you're trying to see everything from an non-humanistic perspective.Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I bet you like philosophy, but if you do, remember that it's not bad for us falible humans to see things from our own perspective. It's more useful to ourselves that way. Though it might not be as perfect as the god perspective on reality that you like to use.
Insightful!
I especially love the idea of the interlinking of subject and object... in quantum physics there is something called the "uncertainty principle". Part of this uncertainity arrises because one cannot make an observation on a particle without interfering with it, so that it is impossible to observe something in its undisturbed state, the process of observing is interfering because in fact your are not a pure observer and you are not purely objective, you are a participant in the universe and will always remain so... the universe is everything so its impossible for anything to purely observe.
isn't uncertainty principle that you can only either know the position or the heading, not both.
nonetheless, this phylosophical insight get's us nowhere...
Well there's nowhere to go when you don't really want to go anywhere. So fuck what that buffy comic says, I'm gonna be a lake. Not a river. =D At least until I'm tired of it.
Man, if a person doesn't know you are observing them, then the uncertainty principle doesn't apply because you aren't a concern for them. Because of this, there is no potential for behavioral modification.
Signals are everything. So long as you don't signal your presence, it's as though you're not even there....
*facepalm*
someone shoot me, seriously I feel like dying everytime this happens. People are just so fucking ignorant, its not even worth explaining it to them, even if I did put in the time to explain it out in depth, it would pass as useless garbage to them, cause your just so convinced my mind is like a garbage disposal and that I don't know anything.
why, why, just shoot me, fucking seriously... I am sooo tired of this garbage.
I just love the attitude, its like whatever I say even in the most innocent way is now being misconstrued as idiocy... I mean you don't even give me the benefit of the doubt that I could actually be correct; its simply fucking amazing.
Well sure you know best cheif.... your the master, you've probably put alot more time in this than me studying all this and you are the best judge of what insights get us anywhere....
next time I'll just condense my post down to
"Hey thanks BnD I found that insightful"
But I am sure you'll find some kind of criticism in a statement as innocent as that also...
fucking asshole.
edit:
No wait, I am sorry this sounds harsh, and I really don't want to be harsh, but I don't what to be now that it feels like your basically out to call any thing I post that comes from my head completely wrong.
Maybe I shouldn't have the liscene to think, maybe people should ban me from expressing my thoughts on message boards... men should just come to my house at night and sedate me and remove my brain and process it down for raw biological material for much smarter scientists (that know what the uncertainty principle) to use for experiments.... because obviously, I am just ultimately so flawed in my thoughts.
And recapitulating the theme here again, I am seriously not being harsh, it just makes me angry as hell how you can sit down and try to explain your ideas to other people, reason through them, express them with painstaking effort and clarity, and have them just blow you off without even taking the effort to listen... and its not just you, its like every fucking person out there.... I remember telling a friend while he was driving, that the street he needed to take was on the other side of the highway and he shot me this speech about how essentially I didn't know what I was talking about and that I should basically keep quiet and watch while he found the street.... boom 10 minutes later, sure enough I was right, and I fucking knew I was right, but I still had the humility to trust the asshole and consider the fact I was wrong. When we arrive I kind of looked at him and he didn't even tell me "Oh sorry, you were right", instead he shot me this look of resentment... and the funny thing is I didn't even feel like I wanted to rub his face in the fact he was wrong, I just wanted recognition for what I rightfully deserved, and I was more than willing to make the required sacrifices to get it, if I was in his position, I would have swallowed the hard pill and set aside my pride to appologize because if I was in the reverse position thats what I would have wanted. But etc etc etc..... who cares...
