading the ice ring data from Lake Vostok, that the record clearly shows recurring glaciations that occur almost every 105,000 years. They closely parallel the Malankovitch Cycles. And I know, based on the scientific data, that we are due to reenter the next glaciation about right now. 
And unlike Algore, I also know that CO2 is not the principle change of temperatures, but the other way around, by a period of 600-700 years.










Now, I can argue with climate scientists, who claim that global warming is a threat and humans are the principle blame. But the science doesn't show that at all. I know from studying the solar cycles and looking at the current one, that the sun is headed into another solar minimum phase. The evidence clearly points toward a recurrent Grand Solar Minimum, such as the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century.

In other words, it is a cooling world that should have us concerned. Its overdue and could begin any time. And a sudden cooling would almost certainly cause mass starvation, killing perhaps over one billion humans. Keep in mind that a cooling world will be a drier world, which will shut down much of the ability to rely on farming.

Most scientists who trumpet the coming warming are wrong in their thesis, and I have no problem telling them that they are not only wrong, but are not privy to the scientific evidence. And if they are like Dr. Michael, Mann, they are using fraud in order to gain notoriety and money.

As for one being influenced by one's own perspectives and life experiences, let's take Dr. Michael Mann again. For him to lie about manipulated facts, and cheat on his "Hockey Stick" tells me that he was raised in a family that did not cherish certain absolutes, such as "Honesty" and "Integrity". I graduated from the Citadel, and we maintained an honor system in which one will not "Lie, Cheat, Steal, or allow others to do the same" Those are absolutes with regard to morality. They don't have to be part of the Ten Commandments, or the Hammurabi Law Code. These moral absolutes are in place because it enables humans to be successful within groups, AND successfully pass their genes on to the next generation.



> In my experience, I m in trouble when I start viewing my conclusions as *the truth*. I m not likely to be capable of learning much at that point. I find it much more enlightening to engage someone else in a less judgmental manner, to try to see why he came to a different conclusion than I did. It probably won t change my opinion, but I may at least walk away with a better appreciation for his.
> - CharlieM1958


What you are pushing here is a form of "Moral Relativism". I'm not so much a fan of the late Alexander Hamilton, but he did make one astute observation a long time ago: _"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything._ And all of this hinges on certain "Absolutes".


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

I certainly agree with you when it come to people arguing factual points without actually knowing the facts. It's rarely black and white, though. Most of the points people are divided over are a mixture of facts, emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations.

When it comes to moral relativism, I stand guilty as charged. As you stated , there are certain moral absolutes that have come to exist because they enable humans to function successfully in groups. However, the details of how those moral absolutes are interpreted and applied change from culture to culture and generation to generation. (Women's roles in society, for example.)


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

> My Lord, ain t Socialism just great! Nothing like taking from the producers and distributing it all to the non-producers. What s not to love,............unless you are a producer of course.
> 
> Dan um Style, you definitely have a "Kindergarden of Eden" mentality. And you ve got it bad. Evan Sayat was right. http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-13014.html
> 
> ...


Hey John eL
You made it to my block list very quick..
You were off topic.
I think it was your first post on *my* thread.
I do not allow personal attacks on my threads, especially if they are pointed my way. 
Have fun with lumberjocks and wish the best of luck and highest skill as a woodworker, but you will never take another sh*t on my thread again.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

Nope no nerve to hit, both political systems have positive and negative aspects. I just stated my observation as put forth by your own fingers again which were antagonistic, insulting and show a lack of communication skills, handy to possess BTW when one is attempting to influence the view of another.

