100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
Typically when someone replies to a post with some variation of "It's not that simple" they fail to explain to me A. Why it's not that simple and B. Where I was wrong regarding the specifics. To the poster who suggested that I am a lot like Pam, you might consider explaining why you feel that way. I don't know Pam (and so I limited the scope of my comments to her comments and nothing more) but you don't know either of us. With that in mind, I wonder how it is that you feel so comfortable making the charge that two people you've never met are so much alike?
-Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
I am watching MSNBC coverage of Mr. Obama's acceptance speech for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. A few moments ago a woman named "Pam" stepped up on the stage to talk about what happened to her. This was one profile of a handful of Americans who now support Mr. Obama and were invited to share their reasons. As it turns out, Pam was nothing short of eager.
You see, Pam and her husband used to have good jobs, a retirement plan, good health benefits and were even able to save some money. Then eight years ago, all of that changed. Pam's husband suffered some heart related health issues and lost his job and with it many of the benefits. A short time later, Pam herself had bypass surgery and was unable to pay all of the medical bills. And that is why Pam is voting for Mr. Obama. Consider the following an open letter to Pam: Dear Pam, I was sorry to hear of the health problems that plagued you and your husband. You mentioned that everything regarding the stability of your life changed eight years ago when your husband suffered heart related health issues. What I am trying to figure out Pam is whether or not you are blaming President Bush for your husband's health issues? That his health decline began eight years ago is an odd little factoid to be sure but I'm struggling to figure out what you think would have been different had they occurred ten years ago under President Clinton's tenure?? Pam, no one wants you or your husband to suffer from poor health. Still, I'm trying to understand what you think would have been different about your outcomes had a Democrat been in office? Perhaps you'll get back to us on that but in the event that you don't here are a few things you might want to consider. 1. Go easy on the idea that somehow the fact that your husband got sick at the time President Bush came into office is anything other than a coincidence. 2. If you are voting for Mr. Obama because your husband got sick when President Bush was in office then you are truly overestimating the power, job function, and role of the president and possess a staggering lack of deductive reasoning. 3. You stated that you used to be a Republican, but no longer. Wow, you'll be missed, really. I can only leave you with the following suggestion. **Stop looking for someone to blame for every bad deal that befalls your family. Equating your struggles on such a personal level with the person sitting in the White House is not only horrible logic but might be one of the most self-centered, egotistical and vacant comments I've ever heard. Wow, thanks Pam. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
amusing positions
|
|
So it seems to be that God is some sort of slave master. (amusing statement, indeed). It seems that some say they have freed themselves of some sort of imaginary slavery that has been around since the world is world. (amusing statement, as well). It seems that SOME OF (check the caps) those who have freed themselves are in some sort of mission to free the rest of us. (even more amusing). It seems that there is some kind of authority which is quite hard to understand. well what is a world without some sort of authority to give order to things. Let's say for instance: there is a sign in the road which says that the speed limit is 45 mph, but i decide to be rebellious [disregard to authority under normal conditions (not extremes as some like to use as examples)], and drive at speed of 60 mph. A cop is around and I get a ticket for speeding. There is an authority which is sign that says that I HAVE TO DRIVE AT 45 MPH, and I just don't do it, I feel like a free rebel. A free rebel who has to pay a ticket, and get points in the driver's license, and pay more in car insurance. As far as I'm concern there is not much of a difference between a rebel and a fool which is the most amusing thing ever. TLW TLW, Your analogy actually works better for my argument than it does your own. In the situation with the police officer writing you a ticket for speeding there are two things that are worth pointing out. 1. Unlike the bible and many stories of faith, the speed limit sign is tangible. I can read it, understand it, apply it, disregard it. But there would be no argument as to its validity when it comes to being real. In other words, the sign does not require faith on the part of drivers for it to be considered and taken seriously. 