Like many men I've suffered from retroactive jealousy. I think mine stems from being compared to previous partners and others since way back in highschool and worse In my adult relationships. I was in relationships where it was emotionally abusive and I was compared constantly to previous partners subconsciously making me perceive past partners as a threat.
On the other hand I grew up pretty conservatively.
So when my girlfriend admitted one night that she had hooked up with two guys in the span of a week back in college I was quite shocked. I kept it to myself. She got more comfortable and gave me more details and my shock turned into disgust and anger and my RJ kicked in worse. Not at her. But at the situations. My girlfriend suffered abuse her whole life and in college when men started showing interest for the first time in her life she latched onto it and got hurt. The more she told me the deeper it hurt. I finally had the courage to open up and be upfront and honest with the fact I feel like she got taken advantage of. The men were mean to her got what they wanted and kicked her to the curb and as someone who has gotten to know her and love her that really bothered me. In our talk she told me those two encounters were the only ones she's had prior to me
I'll say from experience you can get abused and not taken advantage of and not realize it until someone acknowledges it. I have a habit of downplaying things. I was pressured into sex by an ex multiple times. I wasn't forcibly raped. I was pressured and it wasn't enjoyable. Just like my girlfriend was treated badly and uncomfortable. Though I suspect there's more to the story she hasn't opened up about because It upsets her a lot more than you'd thing a regrettable encounter would.
What I'm trying to get at with RJ is really dig deep in yourself and see where your disgust lies and think with empathy and an open mind that things might not be what they seem at first glance.

Hey Guys. I was at my young adults group this past Sunday and one of my friends asked a pretty packed question that is not easily answered; Should we enjoy hobbies and things that do not further the kingdom of God?
I believe that God loves us and wants us to enjoy life. He doesn't want us to struggle, though being a Christian brings a lot of hard decisions due to convictions and persecution. I always thought that he wants us to enjoy little things in life, like taking breaks by going on vacation or playing video games or something of the sort, things that don't necessarily further the Kingdom. However, Paul says in Philippians 3:8 "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish..." And in Jeremiah 9:23-24 "This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord.” ‭‭I know that boasting is slightly different but the gist of it is the same. Would it not be better to give up all things? I know that a lot depends on personal convictions, but I feel like a lot of people use that as an excuse to not delve deeper into their relationship with God. I don't really know what I think, but am just looking for some clarity on this. Thanks people!

This can be dumb but please help me make a decision. I (20F) have been in a relationship with my boyfriend (27M) for two months. I knew him since January this year, dated for a month before going official. To the people concerned about the age gap, he's not grooming me or anything. I met him on Tinder. I only created an account for fun but surprisingly we matched very well. So far this has been going perfect. He's almost the perfect boyfriend. He takes care of me , loves me and is very compassionate. He's very in tune with his masculinity, pays the bill and buys me gifts. He never touched me without my consent or mistreated me and he's always made me feel safe. He's a good guy and I've seen his mother and sister but I haven't met them. Now for context we live in a very conservative country where free mixing is kind of frowned upon. It's not illegal to hold hands outside but there's always people side eyeing you. A few days ago when we were on a date he said he really wanted to make out with me. I reciprocate the desire but the thing is there is no privacy (We both live with our parents everyone here does and you're not supposed to have boyfriends or have a relationship before marriage). The only way you can get some private space is to either get a hotel room or manage a house. Today he told me that we could go to his friends house to have a good time. But the problem is even though I truly trust him I don't think I'll feel safe in someone elses house. I grew up listening to stories where girls went to their boyfriends houses and they sedated them and the girls were brutally raped and killed and then when those girls asked for justice society very obviously blamed them for going with their boyfriends in the first place. While I know and believe my boyfriend will never do anything to hurt me I just can't let go of my inner fears of something like that happening if I go to his place. When I told him this he was very hurt and he said if I have so much distrust towards him then we shouldn't be together. I really tried explaining this to him but he's hooked on the fact that I don't trust him enough to feel safe with him. What do I do now? I'm really in a dilemma because I do want to spend time with him and I do trust him but I'm afraid of something bad like that happening to me and I can't let go of my fears but he just won't understand and he's upset that I don't trust him. What do I do now?

Note I copy and pasted this from my post on the Franz Bardon sub, and in case there’s some confusion as to what I’m talking about, basically in Bardon’s system there’s several kinds of meditation one must do, and most include focusing on one idea or an image or an audio sound, such as that. As well as focusing on the space between thoughts, to empty your mind, that’s what I’m referring to
Hey guys,
Been reflecting lately on my practice. Been at it for 9 months I believe? I’m aware that these thoughts and feelings of frustration I’m having should be observed and let go of. But I guess I’m searching for guidance, assurance, maybe a shift of mindset?
I lack focus and concentration with my meditations. Observing my thoughts is… well not so difficult because you’re just sitting down observing everything. But with the concentrations exercises like focusing on one thought, on emptiness, or an object, I find it extremely difficult to focus. My mind wanders constantly. In and out of meditation. Even with mindfulness I feel like I will observe my thoughts and try to come back to the present, but it only lasts briefly before I’m lost again. I’m constantly realizing I’m not being mindful sure but I don’t stay in the Now too long.
Same for meditation, I’d say I spend 30% of my sessions focused on the object and the other 70% distracted by my thoughts.
Often in our little community, and of course in meditation communities in general you will read and hear how the more you meditate and practice the more quiet the mind gets, the larger the gap of silence gets. I have not experienced that just yet. Months later. I will say that I identify with my thoughts much less (but still have my moments, like right now, identifying with my thoughts of frustration). But my mind is always racing at any given moment most of the time.
And I feel like it affects just about everything. My conscious eating and washing feels half assed, like it’s being diluted with my racing mind and lessening its effect. At times I feel like… a puppet, who’s being pulled back by the mind. Being pulled from following MY intentions.
And I’m not sure what is it that I should be doing. Though not officially diagnosed, I’ve no doubt I have some form of ADHD. Based on the way symptoms are described online.
So I don’t know whether I should

• Accept as it is, and do my best and keep moving on. But feel like it’s me choosing the lazy way
  
• change my mindset, approach things differently, but how?
  
• do some other kind of practice that really increased the skill of concentration, but which one? Is there such system? The exercises of Step I apparently are there for that.
  

Again, I just need some kind of guidance or maybe some assurance…. This past week my mind has been laying heavy. I’m sure these feelings of frustration shall pass. But I did feel the need to post to get some help and advice on what I could be doing to be better.
Thanks!

One of my best friends, let's call him John and I have been friends for around 5 years now, ever since we worked at the same company back in 2019. We spent a lot of time together in the office, were dicking around constantly instead of working, went out after work etc. I quickly developed a crush which I didn't act on, as I have been (and still am) in a relationship with my bf at the time. The problem came when he told me he was really into me and because I have a boyfriend, we cannot keep in touch and as we both had left the company by then, he blocked me and we haven't spoken for about a year. He reached out and ever since we've been back to being best friends. We don't hang out all the time now, but we chat all the time and hang out every few weeks (play video games, go out drinking, watch movies). This was all well and good until we went on a longer vacation in may: my bf, John, John's two friends and I. So there we spent all day together the five of us and I caught myself developing a crush again. I will not act on it I am not willing to risk both relationships for this. If I ever decide I want to be with John I'll break up with my boyfriend and spend some time alone first. But my stomach has fucking butterflies whenever he smiles at me and it's killing me. How can I deal with this? How should I? Should I even? It can just go away right? But I am afraid that he would realize how I feel and leave me again. (I have awful separation anxiety)
Tldr: I have a bf but I have a huge crush on my male best friend. How do I navigate this so I don't ruin my relationship or my friendship?

