As another fellow poster said, debating 'faith' with religious fanatics is like trying to debate with a child, only more frustrating.
As for me being guilty of anything, I don't consider myself so. It's a free world (at least here in the West), and so long as prayer mumblers are happy to do so without bothering me, they can keep on doing it till they drop dead.
Taking up a Don Quixote type crusade to 'enlighten' those who don't want to open their eyes is simply a waster of time, and frankly I've got better things to do with my life.
On the other hand, bible thumpers who act so shocked that atheists 'disrespect' their religion can be seen preaching their superstitions and trying to convert others at the slightest opportunity.
Guess it's clear who is disrespecting who here eh?
I think you'll fine McCullough's Roman novels a very interesting read. The first novel in the series is 'The First Man in Rome' (there's 7 in total). It may seem daunting at first at it's 700+ pages, but the pages flow like magic under her pen. Don't worry that it's only about battles and wars however, there's plenty of 'daily life' in it.
One of the things I found fascinating in her writing style for example is that she really managed to give the proper point of view of say, how Roman women of noble families viewed their arranged marriages to cement political alliances etc. A modern day woman would (justifiably) feel horrified if her dad arranged a marriage for her, but Roman noblewomen had a much different view on the whole, and felt 'comfortable' in their role as political pawns (with some NOTABLE exceptions as the story advances).
As for different books for different genders, I can agree with you to a point. I mostly like to read about military history (both 'proper' history books and historical novels), and if well written, both types of books aren't just 'dry' lists of this happened in so and so year etc, but can bring ancient people to life; which I find very fascinating.
Ok I know, it's clear I'm a history buff at this point.
Will seek out Aksenov for sure, I don't think I've read Russian authors with the exception of Tolstoy (now War and Peace was a dragging hulking monster to read, 19th century prose is a bit too long winded for my tastes).
Well, let's see, if you maintain your vehicle correctly, give it fuel, and don't drive it abusively, and checking that particular brand's/model's reliability with past models etc, I think you can make a fairly educated guess if your car is a cropper or not.
While I may not know what the minutest little washer is there for, by checking its manual or consulting a vehicle technician you can pretty much rest assured you'll find a reason for a fault, one NOT based on faith, but on a mechanical/electrical reason.
Hmm let's see, I'm assuming you are referring to the christian god. Well, let's say that christianity is a hotch potch of beliefs taken from the jewish religion (old testament, which is in itself a hotch potch of earlier beliefes), pagan beliefs in the Roman Empire at the time it started spreading there, and assorted other superstitions it encountered and absorbed throughout the centuries.
Your 'reliable' god has proven to be pretty much unreliable to prevent disease, suffering, cruelty and disasters throughout history. So much for your loving, all knowing, god. If it still makes you happy to believe in fairy tales, go ahead, but pardon me if I don't join in and shake my head at your naivete instead.
I've recently finished re-reading Colleen McCullough's Rome series, which in my opinion is the best Roman era historical fiction there is. Previous knowledge (at least partial) of the late Roman Republic's history is helpful as the author goes really deep into the events that spanned over a 120 years from the rise of Marius till the establishment of the Principate under Augustus.
I've now started reading John Norman's Gor series of novels. It's a mix of Conan type fantasy mixed with sci-fi storyline. Not especially deep reading, but highly entertaining as a light read.
When you turn on the ignition in your car, the engine doesn't start running 'by magic'. Electricity runs from your battery to the high tension leads, then to the spark plugs which in turn cause sparks in the combustion chamber, causing the pistons to go up and down the cylinders, which will cause the crankshaft to turn, which drives the gears in your gearbox, and so on and so on till you turn the wheels.
See, no need of faith, just a basic knowledge of car mechanics
Have you never met teenagers who will admit they are aware of the health issues of smoking, yet when asked why they still smoke will just shrug and mumble something of the sort 'my friends do it too...'
Back in my teens you would still encounter peer pressure to start smoking back in secondary and high school. I know as I talk from personal experience, have had a few 'friends' taunting me for being 'chicken' or 'still a small kid' for refusing to try smoking back when I was 14 and thereabouts. I admit that at that age peer pressure has a much bigger impact on one's life than it does as we grow older, hence young people are more vulnerable to start smoking because of that; however it doesn't change the fact that what it boils down to in these cases is that it is a 'pathetic attempt to be cool' in one's friends' eyes.
Human nature being what it is, and seeing the great amount of youngsters who still dabble in cigarettes, drugs and binge drinking, I assume that the situation hasn't changed much in the past decade or so.
