Boys, I need your help with what to say to this guy.

[ahinton]

It sounds like you're still not sure.

The use of the phrase "n'est-ce pas", even followed by a question mark as here, does not necessarily imply the uncertainty that you appear to attribute thereto; I am sure that you will have heard  - and understand the concept - of rhetorical questions...

Or in Aspergers "Years before x there was a b and c is not stating or implying that a b and c no longer exist but merely expressing the fact that chronogically they appeared first and thus if they were used together to "cop out" of relationships at that time the internet can be safely ignored as influencing the situation because it didn't exist. Whereas today, even if you used them it wouldn't rule out the possibility that the internet had been in some way involved. So I don't know why you asked, unless I am to assume that you are asking because you don't know if they still exist in which case I am reliably informed that cigarettes exist and are still put into packets at least that was true 3 months 1 week and 13 hours ago which is the last time I smoked possibly forever. Hotels exist, and discos can still be found"

You appear to cite "Aspergers" as though it constituted or represented some kind of source for what follows rather than the medical condition that most of us know it to be; your reason, if any, for so doing remains as unclear as does the possibility to ascribe any other contextual relevance to your reference to it. In the absence of explanation of your use of the term, I will move on to the remainder of what you wrote, to which I must respond that I did not and do not suggest that the internet has in any sense supplanted the other things of which you had written and, rather than being uncertain of the continued existence of those things, I made clear my awareness that they do indeed still exist .

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

The use of the phrase "n'est-ce pas", even followed by a question mark as here, does not necessarily imply the uncertainty that you appear to attribute thereto;

I didn't. I applied the uncertainty to the part in brackets where, after asking if they existed in manner that suggested you knew they did, you clearly weren't that sure about discos.

If I thought anything from reading "n'est-ce pas" it would be that, assuming your Aspergers condition will make you as incapable of typing French as you are at typing English, something like "pretentious wanker" - however if you do speak French I'll just fire arrows at you some time

For the record, discos exist that, by their very design, attempt to replicate those discos that existed prior to the internet. Thus, as I said, and as you claim to know, all 3 things still exist. Why bother posting about it then? Did you add anything? No. Did you ask anything? Yes, but as you are at pains to point out, only rhetorically. Did you add to the topic? No. Thus you are a complete waste of time.

Had you been a complete waste of time, like cigarettes, hotels and discos and appeared before the internet you made have had a use, as it is, I think there are now even complete wastes of time that are much better.

I am sure that you will have heard  - and understand the concept - of rhetorical questions...

Indeed, as I'm sure you've heard of Aspergers. Albeit that itself implies you're more a rote memorisation guy that someone who actually understands the concepts. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's a neat trick that fools many.

You appear to cite "Aspergers" as though it constituted or represented some kind of source for what follows

Source? Obviously not. I refer you to the reply in the other thread though. Use google if you want to know why what I wrote is linked to Aspergers, more as a cause than a source though.

I made clear my awareness that they do indeed still exist .

On the contrary, you made something that was perfectly clear. So clear that by itself was not even worth mentioning at all, as complicated, convoluted and argumentative as you possibly could for no reason. Perhaps if the music business doesn't work out, you could sit pillion and catch ash for motorcycle couriers in London?

[ahinton]

If I thought anything from reading "n'est-ce pas" it would be that, assuming your Aspergers condition

What - if anything - you may have "thought" is, frankly, neither here nor there. I had not realised, however, that you possessed experience and qualifications that enable you to make medical diagnoses at a distance; I still don't, of course.

For the record, discos exist that, by their very design, attempt to replicate those discos that existed prior to the internet. Thus, as I said, and as you claim to know, all 3 things still exist. Why bother posting about it then?

I thought that it was you who had first drawn attention to this subject, so you'd better ask yourself that question (no need to answer it, though).

Did you add anything? No.

That may be a matter of opinion.

Did you ask anything? Yes, but as you are at pains to point out, only rhetorically.

I did not specifically claim that my question was rhetorical, although at the same time I am not claiming that it may not have been so; either way, the questions of (a) whether or not I had a question to ask and (b) whether or not I asked one are, I believe, of far less importance than the extent to which you write about it may lead one to assume.

Did you add to the topic? No.

And you are "adding" to it?

Thus you are a complete waste of time.