MarcusM and CharlieM also made attempts to point out your lack of tact and inability to form an argument and rebuttal based on facts as opposed to personal insults to the opposition. Here's a wiki link, Your rigidity makes you the "impossible person" in step #2, as an unreasonable person CharlieM is wasting his time trying to reason with you.

http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates

Good luck in your endeavors


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> I certainly agree with you when it come to people arguing factual points without actually knowing the facts. It s rarely black and white, though. Most of the points people are divided over are a mixture of facts, emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations.
> 
> When it comes to moral relativism, I stand guilty as charged. As you stated , there are certain moral absolutes that have come to exist because they enable humans to function successfully in groups. However, the details of how those moral absolutes are interpreted and applied change from culture to culture and generation to generation. (Women s roles in society, for example.)
> 
> - CharlieM1958


Believe it or not Charlie, speaking anthropologically, and historically, it was not until the advent of agriculture that women lost their equal, or elevated, status in human social structure. With hunters and gatherers, women played a very important part in the cementing of social lineage, and status. That's why you will find numerous figurines of huge chested female sex symbols from neolithic times. It was not until the recall of males from the hunter role to the farmer role, the they replaced the famale status. That's what happens when the males are constantly around, and under foot.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> Hey John eL
> You made it to my block list very quick..
> You were off topic.
> I think it was your first post on *my* thread.
> ...


The biggest difference between you and me "Dan um" is that I practice what I preach. And I welcome your input, because I can use logic and wisdom to refute you quite easily. On the other hand, you have no recourse but exercise the only form of force on this forum. You stifle dissent, while I fear it not.

What is going on in Venezuela is a perfect example as to why your religious Utopian faith will not work. And you can come here and discuss it with me all you wish. And just think, I won't be polluting your pristine religious thread.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

John, welcome to LJs! i don't your comments as malicious attack speech at all.


----------



## tomd (Jan 29, 2008)

Can't we all just get along ?


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> I certainly agree with you when it come to people arguing factual points without actually knowing the facts. It s rarely black and white, though. Most of the points people are divided over are a mixture of facts, emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations.
> - CharlieM1958


Charlie, sorry to keep on keeping on, but I enjoy debating with you. I have one more point to make here, which relates to your paragraph above. I love science, and my first impulse is to apply scientific principles whenever possible. Again lets drag out the AGW issue one more time, because it's one of my favorite topics. Emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations, are nice for conjecture. But they still don't necessarily produce the truth, i.e. facts.

I have heard this worn out phrase so many times: "The scientific consensus is clear; 97% of scientists concur that man made global warming is occurring." Consequently it's fact, correct? But the truth is that scientific consensus has nothing to do with scientific fact. 99.99% of scientists can agree about global warming. But if one scientific discovery proves all this consensus to be wrong, its wrong. Fact is fact, and consensus be damned.

As for Dan'um, who graced this thread earlier, I can state unequivocally that there has never been any Collectivist system that has ever worked in the long run. Marxism, the most extreme in which not only the means of production are State owned, but Real Property as well, has failed everywhere it is tried. The Peoples Republic of China is no longer a Marxist State. It has loosened up into a Fascist State, and it too is failing. Main line Socialism in which the means of production are state owned, has never worked. and the current practitioners are on the way out, Venezuela, and Bolivia, being the latest, so far. They will fall, with Venezuela leading the way. The threat of violence can 
only hold them together for so long.

The least hard line Statist ideology is that of Democratic Socialism, and Fascism. Both are a watered down form of Collectivism, and they will take longer to bite the dust, but bite the dust they eventually will. The EU is going through this failed experiment right now, Greece being only the leading edge. The only ones with any chance of holding out are the Germans. And that is because they are very industrious and good as saving. But any system that financially punishes individual incentive, will not be able to keep up with those systems that encourage individual incentive.

These are facts. I have studied the history of Collectivism, and as a Classical Liberal, I know that the human spirit yearns for one thing above all else. And that is LIBERTY. And liberty cannot exist in a State that practices redistribution through the use of coercion. So, " emotions, conclusions, inferences, and moral interpretations" are nice in theory. But in practice it is human nature, i.e. self-interest that will continue to rule the world.