If your interested heisen-fucking-berg had orginally said.... the cause for the uncertainty principle... as to actually the fucking reason why you can't know the position and momentum.... YES THE FUCKING REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT JUST THE FUCKING SHIT YOU READ IN MOTHER FUCKING TEXTBOOKS.... but the ACTUAL PHYSIC-FUCKING-CAL REASON sceintists said it exists is because
If a photon is traveling.... a fucking particle of light..... is fucking bouncing around illuminating a bunch of shit...... if that shit is bouncing around all over the fucking place.... and one of your overly arrogant cynical asshole lab partners is all like "HEY ****** I FUCKED YOUR MOM.... GOD DOESN'T EXIST.... YOUR A USELESS PEICE OF HUMAN WASTE..... GOOD AND EVIL DON'T EXIST.... EVERYTHING IS MEANINGLESS...... NO JUSTICE EXISTS BEYOND THAT FABRICATED BY HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO GIVE MEANING TO THE GRAY ABYSS OF THAT WHICH IS KNOWN AS OUR INSIGNIFICANT REALITY....... OH AND BY THE WAY...... WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THAT PHOTON!". YOU can be like let me measure it..... BUT HOW THE FUCK DOES ONE MEASURE A PHOTONS POSITION.... IF YOU ANSWERED "WITH A RULER".... please do me the favor of hitting yourself upside the head for me. OR better yet, try to fucking measure a photon with a ruler.... and tell me how that works out for you. Post it in here, I am sure everyone will agree with you if you suck their dicks.... not because your correct, but because your ideas bring all the boys to the yard with your fucking MILKSHAKKKESSS!!!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!! Be sure not to say CHOCLATE MILKSHAKE.... cause that will be racist.... and people will appear in front of your house with fucking protest signs and hit you over the head then burn you at the stake... cause thats the kind of fucked up shit people do to each other. Of course there is a cure.... say "BARACK OBAMA" 3 times really fast and you'll asuage your white guilt and take the morale high ground... only to be nailed down by a narcissitic etype 3 who wants to look like they care more about the racial bigotry that exists in this world.
BARACK OBAMA BARACK OBAMA BARACK OBAMA (hey guyz now I get a get out of racist jail free card.... goodies for me)
FUCK FUCK FUCK.... no one is probably going to be able to even follow this shit storm of meaningless crap.... but seeing as how there is no truth or justice.... it doesn't really matter because everything is meaningless!!!!! I know so because I read a book by neitzsche and he said that... and my cool friend that everyone is like "he's like really smart, but he's a loner... its like that one movie donnie fucking darko....".... HE IS AN AETHIST... and so is neitzsche so fucking neitzsche MUST BE CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND LIFE MUST BE mEAINGLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SOME PEOPLE WANT TO die like hendrix... some people want to die like a hero... some people don't want to die at all.... but um neitzsche went crazy before he died.... which doesn't have to do with ANY FUCKING THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to the story....
YOU can't measure a photon with a ruler.... so you have to figure out where it is by ramming a fucking particle of light at it... but that causes it to bounce imparting momentum onto it. Waves are particles, particles are waves, matter is not a collection of orderly placed beads in a perfectly arranged lattice but rather ripples on a lake....
ahh fuck it just wikipedia it... or better yet ban me for this load of shit
I feel better now and I don't regret writing this.........
out
Last edited by male; 12-24-2009 at 02:12 AM.
Lol, even if there was I'd just delete the post and leave the forum and rejoin with a different alias at a later time. Thats the beauty of the internet... I've never had to do that before though, but its comforting to know that option is there.It's okay partner. Just let it out. It's just a web forum so no harm done. This is why the Internet exists so we can be whatever we want without it interfering too much with our daily RL concerns. Nothing to regret.
Anyways... I would have deleted that massive rant thing... but as I was typing it I figured some people may find it interesting/funny so I kept it just for the heck of it.
I haven't read the whole post, but I wish you luck with your unified theory of everything that connects socionics to quantum physics. I really think you earn a nobel prize.
Actually, while I don't agree with the original post, it serves well the purpose of illustrating the preference for Ti.
I don't really see those "hard boundaries" Ti valuing types find so natural. Colors for example, are a mix between objective and subjective. Every one of us recognizes their existence and we call the same frequencies with the same name; yet it is unlikely that our perception of those frequencies is identical or even similar. And this becomes evident when you ask people to define the boundaries of what a color is, say, to tell you when a green stops being green and becomes blue. The objective frequency is there (Te), but the Ti frame is highly subjective (Fe).
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Probably why Te types take a lot of unnecessary action to me when they should check first to see if matches up well emotionally.I don't really see those "hard boundaries" Ti valuing types find so natural.