Yours, perhaps - it might be less than unreasonable for you to be counselled that you are not in a position to speak (or write) for everyone else, especially since you use the word "complete", here, but, if the wasting of your own personal time is of concern to you and if you really believe reading anything that I post to be a waste of the said time, you could quite easily remedy the latter by (a) not reading my posts (which are not in any case intended for your sole perusal, even if and when any of them may happen to include a response to something that you have written) and (b) not responding to them. It's up to you, of course - and I'm certainly not advising you as to what you should or should not do (perish the thought!) - but, who knows, I may even have made a helpful suggestion here.

Had you been a complete waste of time, like cigarettes, hotels and discos and appeared before the internet you made have had a use, as it is, I think there are now even complete wastes of time that are much better.

That's a sentence in English, is it? Its grammatical structure and punctuation certainly obscure any real meaning that it may possess...

Indeed, as I'm sure you've heard of Aspergers. Albeit that itself implies you're more a rote memorisation guy that someone who actually understands the concepts. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's a neat trick that fools many.

This is technically slightly better than the last one but the meaning is still pretty unclear; the first sentence isn't a sentence, the next one makes no sense and the last fails or omits to identify either the specific "trick" that you may have in mind or the kinds of people that come under your category of "many".

Source? Obviously not. I refer you to the reply in the other thread though. Use google if you want to know why what I wrote is linked to Aspergers, more as a cause than a source though.

Or not, if I cannot muster sufficient interest to do so...

On the contrary, you made something that was perfectly clear. So clear that by itself was not even worth mentioning at all,

Yet you do not say what it is that I clarified...

as complicated, convoluted and argumentative as you possibly could for no reason.

Er - au contraire, you just said that it was "perfectly clear"; it surely couldn't be both? Furthermore, reading this brings to mind Caliban and that mirror...

Perhaps if the music business doesn't work out,

For whom? And who decides whether or to what extent it may or may not do so?

you could sit pillion and catch ash for motorcycle couriers in London?

Whatever, if anything, that is supposed to mean, what I do and when is as much my business as what you do and when (including self-chosen time-wasting) is yours.

Best,

Alistair

[pianolist]

Ada, ol' gal, my first wife was born in a tin-roofed shack in Kalgoorlie (no kidding), so she was clearly a typical Ozzie. My vocabulary almost doubled in size.

Living in the outback, as you obviously do, with your pedal radio set, you might like this piccy. It's how your fellow countrymen used to transport pianolas a hundred years ago. Poor bugger must be about to fall over sideways.

I know Sir Les Patterson drinks Fosters, but I always put that down to his Catholicism.

[pianistimo]

the anaconda with a burka over it is balancing him somewhat.

[pianolist]

Actually, some very brilliant scholars in the Australian Collectors of Mechanical Musical Instruments (https://www.zip.com.au/~job/) have worked out the weights of pianolas and crates, compared to the load which a bull camel can support. They reckon he has another one on the other side. He's a 2X camel.

[jpianoflorida]

ok....how did this post get SO OFF TOPIC!?    I'm not even sure what we are talking about now....I feel like I"m in the twilight zone! yeah that's it!

[pianolist]

The sphinx's inscrutable smile comes to mind.

[lagin]

Okay, I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore, and I'm not sifting through all those post to find the ones that are addressed to me, but I will answer the questions that I remember seeing this morning.  Why don't I want to kiss before I'm married?  Define a "kiss."  If we're talking as in a kiss, kiss, then no, I wish to wait.  If we're talking about just a quick little one, that's different.  If a guy does not like that idea, then he wouldn't be the right one for me anyways.  I'll assume we're talking about getting serious, and not just casual friendships, because I have guys that are just friends as well, and I certainly wouldn't be kissing them!!    If a guy needs to kiss a girl or else he won't go out with her,  then my question would be we can't he just like her for who she is without getting physical?  What if you married someone and they had an accident, or got sick, or something happened and you couldn't make out, or make love with them?  Would you just throw them out in this society of cheap divorce?  Would you satisfy your sexual drives elsewhere and pretend faithfulness?  Would you only be able to love them half as much as you did before?  If so, then that is sad, and shallow, and that is exactly the type of man I wish to avoid.  If a guy can't respect my own personal choice, and decides to dump me over it, then chances are he would have dumped me for less after we were married!  I want someone who will love me for who I am, not what I can do for them.  It's the same with me.  I don't want to marry someone to fulfill myself, I want to marry someone because I love them for who they are and want to fulfill THEM.  Being fulfilled myself is simply a by-product of that.  I am not saying this is for everyone.  I'm not saying my way is right and all other's are wrong.    It's just simply, plainly, my own choice and I am happy with it.   If I missed any other questions, feel free to bring them to my attention again.

[jpianoflorida]

you have great ideas..but if you meet the one person you think is "the one" you may do a lot of the things you say you won't do until married....I dont' care how many standards you set, sometimes they go right out the window..never say never!