2. In the case of the ticket, it is a great example of what most dogmas lack: the punishment fitting the crime. You are rebelling when you drive 60 through the 45, or simply not paying attention. The police officer pulls you over and he writes you a ticket. The punishment is fitting when compared to the crime--after all, there are some legitimate reasons not to drive that fast through a congested area. The other point that should be made here is that with the officer and the driver, there is a common ground that can be agreed upon. In other words, you KNOW why you are being pulled over, why you are being given a ticket. In the case of the ticket you are also being reprimanded for what YOU did. Most components of sacrificial faith argue not that you should pay for what YOU have done (and what choice did you have if you were born sinful) but what others have done. The ticket example is a good one but more so for my own arguments. It is appropriate and logical to ticket someone, to fine someone for actions they have willfully involved themselves in. Slightly less logical is to ask someone to pay a fine for something done 2,000 years ago by men who believed that epilepsy was demonic worship and working on the Sunday a crime worth killing a man over. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys:
I just wanted to let all of you know that there is at least one person in this community (I will not give names or comments meant to identify the person but the Mods. are aware) who is running a pretty old scam. This is BS nor am I exaggerating though it is pretty sad to think some have fallen for it. Private mail me if you don't believe or if you really want to be dim, fall for it. Either way, I thought I would warn you. A member of this community (female, though who really knows) will private mail you, and start in about how she would really like to get to know you better. She has a picture posted and so the profile looks pretty legitimate. Since I am here for friends right now and since I have heard about this scam I thought I'd play along for a bit-- If you respond she will begin to try to get to know you. She'll also be living somewhere outside the U.S., with relatives. She'll be outside the U.S. because her parents (or some members of her family) were killed a few years ago in a "car accident." After she gets to know you some (think a few hours here, not days) she'll start talking about wanting to come back to the U.S. Oh, and guess what--you can help her. After a bit more BS she'll ask you for money--ask you to send it via Western Union to a location in West Africa or somewhere overseas. By this time you'll no doubt have picked up on the scam (I hope.) The line she tried with me was that she needed to have a gathering of some sort and needed money to help. As I mentioned, this type of scam is not all that new so instead of shutting it down I played it along for a while (hey, she is wasting my time, I'll waste a bit of hers) and finally told her I was on my way to send it. I laughed pretty hard as I waited and then when I came back she wanted to know what the Western Union information said. That is when I let her know that I knew it was a scam. If you are laughing right now thinking you could never fall for it, congrats--I mean, I never sent a dime. But the first part of it is really convincing. There is nothing odd about the approach--in the picture on her profile she is attractive and seems very genuine. She blathers on about how she cannot stand liars and cheats and so it seems pretty normal. The money part gets odd so that is when most people get it. Oh, and she'll likely ask you to join move the convo to Yahoo or Hotmail. Later guys. Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
ok, here is my problem
|
|
First, I'm sorry you are having issues with your PC. I can remember the sinking feeling of losing more than one HD, a Motherboard chipset fan and odds and ends that caused me issues over the years. Years ago I did not back anything up and ouch, did that hurt. But my point is simply this:
Your story here is perhaps the greatest reminder of why daily (if not more often) back-ups should be performed on any system. I now run a 320g external HD that allows me to go back and retrieve. In addition I save all media files to disk and I even use an online storage for things like .doc/.xls files. If I crashed out tonight I would not be happy but I would not lose anything. Someone already suggested you reload Windows XP and I would have to agree. I hope you have some backups of your files and important items. If you do you'll be out nothing and should be up and running again in no time. Sorry for the rant and I hope it did not come across as arrogantly stated. I do feel for you--that is why I hope that everyone will read this and recognize the absolute need for file backup. Good luck with the reinstall. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
LOGIC - REASON?
