Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh my how things have changed!!!
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 125 (349421)
09-15-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2006 9:51 AM


Re: The possible
quote:
They don't have to have a fear of people being gay to think that liberalizing marriage will have negetive affects.
True.
But I think that denying people equal rights because something bad might happen is unacceptable in our secular constitutional democracy.
And I've really never been able to get anybody to elaborate upon what those "negative effects" will be.
quote:
I think its more of a worry about marriage, in general, which I guess is heterosexual, in general, but its not neccessarily about the heterosexual part specifically.
OK, so do you think they are they afraid that hetero marrige will be destroyed or not, because your statement is very murky.
quote:
I think he means that the liberal changes to marriage are gradual and the results are subtle. These are changes that I would prefer to not be made, too.
WHAT changes?
Be specific.
quote:
I think its the fear of change, or the desire for conservation that is at the heart of it, not a hate of gay people.
What it does in practice, though, is deny equal rights to homosexuals.
quote:
I don't see why specific damages need to be listed, especially when some of them might not be able to be foreseen. Its more of a conservative vs liberal approach, IMHO.
If you say "it will be bad if gays marry" am I just supposed to say "Oh, well, if you say it's going to be bad, then it must be true."?
If you make the claim that allowing gays to marry will result in bad things, you should be able to elaborate upon what those bad things are if you want anyone to believe you.
Otherwise, you're just Chicken Little.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2006 9:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2006 1:24 PM nator has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 92 of 125 (349482)
09-15-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2006 4:21 PM


CS writes:
That is how you should look at people’s opposition to gay marriage. Upon considering how it will affect the nation as a whole and leaving personal bias out of it, one could think that we should not open up marriage to homosexuals. Now, against that position, you should leave your out your personal bias, about how you feel about people who think gay marriage would negatively affect the nation as a whole (someone you might call a homophobe), and stop calling them names or telling them how they feel and say that they hate people. You’re doing exactly what you’re bitching about, thus the hypocrisy. Instead of being so hateful, you should try to understand why they hold their position and discuss that. But no, as soon as someone opposes gay marriage, they get called names and accused of hate.
Hasn't it occured to you that the reason we skip the formal debate part when it comes to this issue is because people like myself have heard their same old argument a thousand times before?
But to name a few...
-Procreation
-Slipery slope: people can marry their dogs afterwards
-God's wrath on this nation
-Gay people are bad
-The bible condemns homosexuality
-etc...
Quite frankly, people like us are tired of hearing the same arguments from the other side, none of which make any sense in a democratic institution like our legal system. By the way, these same arguments were also used against interracial marriage back in the good old days.
Saw that reply coming from a mile away and figured you wouldn’t answer the question. It’s the same way all the homophobe-phobes answer that question. Do you really think there are no reason outside of personal bias for opposing gay marriages? Do you think they could exist but you just haven’t seen them. (the next reply I expect is for you to tell me to provide you with those reasons, well how about you answer the question first)
Ok, let's hear it. Why shouldn't two men who have committed 15 years or more of their lives together not be able to go into a hospital and be treated the same as two married hetero individuals? In other words, why shouldn't person A (a gay male), who have lived 15 years or so with person B (another gay male), be able to have next of kin rights if anything happens to person B?
Wow, ever been to Missouri? They’ll tell ya they hate ”em straightforward. Another typical tactic, though, is if someone opposes gay marriage then pull out the race card and equate their position to racism .........haters.
It's not a tactic. There are many faces of racism, and I suppose telling people outright that you hate black people is one of its faces. But telling people that you don't hate black people but prefers to call every non-white person "mud" is also another face of racism. The least extreme face of racism is simply not wanting anything to do with the another race, you know segregation, but it's still racism.
Just because you don't use the word "hate" when describing how you feel doesn't mean you're not a racist. Same thing with homophobia.
That’s one of the big things though. I don’t have to tolerate people that I don’t want to tolerate. For example, when I was in college there was a guy of a different race than me who rarely bathed and smelled really bad, enough that walking by his room was nauseating. I shouldn’t have to tolerate that but when if I were to bitch about it then people would say that I was intolerant or racist, which wasn’t the case. I just didn’t want to smell B.O.
So, in other words all you're saying is you prefer not to see gay people expressing their love or holding hands with another gay person in public? Would you feel better if we ban holding hands and stuff in public all together?
I say you are the one being hateful, to the homophobes.
No argument here.
How do you know you can’t start liking sex with men. Have you tried? Maybe you could like it, no?
Sorry, dude, but I tried all that sh*t in college.
How about a ridiculously huge monetary compensation or to save your own life, but you have to like it? What if you were forced to do it for long enough that you got used to it and you didn’t dislike it anymore? How about those straight guys that go to prison and start having sex with each other, you don’t think some of them like it?
Never been to jail. Never been forced to have sex or raped... I think.
Well while we’re by the way, I have a moral objection to people mislabeling things they disagree with as hate.
Fine by me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2006 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 93 of 125 (349560)
09-16-2006 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
09-14-2006 9:35 PM


