inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 13, 2010 4:08:45 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with a little flick! So true. If you don't want to be mocked for it I'd recommend bulking up to Ash's size.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 13, 2010 4:05:58 GMT -8
The game was played in a much better spirit with far fewer rough tackles in the second half which I think goes to show Webb got the game under control quite well and managed to keep 22 players on the field at the same time. Yeah there were some tricky decisions to make, DeJong perhaps could have been sent off but at the same time I think it looked worse than it was. There was another tackle where a Dutch player raked a Spaniard's shin down to his ankle which was far worse.
If a team is going to go out and play like the Dutch did it's going to be a nightmare for the ref and he's unlikely to come out looking perfect. Webb generally did a good job in my opinion apart from the two decisions that led up to the goal. But then the Spanish were the better side and the Dutch were fortunate to have all 11 players on the pitch at that point anyway so I don't think they can have too many complaints.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 12, 2010 12:16:48 GMT -8
Yes, also The Wombats. Hearing him whine "I'm back in Liverpool" immediately makes me angry.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 12, 2010 12:11:23 GMT -8
Tomahtoes, although if someone said 'potahtoes' to me I'd think they were insane.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 12, 2010 11:25:51 GMT -8
How? Your shirt is also too tight and I'm not a fan of the stubble you are cultivating....
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 10, 2010 13:45:19 GMT -8
I don't keep a journal or diary but often think I should because I'm pretty my thoughts could change the world or become the basis for a multi-million selling book. Er, if that's your real opinion on keeping a diary or journal, then I happen to find it a little ignorant. Journals or diaries can be kept for thereputic purposes, and are amazing tools if utilised properly in the effort to combat depression, bipolar disorder, etc. Not just that, but writing down your daily thoughts before bedtime can help relieve the stress of the day, and help you sleep better at night, as you're not thinking of everything that happened. Whilst I am unable to keep a diary/journal, currently (lack of funds, tch) I used to keep a daily journal outlining my thoughts, dreams I may have had, things that happened in the day. Because of my bipolar, I found it quite helpful to keep, especially to look back after a manic or depressive episode and finding things that triggered the situation. It's helped me isolate factors that are more likely to send me either in one direction or another, and I attribute keeping a journal as a large factor in my ability to live unmedicated today whilst still functioning 'normally', with only the sporadic minimal bipolar episode. I have a blog, currently, but I'm not sure if that would count. It does help me rant, at times. Yes, I'm totally honest when I do keep a journal -- what's the point in keeping one if you're not? Then you're just lying to yourself, in a much more visible manner. I've never hidden my journals, for a couple of reasons. One, whilst living with my parents I had no expectations (or reasons to expect) any privacy or respect for personal belongings. Anything I wrote or kept in my room was subject to spontaneous readings / searches, so I figured, 'why bother?' Now, if I were to keep a journal, I'd have no need or desire to hide it, as I trust my boyfriend implicitly. If I died, I wouldn't mind some people reading my journals (would hopefully be able to indicate whom in my will) - but not just anyone and/or everyone. I was taking a jab at Hollywood teen-flicks.
Stop assuming. >.<You really thought you could post that and not run the risk of offending someone?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 13:09:08 GMT -8
Is conception necessarily a sexual act?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 9:07:25 GMT -8
I am not saying that Marriage is a concept only for Christians, I am saying it was/is/should be only a concept for a man and woman, not a gay couple and that is what she was saying. And she is not the only Lesbian who has said that to me, she is just the one that explained it in a way I could understand. As I said, I know Muslims, Jews, and all other religions use Marriage to describe the union of Marriage, but it should not be used for Man and Man or Woman and Woman, it is meant for Man and Woman and it should stay that way. [/blockquote][/quote] Give me a reason. All you're doing is making an assertion. You appear to have no issues with the actual relationship of two gay people spending their lives together. Apparently it's not a religious thing. So why do you think 'marriage' should be restricted to only a man and a woman?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 6:52:16 GMT -8
A number of excellent points have been made. A few people have said, in arguing that homosexuality is good and should therefore not be removed, that nature has purposefully caused homosexuality to prevent population growth. I don't think this makes sense: if this is their purpose, it clearly doesn't work, as the human population has been exploding for centuries. Also, why is limiting population growth an aim? Isn't the Darwinian view that reproduction is the main objective for life? 1. I think it's safe to say the population of the world is lower than it would be had every homosexual in history been heterosexual so it does provide that function. Just because it doesn't complete the job doesn't mean it doesn't help. Our arms lift things, that doesn't mean we're going to be able to lift everything we would like. 2. Just because life happens to want to reproduce doesn't mean this is desirable. We have evolved to an extent where we can make decisions that aren't based on instinct. I don't think I need to provide an argument as to why it is better to avoid overpopulation. In fact, you could argue the aim of life, from a biological standpoint, is survival, to which overpopulation is detrimental. Virus has taken the opposite view, that homosexuality is some sort of genetic/hormonal deficiency. I think this is closer to the truth...and indeed, this is precisely what the news story shows: removing a gene turned the mouse lesbian. By definition therefore, that mouse lacks something that - if the purpose of life is reproduction - it was supposed to have. This makes it an inferior model of mouse. That is a strange view to take, not to mention wrong. If I have cancer I have something you don't have, that doesn't mean you lack something. People with Down's Syndrome have an extra chromosome, does that mean everybody else lacks a chromosome? Are you an inferior human to a Down's Syndrome patient?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 5:39:57 GMT -8
Yeah, I understood that bit, I was getting confused before but now I understand. The way I was understanding it sounded like all the federal laws were already in the constitution and the federal government couldn't introduce any more. But now I realise what powers mean... I don't think it is Unconstitutional, because the states have their own rules also and it needs to stay that way, the federal government needs to leave some things alone. I am not saying I hate Gays or Lesbians, because I have family friends who are Gay and my cousin is a Lesbian, but I asked her what she thought of Marriage for same sex.
