cheque este site. entrei lá, respondi as perguntas e aguardei o resultado. a avaliação é basicamente o quão gay vc é num escala de 0 a 100%. parece mais divertido no caso de vc não ser gay, mas de qualquer maneira pode entregar resultados supreendentes. enfim, embora alguns possam até ficar supresos e achar de que alguma maneira eu sou suuuuper gay, que eu ficaria pretty em pink e tudo mais, meu resultado deu 50%. logo eu sou meio gay, meio straight, o que faz bastante sentido pra mim.
entra lá checa o seu:
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/G/gayometer/gayometer.html
segunda-feira, novembro 10, 2003
DR PHIL'S TEST
Try this Dr. Phil test.
Here we go ... try this. Below is Dr. Phil's test.
(Dr. Phil scored 55 --he did this test on Oprah -- she got a 38.)
Some folks pay a lot of money to find this stuff out.
Read on, this is very interesting! Don't be overly sensitive!
The following is pretty accurate and it only takes 2 minutes.
Take this test for yourself and send it to your friends.
The person who sent it placed their score in the subject box.
Please do the same before forwarding to your friends.
Don't peek but begin the test as you scroll down and answer.
Answers are for who you are now...... not who you were in
the past. Have pen or pencil and paper ready.
This is a real test given by the Human Relations Dept.
at many of the major corporations today. It helps them
get better insight concerning their employees and prospective employees.
It's only 10 simple questions, so...... grab a pencil and paper!
1. When do you feel your best?
>>a) in the morning
>>;b) during the afternoon &and early evening
>>;c) late at night
>>
2. You usually walk...
>>;a) fairly fast, with long steps
>>;b) fairly fast, with little steps
>>c) less fast head up, looking the world in the face
>>;d) less fast, head down
>>;e) very slowly
3. When talking to people you...
>>a) stand with your arms folded
>>;b) have your hands clasped
>>c) have one or both your hands on your hips
>>;d) touch or push the person to whom you are talking
>>;e) play with your ear, touch your chin, or smooth your
>>;hair
4. When relaxing, you sit with...
>>a) your knees bent with your legs neatly side by side
>>b) your legs crossed
>>c) your legs stretched out or straight
>>d) one leg curled under you
5. When something really amuses you, you react with...
>>a) big appreciated laugh
>>b) a laugh, but not a loud one
>>c) a quiet chuckle
>>d) a sheepish smile
6. When you go to a party or social gathering you...
>>a) make a loud entrance so everyone notices you
>>;b) make a quiet entrance, looking around for someone
>><;you know
>>c) make the quietest entrance, trying to stay
>>;unnoticed
7. You're working very hard, concentrating hard, and
>>;you're interrupted......
>>a) welcome the break
>>b) feel extremely irritated
>>c) vary between these two extremes
8. Which of the following colors do you like most?
>>a) Red or orange
>>;b) black
>>;c) yellow or light blue
>><;d) green
>>e) dark blue or purple
>>;f) white
>>g) brown or gray
9. When you are in bed at night, in those last few
>>
>>;a) stretched out on your back
>>b) stretched out face down on your stomach
>>;c) on your side, slightly curled
>><;d) With your head on one arm
>><;e) with your head under the covers
10. You often dream that you are...
>>;a) falling
>><;b) fighting or struggling
>>c) searching for something or somebody
>><;d) flying or floating
>>;e) you usually have dreamless sleep
>><;f) your dreams are always pleasant
POINTS:
>>1. (a) 2 (b) 4 (c) 6
>>
>>2. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 7 (d) 2 (e) 1
>>
>>3. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 5 (d) 7 (e) 6
>>
>>4. (a) 4 (b) 6 (c) 2 (d) 1
>>
>>5.. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 2
>>
>>6. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 2
>>
>>7. (a) 6 (b) 2 (c) 4
>>
>>8. (a) 6 (b) 7 (c) 5 (d) 4 (e) 3 (f) 2 (g) 1
>>
>>9. (a) 7 (b) 6 (c) 4 (d) 2 (e) 1
>>
>>10. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 6 (f) 1
Now add up the total number of points.
OVER 60 POINTS: Others see you as someone they should "handle with care."
>>You're seen as vain, self-centered, and who is extremely dominant. Others
>>may
>>admire you, wishing they could be more like you, but don't always
>>trust you, hesitating to become too deeply involved with you.
51 TO 60 POINTS: Others see you as an exciting, highly volatile, rather
>>impulsive personality; a natural leader, who's quick to make decisions,
>>though not always the right ones. They see you as bold and adventuresome,
>>someone who will try anything once; someone who takes chances and
>>enjoys an adventure. They enjoy being in your company because of the
>>excitement you radiate.