Oh and hi. Bitch. (don't take offense I call everybody bitch)
*block*
Well lol I am glad you didn't read the post I was just pissed off... because well
1) You seem to have something against me personally, maybe I am a little paranoid on this one, but I am dropping the flag on this one and calling it... maybe you shouldn't confuse whatever I did to piss you off with a simple discussion. I would actually appreciate if you could either swallow your emo crap and just talk civilly or lay it on me whatever I did to get on your shit list.
2) I am not pursuing a unified theory of everything... really if you read the post with an a clearer mind you'll see orginally all I was doing was drawing a parallel between quantum physics (which I have studied) and what BnD posted. My motivation was that there was a possibility some people may find it interesting and that it could allow me to discuss something I am interested in and knowledgable about with another person on this forum... but by no means was it any serious attempt at any kind of scholarly pursuit or theory.
3) Your saying "I really think you earn a noble prize"... in a way that suggests I am somehow guilty of intellectual arrogance... but really, once again if you read through what I said in a clearer mind you'll see I was just thinking off the cuff and wasn't trying to assert any kind of intellectual dominance or self-aggrandizing gesture.
Really let me be practical about this... we can't both be correct, either your right or I am. Say your right and I have no idea what the uncertainity principle is and I am a complete idiot and am completely wrong.... I am willing to accept that, but I am skeptical first, its not enough to call me out on this, you must first disprove me because you see...
I have spent existenive time studying physics, its actually my major in college and for the last 5 years I've studied physics... I have dedicated literally hundreds of hours reading books on the subject of physics both for my classes and for personal enjoyment. Needless to say, I don't get laid too often because I am trying to achieve a degree in physics and still learn something which occupies a great deal of time, work, and sacrifice I have put in. Most often your studying something so technical that most people cannot follow your explanations without having some background in the subject, so you tend to get little appreciation for the work you do, or even worse a stigma of being a nerd.
Now back to the point... you must first disprove me because of this... because imagine my anger when someone with likely much less experience attempts to dismiss my innocently conceived statement in a condenscending manner with a very glib and unflattering one sentence argument, that is supposed to topple the foundation of a entire structure of knowledge I have been fastitidously working on for the last 5 years of my life. Just imagine how pissed I must have been, and partly you can get away with it because my counter-argument would be overly technical and boring.
If anyone is guilty of intellectual arrogance its you, and I feel like I am being treated in a undeserving manner. In all seriousness, I beg you, I fucking implore you, to tell me WHY, I deserve to be treated like this... lets have you be the judge of your own actions for a second and see if you believe yourself to be as justified as you act.
You took a physical principle about which we know very little and made a philosophical statement out of it. That's just like, whoa.
No you can't know both its position and velocity at once... but that doesn't mean the idea that that particle has a definite place and velocity is incorrect. In fact, it most definitely does, because you know what dude? There are all these objects out there which have a definite, measurable place, and we have these things called CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS which show with 99.99% accuracy that energy levels above the CMBR are localized in space. That's not just an illusion, however much the idea of indulging in your weak functions tickles you.
One thing I am absolutely certain of: ideas that we cannot know the most probable position of objects in space will NEVER produce ANY useful technology EVER. It's categorically IMPOSSIBLE. So have fun writing about this shit in your science journals, because you've got plenty of company. Just don't expect the Nobel Prize, or any other significant recognition for your work, because that kind of thinking never yields anything but failed experiments.
yes nice formulated. That was why I was irritated.
@haveluciddreams
For the record I don't have anything personal against you, just don't like strange speculations.
No offense but its very clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Are you familiar with the two slit experiment or electron diffraction?
Those two experiments are the most commonly cited as proof of the uncertainty principle and are considered to be the EXPERIMENTAL basis for it. Any one who actually studies physics knows this and furthermore I've actually done both experiments in a lab before.
Secondarily you don't even know what energy levels and CMBR are... that is not proof of a particle having a definite place. Energy is not Space.... lol and furthermore space is not space its spacetime and energy is completely different than an objects representation in spacetime.
Energy is a property of a particular system and has nothing to do with its spatial representaiton. Even if it did, you'de know that in your existensive knowledge of the energy time uncertainty principle and why even energy levels are uncertain on certain extremely short time scales.
