forsaken

I'm weird because I know how to manipulate people, but choose not to. I'm weird because I could be the best at a fair amount of things, but because I know that's possible, I don't care and don't put in the effort to be. In a nut shell, I'm weird because I'm lazy.

I'd have to disagree here. The Queen does work. This is not to say I support the system of monarchy, nor do I think it's right. The fact of the matter is, the Queen's role as a figurehead is quite unique and does indeed have the ability to effect society in a variety of manners. Many in society idolise or view her as "something special" - thus where she goes, what she says, what she does are extremely important. This is why I disagree with your opinion. Yes, her travelling is working. I don't know about you, but I'm sure the novelty of travelling and seeing places would wear off once you've seen everything at least 10 times - which I can probably safely say she has, having travelled extensively in her long [half a decade even] reign. Also, her every action is scrutinised. She is expected to be the rolemodel for society - regardless of who or how some people view her, this is indeed the case. Thus, she has to moderate what she does every day of her life. I call that work. The Queen can't do "anything" she likes. Indeed, she probably isn't coerced into doing what she does - but conversely, I'd wager the ramifications for her not doing so would be rather bleak.

I had a similar dream, not in that I was of the opposite gender, but about the weird feeling and love. Essentially, in one night, I had a dream that spanned a month or two. During that time I fell in love with someone pretty badly, learnt a lot about them etc, did a lot of things. Then when I woke up, I wondered where I was. Then it hit me like a bullet, the dream wasn't real. But it felt like I had lived my whole life in the dream. It took me a week or two to get over it. It was pretty bad. I had a few like that, and each time I was left pining for a long time. Felt so weird. Pining after something that you know doesn't exist.

I'd have to dispute that. Being good at games => Respect from fellow gamers => Respect manifests in real life => Girls notice it. I'm not saying that happens all the time, but something those lines happened to me before. Sort of like what someone else mentioned earlier - word gets around pretty quickly. It's not so much being the great gamer, but more of the palpable sense of respect [guys at least] give you when they're around you. Anyone catching what I'm trying to say, or am I rabbling meaninglessly? :P

First of all, I don't think it matters if what you're going through can be considered as teen angst or whatever. For the select, unsympathetic few, what you've got to realise is that if he feels so amazingly horribly, merely saying "it's teen angst, get over it." is a poor attitude to adopt and to reply with. Just because someone else out there is possibly suffering worse, does not make his situation less important. For me, it merely highlights the fact that we all should put in that little bit more effort to be compassionate. To give someone else help and aid where we can, in the full knowledge that you would want that same help and aid if you were in the same predicament. In terms of your situation dacona, I would suggest you do as others may have suggested previously, talk to your father, mother and brother. Attempt to resolve something with them. Even if you can't, at least you'll KNOW where and what the problem lies, rather than not knowing. At least then, you won't have to double-guess yourself and you can at least, with peace of mind, try to address your problem/s now that you know exactly where they stem from.

I think the biggest coincidence would be being born with so many other people, on the same day! Sarcasm aside, if there weren't coincidences, then the world would TRULY be random!

Pretty damn spiffy, I need me one of those. On the topic of Mythbusters: For those of you saying that Mythbusters' tried it and didn't work, you have to keep in mind that they were testing the veracity of the story of Archimedes [or whoever] and his apparent "Death Ray" and its possibility. Thus, they used bronze, which was and is less powerful than glass in reflecting light. They did that because bronze was the most reflective material known to mankind at that time, so it wasn't possible for them to have glass mirrors.

I'm not sure about your question about greenhouse gas emissions. Do you view them as bad? If so, is your question then essentially: "would you make our energy production methods bad or good?" If you're afraid ofNuclear energy, it is - despite popular myth - is actually quite safe.

Er first try: Test name: Strategic Alliance with Competitors Gross Speed: 124 WPM Errors: 8 Words Net Speed: 116 WPM Accuracy: 93% EDIT: Tried it again, typed slower and with more accuracy, helped. - Test Name: Strategic Alliances with Competitors - Date: 2007-03-20 21:31 - Test Time: 01:00 - Gross Speed: 125 WPM - Errors: 3 - Accuracy: 97% - NET SPEED: 122 WPM

I'd have to say I hold the same, or similar view. That girl you were sitting next to has some serious issues. Beyond cruel comes to mind. Oath, if a girl did that to me, I'm pretty sure I might just lose it there and then. I'm particularly distasteful of those girls who think that they're untouchable just because of their gender. Yes, women are weaker, and that should be factored in, but in such occasions as outlined above. Hot damn, let all hell break loose I say.