[pianolist]

I never quite know how it is with you Christians, Lagin, because there are so many different Christian views. I think my parents were Christian; at any rate they went to church regularly, and my father was a church organist.

But what joined my parents together was not their Christianity, but their music. In my case, my first marriage was to a non-musician, and in the end she left me. Now, in my fifties, with a wonderful musical lady, I am very lucky and extraordinarily happy, and I know my wife would say the same.

This may be an irrelevant consideration for you, because it may be Christianity which is far and away the most important factor in your life. But I do remember my mother telling me, many times, to find someone musical. I didn't agree with her at the time, because it seemed to me that music is only one way of expressing love. But I have to say I now think she was right.

Certainly, if you are to find someone who will stay with you through thick and thin, then you will need to have very strongly shared values indeed. For you to devote a large part of your life to music, without the other person being able to share it, could be rather as you might regard unfaithfulness. At least, there is the risk of growing apart, which is where unfaithfulness takes root.

But for all the worries of us middle-aged pianists, it sounds as though your life is about to burst into colour. Have fun away from the black and white notes!

[jpianoflorida]

I never quite know how it is with you Christians, Lagin, because there are so many different Christian views. I think my parents were Christian; at any rate they went to church regularly, and my father was a church organist.

,

yes, there are many different christian views....    My views are very different from Lagin, but I do respect her ideals..I just feel like since she has lived a shelterd life, it's a lot easier to have those ideals...spend some time in the real world and around a lot of different kinds of people and your views change.   Once we realize the whole world is not in our "circle", we can open up and be more receptive to others ideas.

[thalbergmad]

Although i am a Christian, i cannot see anything wrong in engaging in a bit of pre marital "tonsil tennis".  One thing does not ordinarily lead to another if you can exercise some restraint.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i'm just hoping you'll get that degree, marry whoever makes you the happiest and whom you have lots in common (or perhaps a few major things in common).

[ada]

Define a "kiss."  If we're talking as in a kiss, kiss, then no, I wish to wait.  If we're talking about just a quick little one, that's different.  If a guy does not like that idea, then he wouldn't be the right one for me anyways.  I'll assume we're talking about getting serious, and not just casual friendships, because I have guys that are just friends as well, and I certainly wouldn't be kissing them!!    If a guy needs to kiss a girl or else he won't go out with her,  then my question would be we can't he just like her for who she is without getting physical?  What if you married someone and they had an accident, or got sick, or something happened and you couldn't make out, or make love with them?  Would you just throw them out in this society of cheap divorce?  Would you satisfy your sexual drives elsewhere and pretend faithfulness?  Would you only be able to love them half as much as you did before?  If so, then that is sad, and shallow, and that is exactly the type of man I wish to avoid.  If a guy can't respect my own personal choice, and decides to dump me over it, then chances are he would have dumped me for less after we were married!  I want someone who will love me for who I am, not what I can do for them.  It's the same with me.  I don't want to marry someone to fulfill myself, I want to marry someone because I love them for who they are and want to fulfill THEM.  Being fulfilled myself is simply a by-product of that.  I am not saying this is for everyone.  I'm not saying my way is right and all other's are wrong.    It's just simply, plainly, my own choice and I am happy with it.   If I missed any other questions, feel free to bring them to my attention again.

The truth is that sex is what underpins romantic love. The myth of romantic love was built around sexual desire. If you want your marriage unsullied by sex then take a lover and have a platonic relationship with your husband, although I don't see how that can work.

 You don't have to be in love with your lovers but if you can be the lover of someone you love there's nothing better.

I accept that some people have a lower libido than others and apparently some have none. Libido is a life force and people where libido is lacking are ultimately destined to become the losers in the evolutionary race. There is actually no evolutionary point to existing if you don't have the drive to reproduce.

I believe you haven't lived a full life if you haven't experienced sexual desire and fulfilment. To deny that because of some weird notion of premarital purity, especially in a young woman, is tragic to me.

BTW lagin these are general thoughts. I respect your choice and don't mean to undrevalue your lifestyle.

[brewtality]

Too right about the XXXX. But wrong on the Fosters.

Really? Maybe your generation still drinks it, but I can't remember the last time I saw someone drinking a Fosters.

[ahinton]

Really? Maybe your generation still drinks it, but I can't remember the last time I saw someone drinking a Fosters.

Give me fine Australian wine any old day (it's a great alternative to the fine wines of the old world every now and then) - provided, of course, that anything that may accompany it does not contain vegemite (sorry, Ada, I just cannot!...)

