online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: 3 Police Officers Beat Man
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 133 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/30/2009 10:45:50 PM
Thing is, an AVERAGE person in front of a judge on an assault charge for the first time, clean record, unlikely to repeat the offence ... judge is probably going to give him a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence perhaps with a probationary period of maybe a year. So no jail time … just a promise not to do anything like this again and the threat of jail time if he screws up before the probation ends.

That is for an average guy and quite likely that guy will not be written about in the paper as being treated fairly or unfairly. No one really cares about those kinds of cases and they happen frequently throughout BC.

This case however, I am not so sure a standard, average treatment of these men is going to result in people going, "oh, one year suspended sentence ... that sounds fair." It might be the norm, but it is going to sound like favoritism. And that is if they are found guilty. If they are found not guilty it will cause even more of an uproar.

On the other hand, raising the bar and finding them guilty or giving them a harsh sentence when the perps they used to collar got much lighter sentences for much worse offences is just as unjust as whitewashing the events and covering up or sweeping it under the rug.

It is just wait and see now, but I would like people to consider what anyone else would get as punishment when they compare what these guys get (if they get anything at all).


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 129 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/30/2009 7:36:50 PM

I doubt these cops know or care that they were convicted by POF.


Of the forums I have read, POF is about the sanest. Most people want to string them all up regardless of any facts. The consensus seems to be:


1. All three are guilty of Assault causing bodily harm, Robbery, Possession of stolen property, and a Hate Crime.

2. All three should have been immediately fired from their respective police forces.

3. Since they were cops and are given a degree of authority, all three should do the maximum time for their crimes. [This would be at least 14 years and could be a lot more if the sentences were to run consecutively ... but that is unlikely in Canada. This also means that even though only one person might have used a racial slur, all three are guilty by association and should all be given the additional 2 years.]


There were 9 witnesses (only 3 have told their stories to the press as far as I have seen so far) and a number of security camera tapes, so hopefully when all of the evidence is reviewed and those charged have been afforded due process, a judge and jury can come up with a reasonable and fair result, be it guilty or not and if guilty be it somewhere between a suspended sentence or 16 years in jail.


While I doubt all of the cops are completely blameless, I would not want to see them made into scapegoats either. There is so much public outcry against cops these days that it is quite likely that some of the punishment that falls upon these cops could be due to pent up frustration over the state of policing in BC in general.


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Why am I always attracted to Scorpions?
Posted: 1/30/2009 6:32:56 PM
A bit more about “scorpions” (beside the obvious danger they present being poisonous and all):

Traditional Scorpio Traits

Determined and forceful
Emotional and intuitive
Powerful and passionate
Exciting and magnetic

And the Darker side of Scorpio

Jealous and resentful
Compulsive and obsessive
Secretive and obstinate

There is an interesting read here: http://www.astrology-online.com/scorpio.htm


Me, I always seem to find Gemini "attractive" for some reason. Maybe it is because they are so crazy and I am so sane. Or should that be the other way around?


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Woman kills daughter because boyfriend asked her to choose
Posted: 1/30/2009 6:06:37 PM
I had not heard anything about this before reading this POF forum. I read a few of the Internet articles on the story and watched the CBC videos (about 10 minutes in total). It is a terrible story, but as fishin mentioned regarding Susan Smith, it is not the first time we have heard a story like this.

The girl’s father was asked about the statement by the mother's boyfriend. I could not quite make out the question (off camera reporter asked it) but it was along the lines of "what do you think about her statement that Karissa was getting in the way of her [Penny’s] relationship [with the boyfriend]?" The father's response was, "it just sickens me ... sickens me. I mean, what's it got her now, you know?"

I think that pretty much sums it up.


BTW: Penny Boudreau did get Life in prison. She is guaranteed to spend at least the next 15 years in jail and most likely will spend a minimum of 20 years. The average term for a Life Sentence in Canada is 29 years. No matter how long she spends in jail, it sounds like a low number, considering that she will only be in her late forties or early 50's when she might get out. Life also means that even after she gets out, she will be On Parole until she dies.


There are a couple of other factors to consider, however.

If the Crown had tried to convict her of First Degree murder, there would have been a trial (no plea). With a trial, the Crown could only use the information they could prove, which would have been considerably less than what was released today. You would never have heard Karissa's last words for example.

With a trial, there is always the possibility she could be released by being found "not guilty" which can happen if there is enough doubt about her guilt. [From another thread here, several people said they would never believe the words of a cop. If one of these people were on the jury in this case, Penny would go free, as the only solid evidence against her came from a "Mr. Big" sting ... something the cops have been criticized for using in the past, as it has led to the conviction of people who are innocent.]

Also, if she was found guilty at a trial, she would be very likely to get appeals. The process can take years, and forces the family to relive the details of the crime over and over as each new appeal and trial goes forward.

And even after all of that, if she is found guilty of First Degree murder, she still gets Life, just with a minimum of 25 years in jail instead of 20.

It is also possible that the jury would find her guilty of Second Degree murder anyway, or even Manslaughter (although only if the Crown was uncertain of the facts in the case and allowed it as an option for the jury.) If found guilty of Second Degree murder, then she would still get “Life”, but could get as few as 10 years (up to a maximum of 25 years).


Considering all the possibilities, and the years of hardship this could create for Karissa’s family, I think the plea is reasonable. It will never pay for what Penny did, but given the laws we have, it is likely the best solution all things considered.


It is estimated that 2% of the population are psychopathic/sociopathic personalities. It is hard to say if Penny is one, but 2% means one in fifty people, so it is quite conceivable, especially when considering the comments of the reporters, the judge and her ex. They all mentioned how she appeared to have no sympathy for Karissa at all, and was only "sorry" because she was caught: Classic psychopath.


Anyone care to estimate when the movie will come out? [And just in case you cannot hear my disdainful sarcasm, I will add that I am not kidding, but I am disgusted, because right now someone somewhere is trying to figure out how to spin this to Hollywood.]


Prayer for her family.
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 91 (view)
 
Is a woman's Virginity worth 3.8 million dollars?
Posted: 1/25/2009 11:50:23 PM
Natalie (yeah, I know it is not her real name ... just thought it was interesting where she got the pseudonym) was interviewed on CBC's Q back in November. I listened to the pod cast a little while ago and noticed a few things about her.

1. She got the idea from her sister who paid for her education by hooking for 3 weeks prior to going to school.

2. Another influence was the girl in Peru who tried the same thing a few years ago and was offered $1.5 million but backed out.

3. She has absolutely no moral issue about the process and intends to treat the event as research for her Master Degree in Women's Studies (she already has a Bachelor Degree in the field).

4. She has received over 10,000 emails (not all of which are serious offers) many of which are offering her a "relationship". She has made it clear repeatedly to all who offer her a relationship that she is not interested in ANY relationship. She is simply selling the right to end her virginity. To listen to her, it sounds like she would not even be bothered to have coffee with the guy (before or after), but that is just how it sounded to me.

5. The Bunny Ranch is splitting the proceeds with her 50/50. She is using them because it is legal and they will insure everyone is properly paid. I am sure there is a certain amount of protection for her as well.

6. She has been interviewed on Tyra, Howard Stern, and CNN (as well as CBC of course) and several newspapers around the world. In her interview she stated something to the effect of feeling that an act like this was "empowering" to women.


It was certainly interesting listening to her, and it did remind me to a great degree of what might today be called “old” practices (although I am sure they are still common) of insuring that a woman is a virgin before marriage and passing a dowry on to the woman or the family. Men (or at least families) have been paying for virginity for millennia, but where this differs is that in the “old” practice, the man and woman enter into a union (contract marriage) whereas Natalie will step away from this event basically the same as 95% of the single women her age only $1-2 million richer for it.

And it does not really stop with her, or with this one bizarre act. Instead, “virginity” is becoming the new sex symbol. I believe several of the more recent pop idols have attested to their “virginity” only to find that doing so made them even more “sexy”. I think it might be akin to the popular starts of the last 50 years or so (or perhaps longer) being frequently advised NOT to enter into relationships, because doing so would hurt their box office appeal. Claiming to be a virgin is the epitome of this kind of practice, especially when it is coupled with an intention to remain a virgin until marriage (or some other promised event).

It is like being non-sexual makes you sexier!?


It certainly is a strange world.


BTW kitty: I was just lamenting the fact that you are ineligible for my list of people I know who might be able to become instant millionaires. The criterion is not all that hard: you just need to be an over 18 female virgin.

So far I have no names on the list.


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 82 (view)
 
Is a woman's Virginity worth 3.8 million dollars?
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:40:07 PM
Hmmm ... apparently Natalie is not the first.

An Italian Model, Raffella Fico, 20, told an Italian magazine, "I can't wait to see who's going to pull out the money to have me."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2971511/Italian-model-plans-to-sell-virginity-for-1m-euros.html

Apparently she is not alone. In 2005 an 18 year-old model from Peru had her auction go to $1.5 million but she got "cold feet". (Okay, that is probably not what actually got cold, but she backed out of the deal.)

Another interesting tidbit in this story is that Natalie is referenced as being 18, not 22.

And apparently, Natalie's auction is up to $5.6 million now.

Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Is a woman's Virginity worth 3.8 million dollars?
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:11:41 PM
Kitty, you are no longer a virgin!? Damn, another illusion shattered. :(

dia ... "**** smussy" ... I want access to her neck: particularly the area just behind and below the ear.


On Topic, someone said that this girl had over 10,000 bids placed on her e-bay offer! Okay, even granting that she might be half ways cute, and there is little to no accounting for taste, that is a LOT of men (were there any women I wonder?) willing to pay for one night with her. Apparently the bidding started at $100,000 too.

So, virgins of the world unite! That is at least $1 BILLION out there waiting to be spent on virgins!


Also, did anyone else notice that her name is the same as two of the Charlie's Angels characters? [Cameron Diaz played NATALIE and Drew Barrymore played DYLAN] I suppose her middle name is ALEX [Lucy Lu].

Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Dude, that's your car?
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:16:48 PM
I know two people who drive Hummers occasionally and both vehicles are provided to them by their business/employer. One business also provides their staff with a "Smart Car" (I suppose to offset the effects of the Hummer?)

Did you check to see if the Hummer was actually his? If so, did he give you any reason for picking that vehicle (like perhaps he is a forest ranger or he works for CSI Miami)?

More to the point of the topic, I do think it is a bit shallow to judge a person solely on their choice of automobile or for that matter any singular attribute they might have, be it their choice in transportation, their home, job, family, friends, and/or associates or how they squeeze the toothpaste. Etc. etc. etc.! People are package deals, and with all their good traits there are bound to be some bad. Trick is to find someone that has a bunch of traits you like and the remaining traits you can live with.

Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Is a woman's Virginity worth 3.8 million dollars?
Posted: 1/25/2009 11:43:55 AM

When I looked at Natalie's photos I got a strong feeling that I was looking at something quite fake.



I had the same gut reaction. It could be there has been a bit of Photoshop enhancement (not really a big deal), or could it be that this "virgin" is only a virgin because his/her sex change operation is finally complete?

Plastic surgery and hormone treatments can work wonders these days, particularly in the Male to Female transformations. Also, while her/his 2D:4D finger ratio appears to be the norm for a female, it is also true that many transgendered males already have a ratio more typically found in a female (the reverse is not true, BTW).

So, without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever, if I listen to my gut, I hear, "come on ... that's a dude!" and so much of this story suddenly makes sense. The big feet, the 22 year old virginity, the sharp business-like way in which she (he?) is selling it, the appeasement of feelings that something is not being fully disclosed, and the somehow unnatural quality of her appearance.


Then again, maybe all she did was use the red-eye reduction setting on her camera *smile*.


Good Luck!


Oops … gut is telling me it is lunch time … better listen to it.
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 64 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/25/2009 9:30:16 AM

I am sure I have heard that name before in some other incident


Yeah, maybe these cops were Star Trek fans.
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 58 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/25/2009 9:02:57 AM
Thanks for seeing my side of the issue Emerald *smile*.