Hey folks, I recently theorycrafted 32 pretty unique decks and I'd love if you took a look at them and shared some thoughts! I have 8 years of experience playing Commander (started playing in Shard of New Alara) and my experience runs from random sweaty anti-social LGS pods to house-rule home-brew home-boy tabletop pods.
I have the decks numbered from 1 to 5. 1 being the least "powerful" and 5 being cEDH or cEDH adjacent. What that means is that there's some strategies and cards at those higher numbers I won't use for the lower numbers. Not trying to force that on other people, that's just what I do.
TIERS
Tier 1 is Jank tier, it's just mostly old cards, budget builds, and bad tribal or theme decks. Really defined more by what it isn't than what it is. Tier 2 are more well-supported archetypes built around more mechanics than a theme. Kind of built at the same level as where pre-Wilds of Eldraine precons were. Tier 3 are your average post-Wilds precon "casual" decks. Tier 4 these are your average "power level 7 decks" where "degenerate" strategies are available like MLD, infect, infinite combos, free sacrifice outlets, storm etc. Tier 5 is cEDH or cEDH adjacent. For me that means everything above with the addition of tutors, fast mana, and hard lock stax pieces (winter orb, tangle wire, etc).
TIER 1 DECKS
White Zombies 1 - Hipster Zombie Tribal // Commander / EDH (God-Eternal Oketra) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This list hearkens back to the days when mono-W had no card draw and we had to walk uphill both ways. Outside of good old Mentor of the Meek, you had to have a mana sink to stay in the game. So the idea here is to use Oketra's cast trigger and a Whitemane Lion (or two of the lesser ones together) to use as a mana sink to pump out an army of beefy, vigilant zombies. Has to use some interesting "overrun" effects to steal a win sometimes like Akroma's Blessing.
Non-W Radiation 1 - Atomic Ascension // Commander / EDH (Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder (and [[Bloodchief Ascension]]): I love Fallout almost as much as I hate the options for 4-color commanders. Luckily, Yidris looks just like a supermutant! And they released a 3-color deck in his colors based around mutants? Perfect. This deck just mashes all the radiation cards together and the twist with Yidris is that the only 1-drop in the deck is Bloodchief Ascension which works really, really well with Radiation both in that it turns it on really easy and it magnifies the damage radiation deals.
Dimir Beaters 1 - Blackwater // Commander / EDH (Jon Irenicus, Shattered One) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This is hands down my favorite deck. Most people run Jon as a give-away bad gifts commander but I find that actually makes Jon way way more of a target than he deserves and when he's down your hand is full of dead draws. So what I did instead was make this a midrangey aggro deck with Jon acting essentially as Halana and Alena, Partners. He just gives pseudo-haste and a buff to a beater AND he makes 1/3 of your opponents not care about removing it. They might even protect it! And sometimes if y'all feeling crazy or you just need to remove a player you can pass Jon along to willing teammates for a voluntary Slicer effect.
5-Color Pillowfort 1 - Can't Touch This // Commander / EDH (Kyodai, Soul of Kamigawa) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: The goal of this deck is to play STAX. And by that I mean prevent the opponents from doing what their deck tries to do, if that thing is killing you. Ok this is just pillowfort. The only gimmick is that you can use the commander to give a Veteran Bodyguard or an infini-blocker indestructible.
Gruul Dragons & Burn 1 - Reign of Fire // Commander / EDH (Klauth, Unrivaled Ancient) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This is just dragon tribal. Its gimmick is that it uses Earthquake effects as asymmetrical boardwipes. This is built like a burn deck so I tried to think of each dragon by how much damage it would get in before it got removed. It also has some fun tech in here like Overabundance/Descent into Avernus to help out your aggro/burn plan.
Red Budget Voltron 1 - The Chosen Undead ($50 Budget) // Commander / EDH (Squee, Goblin Nabob) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This is a budget deck so I'm gonna need some slack here! Basically the gameplan is murder hobo your way through the game by just killing everything until all that's left is your unkillable commander and his bottomless inventory of weapons. There's some discard shenanigans in here which is why I picked Nabob over the Immortal (and I didn't want to get into combo territory). Isamaru is kinda powercrept out but he proves that sometimes Voltron decks just need the commander to bt e there.
TIER 2
Bant Angels 2 - Chicks that are Birds // Commander / EDH (Susan Foreman and The Eighth Doctor) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: Angel Tribal. I use Susan Foreman and a high land count to reliably cast explosive vegetation. This allows me to play really nothing under 4cmc in this deck. and NO mana rocks People used to do this with Radha but I'd be lying if I said Salubrious Snail didn't remind me of this. The eighth doctor is in here for late-game card advantage and to enable things like Trinisphere (since my curve is so high).
Orzhov Hatebears 2 - 3rd Party Consent // Commander / EDH (Athreos, God of Passage) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This deck is a pretty theoretical politics/hatebears build that focuses on hating out very common "meta" strategies. The thing is that opponents aren't running the same strategies. So, god forbid, if one of your hatebears dies, you can just ask the other opponent if he wants to enable the guy it actually affects. A weird prisoner's dilemma and a fun challenge. What I intentionally didn't add were aristocrats effects because the SECOND you gain some advantage from the opponent agreeing to let you have something they'll deny it to you instead. Idk just win with Rise of the Dark Realms or something. Still figuring that out...
Abzan Deathtouch 2 - Crawling Men // Commander / EDH (Tymna the Weaver and Kamahl, Heart of Krosa) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: If you're familiar with flying men this is just that, but on the ground. Use early game deathtouchers and Tymna to get a draw engine going and then just annoy the hell out of people until you get enough mana to cast Garruk and unlock trample/deathtouch shenanigans. There's probably too many 1-drops in this but it's worked fine so far. This might indicate this could go to a higher power level if I tuned it more.
Jeskai Non-Combo Mill 2 - Deckmate // Commander / EDH (Pramikon, Sky Rampart) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: The problem with non-combo mill in EDH is that you have to mill 300 cards away from people who are all irrationally trying to kill you. With Pramikon you can narrow that number down to 1! Ideally, Pramikon allows you to access cards that would normally only work well in a traditional 1v1 game of commander (usually Planeswalkers, I have a few). For us that means monarch payoffs and single-target removal. Might even get to successfully use a Circle of Protection depending on who's next to you!
Boros Forced Combat 2 - Hard Kor // Commander / EDH (Tajic, Blade of the Legion) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: This deck is all about Stuffy Dolls. Everybody knows you can Blasphemous act a stuffy doll for a cool 13 damage. But did you know, when you have a Kor out, you can make that 26? When those things aren't available you can use forced combat to have opponents hit each other. It's also very easy to have a whole team forced to block your Stuffy Doll. That's always fun. Your commander is honestly just there for defense.
Colorless Howling Mine Tribal 2 - Let me be your Liberator // Commander / EDH (Liberator, Urza's Battlethopter) deck list mtg // Moxfield — MTG Deck Builder: Honestly, most colorless decks just feel like mono-Green decks. Just ramp as fast as you can to Kozilek or whatever card-draw engine commander you have up there to make sure you don't just ramp into nothing or eat a boardwipe. Then I saw Liberator...and yeah it's still kinda bad. We have the same problem of just not having any draw powemana sink ability. So I just decided to make card draw as irrelevant as possible by playing Howling Mine tribal. Almost everything that draws everybody cards is in here. A word of caution: In my experience these kind of card draw group hug games only go 2 ways: 1. Everyone draws all their answers, the board is constantly wiped, the game takes forever, 2. Combo/Storm players just draw faster into a winning state before they can get aggro'd out. So what do you do? Just make the grindiest possible deck that can survive boardwipes and stax out combos and outlast until you can hit Kozilek and lock everyone out...or something. Needs work I'll be honest. I put this in T2 only because I'll likely be playing other Eldrazi titans if I get them and it didn't feel right to put them in T1.
CLIFFHANGER
Well that took a lot longer to write up than I thought. Most of y'all are probably asleep by now xD If there's enough interest I'll post the rest on here later.

We made an offer on a house in rural SW VA. It’s 53 acres with a spring located on the property and a cabin but the cabin for whatever reason was never hooked up to water nor has plumbing. Our plan is to hook it up the cabin to the spring and use this property as a mini farm. However within an hour of making our offer the listing agent called our agent asking if we are okay sharing the spring with the neighbor below because if we stop sharing with them they could take the issue to court and win because they have been using for 40 years (with no legal right). Our agent tried to convince us the best thing to do is to give the neighbors an easement to the spring. It then comes out that it’s two neighbors down below who have been leaching water from the spring using pipes that are gravity fed. The listing agent then shares with our realtor that the property was previously under contract and the previous guy who was buying it spoke to the neighbors below, 1 house two trailers - they are all related and they have a spring down there that one is already using and he said they were open to moving to their family spring if he bought them a pump because the gravity fed pipes often freeze over or get clogged. So we asked the seller to go talk to these neighbors and even offered to pay for a pump, he then came back and relayed the message that it will take more then a pump to move the neighbors off the spring of the property he’s selling to their own spring, I had to ask my realtor for clarification and she said that the seller said they need electricity and reservoir built so it’s just better to let them keep using the spring on the property we are buying because they been using it 40 years and that they would only come on the property to fix the pipes and they are in bad health. The sellers also sent be a counter offer just to change the title company so I have a chance to walk away from the deal right now. My fear is that there won’t be enough water in the spring once we also start using it but I’ve also never seen the spring. It also feels like the seller is trying to sell a property with disputes he can’t or doesn’t want to resolve. What is the best solution, should I just buy the property knowing there could be disputes with neighbors if they don’t get their water or enough. Or should I just walk away or is there another solution?

