forsaken

I use sms' occasionally, maybe once or twice a day, so 50-100 a month. If I wanted RSI, then I'd [bleep] it.

I have.

I have a question for you. Do you think ALL persons under the age of 18 are unable to experience 'true love'? That's the key issue here; if you meant your earlier statements as general and only indicative of the greater percentage of teenagers - then I have no problem with you. If you actually hold the view that all persons under 18 cannot experience 'true love' whatsoever, then I would have to reiterate the fundamental problem I have with this perspective as demarcated in my post a page ago.

I'm 17, I'm in love. I actually fell in love in my late 16s. Why do you laugh, Perhaps because you didn't experience love at that age? You don't know how two people can feel about each other. This annoys me, you say I'm speaking in ignorance when in fact it is you that is ignorant. Just because somebody "wants to be happy" doesn't mean they are eligible for love. At that age all teenagers are still naive and foolish, their hormones are raging and they don't think straight, don't be an idiot and tell me that despite this two people can commit themselves to eachother and LOVE one another because that is ridiculous. I'm 17 but atleast I understand that was I feel for a girl I meet is never "love". If you keep this up I really will be laughing. EDIT: Incidentally 'Thosethebrokes' you're a complete hypocrite, I've seen you bragging about [bleep] your girlfriend on the relationship sticky, some people have even siggied it. You're clearly in love if all you can do is boast about how you [bleep] your girlfriend on an online forum. Idiot. Sorry, I have to disagree with you on several levels. For one, you make the basic, fundamentally incorrect assumption that "teenagers are still naive and foolish at that age". I agree to an extent in that the LIKELIHOOD of teenagers actually being mature enough to pursue a relationship - without excess sexual overtures - is, well, low. This, however, does not mean it's impossible. Secondly, you make the comment that "[you're] 17 but at least I understand that what I feel for a girl I meet is never 'love'" Can you relate to me when I point out that just because you've never been able to develop a strength of feeling akin to love to a girl, doesn't mean everyone else can't? You're not wholly representative of the rest of the teenage society. Nor are your friends. I mean, if that were true, then I could make the reverse, dichotomous statement: "Well I'm 17, but at least I understand that what I feel for a girl is 'love'". That, however, does not necessitate that it is true. My personal opinion on this is that it is fully possible for teenagers [ranging from 13-18] to "love" someone else, my only catch being that as the age decreases, so does the probability of this event occuring.

Attempting to define fashion for male or female is equatable to committing ritual suicide. Having said that, by accepting the terms and conditions - which you have to do - when you go to school, I'm relatively sure that they have the right to tell someone to change provided they do have rules regulating uniform. In my school, I actually have to wear a uniform. If my shirt is untucked, my tie - not tight around the neck enough - or a button undone, I can get a detention.

My girlfriend quoted this to me, fairly poetic and resonates with me: "Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two." - Captain Corelli's Mandolin

I'd say keep it. It'd be a mad thing to show your children [presuming you wish to have some] and even if not, it'll probably be worth X times as much in the future.

I don't know - since when has art had a point?

I don't think you ever overcome that fear; you just realise that there's not very much you can do about it. In response to the above post, getting the falling feeling, twitching and waking up ... is one of the most annoying and embarassing things that can happen on a public train/bus.

No but I draw them all the time. You need to have the bars and clefs of one of your favourite songs across the whole wrist; you'd get my respect and it'd look insanely cool. [;

maybe he meant game 3; but that's still pretty pointless as it's all about the series win :uhh: No rick, it's about watching good rugby. ... That being said; oath.

Physical: Not have a concave chest and thus have a greater stamina, allowing me to pursue my love of sport more fully. Mental: Laziness; one of my cardinal sins. If I worked a bit harder, well, let's say a lot more would come into fruition for me.

I dissect the above: God "has no feelings". ... God, "he can feel pain". I leave the conclusion to yonder readers.

