10 28 12

2017 US Nationals Preview- Juniors

Thought I would do a quick list for the juniors competing at US Nationals. I’ve organized them from oldest to youngest and have included their birth date, club, Classics scores (if applicable), and what level they competed last year. I also bolded/italicized any scores that placed them top 3 in an event. 

  • Gabby Perea- born 01/01/2002 (15)
    • Club: Legacy Elite
    • Classics scores:
      • UB: 14.500 (1st)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Olivia Hollingsworth- born 01/15/2002 (15)
    • Club: Stars
    • Classics Scores:
      • AA: 49.500 (31st)
      • V: 13.250 (T-26th)
      • UB: 12.550 (T-23rd)
      • BB: 10.850 (T-43rd)
      • FX: 12.850 (T-14th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Maile O’Keefe- born 02/26/2002 (15)
    • Club: Salcianu Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 54.700 (2nd)
      • V: 14.600 (2nd)
      • UB: 13.750 (4th)
      • BB: 12.450 (27th)
      • FX: 13.900 (2nd)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Audrey Davis- born 05/03/2002 (15)
    • Club: WOGA
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.750 (4th)
      • V: 14.050 (T-12th)
      • UB: 13.650 (5th)
      • BB: 14.100 (5th)
      • FX: 11.950 (33rd)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite/Level 10
  • Madeleine Johnston- born 05/28/2002 (15)
    • Club: Hill’s Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 48.500 (38th)
      • V: 14.050 (T-12th)
      • UB: 12.500 (25th)
      • BB: 10.500 (45th)
      • FX: 11.450 (38th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Shilese Jones- born 07/26/2002 (15)
    • Club: Buckeye Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.450 (7th)
      • V: 14.300 (7th)
      • UB: 12.750 (T-18th)
      • BB: 13.050 (T-16th)
      • FX: 13.350 (4th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Adeline Kenlin- born 08/03/2002 (15)
    • Club: Iowa Gym-Nest
    • Classics scores:
      • UB: 14.050 (3rd)
      • BB: 14.850 (1st)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Deiah-Marie Moody- born 09/29/2002 (14)
    • Club: WOGA
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.150 (T-18th)
      • V: 13.500 (T-16th)
      • UB: 13.350 (8th)
        BB: 11.800 (T-36th)
        FX: 12.500 (26th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite/Level 10
  • Oliva Dunne- born 10/01/2002 (14)
    • Club: ENA Paramus
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.600 (T-5th)
      • V: 13.300 (22nd)
      • UB: 13.050 (T-11th)
      • BB: 14.000 (6th)
      • FX: 13.250 (6th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Grace McCallum- born 10/30/2002 (14)
    • Club: Twin City Twisters 
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 54.150 (3rd)
      • V: 14.650 (1st)
      • UB: 12.850 (T-16th)
      • BB: 13.350 (9th)
      • FX: 13.300 (5th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Emma Malabuyo- born 11/05/2002 (14)
    • Club: Texas Dreams Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 56.750 (1st)
      • V: 14.500 (4th)
      • UB: 13.500 (6th)
      • BB: 14.450 (2nd)
      • FX: 14.300 (1st)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Kara Eaker- born 11/07/2002 (14)
    • Club: GAGE
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.600 (T-5th)
      • V: 13.250 (T-26th)
      • UB: 12.950 (14th)
      • BB: 14.250 (3rd)
      • FX: 13.150 (T-7th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Madelyn Williams- born 12/21/2002 (14)
    • Club: San Mateo Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.300 (8th)
      • V: 13.350 (T-20th)
      • UB: 14.300 (2nd)
      • BB: 12.900 (20th)
      • FX: 12.750 (T-18th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite/Level 10
  • Sunisa Lee- born 03/09/2003 (14)
    • Club: Midwest Gymnastics Center
    • Classics scores:
      • UB: 13.150 (10th)
      • BB: 14.150 (4th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Jordan Bowers- born 04/05/2003 (14)
    • Club: Solid Rock Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 49.450 (32nd)
      • V: 13.300 (T-22nd)
      • UB: 13.300 (9th)
      • BB: 11.150 (41st)
      • FX: 11.700 (36th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Jay Jay Marshall- born 05/24/2003 (14)
    • Club: TIGAR
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 52.250 (T-10th)
      • V: 14.450 (3rd)
      • UB: 12.150 (31st)
      • BB: 12.650 (T-22nd)
      • FX: 12.900 (T-12th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite/Level 10
  • Abigail Scanlon -born 05/27/2003 (14)
    • Club: Capital Gymnastics National Training Center
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.150 (T-18th)
      • V: 13.450 (18th)
      • UB: 11.600 (39th)
      • BB: 13.100 (15th)
      • FX: 13.000 (T-10th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Tori Tatum- born 07/05/2003 (14)
    • Club: Twin City Twisters
    • Classics scores:
      • Did not compete at 2017 US Classic. Set to return at 2017 P&G Championships later this month. 
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite
  • Lenne Wong- born 09/20/2003 (13)
    • Club: GAGE
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 53.200 (9th)
      • V: 14.400 (6th)
      • UB: 12.900 (15th)
      • BB: 13.000 (T-18th)
      • FX: 12.900 (T-12th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Selena Harris- born 11/05/2003 (13)
    • Club: Gymcats
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 50.750 (22nd)
      • V: 13.900 (14th)
      • UB: 12.700 (T-20th)
      • BB: 12.250 (31st)
      • FX: 11.900 (T-34th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Lauren Little- born 01/02/2004 (13)
    • Club: Everest Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 52.000 (14th)
      • V: 14.150 (9th)
      • UB: 13.400 (7th)
      • BB: 11.650 (39th)
      • FX: 12.800 (T-16th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Elite/Level 10
  • Kayla Dicello- born 01/25/2004 (13)
    • Club: Hill’s Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 50.200 (T-24th)
      • V: 13.300 (T-22nd)
      • UB: 11.700 (38th)
      • BB: 12.450 (T-27th)
      • FX: 12.750 (T-18th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 10
  • JaFree Scott- born 02/13/2004 (13)
    • Club: GAGE 
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 52.050 (13th)
      • V: 13.200 (T-29th)
      • UB: 13.000 (13th)
      • BB: 13.250 (11th)
      • FX: 12.600 (T-23rd)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Ciena Alipio- born 03/07/2004 (13)
    • Club: West Valley Gymnastics School
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.550 (16th)
      • V: 13.500 (T-16th)
      • UB: 11.400 (42nd)
      • BB: 13.650 (8th)
      • FX: 13.000 (T-10th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 10
  • Hannah Hagle- born 03/10/2004 (13)
    • Club: Texas East Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.300 (17th)
      • V: 12.600 (41st)
      • UB: 12.750 (T-18th)
      • BB: 13.300 (10th)
      • FX: 12.650 (T-21st)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 10
  • Annie Beard- born 04/19/2004 (13)
    • Club: Texas Dreams Gymnastics 
    • Classics scores:
        • BB: 13.900 (7th)
        • FX: 13.400 (3rd)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Lilian Lippeatt- born 08/28/2004 (12)
    • Club: Cincinnati Gymnastics Academy 
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 52.250 (T-10th)
      • V: 12.900 (38th)
      • UB: 13.050 (T-11th)
      • BB: 13.150 (T-12th)
      • FX: 13.150 (T-7th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: Level 10
  • Victoria Smirnov- born 10/28/2004 (12)
    • Club: Shooting Stars Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 48.700 (35th)
      • V: 12.500 (43rd)
      • UB: 12.550 (T-23rd)
      • BB: 10.850 (T-43rd)
      • FX: 12.800 (T-16th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 10
  • Anya Pilgrim- born 11/17/2004 (12)
    • Club: Hill’s Gymnastics
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.100 (21st)
      • V: 14.100 (T-10th)
      • UB: 12.300 (27th)
      • BB: 11.750 (38th)
      • FX: 12.850 (T-14th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 9/Level 10
  • Addison Fatta- born 11/23/2004 (12)
    • Club: Prestige
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 52.250 (T-10th)
      • V: 14.100 (T-10th)
      • UB: 12.700 (T-20th)
      • BB: 12.750 (21st)
      • FX: 12.700 (20th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 9
  • Sydney Barros- born 02/21/2005 (12)
    • Club: Texas Dreams Gymnastics
      • Classics scores:
        • AA: 51.150 (T-18th)
        • V: 13.400 (19th)
        • UB: 12.100 (T-32nd)
        • BB: 13.050 (T-16th)
          FX: 12.600 (T-23rd)
      • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 9
  • Sienna Robinson- born 09/07-2005 (11)
    • Club: Brown’s
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 51.950 (15th)
      • V: 13.300 (T-22nd)
      • UB: 12.850 (T-16th)
      • BB: 12.650 (T-22nd)
      • FX: 13.150 (T-7th)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES
  • Love Birt- born 11/07/2005 (11)
    • Club: First State Gymnastics 
    • Classics scores:
      • AA: 50.250 (23rd)
      • V: 13.100 (34th)
      • UB: 11.500 (40th)
      • BB: 13.000 (T-18th)
      • FX: 12.650 (T-21st)
    • Level competed during 2016 season: HOPES/Level 10