I was surprised by her answer because here is what she said... "Stupid! Unless they want to be married by a damn judge and not a pastor, it is stupid... Cuz, I was raised Christian and I know I sin everyday, but I would never support Gay Marriage because it is not right... Somethings are best left out of the marriage world... They can call it a Union, but it will never be a marriage." No offense, that came out of the mouth of a Lesbian. I don't like it because in a way, no Christian Pastor would marry gay couples together, because a Christian Pastor, it is sinful and should not be done.
No offense, I have lots of Gays and I love them very, very much! They are my friends and they are my families, but even Gays can be against this. [/blockquote][/quote] This is saying the federal gay marriage ban is illegal, it doesn't ban states from banning gay marriage. First of all, one lesbians opinion doesn't reflect the opinion of every homosexual in the USA. Secondly, marriage is obviously not a term solely applied to Christian unions. I assume the word originated to describe Christian unions since it is an English word and up until a couple of hundred years ago England was pretty much exclusively Christian. But it is clearly used to describe any union of this type. Ask a Muslim couple what sort of relationship they're in and I bet they reply with 'married', ask a Jew and you'll get the same reply. You may argue that it's still between a man and a woman but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in the Christian concept of marriage God is mentioned. It's ok to ignore one part but no another? Marriage is not the preserve of Christians.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 3:58:20 GMT -8
There are only 20 points in it, so really, you could say they are joint 2nd. But although Federer won the Australian Open, i believe Djorkovic won 5 ranking titles in the past year, which is more than Federer. Whilst we are on the subject of Tennis. I can't believe the stick that Murray got from the British press because he didn't win Wimbledon, and labelled him a 'failure'. There can only be one winner, and let's be honest, there is absolutely no one in Nadal's class at the moment, so to be knocked out by him, and then being labelled a failure is extremely harsh. It's the same as with Tim Henman, he was usually always knocked out of Wimbledon by the eventual winner, but usually got bad press. We put too much pressure on our sportsmen in this country. Henman's criticism was harsh since it would've been a big ask for him to win a Slam. He only really had a few real opportunities to get to a final. The Ivanisevic year was especially unfortunate. Murray, in my opinion, is more than likely to win a Slam. Probably a few. One year things will go right for him and he'll win one and once he's got one I think others will come. This Wimbledon he played absolutely superbly, even against Nadal he was quality but Nadal is just an absolute machine of a tennis player. If he's on form there's pretty much no one who can beat him, maybe Feds on his best day. Nadal was on form against Murray.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 2:23:31 GMT -8
I'm glad you agree that Gay Marriage Bans are unconstitutional! =O I'm happy to see such forward thinking. =] /facepalm I read this thread wrong. Drat. I don't think when the Constitution was being written, they were thinking... in the future, someone is going to say gay marriage ban is wrong because they know that it's unnatural. Oh well, I disagree with the judge. Why does something being unnatural make it wrong? Also, can someone explain the 10th amendment to me?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 9, 2010 2:15:20 GMT -8
Didn't he do badly at wimbledon? I can't remember but didn't Djokovich beat him at Wimbledon? :/ He got beaten by Berdych at Wimbledon in the the Quarters. Berdych then went on to beat Djok in the semis and was then beaten by Nadal in the final. Really Federer should just leave the rankings and be given special status as 'The Greatest'. But seriously, at the moment I'd say the top 4 is really: 1. Rafael Nadal 2. Roger Federer 3. Andy Murray 4. Novak Djokovic I'm basing that on who would win were they to play each other.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 8, 2010 1:32:56 GMT -8
As far as society goes, 'they' are probably my most disliked group. I think this is because many women in their 40s are mothers and fiercely protective of their children and therefore think they have a responsibly to try to sanitise society so their children are as insulated from the dangers it has to offer. I, on the other hand, am a quite liberally minded individual and believe people are able to make their own decisions. So, in general, our ideals clash on many things. I might be wrong, it might just be because I seem to have noticed these types of people campaigning for things I disagree with an inordinate number of times and have stereotyped an entire sector of society because of it.
Obviously this varies form individual to individual and to be honest my perception of this clash doesn't really affect my opinion of each woman I meet. I can't say there is a trend of me having more problems with women of this age then I do with the rest of the people meet.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 6, 2010 14:33:36 GMT -8
There's no doubt in my mind that the octopus's so-called predictions are purely coincidental. Surely the Germans will have self-fulfilled the octopod's prophecy if they hold such stock in its ability. No, I'm pretty sure the octopus is psychic.
|
|