Australia may play host to some of the most venomous and otherwise dangerous creatures on earth (and I refer here not, of course, to Ada but to certain varieties of snake and box-jellyfish, etc., unique to the Australian continent), but any suggestion that it is accordingly incapable of producing anything seriously worth eating - still less drinking - is surely almost as absurd as it is narrow-minded...

Best,

Alistair

[lagin]

Sorry, I just scanned these again, so I might have missed something.  Let me try again to make this clear.  Yes, I am a Christian, but my decision is PERSONAL.  It does not say in the Bible, thou shalt not kiss.  This is just my decision, that's it!  I hope that helps make things a little more clear.

Btw, regarding sex = love.  The most wondering marriage that I have ever seen (in real life, I know these people), is one in which they willing choose not to have sex because of medical issues it makes it uncomfortable for the woman.  That's love, folks!  For a man to be willing to give that up (and no, he's not getting it elsewhere), just to try to make his wife more comfortable.  And this man is also the most loving, sacrificial husband I have ever met.  And they are happy and feel blessed to have each other.  So that proves it's not a necessary component in order to love someone.  It's just a nice bonus.

[jpianoflorida]

well they may not be having "traditional" sex but i'm sure they are finding a way to satisfy each other...people have sexual desires that have to be satisfied somehow...so unless the guy is gay, there is something going on....

[lagin]

P.S.  I agree that I've been more sheltered than most, but I know what the world is like, too, and it's not a pretty place.   My life hasn't been as rough as most people's only by God's grace (literally, but it's a long story), but that doesn't mean I haven't been burned before.  I've learned, first hand, what people can be like.  

P.S.  I knew someone was going to say that, jpianoflorida, and I am extremely close with both of these people, and I can assure you, their isn't anything going on.  Look, I try not to preach on here, but there's no other way to explain it other than God, because under normal circumstances you would be right!  But trully, how I said it is how it is.  (Oh, oh, now I DO feel a sermon coming on!)  Why is it that people don't believe God can help them in things like that?  I've seen my dad go from being a 24/7 (no joke, for over 20 years too!) alcoholic to, in one prayer never, even craving it again.  He can even sit with people who are drinking and it doesn't affect him.  I've seen completely obliterated relationships within my family come back together (literally miraculously) due to God.  Due to health problems related to his drinking, my dad was to be on hundred dollar meds for the rest of his life.  He doesn't need them anymore thanks to God.  Once, God miraculously provided someone I know with thousands of dollars that they needed for a worthy cause.  Their accountant called them and said I don't know how to explain this, but you didn't make any money this year and the government is reimbursing you (and they didn't even change their lifestyle for that year - so how could they not have made any)?  The accountants been over those books; they've been over them too.  Nobody can figure it out!  And nope, no tricky stuff here either.   But they prayed and asked God for money to give to a worthy cause because they really felt led to do so.  These are just the ones I saw with my own eyes in my immediate family, and that's not even near all of them, but I'm sure you get the picture by now.  I haven't even started in with those who I know who aren't my immediately family - like a girl a couple years older than me who had her coffin picked out already, and to this day the doctors don't know why she's still here and the disease is gone?  These aren't "I heard" stories.  These are "I saw" ones.  So if God can do all that, why can't he help these two people love each other so completely without sex?  And they are happier than any people I know, and they both actually really love God more than each other, though they love each other very much too.

Okay, okay, sermon over, even though I could go all night with story after story.  Even as I type this I remember a even more "impressive" one, but you guys would seriously not even believe that one it's so amazing. 

God is so good, and He can definately do a little thing like have 2 people love each even apart from sex.

[pianistimo]

if a married relationship is different than a friendship - then the relationship has to be deeper than just surface.  but, agreed about people who have medical problems.  unfortunately, some women make them up as a reason to avoid sex.  but, if someone sincerely has that problem - it must be. as you say, a very loving couple to find alternatives (i kinda believe jpianoflorida).  and, as you say - God CAN do anything.  and, perhaps we will find out in the next life that sex was nothing compared to the good things He has prepared for us.