I've played cs on and off for nigh on 6 or 7 years now. Straight off preference goes to 1.6, purely because it requires more skill, at least according to my perception of what "skill" is in CS. In CS, what I think of as the epitome of skill is to be able to HS someone in the shortest amount of time possible upon seeing them. You're good if you can hs, you're truly one of the best if you can do it, and fast. Source removes this. The hit boxes for headshots are ridiculously big. When I played it, I just looked in the general direction of the person and aimed in the general direction of the head and got a headshot 9/10 times. I can assure you it's much more harder in 1.6, and thus, requires much more skill.

I have issues looking people in the eyes as well. I don't know about you, but for me it's because I have a very direct stare - so I get the feeling that I might intimidate/make people uncomfortable if I do. So when I did find someone I could look in the eyes, it generally meant they had nothing to hide and are perfectly aware of who they were and what they wanted. Which was/is a very sexy thing indeed. :P In response to the male appreciation, I'm pretty glad that with the people I hang around, appreciating a male's body falls under the same mental category as appreciating a female's. "If the body's fine, give it credit when it's due" is the mentality we adopt. :P

I feel the same way, and I'm far from gay - not that being gay is a bad thing. I go to a boy's school so this "fine appreciation" of the male body is discussed with relatively little hounding occuring. What I find attractive would definitely be the: Eyes, cheekbone, shoulders and smile. Unattractive would most likely be: Arms with excess flesh, obesity in general and too much hair.

It's not what, it's who. "Goths" is the stereotypical label given to people generally based on their choice of clothing - black clothing, chains, piercings, [bleep]es and etc. As fair as I know, there are about as many "Goths" who worship the devil as there are normal people.

Limiting the amount of children a couple can have would rank about second on my list of the dumbest things you could do. First on my list would be even considering it. Find someone who smokes a packet a day, and walk up to them and tell them that they should only smoke half a packet a day. Even though smoking is bad for them, I highly doubt they'll listen to you. Now try walking up to every single couple in the world and telling them that they can only have X amount of children. I will guarentee you that at least half of them will swiftly and surely tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine. I for one feel that the choice to have children is a fundamental right of the couple themselves, and not something that can, or should be, regulated.

I added it as a figure of speech - to prevent others from thinking I was flaming a particular person. Hopefully, I made it clear enough to see I was attacking the attitude, not the person. Or is that considered flaming, too? Rargh. This is how I interpreted the line of posts: you only live once --> why not try pr0n? From a Romantic's POV, I'm a product of my environment, one which is highly critical of others' occupations and reputation. The problem isn't the issue; it was someone's attitude to the issue. Yes, of course, it was light-hearted, joking around. But that was only clarified after I posted. My first reply was aimed at the first post. Yet, misterpretation upon misterpretation has led to a discussion based on the morality of the act? This is not what I intended, may I stress wholeheartedly. I reacted to the attitude conveyed - the use of language, sentences structures. Being an extension 2 English and also a French Extension student has trained me to be highly critical of techniques and their effects on twisting intended meaning and consequential interpretation. I simply misinterpreted too far. It conveyed to me a sense of nonchalance: that everyone does it, hence, why not me, too? Indeed! It's just as acceptable as picking up a bottle of mineral water and drinking from it. We are dealing with words. Typed letters on a screen. We cannot read one's tone of voice, one's intention. Pardon me, and I apologise a thousand times, for having started this snowball of misinterpretation, for that's all this seems to be. EDIT: To clarify, somehow, it went from my reaction towards an attitude, to a suggestion of how one can live their life (a viable suggestion, may I add) to the morality of pr0n? I seem to have to increasingly defend the true intended meaning behind my words due to recurring misinterpretation. I feel victimised, yet that, too, is simply a misinterpretation, surely? Haha, I do believe it was mostly misinterpretation. Having been a victim of English subject and its tendency to stray into pointless profundity, I can understand where you're coming from. For the record, I don't find anything wrong with what you've said, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions - as my former post mentioned - so I'll just leave it at that. [:

My dream job would probably be a well-paying job in something I enjoy - for instance photography. You may or may not find the word morally offensive, but you seem to hold the view that males only [this is from my perception of your posts] enjoy watching or being in it. This isn't true, there is a fair amount of the female population there that also enjoys watching it. I think your comment that "this is geared towards everyone" is applicable also in this context, although not in the original manner you applied it. A forum is for the discussion of topics, why shouldn't **** be discussed, so long as no one attempts to impose their view onto yours? If you're one for human rights, there is a particular article that is relevant: "Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." In essence, what I'm trying to say is that I doubt the discussion of said topic would truly affect you in such a manner that you couldn't ignore it. Personally, I find **** fine, as the females and males who act in them have consented to and even getting paid for what they're doing. If they want to do it, and people want to buy it, then I see no confliction there. For instance, there was a particular case in the 19th or early 20th century where a person wished to create a "directory" of sorts containing the details of prostitutes. He was charged for morally offensive conduct, however he won the case as he in no way attempted to impugn the views of others or to coerce them into going to or paying for prostitution. Rather, he provided an objective service which left the onus on the other individuals as to whether or not they wished to engage in such conduct. The same principle applies - there is talk of the topic, but I think it is obvious that the views held are not being imposed upon anyone, and thus not an issue. If we were to try to cater for every minority group [as you've suggested yourself as being] and their beliefs, well, ineffectuality and chaos would reign.

I can't comprehend that logic. I could further extend it to say, eating is natural - but just because eating is natural, it doesn't mean it's right ... So we shouldn't eat? Or going to toilet - just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's right - so we shouldn't go to the toilet? They're natural processes, without them, we couldn't survive. However, you might then draw the point that we can survive without eating meat. To which I would reply: true.But saying eating meat isn't right is analagous to saying that living isn't right - because living's a natural part of our process. Think about it for a second. I respect all vegetarians, vegans and carnivores alike, and I guess what it boils down then is your personal morals - which are inherently subjective rather than objective. What makes something natural? Since I was raised a vegetarian does that make eating meat not natural for me? I survive without meat so that makes eating meat not a natural process. I didn't say eating meat was natural, nor did I say it wasn't. I said the demarcation of nature as right or wrong is a bit of a useless venture. Re-read what I said. What do you mean "what defines something as natural"? I thought it was a given that releasing your excrements and consuming food is a natural process of our life - or are you debating that point? Because those were my examples.

I can't comprehend that logic. I could further extend it to say, eating is natural - but just because eating is natural, it doesn't mean it's right ... So we shouldn't eat? Or going to toilet - just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's right - so we shouldn't go to the toilet? They're natural processes, without them, we couldn't survive. However, you might then draw the point that we can survive without eating meat. To which I would reply: true. But saying eating meat isn't right is analagous to saying that living isn't right - because living's a natural part of our process. Think about it for a second. I respect all vegetarians, vegans and carnivores alike, and I guess what it boils down then is your personal morals - which are inherently subjective rather than objective.

Okay, I don't know what's going on in your mind, and what type of image you wanted to portray, but the main gripe with it, for me at least, would be the colours. Or lack there of. I understand you wanted to go with a green theme, but try to add varying tones. It really adds to the image as a whole as well as providing some depth. Right now it just seems like a bland olive green. There are other types of green out there, use them! :P Unless of course, you wanted to go with a bland type of green. [:

Talking in front of people? Not really a problem. What I do have a problem with is similar with warrior. In terms of school, I find it amazingly hard to deliver speeches [usually in English] because I rarely ever believe the spiel I'm dolling out. I have this annoying habit of needing to tell the truth, and it prohibits me greatly when I view English as a matter of constructing a verbose piece of manure and attempting to sell it to someone. On paper, I can do it - but trying to convince an audience of it when I don't believe it myself? I scoff!

The only thing I can say is source is too PISS EASY. I've played cs since beta 6.1, and I can tell you right here and now that the skill level of source is much, much lower than that of 1.6 and earlier versions of cs.

To those who are blindly hating Saddam, Bush or any other figure of similar status - and because quotes seem to be in abundance - I throw the following out to you all.

Bracelet + other assorted goods from gf. :D Quite content!

I don't see your logical leap here - how does the existence of god have any effect on the concept of intrinsic morality? It seems that you're basing the concept of morality with that of religion. There are morals influenced by religion as well as those that aren't. I noticed that too, but since religion and such is banned for a while... I figured I better not spark a "flame war" on it. Yeah fair enough, I was just thinking that if we just touched base on it lightly there wouldn't be a problem, as we're more determining how religion has an effect in it, rather then exploring what religion is and etc.