[10:01:26 AM] Yuki: what if the entire series was just black org people and our heroes playing a pen and paper campaign
[10:01:41 AM] Detective Ran: Also I support that
[10:01:47 AM | Edited 10:02:00 AM] Melkior: “Vodka and I go to tropical land and nobody FUCKS IT UP.”
[10:02:01 AM] Yuki: dm rolls
dm: things get fucked up
[10:02:06 AM] Melkior: “Because they are all dead”
[10:02:24 AM] Yuki: Shinichi writes in a trait of “attract murder cases”
[10:02:34 AM] Detective Ran: Yes
[10:02:50 AM] Yuki: Gin gets revenge on Shinichi for ruining his and Vodka’s date by turning him into a little kid
[10:02:53 AM] Yuki: this fixes nothing
[10:03:10 AM] Melkior: THIS FIXES NOTHING
[10:04:04 AM] Yuki: Vermouth is probably the GM
[10:04:18 AM] Yuki: adds in her own character with an unlockable tragic backstory
[10:04:26 AM] Yuki: starts fucking around with everyone when NO ONE CARES ABOUT IT
[10:04:45 AM] Detective Ran: Good
[10:05:00 AM] Detective Ran: Dcmk tabletop RPG au
[10:05:23 AM] Yuki: yes
[10:05:38 AM] Detective Ran: I accept this
[10:07:35 AM] Yuki: Shinichi accuses Ran of using OOC knowledge about his character being Conan. Ran argues that he’s TOO FUCKIN’ OBVIOUS YOU DORK but throws up her hands and goes along with him
[10:07:52 AM] Detective Ran: Pffft
[10:10:11 AM] Detective Ran: Perfect
[10:10:59 AM] Yuki: Kaito’s that guy who has real life obligations and only pops in every session or so just to fuck with everyone
[10:12:28 AM] Yuki: he always rolls nat 20s too. somehow
[10:14:35 AM] Yuki: except for that time Sera got a nat 20 to flying sidekick him in the face. he failed his dodge roll
[10:15:09 AM] Melkior: Dmck tabletop omfg if Vermouth is DM she is a TROLL
[10:15:20 AM] Yuki: she is yes
[10:15:41 AM] Yuki: SO FUCK EVERYONE
[10:17:16 AM] Melkior:  So lET THE WORLD BURN
[10:18:17 AM] Yuki: Shinichi keeps wanting to do detective stuff instead of the plot and Gin keeps bugging her asking her when he can show up and do stuff
[10:19:06 AM] Yuki: Akai comes in just so Gin can have a plotline and Shinichi fucks it all up
[10:20:40 AM] Yuki: Akai dies and Vermouth tells him to make a new character. Akai just erases the name and writes a new one. Vermouth just gives him a look before going “you know…fuck it, I’ll allow it”
[10:20:50 AM] Melkior: Gin just wants to play too but gin playing means gin tries to kill the other players because game = kill right?
[10:21:03 AM] Melkior: OMFG
[10:23:44 AM] Detective Ran: I’m imagining the SIZE of the fucking room they’d need
[10:24:03 AM] Detective Ran: -rents out a convention center once a month-
[10:24:06 AM] Yuki: it started out small in someone’s basement and people kept wanting to join so they had to move somewhere else
[10:24:08 AM] Yuki: ahahaha
[10:25:50 AM] Yuki: Akai levels up and instead of raising his stats or anything, he just puts everything into Cooking
[10:26:45 AM] Detective Ran: Actually DC being a tabletop would explain why the plot moves at the pace of not at all
[10:27:01 AM] Detective Ran: Nobody gives a fuck about it
[10:27:03 AM] Yuki: yes
[10:27:05 AM] Yuki: ahaha
[10:28:05 AM] Yuki: it started out serious but Things happened
[10:28:18 AM] Detective Ran: And now cooking and memes
[10:29:42 AM] Detective Ran: Yuki - Today 1:28 PM
> it started out serious but Things happened
Every group activity ever designed
[10:29:52 AM] Yuki: srsly
[10:30:49 AM] Detective Ran: And if it’s meant to be silly it either gets worse or becomes serious
[10:35:27 AM] Yuki: Shinichi keeps putting levels into his “Murder Magnet” trait
[10:35:33 AM] Yuki: Vermouth: WHY
[10:35:40 AM] Yuki: Shinichi: because I’m a detective
[10:35:44 AM] Melkior: Oh no
[10:35:47 AM] Yuki: and so nothing got done
[10:36:42 AM] Melkior: But Omg Fucking it because DETECTIVE
[10:37:20 AM] Yuki: Vermouth keeps failing Will and Spot checks for the npcs too so no one spots the obvious Conan or the obvious SLEEPING Kogoro