but, in this life.  if you know about a candy shop around the corner and the first night of your marriage you have some candy.  i think it would be awfully hard to just say 'store's closed' after that.  perhaps one of the nicer ways to prepare for a marriage is to let go of preconceived notions about sex.  one of which that it is a sin.  single children are often te object of mom's lectures.  but, when you are getting into a serious relationship - i think it should definately be discussed as much as anything else.  i remember my husband not really liking the way i conservatively dressed.  i had absolutely NO idea that i might be overdoing it.  my mom had defined my styles.  but, my husband sort of helped me fit into mainstream looks without looking trampy.  for one thing, i used to wear some wool suits and things that had a sort of scratchy texture.  he said, yuk.  so i went clothes shopping with him and basically found out exactly what he liked.  there was nothing immodest.  it was just a sort of 'coming out.'  when you're married it doesn't really matter if mom doesn't like the clothes.  but, i think she will once she sees them.  you don't have to be immodest. just a bit more sexy.  little things like wearing earrings more - and just making time for yourself more.  pampering.  i was used to being so busy and practicing a lot (like you) that i didn't always pamper myself. 

also, because of the way parents can be overprotective - i'd just buy a book about what guys find to be a turn on.  that is, when you're getting married.  instead of needing half a day - with dinner, candlelight, music - they don't seem to need a lot of anything but lingerie and a smile.  i made the mistake of the honeymoon buying one piece of lingerie.  now i'd buy at least three.  also, i had this thing about turning the lights off.  that was a surprise.  i'd turn them off. he'd turn them on.  i'd say 'what do you need the lights on for?'  and turn them off again.  he'd complain about not seeing. 

sorry to go on -but it's kinda funny what you imagine is ideal vs what your guy really thinks.  i'd try to start understanding a bit about what makes you feel sensual because sometimes a rushed lifestyle doesn't make time for it.  an hour in the evening after dinner, just reading a book or exercising can make you feel 100% different.  by books, i mean probably ones that talk about sensuous side of women.  when you slow down, you can talk better, when you relax your mind - you can feel better.  certain foods can even make you get into the mood more.  all these things are not un-biblical within the context of marriage since you are Christian.  it's just that we typically shy away from reading this stuff and get into a frame of mind that we don't need it.  everyone needs their mom or someone in their life to kind of point them inthe right direction.  some moms are very open and others are very protective.  my mom was protective.  i learned most of the stuff i know from books and girlfriends.   

[thalbergmad]

There is actually no evolutionary point to existing if you don't have the drive to reproduce.

How romantic, i will mention that to my next girlfriend.

Thal

[jpianoflorida]

if a married relationship is different than a friendship - then the relationship has to be deeper than just surface.  but, agreed about people who have medical problems.  unfortunately, some women make them up as a reason to avoid sex.  but, if someone sincerely has that problem - it must be. as you say, a very loving couple to find alternatives (i kinda believe jpianoflorida).  and, as you say - God CAN do anything.  and, perhaps we will find out in the next life that sex was nothing compared to the good things He has prepared for us.

but, in this life.  if you know about a candy shop around the corner and the first night of your marriage you have some candy.  i think it would be awfully hard to just say 'store's closed' after that.  perhaps one of the nicer ways to prepare for a marriage is to let go of preconceived notions about sex.  one of which that it is a sin.  single children are often te object of mom's lectures.  but, when you are getting into a serious relationship - i think it should definately be discussed as much as anything else.  i remember my husband not really liking the way i conservatively dressed.  i had absolutely NO idea that i might be overdoing it.  my mom had defined my styles.  but, my husband sort of helped me fit into mainstream looks without looking trampy.  for one thing, i used to wear some wool suits and things that had a sort of scratchy texture.  he said, yuk.  so i went clothes shopping with him and basically found out exactly what he liked.  there was nothing immodest.  it was just a sort of 'coming out.'  when you're married it doesn't really matter if mom doesn't like the clothes.  but, i think she will once she sees them.  you don't have to be immodest. just a bit more sexy.  little things like wearing earrings more - and just making time for yourself more.  pampering.  i was used to being so busy and practicing a lot (like you) that i didn't always pamper myself. 

also, because of the way parents can be overprotective - i'd just buy a book about what guys find to be a turn on.  that is, when you're getting married.  instead of needing half a day - with dinner, candlelight, music - they don't seem to need a lot of anything but lingerie and a smile.  i made the mistake of the honeymoon buying one piece of lingerie.  now i'd buy at least three.  also, i had this thing about turning the lights off.  that was a surprise.  i'd turn them off. he'd turn them on.  i'd say 'what do you need the lights on for?'  and turn them off again.  he'd complain about not seeing. 

sorry to go on -but it's kinda funny what you imagine is ideal vs what your guy really thinks.  i'd try to start understanding a bit about what makes you feel sensual because sometimes a rushed lifestyle doesn't make time for it.  an hour in the evening after dinner, just reading a book or exercising can make you feel 100% different.  by books, i mean probably ones that talk about sensuous side of women.  when you slow down, you can talk better, when you relax your mind - you can feel better.  certain foods can even make you get into the mood more.  all these things are not un-biblical within the context of marriage since you are Christian.  it's just that we typically shy away from reading this stuff and get into a frame of mind that we don't need it.  everyone needs their mom or someone in their life to kind of point them inthe right direction.  some moms are very open and others are very protective.  my mom was protective.  i learned most of the stuff i know from books and girlfriends.   

