prev <-> next
[2001-02-19 11:18:00] - Then I demand it back right now -Paul
[2001-02-19 11:17:00] - and i will have to say, it's not comfortable at all. you should really get a better one. -dave
[2001-02-19 11:17:00] - i'm not usurping at all. just keeping the throne warm for you -dave
[2001-02-19 11:16:00] - decadent and corrupt eh? -dave
[2001-02-19 11:16:00] - But you are next after him, Miguel -Paul
[2001-02-19 11:14:00] - horray - mig
[2001-02-19 11:13:00] - Yes, Dave shall be the first to feel my wrath. His illegitimate reign has made him decadent and corrupt. He is going down -Paul
[2001-02-19 11:10:00] - look how fat his bar is - mig
[2001-02-19 11:10:00] - dave is the one you want - mig
[2001-02-19 11:09:00] - The king has returned to find that his throne has been usurped by his two trusted advisors. The king vows revenge. -paul
[2001-02-19 11:04:00] - paul returns! - mig
[2001-02-19 11:00:00] -
-Paul[2001-02-19 10:47:00] - and he's the one that gets arrested!? - mig
[2001-02-19 10:25:00] - i'm glad i started a discussion though.
- aba[2001-02-19 10:25:00] - http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010219/od/pest_dc_1.html
[2001-02-19 10:13:00] - too bad i have class all day.
i have no chance of posting anything meaningful until tonight. oh, well. - aba[2001-02-19 10:12:00] - well, damn. - aba
[2001-02-19 09:15:00] - cya! g'luck! -dave
[2001-02-19 09:15:00] - bye bye - mig
[2001-02-19 09:15:00] - and then kick them off again! mwahahah. j/k -dave
[2001-02-19 09:15:00] - very well, i got stuff i gotta do know too - mig
[2001-02-19 09:14:00] - the way christians see the world doesn't make sense to me. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:14:00] - well, enough damage for one morning. we should let everyone else catch up = ) -dave
[2001-02-19 09:14:00] - yeah. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:14:00] - yeah, i gotcha -dave
[2001-02-19 09:14:00] - adrian will be happy his board got a lot of use though -dave
[2001-02-19 09:13:00] - i mean i can see the christian viewpoint of it, but i just disagree with it - mig
[2001-02-19 09:13:00] - and vinnie too, haha -dave
[2001-02-19 09:13:00] - oh god, paul;s going to be major-pissed - mig
[2001-02-19 09:12:00] - haha, well i'm sure she'll kick us off the top when she gets on and sees it -dave
[2001-02-19 09:12:00] - but yes, i can see where you're coming from -dave
[2001-02-19 09:12:00] - aparna's going to be pissed though - mig
[2001-02-19 09:12:00] - says who? it's not as if when "after-life" comes all of a sudden everything is different. everyone is still who they were beforehand, and you still have to be accountable for stuff you did -dave
[2001-02-19 09:11:00] - i thought it was pretty - mig
[2001-02-19 09:11:00] - thank heavens, the bar is now not that ugly multicolored thing anymore -dave
[2001-02-19 09:11:00] - after all the other life is over. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:10:00] - well, what i'm saying is, that in the after-life why should anything in the other life matter - mig
[2001-02-19 09:10:00] - and yes, i know you replied to that too, which is why i think we're going in circles = ) -dave
[2001-02-19 09:10:00] - and like i said before, the reason he can't is because he's perfect. -dave
[2001-02-19 09:10:00] - i think we're going around in circles here. i understand what you're saying that he should be able to accept everyone -dave
[2001-02-19 09:09:00] - imprection = imperfection - mig
[2001-02-19 09:09:00] - everyone has to tolerate other people's "imperfections" -dave
[2001-02-19 09:09:00] - so you're saying that with a perfect government, no one would go to jail? -dave
[2001-02-19 09:09:00] - why couldn't he just accept everybody. why can't he tolerate imprection? -mig
[2001-02-19 09:08:00] - well, he couldn't exactly just go back on what he said earlier when he gave everyone "the law" -dave
[2001-02-19 09:08:00] - how's that? -dave
[2001-02-19 09:08:00] - i argue that if he truly did, he wouldn't need to send jesus at all - mig
[2001-02-19 09:08:00] - which in a way is kind of worse - mig
[2001-02-19 09:08:00] - if he didnt' love everybody he wouldn't have sent jesus at all -dave
[2001-02-19 09:07:00] - exactly, he loves everybody so he made a way that people could still become "perfect" -dave
[2001-02-19 09:07:00] - so really, god isn't letting "jesus" come to deceive himself, he's doing it himself -dave
[2001-02-19 09:07:00] - if you truly love uncoditionally you don't throw them away because they're not perfect - mig
[2001-02-19 09:07:00] - hehe, well, if you want to get into that, christians believe that god, jesus, and the holy spirit are all separate, but yet, they all are god -dave