tabsgalavans  asked:

10, 12, 28, 38, 39

12. What unpopular opinion do you have for the movies?

nothing is coming to mind…i guess i have pretty uncontroversial opinions about them

28. When did you first watch the movies? And read the books?

i read the books not long before the movies came out, and saw the movies in theaters

38. Someone says ‘LOTR IS BORING/TOO LONG/SUCKS’, how do you respond?

archaic smile

39. Who is your favorite horse?

bill the pony, the noblest steed of them all!!



 #時点 2012年 10月 21日 カネキ退院 (偶数月)


└ ヒデからのメールに「10/21 12:28」

ヒント ※ ビッグガールはアメリカ発のレストランチェーン




左手で頬を掻ぐ → カネキに起きたことを知らないふり(嘘)


toastweasel  asked:

1, 8-10, 12, 28, 71-79, 98 :)

1: Grown-up me identifies as lesbian. Despite always knowing that in my heart of hearts I was entirely WLW, I spent a big chunk of my baby gay era (early twenties) not really being out to much of anyone, and to those select few, I identified as bi, largely because of fear that I would not be accepted if I didn’t at least leave the door open a crack for some imaginary “the right man.” (Hint: parental disappointments and expectations played a massive role in that decision.) I dropped the public charade about eight or nine years ago. Looking back, mis-identifying was in some cases worse than just being totally closeted: it still didn’t identify me correctly, and it exposed me to all the exact stigmas and mis-perceptions I thought I was avoiding.

