Selena Gomez has given Justin Bieber a deal he may not want to refuse. The ex Disney star has told the teen heartthrob singing superstar that if he gives up his wild ways that she would take him back. This is according to rumors flying around the young hot Hollywood scene at the moment. It is unconfirmed by any of the party's people.
This story will both anger and displease a lot of people across the planet. Selena's friends have spoken out against the pair's relationship and some sources close have stated their relationship is toxic and therefore should not be rekindled. However could this be the solution to Justin's recent out of control outbursts? Does his romantic side need a little tender loving care for him to be that happy person once more? Cleaning up his act may be the best thing for his image, which has turned sour.
However the people this news will tick off the most is the millions of fans Justin Bieber has. These girls (and some boys, we accept all types of people on this dating site) are some of the most vocal admirers of Justin Bieber so won't take lightly to their number one celebrity crush being taken once more.
Daphne X
RELATED POSTS:
* Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez no longer dating!
* Are Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber dating again?
* Selena is Gomez for New Hot Fling
* 10 Couples of 2012
* Amanda Seyfried officially dating Justin Long
by Deena Williams
Online dating is a huge thing and millions of people are jumping online to begin meeting other people. Many of them come to the internet in search of some safer online dating techniques that will help them stay safe on the internet. While the most reputable dating sites try to make it as safe as possible for their members; there are certain things that you can do as well to make sure that you stay safe.
We wanted to provide you with some valuable information that will make your dating experience a pleasure. This article about "safer online dating techniques" can be beneficial for anyone who is considering joining the online dating scene.
Personal Information About Yourself: Online dating is meant to be safe and their is no reason that you should provide any kind of personal information about yourself. If someone wants to know your address; then it is important to let them know that you do not feel comfortable telling them this information. If they keep asking you then stop talking to them and find a new person.
Meet In A Coffee Shop: A coffee shop is a great public place to meet someone that you have built an online relationship with. This will be a nice safe place that you can meet for the first time. As one of your best friends to go with you; as they will be honest about what they think about this person.
Online dating makes it safe because you have control and get to choose when and where you want to meet. Never let someone tell you that they are safe and they want to meet you in an unsafe place.
Heed The Warning Flags: Pay attention to whether someone is being completely honest with you or not. When you ask them personal questions or if they just want to talk about you; then this could be a sign that they are trying to hide something from you.
Online dating does work and that is why millions of people have opted to turn on their computers to help them find that perfect partner. If you want more valuable information about safer online dating techniques or online dating advice; visit our site below.
About the Author:
Get Your Online Dating Safety Tips That Will Help You Keep Safe Online! Discover Five Signs That He Likes You! We Reveal The Truth About Internet Dating!
Tag: dating sites
BOSTONS CHINATOWN HAS BEEN ON EDGE SINCE A 57-YEAR-OLD WOMAN CLAIMED THREE WOMEN USED HYPNOSIS TO GET HER TO FORK OVER 160,000 IN LIFE SAVINGS.
(UPI) -- Bostons Chinatown has been on edge since a 57-year-old woman claimed three women used hypnosis to get her to fork over 160,000 in life savings, police say.
Police say the victim was food shopping in Chinatown April 15 when the trio of women tapped her on the shoulder and began asking her questions. The victim says one of the suspects spoke and her henchwomen handed her a plastic bag. She was told to go home and meet them several hours later on Boston Common.
The victim filled the bag with a necklace, a jade bracelet, two gold rings, her passport and 160,000 in cash. She then went to the meeting spot and handed over the fortune.
Read more >>
Reference: aisha-vip.blogspot.com
Thanks Sue - good of you to reply to my last post (see comments). So let's carry the debate forward. I have read Toxic Childhood and 21st Century Boys. I did so after seeing you in the Brighton Festival two years ago (I'm a Trustee), when I attended and reviewed the debate hosted by Polly Toynbee. I thought then, and think now, that this species of 'parenting' literature is 'toxic' only in the sense that it is largely middle-class bile. Let me explain.
Toxic prejudices
You claim that you love technology but every single chapter of Toxic Childhood has a go at technology. "At the moment, too much technology is dumbing down our children...."if the gap left by preoccupied parents is filled by the fruits of technology, toxic childhood syndrome begins to take hold". Technology in schools "has made no noticeable impact". "insidious.. screen-based activity..imagination-rotting, creativity-dumbing". I could go on.
