Adahn

[font=Verdana][size=2]First of all, I'd rather be clean and smell bad. When I'm dirty, I feel dirty, and it's very hard to become comfortable. I'm afraid that my own comfort comes before making myself appealing to others.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]When I was young, I got teased enough that I lost any sense of myself being attractive to anyone. Even when someone did show interest, I ignored them, only realizing what I'd done after it was too late to change anything. I was even attracted to some of the girls who showed interest![/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]When I started college, I decided that my paradigm was a result of the schools I went to, and the situations I was forced to endure. Being free of school freed me from my ignorance. Very early into my first term, however, I fell in love with a girl, and I am hers and she is mine to this day. This leads to a pattern of personal interactions that you may find interesting.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]I recognize myself as someone desirable, now, but I am taken. When I first see someone, I judge them by appearance, just like anyone else. After I do this, however, I dismiss them. There is not a single woman (or man) on this campus that has made any memorable impression on me by looks alone.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Despite the asocial nature that might lead people to believe that I am a lifeless automaton, I have developed a personality. Nobody can completely avoid social interactions, and I will explore mine.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]If someone talks to me, I listen, and I respond. As soon as someone engages me in conversation, they cement themselves into my memory in a way that looks cannot do alone. Subconsciously, I think I push myself away and emanate a feeling of unapproachability, so as soon as someone starts talking to me, I give a thought to their motives. There are three possible reasons that come to mind.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]1. They sensed my social unease, and for some reason, approached me because of it.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]2. They find me attractive somehow (physically, mentally, not necessarily sexually at all)[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]3. They're just a friendly person.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Usually, I react favorably to those who approach me, but not always, as this is where I find my superficiality. You know that there are attractive people, average looking people, and ugly people. If someone attractive tries to talk to me, I become defensive, for fear of liking her too much. If someone ugly tries to talk to me, I reply, but I give off a 'vibe' of being put-off. If someone moderately attractive, average looking, or moderately unattractive talks to me, I immediately like them. They don't attract me too much, and they don't appall me too much, so I feel no threat or disgust at being with them. I believe that they approached me for one of the three reasons above, and that makes them a good person in my book. If I weren't superficial, I'd treat everyone the same in those first few interactions.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Well, I didn't expect my exploration to lead me here, but when you go looking within yourself, you can't always be sure of what you'll find. I won't burden you with any more talk of myself, for now. I may add on later if something else comes to mind.[/size][/font]

My full name is Erik Ryan Anderson. [center][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif][size=+1]ERIK [/size][/font][/center] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Gender:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Male[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Root: [/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif][url="http://www.zelo.com/firstnames/findresults.asp?name=ERIC"][color=#0000ff]ERIC[/color][/url] [/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Origin:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Scandinavian[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Meaning:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Ruler of All[/font] [center][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif][size=+1]RYAN [/size][/font][/center] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Gender:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Male[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Origin:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Irish[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Meaning:[/font] [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Little King[/font] [center] [font=Arial][size=4]ANDERSON[/size][/font][/center] [font=verdana, geneva, helvetica][size=2][color=#000000][b]Definition:[/b] Patronymic surname meaning "son of Andrew." Andrew (man, manly) was the first of Jesus' disciples, and was a revered name in medieval times due to its church connections. St. Andrew is the patron saint of both Scotland and Russia. Many Danes, Norwegians and Swedes who emigrated to America with the last name Andersson or Anderssen, dropped the extra -S after their arrival. [/color][/size][/font] [font=verdana, geneva, helvetica][size=2][color=#000000][b]Surname Origin:[/b] Danish, Norwegian, English, Swedish [/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Well, I'll give myself one thing, my name is pretty darn consistent. Ireland is up there with all them Scandinavian places, and I suppose I'll have to be a big-time ruler, though I don't see that in my near future.[/size][/font]

It's not so bad being a [b][url="http://www.personaldna.com/report.php?k=vMDeegxEEBfFDXO-EG-DACBA-71cf&u=f18fbe0365d0"]Considerate Idealist[/url].[/b] My highest things were Masculinity (98) and Confidence (94). Thanks for showing us this site, I found it quite interesting, insightful, and a little flattering.

I apologize if I'm repeating something that's already been said, but I'm not going to read through two whole pages of replies to this sort of topic. Sound is a wave, yes? It is caused by a vibration. In giving the initial condition, "A tree falls in the woods," one must assume that such a disruption would cause vibrations, and thus, sound. Now, let's consider vibrations. There are many vibrations that cause sounds that are out of the human range of hearing, but with sensitive equipment, we can detect them. Once the vibration is detected, do we not refer to it as sound thereafter? Before we could detect the 'sounds' bats and whales and such made, it was assumed that they were silent. With what we have today, however, we know that they have always made those sounds. This question has the not the potential to be answered, but it has the potential to be made irrelevant (not that it's really relevant to anything). Theoretically, our technology could become so advanced that no wave caused by a vibration could escape it, every sound in the universe could be 'heard'. The only way to make this question go away, therefore, is to invoke omniscience. Either there is an omnipresent entity that perceives the sound made by the falling tree, or our sound detection technology reaches perfection and detects it. At this point in time, however, neither of these can be confirmed to exist. Should one or both of these things become proven to be real, however, the answer to the question would be yes. For every moment of time that it was asked, the answer would have been yes. Right now, though, we can answer the question simply and truthfully. [size=4]I don't know[/size]