8-9: I probably have eight or nine gay friends, and a bunch of professional acquaintances I know through the AMA LGBT Advisory Council (which we affectionately call the GayMA). Male friends? I probably have more male than female friends, by a fairly large margin…

10: Nope. There isn’t enough hair product in the world to make my naturally curly, laughably humidity-frizzed hair look good with a butch cut. The shortest my hair has ever been was when I went to Rhode Island, and that was a collar length bob. (For which I still caught hell from my mother - “but your hair is so pretty long, why would you cut it…”)

12: Um, I’m a dog person? LOL, I’m okay with cats… though I have been assaulted by two psychotic cats in my life and that was two too many.

28: I have my rainbow Asklepian that I wear on my white coat, a rainbow safety pin flag on my backpack, and a pair of rainbow socks (because of course I would… *gay smirk*)

71: Well, I am terribly fond of Carol (for obvious reasons), but my favorite overall LGBT movie is The Normal Heart, for Jim Parsons’ immortal line “Well, thank God for the lesbians!”

72: 6/10. I’m more drawn to overall strength than muscle definition, though.
73: 8/10. Glasses are a major turn-on.
74: 1/10. I don’t care for tattoos on anyone, really.
75: 8/10. I really like having someone bigger than me to cuddle. Overly skinny is actually a fairly major turn-off.
76: Depends on the woman… there are some women I know with short hair who are “holy hell, she fiiiine” and some who are “ouch, that was a really poor life decision.” Split the difference and call it 5/10?
77: 4/10. I appreciate androgyny, but stone butch doesn’t thrill me.
78: 10/10. Intelligence in a partner is an absolute requirement.
79: 5/10. I like having a partner who’s taller than me, but not so much I have to strain my neck to talk to her, let alone kiss her. 6′ is a little much.

98: Yeah, can people not with the stereotype that we’re all man-hating ball busters secretly psychologically suffering from penis envy? Freud can kiss my Electra complex…

“Sigmund Freud… analyze this.” –Madonna, Die Another Day


Yuko’s Instagram 2016-10-27 23:44




Yuko’s Instagram Translation

Despite feeling hungry
She was overcome with emotion from meeting up with everyone
That’s Kitahara Rie-san



Sasshi’s Twitter 2016-10-28 00:43


not yet会!楽しかった〜

Sasshi’s Twitter Translation

not yet gathering! It was fun〜
With four of us around and the four of us chattering away we were 、、
Pera Pera Perako🤗♡


Kitarie’s Twitter 2016-10-28 00:51


念願のNot yet会開催🎉 #幹事横山

Kitarie’s Twitter Translation

The long awaited Not yet gathering was held🎉 #organizeryokoyama


Yuihan’s Twitter 2016-10-28 00:51


Not yet会!!


#Notyet #ノイエ

Yuihan’s Twitter Translation

Not yet gathering!!
So much fun〜(^O^)🎶

Tagging Yuko-san dehikin*。。

#Notyet #noie

Sasshi’s Twitter Comment 2016-10-28 00:54


@Yui_yoko1208 @Rie_Kitahara3 でひきん。。ヒカキンかな?

Sasshi’s Twitter Comment Translation

@Yui_yoko1208 @Rie_Kitahara3 Dehikin。。you mean HIKAKIN

Yuihan’s Twitter Comment 2016-10-28 01:09




Yuihan’s Twitter Comment Translation




Yuko’s Instagram 2016-10-28 01:07


Not yet会




#ノイエ会 #notyet #すんばらしー

Yuko’s Instagram Translation

Not yet gathering

Feels so goodー

So nostalgicー

So wonderfulー

#notyetgathering #notyet #wonderful


Kitarie’s Instagram 2016-10-28 01:49



Kitarie’s Instagram Translation

Lーove you all!


Yuko’s Twitter 2016-10-28 03:59



Yuko’s Twitter Translation

Sasshi gave me lipsticks for my birthday present. She said it’s best that I

use them together. Such a stylish present

Sasshi’s Twitter Comment 2016-10-28 10:27


@Oshima__Yuko プレゼントをあげてる本人が一番笑ってる😂

Sasshi’s Twitter Comment Translation

@Oshima__Yuko The person giving the present is smiling the most😂


Yuihan’s Twitter 2016-10-28 12:27


昨日のNot yet会で優子さんとさしこと北原さんがウォーキング・デッドの話で盛り上がってたので私も見始めました。


Yuihan’s Twitter Translation

At yesterday’s Not yet gathering Yuko-san and Sasshi-san and Kitahara-san got so lively talking about Walking Dead that I started watching it.

Good afternoon.

