THOTH

Of course/bravo! NK has never been part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It became an independent state by popular referendum as was allowed under the then existing Soviet constitution. Furthermore - territorial gains made by Armenia against Azerbaijan - well - they are just as (or even more - as it was in defense) legitimate (to hold) as that of Turkey taking Van/Erezun provinces in the 1920s. So - in my mind the negotioations for giving 9a portion) of this teritory back are not dependent whatsoever on NK - but on other concensiions from the Azeris. Of course all is negotiable for peace - its just I think that the world must understand the situation there - the Azeris lost a war (in which they were the agressors) - and cannot just expect to have any lands returned out of hand. Likewise - they have no real legitimate claim angainst NK whatsoever..

quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by MJ:

quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:It sounds like I do not hear much of Armenians point of views on this matter(no offence). You see - here again you are mistaken. Perhaps Armenains have (and maybe even all along have had) more views than you give them credit for...

Qristine - Have a very nice trip to Armenia. Enjoy. And take your time. Perhaps you will learn to live a bit. If you open your eyes you may see things beyond what your current pre-conceptions allow...

quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I believe we all see the life the way we are, Haven't a clue...(as to what you are trying to say...even with the following examples...If you are saying that we only accept people who are or look like us - then I think you are mistaken - some can rise above such a narrow approach. quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:[QBfor example if I do not like dressing immodest styles I do not think I am going to like the person who does.[/QB] Now thats some statement. I guess you must not like most Africans or (near equatorial) native peoples... Its too bad really that you let your predjudices/pre-judgements close you so... have you ever wondered if you just might be wrong and be seriously missing out? quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:[QB(I am not talking about respect don’t confuse this ,it is about disliking improper dressing styles)[/QB] Well we understand that you don't like "imodest" dressing (whatever constitutes this in your eyes...BTW - is it OK for gals to show some ankle? What length of dress is appropriate? Must the brests de disguised in some way to not show? Can you "respect" someone whom you dislike? Somethin glike - we respect Saddam Hussein for his ability to hold onto power - but we dislike him at the same time....somehow my overall impression is that you are still very predjudiced against people because of their looks. Do you approve of corn row hair styling? Tattoos/body art? Are women who wear form fitting saris OK? And I know you have already expressed your dislike of beards and long mustaches (& I imagine long hair on men)...perhaps men should shave all of their hair off - no? quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:[QBIt is very interesting to know let’s say you with your husband/wife or future husband /wife going for a date, and she dressed as I call improperly.[/QB] I think you must specify. I mean if we are going out to a club to dance etc I might expect her to dress nicely/sexily. If we were going out to a ball game perhaps shorts & a t-shirt (I already know that you feel this is improper)... quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:[QBYou notice that people are starring at her because of her /his attractive completely uncovered body. [/QB] Now you are saying she is completely uncovered...I would assume that if she were the only one this would be rather strange...but if we were at a nudist/naturist gathering this would not be at all unusual. Ussually staring is more of a testement about the starer not the staree... Do you know anything at all about nudist/naturist philosophy BTW? You might be interested to look into it. They find freedom from being concientious about their looks or having to dress certain ways by shedding their clothes. It is a very liberating and egalitarian experience. There is even whole family nudism. You might be surprised at the wholesomeness of it all and it might open your eyes up to some things (LOL) quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:[QBWhat would be your reaction? [/QB] I might feel complemented (or feel good for my wife/g-f...heh - looking gooooood!!!!! LOL), don't know...but for the most part I think I would just ignore it. Now one time when I was (with a group of friends) in Mexico (Ensenada) with two blond gals (not dressed particualry provacativly...but one was so naturally stunning looking that it never mattered...)a (drunk) local approached us and began making lewd comments (and grabbing motions)...well I jumped him...so perhaps there is a line/difference between staring and comments/action...but who was at fault here? The gals were not dressed unusually for tourists in this town - not at all. What do you think?