|
|
If there was a section here for.. lets say.. people that have served in the military, would people that have not served, and have no thoughts pertaining to the subject make posts asking why would/or has someone served? I think not. I have faith. At one time in my life, I went from being Catholic, to agnostic, to atheist, then back to agnostic, and finally (as of 15 yrs ago) Catholic again. For me to have to explain myself, and my faith, in my mind is like having to explain why I speak 3 languages, or why I like motorcycles. I am not a person that feels any need to explain myself to anyone that I'm not involved with personally; i.e. friends, lovers, or family. Likewise, I am not one to ask someone about their lack of faith, or get on a high horse, and try to convert someone from a lack of faith, or a different belief, be it a Mormon, a Jew, a Satanist, or what have you. If a person is decent (by man's standards), and does nobody any ill-will, I have no problem with them at all. I do, however, have a problem with those people that put a God, any God, into the mix when it comes to killing others. I spent nine years in the American army, and have seen combat twice. I have had to kill people in the process of doing what my country asked me to do in those nine years. Do I have faith that I may go to Heaven? I have asked my God for forgiveness, and I will find out when my time comes. Do I, or have I lost sleep because of what I had to do in Iraq? No. My fellow soldiers lives were in jeopardy, and me being a soldier was first, and foremost in my mind at that moment. Did I put their lives in front of what my bible tells me is just, and right, and good? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, without a moments hesitation. First, thank you for your service to our nation. No matter what, I respect that and nothing will change that. That stated (and meant) no one is asking you to justify your faith or to be swayed by those who are skeptical of such things. You are free to sort through and post on only those topics that appeal to you. If you do not like what skeptics like me write then you are more than free to move past our posts and either create your own or answer only those you feel comfortable with. But I am not going anywhere. This is the only appropriate forum (at this time) to discuss God/religion/spirituality, and skepticism regarding those things. No, I would not go to a site set up for those who have served in combate except to offer a heartfelt thanks for their having done so but your analogy is not a good one as it relates to this site. Christianity is supposed to be inclusive not exclusive. Jesus, it is written, did not come to earth for the just but for the unjust. Now, I don't have to walk lock-step with that idea or belief but it seems to me that if your beliefs are rooted in those things biblical you would view this forum as an opportunity to share your faith, your life, and those things that you have been through that have aided in strengthening your faith. I have never mocked anyone (not once) in this room for their faith. I have questioned why people believe what they believe and asked a ton of questions surrounding those beliefs. At times (as I mentioned) those conversations get heated. But there is no one here that I dislike because of their faith. I would gladly share a meal, a laugh, or a tear with anyone in this community. If that seems overly sentimental, I'm OK with that. The notion that skeptics are cold-hearted or uncaring is nothing new. That it is false is an entirely different issue and one I'll not address here except to say that I do live by a set of moral codes/ethics. That I don't do so for a deity, that I do so because I believe it is within me to do might make us different on many levels but not on the one that perhaps matters most--that we treat each other with respect and with dignity. I don't need a pew to pray in or a Bible to read to treat you with respect. I don't need a hell to fear or a heaven to gaze upward to in order to feel compassion. I don't need a man nailed to a cross or a flood of parables to feel moved to give to another. If everything you believe is true--if it has indeed made you a better and richer person then I would never attempt to talk you out of or diminish what you've come to find as solace. I ask nothing but the same. We all have more in common that we like to admit. We are all human, we all bleed, laugh, cry, and smile. We all have the capacity for love and for hate. Finally, we all need one another. Some things transcend dogma and religion and some---they do not. In the meantime, I am glad you are here posting. I am sure I will learn something from you along the way and I again, I am thankful for the service you've provided your country. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Which Browser(s) do you use?
|
|
I usually stick to Firefox. But I might have to give Flock a try. And when I do use Opera it's only because it's the default browser on my Wii. My guess is that you'll enjoy Flock. I know that FF is the standard and no one has really made a compelling argument that nods in a different direction. Still, there are some neat features in most browsers that are somewhat exclusive. To that end I sometimes wish I could take bits and pieces of all of them and build one. Since that is not going to happen I will use a variety of different applications and enjoy the fact that we now live in a day past IE and Netscape. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Which Browser(s) do you use?