*Yuihan was tweeting in kansai dialect that she couldn’t tag Yuko to her tweet. But instead of ‘dekihin/できひん’ she mistyped ‘dehikin/でひきん’ and Sasshi joked about it by asking if she meant youtuber HIKAKIN ( ´∀`)

anonymous asked:

Where can I find your other work? You did such a wonderful job with your Richonne holiday fic I'd love to read them, if you have other stories.

Thanks, Anon! My friends have urged me to get a ff.net page but I’ve been slack on that point, but here are the links to my work. Hope you enjoy!

My very first Richonne story:

Richonnefics Words Unspoken:


I included this because this couple is the basis for my stories in the June Bride Challenge, the A Year in the Married Life Writing Challenge, and a couple of fics in the Lessons in Love Challenge.

Richonnefics June Bride Challenge:

I’m also going to link the other fics from this challenge because they were amazing. 


Richonnefics Lessons in Love Challenge

The 12 Days Before Christmas

Richonne Date Night Series (Richonnefics)

Richonnefics A Year in the Married Life Writing Challenge

Monday 6-27-16

Tuesday 8-23-16

Wednesday 10-28-16

Thursday 12-22-16

Friday 2-10-17

Saturday 4-1-17

Sunday 6-25-17

Drink, Interrupted

Multiple Critters asked: How many times does Matt pick up his beverage and put it back down without drinking from it?

We’ve tracked some odd things in our tenure, but this? This is among the oddest. Updated to Episode 80

Times Matt Picked Up His Drink And Didn’t Drink From It: 76

Thanks to @BabbaForrest, @ChrisVLinden, Cyberwulf, David and Sierra T., Dom W., @dutchcritter, @EBalensuela, Eric R., Greg V., icecream-s-coops, i-encourage-peace, @InvictusRob, @JacobSBrowning, @jeritchie3, jm4ny, Magus, Mel25200, @_miss_maria_, @MysticalSpider, @OmrJeuss, Ro, Rosie-lostbetweenthepages, Rowena Highlander, @sarabowdridge, @SaulOrmiston, @SilentEnGee, @silv3rsing3r, sonataofsilence, wallflowerwaitlist, @ytoti_, zahra-hana, and other critters for their work compiling this list!

Keep reading

Niall’s “Relationships”

Timelines: (if they’re grouped together, they overlap)

*Holly Scally Pre-X Factor

Sophia Wardman 10-13-10 to 10-24-10

Amelia Lily 12-6-11 to 12-10-11

Demi Lovato 4-2-12 to 6-29-12 (in the UK)/ 11-2-12 (in the US and IE)
*Ali McGinley 5-7-12 to no solid end date
Marbella/Ruth Hicks 7-7-12 to 7-10-12

*Amy Green 10-28-12 to 2-17-13

*Zoe Whelan 4-7-13 to 7-6-13, “back together” 9-18-13 to 9-20-13
Laura Whitmore 4-26-13 to 4-27-13
Louise Thompson 5-24-13 to 12-2-13
Ellie Goulding 8-20-13 to 9-15-13
Tamera Foster 11-24-13 to 11-28-13

*Barbara Palvin 12-2-13 to 2-14-14, “back together” 3-5-14

Selena Gomez 2-17-14 to 2-20-14, Hollywood Life timeline is until 6-16-14

Thalia Heffernan 6-16-14 to 7-10-14
Brooke Vincent 7-5-14 to 8-4-14

Lauren Platt 10-31-14 to 12-4-14
*Melissa Whitelaw 2-16-15 to current, rumored to have started in Nov 2014
Amy Willerton 3-30-2015


I used the online reporting coverage to determine the dates above.  The dates are based on when they’re supposed to have dated rather than when the coverage began and ended.  

I only put the relationships I counted as significant.  This was judged based on number of articles, longevity, spread of coverage, suspiciousness and likelihood of promo ties, and out of the blue factor. (Basically my gut). There were quite a few more people who were obviously never meant as serious speculation or only had 1-2 articles written about them.

* indicates the relationships I think most of the fandom/Niall stans consider to have been real relationships.  I don’t include Ellie Goulding because even though the papers actually reported them as having dated for about a month, I think everyone has the impression they were a one night stand or something casual at the very least. 

Under the cut I discuss where I got this information from in the first place and some patterns I noticed.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I think Capaldi is too old to play the doctor and the doctor shouldn't be old he should be hot But everyone says otherwise and doesn't tell me why I'm not correct ?

Okay honey, let’s go over this real quick. I did some math on this, so stay with me here.

1 - 55 , 2 - 46 , 3 - 51 , 4 - 40 , 5 - 30 , 6 - 41 , 7 - 44 , 8 - 37 , 9 - 41 , 10 - 34 , 11 - 28 , 12 - 56 , War Doctor - 73 , Average Age: 44.3

While we don’t have to count the War Doctor in this, it is true that Capaldi is going to be the oldest person to take on the role. However, he is only a year older than the very first one. Besides, he looks younger than his age while (no offence whatsoever to the other Doctors) the Classic Who era Doctors all looked actually around their age or older with the exception possibly being Davison (5). When it comes down to it, the Doctor was never supposed to be someone to be attracted to, he was supposed to be someone who can teach children (which is what the show started out as) and who can be a relatively positive role model in a time where they seem to be scarce. 

