THOTH

how low we all have sunk in regards to entertainment....I can't watch more then 2 minutes of any of these type of shows (and most sitcoms are even worse)...I just don't see the entertaiment value at all (at least for me)...but whatever...still i find it a bit sad...at least here in DC we have some arts offered - Kennedy Center, Wolftrap Center forthe Performing Arts, Shakespear Theater, many smaller theater houses and other venues....I find I actully consume more live performance these days vice TV (OK outside of Movies - which I do watch and sports [American Football...Tennis....bicyling - when I can find it...] - even then - not much...and nature programs...and science stuff...)...too busy with kids, hobbies and other activities..and chillin on the net...anyway..TV in general - blech...

It is? LOL I thought it had more to do with various protrusions or lack there of, body hair, etc etc...

Regarding fat girls dressing skimpily & such....well every year we vacation to Puerto Rico where my wife's family is from and I neveer cease to be amazed at the way all the gals - including obviously overweight ones - dress - skimpy stuff, very revealing, with skin spilling out all over - in ways gals in the ststes (of similar or otherwise physical dispositions) wouldn't be caught dead in...LOL...and well I love it! And not necessarily because of any exual content or my being particualrly attractewd to fat gals or anything (though there are certainly many young honeys to die for that dress this way as well)...but its just the nonchalance...I would say confidence..but not sure its that - its certainly non self conciusness...and yeah I think that is very cool.... So this is not a turn off....or a turn on per se...just a comment/observation...and while we might be taken aback at some really overly huge (or supper skinny?) people perhaps...don't you think that we hould look beyond this...many times I think folks right off others because of their looks/the way they dress & what have you...and I think that if people were a bit more open minded about others they might be plenetly surprised sometime...

Religion, Gender Issues (now that it is no longer women specifi eh? - funny those who normally groan about political corectness seemed to be most in favor of making the topic title politicaly correct...), humor (so yeah made me laugh so i put it here..)...bit no clue really - but here it is....enjoy all the same! http://www.angelfire.com/on4/selfabuse/

Hmm...and certain doubts do exist... http://www.skeptical-christian.net/article...y_of_jesus.html and I could post a great many more of course...but I'll spare you....

wasn't there - so don't know...and supposing a person of that name existed...maybe so - thoguh there seems to be precious little actua historical account (for one of such noteworthy deeds etc) and considering that those who wrote about him did so a generation later - also not knowing him - but through an oral history - and how much of the story is both clearly lifted from earlier myths of surounding cultures, and how much seems very politically motivated (factional rivalries and all) - well yes I'd say much of the stoy is in doubt...(and consider that I don't personally believe in miracles and life after death or divine beings or any of that sort of thing....etc etc) well yeah..but much of the basic messages are Ok...you know love thy neighbor, take care of the poor, that sort of thing...

Well i feel the same way about gum chewing...guess we all have our pet peeves eh...

Let me say that I'm not against this movie (I mean they made "Hercules" and "Jason and tha Argonauts" etc etc - other movies based on mythology...) - though it apears (from what I have read) that Gibson has taken a very narrow and not necessarily even accurate cut at the "story" - a cut that apears likely to generate soem backlash - we shall certainly see...anyway i also don't mind when I see (radical) christians getting a taste of their own medicine (boycots & charges of being anti- something or another)...but of course controversy is ussually good - no - regardless...)....speaking of...came accross this..of perhaps related interest... http://www.beholder.com/index_fl.htm For more explanation.... http://www.beholder.com/battle_begins.htm http://www.beholder.com/the_story.htm

http://www.jesusfreakin.com/

Yes, but remember, he liked it...

"we don't know and we don't care" http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/ At the very least - for purposes of this dicussion - folks should check out the"Articles of Faith" http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/Church/faith.html Very much of the rest of this site is worthwhile as well BTW...