I fail to see what is wrong with being in one's natural state. Sincerely, for those who are against seeing wrinkled skin or rolls of fat, don't look then. Personally, I think if everyone went nude, after the initial shock everyone would just slowly push it to the background. Like how when a cricket chirps, or the incessant rain that you eventually become desensitised to.

No, it was more of my stuttering rage, and laziness to get the actual memo, rather than hers. :( It said, word for word: "Mr. and Mrs. xxxxxxx, I need to schedule a conference regarding internet safety and the video your son 'posted' on YouTube. Does Wednesday morning work for you?" Yeah, I screwed that up. Internet safety. Hah, you've already explored most if not all relevant avenues in terms of the safety of your peers. It's not like you have your school name there or anything. If your parents agree with you, I sincerely don't see much that she can do. She's probably relying on your parents not being very supportive and thence being hard on you. You have a relatively clean record according to what you've said, and are in key leadership roles that pretty much show that you're a good person. Good luck with that, if the system has any justice at all, the teacher will learn something very nifty, something called reasonability.

Is that what the teacher wrote exactly? If so, I'm almost mentally stuttering in rage at the way they worded it, as well as the blatant injustness and inherent incorrectness of what they've sad. If it was me, I would briskly inform them that they you had by all means possible verified the legality of posting the clip on the internet. After all, you did inform your teacher, and the parents of the students. Then I would question where exactly the, 'awfulness' she delineates is derived from. I would then sincerely inform her that she needs to sit back and seriously evaluate what her values are. If she then continues to pursue this avenue of ridiculum, raise the issue with the relevant authorities - ABOVE her. You definately were not 'careless' in the posting, and there was nothing 'illegal' about it, unless your school conditions specifically provision to such an instance, which I highly doubt.

NSW will win. By virtue of their sexiness. Plus Minichello is back. [:

The point of the matter is, it appears the teacher has not provided any justification for her reaction. The thread creator has already asked the teacher in charge as well as the parents of the concerned students and they've all consented. Personally, I think you should contest this situation - provided you aren't breaking any school rules - and reveal just exactly what inane reasoning is behind your teacher's 'censoring'. Apologising when you're not at fault = not cool.

I'd have to say, I disagree with some of the "an eye for an eye" mentalities that have been exhibited in this thread. So somebody has violated another person's being, therefore its perfectly alright to do the same to them? Alienating criminals and wrong-doer's further is just a quick way to an endless, vicious cycle. For instance, as some have already mentioned, by putting them in such unfavourable circumstances, I can not see any reason for them to even want to reform. In fact, in doing so recividism would probably skyrocket. So, some of you then might say, well throw 'em in gaol then. Life sentences. Well, that's all very grand, except for the fact that I could almost wager that you would then complain of them being 'leeches' to the tax system. The only logical - and HUMANE - process available is to promote post-sentence programs and support systems for newly released criminals, regardless of how horrid their crimes may have been. What's worse, preventing a reoccurence of a crime, or vindictively punishing them, only to spur them onto greater heights of degradation? By giving them a means of restarting and rebuilding their lives, not only do you lighten the load of the tax system, you also give them some hope, and thus raise the probability that they won't fall back into old habits. Did you know, that it costs roughly $60-70,000 a year to house a criminal in gaol in Australia for a year, whereas it only costs $2,000 - $10,000 to initiate them under a decent post-sentencing scene, that with all likelihood, would help prevent recividism?

Not really. When talking about really really really small stuff, like subatomic particles, the rules are different than they are with big stuff like galaxies. Hence Einstein's "General Relativity" and "Special Relativity". Quantum physics gets different from cosmic physics. Didn't realize we were talking about quantum physics (don't be so condescending btw). How's he being condescending? He stated facts. Considering the fact that you stated that the laws physics are universal, you can't blame him for making the assumption that you didn't know that.