So in short, fans, especially those who grew up during the Classic Who era, feel that it doesn’t matter how old the Doctor appears. His looks have nothing to do with it and doesn’t even begin to emulate the meaning behind every episode. Times are changing and so have opinions and it makes sense that a younger audience (which I assume you are part of) would expect a younger and ‘hotter’ Doctor, though honestly Capaldi isn’t horrible to look at! Personally, and I’m sure a lot of fans would agree with me, I would rather have a brilliant actor who knows the role like the back of his hand, play the character. I don’t need someone ‘hot’ to enjoy a story. 

 - Erin

I’m bored and my art teacher wants me to learn more about diversity so:

Reblog this if you would like me to do a little character/monster-person doodle based off of your blog! (Or both your blog and selfie/face tag, just tag the post with your tag name, if you’d like!)

I’ll be doing this 09/28- 10/12! It’ll be posted with rebloggers tagged in the post c:

A Summary of My Arguments Against Christianity

In a closed group on Facebook, I decided to give an undue benefit of doubt to Christians I’ve neither met or spoken to before. I always give people a clean slate. I don’t associate a Christian I just met with Christians I’ve previously spoken to. That would be unfair to them and uncharitable. I am distrustful of Christians as a whole, given what I’ve experienced. I do, however, set that aside with the hopes that this new Christian will prove him/herself to be different from the ones I’ve spoken to. I mostly find myself disappointed because they turn to insults, blatant lies, fallacies, and outright moral depravity. I’ll summarize this lengthy discussion. Though I’m not done supporting my points and though I’m already discouraged by the responses, I’m going to finish the series. What follows is my opening statement:

It is often stated that there cannot be any proof or evidence either for a god’s existence or lack thereof. If this is the case, then what exactly is the point of pages like this or siding with one side or the other? The logical conclusion would be agnosticism.

I hold that there can be evidence both for and against a god’s existence. Some deities are so utterly fantastical, so surrounded by clear mythology, that no one, theist or not, considers them. There are, however, deities that warrant a closer look and it isn’t due to popularity, but rather, due to the arguments people have made. The god of Islam, Allah; the god of Judeo-Christianity Yahweh and also the divinity of Christ; concepts of god not tied to religions like the gods of deism and Spinoza; the supreme god of Hinduism, either Siva or Vishnu and also Vishnu’s primary avatara Krishna; the supreme god of pantheistic Hinduism, the Brahma. These deserve consideration and a few have been given ample consideration. We may also consider a god more generally, i.e., does this universe seem like the kind of universe that would feature a deity?

Given that there are a lot of Christians here, the following are the claims Christianity makes:

1. God is the creator

a) God created the universe
b) God created the Earth and solar system
c) God created life

There could be evidence for or against the general claim (1) or the sub-claims (a) - ©. Any evidence for would be a plus for Christianity; evidence against would be a plus for atheism.

2. God is perfect

a) God is perfectly good
b) God is perfectly just
c) God is perfectly loving

We can simply go to the Bible and see whether the god of its pages aligns with these claims.

3. (Related to (2)) Morality hinges on the god of Christianity
Is it possible to offer a completely irreligious system that doesn’t trace back to Christianity? I will eventually argue that you can offer such a system.

4. The Jesus of the Gospels was a historical person

This is a falsifiable/verifiable claim.

5. The Gospels are historically reliable

This claim is also falsifiable/verifiable. There can be evidence for or against these claims. Which side wins out? 

Note that a knowledge of cosmology, science more generally, philosophy, history, textual criticism, theology, anthropology, and archaeology are required to honestly answer all of these questions. Over the next couple of days, I will offer the evidence against these claims. If the evidence against these claims proves convincing, then an honest person should be convinced that Christianity is false.

On another note, I’ve not seen any evidence for any of these claims. I’ve seen apologetics, dogmatic assertions, and pseudosciences like creationism and intelligent design–the latter two also having plenty of evidence *against* them. Christianity makes many more claims, but the above claims are the primary ones–indeed the claims necessary to prove Christianity true.

To my first point, I simply linked them to my Argument From Cosmology. Aside from the interest expressed and respect given by one Christian, no one responded to it. That’s not surprising because it’s the strongest argument I offer. It’s also the most esoteric. I was serious about the note above. I stated that I opposed (1) as generally as possible. I didn’t focus on whether god created the Earth or the solar system or life. I focused on whether he could have created the universe in the first place. I noted that the sub-points can be addressed individually, but that too will require a knowledge of science, and frankly, I wasn’t at all impressed by what I saw. It would be quite the waste of time to address those points individually.

To the second point, I offered the following. This is where the frustration really started to set in because I was met with apologists for rape, genocide, infanticide, and clear violations of human rights.

