I Met 10 Men In One Half Hour And Not One Looked Like Him hahaha

I do have an interesting group of female friends and sometimes we do crazy things without our older brothers or parents knowing until after the fact; You all are by now familiar with the Sex and the City episode about this new in-thing call speed-dating right, well two of my friends and I decided to give it a try just for fun, and buoy oh buoy were we in for something.
The way it works is you take turns getting to  know as much as you can from the person sitting across the table from you and deciding in 3 short minutes whether or not you are compatible,attracted or have anything in common at all with that person befor the Bell rings, and if there is then you arrange to go on a full date. Every 3 minutes the Bell rings and you move on to the next guy (for couple seconds you're hoping that that next guy have decent looking teeth, and that you can at least stand to look him in the eye for a few seconds heheeheee).
I swear I got a migraine because it was so noisy with people buzzing and talking all around you, then you are speed walking or running to the next table and then to the next trying to ask all the questions that you can in such a short time, and on top of that, that silly Bell just kept going off every 3 minutes. Ok thats it I said, by the 10th guy I was screaming for my Freddie.

have you ever heard of the song Its Raining Men, Hallelujah Its raining Men? well it was showering men in that place but there was not one guy that was wrapped in a bow from head to toe, not one - Every one of the ten that I un-wrapped 95 percent of the gift was missing! You meet several dating prospects within a couple of weeks and have to juggle a bunch of guys all at once? That is exactly what the scene is at speed dating, except it’s all blind dates, and you are obligated to be nice for 3 minutes, before moving on (couple times I really couldn't even bare to smile).

The only good thing was that the venue was at a decent hotel in the ballroom, so after I sneaked out and went to seat at the hotel bar and ordered some wine. While sipping on my Chardonnay I took a look at the score card that I was still holding (Its the card that you write the guys name and circle ‘Yes’if you want to see him again and if you don’t you circle ‘No’), well my card was all NO's so I guess my fake email will not be exchanged with any of the men.
In any case the next step is up to you! Very often the event will be centered around certain age groups or fields etc. My girlfriends by then had joined me at the bar, they also did not connect to any of the guys. And so we just chatted about eachothers experiences and so on. So, I was wondering what you all thought of the idea of speed-dating, have you tried it or know of someone who has? I wrote this post in an article for another outlet and one of the viewers told me that there are really good ones out there where the guys are attractive or handsome and very intelligent; I guess we must have gone to a really awful one lool
Now after my brother reads this, I'm gonna have a lot of explaining to do lool :)))

There Are liars, and then there are LIARS

I have a boyfriend, I have a wife, I have a girlfriend, I have a husband… but we are having problems, things are not good, you don’t really understand its complicated, blah blah blah…

There are liars, and then there are LIARS.

Everybody lies. It may only be a little white lie, but everyone tells lies or sometimes omits the truth. Lying start at a really early age around 4 to 5 years old when children are beginning to be aware of things, and how they can use lying to get what they want. Now why do husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends lie to each other? Uhmmmm, I have yet to find all the possible reasons to answer this question.

It's not pleasant to think about being betrayed by someone you love. No one likes to think that a husband or wife may be lying, especially not in their own relationship, but it happens, usually with the spouse who is the passive one in the relationship; You know the one that doesn’t raise his voice, and pretends to be calm cool and collected then low and behold his on some chat website or using some other social website pretending to meet new people, wanting to learn a new language, or is always coming home late from work, where the excuse is always “sorry honey I had to work late this evening” and or “sorry honey I had a late meeting” or “we had some big-time clients and took them out for drinks” … But in fact his really screwing his secretary, or making promises of a relationship with one of his online women, or he already have a girlfriend hidden in some apartment uptown!

And it's probably safe to assume that everyone wants a close, romantic relationship that is built on openness, intimacy and trust. But despite our best intentions, our close relationships do not always work that way. Often, our romantic relationships involve some secrecy and deception.