I'm also not at all convinced on your claim about very young children. The opening salvo in Toxic Childhood is against a teenager you describe, in the Uffizi Gallery of all places, as having, "the multiple trademarks of the brat...Poor child. Poor Parents. Poor Western Civilisation...the whole of the developed world...now teems with miserable little creatures", and that's just on the first page! All of this from the observation of a bored teenager in an Art Gallery in Florence! Go to any art gallery and you'll see bored teenagers - it's normal. You go on to blame this "epidemic of misery" firmly on the "clash between our technology-driven culture and our biological heritage" calling children "battery children..."technobrats". Difficult to backtrack from your claim that "My research suggests that children's development in every one of these areas is threatened by the side-effects of technological...TV and computer games at home". I really winced at your description of working class kids as "pinched and angry, with dead eyes....Their parents, deprived, uneducated, often scarcely more than children themselves...this feral generation". Then the outrageous, old, racist chestnut "the birth rate among the have-"nots" is soaring, while among educated classes it is falling...could eventually threaten social stability". At this point, and all of this is in the first chapter, I thought I was reading a BNP manifesto.
TOXIC MARKETING
You make a great fuss in these books about the "siren call of the marketing men" (sexist or what?) but the opening chapter of Toxic Childhood (in itself a marketing ploy) is titled 'Toxic Childhood Syndrome'. This is hysterical, and worse, borrows terminology from science (toxicity) and medicine (syndrome) to hyperbolically market your ideas. You are not a physician and hyping this term you're doing a disservice to language, medicine and psychology. AIDS (Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome) is a real syndrome. You're 'syndrome' is a piece of marketing. 'Toxic' infers actual toxicity, again usurping a scientific term for the trite purposes of marketing. In truth, your 'syndrome' is an attempt at popularising a piece of polemic.
Marketing seems to be 'good' if it's associated with hysterical parenting literature, but 'bad' if it comes from companies selling their wares. 'Parenting' literature is marketing at its worst, and 'Toxic Childhood' is perhaps the worst example I can think of, exaggerating the case, using pseudo-medical language to blame everything and everyone, especially poor parents, for the ills of society in general.
TOXIC CLAIMS: ADHD, AUTISM
Here's where things get really 'toxic'. Autism is NOT caused by emotional deprivation, that much is clear, and to attribute causes at this stage is to move well beyond the research findings. The most promising line of research at the moment seems to be complicated genetic factors (multiple genes), so let's be sensible. It is a mistake to see autism as a problem that is curable through some simplistic parenting books, it is a lifelong condition not caused by 'good' or 'bad' parenting. It is a downright insult to the parents of children with these disorders to blame them, even in part. Rich or poor they deal with the problem, while schools often struggle to even recognise the issue.
Similarly with ADHD. Genetic factors are clearly involved as shown in twin and genetic studies. More worrying, however, is that the lack of real evidence from brain studies is puhsing many researchers towards a more sceptical stance, looking at over-diagnosis. To blame technol,ogy is simply speculation.
The hysteria whipped up around the MMR vaccine is the most recent example of dangerous amateurs dabbling in areas they know nothing about. Non-scientific populist writing flooded the parenting 'market' causing the current problems with measles. Schools (my own included) are still dealing with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, putting other children at risk, because of the so called 'toxic' arguments.
RESEARCH?
The research quoted in Toxic Childhood is simply one-sided and unrepresentative. In among the cherry-picked reports are lots of secondary and tertiary articles from newspapers (including that journal of fairness the Daily Mail), personal interviews, anecdotal speeches and personal emails. In no sense can this be regarded as a balanced look at the research. To take one of many examples, to exclude Judith Harris, from this debate is to exclude someone who really has done the research on the nature/nurture debate, a serious area of research which you describe in the book as "tediously familiar". Perhaps the most hyperbolic example of one-sidedness is your description of Laynard's book 'Happiness' as, "surely the most extraordinary book on economics ever written". Sorry Sue, it doesn't get into the Top 100.
TECHNOLOGY
I agree that your books are not just about the malign influence of technology, but that's my field and that's what I've focused on. You do have a go at technology in every single chapter of your book, so it's not just one small part of the problem. It underpins your whole argument. Even here, it's all about one-sided. TV, on the whole, is bad for young children, except, of course for the BBC, where you're an advisor. You can't have it both ways. You criticise the "glut of TV nanny programmes" but isn't Toxic Childhood, exactly that in print? The main difference being that only middle-class parents will buy and read your book, which is not the audience you're aiming for.
PRIMARY TEACHERS
Primary school teaching has been more than guilty of introducing problems of its own into the education of our children. At no point have you really addressed the point that it was educational professionals, advisors and teacher training establishments that caused many of the literacy problems that authors are blaming on 'screen-based' culture and other causes. There's a lot of blame attached to other causes but little thrown at the 'whole-language' Taliban, who wrecked the literacy of so many children for so many years. I witnessed it myself with my own children, when spelling remained uncorrected and no attempt was made to explain or teach the underlying phonetic structure of our language. The 'entire primary teaching profession' is the very body that delivered the flawed teaching, and some of it is still hanging around in the system.