Continuing yesterday’s discussion, I want to address god’s perfection. Is he perfectly good, just, and loving? The answer is a resounding no and we can indict god given what the Bible says, and given a more philosophical treatment of the concept of Hell, there’s no way to absolve god. The following verses have god commanding and partaking in atrocious acts–acts involving even infants and children. Now, on my view, a god who would condemn or punish children due to the “sins” of their parents or relatives is unjust. Ask yourself, should I be sentenced to death or life in prison because the authorities learned that my great grandfather was a serial murderer? Of course not. Yet there are instances in the Bible in where god cleanses entire tribes due to what amounts to nothing more than guilt by relation.

The following verses are quite damning. It would seem that god condoned rape, genocide, and the murder of infants and children. “But that was during the period of the law.” Sure, but when were these things ever okay? This is neither good nor just nor loving.

Numbers 31:7-19
Deuteronomy 2:33-35
Deuteronomy 3:4-7
Deuteronomy 20:12-14
Deuteronomy 20:17-18
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 8:24-25
Joshua 10:33
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Exodus 12:29,30
Leviticus 26:21,22
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
1 Samuel 15:3
2 Kings 2:23,24
Isaiah 13:15,16
Isaiah 14:21
Ezekiel 9:5,6
Hosea 9:11-16
Hosea 13:16
2 Kings 2:23-24

As for Hell, the matter is quite simple to handle. Is eternal damnation of any sort a just punishment for temporal actions? In other words, is it just to punish someone eternally based on the fact that they committed actions within time? Put another way, say you murder someone, on Christianity, you have only destroyed their body; also, you do not have the right to take their life because it is god who gives and takes life. However, given that you haven’t destroyed them entirely because you haven’t destroyed their soul, how is it just to punish a murderer for all of eternity?

On top of this, it isn’t even about “sin” anymore. It’s about rejection of Christ. If you reject Christ before men, you will be denied before the father and the angels and cast out for all of eternity. Given that there are many religions and just as many, if not more, arguments against Christianity, and given the very human penchant for fallibility, why should anyone be punished for making the mistake of thinking Christianity is false? In fact, it would seem that god has rigged the game because the evidence strongly suggests that Christianity is false. To just accept what appears astoundingly false is simply disingenuous; it’s akin to Pascal’s Wager: just wager on belief rather than doubt because you’ll be better off. On my view, if god existed, he would see right through someone like that. In any case, the concept of Hell makes god unjust and unloving. Furthermore, we can treat Hell anthropologically and historically and realize that the concept is simply not true; there’s no such place and Christians shouldn’t wish that there was. To think anyone deserves that sort of punishment is to prove that you yourself lack empathy.

Lastly, people are a product of their genetics, neurobiology, and environment. In other words, who we are is heavily determined. Perhaps it isn’t fully determined (that’s another discussion entirely; one about compatibilism and determinism), but it’s determined enough. Murderers, rapists, liars, and thieves aren’t born; they are made. They are made by abuse, by bullying, by neglect, by brain impairment and damage, by economic circumstances, etc. No one *freely chooses* to be a criminal or a law abiding citizen. Your circumstances have more of a say than you realize.

With my points briefly surveyed, we can see that god isn’t good, just, or loving. In fact, he’s proven to be quite the opposite. If you feel those verses aren’t literal or historical, then ask yourself, why did they make the cut? Is this inspired? Did god intend to write this? Why is it there to begin with? Also, there’s no allegorical interpretation to be had. There’s nothing at all figurative about those verses. If anything, perhaps they’re fictional and utterly so. It has been argued that the Israelites had no such conquests and that these stories were made up as ways to create solidarity among themselves, a way of increasing morale. But then, you can clearly see that they believed in a war god that’s no different from other war gods in mythology. Yahweh is no different from Rama in the Ramayana, leading a people in battle. Yet this is the same god Jesus referred to as father. So if his father is a myth, you have to question Jesus’ supposed divinity. To conclude that these stories are fictional leads to unwanted consequences for Christians. So there are these interpretations: historical, which has its issues; fictional, which leads to consequences; the allegorical is unavailable. What you’re left with are problematic stories that demonstrate god’s imperfection. We can also point to attributes as well, e.g., the notion that god gets angry, but we need not consider that here.

Note that I’m well aware of philosophical views of the Christian god. They are, however, incongruous with the god of the Bible. I have, in the past, argued that apologists appear to worship two different gods: Yahweh in the Bible and a philosophical concept that doesn’t fully resemble the god of the Bible. Sure, there are some points in common: eternal and therefore timeless; omnipotent; omniscient. The philosophical concepts erase his personality, so to speak. Descartes went as far as making god nearly impersonal; his deism implied that god started the universe and then fell into a slumber on his throne. To the philosophers, the notion of god’s anger or wrath simply doesn’t feature.