41 TO 50 POINTS: Others see you as fresh, lively,
>>charming, amusing, practical, and always interesting; someone who's
>>constantly in the center of attention, but sufficiently well-balanced not
>>to
>>let it go to their head. They also see you as kind, considerate, and
>>understanding; someone who'll always cheer them up and help them out.
31 TO 40 POINTS: Others see you as sensible, cautious, careful &
>>practical.
>>They see you as clever, gifted, or talented, but modest. Not a person who
>>makes friends too quickly or easily, but someone who's extremely loyal to
>>friends you do make and who expect the same loyalty in
>>return. Those who really get to know you realize it takes a lot to shake
>>your trust in your friends, but equally that it takes you a long time to
>>get over if that trust is ever broken.
21 TO 30 POINTS: Your friends see you as painstaking and fussy. They see
>>you as very cautious, extremely careful, a slow and steady plodder. It
>>would really surprise them if you ever did something impulsively or on the
>>spur of
>>the moment, expecting you to examine everything carefully from every angle
>>and then, usually decide against it. They think this reaction is caused
>>partly by your careful nature.
UNDER 21 POINTS: People think you are shy, nervous,
>>and indecisive, someone who needs looking after, who always wants someone
>>else
>>to make the decisions & who doesn't want to get involved with
>>anyone or anything! They see you as a worrier
>>who always sees problems that don't exist. Some people think you're
>>boring.
>>Only those who know you well know that you aren't.
Here we go ... try this. Below is Dr. Phil's test.
(Dr. Phil scored 55 --he did this test on Oprah -- she got a 38.)
Some folks pay a lot of money to find this stuff out.
Read on, this is very interesting! Don't be overly sensitive!
The following is pretty accurate and it only takes 2 minutes.
Take this test for yourself and send it to your friends.
The person who sent it placed their score in the subject box.
Please do the same before forwarding to your friends.
Don't peek but begin the test as you scroll down and answer.
Answers are for who you are now...... not who you were in
the past. Have pen or pencil and paper ready.
This is a real test given by the Human Relations Dept.
at many of the major corporations today. It helps them
get better insight concerning their employees and prospective employees.
It's only 10 simple questions, so...... grab a pencil and paper!
1. When do you feel your best?
>>a) in the morning
>>;b) during the afternoon &and early evening
>>;c) late at night
>>
2. You usually walk...
>>;a) fairly fast, with long steps
>>;b) fairly fast, with little steps
>>c) less fast head up, looking the world in the face
>>;d) less fast, head down
>>;e) very slowly
3. When talking to people you...
>>a) stand with your arms folded
>>;b) have your hands clasped
>>c) have one or both your hands on your hips
>>;d) touch or push the person to whom you are talking
>>;e) play with your ear, touch your chin, or smooth your
>>;hair
4. When relaxing, you sit with...
>>a) your knees bent with your legs neatly side by side
>>b) your legs crossed
>>c) your legs stretched out or straight
>>d) one leg curled under you
5. When something really amuses you, you react with...
>>a) big appreciated laugh
>>b) a laugh, but not a loud one
>>c) a quiet chuckle
>>d) a sheepish smile
6. When you go to a party or social gathering you...
>>a) make a loud entrance so everyone notices you
>>;b) make a quiet entrance, looking around for someone
>><;you know
>>c) make the quietest entrance, trying to stay
>>;unnoticed
7. You're working very hard, concentrating hard, and
>>;you're interrupted......
>>a) welcome the break
>>b) feel extremely irritated
>>c) vary between these two extremes
8. Which of the following colors do you like most?
>>a) Red or orange
>>;b) black
>>;c) yellow or light blue
>><;d) green
>>e) dark blue or purple
>>;f) white
>>g) brown or gray
9. When you are in bed at night, in those last few
>>
>>;a) stretched out on your back
>>b) stretched out face down on your stomach
>>;c) on your side, slightly curled
>><;d) With your head on one arm
>><;e) with your head under the covers
10. You often dream that you are...
>>;a) falling
>><;b) fighting or struggling
>>c) searching for something or somebody
>><;d) flying or floating
>>;e) you usually have dreamless sleep
>><;f) your dreams are always pleasant
POINTS:
>>1. (a) 2 (b) 4 (c) 6
>>
>>2. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 7 (d) 2 (e) 1
>>
>>3. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 5 (d) 7 (e) 6
>>
>>4. (a) 4 (b) 6 (c) 2 (d) 1
>>
>>5.. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 2
>>
>>6. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 2
>>
>>7. (a) 6 (b) 2 (c) 4
>>
>>8. (a) 6 (b) 7 (c) 5 (d) 4 (e) 3 (f) 2 (g) 1
>>
>>9. (a) 7 (b) 6 (c) 4 (d) 2 (e) 1
>>
>>10. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 6 (f) 1
Now add up the total number of points.