THAT WAS GOOD STUFF PIANISTIMO..I LIKE IT...   

[leahcim]

One thing does not ordinarily lead to another if you can exercise some restraint.

It's not always easy to find someone who likes to be tied up though.

[jpianoflorida]

lagin here's my issue:    we always think we know people, and we are so close to them we are convinced we know everything that goes on with them....well lately (just to name a few) here are some people we all knew well in my area:

parents pastor:    arrested for soliciting a prostitute

extemely conservative christian school:     former pastor/director who is now 88 arrested for molesting kids 30 years ago(and he admits most of it)

more recent: FOLEY , ok we didn't reall know him but he was all about "protecting the kids" and look at him..



so my point------we never really know what is going on with people behind closed doors, you can even live with them and they can be hiding things!

[leahcim]

Yet you do not say what it is that I clarified...

FWIW I'll try one more time :-

Of course not - because you clarified nothing. What was clear was already clear. You didn't clarify it. You did the opposite. When you posted you fudged it and then started this farce - a farce that your post history shows you start again and again.

It's obvious and clear, without you posting anything at all, that the 3 things still exist - so why post saying that they do? Here are the possibilities, some we've covered as you'll see :-

(a) It was a real question - but when I answered it as such, you said it was rhetorical.

(b) You think that I didn't realise they still exist - but when my reply explained why I had talked about the 3 things in the past, your subsequent posts said it wasn't this either.

(c) You just posted to make / start conversation - but that would have taken one line of clairication afterwards, a line that certainly isn't amongst the lines and lines of your usual "Hinton tries to head f*** with anyone that replies to him" that you've typed since.

(d) Perhaps somehow you feel the need to "win" something? Gain some moral victory? or you feel slighted or similar from a previous thread? Perhaps by something that happened in the past? Something or anything that's really nothing at all to do with what you're actually typing about? If that's the case then talk about that, get it off your chest - but start another thread.

(e) Something else - but again since you've been relucatant to be clear about what it was  and prefer the mostly petty responses instead, I can't believe there is anything genuine that would fit here.

So, without any other statement either in the post or since explaining why you bothered posting it it seems absolutely pointless, except to create what we have now.

Hence despite what you said, you are never clear. I think to be clear you'd need to be honest and I think you're so dishonest that it has taken over the very way you use language. To the point where you can't even say a simple thing about cigarettes without leaving wiggle room to lie and twist around what you said later.

[leahcim]

lagin here's my issue:    we always think we know people, and we are so close to them we are convinced we know everything that goes on with them....well lately (just to name a few) here are some people we all knew well in my area:

Yes true, although I think a few of these could be argued as pre-concieved notions about the role they did / their political or religious beliefes rather than knowing people.

It's like

nun : arrested for shoplifting

Even if we know the nun, a lot of what a nun is comes from some stereotype, so we're all surprised, but how many nuns commit crime?

In that sense, I think you'd probably find a few people who wouldn't be surprised by your list that those people were doing "bad" things [because of their political / religious beliefs ]

[jpianoflorida]

true! my point to lagin was you don't know what is going on in someone's house/bedroom unless you are there to witness...they can say all they want about "we don't do this or that" but unless you are a witness ,you really don't know.

[pianolist]

For those who may be suffering from asparagus syndrome, here's a useful link:

https://www.asparagus.org/

Y'all have a nice day, now, Lagin.

[ahinton]

FWIW I'll try one more time :-

Just for once - and presumably by some oversight, "FWIW" makes quite a promising start. "Nothing at all" is my unsurprising answer thereto. Why you want to try what here may be well-nigh unfathomable to most of us, but never mind - whatever floats your boat, as they say...

When you posted you fudged it and then started this farce - a farce that your post history shows you start again and again.

Once again, in your personal opinion. For the record, the subject matter concerned was, as I have previously stated, initiated by you. What you may feel about my post history here - and elsewhere generally - is entirely your prerogative, of course, but it is evident that every aspect of it - irrespectrive of thread topic or post content - makes you so incensed that you seem unable or unwilling to resist wasting your time going into reams of gibberish as a direct consequence. Once again, that is, of course, you prerogative.

