|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:40 pm
Good. Now when you don't feel too up, remember that.
-Andrew
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:44 pm
I'll try, not like it means very much, just put me in a good mood and got me $20 xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:24 pm
Sweet, 20 bucks! Know what I'd buy? Food. All I've got in my fridge is a box of taquitos and some baby carrots. Yum.
Ooooo, the Queen of Miscellanea... I like it. mrgreen
(Also three days.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:07 pm
actually i did, I treated myself to some Cafe Rio, a Mexican grill place we have here (not sure if it's nation wide, bet it is) really good food, other than I ate too much and got sick to my stomach stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:44 pm
Yay! I already said congrats, but congrats again! biggrin
Love ya Nick, you deserve it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:19 am
Update: I've eaten all the baby carrots, but it's okay, I found some ham in the bottom drawer.
Two days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:58 am
i think that ham might be tainted, you don 't know how long it's been in there...
and two days to what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:07 am
Too late, I had the ham for breakfast. I should really go shopping...
And it's two days until the new season of Doctor Who starts! Well... for me, it's two days + however long it takes someone to put it online, 'cause I'm gonna be home this weekend and we don't have cable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:15 am
uh oh, are you seeing spots? and yes yes you should...
as for the show, wow, isn't that like an old show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:27 pm
Since when did Dr. Who get Mind Flayers??? Murderous trash cans is one thing but Mind Flayers?! That's just copyright infringement!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:33 pm
gah, the other day sucked, got pulled over for speeding and got a ticket, was actually 15 over but the cop wrote it for 5 so that i don't have to deal with insurance going up, he was nice about it, didn't give me too much hassle so I just waved it by, have to pay like $80 though, which isn't too bad considering my bro got one for $250...
i told my mom and she was actually more upset over my room not being cleaned then the ticket confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:31 pm
Guys, you don't have to read this if you don't want to, but I urge you to, please, if only for me.
It's about Love.
~~~
What is Love?
As with all things, we cannot begin to truly understand Love without attempting to understand its origins. However, because it is almost as difficult to say exactly when or how Love arises, perhaps the best initial step would be to ask where Love begins.
Love best thrives between two people who both respect and admire the other. Because of this, care more easily grows between the two, which might be a link to that elusive 'when' origin. Love best thrives in an environment rich with goodnesses such as compassion, honesty, and warmth. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, as Love can grow with the absence of these things and sometimes will not grow in their presence. Still, the power that these things have in Love's growth are clear.
Since this still fails to explain the full nature of Love, we must delve into what Love produces. At least as far as goodness can be concerned, it can be argued that all goodnesses either originate or else are completed in Love. Compassion is always greater towards the beloved, kindness and generosity are always more enhanced--as are all other goodnesses--than to those not beloved.
But these things, while they may hint perhaps very strongly towards the nature of Love, still fail to explain it. For this much, at least, I would say that Love is certainly an indisputably powerful force that moves the human psyche towards something. But to what? Love may be a catalyst for virtue, even a source of power for the virtuous, but what is it?
~~~
This is where mere observation ends. We must now put the lessons of Love into use if we are to ever truly understand it--only immersion in this thing can begin to unravel its secrets.
And what are these lessons if not the very goodnesses finished in the heart? We must learn to hope and to have faith, despite doubt. We must put fear aside in pursuit of ourselves. We must learn to think of others, and of ourselves, in a higher sense. We must take this force, this thing that specializes and unifies, and find what it truly means to us as individuals, and as a society.
Physical manifestations are necessary--half of Love is in the theory, half is in its application. Expressions of joy can only be made more delightful in Love. Expressions of sorrow can only be made sweeter and more poignant in Love. Think on the radiant smile that lovers share in their joining, or that gentle, melancholy smile at their parting, and know that Love has made beautiful these things by its very nature.
