Romy

I wouldn't think so. If anything, I've been encouraged in the past to date younger men.

It's not necessarily his maturity. Both physically (and from what I've seen, mentally/emotionally), he seems very mature. I just have this... problem. "16? I'm out!". To be pefrectly honest, he seemed more mature than some of the guys my age or older than me. It's some sort of... subtle phobia. Eh.

I have a serious problem with age. I don't know why, but a guy too young for me (too young meaning 2-1.5 years younger), is just disqualified as an option. A while ago I met a really cute guy that I actually found very attractive. When I found out he was 16 I just... dismissed the idea on the spot. I don't have a problem with them being older though... :???:

Ask your parents, they should probably know. :unsure:

The article seems to suggest mutation. Somehow I'm skeptic. My best guess: An unfaithful wife with some white-skin heritage from long, long ago. :shock:

One judge makes a mistake (albeit a severe one), and suddenly Israel lacks fair judges?

The thing is, the decision was based on the Judge's personal interpretation of the law. I don't see how that accounts for the Israeli state as a state.

But, it does not represent the state's view. Simple as that. Uh, no. What's the point of laws, courts, and appointed officals if none of those represent a state/government? If it wasn't the case, any teenage girl can make her own nation then? I see where this misunderstanding is coming from. What I defined as "represent" is simply a representation of views. Such as Netanyahu's latest speech, for example. You defined it as an authority of the state. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, it does not represent the state's view. Simple as that.

One judge's decision does not represent a whole country's policy. I don't even see why we're discussing it. This is just an attempt by the media to get rating - It isn't, in any way, a case to represent Israel's policy and/or attitude. I don't even see why we're discussing this, to be honest. And if you read it all, you'll see some of the cases collide with the USA's own laws/constitution. Which, by that, means a judge's decision is not an "extension of X country's policy". Quite the opposite, actually. The actions being carried out are the law. It doesn't matter how nicely worded or contradictory the constitution may seem in regards to it. And until a court case gets overturned, it is a policy of that country. That country is responsible for the decision of that judge or judges. What happens when two different court cases, with similar aspects, end up with different results? Or even contradicting results? It has happened, all across the world, more than enough, and not once did the cases take place at close times, or even at the same time. A judge's interpretation of the law, is not a policy of the law, or made by the country in respect of that law.

One judge's decision does not represent a whole country's policy. This is just an attempt by the media to get rating - It isn't, in any way, a case to represent Israel's policy and/or attitude. I don't even see why we're discussing this, to be honest. And if you read it all, you'll see some of the cases collide with the USA's own laws/constitution. Which, by that, means a judge's decision is not an "extension of X country's policy". Quite the opposite, actually.

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/race-discrimination/race-discrimination-history.html Would you say any of these are an extension of USA's policy? In context of the time the case occurred, yes. I'm sure there were many kangaroo courts post Civil War just to convict blacks regardless of being actually guilty, and that reflected a general Southern mindset towards blacks at the time. Legislation may be written, but the judges are those who interpret the application. They put the finishing touches on legal policy. True, but "consentual rape"'s legality, as explained in some of the posts here, is a grey area. While there may have been cases such as a twin brother deceiving a woman into bed (as Yguy suggested), there may also be cases such as simply admitting false love to a woman in order to have sex with her. The fact that the state of Israel (rightfully) disallowes "consentual rape" (such a funny phrase... :rolleyes: ), does not mean that that specific judge's decision represnts the Israeli policy. Also, I assume you didn't read the articles?

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/race-discrimination/race-discrimination-history.html Would you say any of these are an extension of USA's policy?

I'm furious, to be honest. That judge is as dumb as it gets. :evil: Embarrassing? probably. Stupid racist conviction? sure. but how does a single idiotic judge decision turns out to be "another Israeli attempt to provoke the middle east"...? common, i'm sure you'll have better opportunities for this type of statements. Yeah, that judge's decision shouldn't be taken as Israel's decision.

Oh-so-very-goddamn-true! <_<

Relationships are complicated. That's kind of why this thread exists.

You probably mean for you this game has no purpose of direction through questing. Nope, the game has no clear cohesive storyline, the stories often add next to nothing to effect gameplay or the world . Storylines that might be important, stay open for so dang long any possible interest in them dwindles. Quests are no more important than skilling, no more less important, both are an equal time waste that are no more correct than the other. The skills vs quests debate is trite and rather pointless. I fail to see how people swear by quests being so great and entertaining moreso than watching paint dry or ceiling fan blades spinning, I can count the quests i've enjoyed on two hands, and considering the amount of quests, thats sad. I prefer PVP over skilling or questing, but the fact is, questing is nothing more than a slightly more complicated (depending on the quest) distraction and diversion. I disagree. I'm not really what one would define a "Runescape player" anymore, but I can tell you quests were one of the parts of this game I enjoyed more, if not most. Your point of storylines never ending, as this game cannot be "finished", may be correct, but it doesn't take away the enjoyment of feeling you are the one cooking for the Duke, killing the demon, or just generally saving the day. Even quests like "One Small Favor" I enjoyed, in enticipation of what will happen next. In addition, storylines being carried over for too long, doesn't devalue quests per se. It sure is annoying and at times even ridiculous, but that doesn't make any specific quest less of a "quest". Although, in a way, I can understand people's dislike for quests. It really can get irritating to go around, clicking and reading, for those who don't enjoy it and only do it for the rewards. Just my two cents.

If I'm not wrong, it's already been discussed and decided against, but I'm not the right authority to ask. ;) Moving this to Website Discussions..

I started writing up a response, but decided against it. I think I prefer chatting on Skype, so log in Joe. ;)

Just a reminder, guys. When you see a rule-breaking post, instead of replying to it - Use the report button at the left bottom of the post, and then leave it alone and let moderators handle it. ~Romy

It's probably not the best idea to bump topics this old. ;) Locked. ~Romy

K, I guess that's over. Might aswell add some more George Carlin quotes: -Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things. -I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose. -Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit. -Not only do I not know what's going on, I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did. -What does it mean to pre-board? Do you get on before you get on? -When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands. -You know an odd feeling? Sitting on the toilet eating a chocolate candy bar.

K, that's it.

Now that's a broken record! Should I stop now?

Sweet sixteen. :D