Re: The possible
The attempted suicide rate for gay teens is four times higher than that of hetero teens. We don't have a good idea of the completed suicide rate because they don't ask about sexual orientation on the death certificate.
But I am not convinced that the gay suicide rate is higher, purely on the basis that they get treated differently. Most teenagers do not get treated the way they think they should, and have a hard time adjusting to growing up. Could it be that these "gay" teenagers were already screwd up more than the average teenager, and they are already at a place where they just need one more thing to go wrong?
Until we fully understand the reasons why people are gay, then we can't answer that question with any authority.
quote:If you don't see black as being white, then fear has nothing to do with it.
Thais makes no sense to me.
Ok then, I will reword it.
If I don't like the color white, but I like the color black, I do not fear white.
quote:The subtly of the gradual.
This sentence no verb.
Sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
That things change so gradual, that we don't even notice the change. Things that lead to our demise become acceptable. Just look at TV, is the perfect example.
When I was a child, I did not see a gun on TV until I was at least 7 or 8. Now kids by the time they are 8 have seen mass murders, and blood and guts, people blowing up, everything.
What does all this do to our minds?
Isn't this all about our morals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 9:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 12:19 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 09-16-2006 1:52 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 97 by nator, posted 09-18-2006 8:35 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 119 by Jaderis, posted 09-23-2006 4:49 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 94 of 125 (349586)
09-16-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by riVeRraT
09-16-2006 7:34 AM


Re: The possible
riVeRraT writes:
That things change so gradual, that we don't even notice the change.
And yet the title of the thread is "Oh my how things have changed!!!" (and in only a few short years).
Things that lead to our demise become acceptable.
Reports of "our demise" are greatly exaggerated.
Until we actually do demise, it's premature to diagnose the cause.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by riVeRraT, posted 09-16-2006 7:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2006 7:39 AM ringo has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 95 of 125 (349612)
09-16-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by riVeRraT
09-16-2006 7:34 AM


Re: The possible
riverrat writes:
Things that lead to our demise become acceptable.
I am still waiting for fire and brimstone to rain down on Earth after gay marriage was legalized in certain parts of the States. Heck, I'm still waiting for the earth to open up where Satan will come up to rule the Earth after interracial marriage became widely accepted by society.
Yup, still waiting...
Edited by gasby, : grammar fixation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by riVeRraT, posted 09-16-2006 7:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2006 7:40 AM Taz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 125 (349974)
09-18-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nator
09-15-2006 5:59 PM


Re: The possible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 09-15-2006 5:59 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 125 (350106)
09-18-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by riVeRraT
09-16-2006 7:34 AM


