swim

… that is there question.

Would you say what you’re seeking is “more intimacy,” up to, potentially, the most possible intimacy?

I would suggest looking at his different interests and getting curious. If you’re interested in the guy, it should be pretty easy to find reasons why this film or that game are endearingly-this-or-that in a way that makes you like and respect him even more.

Then, you bond over it; by trusting his taste (intimacy) enough to check out that show or whatever interest, you now have an opportunity to get deep (intimacy) into what you each individually felt (intimacy) about it, and maybe you felt something in common. That’s some foundation for intimacy.

I use tagging in Boost

I think you’re about to cook them.

The trial, which will take place at Kyoto University Hospital from September to August 2025, will treat 30 males aged 30-64 who are missing at least one molar.

I think it could very well be dissolving at least a coating. I would use more dilute IPA. 👍

Who, Plop?

They did, and you’re right. A cursory search corroborates the notion. Whether we have transcripts of a call is just bloviating questions from a snarky shithead troll.

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1147471

Unfortunately for your ego, you have nothing relevant or novel to “explain” to me; you did not arrive at this discussion with an adequate understanding of “belief” or “atheism.”

And to your further misfortune, you haven’t developed the necessary reverence for growth which typically fosters the humility to recognize one’s own ignorance and error.

But the most salient bad luck you’ve wrought here has been the pain and loss of those who have chosen to read and engage with your blithering comments made in bad faith.

Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in deities. If you “accused” an atheist of “not being an atheist,” they would think you were confused about what atheism is. They would likely not be personally offended by your ignorance.

I don’t know why anyone would “go along with it” were you to incorrectly assert they held beliefs which they did not, but if they did, it would likely be in pity for or exasperation with the person impotently trying to “gotcha” their “beliefs.”

I did look; there’s no discernible doctor connection. Couldn’t find anything about same lawyers either, but that seems more likely to be a true footnote in their histories. The media wanted there to be animosity between the pop stars, but they were neither enemies nor friends. Jackson named his son Prince, but not after the artist. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Well they could have seen the same celebrity doctor in Hollywood once or something, but there were two different dudes responsible for their individual care when they died; Michael Jackson’s doctor got 4 years in prison for manslaughter, and has no connection to Prince.

I don’t think they did?

Good point well made. I think it’s usually naive wishful thinking (for a “just world” that makes sense and is going to be OK, actually) that allows a liberal capitalist apologist to point to classical economics and say “see the companies are hurting,” but the companies don’t have feelings, and the owners and shareholders are feeling just fine.