Well tha answer is obvious (from nearly every perspective - IMO) - though I could perhaps see where many factors could be taken into account (considering and beyond the cloths and or style/length of hair, pressence of piercings and such...)....so lets explore some of them. If she was thinking with her head - well she might be inclined to choose the goth. IMO/experience - men in suits frequently have an overdeveloped sense of importance and would be more likely to either brush her off or attempt to take advantage of her (sexual advance or try to sell her something useless, bilk her out of cash etc) because they think that they are some special catch, or they just can't get out of their entripenurial groove...(a problem with some guys - work obsessivness - till it entirely defines them....is this what women really want?) If she is feling with her heart - well again the goth dressed man could be the choice. The suit is (much more) likely some unimagintive stiff (obsessed by his accounting job, vacume cleaner sales or whatever), wheras the goth is more likely somebody interesting/unique who might actually strike up a conversation or such, which could lead to a coffee, perhaps a nice massage, and who knows from there... at least a chance of some excitement or worthwhile time spent. And if she is a smoker (or toker?) more chance to bum one or such...(and exactly what was she looking for late at night, in a strange town...etc) But, if she mearly wished for directions...well maybe the guy in the suit (I'll grant...but one never knows - perhaps he takes a cab around while the other guy makes his own way through the neighborhood...)...as/but the goth dressed might be more likely to get metiphysical with her... Conclusion - can't rightly say - as the possibilities are endless and in fact dress alone confers no deterministic on the outcome...all is just speculation (and you can see that judgements can/are often [be] wrong or misguided)...and other factors could come into account (such as was either visibly carrying a map?) So I yes - we all make judgements - but those of us who know that such judgements are often flawed realise its better to take every situation (and individual) as unique and give them a chance before brushing them off because of ourr pre-concieved notions... quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:Hi Let’s test our critical thinking about clothing and find out how we observe things in life. Welcome to share your thoughts. (please be sincere with your answers. The young lady walks at the middle of the night on the street. She finds herself being lost in the new town. In order to get a direction she needs ask for help. The young lady sees two men walking toward her, she decides to ask for direction from one of them. One of the man wears a suit and have a classical look, on the other hand the other stranger dressed like gothic. (taparakan, poxotsain,) Question Who should the young lady ask for help first and why?

quote:Originally posted by Harut:can someone explain me why judging other people is so bad? The Turks judged us.

quote:Originally posted by Rubo:One must be willing to surrender This is the first that you mention Islam...LOL OK - I understand your points - however you are assuming that in fact that with certain methods (meditation etc) the "God" is rerachable/understandable or whatever - I contand that even this may be complete fallacy. No one can prove/convince/whatever that in fact what is percieved is anything more then a personal interpretation (perhaps less colored by the world...less but not "un") - entirely limited by our inadequacy of perception and cognition, having little to do with any true revelation. But I could be wrong. It should be noted that there are severe differences between East and West (religious traditions) concerning paths to enlightenment - and only rarely do Western sects/offshoots exist that accept some aspects of the Eastern way of personal mystiscism that you espouse. And in fact, for the most partt, i would argue that the approach is highly antithetical to Christianity (as proscribed by Paul and since...) All od that being said - I understand and applaud your approach. You could be doing worse.

quote:Originally posted by HOVSEP KASHISHIAN:THOTH ... ' heabin ' where is that at ???? <img border="0" alt="[confused]" title="" src="smilies/confused.gif" /> I could not fined the place in my ' world atlas ' You are entirely correct - (IMO) it is a mythical place - only a figment of our imagination. Though I am looking foreword to (someone providing)a (credible) detailed landscape/description of the place BTW.

quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I DO NOT JUDGE ANYBODY I DISLIKE THAT WORD VERY MUCH, IT IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER. I BELIVE THERE ARE GREAT DIFFERENCE OF MEANINGS BETWEEN THIS TWO POWERFUL WORDS. What 2 words? BTW - your caps lock is normally located on the middle of the far left of your keyboard. quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:LORELY HOPEFULLY YOU UNDERSTAND ARMENIAN PLEASE GO AND READ MY LAST POSTS AND I AM SURE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW I REALLY THINK. MY POINT IS THAT THERE IS NO FRIEND TO YOUR TASTE. AND I DON’T CONSIDER IT IS JUDGEMENTAL STATEMENT. I CAN CLARIFY THIS TO YOU. EXAMPLE, I LIKE TO WEAR DRESSES IN PUBLIC AREAS, HOWEVER MY FRIEND MIGHT FIND ATTRACTIVE VERY SHORT SKIRTS OR NECK BARED CLOTHING. IT IS ALL MATTER OF TASTE. Yes it is. And you are being judgemental regardless of denying such. DEAR MEMBERS, quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I AM SERIOUSLY DISOPOINTED WHEN PEOPLE ARE MISINTERPETING MY STATEMENTS, PRETENDING, AND TRYING PUT YOU DOWN. Can't say you are being very clear...who is puttng you down BTW...it is you who are judging and putting others down - continually... .... quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:SOCIETY MIGHT GIVE US TOO MANY OPTIONS, BUT AS HUMAN BEINGS WE HAVE TO SEE MODESTY IN CLOTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC AREAS. "too many options" ? "we have to see modesty in clothing" ? - judgemental ... opinion ... what basis? etc quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:AND OUR FUTURE GENERATION WILL LEARN FROM US. agreed - and I can give you quotes from 2500 years ago where the "older" generation is decrying the styles & habits of the "younger" - nothing new here...so what will they learn? intolerance? inability to think outside of prescribed norms? ? quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I PERSONALLY HAVE WITNESSED IN SO MANY CASES THAT MANY OF THE TEACHERS WERE NOT EXCEPTABLE TO SCHOOLS ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR DRESSING STYELES. THEY MIGHT HAD A GREAT BEHAVIOUR, BUT FROM THE FIRST IMPRESSION MOST OF THEM WERE REJECTED, Rejected by who? You and others who think like you - just out of hand. Not judgemental you say...or are you saying the children have rejected them? Why would that be - who is injecting their minds with this "right and wrong" judgement? I wonder...(as I doubt most children on their own would really care much...just like most children don't notice race differences until they hear their parents etc...) quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:SO I BELIVE 90% OF OUR POPULATION REALLY CARES HOW PEOPLE DRESSED NOW DAYS. I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD ALWAYS FOLLOW WHAT THE SOCIETY TELLS US TO DO. Really - 90%...did you conduct a poll? How do you base this figure? I find this contention very hard to believe...though in fact I am uncertain as to what you are saying with this statement anyway..."really cares how people (are) dressed now days" ? Should we do a Hye forum poll? How many really care how people are dressed now days? I normally don't wear Armani...will this count againt me?

I have been resisitng the urge to say something as I really don't wish to offend people - but I guess I just can't help myself (and I must say that those who espouse particualr belief as truth and ostrasize those who do not conform - well you're in our face quite often - so you get some back...). Amnyway - my point I wish to make - when one's belief system is based on false construct then its easy to go from there with just about anything. Also - people are petty, weak, ussually insecure etc etc - so who can blame them I guess (society is to blame! LOL) (there is quite a bit of toungue in cheek with the above if you haven't realized...so don't get too awfly hot...)...but still... [ December 21, 2002, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

quote:Originally posted by Loreley:Tooth: I agree with your ideas!!!!!! Well thank you, me too (LOL!)

quote:Originally posted by MosJan: quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:CHASHAKIN ENKER CHKA. Bayts te Anjashakutyan el chap yev sahamn e petq che ? lav mi harts I have a question for our ladies Lets say me and any one of your lades have a date  I’m driving up to your house in a Cadillac – with gold plated wills and music blasting of - Sev Sev Acher – I get of the car and what you see is an Armenian Model Liberachi / 100% rabiz / like open chest + big cross + yellow jacket + golden tooth + Gorgeo Armani glasses + + $250 pound belly hanging + …. So #1 do you close the door ? #2 do you stand and tray to make an excuse – not to go out ? – #3 or do you jump up and dawn from the joy that you have found me ? 99% you will do #1 or #2 Mosjan - but if the father is paid off properly isn't this all a moot point?

quote:Originally posted by Rubo:Descartes, Tolstoy, Gurdjieff, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, St. Augustine, Plato, Krishnamurti, Dalai Lama, etc. all believed the existence of God. Could all these people and millions others be stupid in believing in God and some of our forum members be super geniuses and that they’re reasoning stands on much superior grounds? Being cynical is easier since it requires minimal mental activity. yes we could have great fun listing all the other absurd things these folks believed in....do you really want to go their? I mean each can offer their own bits of wisdom - but I would hope to never have to call from this list if my car breaks down by the side of the road...

