Cutting Off Communication

So, I was led on to believe a woman had feelings for me. This was confirmed by a couple of inside sources. Her words, tone and body language seemed to support this as well. In the end, though, she evidently didn't feel anything for me. So, due to her toying with my heart and severely hurting me in the process, I thought it was time to just let go.

I just read some testimonies and studies regarding the effects of the "silent treatment". Some claimed it as a form of emotional abuse, that it's childish, that people whom fear confrontation and serious discussion are more apt to resorting to this tactic than the average individual, that it solves nothing, inflicts pain upon the other, etc. I think these comments may be true in a majority of cases, but not in every case.

This woman began giving me the silent treatment in a way. She stopped responding to my e-mails, returning my calls or answering my calls, ignored me when I visited this past week, said she tried keeping her distance, couldn't be herself around me and wouldn't until I accept the fact she doesn't share the same feelings toward me as I do toward her. So, when I cut off communication, did it really change matters all that much? No, not really. I just put the official stamp on things.

I don't plan on getting in touch with this woman again. If one wants to talk about an emotional rollercoaster, she put me on one. She was extremely wishy-washy, going back-and-forth on her thoughts, feelings and interest level on a regular basis. Every one of my friends whom knew about the situation confidently stated that she was obviously "into me," with even a couple laying claim that she told them this. A couple of females whom I didn't know, were told bits of the story and they said they'd be shocked if this woman didn't want to pursue something with me and that they'd never heard of a woman acting in such a manner whom wasn't interested in that person. It's not like I was the only one misreading her.

It's funny that I consistently read in these studies and testimonies that the individual whom resorts to silent treatment is typically fearful of confrontation and of serious discussion, but one reason I resorted to this drastic measure was because this woman was fearful of confrontation and serious discussion. On several occasions, I attempted to open up to her and engage in a serious conversation, but she consistently ignored these attempts, leaving me with no definite answer. She'd provide me with vaguery, no clear direction and seemingly ignore the discussions altogether.

She basically threw me out of her life without placing the official stamp on the envelope to be mailed. That's all I was doing. I wish I didn't have to resort to this tactic, but she's tampered with my emotions, pained me enough as it is and I honestly don't want to associate myself with her again. If she were a loyal friend, I'd have no problem in taking a step back, swallowing my pride and accepting the friendship as is. However, she's not like that. She's a good friend one minute and a ghost the next. I don't care to affiliate myself with such flakiness. Unfortunately, she's simply not the person I thought she was and I'm extremely disappointed in myself for misreading her like I did and that I allowed a person to string me along and use me as she did. I now know it's for the very best that she and I never wound up dating, but it's still fresh and painful right now. I'll eventually get over it, but it'll be a rather lengthy healing process. I still think that deep down, there's a beautiful person in there, but I sincerely hope she alters a few things about herself as to not lead men on and cross the line between flirting and indicating she likes someone and tampering with a man's heart and feelings in the process. I also hope I can alter a few things about myself, to be stronger, more assertive and more cognizant of a woman's true intent before developing feelings for them and allowing myself to get strung along and used in the process.

$7,500,000? No, more like $350,000. Fox was off by just $7,150,000.

So, the most watched cable "news" network, the network whom claims to be "fair and balanced" and carry with them the slogan, "We report. You decide.," committed yet another error the other day. It wasn't their first and certainly won't be their last. Why then have I decided to write about it, since it seems to be so commonplace? Oh, because not only was Fox wrong in their reporting, the disparity between their numbers and the actual numbers is staggering.

Fox "News" reported that the Wisconsin protests will cost up to $7.5 million dollars or to write the longer version, $7,500,000. It has since been reported that the total costs will be around $350,000. That's a difference of $7,150,000. $350,000 is just 4.7% of $7,150,000. In other words, Fox was off by, oh, just 95.3%. If I took an exam and received less than a 5%, keeping in mind that a failing grade in college is 59% or 54 percentage points higher than my hypothetical score, chances are I wouldn't be in school for much longer.

Since these real-life numbers have been released, I've heard Fox supporters spout the following two lines pretty regularly: 1) Fox was just reporting information that was already out there and 2) Whether it's $7.5 million or $350,000, it's still costing the tax-payers money.