|
|
I'm feeling alone over here in the Opera fanboy section... http://www.opera.com/ - It had all the fancy gadgets and such that Firefox has 10 years ago. Hey man--no worries. In fact, I just loaded Opera and am quite impressed with not only how well designed it is but how damn fast it is. Opening up some pretty heavy MySpace pages earlier this evening was a lot faster than with either FF or Flock. The tests were not perfect but both browsers were pretty stripped down when I compared it. Opera is very cool. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
LOGIC - REASON?
|
|
My thought is why do SOOOOO many athiests, agnostics, and non-religious people feel the need to bombard the religion section with rants and raves? Have the mods start a new section for you, and maybe call it "non-religion" and have all the fun you seek there. Would you go to a thread titled "women's issues" repeatedly as a single male? I think not. Well, I suppose it is partly because we are allowed to come here and discuss whatever we'd like providing we follow the community rules. Had the Mods wanted to create a skeptics board then my guess is that they would have done so. Rants and Raves are not, by the by, reserved for those who doubt or who are skeptical. I am sure that it would be easier if doubters and skeptics like me went elsewhere but preaching to the choir is easy and it does not challenge a person to grow. Though I disagree with many people in this forum I do listen to each person here and try to take something out of what they are saying. I don't have to agree to learn and I don't have to convert to be made richer. I think when you look at this forum as a whole the people here get along pretty well. It gets heated and at times people lose their cool but since when did great ideas and thoughts occur in a vacuum. I'm a pretty simple person--I really don't come here to rant and rave. That stated, I will hold people as accountable as they hold me. Hope that answers part, if not all of your question. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
LOGIC - REASON?
|
|
Voxsteven: Simply moving on past the post (since you had no thoughts on the subject did not appeal to you because????? Just curious......
Anyway, to the OP, I think your point is a good one. I am inclined to ask however whether the two are mutually exclusive? In other words, let's take your premise that war is not logical, that killing during war is not logical but in some cases is reasonable. My question is: Can there be reason without logic or logic without reason? I don't believe so but it is not a simple question. In order to find something reasonable I would first have to have "reasons" to convince me. Reasons, I would argue, would be poor indeed if not come to using logic. On the other hand, if I find something logical, it seems difficult to me that I would not also find it reasonable though the latter in this case would be easier to wrap my mind around than the former. I guess computers can use logic without reason but to the extent that computers only do what humans ask them to I think that might pose some issues. Pure logic without emotion, hmmmm, this has me thinking. Pure reason without logic---that seems tougher. Pure emotion without logic I would agree happens all the time, but I'm not so sure about reason. Very interesting topic. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QS--the fact that you believe that some here are engaged in arguing semantics is actually complete proof of my point. Instruction from a God that wanted 1+1 to equal two would have (should have) been written in a manner and style that made semantic-based arguments look worthlessly foolish. But still there are good minds, great minds in fact, that disagree about what God/Jesus wanted.
