Ginger_Warrior

So your one of the few(well very few) who read/knows the treaty and understands it 100% and your still saying No? Yes, very much so. I'm siding with Sinn Féin on this one. So, you've actually read the full document then? The question was have you read it, not who you agree with.

Propaganda? As opposed to the blatant lies that some of the Eurosceptics spin around? See, here's a difficult situation. What is Democracy here? What if, in total, the majority of Europeans actually agree with the new Treaty, but a majority in some countries such as Ireland and the UK (which make up a minority of the EU overall) refuse to accept it? Surely, it should be the majority of Europeans overall that decide whether or not the new European Treaty is worth putting into place, not a majority of those living in a few conservative countries. The fact is this - only those who vehemently oppose this Treaty care about this whole referendum thing. The rest of us are perfectly happy letting the people we've voted to represent us make that decision on our behalf. Yes but can you be sure that other countries would of still said Yes if it was put to a vote and the people actually know what there been gotten into? Of course I can't, but the majority of people cannot understand such complicated constitutional affairs. They would never be able to know what they're getting themselves into, except whatever's being fed to them (truth or otherwise) through the media, which itself is usually anti-European. Hence why we vote people to make such decisions for us. Any Treaty has to be agreed to in the House of Commons (I realise that's not the case for Ireland, but talking from a British point of view). We live in a representative democracy. If the majority of representatives agree to the Treaty, then it should be taken that the country overall agrees with it on balance. That's democracy in this country - we have absolutely no right to a plebiscite, and never have done for this exact reason. To put some sort of context, I'm sure if given a vote, the majority of people would want there to be no taxation. It doesn't make it a good idea.

There's nothing wrong with masturbation itself. What you need to ask yourself is this - "Can I get through the day without masturbating?". If the answer is 'no', then you appear to have an addiction. An addiction isn't something you do everyday to gain enjoyment or satisfaction from, it's something you feel you have to do everyday to get by. I guess I have an addiction to computer games. It is socially unhealthy - I wish I could stop but they're so good! =P~

Propaganda? As opposed to the blatant lies that some of the Eurosceptics spin around? See, here's a difficult situation. What is Democracy here? What if, in total, the majority of Europeans actually agree with the new Treaty, but a majority in some countries such as Ireland and the UK (which make up a minority of the EU overall) refuse to accept it? Surely, it should be the majority of Europeans overall that decide whether or not the new European Treaty is worth putting into place, not a majority of those living in a few conservative countries. The fact is this - only those who vehemently oppose this Treaty care about this whole referendum thing. The rest of us are perfectly happy letting the people we've voted to represent us make that decision on our behalf.

Exactly why there should never have been a referendum in the first place, and why there shouldn't be one in Britain.

1. Who inspires You. Various musicians, whose songs have helped me to understand the difficulties I have faced in my albeit short existence. Friends. Stories of sacrifice in the name of a greater cause. 2 Do u have a role model and if so who? I have no role models, I only aspire to better myself and become my own.

Who knows? Seriously. We're only informed by what the papers, or politicians with their own agendas tell us. I doubt anyone on here can realistically answer that question. My interpretation is that all countries must agree to the new Treaty, however, this doesn't stop the EU kicking out members which don't agree to it anyway. And that is a fundamental part of a Treaty, after all. You win some, you lose some. Deal with the loses, or leave the alliance. That's my interpretation anyway.