I would like to buy a drone to take pictures when I go trekking, I have never had one until now and by doing a little research I understood that, for my budget, I could choose these two, I would like it to have the following function the subject automatically as well as having good video stabilization and good video performance.
what do you recommend?

This is gonna be a long post and open for discussion.
I'm a 26 year old guy and the younger son in an upper middle class family. I have an elder brother who's married and works in IAF. Dad works in state irrigation sector and has 1 more year of service after which he would be getting decent pension afaik. Financially, I don't have any responsibilities on me.
All my life, I sort of felt like I was in a different plane than the rest of the people. I could get along with everyone in school and college but I used to feel what others were doing naturally, I was trying to pretend to fit in. It was manageable until college but once I got onto a job, it became too much. Every little aspect of my work unless prompted and spoon fed, is not occurring to me. My team mates have to remind me everyday to join the team meeting. They have to guide me what I should do, who to connect to regarding work, every little thing of my job has to be told to me. It's like some switch is off in me that isn't allowing life to flow through me naturally. I have to mentally think every little action I am supposed to do everywhere I go. One analogy I could think of is that I'm a bike whose engine isn't turned on and there isn't enough fuel in it and I'm manually pushing it everywhere. With this condition, I'm trying to enter bike trips and races with other people whose engines are up and running. This only creates so much disharmony with others and I feel guilty that I'm holding back other people. It was very stressful until two years ago when I quit my job to sort this issue out. I spent the last two years completely immersed in spirituality and stayed in multiple ashrams during this period. This helped me a lot to almost entirely eliminate stress from my life and I'm very peaceful now. I'm pretty confident I can be peaceful for the rest of my life. I have no interest in the outside world much. The idea of getting married and having kids again to continue this cycle seems so exhausting to me and particularly in the current times. My only goal in life now is to find the very source of my life and to completely dissolve into the universe. Unless something is in my karma and I have no choice but to do it (like doing a job or getting married) to clear that karma, I won't do it just for the sake of doing it or for society. My dream life right now is to take up a small farm in a small town and live a solitary peaceful life until I die. And I don't see it very difficult to achieve that either. I can take a small share of my father's wealth and give the rest to my brother. I don't really care if other people think of me as a loser in the society or one who doesn't have a life.
My parents are very lenient and fine with whatever I'm doing. I feel like the luckiest guy to be in this situation especially when I see some posts on reddit how their family is toxic to them or people stuck in difficult marriages and all that. I don't have any reason to be in the society much and I can just focus on my own spiritual path until either I get enlightened or I die (in which case, I can continue my path in the next life), both of which are fine with me.
What do you people think? Would be glad to hear your views.

I start.
The worse I ever did to this girl for a whole year, and in the middle of doing so many good things for her was:

• I once told her she was not my type, to wich i apologized and canceled my comment.
• I Told her I watched a porn video when she sent me a hentai pic... she broke up with me again and blocked me..
• I told her friend that she ignored me and made me pick between my only female friend and her..
• I added 3 contacts from work in my phone including 2 guys and one girl.. she broke up with me i added that girl..
• I sent her a pic of a sex shop to share with her bc she used to send me sex toys pics.. she thought I called a sex doll thick..
• I told her that my only female friend didnt know about us. (she had 5 guys in her whatsap that I never asked about.. and 8k guys in snapshat.. )
• I said she didnt love me when she wanted to break up with me for the 1321 time.. but I didnt blame her everytime she insulted me or blocked me or said the same..
• I said a webpage said she was a bit overweight bc I cared about her weight health when she told me her weight and she initiated the topic.

I start.
The worse I ever did to this girl for a whole year, and in the middle of doing so many good things for her was:

• I once told her she was not my type, to wich i apologized and canceled my comment.
• I Told her I watched a porn video when she sent me a hentai pic... she broke up with me again and blocked me..
• I told her friend that she ignored me and made me pick between my only female friend and her..
• I added 3 contacts from work in my phone including 2 guys and one girl.. she broke up with me i added that girl..
• I sent her a pic of a sex shop to share with her bc she used to send me sex toys pics.. she thought I called a sex doll thick..
• I told her that my only female friend didnt know about us. (she had 5 guys in her whatsap that I never asked about.. and 8k guys in snapshat.. )
• I said she didnt love me when she wanted to break up with me for the 1321 time.. but I didnt blame her everytime she insulted me or blocked me or said the same..
• I said a webpage said she was a bit overweight bc I cared about her weight health when she told me her weight and she initiated the topic.

The so-called “troubles” in Northern Ireland never go away, you know. Shelves of books continue to be published. There is a sizeable stand at WHSmith in Belfast airport dedicated to the latest crop. Film-makers are still drawn to the subject. One of the most recent, Baltimore, related (poorly) the story of the 1974 theft of priceless paintings orchestrated on behalf of the IRA by Rose Dugdale. And television programme-makers often return to the conflict. At each end of March 2024, for example, the BBC screened two very different documentaries that dealt with its earliest phase. The first was a 13-minute segment in the third part of a series, How the BBC Began. The second, The Secret Army, was a 90-minute film about a film, concerning a “disappeared” documentary about the IRA made in 1972 by an American academic.
It would have been of far greater value if the interrogation of the BBC’s role in Northern Ireland had been given a solo 90-minute slot. As for the second, well, let’s just say half an hour would have been long enough. But both, in their very different ways, reminded us that truth is always a moving target. While retelling a history we know well – or think we know well – they underlined the overwhelming importance of propaganda. In war, and let’s not haggle over that description of what took place for 30 years on the streets of Belfast and Derry, the fabrication assumes as great a role, arguably a greater one, than the reality. As three of the BBC’s former luminary staff made abundantly clear, the story they were required to tell did not come close to fulfilling the stated aim of Britain’s public service broadcaster to present impartial information to its listeners and viewers. Each of them admitted they were prevented from telling what they knew to be the truth.
For the record, here’s what they said. First up, Sir Paul Fox, controller of BBC1 for six years from 1967: “In a way, it was as difficult to film in Northern Ireland as it was to film in the Soviet Union … stuff was censored, there’s no question about it, by the hierarchy in Northern Ireland. I suppose it’s worth saying there were bloody Protestants who were running the BBC in those days and had a grip on it … everything that was filmed by Tonight and Panorama in Northern Ireland had to be seen by the head of programmes in Northern Ireland, and he would act as a censor… There were no Catholics working in the BBC in senior positions. Outrageous.”
Second, Denis Tuohy, who learned on joining BBC Belfast in 1960 that he was the first Catholic to work in the newsroom, because a local paper greeted his recruitment with the headline: “At last, an appointment from the outside.” He said: “Those who ran the BBC in Northern Ireland and the unionist government of Northern Ireland … had lots of mutual friends.” Eight years later, by now working in London, Tuohy’s editor thought him the perfect reporter to send to Belfast to cover the outbreak of riots “to help us to understand” what was happening. But the editor was overruled, explaining to Tuohy: “BBC Northern Ireland have protested at the highest level of the BBC in London to you as the reporter… They feel you would be too close to the story.” Too off-message, more like.