Re: The possible
quote:
That things change so gradual, that we don't even notice the change. Things that lead to our demise become acceptable.
What do you forsee about letting adult gay people who are in love make legal marriage contracts with each other that will lead to detrimental effects to straight marriage?
quote:
Just look at TV, is the perfect example.
When I was a child, I did not see a gun on TV until I was at least 7 or 8. Now kids by the time they are 8 have seen mass murders, and blood and guts, people blowing up, everything.
What does all this do to our minds?
There is a very easy solution to this.
Turn off the television. Or get rid of it entirely.
Nobody is forcing you to have it in your house. I don't.
quote:
Isn't this all about our morals?
No, it's about the Constitution.
It is also about the fact that you don't get to deny people's Constitutional rights because you are afraid of change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by riVeRraT, posted 09-16-2006 7:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2006 7:48 AM nator has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 98 of 125 (350203)
09-19-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
09-16-2006 12:19 PM


Re: The possible
And yet the title of the thread is "Oh my how things have changed!!!" (and in only a few short years).
Yes, and no.
It has been long enough for certain people to not remember how things were, and yet short enough in the overall scheme of time.
That is mostly due to technology, and which the speed of information travels now. Also how our lives are dependant on different things now.
Reports of "our demise" are greatly exaggerated.
Until we actually do demise, it's premature to diagnose the cause.
Good, then screw it, who gives a f#$k about global warming.
Let's remove all emissions from vehicles, and dump our raw sewage right into the ocean, what the heck, let's dump all our garbage in the ocean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 12:19 PM ringo has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 99 of 125 (350205)
09-19-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Taz
09-16-2006 1:52 PM


Re: The possible
I am still waiting for fire and brimstone to rain down on Earth after gay marriage was legalized in certain parts of the States. Heck, I'm still waiting for the earth to open up where Satan will come up to rule the Earth after interracial marriage became widely accepted by society.
Yup, still waiting...
What does that have to do with anything I said?
The BS your talking about comes from the minds of people, not God, or me. Cool it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 09-16-2006 1:52 PM Taz has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 100 of 125 (350207)
09-19-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
09-18-2006 8:35 PM


Re: The possible
What do you forsee about letting adult gay people who are in love make legal marriage contracts with each other that will lead to detrimental effects to straight marriage?
Nothing. Straight marraige has already gone to the dogs, all by itself. The demise of straight marraige was the stepping stone to gay marraige.
Marraige is only what is on the surface. The actual causes are much deeper than just marraige, and relate to our morals.
But what should we do? Allow gay marraige because we need to at least have some good kind of marraige. Or is that even a reason?
What is amazing to me, is that you are still hung up on arguing about gay marraige with me, even though I have decided not to go against it.
You need to drop the subject.
There is a very easy solution to this.
Turn off the television. Or get rid of it entirely.
Nobody is forcing you to have it in your house. I don't.
I like TV, and will not get rid of it. I pay for it, so I have a say in what is on it. There are many more who won't get rid of it, and are stupid enough(or not mature enough) to actually confuse TV, with real life.
Since we live in a world now that wants to protect us from ourselves, why isn't TV more regulated? (this is a great topic)
It's the gradual at work.
No, it's about the Constitution.
It is also about the fact that you don't get to deny people's Constitutional rights because you are afraid of change.
Just amazing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 09-18-2006 8:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 09-19-2006 9:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 125 (350229)
09-19-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by riVeRraT
09-19-2006 7:48 AM


Re: The possible
What do you forsee about letting adult gay people who are in love make legal marriage contracts with each other that will lead to detrimental effects to straight marriage?
quote:
Nothing. Straight marraige has already gone to the dogs, all by itself. The demise of straight marraige was the stepping stone to gay marraige.
How has straight marriage "gone to the dogs"? It seems to me that marriage is still pretty popular.
quote:
Marraige is only what is on the surface. The actual causes are much deeper than just marraige, and relate to our morals.
What is immoral about people wanting to make the strongest legally-binding commitment to each other that they can?
I should think you would want to encourage such commitments.
quote:
But what should we do? Allow gay marraige because we need to at least have some good kind of marraige. Or is that even a reason?
We should allow gay marriage because it's none of your business if gay people want to make a secular legal contract with each other.
And, if you are right and straight people really have screwed up marriage, how does it follow that you should deny gays the right to marry because the straights can't get it right?
quote:
I like TV, and will not get rid of it. I pay for it, so I have a say in what is on it.
But you just said how terrible it was for kids to see all of that violence on TV, even using this as an example of the terrible immoral things that can result from gradual change.
Now you say you like it and refuse to get rid of it.
It must not be so bad, then, eh?
quote:
Since we live in a world now that wants to protect us from ourselves, why isn't TV more regulated? (this is a great topic)
Because there is a great deal of money to be made by appealing to the lowest common denominator in the American population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2006 7:48 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2006 8:18 AM nator has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 102 of 125 (350602)
09-20-2006 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
09-19-2006 9:17 AM