; this explains the physical idea behind the double slit experiment, proof for the wave particle duality and uncertainity principle
Wow your just all butthurt because thats the way everyone taunted you on okcupid about socionics.... They said socionics was useless and mocked you for being a want to be nobel prize winner. Interesting you just go around and do the same shit to other people.
At any rate, I don't want to write for a science journal, nor do I wish to aqquire a noble prize, I just wanted to write what I wrote without being unjustly criticized.
Also quantum mechanics (of which the uncertainity principle is only part of the strange ideas presented within it) is invaluable to technology. Scanning electron microscopes and solid-state transitors and circuits are just two important ideas on it.
For an even more direct application of the uncertainity principle is the bose-einstein condensation and super-fluidity... you can make a fluid with zero viscosity and its all partly because of the uncertainty principle.
; bose-einstein condensation - one of the applications of the uncertainty principle listen to the way the guy talks about overlapping wave packets and how they lose their "individual indenitity" this is an example of the uncertainity principle
; superfluidity, the practical application of bose-einstein condensation
You do have something personal against me... your just playing this all political and its obvious to me. Besides your claiming I make strange speculations and you don't like strang speculation, hence you have a personal problem against me because I make strange speculation... the end.
look I am not willing to debate out my philosophical insight because you aren't willing to hear me out, you already have your mind made up and your not particularly knowledgable in the area of physics.... so I can't really debate this out with you unless you have all the intellectual machinery nessicary to discuss this. Don't mean to sound like I am putting you down, but thats the truth... your too arrogant to be receptive to anything I say.
Thats not how it works... its not some mystical action of observing and it doesn't apply to people that are being watched like that. Partly the rejection of my ideas comes from your lack of ability at correctly applying them.
oh if that's the definition of having something personal against someone, then I probably have something against you. If you say so.
I'm not knowledgeable at that part of physics, though I do know off the double slit experiment. But to connect such things to socionics is simple to far fetched.
Well and you would know best, because you are the supreme arbiter of what is far fetched and not.
*bows down to master jarno* the supreme judge of what is allowed to be said on the boards and what is not.
Sorry master I'll be sure to keep that thought/speculation inside my own head instead of articulate it next time to better appease your judgements on what is considered appropriate to discuss on these boards.
Besides I was thinking outside of socionics anyways... I mean does every word uttered on this forum have to explicitly be linked with socionics or is there such thing as general philosophical thought that can exist on this forum? Oh and I am petitioning this request to you oh mighty judge of what is allowed and what isn't.
I know all the tricks, LucidDreams. You're just as nutty as McNew, Discoejoe, and Mikemex. And you will join the two of them that remain here on my ignore list. You are unable to provide evidence for any of your claims, which is why you're going to have a frosty reception among the professionals, although I think it only a matter of time before one of your professors stops your ambitions COLD.
We will see
Don't doubt it.
yeah get raped!
I don't like to enter personal battles but I'm astonished with tcaudilllg's response. Specially since it seems obvious that he didn't get what I meant:
The object (Te) and it's symbolic representation (Ti) are separate things.
I'll try to set an easier example:
I may hold a brick in my hand and tell you I'm holding a brick. Then you come over and verify that I'm holding a brick. Great, it's simple.
However, what if I was part of an experiment and as a little children they told me that the name for the brick is "spoon"? Then you would come over to verify that I'm holding a "spoon", only to find that what I'm realliy holding is a brick.
Now, what if we were talking over the phone? It would be much harder and maybe even impossible to realize that we get pictures of different things in our respective heads.
The solution would be simple, you may say: take both of us in front of the object and it will become obvious that we call it using different names. Then you make me call the object by the same name, and the next time we talk over the phone we will get identical pictures in our minds, yes? Easy, and it's pretty nice from the boolean logic point of view, which is what Ti is based upon.
However, this is not that easy. The wise thinkers of the ancient India already thought it 3000 years ago and they reached the conclusion that even if we call the same object by the same name, then there is still no warranty that we perceive the same thing, as it is illustrated in the fabble Blind men and an elephant..
