NeverLoved Forum Posts (36)

RE: In one sentence!..

------this post removed by moderator------

RE: In one sentence!..

you are COMPLETELY right.
my very stupid mistake, unforgivable....
i am sorry, i'll try not to make that "erreur a nouveau".

RE: In one sentence!..

well, that is your opinion and i respect it.
which doesn't mean i have to follow it.
you are also free to believe in your god, and i won't become a believer just because you say so....
let me try to say it without being too condescendent: this is a civil community, meaning i'll write what i want as long as i stay, more or less, within the rules. As you all do. and if you don't like my ideas, argue with me or just don't enter or stop reading the post if you can't take it. kind of grow up, know what i mean?

RE: I wana go to cinema but want someone to go with me

the most amazing kind of humour i ever seen was in a flight from some lost airline of Asia in which they passed two movie catastrophes one after the other......
i think that flying and watching a movie about airplanes technical failures and their accidents must be an incredible experience....

true story, when asked why did they choose those movies, the captain said that "when watching those noises, the passengers don't worry about the noises OUR plane does, and nobody dares to ask if everything's under control"

.........Monty Python would have been bloody proud of that captain!!!
(See how to annoy people)

RE: In one sentence!..

it's more than just an interpretation.
if all could realise that all wars are civil ones, the world would be a better, much more healthier and easy to live with place.
i loved a pub for an exposition in a museum here in Geneva, the Ethnographic museum (MEG). it was about different cultures and the only word was "NOS OUTRES".
it's in french and, for those who don't understand the words' gaem, here it goes my best explanation:
in french, to say that something belongs to us, you say before the noun the word "nos".
in french, to say the others, you say "outres".
but to say "WE", you can place those two words together forming "nosoutres", so the title of the show was "OUR OTHERS".

RE: In one sentence!..

sorry, but you did not grasp my meaning here.
in my opinion all wars are civil ones, basically because there are ALWAYS civil "casualties" and also because being part of a race called human, every war should be considered a civil one....

RE: do you enjoy it nice and slow or do you like to get it over and done with

it's true...
the synthetic doll i bought was the middle line, not the top of the line....no voice recording system for me

RE: In one sentence!..

Do WARS come in another flavour than the special "civil" one?

RE: In one sentence!..

oh, i would prefer your bullet all my life.
against a bullet i know how to react and i wouldn't hesitate one fraction of a second to disarm you and put you out off the gun's reach.
the thing is when the torture is slow and sickly masked as "help"....that kind of torture is even worst than the single mad terrorist, at least for the terrorist's sick way of acting you can always say "he was/is completely mad".
what excuse do have those who are supposed to defend you, who are sworn to apply justice, to support freedom, human rights and are bound not only by laws but also but what they promised?

RE: do you enjoy it nice and slow or do you like to get it over and done with

"more noise"??
you mean she has to talk too????

RE: In one sentence!..

ok, let me put it this way....
i agree with your idea, as long as the basics go.
now, you talked about someone badly injured... having your life completely destroyed, being dying because some "nice group of people" decided so without you having done anything to deserve it and those people being your old "friends" and your own and beloved country....who are torturing you day and night, restlessly. will that count as being "badly injured"?

RE: do you enjoy it nice and slow or do you like to get it over and done with

ooooo, how tender....

RE: sense

i would definitely say "sight", but i am still finding new senses each day, so i couldn't tell right now.
i promise that when i finally manage all my senses i'll let you know....

RE: i am curious

again, how would you define a friend?

RE: i am curious

How would you define a friend?

RE: Perspective

ok, point taken Robert.
sorry for letting myself be carried away by the subject.
will not happen again.

RE: do you enjoy it nice and slow or do you like to get it over and done with

erm.....with who/what?

RE: what accents turn u on?

now, answering seriously, or as seriously as i can....
whispering really works.
sweet, inviting tones of voice are a must-be-heard.
but most of the times it will all depend on who am i with.
after the second woman i fell in love with, understood what was that of a turn on voice....i think that love has a lot to do with that.

RE: riddles part 2

Not a problem, and, by the way...you have an email!
But don't worry, it's not like the one of the love story with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks.
Anyway, my main claim was that a riddle needs to follow a logical path to let the rest of us, who didn't think about it in the first place, follow the chain of thoughts that took the original man/woman who thought it to the end of it and thus discovering the solution. If it has no logical path or several different answers depending on the point of view of the beholder, then it's not a riddle....it's just something without solution.
Sorry if it sounded like i was being mad at you, i got seriously mad at the meaning of the phrases, not at the person.
Thanks for taking your time to clarify your point of view, it shows we can disagree and still go on talking, trying to understand why we disagree and iu what things.