Re: The possible
How has straight marriage "gone to the dogs"? It seems to me that marriage is still pretty popular.
You mean to tell me you couldn't gather I was talking about the divorce rate?
It's the point that constantly gets brought up whenever we talk about gay marraige in here.
What is immoral about people wanting to make the strongest legally-binding commitment to each other that they can?
I should think you would want to encourage such commitments.
Making the commitment is one thing, sticking to it is another.
We should allow gay marriage because it's none of your business if gay people want to make a secular legal contract with each other.
Every law that goes into effect in this country IS my business.
"We the People"
And, if you are right and straight people really have screwed up marriage, how does it follow that you should deny gays the right to marry because the straights can't get it right?
I am not denying anybody anything.
If you want to marry a monkey schraf, be my guest.
Now you say you like it and refuse to get rid of it.
It must not be so bad, then, eh?
There are good qualities, and bad qualities abotu it.
Because there is a great deal of money to be made by appealing to the lowest common denominator in the American population.
You got that right.
From your statement, and your decision to not watch TV, I would say you don't really agree with what is on TV either. Yet we allow it.
We allow lies, and encourage all sorts of bad behavior. Ever see the movie Jackass?
All that is ok, but if I want to build a bedroom in my basement, it is required to put in a second exit, in case of a fire. This and many other laws that cost you thousands of dollars to protect you from yourself, is all ok. But TV can show whatever it wants, practically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 09-19-2006 9:17 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 09-20-2006 11:37 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 09-20-2006 1:45 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 105 by nator, posted 09-20-2006 9:40 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 125 (350663)
09-20-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by riVeRraT
09-20-2006 8:18 AM


Re: The possible
riVeRraT writes:
If you want to marry a monkey schraf, be my guest.
So, you're endorsing poly-partner, interspecies marriage....
But can it be a same-sex monkey?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2006 8:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2006 9:18 AM ringo has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 104 of 125 (350694)
09-20-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by riVeRraT
09-20-2006 8:18 AM