[2001-02-19 09:06:00] - if he was "all-loving" he would accept everyone regardless of what they believed or what they did. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:06:00] - once again, i don't understand why this "all-loving" god needs to have jesus help him deceive himself - mig
[2001-02-19 09:04:00] - if that makes any sense -dave
[2001-02-19 09:04:00] - yes, he knows that everyone cannot conform, but he gave everyone a way that they could -dave
[2001-02-19 09:03:00] - i think the only reason why we think "perfect" means that you should be able to tolerate everything is that we live in an imperfect world where if you don't tolerate stuff that goes against you, you have to die -dave
[2001-02-19 09:03:00] - in fact no one can conform. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:03:00] - because he knows that not everyone can conform. it's impossible. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:03:00] - how could a perfect being who defined what "good" was tolerate any evil? -dave
[2001-02-19 09:02:00] - if he "could" tolerate it, then he wouldn't be "god" in my eyes -dave
[2001-02-19 09:02:00] - it's not like he "can" tolerate it -dave
[2001-02-19 09:02:00] - it's kinda backwards for me, since god defines what is perfect for me, so i can never say he isn't "perfect." -dave
[2001-02-19 09:02:00] - if he can't tolerate imperfection then he is vain - mig
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - by who's definition of perfect? -dave
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - if god was perfect, he wouldn't care about such unimportant details. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - well, technically, that isn't the only way. you could fulfill the law by not sinning ever in your life -dave
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - then he isn't perfect. - mig
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - the reason why god can't tolerate sin is that sin is "a non-conformity to god" and since god is perfect, he can't tolerate it -dave
[2001-02-19 09:01:00] - but why is that the only way? - mig
[2001-02-19 09:00:00] - how i look at it though, is that god gave us the law to show us that we were sinful. he didn't just leave us at that though, but gave us a way to be christians through jesus -dave
[2001-02-19 08:59:00] - exactly. because god cannot tolerate "sin", he needed to have some intermediary(jesus) to "cover" them up. sounds a lot like deception to me. - mig
[2001-02-19 08:59:00] - in one sense, yes, he's "deceiving himself." because he said that no one who didn't fulfill the law could "go to heaven." -dave
[2001-02-19 08:58:00] - so when jesus came, he let himself be that sacrifice for the rest of the world -dave
[2001-02-19 08:58:00] - yes it did, but animals were imperfect sacrifices -dave
[2001-02-19 08:58:00] - according to the bible and what i learned in catholic school, no one got into heaven until jesus opened it and god could start deceiving himself - mig
[2001-02-19 08:57:00] - because if they didn't fulfill the law, then they weren't "being christian" and couldn't have any part of god -dave
[2001-02-19 08:57:00] - except it didn't. - mig
[2001-02-19 08:57:00] - in the "olden-times" people had to make animal sacrifices to atone for their sins -dave
[2001-02-19 08:56:00] - which is? - mig
[2001-02-19 08:56:00] - what i would say to #2 is that it goes back to "the law" that god set down -dave
[2001-02-19 08:56:00] - yeah i think i understand -dave
[2001-02-19 08:55:00] - it's not worded too well - mig
[2001-02-19 08:55:00] - ot
[2001-02-19 08:55:00] - deceiving himself? -dave
[2001-02-19 08:55:00] - hopefully you can get what i'm saying, - mig
[2001-02-19 08:55:00] - why #2) according to christianity, we need to accept jesus christ as a "blanket" for our sins. He needs to deceive himself that our sins aren't there. Why does a perfect god need to deceive himself. - mig
[2001-02-19 08:54:00] - in one sense, everything or everyone in the world is a bigot. the governent lets innocent people go and condemns guilty people to jail. that's the same sort of "bigotry." -dave
[2001-02-19 08:54:00] - why #1) sending people to a "hell" for their religious beliefs. bigotry plain and simple. -mig
[2001-02-19 08:54:00] - i can see how you would think he was a bigot. not sure about the not perfect part though -dave
[2001-02-19 08:53:00] - 1) The christian god is a bigot. 2) He isn't prefect - mig
[2001-02-19 08:53:00] - which are? -dave
[2001-02-19 08:53:00] - yes, well it does reinforce 2 problems i have with christianity. - mig