As for the effects of nicotine addiction, yes I am aware that it is addictive, yet hiding behind that as a reason not to quit smoking is just masking a lack of willpower in oneself. I've met plenty of people who are ex-smokers and who have since quit (admittedly not without difficulties especially in the first few months).
At the end of the day, quitting smoking boils down to that, it's a matter of willpower, just as in many other aspects of life.
In order to have self respect you do need a measure of pride, the two go hand in hand. A certain amount of pride is necessary if you are to stand up for yourself. It is also only natural to feel pride and satisfaction in one's own achievements, e.g. an artist unveiling a new piece of art, or a sportsman winning a competition etc.
It's when you let your pride blind you to your own shortcomings and being able to see when you're wrong, that pride becomes self destructive.
In my view it's EXCESSIVE pride that is destructive, but 'normal' pride is ok, and indeed necessary in life.
Reading, working out at the gym, watching a good movie, practice martial arts, enjoy the occasional nice bottle of wine, hit the beach in summer, play or watch football, painting model miniatures, writing, and the list could go on.
Maybe the restaurant owner should start offering good food, provide good service and not charge outrageous prices.
By the way, smoking deadens the palate, so a restaurant owner can serve you any crap and chances are a smoker won't even notice
As for the other stuff, yes we all will die one day, doing something that will CERTAINLY hasten that end, and make your days spent on this earth a wheezing, stinking, out of breath existence is not on my list of smart things to do in life.
I beg to disagree mate. Bagpipes can be (and have been)used to produce quite stirring music, especially as regards martial/military music.
Putting such an instrument on a par with a cheap, plastic trumpet which makes an irritating bee noise drone isn't something I'd expect from someone who likes music (at least judging from your photo playing the guitar).
As for me, the vuvuzelas put me so off that unlike other editions I didn't watch all the games, I simply was put off by the sound and lack of atmosphere that is usually present in World Cups, where supporters of the different add to the spectacle with their own chants, songs and music.
To each their own I guess, so long as no vuvuzela is played next to me, else the 'musician' won't be blowing the darned thing from his mouth, but from another anatomical part
I can't really disagree with what you've said either.
I can sympathize with people who were in their teens prior to the 90's as up till then, the advertising of those days tended to show smoking off as being 'cool', and the health aspect was still put in doubt by the tobacco manufacturers.
What I can't help but shake my head in wonder at is today's youngsters who, knowing the health risks involved just have an 'I don't care' attitude and still smoke (and also binge drink).
I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal and preach here, just stating what (at least to my eyes) should be obvious risks involved in such vices.
Well Smoky my 'huh' reaction was due to the fact that while usually your posts are intelligent, your first post on this thread was, excuse the expression, a load of utter nonsense.
You lumped all smokers into a sort of 'goody crusader club' out to save the world, and the non-smokers into the opposite camp.
I usually respect your opinions, so I'm quite sure you're intelligent enough to see the silliness of your original post.
Oh by the way, here are my 'narrow minded bigoted' views as to why I wouldn't date a smoker.
First of all, smokers tend to stink. Yes, I know you smokers can't smell the stink of tobacco (heard it from too many ex-smokers to doubt the veracity of such a claim), but believe me, you can smell someone who's just smoked as the stink literally hits you when you come close to him/her.
Secondly, it's bad for one's health, and being in the vicinity of a smoker is bad even for non-smokers' healthy, ever heard of passive smoking?
Thirdly, a smoker who hasn't had a cigarette in a while tends to get irritable (my take is that when you wrote your posts you were in tobacco abstinence, hence the hysteria in your words).
Fourthly, since personally I the way a person cares for one's health as a good measure on their self respect, I can hardly bring myself to admire/respect someone who willingly poisons oneself.
Fifthy, and going at a tangent from the OP's topic, since you mentioned 'rotting flesh in guts' I'm assuming you mean non-vegetarians who eat meat. Check out any decent nutrionist, he'll tell you that our bodies need a certain amount of meat. Humans are omnivores, if we were meant to be vegetarians like lots of other creatures we'd be grazing cud all day.
I'd suggest not setting your heart on someone whom you've never even met face to face for starters.
Right now I'm on a personal record breaking run of having sent 20+ messages to women in my area without receiving a 'hi' back. (Yes I'm being sarcastic about the record breaking run, but you get the point).
As time passes here I'm seeing this site (and others similar) as just a waste of time.
Seems that if you're not a CK male model type, all the bla bla bla women write on their profiles about just wanting someone 'who is kind, respects them, loves them etc' is really just that, bla bla bla. They should just write that they want a CK model look alike with preferably a fat wallet to boot.