Yes, that's right... because everyone in Britain is a monarchist. That's why we have the Houses of Parliament, obviously. :roll: There's only one reason we've kept the Queen for this long - tradition and tourism. The Royal family has had practically no power over our political system for the best part of 150 years. Victoria and all monarchs thereafter couldn't even stop Ireland breaking apart. In fact, the only incident where a monarch has intervened that I can personally recall is when the King stopped Churchill going to Normandy after D-Day. So please, go away if you're just here to stereotype. I for one am no fan of the Queen, yet I still live here and abide by my country's principles. What's with you and sensationalism? Seriously, he was just replying back to the other British dude What's with you and writing spam for no apparent reason other than to insult others for their arguing technique? Furthermore, he writes on a public forum, anyone can reply. I presume you have sources for either of those two completely ridiculous claims? Or are you basing your opinion on a prejudice? The fact you said 'PM' instead of 'former PM' rather suggests to me you know nothing about British politics at all. If anything it's the other way round. The Queen has a Privy Council and asks respected MPs for advice on her affairs, not the other way round. Yes, technically the PM has to ask the Queen to change the status of foreign affairs (such as the war in Iraq), but power is so overwhelmingly against her she's really no option but to agree with the decision of Parliament.

Yes, that's right... because everyone in Britain is a monarchist. That's why we have the Houses of Parliament, obviously. :roll: There's only one reason we've kept the Queen for this long - tradition and tourism. The Royal family has had practically no power over our political system for the best part of 150 years. Victoria and all monarchs thereafter couldn't even stop Ireland breaking apart. In fact, the only incident where a monarch has intervened that I can personally recall is when the King stopped Churchill going to Normandy after D-Day. So please, go away if you're just here to stereotype. I for one am no fan of the Queen, yet I still live here and abide by my country's principles.

There's no magical explanation, but one of the factors is a different tolerance towards suicide. While our attitude towards suicide and euthanasia is mild, Iran's is strict (hence their lower rate) and a country such as Cuba's is more liberal (hence their higher rate). Cuba may have changed rapidly, however it remains a poor country economically, still has a great healthcare system and most Cubans experience a fairly laid-back, positive lifestyle too, so generalised statements regarding country X's wealth or attitude towards life doesn't really explain why suicide rates are so variable from that country to country Y. Now, as for obesity, Australia is country to whom sport is part of everyday life. The amount of exercise most Australians do isn't particularly a worry (despite Skatedog111's rather blinkered judgement at the start of this thread). Therefore what it seems to bow down to is diet. You can't force people to eat healthily, so it seems using public health services and schools to educate on the importance of a balanced diet would be the appropriate solution to this problem. There are no panaceas or instant-use drugs to solve obesity.

Or maybe the deaths aren't reported as suicide for cultural/religious reasons? Might not even be reported, it's just avoided for spiritual reasons. Iran's blue, and Islamic teachings on suicide are fairly explicit and strict - it hardly surprises that in such a vehemently Muslim nation, suicide rates would be lower.

When you consider half of Australia's uninhabitable, and the population of America is some 15x that of Australia, that's a bit unfair. :P

Owned! :XD: What an ending!

... 32 Crafting? :ohnoes:

Good luck Sugar, sorry to hear about the muting. :(

Judging by the silence, I'd say whoever it was organising it forgot, or else is too busy. Would someone else like to organise it? :wall:

Control by exploitation of circumstance. What a lovely, mutual relationship you have there. :roll:

I see a pattern here. A relationship involves a personal attachment between two people. There's a quote from Captain Obvious. Can't you see the problem? The trouble is you're trying to achieve that using impersonal forms of communication such as texting, email and MSN Messenger. Phoning someone, or talking to them in person (obviously impossible in this situation) are forms of personal communication. So you're trying to make the communication you have with this girl personal by reading into the meaning of every single word she writes, only you're doing it so much you've worked yourself into: A) An obsession, and; B) A paranoia that what she's saying isn't quite genuine. A solution to this is simple: Ask yourself, "Does it really matter if she tells me whether she plays guitar or not?". If so, then persist in asking (although don't come whining back to us when she starts getting a little bit more defensive about the information she gives you). If not, let it drop and the conversation between the two of you flow. If you can't have personal communication with this girl, I realise this is tough but, hard luck (although I am sat here thinking 'Skype?'). Are you going to waste bucket loads of money phoning her, or wait years until you can afford to meet up trans-Atlantic? There's plenty of other girls like her who you'll get along with just as well, if you just let go if this apparent fixation over this one girl you've never even met.