Moral absolutes like those found in the Ten Commandments don't offer us much solace in that not bearing false witness (lying) is an absurd commandment to follow in every situation. Take for example (and this happened so there is no hypothetical involved) where German citizens hid Jews during WWII. When the SS or the Stormtroopers came knocking the Germans who were hiding the Jews risked their lives to lie. And that lie was the right thing. There is no question that it was better for them to lie in that case (when asked if they were hiding Jews) than to tell the truth. That is not arguing semantics. That is arguing a real-world moral and ethical dilemma that should be addressed. Abra brought up the point of the Muslim who is reading the Koran. He believes every bit as much as you that his God is right, that his way is right and that your way is wrong. He has been exposed to such teachings from the time he was a toddler. If he is wrong, how come he was born at such a disadvantage? How come the one "true" God gave him such a corrupt tool? That is not simply answered--this I realize, but it goes to the point I was trying to make about confusion. There is so much confusion that is not semantical or argumentative but simply so many differing answers to the same question--"Who" is God? To argue that the Bible holds those answers is "an" answer but not "the" answer. For the Muslim thinks his Koran holds the same. The Jew thinks that Torah holds the answers and on and on goes this thing of ours. I was not trying to pick a fight with my OP. I was really trying to make the point that for a God who so heavily insists on following "His" way, He sure did us no favors by dotting the landscape with thousands of other ways, all competing for the same soul. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading a few posts here earlier today and again noticed something that is all but a guarantee when dealing with matters of faith: confusion. Forget for a moment that there are a number of competing religions most of which practice some form of exclusivity. We can reduce it even further by pointing out that even within mainstream Christianity one can find a great deal of interpretive disparity. Regarding scripture we have bibles such as: KJV, NKJV, the NIV, New American Standard, The Amplified Bible, Youngs Literal Translation, and that is just scratching the surface. Each Bible is somewhat different, some vary a great deal. Still, that is only the start of my point. I understand faith as a concept and even as a practice. Faith is something that asks us to believe without absolute evidence, without absolute knowledge. It has to because if there are absolutes then faith would not be needed. I don't need faith to know that jumping off a tall building in nothing more that a business suit will likely kill me because I don't need faith to understand both gravity and the structural make-up of pavement. But Christianity requires faith and to that end I wonder why? I could understand a God who said: Here is absolute proof of my existence, my power, my miracles, and my life. If from that point on I was asked to behave in certain ways and to have faith that in the end those things would bring me some sort of eternal peace, I might think such a thing silly but not inherently cruel. So, why the inspired confusion? Why are there so many translations (leading people to believe in some cases that one is better than the next) and why, if God is all-powerful did He not do us the small favor of making sure that there was one version and one version alone--we'll call it "The" Version? Digging deeper, why so much debate over interpretation of the scripture? This makes no sense to me when set beside a perfect God. Why would a God make His own word the subject of so much interpretation and debate, in many cases leading good and honest men and women to have to consult "experts" in the field of scripture? Such things make no sense. They don't point to an organized God but rather a series of stories built upon other stories, built still upon others. In some ways, it never ends. My point really isn't difficult to understand. There is a problem with confusion if that confusion is authored by God. If on the other hand it is confusion authored by men and God allows for it to stand it would seem to me that such a God is comfortable with such things and in no hurry to correct them. Finally, I leave you with this: Imagine starting a new job. You arrive on the first day expecting that you will be told what to do. You develop a bit of faith, believing fully that if you show up on time, do great work, get along well with others, and produce acceptable end results, that your job will be relatively safe. That part requires faith. But there is also a manual. You were told on the phone when you were offered the job that the manual was very important and that your understanding of the information within was going to be a huge factor in how well you did. To that end you are mentally prepared to embrace the manual and do your best to learn. You show up early on your first day and are guided to a room where you are to study what you think will be the "book" on your job. You are shocked however to find when you open the door that there are 12 manuals on the table, not one. Not only are their 12 of them but they are all somewhat different. Now, remember, your job depends on your understanding the manual. What would you conclude? I would conclude that the organization was clumsy and unprofessional. I would be upset that they were asking of me something specific and then giving me unclear directions. I would be upset by the confusion and quite honestly would probably think it a bit of a game. If I am expected to live a certain way, act a certain way and behave in a certain way then the way should be made clear without confusion. It should not require expert interpretation nor should it be housed in various books that differ, even if only gently. Inspired confusion is no place to rest your mind, let alone your soul. Sorry if this post is all over the place--I've been sort of ill and am taking some medicine right now that has my head spinning a little bit. -Drew WHO WANT'S TO KNOW ABOUT SCRIPTURE AT 12 AM? The issue wasn't about scripture, it was about the confusion surrounding certain texts and how that lines up with God. As for who would want to learn about it--yeah, stupid me, going and posting about religion in the, wait.....yeah, the religion chat forum. :) -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading a few posts here earlier today and again noticed something that is all but a guarantee when dealing with matters of faith: confusion.