Adam Smith summed it up so well, back in the 18th century. And what he says below is FACT, not conjecture.



> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.


Its a crying shame that Dan'em never bothered to read Adam Smith. It would save him an awful lot of wasted time and effort for such an adolescent mentality.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> Can t we all just get along ?
> 
> - tomd


I'm not speaking for everyone, but I'm getting along quite nicely, thank you.

Take care Tom.

PS: Charlie says "Come back and see us."


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

> Fact is fact, and consensus be damned.
> 
> - John L


I believe that things are more complex than this. Just because something is not completely correct does not make it useless. Newton's laws are not in fact how the universe works, but they are close enough for us to fly within 8,000 miles of Pluto.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

John, I don't disagree with your positions. I've always been very skeptical about all the global warming panic. The only thing I have to say about that is that it's tough for non-scientists like myself to go against a hefty consensus when we don't really have the knowledge or training to debate the actual science. Your presentation of the facts makes sense to me. I'd love to hear a scientist on the other side respond directly to you.

As for collectivists vs. Capitalists, to me it is a matter of idealist vs. realist. Socialism and Communism, in order to work, rely on the assumption that people, both in and outside of government, will act in the manner which is most beneficial to society as a whole. "From each according to his abilities… to each according to his needs." It's a great theory, but not likely to happen, at least at this point in human evolution anyway. Capitalism on the other hand, while not without its drawbacks, takes into account our tendency to serve our own interests, and actually channels that tendency in a somewhat positive direction. One philosophy works well in theory, the other works better in practice.

But, lest we forget the reason I jumped into this thread in the first place… If you had responded to Dan's original post with a well-reasoned argument just like the one you presented in reply #20 above, I don't think you would have been blocked. You might have even gotten away with calling him a hopeless idealist.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> Just because something is not completely correct does not make it useless.
> - ChuckV


Gosh, is that what you thought I said?


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> But, lest we forget the reason I jumped into this thread in the first place… If you had responded to Dan s original post with a well-reasoned argument just like the one you presented in reply #20 above, I don t think you would have been blocked. You might have even gotten away with calling him a hopeless idealist.
> - CharlieM1958


Charlie, I must apologize for not meeting other's expectations of diplomacy. There just isn't enough time in the day to type long messages and work on the things that really need doing. And even though I am a fairly good typist, I still have to go back and edit/correct my wayward fingers. Its time consuming. I'm taking my time here because this is a personal thread.

If you go to my thread, where I am attempting to modify my Harbor Freight dust separator, and find a way to remove the fine dust from my home, this is where I really need to spend my leisure time. In fact, when I finish a client's order, I will resume work on it. My allergies are a constant irritant. And that too may have added to my less than lengthy response to Dan'um's "Kindergarden of Eden" mentality. And note that I never once slurred his title, or used words to make fun of him. If you will scroll back up and read his post, he mockingly modified my name. And I am entirely used to that, but it shows the reader just how differently the two of us view things in general.

But block him for anything he may state here? Why would I do that, as he did on his thread? Usually these things illustrate far more about the 'blocker' than the 'blocked'. In this supposed age of tolerance, we can see who is really tolerant and who is not.

Anyway, I have to go down to work. I'll talk to you later.


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

John L
You're in good company.
I've been on Dan'ums list for at least 2 years! And I'm proud of it.
This guy by far has the largest block list on Lumberjocks. Anyone who disagrees with his opinions gets blocked. He does this so when he starts a new rant/topic, it looks like everyone agrees with him because to no one on his blocklist can comment.
What an ***hole


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> John, welcome to LJs! i don t your comments as malicious attack speech at all.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Missing words, typos, & capitalization issues, perhaps you should think more before you post.

Think, type, interact. It's pretty simple Smitty.