The man in the white suit who was “kind of impartial”

Third, Martin Bell, sent from London to report during the earliest days of the troubles: “I hardly knew the difference between Belfast and Dublin. I’ve never admitted this before, but it is true… I learned very quickly the sort of thing you had to learn… the BBC’s controller in Northern Ireland was breathing over your shoulder all the time… BBC cameras and reporters were attacked by the loyalists because we were not the voice of loyalism, because we were kind of impartial and even-handed, even then, and we were giving a voice to their republican rivals, so I got harassed quite a bit.”
Kind of impartial? Even that was too much for the then-unionist government in Stormont. But, with the greatest of respect to Mr Bell, to refer to the BBC’s coverage of the conflict that raged from 1968 until 1998 as “kind of impartial” is entirely to miss the point. Aside from suggesting that truth is some kind of spectrum, it was wholly incorrect. Not kind of impartial, but very partial indeed. Partial and, in some instances, wholly untruthful. What is now evident, and should have been evident at the time, was the willingness of the BBC, which habitually asserted its independence from the state, to do the state’s bidding. Yet this is not, any longer, a controversial viewpoint. It is mainstream. It is accepted as fact. Note the lack of any reaction by the current BBC hierarchy, by politicians, or by commentators, to those statements by Fox, Tuohy and Bell. They provoked no denials. Nothing we haven’t known for years. That was then, and this is now. Move on.
But shaking our heads and lamenting what some would like to pass off as a historical aberration is just not good enough. The BBC’s news and current affairs output failed every possible test of impartiality. The fact that its censorship has long been recognised does not negate the significance of what happened. Nor should it be allowed to pass into some kind of historical limbo. Each additional revelation of the BBC’s faults during that conflict requires examination and explanation. As Fox rightly indicated, pro-unionist prejudice was embedded within the BBC from its inception. The Belfast-based controllers, all of them drawn from a unionist background and supportive of the Stormont government, were allowed to do as they wished by the corporation’s London headquarters. None more so than Waldo Maguire, controller from 1966 to 1972, who suppressed anything he considered inflammatory, meaning, of course, anything that offered even an inkling of the truth. What he achieved and, through him, the wider BBC, was a bias against understanding.
For example, the framing of civil rights protests in 1969 as some kind of stalking horse for the IRA was a crucial deception, playing on the fears of unionists within Northern Ireland while creating among its audience in Britain a bogeyman enemy which, at the time, did not exist as a fighting force. As Bell recalled, reality was camouflaged. When Catholics were burned out of their homes, he was told: “You’re not allowed to call them Catholics. You have to call them refugees.”
These contributions to a false narrative were also charted, along with several others, in a fascinating and meticulous 2015 study by Robert Savage, The BBC’s ‘Irish troubles’: Television, conflict and Northern Ireland. As he related, matters grew infinitely worse for the BBC once British soldiers were deployed on the streets in August 1969. Their arrival engendered the founding, some four months later, of the Provisional IRA and, suddenly, the shadow enemy assumed factual existence. From this point on, the battles on the streets were echoed by battles behind the scenes for media influence.
Despite Maguire’s malign influence, some BBC reporters refused to toe the line. John Bierman, for instance, broadcast a network news item in February 1971 in which he said: “There are growing doubts about the army’s impartiality among moderate middle-class Catholics desperately anxious to hold their co-religionists back from extremism.”
This report enraged the authorities, in Stormont and in Westminster. It also prompted the British army and Britain’s secret services to get their act together. Seen in retrospect, one of the most remarkable aspects of their response was its speed and sophistication. Informed by counter-insurgency experience elsewhere in Britain’s empire, notably by that of General Sir Frank Kitson, it was understood that censorship was no longer good enough; it must be replaced by its more proactive cousin, propaganda. Far and away its greatest success was to institute what became the conflict’s most persuasive overarching media narrative, the portrayal of the army as the disinterested piggy in the middle between two warring tribes.

Maguire becomes the Godfather of news output

It was eagerly adopted by the “neutral” BBC. But there was no tribal equality. There was never any doubt that one tribe – variously described as Catholic, nationalist or republican – was the state’s main enemy. To hammer home the point, lest the BBC’s journalists stray, various pressures were applied, overt and covert, to reinforce the message. When internment was introduced in August 1971, government ministers openly warned the BBC to beware “bias”. The defence secretary, Lord Carrington, wrote to the corporation’s chairman, Lord Hill, to complain about reports “which are unfairly loaded to suggest improper behaviour by British troops”. The post and telegraphs minister, Christopher Chataway, then made a speech in which he said broadcasters need no longer strike an even balance between the unionist government and the IRA, nor between the army and the IRA. Lord Hill took the hint, writing to the home secretary, Reginald Maudling, to affirm that “as between the British Army and the gunmen the BBC is not and cannot be impartial”. These exchanges had the effect of reinforcing Maguire’s hand, cementing his power over all output relating to Northern Ireland. He forbade reporters from interviewing released internees who alleged army brutality and prevented the screening of an interview with the civil rights leader Michael Farrell on his release. He also overruled the making of an “in depth” programme about the IRA.
Although these decisions were not made public at the time, BBC journalists were aware of them. What they did not know was the army’s decision, in the wake of public hostility to internment, to engage in a covert media war through the formation of its notorious information policy unit. The single aim of this khaki public relations initiative was to disseminate misinformation (aka lies). Working closely with the secret services, notably MI5, and often with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), it developed into an agency of deceit. Years passed before reporters realised they could not trust its briefings. Again, this is now well known, a matter of record, and it is therefore tempting to pass it off as a deviation from the norm, the result of the requirement to deal with exceptional circumstances. No need, all these years on, to rake over old coals. Nothing new can be found in those embers. Wrong, so wrong.
By December 1971, disinformation was the order of the day for the army, and one of its central themes was the denigration of the Provisional IRA. Their operatives were to be portrayed as cowards and/or psychopaths who bombed indiscriminately without a care for the local population. One of that policy’s most contentious manifestations followed the bombing that month of a Belfast pub favoured by Catholics, McGurk’s Bar. It was one of Northern Ireland’s deadliest atrocities, killing 15 Catholics, including two children, and wounding 17 more.
Immediately afterwards, British security forces briefed journalists about the bomb having exploded inside the pub. Unnamed “forensic experts” were cited as having “pinpointed” the centre of the blast with “a tell-tale crater” in the main bar area. It was further hinted that the pub was a regular meeting place for members of the Provisional IRA. These falsehoods suggested that the bomb was an IRA device, a scenario enthusiastically endorsed by none other than Kitson, the commander of 39 Infantry Brigade. He noted in his log that the RUC had “a line that the bomb” was “left in the pub to be picked up by the Provisional IRA. Bomb went off and was a mistake”.
Yet a British army technical officer had already reported to his superiors that it was the pub’s entrance that was cratered and was, therefore, “the seat of the explosion”. This dovetailed with the account of a witness, an eight-year-old boy, who told of seeing men drive up and place a package at the pub’s doorway. This statement was subsequently supported by the confession of the only man prosecuted for the crime (in 1977, loyalist Robert Campbell of the UVF was sentenced to life imprisonment, eventually serving 15 years). But it was the lie that gained media traction, especially at the BBC’s “prestigious” current affairs programme Panorama. Weeks after the event, it reported that “an IRA bomb” was responsible for the massacre.
So far, so bad. A tone had been set. In subsequent years, there was a reliance on unattributed briefings and a belief in their veracity. In the BBC’s news report in January 1972 about Bloody Sunday in Derry, in which 14 people were killed by the Paratroop Regiment, one sentence was particularly notable: “The gun battle lasted about 25 minutes.” That lie – there was no battle – was finally laid to rest 38 years later by Lord Savile’s inquiry. It was, however, just one of so many examples where the security forces’ version of events was too readily accepted.
As if the external political pressure, internal constraints and the army’s information policy unit were not enough to keep the BBC in check, it has become apparent that there was another undeclared level of contact between the corporation and the state. Pioneering research into the BBC archives by Belfast-based Ciarán MacAirt, founder of the Paper Trail charity and grandson to two McGurk’s Bar victims, has revealed a fascinating link between a secret section of the Foreign Office, the Information Research Department (IRD), and a well-placed BBC executive. The contact is clear from a letter sent by the IRD’s Josephine O’Connor Howe to John Cecil Crawley, chief assistant to the then-BBC director-general, Sir Charles Curran.