Chevy, if Khan was released after only 15 minutes in handcuffs, bloody or otherwise, then one of the cops involved in the altercation likely told the VPD that Khan was not a criminal. Maybe the VPD cops were convinced by the witnesses, but I think that is very unlikely, as it is far more likely in a situation like this that the cops arrest everyone, charge everyone and let a judge sort it all out a few months later. And that is not a racial thing ... it is simply expeditious of the police to do so, as it prevents further crimes from happening while emotions are high.

Also, if Khan was bloody and unable to walk, why did the ambulance attendants not take him to the hospital!? Maybe you are right Dakota … all a big cover-up with everyone involved in the conspiracy.


Traveller, what does “controlled force” look like to a cabbie at 2:30 AM? Remember the Rodney King event in L.A.? Those cops were exercising controlled force too, and were exonerated by a jury and it caused the town to erupt in violence because the images made everyone think he was being abused. Afterwards of course, all the city cops were “retrained” but the point is that they WERE doing their duty (i.e., following their training) in hitting King repeatedly while he refused to lie down. Today, I think we have the same problem with the overuse of Tasers, but since the overuse is systemic, it is not the individual cops that are the problem as much as it is the police force that trains them.

Watch an episode of Cops or Disorderly Conduct sometime and see how the cops apply force to a person who is not compliant. It happens over and over that the cops say, “get down on the ground” and the person starts arguing with them saying, “why are you arresting me?” That is all it takes and out comes the pepper spray and the nightsticks, or even the Tasers. It is sick how much force cops apply, but it is also inane how people refuse to cooperate with the cops and then wonder later why they got pummeled.


Anyway, I agree to disagree Traveller *smile*. Perhaps as more information comes out it will become clear what happened and what kind of action, punitive or otherwise, is appropriate in this case.


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 51 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/25/2009 3:58:13 AM
What I do not understand is how you can be so sure there is misconduct here.

Propose for a moment that they did gang up on, beat severely and steal a cell phone and $200 from Khan. Here are my questions:


1. Why did they do it?
2. Why is Khan relatively uninjured?
3. Why did the Vancouver police (a different jurisdiction) release them without charges?
4. Why are there apparently conflicting reports between the witnesses?
5. Why does the one officer's wife say that the media version is biased and not telling the whole story?
6. Why are all three cops still on the job (albeit with varying levels of suspension/desk duty etc.)?
7. Why were two of the cops not even there when the fight started?
8. How did the other two cops know to go to the Hyatt?
9. When Yash confronted the cops beating on Khan, why did the cops not beat on Yash?
10. Why did the Vancouver police initially arrest Khan as well as the three off-duty cops?


All of these questions have an answer and an explanation, and it might be in harmony with your desire to have them disciplined for "beating on someone", but at the same time, there might be an explanation that is far more reasonable.


First, Khan could not have been that badly beaten. Shaken up, sure, traumatized of course, and he has experienced something I would not want to go through either, but I have been in the odd drunken brawl, and as far as I can tell he came out pretty much unscathed. Not even taken to the hospital for observation? No stitches? No broken bones? No shock? No threat of concussion? Or maybe the EMT's are in on the police conspiracy too, is that it?

Second, you really think they attacked the guy for nothing more than his cell phone and wallet? That just sounds insane. These are three cops with apparently decent records of conduct prior to this (at least one of the cops has been reported as having a good record for several years) and they risk their freedom and careers for a cell phone? And in another police jurisdiction to boot! Sorry, but that just does not compute.

Third, the two cops in the cab rush out of the cab and enter into the brawl. Okay, so is the witness saying that Khan at that point was already down on the ground being kicked, or is it more likely that Khan was fighting back against the first cop, defending himself from what he thought was an attack. I give him kudos for doing so if he was, even if he was fighting against a cop, Khan might not have known that. But what do the two arriving cops see? They see another cop in distress, and they subdue the perpetrator (Khan). Get pissed at the first cop, sure, as the situation suggests that he at the very least failed to identify himself as a cop, but the other two as well? They might well have been responding to the situation completely in accordance with their training.


Riddle me this: you see your buddy in a fight with someone else. You know nothing other than that blows are being thrown. Do you just stand back and watch or do you at least try to separate the combatants? Now add to the equation that you are a cop, charged with the moral duty to maintain the peace and trained in hand-to-hand tactics to deal with such situations. Furthermore, your “buddy” is a cop. Who are you going to believe is in the right? Sure, you are off-duty and out of your jurisdiction, but still, what are you going to do? Quite likely you know exactly what kind of effect your buddy can have, but this other guy … what do you know about him? He could have a knife, or a gun. And from the look of it, he is assaulting another officer.

Now, while you are still telling me how you would not “beat on” someone, tell me how these three cops, with the skills to really hurt someone if they wanted to, left Khan “shaken up, but relatively uninjured”?


If it comes out that the cops were drunk and disorderly and/or their attack on Khan was premeditated or organized, or if it is shown that these cops did not act according to procedure given the situation or overstepped their authority even as off-duty/out-of-jurisdiction cops, then fine, fire them from their respective police forces and charge them with assault and/or robbery. First offence, relatively minimal harm, good service to the community … they will get 3 months suspended sentence and likely have rewarding careers as mall security guards.

But until someone demonstrates exactly what happened or at least gives me the cops’ side of the story, I am going to extend to them the benefit of the doubt, just as I would hope any reasonable person would extend it to me were I in their situation. That is the whole essence of “innocent until PROVEN guilty.”


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 40 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 7:41:25 PM
All new information (at least for me) but one glaring question arises:

Why did the two city workers describe the scene as "one guy was sitting on another" whereas the cab driver describes the scene as a three against one brawl, with the victim being beaten and yelling for help?

Also, the two city workers call 911 right away, whereas there is no mention of Yash even contacting his cab dispatcher, let alone calling 911.

From the responses in the various police departments it appears that there will be different "punishments" attributed to the different players as well.


Most likely it was one cop fighting with Khan and when the other two cops arrived they attempted to get Khan under control or perhaps to get their buddy cop under control. They subdued Khan who probably was yelling at that point, but no longer actually being threatened (other than having the weight of a cop pressing him down to the ground). The City Workers see this and call 911. Yash has watched the three cops break up the fight and hears Khan yelling.

What started the fight is still a mystery.


And my conjecture could be all wrong. Maybe the three cops are just bullies out to beat any defenseless person they can find. Maybe all these cops wanted was to express their racial hatred in any way they could and found an unsuspecting delivery guy to be their target. Maybe there is something personal going on, and this was some kind of pay-back.

I have no idea. But I still say there is something missing in this story.


Good Luck!


BTW: Thanks Tyeee for the links. I rarely watch TV news.
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 37 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 7:06:16 PM
Is the cab driver quoted somewhere? I have not seen anything attributed to anyone other than Khan. Even Khan is the one who said that, cab drivers [it is plural in the article], McDonald's employees and City Workers all rushed to the altercation. There is another reference to Hyatt employees helping as well, although that might have just been a 911 call. Reading the sketchy details however, it sounds like most of these people came after the on-duty cops arrived on the scene. The one quote I have seen attributed to a cab driver is when Khan says that a cab driver told the on-duty cops that Khan was the victim. Again, this is Khan's words, not the cab driver's, per se.
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 35 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 6:43:33 PM
Yeah, sorry about being so quick on the draw, RBG *smile*.

By "they do not have to confirm" I mean that they do not have to go out and prove in any way that what Khan is saying is true. If they have Khan's words on tape that is all that is required, regardless of whether or not what Khan has said is true or even accurate.


As for a "back story", Traveller, the whole story is based on the words of one man. Now it is true that people have been put to death over as little as one witness’ testimony, but I would want to get as much information as possible before I crucify someone, and not hearing what the cops have to say for themselves means I do not want to make a judgment yet. It may very well be that there is no justification for their actions, but on the other hand, what if there is?

What if Khan was the one who assaulted the cops (or perhaps one of the cops)? Then, being out on the town and perhaps a bit drunk, the other two overreacted. Khan got a bump on the head, some nasty words were exchanged, and on-duty cops took the three drunk, off-duty cops away to “sleep it off” and to start an investigation into professional conduct.

Yep, that sure sounds like a hate-crime to me. (I’m being sarcastic!)

A couple days later, Khan is telling his side of the story, which might all be correct, but leaving out any of the little bits of the story that might explain why the cops got after him in the first place.


You know, in this thread I am rather conflicted, as I have been very disappointed with the standards and caliber of BC cops lately. The excessive use of Tasers, not only in BC, but all of Canada and the US is a real problem to me. Cops continued to use them for petty problems even after it was shown that they were almost as deadly as a gun and policy stated that a Taser should only be used “when considering lethal force”. Even the recent ban on their use was only for a certain model. The mentality amongst the cops I have spoken to is that they are not all that bad, and close to 100 deaths later, that mentality is still prevalent.

On the other hand, I always have felt a desire to defend the underdog, and as bizarre as it is in this case, the three cops being vilified seem to be the underdog, at least when considering the “trial by media” they are facing. I wish we knew the full story.


If in the end the cops are guilty of a crime, then I hope they are fully prosecuted and receive no special favors. But just as much I hope that if there are mitigating circumstances, or factors that have not been revealed, that everyone is treated fairly, and the “innocent” are exonerated. Good cops have a hard enough job without having to also deal with the public disgust that comes from situations like this. It is why a cop is a cop 24/7, because while someone else might get away with a night in jail and no charges, a cop is held to a higher standard, and so it should be. The problem is that each incident like this erodes the faith and confidence of the general public in their police force. And what happens when it is gone completely?


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 31 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 5:54:10 PM

"We don't like your colour here" could only be taken out of context if it were the M&M characters, talking to the brown M&M


So there is a recording somewhere of the cops saying this?
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 5:50:02 PM
Okay, I accept that the media might not have "carte-blanche" in their reporting, but they do not have to confirm what is said by someone either. What would not stand for a second in court can be headline news in the media. (This was not always the case, but it has become general practice over that last 20-30 years.)

Has anyone confirmed anything in this case? All I see is "Khan said ..." which may or may not be true. The term "beating" comes from the victim, yet the police departments involved have not laid any charges. Why not? Certainly if someone is beaten there should be enough evidence right there to have the assailant charged. The threat of a Taser comes from the victim, and again, there is not even a mention of the cops involved being investigated for "uttering threats". Perhaps that will come out after more investigation, but has the media even quoted one other source that heard this threat? And for that matter, one other person who heard the racial slur?

Everything that Khan has said might be true. But it is also possible that everything he has been quoted as saying is “sensationalized”, exaggerated or incorrect. It is also possible that Khan himself is not telling the complete truth. That is what cross-examination is all about, and when the media reports something like this, they do not care about the absolute truth, but rather only what they can justify. In this case, they can say everything they have said and sensationalize it any way they want because they are only reporting what Khan said, not what is actually true.

The media is not required to dig into the absolute truth of a matter before they report on it. All they are required to do is be able to justify what they report. In this case, they can do so by attributing what they are reporting to Khan as a source. Proving him right or wrong is not their job. But it also means that the “truth”, that is the absolute facts of a matter, are often only reported months later and on page 25.

Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 27 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 5:24:29 PM
Fired? Perhaps ... that is certainly what the investigations will determine. But court? I don't know if you have noticed this, but all three have been released and none of them were charged. Unless something changes, there is not going to be any time in court.

And how can "more to the story" not be relevant? Would you accept being convicted only on the say-so of your accuser without any chance to offer your side of the story? Forgive me, but I hope that you are never on a "jury of my peers"! *smile*


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 23 (view)
 
3 Police Officers Beat Man
Posted: 1/24/2009 4:22:00 PM
There are several professions that are 24/7. Politician, lawyer, doctor, fireman ... can you imagine any of these people being sighted as a normal civilian in the media? Profession is always a factor.


That said, I am curious about a number of things in this story.