Now that was a good idea, let us add our forum names and display our Tip.It name, post count, clan and preferred forum skin. I suppose the problem would be space, and the fact it's pointing out the blatantly obvious on the signature's left-hand side. The idea of having a signature with a Crew rank does, however, appeal to me. Fear my siggy. :P

On the board, in the 'Last post' column, the text was on the left rather than being in the dead centre. It appears to have been fixed since I noticed it, but if I see it again, I'll be sure to get a screenie and show you what I mean.

That really isn't the cure. Firstly, your diet seems a bit unhealthy and that can lead to mood swings and stress. Even if you don't want to eat, make sure you eat as much as you used to. Also, generally try to improve on your diet. Try to stick to three regular meals a day, maybe a snack before bed. Secondly, your lifestyle needs to change. It sounds to me like you're struggling to maintain a balance between work, school and play. By play I mean your own personal time where you do whatever you want and relax. It's important that everyone has at least some time to themselves, even if it's only a couple of hours a day, or as Sumpta says, you'll just burn out. Sleeping pills really aren't gonna stop this problem mate. Maybe it'll stop the symptoms, but first it's the insomnia and then there's the complete breakdown afterwards. No amount of sleeping pills will make that part easier, so evade it now. Have you considered counselling if you're stressed out? That's what they're there for.

Could I ask you to try that image again, but with transparency applied to the Tip.It Logo first, on its' own layer? I think you might like it after making it semi-transparent. :-k ~D. V. Devnull Dev, a bad idea is bad no matter how many times you try and make it work. I'm with Tripsis, it looks so small and blurry it just looks out of place with the sharpness of the rest of the sig.

I think you make an interesting point. The persona 'Ginger Warrior' can sometimes be a way for me to live a second life - separate from my real identity. I can do things being Ginger Warrior that I would never do in college or with RL mates, both on RuneScape and working on Tip.It. Whenever I talk to someone on the Internet, I like them to call me Ginger Warrior, unless they're actually my friend in which case I'm fine with them calling me by my real name. So I protect that identity very securely and no, I wouldn't let anyone into that life at all - it's personal. If I was in a relationship though, especially the ones I try and build, I wouldn't mind them having the password to my email account or something like that. They can read my texts too, I've got nothing to hide. In fact, having that level of disclosure with each other probably helps with trust and helps move the relationship along smoothly.

Clearly, you've never studied the Nazis and their attempts to convert coal into oil. I'll just say, it went badly. ;)

No concrete evidence, just stuff that I noticed. It's pretty common that girls want a guy with confidence and NOT the 'nice guy'. Instead, they are looking for the ideal "sensitive jerk". That would be a "I can't give evidence because I'm portraying my opinions as fact without any sort of credentials or evidence to back them up" then. In other words, a completely baseless assumption. Right, but if you identify yourself as an insecure shy person, then how will being yourself help anything? You see, that's the problem. I know that often guys will go out of their way to be nice and in that case "be yourself" can help. But what if 'be yourself' encourages the person to be too nice? it could play against them. I think people should just go out in a social environment and experiment, see what works and what doesn't and then change the stuff that doesn't work. If they can do that then I guess I don't have a problem with a person being who they are. It depends how the advice is interpreted. It sounds like it's supposed to mean stay true to who you are but to a certain degree people can change and still be true to who they are. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not suggesting becoming a lap-dog and whenever someone else goes "jump" you say "how high?". Yes I'll crack the odd teasing comment with someone who I know won't take it personally, but just as a piece of friendly banter. However, I do that with all those that trust me that way, not necessarily those I want a relationship with. I'm just being myself. I don't understand how it is necessary at all to change your persona to make yourself more attractive to someone else, or even how anyone can think such a thing is a wise thing to do. If being a 'sensitive jerk' isn't in your nature, don't try to be. You'll get caught out otherwise and rightly get a slap for being false. Be yourself, find someone who does like your true personality, not some façade that's been built up. That's genuine confidence. How can you even begin to express outwards confidence if you don't even feel secure about yourself?