I get frustrated because LIIs usually despise the Te aspects of reality. How things really are, what they really do.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Well put, labcoat (and Bulletsanddoves).
A good chunk of conference talks on socionics in Kiev each year are devoted to reflection upon the field of socionics itself, particularly: "where is socionics headed?" "what is socionics lacking?" "how can socionists work together better?" "on schools within socionics," etc.
These are tell-tale signs of stagnation.
While socionics is great philosophy, mental training, and self-development material, I feel a bit sorry for people who seem capable enough of regular science but continue to spend their energy on socionics far beyond the point of diminishing returns.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Indeed, the same thing happens in quantum mechanics, which hasn't had any new theoretical developments for ~80 years. But I don't think this means that socionics is not a viable science, at least in the long term - the idea of an atom was around for thousands of years before it became experimentally verified. Socionics' claims are just too far beyond human science as it stands, we know almost nothing about how the brain works.
I'm content with just messing around, applying socionics to new areas and people. Let someone else make it a science...
Agreed ... in science the gap between theory and widespread adoption and exploitation has always been a big one ... 30 years of existence without being adapted into the mainstream does not make the theory either stagnant or diminish its usefulness.
ILE
I think regular science is not without it's fruitless endeavors.
I know a number of scientists making the next new anti-inflammatory medication or something or the other which will be mass marketed with little to no appreciable benefit vs existing remedies all in the name of obtaining a limited monopoly on the product.
While socionics is not going to be a hard science anytime soon, it has many things going for it that make it interesting.
It is a information theory which places it in the realm of computer science, which although is not a "real" science certainly has great effect on the world today.
We know the nature of the world can be modeled and explained via thermodynamic, all socionics is tells us that it is not merely the world that is thermodynamic, but our reflection of the world within our mind via perception will also order itself thru thermodynamics.
It takes a short walk down the road for much of socionic theory to be extrapolated from these basic assumptions, without Jung or Freud.
What the associations with Jung or Freud does is explain the theory in a way that psychologists and those that have studied psychology can understand.
I'm not sure how much academic importance socionic has however, it might be replaced by a more experimental systematization of the mind, although I think likely the structure of such a systematization will not be radically different but the terminology will allow such a systematization to integrate with other topics.
I think we know a lot about how the brain works, perhaps not enough to make the pinpoint predictions which people seem to need in order to view something as known, but certainly we know a whole lot which we did not know even 20 years ago.
I think I agree. The fields of theory, experimentation, and application within any field develop at different rates. During periods of stagnation somebody's got to keep watch over the field while progress continues in other sciences.
For at least a decade, probably closer to two, theoretical development in socionics has been fairly trivial -- a new grouping here and there, a new model B, C, D, or X that doesn't particularly change anything, and so on. Experimentation has been of the non-replicable sort, and many of the studies have focused not on socionics per se, but on the consensus among socionists. Most progress within socionics has been in the field of application -- more tests, more commercial services, dating sites, classes, some academic recognition as at least an "important theory in psychology," and a few people here and there making a decent career of it.
This mirrors the development of MBTT for good reason -- because of inherent limitations to knowledge acquisition in this type of field. The only difference is that MBTI'ers have had more resources available and more time to test larger numbers of people and write more popular books. But the nature of their research does not seem to be qualitatively different from that of socionics.
This is probably my
Imagine yourself a 20-year-old with a strong interest in socionics. If you try to make socionics your career, you will likely spend the next decades of your life doing a lot of thinking and very little doing. As you develop a clientele, classes, and/or write popular articles and books, you will find yourself feigning certainty and saying things you don't really know for sure so often that you begin to forget that you don't really know. Your relations with many fellow socionists sour, and you spend much of your time in ideological debates about things that are unproven. Maybe, though, you feel like you are helping people through your information and personal services.
Or you could go into another field -- such as neuroscience, social psychology, cognitive psychology, or even family science -- where acquisition of factual data is relatively easy and there is outside funding to do research. There is so much more readily observable data, such better infrastructure for research, that you simply learn much more than if you had taken the socionics-only path. In my opinion, if there are socionics breakthroughs to be made, it is through neuroscience and experimental psychology.
