You don't understand anyone when you're concerned with the guns.

Kids feel it quicker and react to it quicker and grannie is still playing catchup on wth is going on right now.

You might just as well say elderly people have years of driving experience so drive better but put them on a racetrack and it's the young quick rising stars that just completely overwhelm them in any vehicle.

That's just how it plays out. Can't beat time lady, and if that's your enemy it aint me. We're just the reapers.

Spoken as a colloquial of course. I'd never harm anyone. People choose their own fates, I'm a helper. A facilitator like anyone good.

Oh hey yeah, no lie. In a handshake to christians I'd say this with every honest fibre. I won every fight, as in lived when I knew I was dead a dozen times, no way out, no way anyone gets out of this, every time, every. time. Because. Because I was non-violent. Being a violent nature, I'd have been dead the very first time luck ran out which is like ten minutes into about the second time anything like this ever happens to anyone.

And that's the truth. And that's the truth about non-violence. Know it, mean it. Learn it.

Hey and I was going to on about a bunch of other serious kill you fights, knife fights, the mugger fight I had, the two guys a gang sent to kill me, a gang leader that was supposed to be a fight but turned out into "we both practise the same martial art so we're cool mate", it's all just talk stuff that doesn't matter really.

It's fair dinkum, this is just as real as your crips versus bloods or whatever the fk. Ask one of them if guns mean crap.

I've a background in youth homelessness and associated shelters, gang cribs and junkie pads let you sleep better at night but at those places by adulthood I'd had serious guns pulled on me twice whilst unarmed (I learned to be usually very, very armed), one biker pad I thought was a good mate looking out for me accused me of stealing his gunja stash with all his mates around the living room, one of the walls in this room is literally plastered with his mounted guns ranging from percussion shotguns to magnums. I had to go him to prove it wasn't me, and he's twice my size and twice my age, I'm a kid, he's a bloke with serious mates, way out of my depth, but I'm right, and it's all emotion there. Yeah I was damn lucky in one sense, just honest in another.

Hey I found I was on him before he even finished his thought, it could've turned bad but it came out all good. That was nice, I thought I was gone. But like a couple of other real times when you actually see first hand what really goes one when this stuff happens, the real thing that actually happens, is bloke aint right, guns don't matter.

People don't get that until you know and the majority of gun owners just don't. You fricken don't. You don't. You know you don't.

You do realize whilst colloquially amusing, in pragmatic terms this is completely retarded as much as a nun trying to stand up to a waffen-ss trooper with an attitude.

Guns don't mean **** when you're completely outmatched and kiddo, little old grannies are completely outmatched by active toddlers. Arming one with a plethora of firearms is dumb street in a pickup truck. Why not just open her trunk with a big sign saying, "Get your handguns here boys."

the fck o_o

A musical ear. I love playing guitar but I've no musical ear, if I don't see the name of a chord written on a piece of paper I wouldn't know which one it was.
I can tune a guitar by ear, flat e usually, but I can't tell you what a chord I heard is, e, g, no idea.

My friend?

Really, dude's got my back everytime. Picks me up when things are pretty down too. Gives advice about women and family. Tells me to keep my $hit together. Look after the animals, care for your pets like family. Don't spend too much, budget.

Kinda cool. I'm hopeless but he's not too bad.

Frantically escaping an attacker is just as violent in terms of activity as body slamming one.

A peaceful person won't engage an attacker on their terms like a boxing or wrestling contest to determine a victor.
But they will solve the problem to minimise the potential harm caused by an attacker, both to themselves and others.
The difference is attitude, one enters a fight, the other just solves the problem. A problem solving attitude works better because you tend to be more creative in how you deal with attacker, and more effective.

eg. when suddenly faced with a burglar the immediate problem is physical threat so you might want to get out of his line of sight as a first call in case he's armed with a firearm, instead of going directly to a gun cabinet and crossing his line of sight and being shot at.
Then once out of his line of sight the next problem to solve is getting him out of your house, again something like a telephone and keeping out of his line of sight might work better for you than going for a gun cabinet if you have to cross his line of sight to get to it. Cop sirens are sure to get him out of your house.
But if you can get to a gun cabinet without crossing his line of sight, or you've established he doesn't have a firearm, or if there are others in the house to protect immediately, it might be better to make a different play.