[2001-02-19 08:52:00] - yes it's punishment from a christian point of view. because all christians want to be closer to god. how bout non-christians? -dave
[2001-02-19 08:51:00] - so in one sense, he really isn't sending people to hell, he's just bringing the people who believe in him closer to him, and leaving the rest behind -dave
[2001-02-19 08:51:00] - it's still "punishment" - mig
[2001-02-19 08:50:00] - hell? the only thing about hell that we concretely know is that when you are in hell you are "separated from god" -dave
[2001-02-19 08:49:00] - least that's the way i see it -dave
[2001-02-19 08:49:00] - yeah, exactly miguel, i don't think god wanted a buncha "robots" just doing whatever he wants all the time. he wanted people to follow him of their own free will, even though they had the ability not to -dave
[2001-02-19 08:49:00] - i cannont make any sense of the whole concept of hell though. Sure it's nice for the wicked, but why do non-believers have to go there?(hence the bigotry of the christian god) - mig
[2001-02-19 08:48:00] - oh, and how is kicking lucifer out of heaven "dirty work?" i don't think it's "dirty work" for god to bring judgement against somebody for their actions -dave
[2001-02-19 08:48:00] - well, i can understand letting bad things in the world happen, because it does makes sense when you think about it, would a world of bible-thumping christians(god's perfect world) be exicting? - mig
[2001-02-19 08:45:00] - so in one sense, god created the potential for "evil." in another sense, god just created beings with the free will to obey him or not -dave
[2001-02-19 08:44:00] - the way i see it, in one sense, god create us with free will, knowing that we would sin. he also created lucifer, knowing that he would "defy him" -dave
[2001-02-19 08:44:00] - from my point of view, it gets really sticky, because then you start wondering how god could let all the horrible things in this world happen -dave
[2001-02-19 08:43:00] - is he still god then? -dave
[2001-02-19 08:42:00] - if you want to look at it the other way, that lucifer isn't part of "god's plan," then did something happen that god didn't want to happen? -dave
[2001-02-19 08:42:00] - in a twisted sort of way, lucifer is here to tempt us -dave
[2001-02-19 08:41:00] - well, i think this is gonna spark quite the reply, but from what i know, god wants lucifer right where he is -dave
[2001-02-19 07:16:00] - but of course, i really don't know anything about christianity, so i have no clue what i'm talking about. - aba
[2001-02-19 07:16:00] - maybe god didn't want to sully himself by having to take on lucifer. - aba
[2001-02-19 07:15:00] - maybe specifically because it wsa his "dirty" work. - aba
[2001-02-19 01:30:00] - Why did he need Michael to do his dirty work? -Paul
[2001-02-19 01:30:00] - I have a good question, Is Lucifer just as powerful as god? If not, why doesn't god just get medeival on his ass? -Paul
[2001-02-19 01:05:00] - Yay! I have overtaken Vinnie! Working my way back up -Paul
[2001-02-19 01:03:00] - seventh? ack! - vinnie
[2001-02-19 01:03:00] - sixth? this simply won't do - vinnie
[2001-02-19 01:03:00] - s bitch... D'oh, damn enter key and it's nearness to the ' key -Paul
[2001-02-19 01:02:00] - that makes sense - vinnie
[2001-02-19 01:02:00] - Lucifer didn't want to be God'
[2001-02-19 00:56:00] - that's why i was told. god told him to do something, and he said no. - mig
[2001-02-19 00:30:00] - Lucifer defied God by refusing to bow to him (follow his orders) because his pride prevented him from doing so -Paul
[2001-02-18 23:56:00] - how did he want to be more like god? - aba
[2001-02-18 23:55:00] - how exactly did lucifer defy god? - aba
[2001-02-18 23:54:00] - not that it matters, just curious -dave
[2001-02-18 23:53:00] - incidentally, i wonder if angels and humans are judged based on the same set of rules -dave
[2001-02-18 23:52:00] - it just says something to the effect that Lucifer wanted to be like god. more of a pride thing -dave
[2001-02-18 23:51:00] - and in reply to miguel's statement, i'm not sure whether "defy" would be a good way to describe it -dave
[2001-02-18 23:51:00] - and just because the bible doesn't say anything about something doesn't mean that nothing happened -dave
[2001-02-18 23:49:00] - we just don't know anything about it since the bible doesn't tell us -dave
[2001-02-18 23:49:00] - and i also think that angels probably do quite a bit of stuff....meaning that the only thing lucifer ever did at the beginning was "fall" -dave
[2001-02-18 23:48:00] - i also don't think the bible ever says when god created angels. it just says that there wasn't anything but god at the beginning, and then he started creating things -dave