FYI - Exerpt from: THE DEIST'S IMMORTALITY, AND AN ESSAY ON MAN'S ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS BELIEF. BY LYSANDER SPOONER. B 0 S T 0 N 1834. The Bible requires of a certain portion of mankind, not only, that they believe it a revelation from God, but that they violate their consciences in order to believe it. For example, by requiring all men, without exception, to believe it or be damned, it requires the believers in the Koran and the Shaster to renounce those books as false. This it is impossible for them to do, unless they first investigate the evidences against their truth. Now, I think no candid man will pretend, either that those believers would not feel as much horror at the supposed impiety of disbelieving those books, as a Christian does at that of disbelieving the Bible, or that it would not require on their part as great a struggle with their consciences to go into the investigation of the evidences against the truth of those books, as it would on the part of the Christian to go into the investigation of the evidences against the truth of the Bible. Yet the Bible, by demanding of them that they believe it, virtually demands that they thus violate their consciences in order to go into such an investigation as is necessary to lead them to disbelieve those systems, which they now revere as too sacred to be doubted; and it demands this of them too on the threatened penalty of eternal damnation. If there be any conduct more wicked than any other which can be conceived of, that, which is here ascribed to Deity, must, it appears to me, exceed in wickedness any other that the human mind ever contemplated. Its wickedness is, in fact, no less than that of hereafter punishing men through eternity, for not having done in this world that which they most religiously believed to be wrong. And what is it to believe the Bible, that men should merit the everlasting vengeance of the Almighty for not believing it ? Why, setting aside its secondary absurdities and enormities, it is to believe in these giant ones, viz.., that when Deity created an universe, in pursuance of a design worthy of himself, he created in that universe a Hell--a Hell for a portion of the beings to whom he was about to give life--a Hell for his children--a Hell that should witness the eternal reign of iniquity, misery and despair--a Hell that should endlessly perpetuate the wickedness and the wo of those who might otherwise have become virtuous and happy; that he then, after having created men, and given them a nature capable of infinite progress in knowledge and virtue, by placing them in a world full of enticement and seduction, deliberately laid the snare, made the occasion, fed the desire, and instigated, invited and seduced to the conduct, which he knew certainly would issue in the moral ruin of that nature, and the endless wretchedness of the individuals: and, finally, that all this was right, that such a Being is a good Being, and that he merits from us no other sentiment than the highest and purest degree of filial and religious emotion. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

Yes Mr "got Milf" - you are Mr Serious here,....right....

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform.html http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html Oh and this ine may perhaps explain more http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/chomsky.html It should be noted that these are but versions of Anarchy anarchosyndicalism...but much of the core belief is common...but anarchist basically believe in the right of the individual/group to self-determine their socali/political order...in a nutshell...etc

Lets hear it for Democracy! http://www.maybelogic.com/rawgov.html http://www.gunsanddope.com/

And to think I made the post directly after consuming an entire bottle of wine (delicious 98 Pomerol! ...lips smack togther! yum)..and being nearly half asleep at the time...and being more then a little perturbed at the many inacuracies of the post being responded to (goes to show you what reading too much and jumbling it all together without proper understanding will do eh?)...re-reading my response I was somewhat surprised that I made much sense at all...LOL...but I guess i made my points...

Yes briliant man - of course (not)...seems you admire him greatly...Stalin too I imagine..I mean what are the masses if not fodder eh? ..yes fianl solutions and decisins made without regard to the poor starving masses..etc - thats what you admire eh? So if Democracy automatically leads to tyranny (unsupportable statement IMO) - what does Tyranny lead to (meaning when one starts with tyranny/totalitarianism...and stateism..etc - and I thought you were anti stateism.....hmmm...such a bag of contradictions you are... Total war has nothing to do with Democracy - nor is it at all a new concept - are you claiming that Genghis Khan was in some way a Democratic ruler practicing warcraft as determined by Democratic systems? And the rest of this arguemnt of yours is also a laugh - just not true...its much tougher to war in true Democracies as folks just dont' like such (and have a say in if their children go off to day - can vote and pressure to change policies and suh - versus havng no say...) - unlike where they are forced into such (by the dicatators that you admire so)...and total war is more a respoinse to affecting the means of making and continuing war (economics and production) then it is anyting to do with any political issue of it... And you must really elaborate on your thesis blaming the Armenian Genocide on Democracy...this one I gotta hear....or are you clainming (like the Turks) that if the Armenains just accepted the Authority of the Sultan and of the Turks and werre not interested in rights as a people or in any kind fo self determination - and just accepted whatever was thrown at them - then - of course - there would have been no need for them to be slaughtered....don't know - only conjecture here on my part - I am awaiting the words and wisdom of our great and knowledgabel forum political philosopher....perhaps the answer is "just blame the Jews" - again don't know - but this seems to be where all your "proofs" end... And again - as has been pointed out to you before by myself and others - when you crriticize the governmental system of the United States - this is not at all the same as criticizing the concept of Democracy - so please be more clear - your wishy washy "arguments" are really of not much substance if you cannot even be consistant with yoru terms and definitions and understandings. And much of the rest of what you say is just meaningless anyway...everyone supposedly thinking alike and being served alike/having the same interests etc etc...theoretical BS (known falsehood a priori - so where is the argument - what are you arguing against...meaningless) with no practical application... And in fact Marx never refered to Communism as Democracy per se - as Democracy is inherently concerned with competing interests (not the interests of a single calss over all...etc) and such - (please take some politics 101 classes)...and Marx was very much refering to a dicatatorship by those who supposedly know (the interests of the people/indiviuduals) better...much like you.... The only thing that you say that perhaps I won't argue is the negatives of this concept of nationalism...however much of this preceeded the French Revolution IMO and was already growing as a concept long before (Democracy or no)...and I also feel that you misunderstand the concept (and inherent risks and consequences of revolution) to think that they can be controlled - ever....again perhaps a reading of Melson might enlightine you a bit on this... And as mich as I too abhor this concept of Nationalism and feel it a destructive force...I cannot se what your alternatives to the French Revolution - and those that followed - would be - continuation of manarchy? Is this really what you prescibe? I mena come on now...easy to be a critic - no - just like Marx...but when it comes time to suggest viable or desireable alternatives...well here is where you naturally fall short...