The very same non-violent person would do any or all of these things.
What a violent person would do however, is shriek with rage, go for any available weaponry immediately whether fists or guns, and rush the burglar shouting threats and rage. That's violence.
And incidentally, that sort of violence is a perfectly typical intimidation routine any career criminal uses commonly. That's why they call them violent criminals. But they're solving a different kind of problem.

I can only give you the answer through your banking details.

ooh ooh ooh me me me

tarded. o_o

what if a really hot white chick thinks black is that okay? O_o

like really thinks like a black person

I can get frights sure, a dangerous spider you didn't know was there is right next to your hand, a deadly snake within striking distance is sussing you out, something breaks on my car right when I'm pushing it to its limits,

But some experience can make 'scared' per se a foreign concept. If I shake uncontrollably in any circumstance I think and hit 5x faster and harder than normal. It's a bonus, not a problem for me.

Think of it this way, ignorant people think scaring someone is a win. Ask any combat vet how obvious a truth that statement is. That said, being 'scared' is always a terrific opportunity for a surprisingly joyful belly-laugh. Another truth.

Often the biggest problem with people is not knowing themselves yet, they blame others for their own lack of experience. We all did it.

my existential terror is simply in an unfathomable universe that at some point you would all indeed tear your skin off and reveal that were actually as I suspected all along, pure genuine demons.

think the movie "society" which is as much.

of course I got older and am up for a fight, but it was a childhood fear sure, sort of a knowing that you didn't want to know.

being alone? ha.

The Abrahamic concept of paradise for wont of a better term is more along the lines of outside and inside as opposed to somewhere else and here.
What you do outside affects you inside, is more what it means.

The dogmatic modern concept of heaven is based on mount olympus in greco-roman mythology. It managed its way into mediaeval christianity between the 7th-12th century during systematic pagan conversions and stuck.

The very great difference between them is the real Abrahamic version can actually help you in your life. The other version is all about trying to make some kind of deal or barter, it's chasing a golden fleece.

Pick the one that works. Heaven is about responsibility in this life, angels are more about dreams, imagination and serendipitous encounters that can guide you; this whole thing about a walled city or a mountain paradise above the clouds with anthropomorphic armies of spirits and great beings is paganism.

And that's the way it's actually written in early texts, when independently translated. The fairy tale came later, just coincidentally during another military domination of Europe and subsequent warring between aristocrats.

Yahweh (ieue) means Jesus (actually the hebrew messianic leader, but for christians, Jesus). Yahweh-elohim (ieue aleim) means God and it's not anything anthropomorphic, it's something completely different.

If you imagine God as an omnipotent spiritual being much like an invisible person sitting above the clouds making decisions about people and causing earthquakes and lightning, that's greco-roman paganism and not hebrew in origin.

Most pentacostals worship Zeus, not El. And when you say Yahweh, you're talking about Jesus, not God which most people without a theology degree or one in ancient linguistics wouldn't have much of a clue what it even means.

There was a reason the primary early christian church only allowed monastic scholars access to religious texts, when pentacostalism happened nobody ever bothered to look up and research scriptures anymore, they just read them aloud in fairy tale versions and inserted pagan interpretations of them all. It's completely lost all meaning, and christian dogma has replaced the religion with greco-roman mythology by any other name. With some viking terms thrown in, of all things.

When the authors of religious texts penned the word sin it was a germanic term which meant literally "a truth".

Later, at the height of mediaeval dogma, when boldness was popularly regarded as unchristian the meaning changed to become first, "a guilt" and then "an offence against God", but these are later dogmatic colloquials and not the actual intended meaning of the term by authors in etymology, at the time of first usage in religious texts.