BBC discounted evidence from eyewitnesses to bombing

She offered Crawley “a background paper” on the IRA, adding that “as usual it is sent for your personal background and is not for attribution”. That letter, dated December 6, 1971, was delivered on the day the BBC in Belfast interviewed two witnesses to the McGurk’s Bar explosion, both of whom offered evidence diametrically opposed to the army’s “official version”, evidence that the BBC discounted. Crawley, in thanking O’Connor Howe for the “very interesting” paper, confirmed that he had sent it on to Desmond Taylor, editor of news and current affairs. Taylor had inherited the job weeks before from Crawley, who headed the news department for four years after spending 26 years as a BBC correspondent and editor.
MacAirt has unearthed other files that show IRD contact with BBC managers and journalists. One file of “ad hoc” BBC contacts was compiled by Norman Reddaway, whose 1970 Foreign Office title as “assistant undersecretary for information and cultural affairs” tended to conceal his real role as, to quote his obituary, “an expert in the field of intelligence and counterpropaganda”. It was also the case that the London-based IRD was closely allied to the army’s Belfast-based information policy unit. At least one of its operatives, Hugh Mooney, was a former journalist for the Irish Times and Reuters, who worked for both. The interpenetration of journalists with the secret services is hardly a new revelation, of course, but each new discovery raises important questions.
Nor must we forget that there is a human element to all this obfuscation and secrecy. MacAirt’s grandmother, Kitty Irvine, died in the McGurk’s blast, and his grandfather John, who served in an Irish regiment of the British army, was badly injured. MacAirt is one of the many bereaved who have been campaigning for a generation to expose the truth and to obtain official acknowledgement of what he calls “the casual criminalisation of our loved ones”. They are also seeking an apology from all concerned, including the BBC. The struggle has involved lengthy and expensive court actions. It has also shown up the BBC in a continuing poor light. In December 2021, the BBC failed to mark the 50th anniversary of the bombing. When reminded of the omission, an online news report was belatedly published. The painstaking research into this incident alone justifies further investigation into the relationship between the BBC and the secret services of the state. There are plenty of similar cases that demand attention too
The so-called “troubles” in Northern Ireland never go away, you know. Shelves of books continue to be published. There is a sizeable stand at WHSmith in Belfast airport dedicated to the latest crop. Film-makers are still drawn to the subject. One of the most recent, Baltimore, related (poorly) the story of the 1974 theft of priceless paintings orchestrated on behalf of the IRA by Rose Dugdale. And television programme-makers often return to the conflict. At each end of March 2024, for example, the BBC screened two very different documentaries that dealt with its earliest phase. The first was a 13-minute segment in the third part of a series, How the BBC Began. The second, The Secret Army, was a 90-minute film about a film, concerning a “disappeared” documentary about the IRA made in 1972 by an American academic.
It would have been of far greater value if the interrogation of the BBC’s role in Northern Ireland had been given a solo 90-minute slot. As for the second, well, let’s just say half an hour would have been long enough. But both, in their very different ways, reminded us that truth is always a moving target. While retelling a history we know well – or think we know well – they underlined the overwhelming importance of propaganda. In war, and let’s not haggle over that description of what took place for 30 years on the streets of Belfast and Derry, the fabrication assumes as great a role, arguably a greater one, than the reality. As three of the BBC’s former luminary staff made abundantly clear, the story they were required to tell did not come close to fulfilling the stated aim of Britain’s public service broadcaster to present impartial information to its listeners and viewers. Each of them admitted they were prevented from telling what they knew to be the truth.
For the record, here’s what they said. First up, Sir Paul Fox, controller of BBC1 for six years from 1967: “In a way, it was as difficult to film in Northern Ireland as it was to film in the Soviet Union … stuff was censored, there’s no question about it, by the hierarchy in Northern Ireland. I suppose it’s worth saying there were bloody Protestants who were running the BBC in those days and had a grip on it … everything that was filmed by Tonight and Panorama in Northern Ireland had to be seen by the head of programmes in Northern Ireland, and he would act as a censor… There were no Catholics working in the BBC in senior positions. Outrageous.”
Second, Denis Tuohy, who learned on joining BBC Belfast in 1960 that he was the first Catholic to work in the newsroom, because a local paper greeted his recruitment with the headline: “At last, an appointment from the outside.” He said: “Those who ran the BBC in Northern Ireland and the unionist government of Northern Ireland … had lots of mutual friends.” Eight years later, by now working in London, Tuohy’s editor thought him the perfect reporter to send to Belfast to cover the outbreak of riots “to help us to understand” what was happening. But the editor was overruled, explaining to Tuohy: “BBC Northern Ireland have protested at the highest level of the BBC in London to you as the reporter… They feel you would be too close to the story.” Too off-message, more like.
The man in the white suit who was “kind of impartial”
Third, Martin Bell, sent from London to report during the earliest days of the troubles: “I hardly knew the difference between Belfast and Dublin. I’ve never admitted this before, but it is true… I learned very quickly the sort of thing you had to learn… the BBC’s controller in Northern Ireland was breathing over your shoulder all the time… BBC cameras and reporters were attacked by the loyalists because we were not the voice of loyalism, because we were kind of impartial and even-handed, even then, and we were giving a voice to their republican rivals, so I got harassed quite a bit.”
Kind of impartial? Even that was too much for the then-unionist government in Stormont. But, with the greatest of respect to Mr Bell, to refer to the BBC’s coverage of the conflict that raged from 1968 until 1998 as “kind of impartial” is entirely to miss the point. Aside from suggesting that truth is some kind of spectrum, it was wholly incorrect. Not kind of impartial, but very partial indeed. Partial and, in some instances, wholly untruthful. What is now evident, and should have been evident at the time, was the willingness of the BBC, which habitually asserted its independence from the state, to do the state’s bidding. Yet this is not, any longer, a controversial viewpoint. It is mainstream. It is accepted as fact. Note the lack of any reaction by the current BBC hierarchy, by politicians, or by commentators, to those statements by Fox, Tuohy and Bell. They provoked no denials. Nothing we haven’t known for years. That was then, and this is now. Move on.
But shaking our heads and lamenting what some would like to pass off as a historical aberration is just not good enough. The BBC’s news and current affairs output failed every possible test of impartiality. The fact that its censorship has long been recognised does not negate the significance of what happened. Nor should it be allowed to pass into some kind of historical limbo. Each additional revelation of the BBC’s faults during that conflict requires examination and explanation. As Fox rightly indicated, pro-unionist prejudice was embedded within the BBC from its inception. The Belfast-based controllers, all of them drawn from a unionist background and supportive of the Stormont government, were allowed to do as they wished by the corporation’s London headquarters. None more so than Waldo Maguire, controller from 1966 to 1972, who suppressed anything he considered inflammatory, meaning, of course, anything that offered even an inkling of the truth. What he achieved and, through him, the wider BBC, was a bias against understanding.
For example, the framing of civil rights protests in 1969 as some kind of stalking horse for the IRA was a crucial deception, playing on the fears of unionists within Northern Ireland while creating among its audience in Britain a bogeyman enemy which, at the time, did not exist as a fighting force. As Bell recalled, reality was camouflaged. When Catholics were burned out of their homes, he was told: “You’re not allowed to call them Catholics. You have to call them refugees.”
These contributions to a false narrative were also charted, along with several others, in a fascinating and meticulous 2015 study by Robert Savage, The BBC’s ‘Irish troubles’: Television, conflict and Northern Ireland. As he related, matters grew infinitely worse for the BBC once British soldiers were deployed on the streets in August 1969. Their arrival engendered the founding, some four months later, of the Provisional IRA and, suddenly, the shadow enemy assumed factual existence. From this point on, the battles on the streets were echoed by battles behind the scenes for media influence.
Despite Maguire’s malign influence, some BBC reporters refused to toe the line. John Bierman, for instance, broadcast a network news item in February 1971 in which he said: “There are growing doubts about the army’s impartiality among moderate middle-class Catholics desperately anxious to hold their co-religionists back from extremism.”
This report enraged the authorities, in Stormont and in Westminster. It also prompted the British army and Britain’s secret services to get their act together. Seen in retrospect, one of the most remarkable aspects of their response was its speed and sophistication. Informed by counter-insurgency experience elsewhere in Britain’s empire, notably by that of General Sir Frank Kitson, it was understood that censorship was no longer good enough; it must be replaced by its more proactive cousin, propaganda. Far and away its greatest success was to institute what became the conflict’s most persuasive overarching media narrative, the portrayal of the army as the disinterested piggy in the middle between two warring tribes.
Maguire becomes the Godfather of news output
It was eagerly adopted by the “neutral” BBC. But there was no tribal equality. There was never any doubt that one tribe – variously described as Catholic, nationalist or republican – was the state’s main enemy. To hammer home the point, lest the BBC’s journalists stray, various pressures were applied, overt and covert, to reinforce the message. When internment was introduced in August 1971, government ministers openly warned the BBC to beware “bias”. The defence secretary, Lord Carrington, wrote to the corporation’s chairman, Lord Hill, to complain about reports “which are unfairly loaded to suggest improper behaviour by British troops”. The post and telegraphs minister, Christopher Chataway, then made a speech in which he said broadcasters need no longer strike an even balance between the unionist government and the IRA, nor between the army and the IRA. Lord Hill took the hint, writing to the home secretary, Reginald Maudling, to affirm that “as between the British Army and the gunmen the BBC is not and cannot be impartial”. These exchanges had the effect of reinforcing Maguire’s hand, cementing his power over all output relating to Northern Ireland. He forbade reporters from interviewing released internees who alleged army brutality and prevented the screening of an interview with the civil rights leader Michael Farrell on his release. He also overruled the making of an “in depth” programme about the IRA.
Although these decisions were not made public at the time, BBC journalists were aware of them. What they did not know was the army’s decision, in the wake of public hostility to internment, to engage in a covert media war through the formation of its notorious information policy unit. The single aim of this khaki public relations initiative was to disseminate misinformation (aka lies). Working closely with the secret services, notably MI5, and often with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), it developed into an agency of deceit. Years passed before reporters realised they could not trust its briefings. Again, this is now well known, a matter of record, and it is therefore tempting to pass it off as a deviation from the norm, the result of the requirement to deal with exceptional circumstances. No need, all these years on, to rake over old coals. Nothing new can be found in those embers. Wrong, so wrong.
By December 1971, disinformation was the order of the day for the army, and one of its central themes was the denigration of the Provisional IRA. Their operatives were to be portrayed as cowards and/or psychopaths who bombed indiscriminately without a care for the local population. One of that policy’s most contentious manifestations followed the bombing that month of a Belfast pub favoured by Catholics, McGurk’s Bar. It was one of Northern Ireland’s deadliest atrocities, killing 15 Catholics, including two children, and wounding 17 more.
Immediately afterwards, British security forces briefed journalists about the bomb having exploded inside the pub. Unnamed “forensic experts” were cited as having “pinpointed” the centre of the blast with “a tell-tale crater” in the main bar area. It was further hinted that the pub was a regular meeting place for members of the Provisional IRA. These falsehoods suggested that the bomb was an IRA device, a scenario enthusiastically endorsed by none other than Kitson, the commander of 39 Infantry Brigade. He noted in his log that the RUC had “a line that the bomb” was “left in the pub to be picked up by the Provisional IRA. Bomb went off and was a mistake”.
Yet a British army technical officer had already reported to his superiors that it was the pub’s entrance that was cratered and was, therefore, “the seat of the explosion”. This dovetailed with the account of a witness, an eight-year-old boy, who told of seeing men drive up and place a package at the pub’s doorway. This statement was subsequently supported by the confession of the only man prosecuted for the crime (in 1977, loyalist Robert Campbell of the UVF was sentenced to life imprisonment, eventually serving 15 years). But it was the lie that gained media traction, especially at the BBC’s “prestigious” current affairs programme Panorama. Weeks after the event, it reported that “an IRA bomb” was responsible for the massacre.
So far, so bad. A tone had been set. In subsequent years, there was a reliance on unattributed briefings and a belief in their veracity. In the BBC’s news report in January 1972 about Bloody Sunday in Derry, in which 14 people were killed by the Paratroop Regiment, one sentence was particularly notable: “The gun battle lasted about 25 minutes.” That lie – there was no battle – was finally laid to rest 38 years later by Lord Savile’s inquiry. It was, however, just one of so many examples where the security forces’ version of events was too readily accepted.
As if the external political pressure, internal constraints and the army’s information policy unit were not enough to keep the BBC in check, it has become apparent that there was another undeclared level of contact between the corporation and the state. Pioneering research into the BBC archives by Belfast-based Ciarán MacAirt, founder of the Paper Trail charity and grandson to two McGurk’s Bar victims, has revealed a fascinating link between a secret section of the Foreign Office, the Information Research Department (IRD), and a well-placed BBC executive. The contact is clear from a letter sent by the IRD’s Josephine O’Connor Howe to John Cecil Crawley, chief assistant to the then-BBC director-general, Sir Charles Curran.
BBC discounted evidence from eyewitnesses to bombing
She offered Crawley “a background paper” on the IRA, adding that “as usual it is sent for your personal background and is not for attribution”. That letter, dated December 6, 1971, was delivered on the day the BBC in Belfast interviewed two witnesses to the McGurk’s Bar explosion, both of whom offered evidence diametrically opposed to the army’s “official version”, evidence that the BBC discounted. Crawley, in thanking O’Connor Howe for the “very interesting” paper, confirmed that he had sent it on to Desmond Taylor, editor of news and current affairs. Taylor had inherited the job weeks before from Crawley, who headed the news department for four years after spending 26 years as a BBC correspondent and editor.
MacAirt has unearthed other files that show IRD contact with BBC managers and journalists. One file of “ad hoc” BBC contacts was compiled by Norman Reddaway, whose 1970 Foreign Office title as “assistant undersecretary for information and cultural affairs” tended to conceal his real role as, to quote his obituary, “an expert in the field of intelligence and counterpropaganda”. It was also the case that the London-based IRD was closely allied to the army’s Belfast-based information policy unit. At least one of its operatives, Hugh Mooney, was a former journalist for the Irish Times and Reuters, who worked for both. The interpenetration of journalists with the secret services is hardly a new revelation, of course, but each new discovery raises important questions.
Nor must we forget that there is a human element to all this obfuscation and secrecy. MacAirt’s grandmother, Kitty Irvine, died in the McGurk’s blast, and his grandfather John, who served in an Irish regiment of the British army, was badly injured. MacAirt is one of the many bereaved who have been campaigning for a generation to expose the truth and to obtain official acknowledgement of what he calls “the casual criminalisation of our loved ones”. They are also seeking an apology from all concerned, including the BBC. The struggle has involved lengthy and expensive court actions. It has also shown up the BBC in a continuing poor light. In December 2021, the BBC failed to mark the 50th anniversary of the bombing. When reminded of the omission, an online news report was belatedly published. The painstaking research into this incident alone justifies further investigation into the relationship between the BBC and the secret services of the state. There are plenty of similar cases that demand attention too
https://bjr.org.uk/who-says-the-bbc-doesnt-take-sides/

