I am totally jealous of your so mature decisions at a relatively young age (I'll never be that mature). But I wonder how did you manage to move for love together with a house?
You are right, but I still believe, that the more you change, the less power your previous addiction has over you. It's like you have moved to another dimension. The most difficult thing is to say "no" the first time and then keep to the decision until not using becomes a norm.
And, surely, the person who used the drug then isn't the same person, who doesn't use now. You managed to changed your personality from what it was then to what it is now. The now-personality remembers the addiction, but remembering and using isn't the same thing.
It's the very portrait of an addiction. Fighting an addiction is like fighting yourself. It's a battle that seems impossible to win... until you change.
When you change, when you become a different person, a non-addict, then your addiction cannot reach you.
Emile Verhaeren has a poem, that I find a very suitable to the situation of fighting own weakness, "Sward", if I remember right. (Will try and find a translation, but no promises.)
Until then, a song, that I also find suitable: "This woman doesn't love you, but she will never let you go..."
It goes like: "...you were looking for a spouse, but you found your widow..."
Yes, it is. Though, there is a lot of different schools and styles, you can choose what suites you best.
And on the second thought: moving to Gothenburg belongs to the best decisions list. Does it mean now that I've run off of all my good decisions or is there still some hope for me?
I thought about given a choice of naming 3 worst decisions as well, but then people seldom enjoy admitting mistakes and I did want to make a positive thread. (But you can create a "3 worst decisions" thread, can turn out it'll be a popular "Crying wall".)
In general therms, my list of best decisions is connected to education; in particular it contains (1) joining University (even if at age 38) and then (2) a Qigong course.
Indeed. Let's have an election when: * ca 12 millions are dispersed and some of them in Russia. * ca 1 million are fighting in a war. * ca 1 million in hospitals trying to recover.
Well.. I've been on this site for a long time, but the last 3 year have unveiled a lot. (Mildly speaking.) But back to the subject:
1. Why is Ukraine to stay neutral (to what?) 2. How does Ukraine abuse its citizens of Russian descent? 3. What are "citizens" of Russian descents in your mind? 4. What are citizens of "Russian" descents in your mind? 5. Are you fine with Russia to invade Tallinn to protect Estonian citizens of Russian descent? (ca 40% of those there. And do they want to...)
Putin isn't historian. He is a KGBshnik. He's trained to lie, manipulate, deceive, bribe, intimidate, torture and kill. In his youth he used to make searches at Soviet dissidents' places (there are protocols with his signature). When he was carrying a briefcase after Sobchak, he also stole petty cash from secretaries' handbags and pocket. Now he's stealing by billions and has someone else to run his errands - to intimidate, bribe, torture and kill. But nothing of it makes him a historian.
Once again, exact what part of Russian history (not Putin history, mind, but Russian history) makes it right to kill Ukrainians?
Well... from my point of view, all three adhere to murderous ideologies. Can't be more obvious as that.
And, between us chickens, it's about the time for the Western world to revise whom and why they support. There wouldn't be any Hamas, if not for all that kinda humanitarian help to Palestine.
I doubt that the solution is that simple: this abscess has been allowed to grow for far too long and, if we are totally honest, this crises has many fathers and many supporters.
But yes, HAMAS must be deleted from the equation for this situation to have any chance to be solved.
Tulefell Forum Posts (3,306)
Whatcha dancin?
^ awesome