OVER 60 POINTS: Others see you as someone they should "handle with care."
>>You're seen as vain, self-centered, and who is extremely dominant. Others
>>may
>>admire you, wishing they could be more like you, but don't always
>>trust you, hesitating to become too deeply involved with you.
51 TO 60 POINTS: Others see you as an exciting, highly volatile, rather
>>impulsive personality; a natural leader, who's quick to make decisions,
>>though not always the right ones. They see you as bold and adventuresome,
>>someone who will try anything once; someone who takes chances and
>>enjoys an adventure. They enjoy being in your company because of the
>>excitement you radiate.
41 TO 50 POINTS: Others see you as fresh, lively,
>>charming, amusing, practical, and always interesting; someone who's
>>constantly in the center of attention, but sufficiently well-balanced not
>>to
>>let it go to their head. They also see you as kind, considerate, and
>>understanding; someone who'll always cheer them up and help them out.
31 TO 40 POINTS: Others see you as sensible, cautious, careful &
>>practical.
>>They see you as clever, gifted, or talented, but modest. Not a person who
>>makes friends too quickly or easily, but someone who's extremely loyal to
>>friends you do make and who expect the same loyalty in
>>return. Those who really get to know you realize it takes a lot to shake
>>your trust in your friends, but equally that it takes you a long time to
>>get over if that trust is ever broken.
21 TO 30 POINTS: Your friends see you as painstaking and fussy. They see
>>you as very cautious, extremely careful, a slow and steady plodder. It
>>would really surprise them if you ever did something impulsively or on the
>>spur of
>>the moment, expecting you to examine everything carefully from every angle
>>and then, usually decide against it. They think this reaction is caused
>>partly by your careful nature.
UNDER 21 POINTS: People think you are shy, nervous,
>>and indecisive, someone who needs looking after, who always wants someone
>>else
>>to make the decisions & who doesn't want to get involved with
>>anyone or anything! They see you as a worrier
>>who always sees problems that don't exist. Some people think you're
>>boring.
>>Only those who know you well know that you aren't.
uns sintomas da depressão
Uma pesquisa rápida na internet entregou uma série de páginas com especificações dos sintomas mais comuns que apresentam aqueles com quadros depressivos. Vai abaixo um que a gente depara com frequência no dia-a-dia:
"Em pessoas de personalidade ansiosa a baixa autoestima faz com que os outros (notadamente, a opinião dos outros) pareçam inimigos em potencial, capazes que são de depreciar, de julgar, de avaliar... Portanto, nada mais sensato que apresentarem, esses pacientes, quadros fóbicos sociais, evitação, sintomas autossômicos quando diante de outras pessoas, e assim por diante/"
"Em pessoas de personalidade ansiosa a baixa autoestima faz com que os outros (notadamente, a opinião dos outros) pareçam inimigos em potencial, capazes que são de depreciar, de julgar, de avaliar... Portanto, nada mais sensato que apresentarem, esses pacientes, quadros fóbicos sociais, evitação, sintomas autossômicos quando diante de outras pessoas, e assim por diante/"
Media coverage of Prince Charles gay sex scandal
The story in a nutshell: royal servant George Smith once claimed to have seen Prince Charles in bed with his aide Michael Fawcett.
There's more to it than that, but that's the core allegation. The British media are legally blocked from telling the story and naming names, though they can tell the story in one article and name names in another article. Charles has publicly denied that it ever happened. Some websites and European media outlets have reported the story in full.
American and Canadian media have picked up the story, but most outlets are playing coy, reporting Charles's nonspecific denial and feigning ignorance of the actual allegations. What did Prince Charles not do? Charles didn't do it - whatever 'it' was. The British papers have a good reason for not telling the whole story with names: the country's overly strict libel laws prevent them from doing so. But why would North American media leave out the specifics? It took me just a few minutes to piece together the whole story from internet sources. For whatever reason, they're choosing to keep the allegation under wraps for now.
The New York Times provides more detail but still requires readers to connect pieces of the puzzle: denial in one paragraph, allegation of "compromising sexual encounter" in another paragraph, gay angle in other paragraphs, names in still other paragraphs. [UPDATE: According to the Drudge Report, the New York Times website posted this article Friday afternoon with a more explicit account of the allegation, then pulled it down after twenty minutes. The original Times story read, "The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."] This article does nicely chronicle the escalation of the scandal.