I read your post with great interest, it's the first time I've seen a tactics post this comprehensive here
A variant of the 4-5-1 is the 4-2-3-1 system AS Roma have been using for the past 5 years in Serie A.
It involves a fairly standard back 4 (2 central defenders, 2 wingbacks who act in defence, as well as supporting buildups in attack).
2 central defensive midfielders who are not only good at covering the back 4, but also launching quick counter attacks with pin point direct passes to the wings (to make an American football analogy, think of them as the quarterback when Roma are in possession).
3 attacking midfielders, 1 central, 1 one each wing who can either spread wide to chase balls launched from the defensive midfielders, or else run into space provided by the lone target man playing up front.
The target man position is usually played by Francesco Totti who is great at bringing the ball down on the first touch and shooting from the edge of the area, scoring many goals in that manner. Else he opens the ball into space for one of the onrushing attacking midfielders.
This season, Luca Toni was played as an alternative to Totti due to the latter's somewhat long term injury. Due to his different physical traits (Toni is the traditional big guy centre forward), Roma could either play long balls to his head, or else use him to shield the ball in the opposing penalty area.
It is a very quick, attractive playing style that has resulted in Roma scoring plenty of goals in the past seasons. I'd see England being capable of playing such a formation, with Rooney being 'Totti' in this formation, and Steve Gerrard playing as the central attacking midfielder.
The drawback to this formation is that it DOES require all players to be in peak fitness condition and run hard throughout the game. Someone with the long ball precision of David Beckham playing in one of the defensive midfield roles is a great boon as well.
This system has failed once SPECTACULARLY in the Champions League 3 years ago, when Roma succumbed to Man.Utd. 7-1, but has also enabled Roma to beat the likes of Real Madrid (4-2 agg.), Lyons and Chelsea (3-1), and reach the Champions League Q/finals twice in the past few years, even without spending big money on signings.
That's exactly what happened at a rugby match held recently in South Africa between the S.Africans vs France. The vuvuzelas weren't allowed in, so why all the hype to allow them during football matches?
I go to Rome to watch AS Roma matches at least once a year, and if someone were to blow one of those contraptions next to me during a match he'd definitely be blowing it from his a*s soon after, lol.
As for the fact that vuvuzelas are 'cultural', they're a fairly recent invention and made of plastic, so what historical/cultural significance do they have to South Africa in general?
To make one example of harmful 'cultural' presences in football in the past, once upon a time football hooliganism was very prevalent in English football. In fact, as soon as you mentioned English clubs hooliganism sprang to mind not so many years ago. The English rightfully drove hooligans out of the game, and I don't think English football has suffered from the removal of such a 'cultural' football presence.
Part of the beautiful atmosphere in a World Cup is to see the different ways football fans from around the world support their respective teams. You don't get to see fans dancing to Samba music in European matches, the English band playing the 'Great Escape' during Italian matches etc. These typical (and very nice) football festivities have all been drowned under the constant droning of bees in this World Cup.
I do agree with you that the major football nations should be coached by a coach of their own nationality. As an aside, I'd also like to see the same applied to players. I'm sick of seeing players play for a national team as a matter of convenience just because their great-great-great-great-great grandfather came from nation X. Then if a player isn't good enough to play for his own proper country, he promptly changes nationality months before a competition so can play for his 'new' country.
Coming back to Capello, while he certainly has his responsibilities on England's poor showing (playing Heskey up front?!!!!), it is too easy to give all the blame to him and forget what he's done for the team in the past 2 years.
During the qualifying phase, England played excellent football, and it had been several years since an England team looked that strong on the pitch. Something has definitely gone wrong in these past weeks, and it's up to Capello as the manager to fix it.
Making him seem as an incompetent, or a saboteur as some of the media have been whispering is totally unfair (ok, the football world is hardly ever fair, but so what?)
Capello is one of the TOP 5 managers in world football (and this is coming from a person who can't utterly stand him), a couple of bad games are hardly enough to tarnish what is otherwise an excellent career full of success.
Yes I agree with your points and see the sense in them. In my post I wasn't stating that a couple should do everything together, but that common interests are necessary. Having said that, alone time is necessary to keep a healthy relationship going.
Yes totally agree with you. Each member of a couple should have his/her own interests, but there MUST be some activities they both enjoy in common, else I can see them both quickly becoming bored of each other.
wulfen Forum Posts (810)
RE: When you can’t dent the message, attack the messenger.
Consider that in your church's heyday you used to burn the 'sad secularists', you christians nowadays have it fairly easy don't you think?At least, we 'sad secularists' (sad about bloody what by the way?) don't go around turning you 'happy christians' into adhoc torches.