1. Khan (the victim) did not even go to the hospital after the altercation. What is he, Superman? I cannot imagine any three men as strong as police officers are expected to be taking on another single "victim" even in a drunken brawl and not putting him in the hospital. How bad was this "assault"? It certainly makes me question the term “beating”.

2. The "robbery" was of a cell phone and a wallet with $200 in it. Okay, call it spin-doctoring if you want, but if a cop is going to arrest you, he is going to frisk you and remove what is in your pockets. The cell phone and wallet are going to be out immediately. Sure, if the cops took the money OUT of the wallet and stuffed it in their own pockets, it is theft, but if all they did was take the wallet and check Khan's ID, that is not going to go down as a crime, off-duty or not.

3. All I can find anywhere is Khan's side of the story. The media of course is lapping it up and the headlines range from "Off-duty Police Officers Arrested" to "Police Threaten Man with Taser in Racist Attack". Whose to say what is the truth, but as much as I have lost a lot of faith in BC cops lately, I am not going to blindly trust what I read in the media either.

Look for the comments by the ex-wife of one of the cops. (One site is here: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/wife+stands+behind+police+officer+arrested+assault+robbery/1206902/story.html) I am inclined to believe her when she quotes her ex as saying, "there is more to this story".


Remember: The Media is not charged with telling the truth ... they are charged with selling the news. The worse it sounds, the better, as it is more likely to sell that way.


Good Luck!
 rflagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Is a woman's Virginity worth 3.8 million dollars?
Posted: 1/23/2009 7:48:22 PM
There is one subtlety of the particular contract that seems to be overlooked.

If she is indeed a true "virgin" (and not a restored version playing a scam) then what she is actually selling is not "sex" but rather the right to end her virginity. A prostitute cannot sell this (at least not more than once), and I know of no place where you can easily buy the services of a virgin. It might be prostitution in the purest technical sense, but then so are all those other transactions that have one party paying and the other party agreeing to sex, even if the cost is only a few dollars (for flowers or dinner or whatever).

Therefore, she might state in the contract that the cost is $3,799,950 for the virginity and $50 for the sex. This way, she would only have to pay the brothel a percentage of the $50, as that is the only cost that concerns them.

So, for the $50 portion of the contract, yeah sure; throw the "you are a whore" stone and return to the comfort of your glass house. But for the remaining money ... I don't know, "shrewd business woman" does not seem all that unfair. And the "just negotiating the price" joke, while amusing, does not actually fit, as the woman in the joke is not selling her virginity.

The ultimate question is: "Is virginity worth (approximately) $3.8 million?" Obviously physical virginity (hymen restoration) is only worth about $5,000 which still leaves close to $3,795,000 for just the fact that "he" is her first. (Of course, there are no methods for confirming that she has never had any other form of sexual contact with a man or even a woman, so there is an element of faith involved here no matter what.) But assuming she is not lying and she is in fact a true/pure 22 year-old, "born-a-female", "non-restored" virgin, is being her first sexual partner actually worth close to $4 million?

If it is, then what a rare thing that must be. You can buy some pretty nice diamonds for a fraction of that price. Some of the world's finest art pieces sell for less. Want a fleet of Bentley’s? You could buy 10 of them for the same price.

And here's the real kicker: Is that what every other woman on the planet threw away when she had sex the first time (accounting for dinner and flowers or otherwise)? Could the 300+ women in my high school graduating class have raised about $1.2 BILLION if they had only auctioned their virginity on e-Bay (had it been around then) rather than tossing it away in the back seat of oh so many late-60's and mid-70's model cars (you know the ones with the wide and comfortable back seats)? What a waste! And this squandering happens on a global scale every year!

Think about this: Every year, about 2.2 million women (girls?) in North America lose their virginity. Assuming they could have earned $3.8 million each, that is enough money each year to completely pay for the National Deficit of both the USA and Canada: A staggering $8.3 TRILLION! And if the 2.3 million boys that lose their virginity each year could raise an average of $1.9 million each (I figure 1/2 of what the girls can get is only fair as there is likely a smaller demand) that is another $4.4 TRILLION. We could practically eliminate personal income tax (assuming we could find enough rich Australians). What a staggering amount of wealth our young people could bring into this country ... if only we can teach them some restraint.

Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Obsession...
Posted: 4/11/2006 6:01:22 PM
When both parties are "obsessed" with each other, they are called "soul mates". When only one is obsessed with the other, one is called a "victim" and the other is a "stalker".

I think there is a certain degree of genetic "wiring" that creates a tendency in all of us to "obsess" over someone where we have a strong physical attraction and feel a connection or "chemistry". The question is, are you strong enough to deal with the physical attraction intellectually? Can you put your emotions on hold or at least in check when he or she says "just friends"?

I know I have been on both sides of this equation in the past. Even as recently as a few weeks ago, a long-time friend and I looked long and hard at the option of moving from friends to lovers, and it was hard for both of us to say "no" as despite the chemistry, it was not right for either of us. And we were both completely sober and relatively sane at the time. I can only imagine how hard it would be for someone who had to deal with those kinds of feelings without all of their faculties.

Everyone seems to have an aversion to getting involved in relationships with "obsessed" or "clingy" people. Once in a relationship with an obsessive person, they are very hard to end, and someone is bound to get hurt (in more ways than one). Therefore, if anyone expresses even a small lack of control, it is Red Flag time, and you are changing your phone number, donning sunglasses at night and checking the real estate listing for the other side of the country.

And yet, what about movies like "Groundhog Day" or "As Good as it Gets" or even "Princess Bride" where there is an obvious obsession and yet it is all part of the magic of the romance. The more obsessed the main character is, the more he/she gets to know the object of her/his affection and the more he/she is able to chip away at her/his defences, until the final scene shows them walking away together.

Simple message in fantasy: "Obsession is rewarded".

I am reminded of the line in Tootsie where "Tootsie" is told by the girl of his dreams that she wishes a man would just come up to her and skip all the BS and tell her directly what he wants. Later in the film, Michael (Tootsie’s male version) does exactly that and the girl pours her drink on him. Fantasy is Romeo and Juliet, reality is Jodie Foster and John Hinkley.

Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Teenage Wasteland
Posted: 4/11/2006 2:08:24 PM
I am not sure if this will help or even be an option for you, but a friend had three girls all in their late teens and early twenties, all staying at home: no jobs, no school.

He sold all the game machines, took the computer to work, cancelled the cable and internet and the home phone (he got cells for himself and his wife) and gave away the TV. I think he even got rid of all the radios.

After a few weeks of having no electronic baby-sitting, they all were searching for other things to do. I do not know if it directly resulted in jobs or school, but at least it got them out of the house.

Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Trust issues are ruining my relationship
Posted: 4/3/2006 7:41:52 PM
No Worries, shai ...

BTW: I think a lot of what you said is complementary and not "copying" at all.

Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Trust issues are ruining my relationship
Posted: 4/3/2006 7:17:45 PM
Wow ... have I ever seen this situation a lot, especially on the Internet. Okay, flame me for generalizing, but it seems there are a lot of women out there who just like to play these kinds of games with other women. Maybe it is that they are jealous, or perhaps they want to drive a wedge between you and your b/f so they might have a chance at him. Or perhaps they are just over dramatizing to make themselves feel important or attractive, taking some small comment that he only intended as a compliment, yet she treats it like a sexual advance.


As for someone saying that he must have been checking on you to find that you searched his email, I do not think that is completely fair. I use my "recent" lists a lot, and I have often stumbled onto things my kids or others have done on my computer, not that they have done anything wrong, just that it was unexpected that I would see their recent activities in my lists.


Trust really is the foundation of any meaningful, long-term relationship, much more so than love. There are several people whom I love but cannot trust, and therefore, our relationships are limited. This is not me attempting to control them, but rather me trying to control the damage and turmoil that they can cause in my life.

That said, trust is not something that simply exists immediately when people meet or start to get to know each other. Trust is something that grows over time ... like a tree perhaps. Every year that the two of you share, the tree is taller, thicker, stronger. Every act of mistrust is like the blow of an axe, chopping at the base of the tree. If the tree is strong, it can survive the odd chop, but if it is young and weak, it does not take much to cut it down.


Questions to ask yourself:
When this other woman accused your man of basically flirting with her, and he said he did not, why did you believe her over him? Why did you trust someone else over your man? This implies that you have a relationship of trust that is stronger with this other woman than the trust you have in your relationship. I suppose if she is your sister or mother or best friend for years that might well be the case, but if she is just someone you casually know, then why did your trust go to her and not to him?


Is there anything else that you have done that he might think is an act of mistrust? Have you talked to him about it? If there is and you have not discussed it with him, then I would recommend that you tell him about it now, while the issue is on the table. Then you will have a clean slate. It might be good if you offer for him to do the same thing. Perhaps after thinking about it, he has remembered an off-handed comment he made to your friend that could have been taken differently than he intended.


I really do hope you and he can work through this and make your relationships stronger. I am not an advocate of tossing a working relationship out the window just because it has a few glitches to work through. Everyone goes through a "period of adjustment" when they come together, and sometimes that period is a few days, a few months or even a lifetime. But as long as you are willing to work towards a common objective, I would say you are still on the right track.

Perhaps you can give him something that he can do to help you feel more at ease when something like this happens. Did you even ask if you could look at his emails, for example? I probably should not use a failed relationship as an example, but my ex could read my emails whenever she liked. I was pleased to let her, as I enjoyed her comments. Perhaps that is something he can do for you so that the two of you can build trust, at least over that issue.

Finally, when he says, "once is a mistake, twice is a problem," I would point out that in baseball you get three strikes and in football (US at least) you get four downs and if I remember correctly, rugby gives you five tackles. It is hard for anyone to be perfect after one mistake. Just try teaching a child who is having difficulty learning something. Would he really give up on his kid after he gets it wrong twice? (If so, then maybe you are better off looking for someone with a bit more tolerance.)


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 15 (view)
 
How do you say I love you?
Posted: 4/3/2006 2:34:10 AM
Eu te amo -- Portuguese
Mi amas vin -- Esperanto
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Fixed Link from Vancouver Island to Mainland, Yes or No?
Posted: 4/3/2006 12:16:21 AM
Yes, but where would you put it?

I believe that if it was to follow the Tsawwassan/Sydney Ferry route, a bridge would have to cross through the US, which might require some negotiations with our southern Big Brother. Either that, or take a much longer route to stay in Canadian territory.

If it was to follow Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo route, it would require almost twice the distance over open water: more expensive, greater safety issues.

If the roads were improved, a crossing north of Powel River to Campbell River would only require three or four relatively short spans to make the crossing, but this might end up being a six hour plus drive from Vancouver to Victoria .

Personally, I like the northern route, but keep the ferries (perhaps excluding the Powel River ferry). The shorter northern span could cost a lot less, would reduce the preasure on the southern ferries, and might help to open the northern part of the island and the coast.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 47 (view)
 
Question....$10.00 romantic date....
Posted: 3/30/2006 1:52:51 AM
Well, as long as I still have my VISA card, the $10 would stay in my wallet.

The "date" could then be anything from a walk in a park to a three week long cruise for two.
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Has any one seen a star....?
Posted: 3/29/2006 11:46:56 PM
There are actually several definitions of the term “Blue Moon”. The common meaning, “The second Full Moon in the calendar month,” also known as a “Calendar Blue Moon”, is actually the result of an error that occurred in defining the term in 1946. The older definition, originally used in the Farmer's Almanac, is, “the third Full Moon in a 'season' that has four Full Moons.” Seasons are defined as periods of three months beginning at the Equinox (generally between March 21 and 22).

The last Calendar Blue Moon was July 31, 2004. As mentioned, the next Official Calendar Blue Moon is due on June 30, 2007, however, for people in the Western Hemisphere, the actual Calendar Blue Moon will occur on May 31, 2007, a full month earlier, due to the difference in time zones. After that, the next Calendar Blue Moon occurs in December 2009.

The shortest possible period of time between Calendar Blue Moons is about two months. This last happened in 1999 when there was a Calendar Blue Moon at the end of January, no full moon in February, and then two full moons in March, the second being a Calendar Blue Moon on March 31. The next time this pattern occurs is in 2018.