Well Rubo - at best you have "proven" the Dao. So you feel God consciousness (interesting aside - how much can an ant understand/appreciate your conciousness? How can their be congruence in your moral codes etc...)...well what can I say - I don't (see the concious element per se - and certainly not any moral leanings [correesponding to our own...and thats something because you think our own construct...well others see it I guess...). So who is right? (I will take the odds that we both/all are wrong - about pretty much everything....) You make an argument that anything that can be thought of by man must be true. What can one say to this? Can it be so? Must it be? There is no such thing as imagination? Are all superstitions that man (in his primitive [non] understanding) have suposed are true in fact all true? So God is some force that you have imagined (are you familiar with the concept of the Dao BTW) - well OK - still we assume much...but let us agree that maybe some form of this is true and that all these dignitaries through the ages somehow believed in this (in fact I can't imagine where these folks would come to any agreement about theior notions of reality/the universe and divinity...but no matter...) - how is it that we get to heaven, hell, angels, demons, chosen people, morals, smiting heathens, church heirarchy etc etc etc and all the constructs that "believers" of one faith or another would have us strictly adhere to otherrwise wwe be heretical etc. My and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what the Mohammedans believe...quite frightening IMO...Chistianity is quite bad/convoluted enough. Oh yeah - but OK - lets say I believe in this force of yours...well I find the Christian God to be counter to it - thus in effect this is the incarnation of the devil - and we must oppose him....(and I would be quite serious if in fact I beleived in this fictional entity...) [ December 21, 2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by THOTH:Well to me even the belief is extreme. The following is from Fadii's first link: Five Points of Fundamentalism Formulated by the 1895 Niagra Bible Conference as necessary standards of belief: 1. Inerrancy of Scripture 2. Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ 3. Substitutionary theory of the atonement 4. Physical resurrection of Christ 5. Christ's imminent bodily return to earth I admit my ignorance as to what #3 is - but I certainly consider all of the rest to be extreme (and fundemnetally (!) irrational) belief... I am not surprised. However, speaking of Christianity, that is what Christianity means and not wearing a khackar on one's chest. One either believes in Christ as a Savior or doesn't. There is no such thing as believing a little bit. And if one says he is Christian but doesn’t mean all of the above, he/she is cheating himself/herself.[/QB] Yeah - and I guess thats what #3 means - OK maybe not extreme - but certainly worthless (IMO) - LOL...IMO it assumes that God is evil - bent on punishing etc and should be opposed. (so I'm glad he doesn't exist). Anyway - aside from perhaps #3 - I don't see why any of the others are necessary per se - and I think are (again) fundemental (!) points of disagreement among various sects. And in fact your perporting that these are necessary prooves my point...

eh..eh..I think that I'm in pretty good company: Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by THOTH:Wrong. Fundementalism is (IMO) a version of extremeism. Fundamentalism is not necessarily a form of extremism. Additionally, the extremism, on its own, is not necessarily a bad thing. The belief is not ever extremist. The conduct may be, however. It is similar to saying, "being pregnant is bad, but being a little bit pregnant may be OK." There is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant."[/QB] Well to me even the belief is extreme. The following is from Fadii's first link: Five Points of Fundamentalism Formulated by the 1895 Niagra Bible Conference as necessary standards of belief: 1. Inerrancy of Scripture 2. Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ 3. Substitutionary theory of the atonement 4. Physical resurrection of Christ 5. Christ's imminent bodily return to earth I admit my ignorance as to what #3 is - but I certainly consider all of the rest to be extreme (and fundemnetally (!) irrational) belief...

quote:Originally posted by Loreley:Qristine: I certainly respect your ideas, but I disagree with them. If you don't like to dress "inmodestly" (as you call it), that is fine and is respected. On the other hand, it is not fair to put your ideas/judgements on people who like to dress different than you do. To be honest with you, I don't like to dress sexy too because I don'feel comfortable that way and because I think that a lot of women do it just because society "tells" them that a woman should always care about her image. I believe that people can like me for other reasons than my physical appearance. However, I support women who dress up as they want to (conservative, liberal, sexy, naked, hippy, etc.) because I am no one to pass a judgement. If they are happy, I am happy for them. Let people be who they want to be as long as they don't hurt anybody else. Excellent statement.