When the question is posed why people lie, seldom does the person asking realize just how complicated that question is. The truth is, there is no simple reason why people lie, there really isn't a clear definition of what is and what are just silly tales. Is an omission a lie? Maybe, maybe not, but if it is, it certainly isn't in the same way that a frank statement against fact is a lie. So, does mood influence people’s tendency to engage in evasive, equivocal communication when facing conflict situations? You should also take note of consistently evasive answers to direct questions. Many liars haven’t thought through their stories and so prefer to keep their answers short (think one to 5 word responses) and non-specific, they never elaborate; one of the most common responses from cheaters, which I have somewhat touched on earlier is the “its complicated” or “you won’t understand”, or “trust me” etc…

Of course, not everyone using the above phrases is being dishonest and vice versa, so you should use this advice as a possible warning sign and not as a blanket rule, and judge according to the person and situation in question. Apart from avoiding eye contact, breaking out in a sweat, and other possible physiological triggers, Forbes says that liars may be more likely to ask you to repeat your questions than those making honest claims. Also, liars may preface their pronouncements with “to tell you the truth” and “to be perfectly honest” more so than their truth-telling counterparts. Finally, liars also tend to use third-person pronouns like “we “and “they” as a way to “psychologically distance themselves from a lie”.

You meet a woman online, you chat for awhile on msn, facebook, or myspace etc then you ask her for her phone number or some pic’s; She says "why don't you give me yours and I will give you a call, or she sends you pictures of someone else but her. She does this because she wants to be safe to protect herself. This kind of a situation happens every day online, it’s a lie but it is totally acceptable. Anything a woman does to make herself safer in this crazy online dating world is ok by me. It’s much better and not in the least bit harmful, compare to this situation, finding out through friends on a social website like facebook, or msn that they know the guy who asks you for your picture and that this very same guy is married, and is really not in such a bad situation as he professed, and on top of that, his wife believes that this is the love of her life and loves him to death… geez, little does she know that he is having online emotional affairs with different women, or planning to break-up with her, or that he has already cheated on her!

A woman ask a man for his phone number, he says "why don't you give me yours and I will give you a call " or he says “ I’ll give you my number but only call me when I tell you to” or “don’t call me in the evenings, and on weekends” . Ladies, Offcourse he is a "player" !!! He is already in a relationship and or married and looking for a little something on the side. A man that definitely have something to hide or he wouldn't have to make all these requests.

DON’T CHEAT OR LIE TO YOUR SPOUSE OR PARTNER

DON’T PROFESS DISAPPOINTMENT IN OTHERS WHEN YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL

DON’T STAY IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE NOT WORKING

JUST STOP HURTING ONEANOTHER and STOP THE GAMES

The Struggle between Boards and Courts over the Interpretation of Labour Relations Acts

By Jovana Zajaredic
Osgoode Hall


Collective Bargaining

In the Oakville Trafalgar and Metropolitan Life cases, supra, section 4:420, and in a number of other well-known cases, reviewing courts overturned the decisions of labour boards, ruling that the boards had adopted interpretations of their statutes ‘which the language would not reasonably bear,’ or that they had ‘asked themselves the wrong questions,’ or that they had ‘exceeded their jurisdiction’ by adopting particular interpretations of the labour relations legislation that, in the courts’ view, they were not entitled to adopt. In some of these cases, the courts’ intervention had the effect of overturning well-established board practices on which many collective bargaining relationships had been established over many years.
The most radical challenge to judicial review was contained in the British Columbia Labour code, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 212 (now repealed). Section 33 provided:
The board has and shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to determine the extent of its jurisdiction under this Act, a collective agreement or the regulations, to determine a fact or question of law necessary to establish its jurisdiction and to determine whether or in what manner it shall exercise its jurisdiction.
This was the first time that a Canadian legislature had said explicitly that even on questions of ‘jurisdiction’ the labour board’s decision was to prevail. Comprehensive privative clauses such as the one passed in British Columbia would appear to be doomed to failure after the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Crevier v, Quebec (A.G.) (1982), 127 D.L.R. (3d) 1. In delivering the judgment of the court, Chief Justice Laskin made it clear that provincial legislation which immunized a provincial statutory tribunal from judicial review on questions of jurisdiction, as opposed to questions of law, would be unconstitutional because its effect would be to usurp the traditional jurisdiction of the courts. This decision, however, simply precludes a total legislature ban on judicial review and still leaves open the issue of the appropriate extent of judicial review in light of the broad statutory mandate given to specialist labour relations tribunals. An interesting comment on the case’s implications is found in H. Arthurs, ‘Protection Against Judicial Review’ (1983) 43 R. du B. 277 at 289-290:
There is no reason to believe that a legally-trained judge is better qualified to determine the existence or sufficiency or appropriateness of evidence on a given point than a trained economist or engineer, an arbitrator selected by the parties, or simply an experienced tribunal member who decides such cases day in and day out. And there is no reason why one group of individuals, however intelligent and well-intentioned, should project upon the rest of society an image of how things ought to be run.