The last Almanac Blue Moon occurred in August 2005 and the next Almanac Blue Moon occurs in May 2008. After that, the next is due in November 2010.

So, if you are waiting for something that will come with the next “Blue Moon”, you can look forward to it coming on one of these dates *smile*.


Some stars are blue, but it is hard to notice the colour. Spica, in Virgo, is an example. It generally looks white (at least it does to me) but it is technically blue and some people are sensitive enough to see the faint blue colour with the naked eye. Other stars are sometimes seen to “change” colour, but they are actually not changing colour so much as particles in the atmosphere are interfering with the light, refracting it slightly, or blocking out certain wavelengths of light. For example, very fine dust in the air (from fires or even volcanoes) can block out the red light coming from the moon or the stars making them all appear slightly blue.

Another common phenomenon with respect to stars is that they “twinkle” or “scintillate”. This too is not the star actually changing, but rather the light coming from the star hits the Earth's atmosphere and is interfered with slightly by changes in air density or even air temperature. Because stars are so far away, their light reaches Earth as only a point of light, so the changes in the atmosphere do not have to be very significant to cause the starlight to change. Planets, because they are actually disks of light, do not scintillate, so if you see a “star” that is not twinkling, it is probably a planet.


Good Luck.
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Is it worthwhile to become a member of The Conservative Party of Canada
Posted: 2/14/2006 2:39:11 AM

sure why not join all political parties and learn about them

I used to think this was a good idea myself.

Unfortunately, at least with respect to the NDP, you cannot be a member of another party AND their party at the same time. I suspect they all have rules like this. Yesterday, however, the NDP announced it was cancelling Buzz Hargrove's membership in the NDP party (after he was a member for something like 41 years) because he encouraged people to vote for the Liberals in order to help keep the CPC from getting a Majority Government. This is called "strategic voting" and it makes sense in certain situations.

Regardless, the NDP executive showed their true colours by evicting Hargrove. Obviously they do not believe in "choice", instead demanding that members of their Party must only do as the Party Executive command. Hmmm ... sounds like some Middle Eastern Clerics I have been hearing in the news for the last several years.

If you are an honourable person who wishes to keep his promises, then you would be best not to join any particular party unless you felt you could follow that ideology blindly, without ever feeling you would waver. Personally, I would rather keep my autonomy, and vote for whom I like best, regardless of his/her Party.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
So why is Harper PM again?
Posted: 2/14/2006 2:21:23 AM
Most of his "promises" are on the "five year plan" (isn't a term only 4 yrs????)

That would be the US.

In Canada, a "term" is up to 5 years. The length is determined via three events:

1) A Prime Minister decides it is time to seek a new mandate from the people,
2) A non-confidence vote results in a majority NOT supporting the current Government,
3) A Government stays in office to the end of its 5-year maximum term.

In each case, the PM requests the Governor General dissolve the current Government and conduct an election. When a Majority Government, the most likely term is between 3 and 5 years (average about 4 years) and the term length is determined by the PM. When a Minority Government, the length of the term tends to be under 3 years (average is about 18 months) and the length of the term is determined by a non-confidence vote.

Terms have been for as little as a few months to the full 5 years.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Open Relationship
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:13:13 PM
sleepless ... first thing I have to say is there seem to be a lot of people telling you to "leave" as if finding another relationship was just a matter of going shopping. Do you really what to throw away 10 years that easily, and put your children's lives into turmoil just because he asked? Your man has started a dialogue with you about something that is of interest to him. If you were a different person, you might have said "yeah, I'm curious, too" and the whole relationship might be headed in a new path for both of you, with little fear of destroying your family in the meantime.


Open relationships DO work for lots of people. It is not, in and of itself, an act of betrayal to ASK if you are interested in something like that. However, since you are not, and cannot see yourself doing so, then the option of involving others is going to be coupled with a requirement to end (or at least change) your relationship with him, and your family situation.

If that is something neither of you want, then consider alternatives to the "open" relationship that might give him (and you) something that you are currently missing within your existing relationship. What exactly is he looking for? What is it that he cannot get from you?

One thing that has been done by other couples I know (for example) is "roll playing". The couple pretend to be strangers, who happen to meet in an obscure location (often another town is best). They chat and flirt as if it is the first time they have met, find a hotel for a "one-night-stand" and in the morning "sneak" home and return to their regular lives maintaining the "idea" that they had an affair, even going so far as to make up "excuses" for where they were last night. It is not a real "affair" of course, but it can be quite effective at spicing up the relationship.

This is just one idea. There are literally volumes of writing on this kind of thing. If I were you, I would try very hard to understand what it is your man is looking for, even be enthusiastic about the idea of changing things, but being firm in stating what your limits are (and you really have to be honest about your limits with yourself and him).

I have friends that have told me that if their spouse ever even THOUGHT about someone else, it would be an act of Adultery and the other would leave. Other friends have open relationships that work fine for them, but even though it is "open" there are still very specific rules that cannot be broken. I know people, and have noticed some in the forums, who are willing to entertain the idea of a "mistress" without fully stepping into an "open relationship". Just so you know, the mistress is someone the woman selects for her man (or at least approves of her). It is not just a carte blanch license for him to find anyone else and do whatever he likes with them.

These kinds of alternative lifestyles are not for everyone, and if you are truly not interested in anything other than the standard vanilla relationship, then you will have to tell him exactly that, and you are both going to have to face what that means. However, if you can see yourself expanding your relationship to a degree (whether or not that includes new people) then there might be options for you other than "staying and trying it" or "leaving".


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Altruism; does it exist?
Posted: 2/12/2006 4:33:03 AM
I think someone has been reading Ayn Rand *smile*.


Actually, there are altruistic acts and ideals. While it might be true that some people feel good AFTER they have done an act of kindness, that does not mean they were MOTIVATED by that potential good feeling. If they were, then perhaps their selfless act is not so selfless, but in many cases, people who do good things, with no obvious benefit to themselves, did not do them because they might feel good afterwards (even if that did happen).

Consider for a moment any huge natural disaster. There have certainly been a lot of them lately: the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the Earthquake in Pakistan, hurricane Katrina and others in the US and the Caribbean just to name a few. Do you really think that all the humanitarian efforts made and all the money donated to all these disasters was simply done because it was part of the job, or out of a desire to feel better personally, or to somehow assuage personal feelings of guilt for not being a part of the disaster? Some sure, but the bulk of donations and support and effort came from people simply wanting to help, without regard for their own rewards.

Altruistic simply means selfless, or more specifically, “having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself”. It is the opposite of egoistic, which means, “one devoted to one's own interests and advancement”. If you say that no one is altruistic, it implies that everyone is then egoistic. I think you will get a bit of an argument on that point from practically any mother. (Okay, okay, “Mommy Dearest” notwithstanding. *smile*)

I know I have personally done things that were not required of me, did not receive any “fanfare” or reward, and did not even make me feel particularly “good” for having done them. They are simply acts of my character, and yet I cannot point to any specific egoistic reason for them. The only thing I can think of is that if ever the roles were reversed and I found myself in the same position as the person I am helping, that I would hope someone in my position would help me. But that thought is hardly front and center in one’s mind when they run into a burning building or dive into icy waters or travel half way across the country collecting donations for the afflicted.


Nevertheless, suppose I were to accept your argument that any reward including aspects of duty and religious convictions and just feeling good about yourself, no matter how slight in comparison to the deed, renders the altruistic act invalid. That would imply that all acts, no matter how unselfish, no matter how great the sacrifice, no matter how severe the risk, were all done for some kind of personal gain, and therefore and egoistic or egocentric act. While I see the logic, I do not accept the argument.

Okay, so the person was 99% altruistic and 1% egoistic. That disqualifies them from being considered as altruistic? To this, I must disagree. The standard should not be “perfection” in that, unless a person is “perfectly altruistic” they do not qualify, but rather, were their actions outside the norm, as might be demonstrated in terms like “above and beyond the call of duty”? Everyone knows firemen and police have a job that involves risks to life and safety, but that does not automatically require them to perform altruistic feats of heroism. Yet when they do, such acts are noticed and honored and rewarded (sometimes posthumously). I really doubt too many firemen were thinking about the plaque they might get when they were risking their lives to rescue someone.


Of course, if you want to discuss Rand’s position (and I am not saying that you do, but she made a similar argument), then we have to redefine the common meaning of words like “selfish”. That, then, might result in a considerably different point of view.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Questions for Canadians
Posted: 2/12/2006 3:20:25 AM
While I found those original Q/A's hilarious, I must point out that they are not actual questions asked of Canada (or anywhere for that matter). They were originally posted as questions about Australia, with obvious cultural adjustments, and posted on the web and sent out in email as if from "an Australian Tourism Website". Yeah, yeah, the truth is a lot less fun.


A few more from the web.

Q: Do you manufacture your own Igloos or are they made in China? (USA)
A: We make our own igloos from a natural resource called Snow. However on the rare occasion that the tempature warms to above freezing we have been know to use purcased units. http://fiberglassigloos.com/

Q: Is it manditory that I own and use a four wheel drive truck or S.U.V. to come to Canada or is that just in that Alberta place? (USA)
A: Considering the recent rhetoric that Alberta is Canada, you would be wise to bring the largest gas burning vehicle you can.

Q: Is it true that Canadians use Canadian Tire Money for currency? (USA)
A: Yes. We find that 50 cent bills are easier to carry than two quarters.

Q: Must I wear a toque? (USA)
A: Only if you’re an American...all others are advised to dress according to the weather.

Q: Do you all ride snowmobiles?
A: The only time we don't ride snowmobiles in Canada is when there is snow on the ground. When it snows we use dog sleds.

Q: Can I wear high heels in Canada? ( UK)
A: You are a British politician, right?


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Ok please answer this
Posted: 2/10/2006 4:12:41 PM
"Hey, we're not 'dating' ... we're just going on a date."
And therein lies the problem.


Since this is POF, maybe we need some fishing metaphores:

Old Term | New Term | Description
=======+========+============
Dating... | Casting... | Throwing the lure into the waters / Meeting people and enjoying friendly activities
Dating... | Nibbling... | Noticing some activity on the line / Planning something a bit more formal (dinner/dancing)
Dating... | Biting...... | Strong strike on the line / Interest in spending more time together; seeing each other regularily
Dating... | Playing.... | Fish is hooked, but not in the boat / Beginning of a relationship, talk of exclusivity, talk of commitment
Dating... | Netting... | Fish is pretty much done fighting / Committed to being exclusive, expanding definition of "the C word"
Dating... | Landing... | Fish is in the boat / Committed to one another in a "relationship"


Old way of Describing a Relationship:

Well, our first date wasn't really a date. We met for coffee and talked for a while, then walked around town. About a week later we had our first real 'date': dinner and dancing. Sounds cliche, but it was a lot of fun, and we pretty much knew we would be dating soon. We had a few more dates, and considered dating each other exclusively, but took our time making that decision. We were both dating other people and neither of us wanted to just drop all our other interests. So, we continued to date, and eventually, we were only dating each other.


Same Description using the New Terms:

Well, our first cast was just meeting for coffee and talking for a while, then a walk around town. About a week later, we nibbled: dinner and dancing. Sounds cliche, but it was a lot of fun, and we pretty much knew we each had a bite. We played each other and considered "the net", but took our time making that decision. We were both nibbling other people and neither of us wanted to just drop all our other interests. So, we continued to net, and eventually, we landed each other.



Obviously this will take some time to master. I am sure lots of people will be confused by terms like "I cast a lot, but I never seem to bite" or "I nibble lots of people" or "we're netting", but in time, with continuous use, these terms will make the whole "dating" concept much more understandable.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Dave's walk across the floor. How do you feel ?
Posted: 2/10/2006 3:31:19 AM
As a firm Devil's Advocate, I will share a few supportive words for Mr. Emerson (since there is no shortage of negative ones *smile*).