Funny - but perhaps (?) relevant little excerpts...also mentions the Pink Unicorn! "As atheists, we are supposed to put up with being constantly told by TV, newspapers, and even friends and family that religious beliefs must be respected, and that we should keep our irreligious opinions to ourselves. To question somebody's insane doctrine in public results in someone saying "Hush! Have a little respect!". If you question the (highly questionable) life of Mother Teresa, or laugh about the peculiar origins of Mormonism, or slam the door in the face of a Jehovah's Witness, you are considered to be a Bad Person. Yes, it is disrespectful to laugh loudly about someone's religion - but just why does that religion automatically deserve respect? Respect is earned, not automatic. If someone wants to believe that the world was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and after death bad people will spend eternity mucking out Her stables, I have no problem with that at all. I would think that such a belief was quite potty, but if someone wants to believe it, fine, let them." "Religious folk, when it is revealed that an atheist is present, will often tell us that they are praying for us (why not just pat us on the head and give us a lollipop while they're at it?). Unless they are truly ignorant of what atheism is, then that is an extremely disrespectful thing to do (akin to the atheist saying "You believe in God? Oh, I'm so sorry for you. I hope your brain gets better sometime."). However, the atheist cannot easily respond to such a "kind" gesture without being accused of further disrespect. At what point does a religion suddenly acquire the status of being beyond question or criticism? (Historically, it seems to have been when they started killing everyone who dared to voice questions or criticisms...) I agree that everyone has the right to believe anything they like. That is a basic human right. If it makes them happy, and they don't harm others because of their beliefs, or forcibly impose those beliefs on others, that's great. If you want to follow a religion that teaches that the Moon is a balloon, and God lives on a spoon, fine. Just don't get upset when I point at you and laugh. If I don't deserve respect for believing that you are wrong and your god exists nowhere but in your head, why should you deserve respect simply because you believe in some sort of deity? Why should arbitrary belief command instantaneous, polite, unquestioning respect?" "The problem is that respect is demanded for religions which preach intolerance, hatred towards minority groups, hive-mind thinking and denial of the real world. I can respect a religion that sends aid to disaster regions, but I can't respect a religion that advocates praying for people in disaster regions. As an atheist, you will be asked to quietly tolerate everybody else's religion, no matter how insane, pointless or dangerous you consider it to be; and to solemnly accept having everybody else telling you that your point of view is not worthy of any sort of respect and should be hidden away from the world. If you stand up and say "I'm raising my children to be good Christians and follow Jesus Christ", you will hear pleased murmurs from the crowd. If you stand up and say "I'm raising my children to be good Secular Humanists and develop their own morality through intelligence and reason", there will be gasps of horror and the crowd will reach for their pitchforks and flaming torches. A theist has the right to believe anything she likes, even if her actual beliefs seem completely nonsensical to outsiders. An atheist, on the other hand, does not even seem to have the right to openly express rational non-belief! To hear someone say "I don't believe in a God because I know of no valid reason to think there is one, and there are better scientific explanations for the universe." appears to offend some people's religious sensibilities, and this is often cited as a reason why we should just keep quiet. But, isn't a Hindu effectively saying "Jehovah and Jesus are just myths, because I know of no valid reason to think otherwise, and there are better explanations in Hinduism for the universe."? And doesn't the same apply when a Muslim extolls her point of view to a Hindu, or a Christian to a Muslim? Each is basically saying "My God exists, your God is a figment of your imagination and nothing more.". Only when an atheist says "None of your Gods are real." does there appear to be cause for concern. Maybe it's because theists all at least agree that there is a God, but differ on the details - at least those other theists are worshipping something. So, it is wrong to offend the religious sensibilities of theists, and the atheist will be rebuked for doing so. Strangely, followers of one religion are even happy to stand up in defense of other religions - I remember an Anglican clergyman talking about the "hurt done to Muslims" by Salman Rushdie, even though Islam and Christianity are themselves mutually exclusive and each effectively teaches that the other is a fairy-tale. Never have I heard a clergyman stand up and complain about the insults done to the intelligence of atheists by people claiming that God made the world, or is watching over us, or loves us. Atheists have to put up with being called anti-Christian or anti-religious whenever they state their opinions, but when have you heard a priest being referred to as anti-atheist for saying "There is a God"? It seems to be the case that those who hold any sort of religious belief, from the big mainstream religions to the tiny UFO-cults, are considered to be better people than those who profess no belief. It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something supernatural. If you fail to adopt such a belief, you'd better just shut up, keep your head down and bow and scrape before the superior, enlightened beings around you." © Adrian Barnett 1998

quote:Originally posted by Domino:Thoth, in your point of view, was mother Theresa an extremist ? Yes certainly. Have you actually read anything concerning what she believes in? I mean she has done some very good work (I mean who can fault this) - but personnally I find much of what she espouses to be very distasteful. And she also has a knack for self-promotion (I won't jusdge the merits or demerits of this...but let me just contend that she is perhaps not all she is made out to be).

