In which world does a male grow closer to a female instead of his close friend when the female has done the following:

Shit on your friend's reputation.
Dates then admits that she never liked him and just said yes for no reason.
Spews shit out of her mouth and betrays her friends.
Can't skate for shit.
Doesn't give people CLOSURE.
Strips the birthday from a person who orchestrated a $400 dollar birthday present for you.

Perhaps said male just doesn't care about the 'close friend' then...

Wing chun was founded in a time in china where Shaolin monks were used in the military forces. It was a swifter way of teaching more people the essential skills to counter their Shaolin oppressors. To do this, it needed philosophy and a new way of thinking which is evolved fro mthe relentless self discipline of Shaolin Kungfu.

Wing Chun has a general belief of ease and fluidity. It seeks the quickest path to the opponent or the path of least resistance. It does not parry, it deflects. It does not break through, it glides through.

According to Karate Kid (2010), Kung Fu is in everything we do. How we act, how we treat each other even our outlooks on life.

As a person who has had some training in Wing Chun, I believe that in the face of adversity, one should change the conditions to allow yourself an easier passage. If faced with a wall, first look for other ways before you begin climbing over or tunneling through.

However, this is because I am weak, I hold less credentials than a hardened veteran and I have less focus and relentlessness than most others.

I imagine a much harder minded, self disciplined person with great internal strength would have a different outlook on life. Perhaps they believe that each problem in the world should be dealt with face to face and crippled to prevent further adversity.

I also know of people which have the ability to hold the ability to immunize themselves against problems. I know of people (a person, rather)that can walk down any road in the world and pretend that all the problems in the world do not exist. It was not a feat of ignorance rather a way of neutralizing effects - a silent protest perhaps.

These outlooks are rational, functional and with their ups and downs. The only advice I have is to stick to your strengths.

There are many interpretations on the pros and cons of intelligence. A con I often notice is awareness. I believe that ultimately, everyone's mental path is linear. We all go through the same major stages in life and sometimes people reach the end of their physical age before reaching the next stage. Quite often, people stay stationary in mental development and remain on the same stage for too long. Eventually they lose all momentum and remain there forever.

Each person's mental and physical growth is linked but do not necessarily grow at the same rate. Some people have bodies that age much faster than their mind does. Others have bodies that remain young as their mind grows old. Some people mask their age but when you look closely you begin to see the signs of decay.

People often look up in admiration at those who are successful. T hey often look up to those who continually walk forward in life and seem to seize every opportunity. They look up at people which seem to build their future 5 years in advance and have incredible foresight. People often look up and wonder why they can't have such luck.

I often believed that indeed very few people get incredible surges of luck. I believe that the rest of us should simply take advantage of every situation we can. My logic is that the more things you do, the higher the chance that one of them will eventually turn out useful.

It's rather ironic how the fear of danger can inevitably put you in more danger. I remember not too long ago i went rock climbing on a rock face. This was a vertical rock face, perhaps ten meters high worth of solid rock. Once you get started, you begin to realize how little grip you can find on a rock face and yet how surprisingly easy it is to cling onto what appeared to be a flat rock face.

However, being a rational human being i was scared shitless.

I would begin climbing and my legs would spasm relentlessly. My legs kept moving and i knew the worst thing that could happen to me was a scrape here and there. I went on and i climbed and in retrospect I realized that I was actually more likely to fall because i was shaking as opposed to an actual error.

The same thing happens when a person tries to answer a question.

One of the most annoying and stupid things a person could do is give an answer that was not wrong in anyway. By that I don't mean superb thought and depth, I mean so generic and open an answer that it could be applied to any question.

This is usually caused by a fear of being wrong. When you don't want to be wrong, the easiest thing to do is to simply nothing at all. Some people remain silent, some shrug. Others use words to express nothingness.

A cadence is a progression of at least two chords that concludes a section of music, either a section of music or the piece itself. It is often compared with punctuation in it's uses and abilities.