Some basic facts:

EMERSON, The Hon. David, P.C., B.A., M.A., PhD
DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH: 1945.09.17 (Virgo) Montreal, Quebec, Canada
PROFESSION: Economist, executive, researcher, senior public servant

POLITICAL PARTY:
Liberal (2004.06.28 - 2006.02.05)
Conservative (2006.02.06 - )

HOUSE OF COMMONS:
2004.06.28, Vancouver Kingsway, British Columbia Elected
2006.01.23, Vancouver Kingsway, British Columbia Re-Elected

CAUCUS:
Liberal (2004.10.04 - 2006.02.05)

PARLIAMENTARY FUNCTIONS:
Minister of Industry (2004.07.20 - 2006.02.05)
Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics (2006.02.06 - )
Minister of International Trade (2006.02.06 - )


Apologetics 101:

1) Mr. Emerson represents 115,325 people in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, 78,244 of whom are eligible to vote. Of those, only 20,062 (less than 26% of the electorate and only 17% of the population) actually voted for him, meaning that 58,182 either voted for someone else, or did not care who represented them. Another 37,081 were not eligible to vote (this number would include children).

Nevertheless, once voted into office, it is his duty (and the duty of every MP) to represent all of the people of his riding as best he can. To do otherwise would bring even greater disgrace upon the political system of Canada. As much as some people wish to see politics as an "us vs. them" sort of war, the fact is that every MP voted into office swears to serve his/her Queen ... not his party, not even the Prime Minister. Yes, it is still the Queen. All MPs must swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, however doing so means that they affirm allegiance to all the institutions the Queen represents, including the concepts of democracy and the democratic institution of Parliament.


2) The only significant ideological difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives that gets any air time on the news is Gay Marriage (and perhaps other "moral" issues) which Mr. Emerson has been given a clear indication that he may "vote his conscience" as a member of the CPC. Mr. Emerson voted in favor of Bill C-38 (Gay Marriage). While it is possible he did so merely to please the Prime Minister (Paul Martin had demanded that all Cabinet Members MUST vote for the bill, which means pretty much anyone wanting to be a Minister of anything would support it, otherwise they would have been off the list), it is also possible that his vote represents either his own opinion on the issue, or that of his riding. As a CPC member, he will likely be able to continue to vote for Gay Marriage, should the question be presented again under a Harper government, as Harper has promised "free votes" on this, and any other, moral issue. (FYI: Three CPC members voted in favor of Bill C-38.)


3) As a member of the governing party, and particularly as a Minister, Mr. Emerson (as well as any other MP who is a member of the "ruling party") has a much better opportunity to see that his constituents are well represented and well served by our Government. I often wish it were not so, but it is nevertheless a fairly consistent truth.

Add to that the fact that he is a Vancouver MP who is Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics and it appears even more beneficial (at least at a glance). We will have to see how he does, but hopefully the whole brouhaha regarding his cross will die down soon and give us an opportunity to honestly judge the job he does as a Minister, rather than just listening to sour grapes over his move from Liberal to CPC.


4) Canadians have said quite soundly that they do not want another election any time soon (read: at least 2 - 3 years). Even when faced with the most Draconian of examples of Harper rule (reversing Gay Marriage for example) over 50% of people would still rather see the Government stand then go back to the polls. By crossing the floor, Mr. Emerson increases the probability at least that this government will stand for a while.


5) His actions are not a president by any means. Belinda Stronach did the reverse a few months ago (May 17, 2005), and other MP's have crossed the floor or left their party ranks to sit as independents over the last 139 years. But the fact that this is a minority government, and subject to defeat at almost any time has highlighted the critical nature of this "defection" and made Mr. Emerson’s move headline news.

Furthermore, when Ms. Stronach crossed the floor, she was heralded as a Champion of the Nation as if her crossing the floor somehow saved Canada from the imminent Separation of Quebec. (Hey, she even got on the cover of TIME!) In her own words, she felt she "could be [her constituents'] strongest voice inside government". Obviously, she felt she could not have done the same thing sitting as an Independent.


6) Bill C-251 was defeated in November of 2005. This Bill, if passed, would have prohibited MPs from "crossing the floor". Since it did not pass, it is obvious that the majority of MPs (61.5% voted against it) want to maintain the right to cross the floor if it best suits their purposes. (And you can read that either way, as self-serving or public-serving purposes.)

What a major twist of irony this is actually, as the Liberal Party voted 1-Yea and 93-Nays with 39 abstentions when the C-251 vote was given second reading. Along with almost all of the Bloc and 1/2 of the CPC, the Bill was eventually defeated, and MPs maintained the ability to cross the floor if they so choose. So, for any of those "Nay" voters to now bemoan the act of one of their own in actually partaking of that right is an act of sheer hypocrisy. Either it is an acceptable practice, or it is not. It was good enough for the Liberals when Ms. Stronach crossed the floor, it was good enough for the Liberals when they voted to maintain the right to do so in November of 2005, and, as much as it may piss off some Liberal voters today, it is still good enough now when a Liberal actually has the audacity to cross over. (Obviously they were expecting the flow of MPs the other way. *smile*)


7) Mr. Emerson is a major feather in the hat of Stephen Harper and his CPC party. Mr. Emerson has governing experience and comes with a considerable amount of political experience. Mr. Harper is going to need people like Mr. Emerson if he is going to be able to keep the Government of Canada from falling once again and returning to the polls in a few months. Furthermore, Mr. Emerson gives urban credibility to the Harper Government. It might not be much, but in time it could be followed by gains in Toronto and other large cities who still tend to see the CPC as a rural party.


8) That said (and finally) the Harper Government does not actually need Mr. Emerson to form a 155 seat majority with the help of the NDP and the single Independent. In fact, of the 308 MPs, only 307 of them get to vote on most bills, with the last MP, being the Speaker of the House, setting aside his/her vote unless there is a true tie amongst the other 307 MPs. It is quite likely that the Speaker of the House will be elected from one of the Bloc or Liberal Parties, thus making the required number of votes only 154. Still, with Mr. Emerson now on the side of the CPC, it means that should a non-confidence motion be attempted, so long as the CPC and the NDP maintain ranks, and have 100% attendance, they ought to be able to maintain the Government.


On a personal note, I have always been annoyed by Party Politics. If you only vote for the Party, why bother with Candidates at all? Let’s just tally up all the votes across Canada for each "Party" and the Leader of the Party with the most votes gets to be dictator for 5 years. Think of all the money we will save on backbencher salaries and pension plans, not to mention all the expense accounts these people have at their disposal.

Personally, my first criteria is the quality of the person I am supporting with my vote. If I wanted to vote for the Green Party, but their candidate was an unscrupulous character, I would NOT support them. Also, if one of the other candidates attracted my attention and showed themselves to be above the standard character of the riff-raff generally trying to represent us in Ottawa, I would be far less likely to vote upon "Party" lines.

The fact that MPs may cross the floor at any time only goes to strengthen my resolve that first and foremost the person must be someone I support and believe in. Of course, I would want their politics to be in harmony with mine as well, but if I believe in them as a person, then if or when they "cross the floor", I will be inclined to accept their choice as the choice most likely to benefit me, as a member of their riding.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 31 (view)
 
How would YOU deal with this?
Posted: 2/9/2006 11:00:11 PM
I take it posts 25 and 27 were from someone named mischief421 and were nasty in nature. Since they are now gone, it is a bit confusing reading only the responses. *smile*



RFlagg, I really appreciate the time and thought you put in your response...

Think nothing of it ... I tend to type volumes.



as far as I am concerned, the moral implications of abortion are the least of my issues with this whole situation.

It sounds like that option has been rejected, and from some of the other comments, that is probably a good thing, even though the alternative is not going to be easy.



The most positive outlook my family is looking at here is scary.

For what it is worth, I can only offer you one piece of advise with this kind of a situation ... "Let it go."


If I might offer an analogy, it is like you are a lighthouse. All around you are rocks. The sea pounds against them with relentless fury. Clouds and night darken the sky making the waters even more treacherous. And all there is to fend off disaster, is a thin beacon of light. And yet, with a bit of luck perhaps, that is enough.

Thing is, the lighthouse cannot move the rocks, nor calm the see, nor hold back the darkness. All those forces remain, portents of disaster, yet disaster can be, and most often is, adverted simply because of that simple ray of light.


In a case like yours (and believe me, I can only imagine what it must be like for you), all you can do is be the best sister/daughter/aunt/or even mother that you can be. Try not to play the "what if" game too much, at least not beyond being aware of the potentials. Thinking about all the "what ifs" can drive you crazy. Furthermore, your doctor's comment makes it sound like you are not the one in control here (control is an illusion anyway), and it would be good for you to think about what that means for a bit (ever read anything be Deepak Chopra?).



There are no good options... which is why I am freaking out

Not every problem has an obvious solution. Some problems have no solution. As I said earlier, you need to be able to let it go. The funny thing is, that when you stop trying to solve the problem, that is usually when the solutions finally have a chance to present themselves. They were there all along, you were just looking so hard you could not find them.


All the best!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
How would YOU deal with this?
Posted: 2/8/2006 4:28:01 PM
Hey smallfry ... very tough situation to be in.


For what it is worth, might I recommend the following:

1) Determine for yourself if you can live with an abortion option.

By this I mean, assume that you can and do convince your sister to have an abortion. How will this affect your sister's long term mental health? How will it affect you? Does the thought of her ending her pregnancy now make you feel more or less comfortable?

Try to imagine it as fully as you can and then see how you, emotionally, fit into that imagined future. I do not know you at all, so it is hard for me to give advice that might be useful to you specifically, but for example, imagine yourself 10 years from now thinking about the baby she almost had. Are you and her going to be okay with the abortion route? That is, are you going to be able to say to yourself, "it was the correct decision at the time."

I know a lot of women regret their decision to have an abortion later on, but that does not mean it is not the correct thing to do in certain circumstances. What you have to be able to do, however, is to wake up in 10 years and not believe you made a mistake. If you choose this route, you will have to always be able to tell yourself, "it was the right thing to do at the time."

And, unfortunately in this case, you are going to have to get into your sister's head too, and know that it was the right thing for her to do as well (not to mention the b/f ... after all, he is a part of this equation as well).

So, ultimately for "Step 1" here, if you determine that you CAN live with an abortion, and that everyone involved will be able to get through that without even greater hardship, then make that your "last resort" position. On the other hand, if you feel an abortion is simply unacceptable, then ditch that option completely. You've considered it, you've weighed the pros and cons, and you have abandoned it as option. After all, there are at least four other possible scenarios that do not involve abortion, so if you do take it off the menu, it will allow you to focus more clearly on what else might be done.

[BTW: I am basically pro-choice, I am just pointing out that it is never an easy choice to make.]


2) With the abortion issue settled (last resort or not an option), continue forward with everything else you might consider.

How serious are the drug interactions going to be? What is the risk associated with your sister changing meds (or going off completely)? Or, if she stays on the same meds, what is the risk to the child? What is the probability of natal side-effects? How severe might they be and how far are you/your sister/her b/f able to go with a challenged child?

Consider your worst case first. I do not know how serious the side-effects might be, but try to imagine the worst case. Could you/her/him still care for the child under those circumstances? Would you be able to give your child up to adoptive parents? Is there institutional resources available? If abortion is still an option for you, would it be better than "the worst case"?

Next, consider the probability associated with this extreme. Some side-effects are listed on drugs that happen to only one in 1 million or more users. Does the worst case have 1 in 1 million odds or is it more like 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 or is it extremely likely (say, 9 in 10)? Obviously, if the probability is higher, you have to be more prepared for that kind of a result.


3) Try to get the best advice possible on what the most likely outcome is going to be.

Are you looking at a severely disabled child at the barest minimum, in a totally dysfunctional home/family with little hope of ever surviving the first year or two? Or, is it more likely the child will be basically normal, with some issues that you and your sister and her b/f are going to have to deal with?

(If the latter, welcome to parenting in the 21st century *smile*.)