I can draw a technical distinction in that in the former scenario, it is her body, her choice and her livelihood which is put at stake. The burden of pregnancy lies on her, as well as all potential risks [which can be life-threatening]. I'm not going to argue the moral gray area here - that all people have a right to live etc - but the point of the matter is, it was her choice to conceive, and thus it should be her choice whether or not to carry the child. In the latter case, the man has walked up - with the intention, I'm assuming - to kill the child. Provided it isn't his child [even if it was, it'd still be the woman's right, but I won't get there, too many if's and thus scenarios if I do] he has taken the choice of the child's life out of the hands of the woman. Here, he has no right to do so, as he has no part in the conception, nor is it his "child" or "fetus" that he is undertaking the action against. He has, for all intents and purposes, impeded on the a person's fundamental right to not be arbitarily interfered with. Specifically, but not solely limited to, outlined by the following:

Sorry about the short answers. My beliefs include God and he's the one who gave us our lives. If I break a bone I get medical help in order to live not to die. There's nothing wrong with reducing pain, I'm not a sadist. However, the purpose of living is not freedom of pain. I read about an old lady, nearly deaf, blind, alone, stuck in a bed, half her face was corroded by cancer, she was disgusting to look at. She had constant pain in her head, stomache and back. This sounds like a perfect person to help commit suicide. But this lady, eighty-nine years old, was happy with her life. How could that be? Well, she didn't base her happiness on her physical condition. She based it on Jesus, and his love for her. She kept going on about how good God had been to her. This is hard to believe even for a christian like myself. Sure, you can say, we're talking about people who want to kill themselves not those who are happy with their lives. But I'm saying this to argue that you shouldn't base your will to live on your physical condition. Hopefully I've expounded enough. On a sidenote, I'm going to bed now so don't expect any replies for a while. The key difference, however, is that SHE made the choice, herself. So long as the party in question is happy with their position and have made the choice themselves, then I have no problems with them. Conversely, if someone were to be suffering - who did not believe in God - and thus had no such assurance, I would think restricting their choice due to someone else's personal preferences and beliefs would violate the person's fundamental right to free choice. I guess the key disparity here is one of faith, which I guess means a lot of circular argument and no real ground gained on either side. So I'll just leave it at this.

I believe people shouldn't base there will to live on their physical condition. I would prefer you expound on your argument, rather then living it at one-liners. In essence, from what little you gave me, you think it's a-okay for someone to live [at the hypothetical peak] in abject pain for their whole lives, merely because you think so? I'll be slightly sardonic and pull the other meaning of the word "live". In modern context, the main perception of "living" entails doing things, activities, anything. Enjoying oneself comes to mind. ... Continual pain? =/= Joy. If you ever break a bone, or dislocate a shoulder, or procure some sort of painful wound, how about you try absconding from pain killers? Or if you have a heart attack - don't get medical help, just let it kill you. You know why? Because "you don't believe you should base your will to live on your physical condition."

But would you agree that some people have really miserably horrid existances? It's pretty sickening some of the situations people end up in be they genetic or not. Still I don't think death would be a better alternative. There are people out there with conditions or afflictions so serious that every conscious moment is one that is rife with pain. Consider the fact that said condition is to haunt them till the day they die. Consider that they have to reside in a bed at all times, being able to do nothing, other then lie there. You would condemn them to living, when you have no idea how they feel, and no justification other then the fact that "You don't think death would be a better alternative?". In terms of very serious cases, I would grant people the right to make such a hefty decision - provided a very meticulous and stringent protocol is put into place that prevents third-party interference in terms of persuading them to want to die. When someone is suffering, and all that is ahead of them is suffering, to tell them "Sorry, killing yourself is a bad thing, just sit it out and reside in pain, mmkay? Trust me, death is a really really bad thing, I know heaps about it, so listen to what I say." That's what other people deciding that people can't die if they want to [in select circumstances] is tantamount to, for me at least.

Har har har. I remember those. Amen to that. Looking back, even to my youngest posts here, at this forum, is embarassing.