The Valsharess.

I think in the first case, the person who doesn't love you will have something to say about it...

Ask me this question again when I hit 40.

I figured it was something like that.

All my descriptions stand!

American Alligator!



1) They've got big mouths, just like me! They can/will eat anything smaller than themselves.
2) They are amphibious, meaning they live a dualistic life being buoyed by water, but can also trudge upon the hard, unforgiving land. (Think you can outrun an alligator? Better be sure - they've been clocked at 20m.p.h. over short distances - and don't think you can outswim one!)
3) C'mon, just look at that big ol' smile! Heh heh heh heh heh...
4) They've got rough natural armor for skin, just like me!

Wait - no - that last part's not entirely true...

I wouldn't worry about missing someone who didn't believe once you got into heaven. My understanding of heaven is that once you're there, you're so blissfully happy that you don't care about much else.

Or about linking five words?

Is this thread about incarceration?

I don't understand the premise.

Blast! The double post got me again!

*pat*pat*
Some of us still understand you. You will never be truly alone.
(Wait - is that a good thing or a bad thing?)


I don't think I've ever rated a woman's profile based on her physical attractiveness... Though I did tell a woman once that "a smile wouldn't hurt". Usually the closest I get are comments on the quality of the picture she took of herself, but not her appearance directly...

And as far as male profiles go, usually the biggest problem I see is lack of Interests or content. (I refuse to comment on any profile's spelling/grammar/punctuation mistakes, for sheer time wasted.) If I were to comment on their physical attractiveness, I would probably tell them they are all horribly ugly and should remove all pictures of themselves from social media everywhere.
But would that be a fair judgment of their attractiveness? Probably not. I ain't exactly the right person to ask.

Somebody famous in our nation's history once said:
"The man who gives up liberty in the name of security deserves neither." (paraphrased)

More recently, several less-famous people claim that: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

I think the most important phrase in the original post is "impressionable [young] people". (Though in the case of Michael Regener and others, I'm not sure they count as "young" people.) People will always find ways to do stupid, nonsensical, and harmful things not only because of their personal beliefs, but just because other people are doing them. I reference you to the latest "hacktivist" movements, where because one small group of individuals decided to take a stand, suddenly it's the thing to do if you have any programming skills and an agenda. (And you may not need to have an actual agenda.)

Even if words are intended to cause harm, it takes a person to act on those words. Just consider the pure vitriol we hear all the time from "reasonable" and "upstanding" political or religious debates hosted on public television. Further consider the presidential speeches encouraging and promoting war on organizations or countries. (ALL presidential speeches, not just those of your opposite party.) Are those not words spoken with the intent to cause harm?

We need a little less suppression of speech, and a little more conscientious objecting, methinks.

+1

Town ship

Only if it's for Tchaikovsky's works.

Private Detective. (Or to put it another way, professionally Snoopy.)

(And no, I'm never going to let it go that you're picturing yourself with a giant Snoopy dog.)

Damn right!

<==== this is some of my finest work!

Ballet dancer. I dunno why. I can just see it.

A lot of older games are being revamped and are making a comeback... not so old as the Atari 3000, though, I don't think.

Vintner.

... what kind of dogs do YOU own??

Hmph. I thought not.

Alligator!

1980s video game character.

At least it pays well... in gold coins...