I would hope you would not be considering abortion if you expect the child to be normal and healthy (that is not the feeling I got from reading your post), so if this is the expectation, then you might consider less radical options: adopting the child yourself, or letting the baby be adopted by another family. There are a host of families out there looking to adopt even less than perfect children.


4) Get some sleep.


Try to prioritize your issues. I would think the abortion question would be #1. Do not let it simmer in the background un-discussed and un-resolved. Talk to your doctor about it openly, getting as much information as possible. Talk to your family (as best you can) and the b/f. Then make a decision (either by yourself or with your family's support) on what role abortion is going to play in the equation and then leave it there. This will free up a tremendous amount of worry, speculation and self-doubt. If you know definitively what the role of abortion is, then you do not need to constantly second guess every other issue that comes along (and there are going to be plenty).

If you decline the abortion option all together, then you will have to deal with everything else without ever returning to that option (at least, this is the sane approach ... I know lots of people have trouble with it though, saying "damn, why don't I/she just have the abortion and get it over with?") If you do honestly consider it and exclude it, however, it should give you the resolve to face your other issues head on, without having to rethink that step every time something goes bad. Remember: "It was the right decision at the time."

If you decide abortion is an option, then you will also know when you have reached that "last resort". Furthermore, you will probably have a lot of others encouraging you in it being the best path. Your family, the doctor, maybe even the b/f will be supportive of that route. If you are going it alone, however, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you are the only one thinking abortion is the best option? There might well be reasons, but it seems to me that somewhere something will have to support that action as well as you.


I really do not envy you or your family at this time. One other thing you might consider is a support group. Not sure what "group" might qualify or be available to you, and it might also depend upon your choices, but perhaps your doctor or even your sister's church (you said she was religious) might know of someone you (her/him) can see for support and advice. Your doctor might also recommend a family counselor. By all means, if you can afford it, see someone who can help you deal with the emotional rollercoaster. Some services might even be free (through Mental Health and such) considering your sister's condition.


I wish you all the best and hope that whatever happens, it is good for all of you. And, I cannot stress enough how important it is for you that, no matter what you or your family choose, always remember, "It was the right decision at the time!"


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Ok please answer this
Posted: 2/8/2006 7:08:46 AM
Whenever I have encountered anyone who ascribes to the "Third Date Rule", it has always been a woman (I guess that makes sense, as I do not try to 'date' many men), whom seems to think it helps her to avoid "one-night stands". There are also a lot of posts in these forums from women saying that "if he does not 'make a move' by the third ‘date’, there won't be a forth".

I have been sexual on a first 'date', and I have been seeing someone for a year before we introduced sex into the relationship (not to mention those relationships that have never been sexual at all). Every relationship is unique, and trying to make it fit some esoteric rules pattern is nothing short of ludicrous.

That said, statistically speaking there are certain noticeable trends in dating, and this is where terms like the "third date rule" are derived. Of a few hundred thousand dating experiences, observers noticed that sex usually was introduced on or by the third serious romantic event. The thing is, for every situation where the period between connecting and having sex is a year, there have to be 181 "one-night-stands" in order for the average to be the third date.

Also, and this is just a bit of interpretation on my part, the term "dating" seems to have a particular meaning when referring to the third date rule. It implies there has been a connection, that is, evidence of "chemistry" between the parties, and not just time spent together in an activity or even over a meal or a movie. Sure, kids call these "dates", but in the world of grown-ups (where? where?), there is a difference between spending some time getting to know someone "as friends" and "dating", which, as another fishy put it, "implies a chance at a romantic connection".

So, all those “first dates” are not really dates at all. They are “meet-and-greets” or “get-to-know-each-others”, and they do not have a universal term to describe them. Some people call those meetings “dates”, some reserve the word “date” for events/activities that are more formal, and some use the term “date” to mean that romance was possible and/or sex was involved. (I.e., in the baseball analogy, a “hit” resulting in something from first to third base means it was a ‘date’.)

If you have trouble keeping yourself from having sex on the first (or even second) “date”, then perhaps a “third date” rule would be good for you. Otherwise, sex should only enter the relationship when it is right, and that can be at literally any time.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 47 (view)
 
simpler life education....
Posted: 2/8/2006 4:20:35 AM
Donuts in Parking lots after it snows.

Racing over "the rollercoaster" (stretch of backroad outside of town) to get airtime.

Bellowing out old songs totally off key and out of tune when they come on the radio.

Quoting Monty Python skits ...
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I told you once."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did ... oh, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour?"
"Ahh, just the five minutes, please."
"Good. Anyway, I most certainly told you."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"No you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
...


Oh, wait ... were these supposed to be things we did as kids? *smile*
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 101 (view)
 
I got hit on by a 14-year old....ever happened to you???
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:12:00 AM
Do I ever have a lot of stories that could go in this thread (*smile*).

====

@Broken Soul:
It happens everywhere, not just Louisiana.

In 1985 a friend of mine was a teacher in Victoria, BC. He told me this story about a co-worker of his whom was the Chemistry Teacher at a local high school. A couple years before, the Chemistry teacher's wife had become ill, and was confined to bed rest for several months. So, he decided to hire someone to help out with looking after his wife.

He announced this in his classes. Several girls applied for the job, and he interviewed them all one at a time after school. Eventually he picked one. Unfortunately for him, one of the un-picked girls was rather upset at being rejected, so she decided to get him back. She lodged a formal complain with the school that while he was interviewing her, he had molested her. Since she was under age (14 - 17) and he was in a position of Authority (Teacher/student), the offence carried a potential 10-year sentence.

And that was only the start. He was instantly fired from his job (long before any trial took place) and branded a pedophile, so there was no way he could ever again work as a teacher. He also lost his family, as his wife eventually divorced him and took the kids. He fought the case in court as best he could, but going to jail for five to ten years ultimately became the least of his problems.

Thing is, just before the trial, one of the investigating officers decided to re-interview the witness (girl that accused the teacher). She was now 18, and she asked the cop what would happen to her if she had lied. Sensing what might have happened, the cop said, "if you lied when you were under 18, nothing will happen to you, but if you lie when you are 18, you can be charged with perjury."

At this point, she confessed to her actions. She was mad that the other girl got the job, and the teacher had never done anything, just like he had been saying all along. So, he did not have to go to jail. But he still did not get his job back, nor did he get to see his kids or get back with his wife.

====

Then, there is the story of the 35-year old father of three teenage girls who got his picture posted around his neighborhood with the words “Have you seen this Pedophile?” under it. His crime? Statutory rape. Who did he rape? His wife … when she was 15 and he was 16. Her parents disapproved of him and had him arrested. He was charged and I believe pleaded “no contest” and got off with a light sentence. A few years later, they were married and went on with life for almost 20 years, until a “watchdog” group decided that he qualified as a sex-offender and decided to make his life hell.

====

BTW: This kind of thing happened all the time before the 1980’s when Canada changed its laws. I am sure it still happens in the US.

People should come with something like rings on a tree. Bore a hole into them and count the rings so there is no question about their age. Perhaps a tattoo that you have to get on your birthday every year (*smile*).


Online I have been "hit on" by young girls who say they are much older. Usually I can tell they are faking their age, but a couple have duped me for a while, saying they are 35+ when they are actually 15 or so. There have also been a number of women who have said they were "24" when in fact they were "42" (or even older). "It's a woman's right to lie about her age." I guess young girls see their moms lie and figure they can do it too.

Several years ago, I met (online) a woman from France who said she was only 16, and that in France it was common for girls that age to date men in their 30's. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I told her to ring me up in a couple years if she was still interested (*smile*).

I think part of the reason for young girls hitting on men, is a lack of a strong male role model in the lives of these girls. With so much divorce separating fathers from their children, especially daughters, and even when there is not a divorce, so many men have a stronger relationship with their FAX machine than they do with their daughters. Therefore, girls do not hear the everyday accolades that a good father gives them. As they develop sexually (which starts before 14 mom! Just think about when you started to fantasize about men), they need to feel that they have the ability to attract a male. When fathers offer platonic responses to their hugs and "I love you, daddy" they are actually helping their daughters to develop strong, positive relationships with "men", so at 14, there is not as much drive or need to get that response from "strangers". But when no father (or positive male role model) is available, they might feel a need to seek that validation somewhere else.

Because I have daughters, I have met a lot of young women/girls over the years. Even knowing that they are 13, 14, 15 etc., when they "dress-up" in make-up and evening wear to go to the school dance or some such event, it is hard to think that they might only look "14" to anyone meeting them for the first time. Add to that the fact that the local school now has grades 8 to 12 together (ages 13 to 18+), it is totally understandable how for young people the lines of age get blurred.

Someone also said they thought it was "the milk". Honestly, I thought that too, or the beef (hamburgers being a North American staple after all). Both of my daughters have matured at a very young age (menses by 8-years old), and are big for their age. My first daughter towered over the rest of her class, and by 12-years old was 5'11" and nearly 200 pounds and completely "figured". It would have been totally impossible for most people to look at her and correctly guess her age. Many people, when they saw us together, though she was my wife and my other daughter (9-years younger) was her daughter, not her sister.

My other daughter (currently 11) is on a fast pace to the same basic build (a bit shorter, a bit lighter). In her case, though, she is NOT the biggest kid in her class. Many kids of both genders are huge by the time they reach their teens. I have been buying women's bras for both of my girls since they were 9. Only difference: youngest is allergic to dairy, so no milk or cheese for most of her life. If it is because of diet, it must be the hamburgers (*smile*).


A lot of people in this thread have talked about how the Age of Consent in Canada is 14, which is only 1/2 of the story, as kids of any age can technically have sex. The question is "What is criminal sex?" and generally that is anyone over 18 having sex with anyone under 14 (with exceptions for consent, authority and anal sex), but that does not stop a 13-year old from having sex with a 9-year old. The law also states that no one between the ages of 12 and 13 can be charged with a sex crime, and in Canada, no one under 12 can be charged with any crime.

The law was changed in the 1980's because, up until that time, a 16-year old having sex with a 15-year old boyfriend or girlfriend was technically committing a crime, and subject to years in jail. A cop actually tried to charge me with this once, when my girlfriend was 15 and I was 16. (Luckily, my girlfriend was “connected” and when she told the cop who her father was, I think the cop decided it was best if he just sent us home.)

In their attempt to make the law better, the law makers decided that a four-year difference ought to cover situations like this, so a 12-year old could have sex with someone who was 16, or a 13-year old with someone who was 17 etc. This was to be the maximum difference in age before it was deemed non-consensual sex.

I believe that they intended this to be valid for anyone up to the age of 18, so a 17-year old could have sex with someone up to 21-years old. I think if this were the case, people would still be okay with the Canadian Law. However, Canada also has a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which guarantees that no person will be discriminated against under the law based on all kinds of things including AGE.

“Can you say, ‘Oops’? Sure you can.”

So, if this law were to stay in, it would allow a 21-year old to have sex with a 17-year old, but not a 22-year old ... the 22-year old would be committing a crime. And … you guessed it … that is age-discrimination!

So, the law was amended to make everyone 18 years of age or older "the same under the law". (Age discrimination against children remains, and is an exception under the Charter, primarily for their protection. Thus, one must be 18 to vote etc.)


Furthermore, a 14-year old can sue the government to be treated autonomously, thereby separating from his or her parents and becoming a "citizen". They can qualify for Welfare, live on their own, have a job, etc. At 16, they can be granted a driver's license. At 18 they can enlist in the army. Strange that we give them the right and ability to make these kinds of choices and take on these responsibilities, but somehow think that they are still too young to "date" other "mature" adults.


Have you ever heard the story of Traci Lords? At 14 she was doing porn. So, you say "oh, that's child porn", but the problem was that she had a passport issued by the US Government saying she was 22! Her material was generally available to anyone through Adult video stores and in Adult magazines. It was sold as typical, adult pornography. She appeared in Penthouse, Hustler and others, as well as did something like 100 movies, yet all of it was technically "child porn". She is only a few years younger than I am. I think I would have been 21 when she was 14. Not that I dated 14 year olds when I was in my twenties, but it is not an inconceivable situation to be in.