Well - even if everyone believed in god or gods etc - doesn't mean that he/it/she/them or what have you exist...only means that we might be collectively deluded....whatever - it is no proof...and though I don't beive in her/him/it/them etc...I have no problem teling it/them/her/him etc to F off!

Actually 4, 8 & 25 seem to be fairly central points eh? And ones which Mouse was very clearly claiming were not part of the party platform (he stated that there were no concentrations camps or mention of war and such in the platform - well duh - but anti -Jew certaily was...changes things jjst a bit eh? So vava I think Mouse is thanking you because he is getting off on his bud Hitler (kill the Jews etc..oh I forgot - they are not really Jews...etc etc...)..not for furthering anythign he was trying to say in this thread...

Actualy Sip its more abotu what isn't being said...anyway...the point of this post has i think been made...though I think it was somewhat overstated. Sure - B may have reflect somewhat Hitler's platform (don't know really) or some aspects of his personality...but clearly much (arguably the most improtant things for conisderation) has been left out....but the orignal point wasnot really that you were voting for Hitler - as this is an absurd claim regardless..but that one (most folks) tends to go for socialistic solutions and to be wary about more anarchistic or revolutioanry approaches...jst natural I guess as the latter seems more warm and snuggly etc - LOL...but as both are taken so far out of contecxt to be at all meaningful - well -I think the point has been made to the extent that it deserves and don't see the value in now claiming that folks who chose B chose Hitler. etc

No Angel - the post was not off topic per se...at least not intentionally...the question does one believe in love - well some may think (and do - its been expressed here before) that its strictly chemical - thats all. I sisputed this - but did add (OK) that I found at least one aspect of the post interesting...please chill eh...LOL

Angel - well perhaps - but its not so simple. There are dynamics to relationships annd adding a thrird - well can be disruptive -- no matter how wonderful. believe me - it is just this reason that causes many problems for couples - and not necessairly couples that had any kind of problem beforehand. Of course many cases it is a non factor - like you said - if the relatioship is strong and the people are mature and dedicated to one another - etc...but don't assume that it is a non-trivial thing.

Agree with you on thei one Sip. Well i don't think we are preventing anyone from joing the forum and discussing things civily. In fact - in the past several Turks have contributed in this forum and discussed issues quite reasonably - though they wer'ent always well recieved by all...but by and large the type that deny - and that are attracted to arguing such - well not really the top of the food chain as it were...

Well Skits, Anka etc al - I think we shouldn't generalize. While I havent smoked pot for 20 years! (wow - seems hard to believe!) - I can say that when I did my drive was not at all decreased - definatly the opposite! Can't say for long term use - but I guess it might depend on how much...and of course just the individuals physiology. And weed/pot is a pretty minor drug really - I don't see it as much different then drinking...so one has a few tokes/drinks and feels good - loosens up or what have you - I don't see it as any big deal..still - probably best not to be stoned everyday - and not good if your operatiing dangerous machinery or what have you. As far as drinking goes, again - its very individual. I can easily down an entire bottle of wine and or have a simaler combination of other drinks and basically be unaffected..though sometimes if I'm otherwise tired or what have you I might notice some affect...it has happend of course..though rarely to the point where well...I havent been able... And regarding the age question - I'll let you know...I'm 42 going on 43 with little or no change! ...but then again I've always had a higher then average drive..so again - I'm sure its an individual thing...

Well thank you Skits - I guess...as I take that as a compliment...I'd be more then happy to email you a pic (if you don't think your b/f would mind...LOL)...I mean just to satisfy your curiosity...