Like much later period religious dogma, it is a case of a mistranslated colloquial being inadvertently used to misrepresent much earlier religious texts and thus the original intentions of the religion itself.

There's lots of examples of this, the many many things pentacostals, or biblical literalists don't even understand they're so very wrong about, because they believe in the literal truth of a mistranslation.


Sin means a truth. A guilt is simply a truth. When one is freely spoken it is no longer a guilt, it is simply a truth.

In dogma the meaning changed so that sin is a secret. Now what that creates is a dynamic, something which can be manipulated, and in the days before modern forensics and organized police investigations bodies the only way you governed a community was by manipulating them individually, using any predictable dynamic you could.

But now that those days are over and police can police and governments can govern, we can get back to correct etymology and translations of early religious texts and don't have to misrepresent them to manipulate people with falsehoods.

So, sin means a truth. That's what it meant when it was written.

It's by definition a social networking site setup for the purpose of dating, since you have to socially network to find dates.
But people also find that social networking by default also tends to form friendships.

Being no right or wrong way to be yourself and enjoy your life, what you're suggesting is really that you two might have incompatable views on this particular subject. He is quite right from his point of view, but so are you when something simply makes you feel uncomfortable.

It is perhaps not so much that he should disavow the site as a social networking routine just because the webmaster intended it as a site for daters to meet.
It is perchance that he should consider how important web browsing is to him when his actual physical partner is feeling uncomfortable about it.

I take it you are actually physical partners that spend physical time together in the real world and not e-partners that have never met? If you're just e-partners then okiedoodle, we'll all just back out of the thread slowly now...

Athena covered all the points I would've mentioned.

Nice to see somebody actually gets it, one becomes too used to a complete lack of any adult maturity at dating sites, it's all just teen minds saying teen things that teens would say, but in adult bodies, it's kind of creepy.

Thanks for uncreeping the place Athena! :)

could it have something to do with love waiting in a tin?

If US legal convention is anything like the Commonwealth, serving time to cancel by-law (non-criminal) fines is optional and elective. You don't even have to see a judge, a court clerk can give you the option of paying off the fines at an affordable plan, or serving time in local jailhouses (not prisons) at a particular rate per day, concurrently.

How it works is the judge says "two thousand dollar fine, pay at the clerk office" and you have a default 7, 14 or 28 day deadline. You can ask the judge to give you a payment plan based on income as you can't afford to pay it all at once.
Even if you don't do that you can see the clerk and ask him, generally it's okay.

What you can also do is ask the clerk if you can serve jailtime instead. Sometimes this is actually a good idea if you have more than one fine, since you can typically serve them concurrently.
Say it's $100/day but you have a number of fines totally $2000, serving concurrent means you only have to work off the single largest fine and all the others are served alongside it, so if the biggest single fine is $200 out of a total of $2000, you still only serve 2 days and all the fines are cancelled.

Even if you don't see the clerk for that, you can default of the fines, then when the warrant is served elect to serve time instead of paying them. Same rules apply.
You don't need to go to a prison unless your jailtime exceeds 28 days, even though you can only stay at a jailhouse for up to 7 days, you can be moved around several jailhouses at local police stations for up to 28 days before you have to actually go into a prison.
Say you're on minimum wage and a few thousand is real hard to come by, even saving, then doing a couple of days to pay off concurrent fines totalling a few thousand looks pretty attractive.

So in remand centres and jailhouses, probably the most common resident is there serving fines as opposed to people charged with criminal offences.

What I've often found is most of the western democracies actually have very similar legal systems and cultures, but just tend to use very different terminology, plus a few isolated regional differences like US personal defence laws compared to Commonwealth ones. But the very fact things like Interpol works reasonably well is because most of the developed world works upon similar legal themes and tends to prosecute similar things similarly.