[2001-02-18 23:47:00] - i dont' know whether the bible ever ranks angels as "higher" or "lower" than one another. -dave
[2001-02-18 23:01:00] - well, here's the way i see it. lucifer did one and only one thing: he defied god. i don't see that as "evil" inherently. in fact, most of the time defying authority is a good thing. - mig
[2001-02-18 22:42:00] - why? ~a
[2001-02-18 22:39:00] - I'll shut up now. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:38:00] - So Lucifer getting his ass handed to him, as a Cherubim by Michael, the Archangel was a real blow to his pride as well. Sort of like a 4-star general getting busted by a private. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:37:00] - Also there are nine levels of angels, lesse if I can remember them all: angel, archangel, principalities, thrones, divinities, powers, seraphim, cherubim. I missed one. Oh well, you get the point. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:35:00] - 4) After Lucifer's fall God created Human Beings with imperfect knowledge, they couldn't make one decision at the begining of their existance the way Lucifer had. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:34:00] - 3) In relation to all other time this happened before it. This happened before even Heaven was created, even. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:34:00] - 2) Before he fell he did only one thing, that was to defy God. Basically upon creation he saw his two choices. " He choose poorly". -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:33:00] - 1) Lucifer was a Seraphim or Cherubim. I forget which is higher level at the moment. - xpovos
[2001-02-18 22:32:00] - In answer to Dave's questions:
[2001-02-18 21:30:00] - test ~a
[2001-02-18 21:23:00] - btw i can't believe you guys completely kicked me off the list
- aba[2001-02-18 21:21:00] - i think it's a pretty interesting choice. i think i'd actually choose to reign in hell. not too sure though. - aba
[2001-02-18 21:20:00] - you guys agree? - aba
[2001-02-18 21:20:00] - 'tis better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven - john milton
[2001-02-18 21:18:00] -
[2001-02-18 21:18:00] - http://truemeaningoflife.com/wisdom.php?topid=13611 <-- here's the follow up
[2001-02-18 20:13:00] - actually, i think angel's do live in our timeframe. what i'm thinking of is the place in the bible where some archangel says that he was delayed for three days because he was fighting the prince of babylon -dave
[2001-02-18 20:12:00] - maybe everything got created, and then adam and eve lived fine for awhile, then lucifer fell, and then tempted them -dave
[2001-02-18 20:12:00] - when did "Lucifer's Fall" happen in comparison to everything else? -dave
[2001-02-18 20:12:00] - and if they do, when were they created? before creation? after creation? -dave
[2001-02-18 20:11:00] - i wonder if angel's dwell in the same timeframe that we do? -dave
[2001-02-18 20:11:00] - from what I know, he was an archangel, so he did whatever archangel's do = ) -dave
[2001-02-18 20:11:00] - interesting question about what lucifer did as an angel -dave
[2001-02-18 16:40:00] - http://truemeaningoflife.com/wisdom.php?topid=13573
[2001-02-18 16:27:00] - http://www.ecnet.net/users/gas52r0/Jay/ ha!
[2001-02-18 16:03:00] - off to the movies! -dave
[2001-02-18 15:57:00] - i know there are more "hate crimes" than murder, i just can't think of any. anyone else have an example? -dave
[2001-02-18 14:31:00] - I am so glad I live in VA where my tax dollars won't be put to such wasteful use. Instead it's put to other wasteful use, granted, but--Nontheless. -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 14:29:00] - atheism = schizophrenia??? don't get it - mig
[2001-02-18 14:26:00] - "cure for atheism" now they're arguing it's a disease?
[2001-02-18 14:23:00] - yes i know, it's just that murder has basically 2 penalties: life in prison or death. There are a lot of other crimes that can carry extremely heavy penalties than usual if they are judged to be "hate" crimes
[2001-02-18 14:21:00] - http://daviddsavior.tripod.com/cure.html
[2001-02-18 14:16:00] - http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010217/od/life_sexchange_1.html
[2001-02-18 13:51:00] - Murder was the example being used, so I figured best to carry on with the same. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 13:47:00] - no 2 wrongs don't make a right, and in some cases hate crimes are being used against black for crimes they commit against whites, and not just murder mind you - mig
[2001-02-18 13:16:00] - btw, I've managed to avoid work for a full hour already by posting here and writing a new juornal entry.