Again - these are essentially the same IMO: fundamentalism [fndmntlzm] n. 1. Christianity. (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true. 2. Islam. a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law. 3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.

Well Domino - just from reading your first posted definition these are the beliefs (basically) of the people that I am talking about. I consider these beliefs extreme and those who hold them to be extremists.

quote:Originally posted by Stormy: quote:Originally posted by TigrannesIII:[qb]Loreley, .... Do you really want to be put into a world where you won't be judged on your intellectual capabilities, but rather on how much skin you show? Or whether or not you sleep with your boss to get ahead? qb] [ Stormy]: I don't know what kind of a respectable entity one would be working in anyway for one to have to sleep with the boss for you to promote instead of earning it. You're working in the wrong place to start with! Get out of there!In a number of respects I think that this assertion/contention is way "over blown" - etc

quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE: Don’t worry about myself I don’t have desire for being professional tennis player or swimmer. No, I suppose you don't - as you see these as immoral pursuits by definition. Question - do you ever watch the Summer Olympics? I mean almost all nations of the world participate...many sending women atheletes who wear swimsuits, running shorts, tight/revealing tops - not only in public - but for worldwide TV...do you truly think that all of these folks (women & the whole infrastucture) are immoral? And the point is - we are not talking about you - but standards for others (you can do whatever it is you please...yeah enjoy yourself...) quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:As a teacher my delicate look, and modesty in dressing is very pleasent for myself, and for the environment I worked for many years. Well very good for you...such perfection - are you shore that you are a mere mortal? quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:DON’T BE JEOULOUS YOU CAN ALSO FIND SUPPORTIVE VIEWS IN OUR NET THAT MIGHT SUPPORT YOUR POINTS , BUT PLEASE DON’T MISS ALSO MY LINES. I GAVE YOU SOME GUDLINES WHICH WAS POSTED BY OUR FAMIOUS PHILOSHPERS, AND I DON’T DENY THE REALITY THAT I HAVE MENTIONED THEIR STATEMENTS INSTEAD I AM HAPPY :)THAT I HAVE A GREAT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE CONSIRNING MODESTY IN DRESSING. Really now, do tell? ...tell me also do you know where to find the caps lock on your keyboard?I must say if you find my statements confusing how do you make any sense of what you write? Can't imagine... quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I AM SURE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO LIKES TO SHOW THEIR BODIES PARTLY UNCOVERED OR DRESS IN TIGHT FITTING, BODY-REVEALING, FORM-FITTING SWEATERS. I AM SURE YOU WILL FIND THEM VERY MODEST IN DRESSING;HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE AGAINST TO MY PERSPECTIVE, AND DO NOT PREFER SUITS IN THE PUBLIC, THEN I AM SURE YOU WILL ADMIRE THEIR STYLES, AND I GUESS YOU CAN ALSO EDUCATE YOUR SOUROUNDINGS THAT IT IS A GREAT WAY TO PRESENT THEMSELVES IN THE PUBLIC, BUT UNFORTUNANTLY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT MOST MODEST AND PEOPLE WHO HAS HIGH STANDARD OF MORALS HAVE THE SAME THINKING CONSIRNING TO CLOTHES AS I DO. Prove it. You can't - its all subjective. Jeffry Dalmer was a conservative dresser. The defense rests. quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:I DON’T CARE HOW YOU PREFER TO WEAR YOUR CLOTHES BUT I PERSONALLY DISLIKE INMODEST STYLE IN DRESSING SPECIIALLY IN PUBLIC AREAS. Well then I advise you to stay at home if you are so offended. Perhaps you should be veiled and have no (unescorted) contact with the opposite sex until your contract has been sold by your father or brother. Then you can be wholly owned by your arranged husband. Nice to be so free of the burdens of (in)decsision is it not?