I start.
The worse I ever did to this girl for a whole year, and in the middle of doing so many good things for her was:

• I once told her she was not my type, to wich i apologized and canceled my comment.
• I Told her I watched a porn video when she sent me a hentai pic... she broke up with me again and blocked me..
• I told her friend that she ignored me and made me pick between my only female friend and her..
• I added 3 contacts from work in my phone including 2 guys and one girl.. she broke up with me i added that girl..
• I sent her a pic of a sex shop to share with her bc she used to send me sex toys pics.. she thought I called a sex doll thick..
• I told her that my only female friend didnt know about us. (she had 5 guys in her whatsap that I never asked about.. and 8k guys in snapshat.. )
• I said she didnt love me when she wanted to break up with me for the 1321 time.. but I didnt blame her everytime she insulted me or blocked me or said the same..
• I said a webpage said she was a bit overweight bc I cared about her weight health when she told me her weight and she initiated the topic.

I was on the search for a new laptop as my main device and came across these two options. Here are the specs:
Zephyrus M16:

• Intel Core i9-13900H
• NVIDIA RTX 4070
• 1TB SSD
• 16GB RAM
• QHD+ IPS display

Legion 7i:

• Intel Core i9-14700HX
• NVIDIA RTX 4070
• 1TB SSD
• 16GB RAM
• 3.2k IPS screen

The Zephyrus costs $1900 (~INR 155000) and the Legion costs $2250 (~INR 188000). I'm a CS student into coding, some 3D work, photo & video editing, and gaming. I also plan to keep this device for a long time. Which one should I go for?
(Note: Legion comes with a good mouse and backpack when bought from Lenovo directly and from the reviews the build quality of legion is better)."

Tldr: I am into a girl, but not sure to ask her out because of the complicated situation in our close cirle of friends and history between my friends and her.
This situation is very complicated, so I would like to hear any opinion on this.
5 years ago, we were a close group of 5 friends. 3 guys and one couple. The girl had 2 close female friends. All of us started to go on vacations together and had great fun. The younger one asked out my friend. They were together for about two months.
At this point, the older one had an argument with the couple and they never spoke or saw each other again (this appljes to younger one as well, because they are very close). Due to all this and some personal reasons, my friend and the younger one broke up.
Us 3 afriends and the two girls still hang out at that point, one year later, second friend was with her for about a month, again, nothing serious, then they broke up.
Now, I am the only one that sees them on daily basis. We go to parties together and meet almost daily.
I was never really into her until recently. About half a year I went to a party with just younger one and after that we often meet alone for coffee or smoke.
When we smoke and are under influence, I always feel a spark between us and I think she does too. We smile and laugh more than usual and when our eyes meet, she makes akwards smile like she is blushing, bit maybe that's just how I see it.
I was thinking of asking her out but.. I'm not sure if she is even into me, there is age hap of 5 years (27 and 22), she was with both my best friends (although nothing serious) and two of my friends (the couple) don't even talk to the girls.
Also, I am much worse looking than my two friends and I believe she still has crush on one of my best friends, which would make me feel a bit insecure maybe.
With all this in mind, would it make sense to ask her out?
I would very much appreciate any advice.