The Christians on the forum mostly bypassed my arguments against the concept of Hell and of course, none of them asked me to elaborate on my historical and anthropological treatment of Hell. They focused in on the verses. In response to god’s ethnic cleansing of the Midianites, one guy stated that they had a cultural identity. This led them to see the Israelites as enemies. Somehow, even the infants harbored these attitudes and because of this, they deserved to be murdered due to mere guilt by relation to their “sinful” parents. As for the virgins being stripped from their families and having to endure watching their people murdered, what justified this was that they were married to Israelite men. They weren’t sex slaves, but they became wives. Speaking of wives, when speaking specifically about Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the same guy argued that a woman marrying her rapist was justified by the fact that her father was “set up for life.” Apparently 50 shekels of silver was a fortune. He blatantly ignored that the dowry was paid to her father and not to her. He blatantly ignored the patriarchal implications and misogyny underlying the passage. So in one breath, he proved to be an apologist for genocide, infanticide, and rape.

As for the rest, one guy screamed “out of context.” I, of course, put verses in their context and showed that given context, god couldn’t be absolved. If these verses are speaking of anything historical, he isn’t good, just, or loving. Another guy literally argued that it’s enough that god merely commanded these things and didn’t do it himself. He attempted to absolve his god by pointing out that god simply ordered the hit; he didn’t take these people out himself. Not only is god not good, just, or loving, Christians are morally depraved. Unless, of course, they’re the type of Christian to regard these stories as myth. That’s the only other choice, since allegorical interpretations aren’t available to them with passages like these. Yet if they’re myths, they have to answer the question: why in the world did these stories end up in “god’s word”? What purpose do they serve? What is that supposed to teach Christians? Didn’t god, in his omniscience and sovereignty, realize that this would lead many astray? If he wants all men to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4, why allow for yet another circumstance that will lead people astray? This is the monster Jesus referred to as “father.” When regarding passages as myth, e.g., Genesis 3, the Christian has to be mindful of clear consequences.

Conversely, if Genesis 3 is a myth, there are clear exegetical issues. I’ll briefly expound. 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21

Some portions of this passage are bolded to outline the doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine can be best understood by the words “sin entered the world through one man.“ However, due to the myths of other cultures, e.g., Enuma Elish and due–in greater part–to the theory of evolution, it is fairly simple to conclude that the original sinner, Adam, did not exist. It is important to note that there are Christians who no longer accept the Creation myth in Genesis, but still accept the supposed redemptive power of the sacrifice of Christ.  Well, how can one not accept the original sinner, but accept the redeemer? It’s illogical and thus, Christians who have adjusted their beliefs in such a manner are automatically discredited by the question alone. On the other hand, there are Christians who still believe the Creation myth to be true. However, how can they reject the parallels this myth has with that of other cultures?  Moreover, how can they reject the theory of evolution–a theory that has substantial evidences in many respective fields of science?

There are only two conclusions: 1) If there was no original sinner, as the evidence strongly suggests, Jesus Christ died for nothing because there was no original sin due to the absence of an original sinner. 2) Jesus Christ did not exist because the original sinner did not exist. If there is no original sine, the first Adam, then there is no need for a redeemer–"the last Adam” as 1 Corinthians 15:45 would posit. Ultimately, both conclusions destroy Christianity at its core.  If Christ existed, he died for nothing and the message of salvation is reduced to an abstraction. If he didn’t exist, then the entire basis of Christianity is ripped from its roots. This is indeed the final nail in the cross.

I made this argument five years ago, so I can no doubt add to this. What’s curious is that Paul assumed the historicity of these passages, which is best exemplified in where he states, “from the time of Adam to the time of Moses.” Later Christians who assume they’re myths and ignore Paul’s assumption have to answer for that. Also, this is what I call a logical handcuff. If the creation myth is historical, there are consequences; if it’s myth, there are consequences, exegetical and doctrinal consequences to be more specific. Some Christians would deny original sin in attempts to escape this issue, but saying something like “sin entered the world at some point” doesn’t suffice. It’s a copout and pointing to supposed Orthodox tradition and laying into Protestants doesn’t interest me. Paul clearly makes a connection; Paul makes the doctrine explicit. If it’s not made explicit, you owe us an alternative exegesis of the passage, and from what I’ve seen, there’s none to be had.

As for the discussion, I addressed point (3) and again, there were no responses. A knowledge of philosophy would be necessary and of course, people who assume that morality is based on god and/or Christianity have no handle on ethics. People who are convinced by the Moral Argument are victims of the same sophism that plagues modern day evidentialist apologetics, e.g., William Lane Craig. So, to their minds, words like social contractualism and procedural realism are simply words that I say to sound smarter. They would much rather accuse me of being a normative relativist. Straw mans are so much easier to address. I’ll be addressing points (4) and (5) as well, but even if they’re not convinced by my arguments against a historical Gospel Jesus and the historical reliability of the Gospels, the logical handcuff above should suffice. I’m perpetually disappointed by Christians who would rather lose their teeth biting at the cuffs than admit that they’ve been indicted. To my mind, these arguments are clear and irrefutable. Turning to obscurantist tactics by speaking of god as abstractly as possible, ala David Bentley Hart, or making it about an epistemic system, e.g., presuppositionalism, misses the mark as well. My arguments cut in every direction and asking me to ground my entire epistemology or refute yours just shows that you’re dodging relevant challenges and questions, and generally speaking, people who do that are considered dishonest.