Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

RE: Believer Bashers

And give yourself one while you're at it? You sound kinda tense!

RE: Believer Bashers

Not at all, my friend! Having some kind of human arrogance ought to be enough to confuse St. Peter and permit him entrance! God likes creatures who think they know it all - haven't you noticed (I'm thinking Christians, Muslims, etc.)?

RE: Believer Bashers

Maybe you should give them a drink or a massage or something, L?

RE: i need some cheering up come on people humour meeee

Dear Zeus, Chuck. Are all your threads requests for various services from CSers (that's all I can recall seeing)?

RE: Believer Bashers

Well, we both know the hound has a bit of an ego, G.

RE: Believer Bashers

"Angel squirrels"...I admit that sounds a bit creepy. Make it fetching holy sticks or something?

RE: Believer Bashers

Thanks, Love! (I always like being called the Atheist with a capital A...though I'd prefer the the to be capitalized, too).

RE: Believer Bashers

It's for the hound's sake, G. You wouldn't want to deny him his chance at paradise (think of all the angel-squirrels he could chase!)??

RE: Believer Bashers

Wow - saw the title and thought: I am so there!

Believer-basher reporting for service, Sir!!

RE: O Canada!!

One I really object to is calling "electricity" "hydro." Hydro-electricity is a form of creating electricity - as I often point out to GG - and is not synonymous with electricity. Adding to the confusion is that here we have water bills which are often called "hydro bills."

RE: O Canada!!

You know what might be fun, N, is contrasting Canadian expressions with American ones. Periodically, GG throws an expression at me that I've never heard as an American.

Examples (off the top of my head) would be "kerfuffle" (Americanese would be "brouhaha," or "ruckus") "suck" (as a noun, opposed to adjective - e.g., "I'm a suck" versus "you suck") "washroom" (instead of "bathroom"), etc. Also, GG would say "expiry date" instead of "expiration date."

Do I sense a possible thread here, N?

RE: Another place I won't find a date

I wonder why I don't ever have adventures like that in my gym?

Oh...that's right...my gym is in my spare bedroom.

Funny story, N.

RE: would you lot describe yourselves as a sycophantic clique

Yeah, Nan, I often wish that more people would participate in the Forums. You can learn a lot about someone from watching them cavort about in the threads. Not accusing you of "cavorting" or anything, of course.

Still, I imagine there's some practical limit to how many people can participate in these kinds of discussions. At a certain number people may tend to get lost in the noise (or learn to be a lot more selective about which threads they frequent?).

RE: would you lot describe yourselves as a sycophantic clique

You're exactly whom I had in mind, Nan, when I wrote about people who just come in confidently and (politely/humorously) speak their mind. I've always loved it when "fresh blood" enters a discussion list and brightens with their intelligence and humor. The "old guard" can become rather stale without such infusions.

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

You make a good point, Lady. You can't hear misspellings, after all. Sometimes I find myself reading aloud a post that is full of misspellings and bad punctuation/grammar, and thinking that I might be impressed by the person's articulateness if he were saying the words rather than writing them.

RE: would you lot describe yourselves as a sycophantic clique

RE: would you lot describe yourselves as a sycophantic clique

I always enjoy seeing new members who bring something interesting to the CS "table."

Some posters just come in self-confidently and start participating, without any apparent worries (or even a thought) about whether or not they'll be accepted or not. I've never witnessed someone who did that being rejected by any "clique" here.

The newcomers who seem to have problems are those who arrive, much like a drunken stranger, making some bellicose announcement or general accusation. Then when people all too predictably respond negatively, they cry about "cliques" and all the prejudicial "regular members."

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

Oh...I'd forgotten about your son, Morgie. Okay, fair enough.

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

Yeah, for me it can be a delicate balance between being bright and intellectual and being a "buried-in-books" nerd, or between being smart and well-spoken and funny and being pedantic and snooty.

I've always favored women who are, for lack of a better phrase, "intellectually inclined" rather than pure intellectuals. I'm not sure why.

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

How shallow of you!

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

People are responding, from what I've read so far, more on emotional defensiveness rather than a measured, reasonable take on the OP's question.

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

I rarely disagree with you, Morgie, but I'm very surprised by your response. What in the world is insulting about it? I seem to recall you allowing for tastes in virtually all other areas (including looks) - why make an exception for something far less shallow than mere attraction?

What if someone said they were looking for someone with a sharp wit? Would you consider that insulting or shallow?

RE: If you're an educated woman, would you date a man who can't spell or speak properly?

I find your question to be perfectly reasonable - not remotely "sanctimonious" or "shallow."

The answer is almost certainly NO. I'm not saying there couldn't be exceptions, but in virtually all cases you'd be far better off finding someone on your academic/intellectual wavelength. It's not as though plenty of guys meeting those requirements don't exist.

RE: Met a beautiful man online but...

Well, after reading through the thread, I agree that he might be a perfectly good guy who behaved honorably, but that wasn't the reason I suggested that you look elsewhere for a romantic connection. The reason is simply that he's involved with another woman.

Now, if you're looking for a friend, without any romantic intentions (which isn't my sense), then I suppose it could be fine to attempt being friends with them. But a friendship with a man or woman who's involved in a romantic relationship, when you yourself are romantically inclined, is usually a recipe for relationship disaster. Given that you're romantically inclined, as your friendship grows you will naturally begin feeling romantic notions toward him. And quite possibly vice versa. And then the "fun" starts.

I see this as a likely scenario in your case. The better plan, imo, is to let the man's relationship with the other woman run its course - then, if ends his relationship with her, he's fair game.

RE: Met a beautiful man online but...

Cease communication with him. Full stop. He's not what you're looking for.

Find someone who's single and available, and save yourself (most likely) a lot of heartache, Maries.

RE: How smart do your partner have to be?

There she goes again? (Running through my veins?)

RE: Atheist's and Christian's get together

My cat's an atheist, too.

RE: Atheist's and Christian's get together

My first question was whether you intended to refer to an atheist and Christian's "get-together," or if you meant "atheist's" and "Christian's" to be plural (which would be "atheists" and "Christians," minus the apostrophe).

I love a lady who calls herself a "Christian," but it's a Christian of a non-typical type (that doesn't revere Christ as some form of god, but rather is a statement of sympathy for his philosophy). I wouldn't be romantically compatible with someone who worshiped the man as a god.

One might ask the same question regarding an atheist and someone who believes in a god. A deistic belief wouldn't bother me - that is, a belief in a non-personal, "watchmaker" kind of god - but a religious one (that is, a god one worships and consults and generally wheedles with) wouldn't work for me.

RE: is the "war on drugs" an actual war ? or just a smoke screen that makes corruption proliferate ?

The only "problem" caused by trafficking in narcotics is that it's used as an excuse for massive and prejudicial government intervention in human lives. Everyone involved knows the "war" will never be won. In fact, no one wants it to be won (because then all the funding and pretext for said intervention/control ceases).

RE: Is a 37 year old women and a 51 year old man compatable?

I agree. He should cycle on over to my science thread and partake of the wisdom so freely available there.