It's obvious and clear, without you posting anything at all, that the 3 things still exist - so why post saying that they do?

Whilst one can never be certain what you mean, it might not be unreasonable to deduce from this that your underlying feeling is that you would much rather that I posted less than nothing at all about any topic anywhere. Yet again, that's your prerogative - just as it is mine to post when it seems appropriate for me to do so.

Here are the possibilities, some we've covered as you'll see :-

(a) It was a real question - but when I answered it as such, you said it was rhetorical.

(b) You think that I didn't realise they still exist - but when my reply explained why I had talked about the 3 things in the past, your subsequent posts said it wasn't this either.

(c) You just posted to make / start conversation - but that would have taken one line of clairication afterwards, a line that certainly isn't amongst the lines and lines of your usual "Hinton tries to head f*** with anyone that replies to him" that you've typed since.

(d) Perhaps somehow you feel the need to "win" something? Gain some moral victory? or you feel slighted or similar from a previous thread? Perhaps by something that happened in the past? Something or anything that's really nothing at all to do with what you're actually typing about? If that's the case then talk about that, get it off your chest - but start another thread.

(e) Something else - but again since you've been relucatant to be clear about what it was  and prefer the mostly petty responses instead, I can't believe there is anything genuine that would fit here.

Dearie me! It really takes almost nothing to get you going on one of your rants, does it?! - not from me, at any rate. Just one word from me about anything and you present yourself as pretty much ready to explode! What a revealing impression of yourself you give thereby! One would like to be able to express sympathy for your condition (and, not being medically qualified, I do ot have the temerity to attempt to identify what that particular condition might be), but you don't exactly make that easy, let alone desirable, so I'll move on from that. Briefly, on (b), you do not at all know what I think, even though you pretend that you do - on (c), many people post to elicit some kinds of response, yet when it is I who make any such response, that irks you - too bad, so sad, say I (and do remember your "clairication" above when seeking to criticise others for inaccuracies in their typing) - on (d), I feel no need or desire to "win" anything, least of all a "moral victory", since, for me, there are no battle lines drawn, there is no enemy to fight and I don't claim to be a moralist in any case - furthermore, for the record, I do not feel - and am not - "slighted or similar" in this or any other thread or by anything that's "happened in the past" (not that this would be any of your business even if I had) and my chest, "FWIW", is clear, as is my conscience (although I'm sure that this latter statement in particular will incense you - again, too bad, so sad).

I think you're so dishonest that it has taken over the very way you use language. To the point where you can't even say a simple thing about cigarettes without leaving wiggle room to lie and twist around what you said later.

I know that you do; you have made this abundantly clear in the past, albeit without citing so much as a single shread of evidence to justify that view, even when openly invited to provide it. This, too, is your prerogative, just as it is mine to examine my own conscience if, as and when I so choose and then to decide for myself whether or not I might have the remotest cause to believe you - which I do not. But why do you suggest that said alleged dishonesty has "taken over" the very way that I use language? This might be read as suggesting that you think that I may have written differently in the past (not that you would know, of course). Don't you assume that it has never had any need to "take" it "over", on the basis that, in your belief, I have only ever used language in that way since I began to use language at all? Maybe not - but presumably only because you haven't yet gotten around to thinking of that. Doubtless you indentify in my writing (for whatever reasons - or none - of your own) a natural affiliation with de la Rochefoucauld's observation that "langauge was given to Man to conceal his thoughts"; that's up to you, of course.

En passant, I notice with as much wry amusement as I can muster here that your crassly unsupported and unsupportable references to Asperger's have disappeared without trace for the time being, at least - just as they had previously appeared without need or precedent - in your latest attempt at some kind of salvo.

As I urged you previously, if you don't like what I post, don't read it. If, on the other hand, you prefer to read it regardless and then vent your irrepressible and uncontrolled spleen in presenting empty argument-substitutes about nothing at all, then go right ahead, if you must; sad as such a pursuit may be, it's really no skin off my nose.

And if that means that you want to go ahead and have "the last word" here, please do so; your prattlings have, after all, already demonstrated amply and beyond any and all doubt that you are yourself pretty much "the last word" in another sense.

I'm off to have some asparagus now.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

For those who may be suffering from asparagus syndrome, here's a useful link:

https://www.asparagus.org/

"Ah! Much warmer this time!", as Sorabji would have said (albeit in another context) - not, of course, that one has to have asparagus warm...

