If possible, still while at the office.

INSTANTANEOUS promotion.

That's A. And B. two persons are bound to each other by time. You bind your time, but not to a tree or to the ceiling or top of an elevator shaft.

You can't raise elevators using time as a pull rope, and you can't shackle a random drunken man at four in the morning to take him to the station for quesioning until he sobers up.

That's A. and B. C is that nobody knows if time exists, or does not exist, or it just appears to exist. We measure time but it's actually movement or displacement we measure of distances travelled, and we interpret back from that to the units of what we consider time.

That's A.B. and C.

The abc of time.

You are the first man I ever seen who opposes physical reality.

What's your beef with reality? Too harsh, too cold, too hot, too... ize... dirty?

I like reality. I like it better than I could ever love any friggin' god or Socratean concept of Ideal. Gimme reality, and I give you fame and fortune. Are we real, or are we hares?

How long is a string, and how long is a life.

Mine has been going on for too long, because other than when I had a good meal or a good lay, it's been rather boring. Oh, and sometimes I had a hearty laugh, that was the best, actually.

You are definitely most welcome to my advice. I'll give you 20% off next week, if you buy this:

I used to have gf like that. She cheated on me; I cheated on her; we split up millions of times and went back together millions of times.

She was sweet and adorable, but hard to get along with, and I was handsome and young, and smart, but hard to get along with.

We were like fertile soil and wheat, like water and a thirsty throat, like a much-need toilet bowl and a lot of urge to use it. She was sweetness, she was very attractive, she was smart, she loved my jokes, and she was a lousy cook but she paid when we ate out.

We were both poor, and when the going was good, it was heaven, when the going got rough, I coocooned out of the relationship.

The original smooth sailing only lasted two years, then the rocky road started, and yet we could not be without each other. It was magic.

So (------------HERE IS THE PART I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER) the upshot was that we decided we are not for each other on a constant, committed basis, we may not even have been in what they call "true love", but we certainly hung on each other for lifelines of sex, love, intellect, spiritual connectedness. Only "love" was missing, god only knows why. Oh, and we were both gorgeous to look at, and awsome in bed. (This started like 30 years ago from today.)

There were talks, into the late night... we had week ends during which we were never dressed for a second and spend the hours round the clock screwing, eating, talking, dazing, chilling, and the cycle would repeat itself.

Neither of us used drugs or drank. I smoked. I had another bad habit, I used to enjoy picking the toe jam from between the toes just before sex. But she was so entrhalled with me, and she was sooo looking forward to her orgasms, that she did not mind at all. Toe jam and torpedoes, all be damned.

Oh, and we both hated the touch, feel, and wetness of semen.

What we decided about four years into the relationship that we must not push to make the impossible happen; we must not pretend we can do fidelity and standing each other for years or even months at end; but we created an understanding, that we would never leave each other, because we are addicted to each other. In more than one way.

What I mean to say that would apply to you is not to want what you can't have, but have what you can, and not feel guilty about the parts that are missing.

Go with your boy, and try to agree that for whatever reason you can't be together and you can't be apart, (if that is indeed the truth) and you must work with that, instead at aiming at marriage and a little house with a white picket fence with an old apple tree in the back, and kids playign in the yard.

Some things work for mostly everybody, but some people are so unique, that trying to mold themselves into the mold of the fold, is not possible for them. These maverick relationships happen, and the couple must not feel shame or guilt or inadequacy becasue they can't do the mortgage and kids routine.

If you accept what you can do, and what you can't; if you build your life and your relationships with your limitations in sight, then fine, otherwise sometimes, often, if you want to try something that you arleady know won't work, but you are optimistic, you will encounter failure.

The fact the boy and you are not together now or you can't go back to him IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE is not failure. Failure will be if you can't go back to him in your own way, which is acceptable to him and to you, and it makes both of you happy.

The Force be with you.

The modern version is that humans and other
mammals can do only one F action at a time:

-fight
-flee
-feed
-fornicate
-fecate (de~)
-fsleep
-fwrite a really good amendment to the Constitution
-fgive birth
-fundergo an operation
-fdie
-fchew gum
-fwalk
-fdrink water and frecite the alphabet
-ferociously face-frig Falstaff's foreign ferrets.... fffff... like that.