The allegation (which no one here has aired publicly, because of Britain's tough libel laws) first became an issue last year during the trial of Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess of Wales, who was unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges of stealing possessions from the princess's estate after her death in 1997.
One item he was accused of stealing was a cassette tape that Diana had recorded several years earlier. On the tape, according to news reports, George Smith, a former royal servant who had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress syndrome after fighting in the Falklands War, said he had been raped by another male royal aide. More explosively, he also claimed to have witnessed a compromising sexual encounter involving a member of the royal family.
At the time, Mr. Smith's account threw the ravening British tabloid press into an almost unbearably frustrating quandary, once they figured out who was said to be involved.
Yearning to print the rumors but restrained by the law, the newspapers went the suggestion route, continually printing the same odd photograph of Prince Charles standing with another man in a field, without explaining why the photograph had any significance.
Last month, Mr. Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, "A Royal Duty," mentioning the now notorious tape and saying that revealing its contents would have disastrous consequences for the country. Newspapers seized on the issue again and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites.
On a completely tangential note — post-traumatic stress syndrome from the Falklands War?!?
The big question that hasn't been raised yet: how "disastrous" would full revelation really be for the royals? Would a bisexual king really be that big a deal in this day and age?
Posted on Sat, Nov 8, 2003 at 10:28 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bisexual king would have very interesting implications for the Church of England (and the rest of the Anglican communion), which is currently tearing itself apart over the issue of homosexual bishops.
After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in principle, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Crown, which, since the time of Henry VIII, has enjoyed the titles Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.
Public acknowledgement of a British monarch's bisexuality would render traditional Christian homophobia theoretically untenable in the Church of England, if it didn't cause the church itself to implode.
Posted by: Jeff Carroll on November 8, 2003 05:59 PM
If he wasnt the heir to the british throne and one of the most written about men in the world, he would be free to lead a double life, like a great many people do, most of them getting away with it. But, Charles cant "get away with it".Getting caught is a most terrible thing. We, his subjects, can never respect him again neither can we accept him as our King. He HAS to leave public life and allow William to prepare to become our Monarch. All these bullshit statements "he didnt do it etc etc" have got to stop.He should have the decency and guts to admit it.....just like George Michael came clean.There is no other way.
Posted by: Dr S K Bhansali on November 10, 2003 03:41 AM
Well the whole British Royal Family (except for the late Diana and her children) are essentially just a bunch of yucky, inbred Germans anyway. So really... who cares? Besides - would anyone really honestly be surprised that private-boys'-school-educated Charles might have a bit of prior experience with mano-a-mano bump 'n' grind? A little slap & tickle or one-on-one pickle? And anyway, other than having other men tug on them whilst he knelt, how else do you explain his huge satellite-dish sized ears? Personally, I'm just surprised Charles isn't totally G-A-Y! Not that there would be anything wrong with that of course ;-)
Posted by: Phil McAvity on November 10, 2003 04:46 AM
There's more to it than that, but that's the core allegation. The British media are legally blocked from telling the story and naming names, though they can tell the story in one article and name names in another article. Charles has publicly denied that it ever happened. Some websites and European media outlets have reported the story in full.
American and Canadian media have picked up the story, but most outlets are playing coy, reporting Charles's nonspecific denial and feigning ignorance of the actual allegations. What did Prince Charles not do? Charles didn't do it - whatever 'it' was. The British papers have a good reason for not telling the whole story with names: the country's overly strict libel laws prevent them from doing so. But why would North American media leave out the specifics? It took me just a few minutes to piece together the whole story from internet sources. For whatever reason, they're choosing to keep the allegation under wraps for now.
The New York Times provides more detail but still requires readers to connect pieces of the puzzle: denial in one paragraph, allegation of "compromising sexual encounter" in another paragraph, gay angle in other paragraphs, names in still other paragraphs. [UPDATE: According to the Drudge Report, the New York Times website posted this article Friday afternoon with a more explicit account of the allegation, then pulled it down after twenty minutes. The original Times story read, "The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."] This article does nicely chronicle the escalation of the scandal.
The allegation (which no one here has aired publicly, because of Britain's tough libel laws) first became an issue last year during the trial of Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess of Wales, who was unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges of stealing possessions from the princess's estate after her death in 1997.
One item he was accused of stealing was a cassette tape that Diana had recorded several years earlier. On the tape, according to news reports, George Smith, a former royal servant who had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress syndrome after fighting in the Falklands War, said he had been raped by another male royal aide. More explosively, he also claimed to have witnessed a compromising sexual encounter involving a member of the royal family.