Having seen pictures of Traci from that time, I would never have suspected she is younger than I am. Even being seven years older than her, I doubt I would have been the more "mature" person had we ever met. She had a hard life, and had to grow up faster than most people. The fact her body developed at a young age helped her to fool the world into thinking she was older than she was.


Personally, I am looking for someone who is at least within 10 years of my age. That is just a preference, though. I am reminded of Lot (Bible), in thinking, "What if I met someone who was 11 years younger?" Well, okay, sure ... I would date someone 11 years younger. "What then, if she was 12 years younger? Is there such a big different between 11 and 12?" No, I suppose someone who was 12 years younger than I am might still be 'dateable'.

And so the logic goes. If 12, why not 13? If 13, why not 14? How does one say what the absolute limit to finding someone is? Sure, there is the "tongue-in-cheek" formula of 1/2 + 7, which means at 45, I should date someone who is 29.5. But what if she was only 28? Or 27? Or ... ? Argh!


A few years ago, I met a young woman who was 18. At first, I did not think she was that young, instead assuming she must be in her mid 20's ... 23 at least, and 25 hopefully (*smile*). I was instantly attracted to her by her beauty, but that does not mean much, as lots of 18 year olds are "attractive", and so, after learning her age, I thought nothing more of it.

Then, one night, we started talking about literature. She was extremely well read for someone of her age, and again, I felt a "connection". Okay, so I was not about to "hit on" someone who was 24 years younger than I was, but I did find myself wishing she was a few years older ... okay, a decade older (*smile*). In time, that attraction faded and in its stead is a comfortable friendship, which is how it should be. Yet I can definitely understand the feelings people experience when they meet someone whom is much younger than they are and yet still have a desire to be romantically involved with them.


"You are only as old as you feel." "Age is just a number." If you have ever used either of these phrases, then where are the caveats? "Age is just a number ... so long as that number is over 21." "You are only as old as you feel ... but don't think you can 'feel' less than 30 at your age." After all, 14 is just a number too, and I know there are times when I feel a lot younger than my Driver's License says I am. (Like a few weeks ago, when I was showing my daughter how I used to do donuts in the snow at a local parking lot ... I felt 16 again! *smile*)



Okay, I’ve rambled enough.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
election day today
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:43:31 AM
Politics makes strange bedfellows.


First, I want to know why the Bloc leader spoke only in French when he has complained in the past of Harper speaking only in English? He might have only been speaking to the Bloc voters, but all of Canada was listening.


According to Duceppe, there is practically no similarity between the Conservative and the Bloc ideologies, which could mean a rather tenuous future for our new government. Until the Liberals get a new leader in place, there will not be another election, but that could be out of the way in only a few months. How do you feel about another election in the fall?


Still, I think it could be interesting what these two might find in common.

- The Bloc is all about Quebec, and getting money and power away from Ottawa and into the hands of Quebecers.

- CPC also has made several "decentralizing" comments designed to distribute power away from Ottawa and back into the hands of more regional interests.

Could it be that Duceppe might actually align with Harper to get those things he wants for Quebec, while Harper gets to stay in power, unleashing an almost unfettered wave of Conservatism on the rest of Canada? What if succession of Quebec was a possibility?


There are 75 seats in Quebec. 51 in the hands of the Bloc, 13 for the Liberals, 10 for the CPC and one for an Independent. So, Quebec separates from Canada leaving 233 seats remaining in the rest of the country. 117 is all it takes to have a Majority Government, and the CPC would have 114. Oooo ... so close.

I guess when Quebec actually splits off, there will have to be some map drawing that includes at least five Conservative ridings from Quebec in the rest of Canada. Say, everything within 200 miles of the St. Lawrence? After all, we have to have a way to get from Toronto to Halifax.


*smile*
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
election day today
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:30:50 AM
CPC:. 128 to 143
Lib:…. 77 to 94
Bloc:... 56 to 57
NDP:... 29 to 31
Oth:…... 0 to 1
Green:... 0 to 1

Of course, if all those people out there who did not vote in the last election read my other post (http://forums.plentyoffish.com/2930480datingPostpage5.aspx#3105086) and decide to all vote for Green, then we could see Green: 308 and 0 everywhere else.

Wouldn't that be something!


Don't forget to vote!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Are you going to vote?
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:22:37 PM
Soulfishy: I think the URL you wanted is actually: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/election2006.htm
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Are you going to vote?
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:05:26 PM
You Really Don't Want to Vote?

While it might be a crime technically to spoil a ballot, I think it is more of a moral crime not to vote at all. (I believe some countries fine voters who do not at least appear to vote.) While it might not be much of a protest, as the article suggests, it is not fair to say it does not get counted. I have been a Scrutineer in past elections and all "defaced" ballots were still counted. They had to be counted in order for the count to balance. Last election (2004) the number of destroyed ballots was, in fact, 118,868 across all of Canada.

So, if you want to register a "protest vote" there is still a way to do it without it being a crime (I think). When you arrive at the polling station, show your ID or voting card, sign your name (if that is still required) and then walk out of the polling station WITHOUT accepting the ballot. Another option, if you might be embarrassed by that approach, is to take the ballot behind the curtain, wait a moment, fold it back up and put it in the ballot box WITHOUT any indication of who you would vote for ... effectively it is a blank ballot or a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" ballot by default.

This would not be a crime, as you have not "altered, defaced or destroyed" the ballot. You have not left the polling station with a valid ballot either (also a crime).

*Evil Thought* If you want to really mess with EC, try to get out of the polling station without leaving your ballot behind. Unless it is very, very busy, you will probably not be able to do this, but if you do manage it, they will spend hours after the polls close attempting to find that missing ballot in count after count trying to make things balance.

Of course, this would be breaking the law, so do it at your own risk! *smile*


Prohibitions re ballots, etc.
167. (1) No person shall
(a) apply for a ballot in a name that is not his or her own;
(b) use a forged ballot;
(c) knowing that he or she is without authority under this Act to do so, provide a ballot to any person; or
(d) knowing that he or she is without authority under this Act to do so, have a ballot in his or her possession.

Other prohibitions
(2) No person shall wilfully
(a) alter, deface or destroy a ballot or the initials of the deputy returning officer signed on a ballot;
(b) put or cause to be put into a ballot box a ballot or other paper otherwise than as provided by this Act;
(c) take a ballot out of the polling station; or
(d) destroy, take, open or otherwise interfere with a ballot box or book or packet of ballots.

Actually, I am pretty sure you will have to give the ballot to the EC Official at the box who will tear off a part of the ballot that is used to insure there are a matching number of ballots in the box.

And, let's say you do decide to write "NO" in each of the little boxes on the ballot. At least you DID VOTE. You exercised your franchise and voiced your opinion. You did so in an orderly manner, without annoying or attempting to influence anyone else. And it is (at least today) still a secret ballot ... so as long as you do not harm my right to vote, why should I question your right to make a different choice or no choice!? There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, and in this case, I believe the letter is out of step with the spirit, except where destroying the ballot might have disrupted the voting process for other people (like with the Edible Ballot Society).

It would be great if EC had a formal way to accept a protest vote, however, they are unlikely to ever add one to the system if all the feedback says that non-voting people are just too lazy or too apathetic to vote. If you ARE lazy and/or apathetic, then by all means, stay home, as that is your way of voting. Basically, your vote says “I don’t care who runs the country,” and that is as valid as any other vote. But if you do care about Canada and our political process and your right to vote, then DO VOTE! If there were millions of blank votes, EC would get the message and do something about it. If there were millions of votes going to fringe parties (and I do not mean any of the big four) there could be real change in Canada. Imagine what could happen if even only one Green Party Candidate or Marijuana Party Member held the Balance of Power in Canada! And there are many ridings where this could happen! (In fact, practically every riding would be won if all the non-voters voted for the same Candidate.)

I understand “Strategic” votes, I understand “Hold-your-nose” votes, but if you really think that all the candidates suck, then staying home does not say that. It only says you do not care, and if enough people do not care, then eventually, there will be no vote. If you want to keep the democratic process alive in Canada, then go to the polling station, sign your name and put something into the ballot box.

- A Vote for a Candidate you like
- A Vote for a Party you prefer
- A Vote for a “Strategic” Candidate or Party
- A Vote for the Candidate or Party you “dislike the least”
- A Vote for someone who does not have a chance (Independents?)
- A Vote for a Party that is unlikely to win any seats (Animal Alliance, Canadian Action, Christian Heritage, Communist, First Peoples, Green, Libertarian, Marijuana, Marxist-Leninist, Progressive, Western Block)
- A Vote for “NONE OF THE ABOVE” through civil disobedience (defacing your ballot)
- A Vote for “NONE OF THE ABOVE” through voting, but making no choice (leave your ballot blank)

There IS a difference between not voting at all, and voting with a blank or defaced ballot. Not voting demonstrates apathy, while voting an uncountable vote demonstrates discontent. Personally, this election, there is a candidate in my riding whom I like and I will vote for. If there was not, I would probably vote for the party or for “strategic” reasons. The worst case for me personally would be to vote for a fringe party, to at least show my moral support for their cause. But even if I could not do that (only a Green is running locally) I would still vote, and probably leave the ballot blank.

In 2004, 8,783,051 registered voters did not vote. Together with the 118,868 who had their ballots disqualified, there were over 8.9 MILLION uncounted votes. If there was any party out there who could get all of those votes … they would win. Hands down, end of story. In that same Election across all of Canada, the Liberals got only 4,982,220 votes. Conservatives, 4,019,498. The NDP: 2,127,403. Bloc: 1,680.190 (all from Quebec). Green: 582,247. And all the rest: 173,225.

So imagine what would happen if even the Libertarian Party (they got less than 2,000 votes) got an additional 8.9 million? They would form government! And this is true of any party! Of course, they would have to be running Candidates in all ridings, and I think only the Green and the big three are doing that. The Bloc are only running Candidates in Quebec.


So, if you have read this far and are one of the 39% of Canadian voters who did not vote last time, or are someone who is thinking of not voting this time, please consider following one of the above options and selecting what is the best choice for you.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Are you going to vote?
Posted: 1/21/2006 1:35:01 AM
bcboy: I am still laughing at the Wife's comment! *LMAO*

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874–1965)


"When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people." -- Edmund Burke (1729–1797)


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Attributed to PLATO



I particularly like the last one, although I prefer the paraphrase, "He who does not involve himself in politics is destined to be ruled by his inferiors".


Yes, I too will vote. And like those who say they will not vote, I wish there were real choices available to me. You think $100,000 is a lot of money? My boss where I recently worked makes over $400,000 per year. He is a smart, charismatic and politically savvy individual and would probably be a great leader, were he ever to run. But why would he want to take a $300,000 per year cut in pay? That's a loss of $1.5 million if he is in politics for just 5 years! (Yes, yes, I know, no taxes etc., but it would still be a huge change to his lifestyle.)

I see the problem with politics today, is that we, as a people, get what we pay for. $100,000 per year buys middle management mentality, attitudes and abilities. The true visionaries of our nation are content to allow these puppets to strut and fret and wave their arms and generate sound-bites, while the real workings of our nation go on in the background hardly even noticing the tempest in a teacup called Ottawa. And the rest of us, who can only watch the figureheads of Government, huff and puff at the indignities, when in fact, it is all a ruse mostly enacted for our benefit. If we did not have politicians to gripe about, we might actually care about the real workings of government. Then we might really be in trouble. *smile*


Good Luck!


P.S. Yes, I have voted in every Federal and Provincial election (I missed a city election or two due to work requirements), and I have always thought my vote counted, even the one year that I voted Rhino. If you truly do not care enough to vote, then might I suggest you vote for the candidate least likely to win … like a Green or an Independent. Imagine the stir in Ottawa if 15 Green Party members were suddenly able to make comments on every bill and issue in the House. It is not as good as “None of the Above”, but at least you are voting.

