Ew... elderly chinese working out.

Leotards!! Tight fitting leotards!!

YIKES!!!

I wonder if the Chinese sweat. I have never seen any of them do that, other than one, Bruce Lee, but that could have been make-up or special effect, coz it was in a movie.

Put me behind you on the dreadmill, and you'll break out in cold sweat as I take chase.

What's a "set"? A couple of female breasts?

Ladies, care to comment if you found the op cute by his picture? I am not good at telling men if they are good looking, but he seems like good man. Friendly smile, at least. But is the scruffy look okay for you ladies? Please do tell.

That sounds ominious.

Like from a melodramatic FBI spy movie. "Ve just deactivated that agent."

My standard is "Ur hot."

However, don't try it, it won't work for you, OP. You need a fish on a string beside you on the picture, or a pick-up truck. Without those, the line won't work, (pardon the pun), instead, you have to face your own problems like a man and dream up something witty, suave, and romantic yourself. We can help, but we won't hold your hand during the entire date, eihter.

What you need to say as an opener is something that is covered in one or two, or maximum two words. A three-word message is pushing it. The message should reflect, in an indirect way, your IQ, your lifestyle, which way you voted yesterday, and who your favourite ancient Greek playwright is.

Guys like shy girls, because the man figures she's less apt to go out and play around.

Women like a shy man, because he works hard and brings home the money to support his family's new-shoe-buying and coca-cola habits.

The only thing better for a woman than a shy man, is a shy man who is constantly in an Elvis imitation get-up. This tops the cake, nothing is better. My dad was going to become a priest, and mom married him because the priest uniform is the closest they got to Elvis get-ups in Hungary in the nineteen-thirties. (My parents were at the age that they could have become Elvis's parents, if they were positioning themselves a bit more judiciously. As they were, they got me.)

Yes, or no?

If yes, what are your reasons?

If no, state your reasons (like it will have already ended in December. Watch your verb tenses carefully, the grammar police is on the war path.)

double post

Canned fish are cold, but not single. In fact, they come tightly packed, like a conga-line.

Because he is the smarter of the two losers.

The other guy sold out his country and sold out the jobs of his own workers. Plus he paid very little taxes, but told everyone that everyone else has to 'up' their tax payments.

This is double speak. contrived talk. Not pulling his weight. hypocrisy. preaching water and drinking wine. The swine.

-------

You can say that the Prez could not improve the economy, and you are right about that. He did not. No arguments.

You can say that perhaps he is not an American citizen. Maybe.

All the more honour to him, for not selling his own country down the river like his oppponent did. He loves this country, though he may be foreign born.

And he cares for people. Doctors make too much money. Granted, they pay medical school which is a hundred grand or double that before they can start to earn. Granted they have to go elbow-deep into stinking bile and bowel of sick people. Granted they get to be on call, they have to argue with hospital administration. But doctors in other parts of the world, except canada, have all that, AND doctors elsewhere earn one-tenth of the income of Amy doctors.

The country is not going to go bankrupt coz the public pays for the insurance of everyone. The country is going bankrupt if madicare is brought in (I am aware of the spellign "mistake") because doctors and the system get paid way too much.

In Europe and other part of the world, medicare is not a financial issue. The schools are free, and the doctors don't bankrupt a country's finances. In canada Madicare is not an issue because we got the oil. It pays for gold-rimmed bone-white Rolls Royce cars for all the welfare bums in the country. So to speak. But in America doctors get paid four times as much as in Canada, and ten times as much as in other countries (and up).

So what. If you cut the salaries of doctors, there will be a doctor strike. You strike back by lining up doctors against the walls and shooting them. Doctors strike back by releasing the smallpox bacteria into the free. Poeple strike back by excommunicating doctors from churches. Doctors strike back by bringing in a paid army of seven hundred million chinese soldiers. America goes into civil war between the Yellows in Whitecoats and the Khakis.

Everybody gets slaughtered.

The rest of the world lets out a big sigh of relief.

double post.

The devil can't be woman, because the devil, according to informed sources, fornicates with all lost souls.

A man can fornicate with men and women, but a woman can only fornicate with men.

Hence, for the legal requirements of equal access and for the purposes of perpetrating emancipation, i.e. of perpetrating equal treatment of the sexes, regardless of gender, the devil is a man.

I understand that you are a learned person, well versed in the study of the Holy Bible.

However, I don't buy that the following two are equivalent:

"II Thessalonians 2:7 "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." "
and

"Satan must work his iniquity first before the true morning Star comes, and then Satan will be throne into the pit. "

Furthermore I put forth the proposition that there is not one sane and reasonable speaker of the language of English on the globe; be he or she a peasant, a mortar-burner or a hemp-gatherer, or else a doctor, a lawyer or a literature professor who will not agree with me on this issue.

This shows to me not five, not seven, but ONE and not three either very strong reason to have the solid opinion of calling all Bible scholars who agree with you on the sameness of meaning of the two sentences, a bunch of language hooligans, a herd of ineffectually thinking primate lab animals, who have no sense of, and couldn't with reasonable convincing power, answer such questions, like "why don't oatmeal grow on my head? then it would be easier to make breakfast."

Just look up "emancipated" and kill two birds with one stone. They should be one immediately after the other, anyway. With perhaps "emanuel" the god wedged between, and emanual for electronics guide on how to use.

Yes, definitely. And men and women are the third and fourth sides of the same coin, respectively.

This absolute and horrifying ignorance matters to me a great deal.

It gives me great pains psychologically.

I mean, the inability to tell a noun from a verb is beyond basic. It's like telling a minus sign from a plus sign.

Just watch, in about twenty years people in America won't know the difference between 54 and 83, they won't know the difference between ? and !, if we don't stand up and unite to stamp out this ignorance of the people reaching now Biblical proportions.

I think you could be romantic and not caring, OR ELSE you can be caring and not romantic, but you can't be both romantic and not caring and not romantic and caring, at the same time and in the same respect.

So the answer to the OP's question is no, but if he changed the "and vice versa" to "or vice versa", then the answer could be a yes as well.

Let's also reroute ourselves to the precision of the language.

What you mean by "soul mate" has a different expression for use in the English language; it's identifier is "doppelganger".

Like Bravalady said, soul mate is someone who complements you. Your replica is "clone" or "doppelganger", like above.

Yeah, if we don't know the difference between a noun and a verb, (please see the religion forum for an example) at least we should be able to tell the difference between meanings of different words.

Soul mates also used to mean two dead pirates, who meet in the afterlife.

This is the only thing I really dislike in the English language. The imprecision, and the fact that meanings are elastic; one size fits all, anyone can mean anything with any word.

A bit (or a lot) like 1984. The book. With newspeak, in which proposed language, very ingeniously, each word means something and also means its own exact opposite.