Forget for a moment that there are a number of competing religions most of which practice some form of exclusivity. We can reduce it even further by pointing out that even within mainstream Christianity one can find a great deal of interpretive disparity. Regarding scripture we have bibles such as: KJV, NKJV, the NIV, New American Standard, The Amplified Bible, Youngs Literal Translation, and that is just scratching the surface. Each Bible is somewhat different, some vary a great deal. Still, that is only the start of my point. I understand faith as a concept and even as a practice. Faith is something that asks us to believe without absolute evidence, without absolute knowledge. It has to because if there are absolutes then faith would not be needed. I don't need faith to know that jumping off a tall building in nothing more that a business suit will likely kill me because I don't need faith to understand both gravity and the structural make-up of pavement. But Christianity requires faith and to that end I wonder why? I could understand a God who said: Here is absolute proof of my existence, my power, my miracles, and my life. If from that point on I was asked to behave in certain ways and to have faith that in the end those things would bring me some sort of eternal peace, I might think such a thing silly but not inherently cruel. So, why the inspired confusion? Why are there so many translations (leading people to believe in some cases that one is better than the next) and why, if God is all-powerful did He not do us the small favor of making sure that there was one version and one version alone--we'll call it "The" Version? Digging deeper, why so much debate over interpretation of the scripture? This makes no sense to me when set beside a perfect God. Why would a God make His own word the subject of so much interpretation and debate, in many cases leading good and honest men and women to have to consult "experts" in the field of scripture? Such things make no sense. They don't point to an organized God but rather a series of stories built upon other stories, built still upon others. In some ways, it never ends. My point really isn't difficult to understand. There is a problem with confusion if that confusion is authored by God. If on the other hand it is confusion authored by men and God allows for it to stand it would seem to me that such a God is comfortable with such things and in no hurry to correct them. Finally, I leave you with this: Imagine starting a new job. You arrive on the first day expecting that you will be told what to do. You develop a bit of faith, believing fully that if you show up on time, do great work, get along well with others, and produce acceptable end results, that your job will be relatively safe. That part requires faith. But there is also a manual. You were told on the phone when you were offered the job that the manual was very important and that your understanding of the information within was going to be a huge factor in how well you did. To that end you are mentally prepared to embrace the manual and do your best to learn. You show up early on your first day and are guided to a room where you are to study what you think will be the "book" on your job. You are shocked however to find when you open the door that there are 12 manuals on the table, not one. Not only are their 12 of them but they are all somewhat different. Now, remember, your job depends on your understanding the manual. What would you conclude? I would conclude that the organization was clumsy and unprofessional. I would be upset that they were asking of me something specific and then giving me unclear directions. I would be upset by the confusion and quite honestly would probably think it a bit of a game. If I am expected to live a certain way, act a certain way and behave in a certain way then the way should be made clear without confusion. It should not require expert interpretation nor should it be housed in various books that differ, even if only gently. Inspired confusion is no place to rest your mind, let alone your soul. Sorry if this post is all over the place--I've been sort of ill and am taking some medicine right now that has my head spinning a little bit. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why is it...
|
|
Sounds like you are getting your answer from his actions. Good luck to you, really, but it sounds like he's just not in the same place you are. That is just how it goes sometimes. Sorry if that sounds cold or unfeeling--it isn't meant to.