BTW: “None of the Above” does not exist in Canada, but is/was an option in some other jurisdictions, apparently including (past?) US Presidential elections. There are even movements trying to add “None of the Above” to other ballots worldwide. Also, in the US in Historical elections at least, voters were able to write the name of the person they wanted as President. Several people came close via this type of a vote, but I do not know if anyone actually won on a write-in ballot.

FYI: If I counted correctly, on the 2004 US Presidential ballot, there were 71 candidates for President and every voter in the US was able to vote for president, unlike the Canadian system, where we technically do not vote for our Prime Minister.
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Words/phrases.. that drive you insane...
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:05:35 AM
@HORSELADY3

The term 24/7 dunno why just dont like it

The one that gets me is 24/7/365. It would be 24/7/52, as in "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year". Or, if you prefer, 24/365.

@gypsy_leah

"Its all good" or "No worries"
Both statements come across as a blow off or patronizing to me.

I use both of those now, and I certainly do not mean them to patronize someone. I think it is just because I have met so many Australians online.


To me, the most offensive thing you can call someone (or at least me, I suppose) is "stupid". This sentiment would also extend to some of the less offensive terms like "goof", "idiot", "loser", "moron", "numbskull", "peabrain", etc. although none of those really irk me the way "stupid" can ... especially the "ur so stooopid" version.


Good Luck!
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 27 (view)
 
favorite word
Posted: 1/17/2006 3:48:31 AM
Well, I honestly never tried to make her mad after we split ... there was enough angst coming from the efforts of the lawyers ... but before we split, the phrase "I love you anyway" would sometimes set her off. As in, she would do something totally boneheaded and be telling me about it, and I would try to tell her it was okay and *jokingly* say, "it's okay hon, I love you anyway". Boy she would get mad.

Hmmm ... maybe that's why she left?

*smile*
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Is sex with a married but separated person adultry in most religions?
Posted: 1/17/2006 3:07:27 AM
The following few quotes are from the Bible, Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, Verses 13 to 29.


If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth [the tokens of] the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech [against her], saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these [are the tokens of] my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred [shekels] of silver, and give [them] unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

To the women reading this, would you want to live with a man who did this to you? Accused you of being a whore? Accused you of not being a virgin upon the night of your wedding? And did you keep the “tokens” of your virginity and give them to your parents after that first night? Because if you did not, then if your husband “hates” you and tells the world that you were “not a maid” (that is, not a “virgin of Israel”), then consider what you might have to look forward to:

But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

So all women who are not virgins when they get married face death. Pretty straight forward.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

And thus we have the official word on Adultery: Punishable by death to both parties.

If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

So, ladies, if you are going to be raped, make sure it happens outside of the city limits. If a woman is raped in the city, however, then she deserves to die as well as her rapist.

If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

On the other hand, if you are raped before anyone wants to marry you, then you just get to be the wife of your rapist, and your dad gets to make a few bucks in the transaction.


In case there is anyone who cannot tell, I am being somewhat sarcastic here, and I suppose I should be worried about lightning bolts. But if these passages do not show the zealots out there that the word and laws of God have changed as the times have changed, then I doubt anything could convince them otherwise. The fact is, the Bible was written by men (and some women). Hopefully much of it is inspired by God, but the particular laws as they pertain to the interaction between men and women, marriage and divorce have changed as the times have changed.

In the beginning, God commanded Adam to procreate with Eve. Ignoring the issue of using a clone to generate offspring, what about all the obvious incestuous relationships that had to form from this first union? These are later expressly forbidden.

Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

(Look for a lot more examples in Leviticus 18.)

The plan was that Man would take a Woman to wife and live with her for the rest of their days. Ahh, the best laid plans of mice and men … and God it would seem.

Consider Er and Onan. Er takes a wife, Tamar, actually given to him by his father Judah, but somehow Er offends God, and God kills him. Not sure what he did, but I hope it was worse than posting a critical review of Biblical stories on the POF Forums *smile*. With Er dead, Onan was now required to marry Tamar. So, to the women reading this, how many of you would just automatically marry your husband’s brother if your husband was to die?

But, of course you remember, Onan did not want to be the father of his brother’s child, so he … “spilled” his seed on the ground, and God smote him too. Ouch! Did God mention this to Onan before hand, I wonder? “Onan, this is God speaking. When you have sex with your brother’s wife, make sure you don’t miss, or I will be really ticked and likely end your life. Have a nice day.” Man, talk about performance anxiety!

Now of course, Tamar is getting a bit weary of this. No husband, no child, and no ability to marry anyone else because now she is betrothed to Shelah, the third son of Judah, who is still just a boy and she has to wait for him to grow up. Which begs another question: Ladies, how long would you wait for your dead husband’s kid brother to grow up so you can marry him?

Okay, so years pass, and Judah himself becomes a widower. Shelah is grown, but Judah is still afraid to send him to Tamar (probably suspecting that she is jinxed … either that, or into some pretty kinky sex … “Can you say erotic asphyxiation? Sure you can”). Instead, he leaves her barren. So, Tamar takes matters into her own hands, so to speak.

She disguises herself and waits for Judah to see her.


When Judah saw her, he thought her [to be] an harlot; because she had covered her face.
And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she [was] his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
And he said, I will send [thee] a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give [me] a pledge, till thou send [it]?
And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that [is] in thine hand. And he gave [it] her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
Genesis 38:15 – 18

Okay … this is JUDAH! Father of the Jewish people. Great, great, great … great grandfather of Christ (or at least Mary and Joseph). This is the man to whom God has said in another passage:

Judah, thou [art he] whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand [shall be] in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
Judah [is] a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be].
Genesis 49: 8 – 10

The chosen of God, whoring? What gives? Or is that why God created harlots? To provide sex to old, widowers? What a nice guy this God is turning out to be, now that I think about it.

Ahh, but what about Tamar.

Well, not long after, she is discovered as pregnant, and the people demand she be put to death (hey, wouldn’t this be an abortion?), until that is, she shows them who the father is by producing Judah’s signet, bracelets and staff. Then Judah repents, and sees that she is not dangerous and commands that she not be punished for her actions.

Genesis 38:26 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


She goes on to have twins. I am not sure if she ever marries Shelah or not.

Remember Leviticus Chapter 18? The rules of incest (basically). Then, consider verses 15 and 16:

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she [is] thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

And yet, what did Judah do? What did Onan do? Hmmm … laws seem to be changing.

How about Lot and his daughters? Yes, I know … he was drunk, but still, he was the father of his own grandchildren and for all intents and purposes a righteous man. The events being explained by the situation. (Genesis 19:30 – 36)

Today, adulterers do not get “stoned” (in the Biblical sense at least *smile*). If they did, a lot of us would not be divorced and separated, but rather, we would be widowed.

And here, I suppose, comes the crux of my little treatise on the Bible.


And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Book of John, Chapter 8, Verses 2 to 11


Can you, at least those who read this who are Christian, look upon a woman who has been abandoned by her husband, left with what little means she has, who turns to another for comfort and a hope for happiness, and actually stand there and call her a “whore”? An “adulterer”? Would you be one to stand in the temple with Christ and lift up a stone?


Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:1 – 5



Peace, and may God be with you.
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Who do you share your birthday with?
Posted: 1/16/2006 12:13:38 AM
@Chinua ... other May 18 Birthdays

1048 - Omar Khayyám, Persian poet (d. 1123)
1186 - Konstantin of Rostov, Prince of Novgorod (d. 1218)
1474 - Isabella d'Este, Marquise of Mantua (d. 1539)
1610 - Stefano della Bella, Italian printmaker (d. 1664)
1616 - Johann Jakob Froberger, German composer (d. 1667)
1662 O.S. - George Smalridge, English Bishop of Bristol (d. 1719)
1692 O.S. - Joseph Butler, English bishop and philosopher (d. 1752)
1711 - Ruder Josip Boškovic, Croatian atomic theorist (d. 1787)
1778 - Charles William Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry
1785 - John Wilson, Scottish writer (d. 1854)
1797 - Frederick Augustus II of Saxony (d. 1854)
1850 - Oliver Heaviside, English physicist (d. 1925)
1872 - Lord Bertrand Russell, English mathematician and philosopher, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature (d. 1970)
1883 - Eurico Gaspar Dutra, President of Brazil (d. 1974)
1883 - Walter Gropius, German architect (d. 1969)
1889 - Thomas Midgley, American chemist and inventor (d. 1944)
1891 - Rudolf Carnap, German philosopher (d. 1970)
1892 - Ezio Pinza, Italian-born bass (d. 1957)
1897 - Frank Capra, American producer, director, and writer (d. 1991)
1901 - Vincent du Vigneaud, American chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (d. 1978)
1902 - Meredith Willson, American composer (d. 1984)
1905 - Hedley Verity, English cricketer (d. 1943)
1911 - Big Joe Turner, American blues singer (d. 1985)
1912 - Perry Como, American singer (d. 2001)
1912 - Walter Sisulu, South African anti-apartheid activist (d. 2003)
1918 - George Welch, American pilot and war hero (d. 1954)
1919 - Dame Margot Fonteyn, English ballet dancer (d. 1991)
1920 - Pope John Paul II (d. 2005)
1920 - Lucia Mannucci, Italian singer (Quartetto Cetra)
1922 - Kai Winding, Danish-born musician (d. 1983)
1923 - Hugh Shearer, Prime Minister of Jamaica (d. 2004)
1924 - Priscilla Pointer, American actress
1926 - Dirch Passer, Danish actor (d. 1980)
1928 - Pernell Roberts, American actor
1929 - Jack Sanford, baseball player
1931 - Don Martin, American cartoonist (d. 2000)
1931 - Robert Morse, American actor
1934 - Dwayne Hickman, American actor/writer
1937 - Brooks Robinson, baseball player
1937 - Jacques Santer, Luxembourg statesman
1942 - Albert Hammond, British musician and compose
1943 - James Reiher, American professionsal wrestler
1946 - Reggie Jackson, baseball player
1947 - John Bruton, ninth Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland
1949 - Rick Wakeman, English composer and musician (Yes)
1949 - Bill Wallace, Canadian musician (The Guess Who)
1950 - Thomas Gottschalk, German television show host
1950 - Rodney Milburn, American athlete (d. 1997)
1950 - Mark Mothersbaugh, American composer, musician, and singer (Devo)
1952 - George Strait, American musician
1955 - Chow Yun-Fat, Hong Kong actor
1960 - Jari Kurri, Finnish hockey player
1960 - Yannick Noah, French tennis player
1969 - Martika, Cuban-American singer
1970 - Tina Fey, Left-handed american writer, comedienne, and actress (Saturday Night Live)
1971 - Brad Friedel, American football player
1975 - John Higgins, Scottish snooker player
1975 - Jack Johnson, American musician
1977 - Lee Hendrie, English footballer
1977 - Danny Mills, English footballer
1978 - Ricardo Carvalho, Portuguese footballer
1982 - Eric West, American singer and actor
1983 - Vince Young, American football (American) quaterback
 RFlagg
Joined: 10/21/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Hating a friend's boyfriend
Posted: 1/14/2006 11:33:45 AM
Here, here, happylulu ... now how can we teach this life lesson to more of those "gaggles" without it taking 18 years?

I have been on the bad side of this kind of thing myself. My ex's best friend thought I was the worst thing that ever happened to her for 16+ years. We were always "friendly" but there was always this tension, as she just thought I was "too weird".

Then, my ex leaves and the best-friend's hubby leaves and we are the two left standing. Suddenly she sees a whole different side of me.


Love is rare enough and relationships hard enough without the complication of catty or meddling "friends". Obviously if the guy is a total cad, or the gal is a manipulative gold-digger (to name a couple), then you might want to say "something", AND if he/she is aware of the traits, then saying something is where it should end. But if all it is, is your dissatisfaction, keep it to yourself. Or better yet, try to find out why you feel that way and deal with your issues.

All too often those "gaggles" form a terribly negative influence on a couple's chances, and damn if it's not hard enough already! “Can you say ‘peer pressure’? Sure you can.”

Just my $0.02 worth.


Good Luck!
 
Show ALL Forums