However, I often find this inadequate as music is organised sound. There is a pattern to it, no matter how simple or how complex it may be. Where there is a pattern, there is as method of deciphering the next possible items.

Quite often, people will listen to music and feel some odd thrill of brilliance as they correctly predict the next verse or part of music. From my perspective, I always thought that was a success on the composers part. When a person looks at a painting and understands it's meaning, do we praise that said person or do we praise the artist?

On the note of cadences, I believe that the last 'progression of chords' between two people defines how their next interaction begins.

Quite often, people 'pull thoughts out of their ass' when they don't see a person. They either feel some bizarre level of love, some fuming notion of anger or some contemptible desires.

Although more permanent and ongoing things can dictate this, the strongest 'single' event would probably how they last said goodbye. If a person says goodbye with the words "fuck you" you won't exactly think too well of them the next time you see them. Likewise, a person with a sincere smile and says "I love you, see you tomorrow" will probably get a hug or something to that value the next time they meet.

Someone once said I was perfectly normal. It then started to make me think.

Our world is filled with poverty. There is a massive inequality in distribution of food and wealth. The world is filled with those lopsided statistics blaming the prosperous nations and pitying the developing ones.

The world, as a collective group is filled with problems. This means that on average, the people in said world as individuals, each have a positive number of problems. In other words, we have more problems than we can fix.

This means that the normal person contributes to the inequality and problems of the world.

So saying 'you're normal' in this world is like saying America's economy was 'normal' in the global financial crisis because everyone else was shooting themselves too.

When someone mentions France in any military light, I think of two things. The 100 year war between the French and the English and World War II. In both wars the French relied heavily on static defense and the structural integrity of it's architecture.

The principle was the same in both wars. It was simply designed to hold the enemy long enough for allied support to come on. In the hundred year war, castles were designed to last long sieges. The attacking forces were often far from home and thus had difficulty finding a constant supply of resources. The defending force was surrounded and thus could get no supplies in at all and relied on the reserves within the castle.

If the castle was weak then it could be destroyed with filed siege weaponry and be breached and destroyed like the city of Singapore in World War II. If the castle ran out of food then it's people would starve and die or surrender. If they could last, however, then the English often had no choice but to attack at a a disadvantage or flee.

If the castle had someone important in it then the French army or some other large mass of soldiers could potentially come and free the castle like how General Patton broke the German encirclement of Bastogne in World War II.

I am like the French. I cannot fight off invading armies but I can stall long enough for allied help to come. If no allied help comes then I can only pray I can out attrition the invading army.

My methods of problem solving involve propaganda and brainwashing. I make the person believe they are okay to make them feel better today. If they don't figure out what's wrong and fix it then I have done nothing but drug the person and give them anesthetic.

I am no tactician, I am no messiah. I am simply a propagandist and I can only help you reach your current potential. If that is not enough then I am sorry.

If a plane were to fly over my Maginot line then well... I'm pretty screwed.

A first aid instructor once told me that if something is not urgent, it is recommended to not touch it unless you have something else to compare it. He said that if you see someone with a swollen wrist, it could be sprained or they could have a naturally thick and red wrist. As a result, unless that person has another wrist to compare it to, don't touch it.

Likewise, this can often be done with people and their attitudes. If a person trips on the street and someone else comes and helps them up, odds are they could be a nice person. He could also be a rapist who's an opportunistic killer. So unless you have some other base of his personality to compare it to (i.e. does he normally just help people and then walk away or does he often help people up and then stalk them), you can't really make a judgement.

Of course, that's a direct comparison, the corollary to this formula is seeing the norm, seeing the new case and then drawing the comparison and differences and then forming an idea over that. It's not an exact science but quite often, it is more accurate than the beliefs of the subject person themselves, simply because they're subject to their own bias. How often does a person really look at themselves and say "I will end up doing this even though it seems absolutely unlikely at the given time. This is because that is the outcome every time this has occurred."

Oh, and I see you Elena.