Best, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a Mac user but I'm also a PC user (I own a Mac and a PC and use only a PC at work) so I am neither anti-PC or completely pro-Mac to the point of absurdity. I like both (providing my PC is loaded with XP Pro) which brings me to my question:
What do you think Microsoft needs to do after their less than confidence inspiring release of Vista? Regardless of some of the reasons for Vista not going over as well as MS would have liked (i.e., vendor drivers not being ready) it still served as a black eye for MS. With Windows 7 slated to come out next (and I'm not entirely sure when that is due--though I've heard late 2009/early 2010) I was wondering what all of you think needs to happen for W7 to be a success? This is not a loaded question nor is it an attempt to get a war going between Mac users and PC users. I just thought it would be interesting to get some other views and see if there is any type of consensus? Thanks, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Which Browser(s) do you use?
|
|
This post wasn't meant to be a poll but it sort of wound up that way, which is good. FF3 (there are some really cool new features included) is a great browser and Flock is built off of the same base--so it looks an awful lot like it. That said, I still seem to migrate back to FF more often than not.
Amazing considering that a few years ago it was IE that was the standard. Even when it ticked people off it was what most people used. Thanks everyone for sharing. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should America be secular in regards to religion? No, in that the people in this country have a fundamental right to worship (or abstain from worshiping) as they see fit. The citizenry therefore should never be secular as a rule or even as an idea.
The government on the other hand (yes, we are the government but since we elect officials to make decisions on our behalf I trust everyone will forgive the distinction) should in no way be religious--as an entity. There is absolutely no reason for such nonsense. Any government attempting to practice, promote, or direct any sort of dogma or religion will soon be unable to serve their primary purpose which is simply to protect the right of her citizens to practice as they wish. Government is to secure, not promote. Of coarse one has to walk past the nonsense that this nation was founded by a large group of "Christian" men. It wasn't, because they knew better. Whatever faith they might or might not have practiced they understood that those things should be the function of the church with the state there simply to ensure that those who were drawn to faith were free to practice that faith. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What do you do....
|
|
First, as has been stated, I am sorry that you experienced the effect of someone so dishonest. That type of thing is neither fun or easy but you'll bounce back--time has a funny way of seeing to that.
But there is another point here that I think deserves to be made. The Internet, while allowing for people to lie and be less than forthcoming is not the only way that such deceit occurs. A person geographically close can (and some do) be very dishonest. The Internet might allow for a temporary period of time with which to sharpen such hubris but it is not the only way. There is still a rather obvious (if not overused) stigma that "Online" dating is so very different from real-world dating. First, "Online" is simply a vehicle. A dishonest person will be dishonest regardless of whether or not they have a PC to play on. To that end, the stigma is sort of overplayed in some ways because the people you meet online are really the same people who you might otherwise meet in a book store, or a coffee house, or a bank. The tool they are using to find dates does not define their values--it just amplifies them. I agree with the responder here on this thread who wrote about everything being one thing but meeting being completely different. He's right. Meeting in person is huge. But the advantages to this form of connection are very evident. They range from safety, pace, and a minimal investment of time if the idea is to get to know people casually. Sorry this turned in to a rant but I can see both where the OP is coming from and where others have been as well and it seems important to take time, verify and trust whatever intuition you might possess. OK, I'll be quiet now. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Which Browser(s) do you use?
|
|
Oh, don't get me wrong--I have no issue with Firefox at all. I really like it--but I think we've reached a place in the day in day out computing world where people can run with different browsers, if nothing else just to explore new options within each one. In addition, using other browsers is a good way to learn about and then suggest what might be missing with Firefox. There is no doubt however that Firefox is gold. I just like the look and layout of Flock.
-Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Which Browser(s) do you use?
|
|
I have pretty much settled for Flock as it is built around what made Firefox so good. I still use Gmail (don't like the chat function) because it is the best e-mail program I've ever used. Flock also allows for a lot of social networking (think, friends who Digg, Facebook, YouTube etc...) and I find that for me it runs very fast even with multiple open tabs.
Safari gives me some fits when loading Gmail (it stalls right before opening which in turn causes me to swear) and I have not used Netscape for years. Still, different browsers have different strengths. Oh, and Camino is another good one but if you use Gmail and do a spell check, Camino has a bug that won't let you correct the misspelled words. I'm not sure why exactly but it is sufficiently annoying. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
Previous