Sorry: This is a bit of a long one that covers my process of understanding the industry to where I am today. I wanted to give some honest background without advertising anything, as I truly believe that this sub will massively benefit from insider knowledge—especially after the last few interactions I've seen here. So here it goes. I hope you can take something from it, and we can have a good honest discussion about your experiences as well.
Back in 2009, I took it upon myself to make six short films in 12 months. I was an actor at the time and finding it really tough to break into the film industry. One of the ways in, as an actor, is to get great material for your showreel so you get a better agent, and then more auditions for films—especially UK-based or US-based work. It felt like a real paradox, though, something that I would feel is the problem across the entire industry, not just for actors. I tried to make six films, but the process took on a life of its own. I made three films in that year instead, and ended up doing something totally unexpected at the end.
My first short film, I messed up royally by shooting on a flight path, and I also made the mistake of casting the cool guy alongside me, instead of the diligent nervous one—who in hindsight, I know would have brought buckets of enthusiasm to "the shoot"—which ended up being a complete disaster due to the cool guy failing to turn up (we had to literally get him out of bed), and he hadn't learned his lines. The second film was my manga opus, but looking back on it now, I made all the mistakes: The stakes of the drama needed to be higher and despite excellent performances from my entire cast, I came across as wooden, stressed, and disconnected from everything—from the actions to my lines, to the second-guessing of my impulses, on every line—basically, I was terrible in that film. The third was a rained-off weekend, where we had planned to shoot a sci-fi Philip K. Dick inspired short, shot in a field, but then ended up shooting a film about chess in a cleared-out lounge in my old shared house in Kilburn due to the rain—it rained all weekend. We had been given a Canon C300—which at the time was a serious camera—for free by a rental house that was more than happy to let us have it for that weekend—but that weekend only. This third film was poorly shot, to the point where in the edit I had to make it black and white, as the skin tones were terrible and each frame was completely void of surrounding narrative. It was flat; it was rubbish.
At the time, though, I thought these three films were the bee's knees, and the entire process had led me to start calling myself a "filmmaker." But I wasn't creatively honest, but that didn't stop me from submitting to as many film festivals as I possibly could. I felt that if I could get some laurels, and maybe meet some producers, I would be all set on my new path—maybe do a bit of acting here and there, but ultimately I would be snapped up as the next Jason Blum and begin my journey into Hollywood. I had read Robert Rodriguez's excellent book "Rebel Without A Crew," and his last line just filled me with so much enthusiasm for filmmaking that I had to do it. In the book, he is at Sundance hanging out with Quentin Tarantino, and I was so FOMO about it all I desperately wanted to be a part of that world. So I began submitting.
I spent, I reckon, over £1500 over a period of maybe six months on all three films trying to get them into festivals. The first film, "The Park," got an official selection at The Irvine Film Festival, and for my second film, the one I was really proud of, I had submitted to Tribeca, Slam, Sundance, Raindance, and AFI. For some reason, I had a real bee in my bonnet about AFI. I thought that if I got into that festival, I would surely be on my path to becoming one of the greats. Then on Withoutabox, the anxiety-riddled yellow dot became a red one and joined all the others on my festival status page for that second film, "Illuminating The Senior Partner." Ugh. The deflation was REAL!
A few weeks passed, and I kept thinking about that AFI rejection, what it meant, and what I needed to do better. Raindance was coming up, another fest I was rejected for, and one of my friends from drama school had managed to be in a short that got accepted there. He invited me to go and take a look at it in the selected shorts program, so I was super interested in attending. It would have been the same festival that had my film got in, I would have been at, so I thought, f*ck it, and in true Jodorowsky spiritual warrior style, I went along.
The short films blew me away. The standard was far, FAR beyond anything I had created before, and the festival experience, although a bit pricey, was cool and interesting. I was inspired, but not in the way that I thought I would be.
The very next day, I started planning what would become the first London version of my film festival organization. We managed to get $2000 sponsorship money from AVID that we needed to register with Withoutabox (the FilmFreeway of the time), and we were away. In our first three months, we had received over 900 films, all on DVD. We hired a local cinema, selected our shorts, and put on the festival. It was a great success. We lost money, but it wasn't enough to ruin us financially, so we ploughed on. However, it always bugged me about having to reject so many films, and I felt that many of the filmmakers we rejected were super similar to me when I was making shorts and who probably weren't necessarily given the same exposure I was to the shorts at Raindance. This really bugged me. And it still does. So, gradually, we built up our business, learning a lot along the way. Like, hiring students to select your films is a really BAD IDEA, hiring unpaid interns to do your social media is a really BAD IDEA, going into a pandemic with an inflated workforce and three offices you can barely afford is a BAD IDEA. Not communicating enough regarding financial strain: BAD. Communicating too often about financial strains: BAD.
However, some of the real positives to come out of running a festival like ours have been that we have seen so many journeys by so many filmmakers, and we have learned loads along the way. From Brian Jordan Alvarez, to Philip Barantini, Jane Gull, and loads more. It is these anecdotes that enable us to help the filmmakers and screenwriters we select to get better insights into the film industry. The film "My Feral Heart" by Jane Gull was going to something called The Marché Du Film, represented by a Goldfinch-sourced sales agency called Movie House. Having heard about this from Jane, we decided to venture into this, and this inquiry really opened our eyes to the world of distribution.
So in 2016, following the film, myself and the other co-founder, my best bud Ben, got accepted into the producer's course at The Cannes Film Festival. It was a two-week long course running parallel with the Cannes Film Festival that included a series of lectures, tours, and demonstrations by industry producers and filmmakers that really exposed us to the world of film markets. We had been running our festival for five years up until this point and had no real understanding of what film markets were or how they operated, but this course, along with the constant updates from the experience that "My Feral Heart" was having, answered a lot of those questions.
We came back from that film market with a new set of indicators. To us, it felt that many filmmakers at the true-indie level, the filmmakers we were selecting and rejecting, had no idea how distribution deals were made, who the players were, what E&O Insurance was, who sales agents are, what a shopping contract is, a sizzle reel, an EPK, the audience numbers, how studios finance ideas, what producers do, or anything else for that matter that covered this next step for a filmmaker in their career.
We learned about the firefighter who, from one email to the national firefighters union, managed to sell his film to a studio and made his film millions. We learned the power of packaging and how shorts could be great proofs of concept for filmmakers, especially when trying to sell at film markets. We learned about Jason Blum, his social media college campus move, which was genius, and how all of this feeds into the power of audience building prior to funding and investment. Such eye-opening information.
Since then, we now attend every major Western film market: Cannes Marché Du Film, EFM, AFM, and we are thinking of heading out to Busan this November, depending on the content we have. We now use our knowledge of those markets to pass on to filmmakers what they should be doing in order to bypass the festival slog and really get their work out there. Philip Barantini's short "Boiling Point"—we took it to the Marché when it was a short as a proof of concept, taking no fee for doing so. It is now a feature film on Netflix and a TV show on the BBC.
So, based on all of this and a lot more experience—I could write this post for days—my advice for any filmmaker looking to the festival circuit is this:

1. Attend festivals—especially if you don't get in, try and find a way to watch as much stuff from those filmmakers similar to you as possible. Online festivals are way easier to attend regularly.
   
2. Find as many opportunities as you can to watch and provide feedback to your peers, or volunteer to be a festival reviewer. Festivals really need you. You don't have to do it for long; you can do it in your own time, and it'll make you a better filmmakescreenwriter.
   
3. Watch films coming out of the film markets. Screen International and Variety publish what are called Dailies during the major markets; inside, they run stories on what is being sold and to whom. So look at what is being bought and why. These magazines are the trades of our industry, so become a subscriber.
   
4. A producer isn't money. A producer can help find funding (from executive producers), but they need to care about the project and be involved in the creative process, normally from the beginning. We have seen that actors make the best producers. You only have to look at shows like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"; having an actor as a producer is an excellent move. They can sell. They have a vested interest in the project's success.
   
5. You should also consider becoming a producer. Look at all of the recent indie films and TV shows to have made it through from the sub-$100k model; the filmmakers are producing these from conception to completion, building teams and finding their audiences.
   