When I said I felt "a bit sorry for people who seem capable enough of regular science but continue to spend their energy on socionics far beyond the point of diminishing returns," I was referring to people who have tried to make it a career. But, come to think of it, maybe it's not worse than most other careers... I really was assessing the potential for learning along such a career path.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
It's just that socionics accounts for some stuff and doesn't for other. It's simple as that.
I liked the example with the atoms.
I think socionics exists, I just don't think it 'goes anywhere' as it's trying to explain the core mechanism of things already in motion, which is why college and institutional learning is also very, very useless. But we're still in the stage where we try to make functions mean whatever we want them to mean, I think. Some of what people think on here is just quite silly no offense. I think we're still in the stage of debating the base theory.
And because of the nature of how the ego works, it might be possible- through very, very advanced forms of meditation to change your type. We already have to make some unnatural 'adjustments' to survive in certain social settings, make the gauge of what is our 'natural states' hard to identity. None of this has been tried, because well, none of us really care to that extent. And the control group. What you could determine from such data would probably be too specific to be useful, or things that most people already know.
I used to think things like 'I'm not the type of person to like sports, or the outdoors or being active.' This was stupid though and just me being lazy/uninformed on how the body works, it wasn't true, my identity wasn't 'whole' and I bet it's like this for everybody, we have these thoughts- mostly egoic- that aren't really connected to the external world, which causes issues and our emotional struggles. Likewise, I can say I don't like something (and this is kind of the reverse problem now), but how much did the outside reality influence my subjective impression of me disliking that thing? Can I grow to like it with different circumstances? Stuff like that.
A lot of what we think is our 'core identity', something that's rooted and very deeply woven in our psyche just isn't so. We hold onto those things cause, well change is just naturally scary. I'm not saying that there isn't a core identity, something purely and magic and subjective in place for us to feel some spiritual reverence towards. That could still very well exist. But, maybe not.
People have negative psychology attached to all sorts of things in their life. They say things like 'that's just how I naturally am' but really you just had a traumatizing experience related to the event. If you were insulted or mistreated as a child in social situations for example, that really hurts and makes you wary of almost everybody and everything. You can say 'just get over it, everybody was treated bad' or whatever you want, but I'm talking about subconscious processes that you just kinda do without thinking. But it's the same song and dance every time. You confront the situation with a new mindset, and you eventually 'get over it.' The human being was meant to be adaptative, and I'll end this long rant with the adage
"It's not the answer that motivates us, but the question. It's always about the question."
BulletsAndDoves' original post is wrong. There is a difference between truth and perception (i.e. between objectivity and subjectivity).
Truth is what is really there.
Perception requires manipulation before you arrive at what is. Due to manipulation (by our minds or other forces) of what is true to give us what we know as perception, what is perceived may not be true. A perception is only (superficially) true when the manipulation brings it back to its end result.
To apply the law of five:
1) The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5
2) The Law of Fives is never wrong. '
Within this post there are words. See how everything is inextricably linked to the law of five? But notice also that manipulation is involved. This does not contradict the law of fives since it applies an extremely lose definition.
That's where occam's razor comes in: That which requires the least manipulation to explain a phenomenon is closer to the truth. Or rather, the simplest is probably true(r).
Can we apply the occam's razor to socionics? We cannot apply occam's razor to the Law of Fives because it is too relaxed. However, we can apply occam's razor to any logical system (our lives, relationships, sef) regulated by socionics to the extent that socionics is more clearly defined. This will not happen in the near future.
Because of that, we cannot use the occam's razor to derive socionical truths about our lives/selves/relationships etc.
Is it possible to use other methods to derive socionical truths in our lives? While there are no better heuristic methods other than occam's razor (to my limited knowledge and bigoted opinion), it is possible to use more lengthy and unregulated methods such as forum discussions. Unfortunately, without more regulation within the forum, one cannot derive much certainty of whatever what want to learn or conclude about. This is a bad thing insofar as you value truth.
On the other hand, I enjoyed his last post. It made good sense and at the same time it was inspirational. Thumbs up.
Last edited by Reuben; 01-13-2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason: stupid grammatical error
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
"Yes, it will be done."
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