RE: riddles part 2

first, i am an atheist, so logically can't agree with your first definition.
second, if you take all the monoteist religions, the devil was created by god so, by definition, god is even more evil than the devil, 'cos it had enough evilness as to GIVE it away. if you don't have evilness, you can't even THINK of evil, therefore can't logically agree with your second definition.
your fourth definition is a personal opinion about the only thing needed being money, 'cos you are stating that the rich don't need anything else, 'cos they have it all for having lots of money. i disagree with your idea there expressed too, but that's not a logical premise, only my opinion, therefore it's arguable.
it's physically impossible to EAT "nothing". maybe you are talking about being in a total or almost total vacuum, as in space, and being depressurised, in which case you wouldn't be "ingesting" anything, but your inside being pulled out by the difference of pressure, therefore logically again, your premise is not valid.....
so, of your five "hints" or "premises" to solve your riddle, two of them are logically impossible from ANY point of view, even a believer's one (the second and the fifth), two depend on clarifying first that you are a believer in god and a believer in the superiority of money over all things (the first and the fourth) and the third one only leaves aside honour, life, self determination, human rights, ethics, knowledge, experience and hunger and cold, which are other things that the poor might have, that is, IF your holiness let them have it, of course.
But, taking in count your post clarifies pretty well that the poor have nothing and the rich have it all, and god is the one who decides this scheme of things and the aforemntioned scheme is FAIR and juste, then i think this is not a riddle, it's just a political statement, and we all know of which colour.

RE: riddles part 2

the answer is.....
the "nothing/nothingness".
of course, since the moment you give it a definition, it's "something"...and by definition, your own definition contradicts the matter that's being defined......in fact, in the first edition of i can't remember which encyclopedy, they left the space to write down words for "nothing" in blank....and they clarified it was not a typographic error.....

RE: Perspective

oh i know, but the man is very humble and won't let me tell you his name......
he's my personal hero though...

RE: do you enjoy it nice and slow or do you like to get it over and done with

er.....please, can somebody hand me a map?
i got lost.....
he has to be paid to do many things, but not to write "he has to be paid to write" here?

Why is it that those who tell us we need to pay them to share their immense knowledge still can do "one last gratis" and inform us of that big quality of them?
I confess i will never understand how some people got official license to drive their own lives, and, in some cases even worst, the lives of many others........

RE: Perspective

On one roller coaster only?
and why not in two roller coasters going in opposite directions at the same time?
That would be an asset for our CV!!!
Have a good evening too.....

RE: Perspective

Who can not feel warmth for someone who knows how to recognise when the other has a better point of view in a determined discussion?
I know i can't.

RE: riddles part 2

er...do you give up?

RE: super hero

that was a change of topic that nobody will ever denounce.....
WELL done, you two!!!

RE: Perspective

I am amazed at your posting.
I thought the ways to make people feel comfortable with the state of the things had stopped with religions, and now you enlight me talking about this wonderful idea....
That's it!!
People who suffer CHOOSE before birth to suffer!!!!!
Now, why didn't i think of THAT???
I mean, with religions you could say that god is not good at all, even a disgusting butcher, but if people CHOOSE to suffer in this life, and nobody's to blame for it, then...it's perfect!!!
Now we can all go to sleep relaxed, thanks to this new philosophy.....by the way, could it be that this fantastic new idea is sponsored by some of the wealthiest families of the globe?

RE: Perspective

My dearest no-friend:
you received "charity" as you called it, since you were born.......or you wouldn't be alive today. You couldn't have survived REAL life for a second pal.

RE: Perspective

so a child who's born with AIDS, no brain development 'cos he didn't have enough basic proteinic supply when he was born and without parents 'cos they were both killed in an endless war is GUILTY of "what" exactly, according to your point of view? Damn! you are right, the stupid child didn't want to HELP himself.....of course, how could i been so blind and not see it? he DESERVES what he's got!!
As you deserve what you had, because you are good and pure and a fighter and you pray a lot...of course, because the child i am talking about will be dead BEFORE reaching four, he won't even know how to pray, nor his brain will ever be able to learn how to read nor write...so he will never, even in those chances in where he survives, be able to have one job, not talking about two....
and look at you!!
you say it proudly, you worked ten years two jobs to get yourself a roof!! and instead of looking at the inequalities of your own country, with more than 50 % inhabitants without any medical care and almost 30 % unemployment, instead of recognising all is wrong, you stay happily at your home congratulating yourself for what YOU got....and what about the REST, miss believer in god?
because frankly, if your god is a one person only god, it shouldn't exist.
and clearly, if any of the religions would have to be checked with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, none would pass the test and would be permanently banned....