If Fox wants to be known as a "news" network, shouldn't they then double-check their sources? What were those sources anyway? If this "news" network just reports what they hear being talked about or rumors and speculation, then how are they any different than a gossip magazine? A genuine news network will report facts and the only way they can verify these statements is to garner credibility through the quality of their sources and double-checking those very sources. If Fox wants to come forward about being a gossip network, then fine, I then have no problem with them reporting these horrendously inaccurate numbers. However, call it a hunch by the title of their network (Fox "News"), but I'm guessing Rupert Murdoch doesn't want his network to be known as a 24-hour gossip column. If my gut is accurate in that assessment, then I do have a serious problem with Fox reporting such drivel. It's difficult for me to understand, but some people actually tune into Fox rather regularly, listen to the commentary and believe what is being spouted. In that case, since Fox initially reported that the costs of the protests would be up to $7,500,000, chances are many of Fox's viewers believed this. It's a true journalist's responsibility to be thorough and credible in his/her reporting and Fox has been remiss of these very responsibilities.

With regard to the second comment, that isn't the issue here. Saying that it doesn't matter what the numbers are, it's going to cost tax-payers money is an informal fallacy known as a red herring. The point being made here isn't that it's right or wrong for tax-payers to be financially responsible for these protests. The point being made is how drastically different Fox's numbers were to the actual numbers. Again, this brings into question the credibility of this "news" network. It's not like this was a minor slip-up. It's not like a meteorologist predicted a high of 64 and the high reached 67. It's not like a person told a cop he/she was going 56 when they were really going 57. It's not like a husband telling his wife he'll be home at 6:30 and he doesn't arrive until 6:40. While all of these actual numbers are different from the speculated numbers, the margin of error is very small. With regard to Fox's numbers, they were 95.3% wrong. If they were to do this poorly on an exam, 4.7%, they'd be the laughing stock of the school. Out of 100 questions, they would have answered between 4 and 5 right, while getting between 95 and 96 wrong. This isn't about Fox being wrong. It's about Fox being laughably wrong and still contending they're a viable news source. Once again, they've proven themselves wrong on that front.

A Reasonable Argument For the Existence of God, Eh? Not really...

I, at one time, believed in God, as I was raised by two Christians parents and taken to church on Sundays fairly regularly. Over the years, I've developed more doubt in the existence of a higher power and in organized religion, in general. I now classify myself as an agnostic, because I have a difficult time believing there will ever be a 100% proof provided in either direction, toward the existence of a higher power or toward there not being one present.

I read an article today via the Huffington Post and the title of the piece was very misleading, as it said there's now evidence that belief in God is a reasonable argument. What was this evidence?

The writer spent 90% of this time talking about scientists and atheists being unable to fully prove God doesn't exist. He then concluded because of this, the belief in God is a reasonable argument.

How does that work? Just because person A can't fully prove X, that means it's reasonable for person B to believe Y? Can he spell the word f-a-l-l-a-c-y?

Going by that logic, we could go in a number of different direction on what is a "reasonable" argument. Since scientists have not been able to fully prove in the absence of God, it is now "reasonable" to believe that Elmer Fudd is the lord and savior. It's now "reasonable" to believe Gumby will be waiting for us at the gates of heaven when we all pass to determine if we are worthy of entry. It's now "reasonable" to believe that after we die, we will be probed by aliens for scientific purposes, dropped from a spaceship into a cornfield in central Iowa and then uplifted via a beam by a higher power with the name of Vernon Endowed.

I'm sorry, but just because one can't fully prove something, doesn't make one (of an almost infinite number of) possible option a reasonable one. The author of this article has to realize that his "rationale" could be utilized by the opposing side of the debate. Scientists and atheists alike could say, "Well, theists have been unable to prove the existence of God, which makes our position that much more reasonable." That can go both ways and in both cases, the "argument" would be a very weak one. I have to go. I'm watching a show pertaining to college basketball, where anchor B is telling anchor A, "Look, we can't prove that Kansas, Duke or Ohio State will win the title. So, Iowa State winning the Big XII Championship en route to a national championship after starting the season 3-13 in conference play is a perfectly reasonable argument to have." Indeed, it is. Indeed it is...