Sometimes you leave you respondent speechless.

Like what am i supposed to say to that?

"Yes god axes are nine-ninety five this week,
I am waiting for a roll-back."

And I do live across the street from a mall
with a Walmart in it. Kidding? No. I chose
the place for that.

Okay... okay... done.

Do they go down on the husband, later?

You MUST have more babies!! I hear you have three, but that's just barely scraping the surface of what's potentially in you.

Oh, and congrats, it must be a real joy. Newborn babies are ugly as hell, but in an ah ever so cute way. You look at one, and you want to die, they are so cute.

They look like litte ETs, but that's a lot of fun too, you can bug your wife jokingly, which planet the real daddy had come from. And was it for a one-night stand, and he took the spaceship back, or is he still under the bathtub or in that bottom kitchen drawer that I never ever, ever, pull out and look in.

And they are so tiny and vulnarable, and ugly, and cute and loveable.

This is one of the greatest joys in life.

But not when they eventually reach my size, my weight, my age, and my arrogance. Yikes, pfooi. Get really farther away from that man, Rickie, my darling, or you will look like him when you grow up to be his age.

I am not trying to be funny, or cute, this is an honest question.

Who pays for the hospital bill while the kid is in an incubator?

If it's paid by the baby's family, how much does this sort of service cost?

How much does a birth cost? A regular, maybe long birth, but with no serious or grave complications? The costs accrued from arriving in a taxi to going home in a taxi.

How much does pre-natal check-ups cost, end-to-end, for a mom-baby combo, with no real grave or serious complications ever, along the way?

I mean this question. In Canada it's all free, but in the states, would your financial insolvency mean the death of a child, a baby? And/or the death of the unborn baby's mother?

Please answer honestly and with respect, this is not a "funny" question. I don't know know what the situation is in these cases. I would like to learn.

"Don't... crush... the pumpkins."

Soufie, you are excellent fun.
In verbal sparring.

I can't even imagine the fun
you likely amount to in a
matrimonial situation.

This is the EXACT situation that
made Romans create the saying,
"If you give your finger to your
wife, she'll want the entire arm."

This was the reason for the
decline and fall of the Roman
Empire. You can't fight your
visigoths and huns properly if
your wife is up to your elbow
on one hand during the entire
battle.

Even if in the other hand you
have your good and tursted ole'
battle axe.

a god axe, a chop here, a chop there,
and we are in business.

What's the difficulty?

Now we are getting somewhere.

I can accept the foregoing solution. It is fair and equitable, and not too bad for the child, although it could be much better, but then, it could be much-much worse (like certain death for the baby).

This is true, but there is no assurance that the sould of the baby wouldn't have departed the baby's flesh even if the baby's flesh stays in the care of the parents.

There is intentional killing, and there is the lord recalling a soul.

If a murder occurs, there is no denying about intention and responsibility.

But if abandonment occurs, there are two unanswered questions that always vindicate the abandoner (the person who does the abandoning):

- why is his responsibility not transferable to god? it is.
- people die at random, at any age; they die not due to murder, but due to god's deciding it's time to go. In an abandonment case, there is no assurance that if the abandoment hypothetically did not happen, the child would stay alive. This is not assured, and it gives absolution to the parents from the charge or sin of murder. Why should the parents' abandoning a responsibility they have for their baby, to care of the baby's flesh, such a big deal? It is not a big deal, because god can carry on (and in many instances he does) caring for the flesh, and it is not a big deal, because the death through abandoning is not a del facto cause of death; death could have occurred without abandoning.

In fact, perhaps it's the sign and wise act of god to have parents discontinue their responsible behaviour for their child flesh, so a lot of medicare dollars can be saved in the case the baby died while still in their care.

This is the wrong question.

The right one would be, under the terms of the argument you are putting forth,

Is it fair that the woman alone decides for both the man and herself whether to take responsibility, or not to take it.

This is why I insist that all women in childbearing age that I am about to have sex with, commit suicide before the act.

This also explains why I've been a virgin for close to a decade and a half.