Now that was humor with some sarcasm. Turn about is fair play.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Jim c buddy, where ya been? Remember the good old days? This kind of reminds me of those.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

The unavoidable result of some of these type of threads is upset people, disagreements both friendly and not so friendly, blocked people

AND not changing anyone's point of view.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

One can never know for sure.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

> The unavoidable result of some of these type of threads is upset people, disagreements both friendly and not so friendly, blocked people
> 
> AND not changing anyone s point of view.
> 
> - Redoak49


But Red, John L needed validation that Dan'um wasn't being fair. Should we just abandon our insecure friends?


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> One can never know for sure.
> 
> - John L


No, these topics are felt viscerally and based on research into brains, are viewed differently by different people. You can rarely, if ever change anyone's mind.


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> But Red, John L needed validation that Dan um wasn t being fair. Should we just abandon our insecure friends?
> 
> - DKV


What makes you think I need validation? I am just trying to stimulate conversation and find out who has previously been blocked for stating their mind. I'm always bemused by the very people who preach tolerance and caring, yet do not practice that which they preach for others to follow.

And they almost invariably fit within the Collectivist camp.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

"But block him for anything he may state here? Why would I do that, as he did on his thread? *Usually these things illustrate far more about the 'blocker' than the 'blocked'.* In this supposed age of tolerance, we can see who is really tolerant and who is not."

Just as someone that starts a thread about being blocked. 
Probably more about letting everybody else know that someone blocked you, 
and publicly trying to shame them for doing it.

Then it always turns into a "who's smarter contest".


----------



## TheFridge (May 1, 2014)

Don't really care for many bleeding hearts myself.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

> Jim c buddy, where ya been? Remember the good old days? This kind of reminds me of those.
> 
> - DKV


The site got boring with guy's like dan'um style making absolutely no sense. I think it's dementia setting in.
How are you DKV?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

> Jim c buddy, where ya been? Remember the good old days? This kind of reminds me of those.
> 
> - DKV
> 
> ...


I do have to agree with you, the site is pretty boring. Nothing I try changes it. 
I'm fine, thanks for asking.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

> What makes you think I need validation?
> - John L


This



> How many of you have stated your opinion, on a thread, to the best of your ability to be honest and truthful, and later discovered you have been blocked from further discussion, by the originator of the thread?
> - John L


----------



## jkl103144 (Mar 19, 2015)

> What makes you think I need validation?
> - John L
> 
> This
> ...


Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit more, in your own words?


----------



## tomd (Jan 29, 2008)

I did give my opinion honestly, truthfully and after I read my opinion I blocked myself.


----------



## CharlesA (Jun 24, 2013)

And now . . . the award for the least self-aware thread title ever.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm on a lot of block lists for speaking truthfully. Some narrow minded folk just can't face my truths. I speak from my heart…


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Your truths?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

> Your truths?
> 
> - RobS888


From my point of view my truth is the only truth just as your perceived truths are yours. Some truths, mine, are closer to reality…


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I seriously doubt that "your" truths are even close to reality. Could you let "hinge" use the 'puter and I'll ask her about your truths?


----------



## Blackie_ (Jul 10, 2011)

Dan is Notorious for blocking, he and I blocked each other a long time ago, as a matter of fact it's been so long ago that I've already forgotten what it was about but must of been a good reason the less drama I have in my life the better it is


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

> I seriously doubt that "your" truths are even close to reality. Could you let "hinge" use the puter and I ll ask her about your truths?
> 
> - RobS888


Hinge went home.


----------



## JoeinGa (Nov 26, 2012)

Hey, You are each entitled to your OWN opinions. 
.
.
.
No matter HOW stupid they are 
.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I seriously doubt that "your" truths are even close to reality. Could you let "hinge" use the puter and I ll ask her about your truths?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Oh, are you dropping her? What will the next persona be like? Could we get a preview?


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

"I was the kid next door's imaginary friend." 
- Emo Philips

Weird, the first photo here almost looks like Hinge:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-mathematics-of-beauty/


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You think it is a randomly selected photo? I thought it would be someone he knew.


----------