-- Xpovos [2001-02-18 13:14:00] - The problem with hate crimes, is while they may have a point that gays/blacks do run a risk of them, it's simply another example of discrimination to make up for discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 13:13:00] - What exactly is the difference between a and b. In both cases the intent is to murder -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 13:13:00] - b: I don't like that guy. He gave me a bad grade. So I'm going to kill him. Premeditated, 1st degree non-hate murder -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 13:12:00] - Well, I think about it this way. A: I don't like that guy, he's black/gay. So I'm going to kill him. This would be a pre-meditated 1st degree hate murder by the defenition. -- xpovos
[2001-02-18 13:09:00] - if it's killing someone, i think the penalty is already rather steep, so i'm not sure whether more is needed -dave
[2001-02-18 13:09:00] - like killing someone because they're gay or black? -dave
[2001-02-18 13:08:00] - what kinda crimes are hate crimes anyways? -dave
[2001-02-18 13:08:00] - so if it matters that there is "intent to kill" for murders, should there be any "intent" thing for hate crimes? -dave
[2001-02-18 12:53:00] - I'll be dead by that point, so I really don't think I'll care what music they play, or who attends. -- Xpovos
[2001-02-18 04:01:00] - never thought about what songs I want at my funeral or how many would attend
- vinnie[2001-02-18 04:00:00] - if you kill in self-defense or accidentally, you essentially have no motive. so perhaps you want to say it depends on the circumstances? - vinnie
[2001-02-18 03:48:00] - i will not comment further on this though as it's quite morbid even for me - mig
[2001-02-18 03:48:00] - coma white and fade 2 black come to mind - mig
[2001-02-18 03:48:00] -
[2001-02-18 03:44:00] - on dave's note about people going to your funeral, i've never thought about that, but i have thought about what songs i'd want them to play at my funeral - travis
[2001-02-18 03:17:00] - like inflicted a fatal wound without the intent to kill was one of them. - mig
[2001-02-18 03:16:00] - well there is a very clear distinction between manslaughter and murder, and it has nothing to do with motive. - mig
[2001-02-18 02:38:00] - I think the distinction should be whether you killed in self-defense, accidentally, or purposefully in cold blood. Other motives are inconsequential -Paul
[2001-02-18 02:32:00] - And I want to retract my statement about murders. I did not mean to say that, it does make a difference -Paul
[2001-02-18 02:29:00] - And that is a very morbid question, dave. Who spends their free time thinking about such things? -Paul
[2001-02-18 02:24:00] - People that would show up at my funeral (non-family) - 5. Murderers should be charged with what they do, not why they do it -Paul
[2001-02-18 02:21:00] - thoughts anyone? -dave
[2001-02-18 02:21:00] - what does it matter that he planned it out ahead of time vs just doing it on the spur of the moment? the person is still dead -dave
[2001-02-18 02:20:00] - i think that manslaughter should be different from murder, but i dunno about first vs second. -dave
[2001-02-18 02:20:00] - if so, then should we still have different degridations of murder? -dave
[2001-02-18 02:19:00] - so this is a thought, if hate crimes shouldn't be different from other crimes, is it because motives shouldn't make a differnce? -dave
[2001-02-18 02:01:00] - maybe they would just tell a lot of people? -dave
[2001-02-18 01:58:00] - and how would you parents know who to tell? -dave
[2001-02-18 01:57:00] - incidentally, (and paul says i'm morbid for thinking of this question) how many people (or who) do you think would show up at your funeral if you died? -dave
[2001-02-18 01:55:00] - but then it occurred to me that they have to prove motive for murder and other stuff like that -dave
[2001-02-18 01:54:00] - i was thinking the same thing about proving the "hate" motive -dave
[2001-02-18 01:54:00] - i dunno why i don't have a bar -dave
[2001-02-18 00:59:00] - IM me if you want to go, or to tell me you aren't going. -dewey
[2001-02-18 00:59:00] - no shades! I wanted to say feb 18
[2001-02-18 00:59:00] - Hey All! Movie @ The final day of the Crapi. Anti-Trust at 4:50 pm (Feb 18) Meeting at Harper at 4:15 -dewey
[2001-02-18 00:11:00] - i'm a little tea pot ~a
[2001-02-17 16:54:00] - yes it is - mig
[2001-02-17 16:52:00] - 11 < 15 ~a
[2001-02-17 16:30:00] - post more dave! -mig
[2001-02-17 16:29:00] - dunno - mig