Best,

Alistair

[lagin]

Guys, I'm trying not to reveal my relationship to these people for the sake of their privacy, but if you knew the whole story, you'ld believe me.  But it doesn't really matter if anyone believes me or not anyways.  So, I'm bowing out of this thread now.  I've said my piece.  Thank you all for your help with the whole "boy issue."  See ya!

[tds]

Guys, I'm trying not to reveal my relationship to these people for the sake of their privacy, but if you knew the whole story, you'ld believe me.  But it doesn't really matter if anyone believes me or not anyways.  So, I'm bowing out of this thread now.  I've said my piece.  Thank you all for your help with the whole "boy issue."  See ya!

yeah, but can i kiss you?

oopss,... gotcha

[jpianoflorida]

lagin..you just made a good point of something! see internet friends are different, we don't know you personally and we don't know the situation! if we knew each other in person there is a possibilty that we would understand the situation more..see?

[tds]

lagin..you just made a good point of something! see internet friends are different, we don't know you personally and we don't know the situation! if we knew each other in person there is a possibilty that we would understand the situation more..see?

sure, specially after kissing. damn yeah.........

[jpianoflorida]

sure, specially after kissing. *** yeah.........

tds...keep it going...you made me laugh.....    are you new to the forum or i have i just not noticed your post before?

[tds]

tds...keep it going...you made me laugh.....    are you new to the forum or i have i just not noticed your post before?

jpiandadadah, i love you!

[jpianoflorida]

jpiandadadah, i love you!

ok then.....that's ok....I'm a guy and I'm straight so save the lovin for another member ............lol

[tds]

ok then.....that's ok....I'm a guy and I'm straight so save the lovin for another member ............lol

darn, made the wrong turn. chiao

[jpianoflorida]

darn, made the wrong turn. chiao

we can set you up with someone here....i'm sure! hmnnn.....it will be the new pianostreet dating service lol

[thalbergmad]

pianostreet dating service lol

What a brilliant idea.

I suggest you start one.

Thal

[jpianoflorida]

What a brilliant idea.

I suggest you start one.

Thal

NAH..i'm happily single..last relationship did me in for a while!

[Siberian Husky]

LAGIN!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[brewtality]

No offence lagin, but even this guy isn't against a bit of pre-martialdiddilydoodily

[pianistimo]

again, as with all good threads, this thread has been taken over by spammers.  of course, i don't disclude myself because i think lagin has taken action already and is losing interest in the forum which probably means she is busy talking more to this guy she wanted to meet and has met.  so, everyone else, back off.  she's not going to give you the time of day now. because frankly, when people are in love, the time of day doesn't matter.

and, she wouldn't date anyone that criticized her beliefs.  which means that you are shooting yourselves in the foot.  if you said, 'we've never kissed anyone either' - or something to that effect - then you might have half a stroke of lightening chance.  i think she's looking for similar belief structures as well.  to me, that's the answer to prayer, because usually what a person already believes is their real belief structure.  you can't persuade them and then hope that they'll believe as you do most of the time.

[tds]

again, as with all good threads, this thread has been taken over by spammers. 

pianonut is the giantest spammer the world has ever produced

[pianistimo]

only on the off-topic of religion.  but, then, everyone else seems to give opinions now and again of their personal beliefs.  even lagin!  her explainations were just as long as mine.  we just take the time to explain so that in case anyone is interested - they'll hear the longer version and not be confused. 

if you consider the dating practices of the typical male - (teenage) - it would be chasing butterflies.  (same for women) - if you don't always date the MOST attractive person (although your dates can be attractive) lets one experience fully the idea of romantic love in a different context.  the men i was interested in from 18-24 surely aren't the same type now.  my husband is an all around smart person and has gotten the family out of some tight situations, and has a road map in his brain, a math/english/russian/music dictionary in his head, understands science, and used to be a librarian.  also, he sings sooo well.  i don't care if he's not a top model.  when i hear him sing - it transports me.  and i can hear him as often as i want.

[tds]

...... in case anyone is interested - they'll hear the longer version and not be confused. 

lol. i, for one, get confused from reading some of your posts, pianonut. some are even quite a project to understand ( specially when there is a plot issue ). BUT, i must say, it is often a happy confusion that comes out of it

[jpianoflorida]

lol. i, for one, get confused from reading some of your posts, pianonut. some are even quite a project to understand ( specially when there is a plot issue ). BUT, i must say, it is often a happy confusion that comes out of it

just to clarify...when you say pianonut are you referring to pianistimo?   or did i miss something

[thalbergmad]

just to clarify...when you say pianonut are you referring to pianistimo?   or did i miss something

She used to be pianonut before re-incarnation.

Thal