Re: The possible
riverrat writes:
We allow lies, and encourage all sorts of bad behavior. Ever see the movie Jackass?
Unlike you, I actually exercise my right to not watch such crap. I've reduced myself to watching the Simpsons, Nova, the news (fox, cnn, abc, etc.), superheros movies like x-men and spiderman, zombie movies, and a few action movies that actually have a good theme to them. I didn't even like Pearl Harbor, which had the potential to be a good movie if most of the film wasn't about a freakin' love triangle complex.
I heard about jackass a while back and saw 10 minutes of it before I decided not to waste anymore time with such crap.
You see, even though I really hate all the violent and BS crap on the media these days, I also realize that there are people who actually like to watch this crap. I honestly don't understand why people nowadays like to watch those reality bullshit, especially when the show is basically about people being mean to each other. But the brutal truth is there are honest to god people who watch this crap and buy into these unrealistic body images. As much as I hate it, just like how your intolerance is bothering the hell out of me, I also have to see that these people have every right to fry their brains with all this bullshit on tv.
I don't even know why I have sattelite even though I don't watch most of the stuff on there. I think I'll cancel it soon.
But beside the tv, you also have another option, which I have been using for the last 6 years or so. The radio seems to work fine for me. In fact, I listen to npr about half my day everyday. I have it on right now.
What's the moral of the story, riverrat? If you don't like the movie jackass, don't watch it. If you don't like all the bullcrap on tv, watch something else or don't watch at all. If you don't like what's on the radio, turn it off. If you don't like to see boys kissing, don't look. If you don't want to recognize gay marriage, then don't. Heck, if you think masturbation is work of the devil, then don't masturbate. But for the sake of your creator, don't impose your opinion on other people.
The New York times, or whatever that was, was wrong. It says right in the Declaration of Independence that all persons are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Life means not be persecuted by your kind. Liberty means not be blocked of certain rights because people like you don't like to see two boys kissing. Pursuit of happiness means be able to live a life style that makes one happy as long as it doesn't hurt you or get in your face.
It's simple, riverrat. If you don't like it then you don't have to watch it or recognize it.
You mean to tell me you couldn't gather I was talking about the divorce rate?
You do realize that the states with the most divorces are republican states, right? As a matter of fact, the top 7 or so states that have the highest divorce rates are also the states in the union that have banned gay marriage.
Making the commitment is one thing, sticking to it is another.
How come nobody protested or demanded a law to ban straight marriage after Brit Spears got married for fun for 55 hours? How come nobody is demanding that Rush Limbaugh be tarred and feathered? Between him and his wife, they have 6 marriages and divorces, and last I heard they are going through a divorce... but that could be old news.
It's not the hypocrisy I'm trying to point out. I think I've made it clear that pointing out hypocrisy isn't my way. I pointed out the republican states having the highest divorce rates and the most famous anti-gay marriage speakers have many marriages and divorces to show that things aren't black and white like you seem to think. Having christian "morals and values" doesn't necessarily mean you're going to have less divorce rates.
Every law that goes into effect in this country IS my business.
"We the People"
This is a response to
quote:
We should allow gay marriage because it's none of your business if gay people want to make a secular legal contract with each other.
Riverrat, I think you responded there in a little bit of anger. After having read some of your previous posts, which still tell me that you are a homophobe that is afraid of being a called a homophobe and also someone that have concluded unwillingly that what you said there in reference to what was quoted doesn't make any sense. Therefore, I'm going to let this slide for now.
I am not denying anybody anything.
If you want to marry a monkey schraf, be my guest.
Actually, my dog and I have been discussing this quite a bit. She thinks that with much practice she will be able to sign her name on a contract 6 months from now. My wife has also expressed that she has no problem with me having another "woman" in my life. Therefore, I am thinking of marrying my dog 6 months from now. Would you like to attend the reception?
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2006 8:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2006 9:42 AM Taz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 125 (350841)
09-20-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by riVeRraT
09-20-2006 8:18 AM


Re: The possible
quote:
You mean to tell me you couldn't gather I was talking about the divorce rate?
What about it?
The divorce rate is around 20% in the US. That means that four out of five marriages are intact.
What is immoral about people wanting to make the strongest legally-binding commitment to each other that they can?
You haven't answered this question.
I should think you would want to encourage such commitments.
quote:
Making the commitment is one thing, sticking to it is another.
Irrelevant.
Why don't you want to encourage the greater committment that legal contracts afford? If you value them, why would you deny them to people who want them?
We should allow gay marriage because it's none of your business if gay people want to make a secular legal contract with each other.
quote:
Every law that goes into effect in this country IS my business.
"We the People"
There have been very many wildly popular laws (such as Jim Crow laws) which were also unconstitutional.
Denying people their constitutional rights is not decided upon by the majority, unless we change the constitution.
Are you saying you wish to change the US constitution to keep gays from marrying?
And, if you are right and straight people really have screwed up marriage, how does it follow that you should deny gays the right to marry because the straights can't get it right?
quote:
I am not denying anybody anything.
Please answer the question.
You noted that straights have screwed up marriage as if that was some justification for denying it to gays.
Why did you say that if you don't want to deny marriage to gays?
quote:
If you want to marry a monkey schraf, be my guest.
Irrelevant and avoidant.
quote:
From your statement, and your decision to not watch TV, I would say you don't really agree with what is on TV either. Yet we allow it.
There isn't much on TV that is worth the time I waste sitting on the couch.
But, why wouldn't I allow the existence of TV? It doesn't bother me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2006 8:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2006 9:56 AM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024