6. Reddit isn't research. Due diligence needs to be diligent when checking out organizations, especially when you are spending your money. The film industry has a lot of deluded people who get a rejection and instantly head to Reddit to hate on organizations or communities they have had maybe 1% experience of. Look beyond that noise, and do your own homework before you spend your cash. The reviews on FilmFreeway are where it's at; look out for reviews that detail each aspect of the festival offering.
   
7. You cannot expect just your idea to open the door. This industry is saturated with realistic artists ready to build themselves into something better for the sake of their work and people who are unwilling to listen but believe that the world owes them something. Take care not to fall into the latter; this will take hard work.
   
8. We are all people. From the organizations you think are scamming you to the people providing feedback, we have feelings, and each and every single one of us is a potential set of eyes and ears on your film. Feedback, encouragement, investment. Go in steady and sensible, and you never know who might give you a helping hand or even join your team.
   
9. Audience is king. As Brian Jordan Alvarez discovered with his YouTube Channel, having a loyal following will help when it comes to sales. His show "The Gay and Wondrous Life of Caleb Gallo," an award winner of ours, found its sale to Lionsgate through YouTube views. The same can be said for the genius format of "High Maintenance" that started off on Vimeo OnDemand and got sold to HBO.
   
10. You are not one film.
    

There is so much more I can add here, but I think that is enough typing for now. I'd love to engage with anyone willing to start a discussion here. Thanks!
James :)

Hello guys! I am a small TikTok editor (mostly doing anime stuff [AMV], sometimes uploading movie stuff [MMV]), and my general view count is 400-1000/video. And I was fine with it, I mostly edited for my own and friends' entertainment. But I posted a video, and it reached over 100k views and counting. It might sound a bit silly, but I would ask for advice about how to go on from this. I would have a really bad taste in my mouth if after this hit (in my country it counts as a hit, I guess generally it's not that big deal) I go back to 400-1000 views/video. Is there any chance TikTok algorythm would favor my next videos, just because I already have one with 100k views? I still don't really know how this works (been uploading for like 5 months). Maybe a fine addition, that this hit was out of my general niche, since this time I didn't edit anime/movie, I edited about a popular rapper of my country - so if I want to keep having numbers at least nearing this one, should I give up on my niche? I am clueless, would appreciate any kind of advice. Thanks in advance!

Turning to Reddit once again because I have gotten pretty solid advice here in the past. Me (27f) and my ex-boyfriend (27m) broke up about three months ago. We met last year over bumble, hit it off right away, and were super into each other - crazy butterflies, rose-colored glasses and everything. Shortly after we met, I was looking for a new place to live and ended up moving in with two friends of his (two girls btw). I got really close with the two girls and the rest of my flatmates and we kind of became one big friend group. Me and the guy made things official in November, but from that point things were kind of rocky. He was constantly unsure about his feelings and the relationship, he felt like I was holding back parts of me and I felt like I couldn't be open with him and fully trust him because he wasn't giving me the security I needed in a relationship. I ended up breaking up with him in March because I just couldn't take the anxiety of it all anymore, our relationship dynamic really triggered my anxious attachment tendencies and I felt like I was turning into a person I didn't recognize anymore. Around the same time, I quit my PhD program, started a new job and moved into a new apartment (because of allergies to one of my flatmate's dog, not because of the people - I genuinely enjoyed living there). So lots of life changes in a really short amount of time. I was sort of okay after the breakup initially, I think mainly because I was still on somewhat good terms with my ex and because I still had a little bit of hope that we could work things out eventually. There were a few situations, awkward run-ins and semi-emotional talks with my ex until we ended up hooking up during a drunk night out. I spent the night at his place and we talked for hours about our feelings. He told me things like "I want to love you" and "this talk is so important to me, this is about our future and our relationship". However, only a week later he told me that he didn't see a future with me, that one emotional night wouldn't fix our issues and that we would end up in the same place even if we put in the work. He was so distant and withdrawn and didn't even want to consider talking about the stuff we talked about a week prior. To be honest, this last interaction kind of broke me. He made me feel like I was good enough to come back and have sex with one more time, but not good enough to stay or work on anything. Like there was something wrong with me. Ever since then, I can't get a grip on anything. I cry so much and I feel weird and anxious hanging out with our mutual friends, even if he is not there. I am afraid of running into him almost every day because we live in a pretty small town. I also weirdly feel like I don't have a place in this town anymore, like I don't belong here anymore. He grew up here and I know he will most likely never move away. He has tons of friends and connections here. I'm still super close with the two girls I lived with, but the fact that they are still friends with him makes me feel like I'm still connected to him in some weird way. And I know he is not a bad person, but he hurt me really badly and on an emotional level I can't really comprehend how anyone could be friends with someone like him.
I guess I don't have one specific question, just looking for some general advice on how to get through this. What the hell is wrong with me, and what the hell is wrong with my ex that made him act the way he did? Did he ever really care for me? How do I navigate these mutual friendships and the small town dynamic? Is it a hopeless goal to try and make my life here enjoyable again? Should I just move and start over?

Well.. Uh..heres my headcanons..not all of this is canon obviosuly.. Most of this is speculation..do not hate on me for believing this stuff..most of the lore isn't confirmed anyway..this post is just mostly headcanons..and stories.. And what I think happened to the MCI kids..and the personalities etc..
Susie-a little girl who's age is 4..she has a pink skirt and dances a lot.. Blue eyes and a blonde.. She talks to her sister Samantha a lot.. Her dad her would play checkers every day..susie was just living her life until Afton took it away.. She then possesses Chica after she screams and screams.. Then dies.. I know we know lot of this already since fnaf 6 came out but you know..
Jeremy- a black boy with freckles.. He's shy.. He has glasses on..his parents don't like him.. They favorite his big brother more..his parents literally left him at the pizzaria with his brother then went to go to Aruba..bad parents..
Gabriel- a mixed boy with messy hair. He's silly and makes funny jokes with his friend some times..a little boy just having a birthday party.. His friends came and everything.. But then spring bunny man came and had a birthday cake in his hands.. Gabriel follows the bunny man and then into the back room he goes..this is one day after Susie and Jeremy dies by the way...then you know what happens after that.. Gabby then gets killed by Afton. Another kids life is done..
Then we have Fritz-foxy ghost kid..a teenager.. Yeah a teen boy..who was friends with a guy called Mike..he had freckles, braces on teeth, reddy orange hair, (like freddy bullies hair!) and messy hair..he also has either green eyes or just brown eyes..in my au...both Fritz and Mike..both go back or Freddy's... And then Mike tells Fritz he sees this guy in a spring bonnie suit looking at kids creepily..then Fritz tries to go up to the man to give him a piece of his mind.. But Mike doesn't let him pushes him back. "It's not safe..what if that guy is actually a serial killer..?" "I don't know, Mike...just let me.. Whatever fine.. Let's just eat some pizza or something.." I actually believe that Fritz is freddy bully from Fnaf 4..i also believe that his full name is Fritz Smith.. Thats why Mike uses it in fnaf 2 when he becomes night guard..for one night then gets fired..on the first day of the job... He gets told by Afton that he has hostsgates in the back room then Fritz runs and goes to the backroom before Afton does..little did he know..Mr.Afton tricked him..theres no one but two stuffed animatronic bodies..Fritz is horrified.. He screams when he sees the man in the spring bonnie suit..then eventually Afton kills Fritz...then he stuffs him in Foxy..it takes a long time though.. Fritz screams and cries for a long time.. Then dies..Mike leaves, thinking that Fritz would come back to school next day and say "Hey, I'm back! I'll tell you what happened..!" But no....this is so sad.. and heartbreaking.. Especially to the families of these children....
Cassidy- she got lured by Afton, him saying that he has balloonsa and a big cake in the backroom.. She couldn't resist and go with him.. Then she went to the backroom and shocked for what she saw.. Then evil, cruel..Mr. Afton..had his knife and stuffed her in the Fredbear animatonic at Freddy's.. Cassidy then was springlocked and then dead a few seconds later...this is the cruelest one yet.. Maybe.. Maybe not..
Yeah.. That's all..
Hope you liked this! Happy 10th year anniversary for Fnaf!
Comment below and let me see your guys thoughts on this..flowey boy out!

Elsa lives two identities.One of her own, and the second is a guy, who she shares a body with.Everything started when Elsa decided to die because life had tested her to her limits.Now with living in two bodies Elsa tries to fix her ruined life. Will she be able to succeed? Read more