Think of the warmth that seems to flow around some people, that power that emanates from them. Take these things into your heart, and even in observation, the way we perceive the world begins to change. Innate beauty becomes apparent, possibilities of beauty bloom in the new light. Even by this realization, many of them bear fruit. Things that were once only shades of gray burst into full color, and truth, hope, beauty, and goodness are all connected by this glorious Love. Our actions become influenced by a greater sense of things, a clearer focus on reality, and what's more, a reality that could be made real with Love.
Even the prices of Love help to clarify its nature. A certain selflessness, pains, and the revelation of difficult truth are perhaps the most clear. A strong sense of duty both to the self and others, the shown necessity of both endless forgiveness and the eternal triumph over fear, and the advance of truth and goodness at least on an individual level, and at its highest point, throughout all levels of humanity, are infinitely more difficult to both understand and live through.
Love is more than emotion, relation, enhancement, viewpoint, lifestyle, or spiritualism. It is greater than the sum of its parts--greater than all of us together.
And so, it is my belief that it is in this binding of the self to a higher virtue, other individuals, and to the greater society--complete with both its gifts and its prices--that along with the observation of Love's effects on goodness and perception, the nature of Love can finally be found.
~~~
Love and Vale,
~Andrew/Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:58 pm
I've never understood why people who believe in something always claim to be bloody experts on the matter. Take Lea here for example, he believes beyond the power of reason that love rules the world when in fact there is substantial proof that economy and profitable gain is what truly rules the world.
I've already been dubbed the cynic so calling me on that is pointless. Let me point out why these Love diatribes are fruitless and ill-founded.
*First and foremost, you don't end your... speculations, with reference to your original idea. You set out to define Love as... something, but finished with you end up stating that we should bind ourselves to some higher ideal that will help us find what the true nature of Love if. Point in fact, Lea has wrote 700 words of nothing, he has not proven a point or solidified an idea.
*Secondly, finishing an idea without informative or even ideological gain bugs the hell out of me. Not because its true, not because he's founding a personalized argument on the fact that he has no solid grounding and therefore is promoting the core idea in such away that allows for embellishment, it is simply because he does not state why it is impossible to trace its origins. Stating something without reason is open bigotry, shows the philosopher is ill-informed, if at all, and anyone who takes this seriously will take that impossibility as fact instead of improbability.
*Thirdly, it bothers me that philosophers aren't more utilitarian. Philosophy is like math, you have millions of numbers, like ideas, you have millions of physical and philosophical equations, if the numbers don't fit, your philosophy is wrong. I bring this up because, Lea, you are thinking on too narrow a scale. Love, first and foremost, and this is not debatable at all, love, is Trust. Not trust between two people, or a hundred, it is simply a person's capability to trust. That is is the very first keystone of love, I don't believe you mentioned it once.
On a note that doesn't truly need an asterisk, I want to point out the futility in trying to backwards think an idea that you only half understand in the first place. That may sound strange, but wait, let me finish. If I knew nothing about Love, and simply looked at what love produced as a philosophy, I would be able to glimpse and idea of what it was and how it worked. By understanding some and trying to figure out the whole, your opinion in biased, your brain goes straight to the knowledge you already know and piece together fractured and probably false fact from there. If we're going to look at what love produces, you need to provide a wide range out outcomes, not scenarios, just outcomes. Scenarios only matter if you're trying to trying to figure out what caused the outcome, that, we already know.
Ah, goodness, how very biased. Why must everyone who poses an argument be unable to approach it neutrally and use biased examples to support their neutral idea instead of using it as a stepping stone or crutch? In any case, goodness is merely a by-product of classical love, the open kindness people give to one another.
I'm just going to finish off there because any more analysing and I'll just be repeating myself. No information of any use is given here. All you're doing Lea is reiterating your views and hoping someone is going to catch on and run with you. I'm no expert on love myself, I only truly understand about 90% of it, but using it as a keystone for central belief is unhealthy, some would say communistic. Next time you decide to write something like this, please, please approach it objectively and like you don't worship the very word as if it were God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:06 pm
xd I love having the both of you as Crew and friends. You make me see different sides of everything.
Love ya both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