[2001-02-17 15:12:00] - how come dave still doesn't have a bar? he's posted at least 11 messages in the last 200 - vinnie
[2001-02-17 15:10:00] - just another of those laws that doesn't do what it was meant to. it is awfully hard to prove what someone's reasons for doing something are - vinnie
[2001-02-17 12:35:00] - i think it just warrents a heavier peanlty on crimes that were "inspired" by "hate". - mig
[2001-02-17 12:32:00] - what's the hate crime law say specifically anyways? -dave
[2001-02-17 12:30:00] - i think hate crimes should be treated the same -dave
[2001-02-17 12:22:00] - blacks have been punished a lot more than white for "hate crimes" - mig
[2001-02-17 12:17:00] - hate crime laws don't work. it's turned out to work against the groups that they were maeant to protect. - mig
[2001-02-17 12:01:00] - and why? ~a
[2001-02-17 11:35:00] - Actually, most people think hate crimes should carry heavier penalties -Paul
[2001-02-17 11:24:00] - i think most people would agree that hate crimes should be treated the same as normal crimes ~a
[2001-02-17 02:42:00] - clinton wasn't a great president, but he did a good job making everyone believe he was - mig
[2001-02-17 02:35:00] - clinton actually was pretty smart. - mig
[2001-02-17 02:35:00] - he is still an idiot. i just think gore was dumber - mig
[2001-02-16 23:45:00] - No, if you did it would be very uncharacteristic. I'd get worried. -- xpovos
[2001-02-16 23:02:00] - i won't agree he isn't the idiot the media has made him out to be ~a
[2001-02-16 20:17:00] - Here's something we can all agree on. Bush may not be the idiot the media has made him out to be, but he's clearly no better than Clinton: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010216/ts/us_iraq.html -- xpovos
[2001-02-16 20:09:00] - A better topic of conversation eh? How about Hate Crimes? Should we treat them any different then normal crimes? -Paul
[2001-02-16 18:48:00] - basically waiting for a better topic of conversation. - aba
[2001-02-16 18:48:00] - i'm not even trying anymore. - aba
[2001-02-16 18:39:00] - ha ha ha! #2! The world is mine! - vinnie
[2001-02-16 18:36:00] - you will never get to be #1 again! never i tells you! - mig
[2001-02-16 18:21:00] - #4!!!!????? What has happened to the world!? -Paul
[2001-02-16 18:16:00] - http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story107523.html
[2001-02-16 17:56:00] - http://www.imsa.edu/~dank/AYB2.swf !!!!! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
[2001-02-16 17:31:00] - Yeah! I now have a colour! (ewww.) and am not last in # of posts! - xpovos
[2001-02-16 17:30:00] - wish that kind of situation on anybody. Esp. myself. So I stay away from it. -- xpovos
[2001-02-16 17:30:00] - 2) Re: it being better to be without a gf (hmm, rephrase: SO) I still believe this, but will not belittle people for their choices, I hope no one feels that I have. I simply do not think it is the best way, and am convinced it will fail. I don't
[2001-02-16 17:28:00] - Seems that once again I will be forced to explain myself. 1) Re Adrian's comment, practicing what I preach about, I hope you can see that as an obvious typo caused by trying to get too much said too fast. - xpovos
[2001-02-16 17:27:00] - Appreciated on the post statistics adrian. -- xpovos
[2001-02-16 14:20:00] - post statistics now go by signs, not ips ~a
[2001-02-16 14:17:00] - although i will have to say, saying that everyone else shouldn't have relationships either is going a bit far -dave
[2001-02-16 14:16:00] - ....think not having relationships at all is the way to go -dave
[2001-02-16 14:16:00] - and finally, i think that the gf thing is different for each person. some people like casual dating and jumping from person to pereson, some people like having serious relationships, and apparently from reading the board, some people think... -dave
[2001-02-16 14:13:00] - i think aparna has a point too though, that you can be really happy in a relationship....it's just that for some of us that hasn't really happened = ) Me! Me! -dave
[2001-02-16 14:10:00] - although i do think there is something to be said for being very apprehensive about getting into relationships because of the possible pain -dave
[2001-02-16 14:10:00] - Go travis! -dave
[2001-02-16 14:10:00] - i didn't read all the posts, but i agree with travis -dave
[2001-02-16 14:09:00] - what's this about gf's now? what's wrong with feeling sad if you don't have a significant other? -dave
[2001-02-16 14:08:00] - dang, since when did travis become the post-king? it's orange all over! -dave
prev <-> next