At the time, Mr. Smith's account threw the ravening British tabloid press into an almost unbearably frustrating quandary, once they figured out who was said to be involved.
Yearning to print the rumors but restrained by the law, the newspapers went the suggestion route, continually printing the same odd photograph of Prince Charles standing with another man in a field, without explaining why the photograph had any significance.
Last month, Mr. Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, "A Royal Duty," mentioning the now notorious tape and saying that revealing its contents would have disastrous consequences for the country. Newspapers seized on the issue again and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites.
On a completely tangential note — post-traumatic stress syndrome from the Falklands War?!?
The big question that hasn't been raised yet: how "disastrous" would full revelation really be for the royals? Would a bisexual king really be that big a deal in this day and age?
Posted on Sat, Nov 8, 2003 at 10:28 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bisexual king would have very interesting implications for the Church of England (and the rest of the Anglican communion), which is currently tearing itself apart over the issue of homosexual bishops.
After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in principle, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Crown, which, since the time of Henry VIII, has enjoyed the titles Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.
Public acknowledgement of a British monarch's bisexuality would render traditional Christian homophobia theoretically untenable in the Church of England, if it didn't cause the church itself to implode.
Posted by: Jeff Carroll on November 8, 2003 05:59 PM
If he wasnt the heir to the british throne and one of the most written about men in the world, he would be free to lead a double life, like a great many people do, most of them getting away with it. But, Charles cant "get away with it".Getting caught is a most terrible thing. We, his subjects, can never respect him again neither can we accept him as our King. He HAS to leave public life and allow William to prepare to become our Monarch. All these bullshit statements "he didnt do it etc etc" have got to stop.He should have the decency and guts to admit it.....just like George Michael came clean.There is no other way.
Posted by: Dr S K Bhansali on November 10, 2003 03:41 AM
Well the whole British Royal Family (except for the late Diana and her children) are essentially just a bunch of yucky, inbred Germans anyway. So really... who cares? Besides - would anyone really honestly be surprised that private-boys'-school-educated Charles might have a bit of prior experience with mano-a-mano bump 'n' grind? A little slap & tickle or one-on-one pickle? And anyway, other than having other men tug on them whilst he knelt, how else do you explain his huge satellite-dish sized ears? Personally, I'm just surprised Charles isn't totally G-A-Y! Not that there would be anything wrong with that of course ;-)
Posted by: Phil McAvity on November 10, 2003 04:46 AM
eclipse
sábado rolou uma eclipse da lua. parece que o período ativo foi das 11 até pouco depois das duas da manhã, sendo o crítico até umas 11:30. aparentemente essa eclipse foi bem forte energéticamente. só sei que no mesmo período me envolvi numa briga estúpida que depois das 11 e meia acabou e só deixou mesmo foi uma ressaca de stress desnecessário e falta de comunicação. puta saco.
o dia já amanheceu estressado por aki. parece que para alguns o mal estar começou na sexta e só foi piorando no final de semana. e olha que a bola de neve vem desabando já faz umas 3 semanas.
carmela voltou de férias hj. que delícia viajar pra espanha e pro marrocos!! embora tenham pedido ela em casamento por lá ( ela não aceitou), num rolou nenhum camelo. parece que nem de vista. e nenhuma tribo de tuaregs cruzou o caminho dela..
o dia já amanheceu estressado por aki. parece que para alguns o mal estar começou na sexta e só foi piorando no final de semana. e olha que a bola de neve vem desabando já faz umas 3 semanas.
carmela voltou de férias hj. que delícia viajar pra espanha e pro marrocos!! embora tenham pedido ela em casamento por lá ( ela não aceitou), num rolou nenhum camelo. parece que nem de vista. e nenhuma tribo de tuaregs cruzou o caminho dela..
China constrói fábrica de biscoitos para panda
A China afirma ter construído uma fábrica de biscoitos especialmente criada para produzir petiscos para os ursos pandas gigantes.
A fábrica vai produzir biscoitos em forma de bambu, com vitaminas extras e fibras.
Os pesquisadores no centro de reprodução animal em Chengdu, no sudoeste da China, dizem que o novo biscoito já foi aprovado pelos pandas que vivem lá.
Especialistas planejam expandir o esquema para ursos pandas gigantes que moram em cativeiro em diversas partes do país.
A fábrica vai produzir biscoitos em forma de bambu, com vitaminas extras e fibras.
Os pesquisadores no centro de reprodução animal em Chengdu, no sudoeste da China, dizem que o novo biscoito já foi aprovado pelos pandas que vivem lá.
Especialistas planejam expandir o esquema para ursos pandas gigantes que moram em cativeiro em diversas partes do país.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)