[size=2]Where is the outrage against the militant Islamists? The cartoonists have drawn what they see. Please, tell me of the Islamic country that follows the nonviolent teachings of the prophet. Are the followers of true Islam, if nonviolence be truth, not willing to stand and defend their beliefs? From what I have learned from the news, at least, it seems that all the leaders do not follow Islam as it should be followed.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The cartoonists may depict the religious icon in a disrespectful manner, but the violent Muslims defecate on his name and teachings. How about trying to stop those who actually hurt people, rather than focus your hate on those who hurt your feelings?[/size]

I've never seen a religion where there has been such a chasm. How can people get two very different meanings from the same book? One preaches death while the other preaches nonviolence. To me, it seems this book has done more harm than good. Perhaps they blame your prophet for the actions of the militants. The crusades did happen, and they were wrong, but do we try to justify them? For the large part, no. Whatever your prophet added to the word of God has caused death and suffering. Who are we to say which is the truth? The prophet is a symbol of hope for some, but know that for many it is a symbol of great pain. It is a symbol of torture, hate, and the death of innocents. Whatever the prophets actions, it is the prophet that is responsible for what is happening now. To those who he has caused only pain, let them deface him. If you want it to stop, then fix your religion.

[size=2]This is an example of what happens when religion gets tied up in politics. Here's a mathematical analogy to help you.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Religion=bad[/size] [size=2]Politics=bad[/size] [size=2]Religion + Politics = badbad[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, since we all know badbad is worse then bad, and what with bad already being bad, a mixture of religion and politics is really quite bad.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The countries that have boycotted Denmark have basically shown the world that they are theocracies, a mixture of corrupt religion and corrupt government. I'm sure there are good people living there, but we have all seen what the combination of two evils brings. It brings terrorism. It brings crusades. It brings war.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Religion and politics are corrupt enough separately. If we cannot eliminate them, then at least keep them separate.[/size]

[size=2]Ok, so you say that the flag represents the entire history of the country, and therefore should not be burned. You suggest that another symbol of only the current state of the country be destroyed. As far as I can tell, the most appropriate symbol for people dissatisfied with the country to destroy would be a likeness of the president. No other thing in the country represents its present state better than its leader. What are the consequences of being more appropriate? I can only imagine how dire they would be.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, I must stick with my argument. I know what the flag represents to some people (the entire history of the country), but it also represents where the country is, and where it is headed. Since the destruction of the most appropriate symbol is off limits, the flag serves nicely as a second choice.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]You all seem to pride yourselves on the histories of your country, but you must remember that the history of your country is probably not all that great. If the flag represents people who fought to keep our country free and good, it also represents slavery, the absence of women's rights, and all the good and bad that this country has seen since its conception. There is no purpose in protesting the past, and I can almost assure you that people who burn flags are protesting the present state of the country. If, however, people do burn flags in protest of the history of our country, then you may look amicably on them, for they surely lack the same number of chromosomes that you all are blessed with.[/size]

[size=2]Hmm, burning flags. I suppose what we have here is a clash of interpretations. Somebody who appreciates the current state of the country could view flag-burning as an attack on his worldview. The person who sees the flag-burning this way truly feels as if he/she is a part of the country. His/her interpretation of it is as an assault on a part of his/her being.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now, how about someone who doesn't appreciate the current state of the country? That person could see the flag as a representation of its current undesirable state. This person could view a burning flag as a protest against the current state of the country. He/she could destroy this symbol of the present state without thinking about its past. To him/her, it is an attack on something foreign. This person's worldview is not being represented in the current state of the country. It is a protest against what that person sees as personally harmful to him/her.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now, how to resolve this. People who see flag-burners burning flags should understand that those individuals feel that the current state of the country is unjust to them. Instead of blaming and threatening these people, try to understand that not everybody shares your worldview. The country that you so love because it is good to you is not good to these people. You should see the burning flag as a sign that your country is not perfect.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]In my opinion, flag-burners should keep burning flags. If anyone thinks for even a moment about what is going on, they will realize that the burning flag is a message. It is a message telling you that your country is not yet perfect. If you feel so strongly about these flags being burned, then do something about it. Listen to the message, and see if your country cannot be changed for the better, for all who live within it. If you care so strongly, then strive to make your country a place where flags need not be burned.[/size]

[size=2]I want my childhood back! I'm very lazy, and very competitive. DDR is about the only exercise I will engage in and enjoy. It's kind of boring trying to get good 'times' by biking, running, or swimming a distance. When I have a chance to compete with myself for scores involving music, rhythm, speed, and agility, it's a real rush. I only hope those kids get as worked up as I did when I played DDR.[/size]

[size=2]Honestly, the idea comes from the Bible where Jesus' followers all pooled their money and lived together. It doesn't require a spiritual leader, but I'm wondering if that sort of set-up could exist today in some form or another.[/size]

[size=2]You're not alone in Florida. My girlfriend lives in Tarpon Springs, and I spend the summers with her. I know, it's hot in the summer, but I've got college, and it's the only time I can spare. Hopefully I'll be able to drag her back to Michigan with me for the fall. At least you have alligators. She lives right on Lake Tarpon, so when we go down to the dock, we can see them there sometimes. It's a little scary, but we keep our distance. Oh, and the parks there are beautiful! There's this one with a freshwater spring that's at least 400 ft. deep (I think). Some divers went down in it and drowned, but it's nice to look at. It's fairly new, and there's this lookout that has a spectacular view of the water. Don't get too excited about snow. Carly was happy to see it for the first time, but I don't think it takes much more than that to scare Floridians away. You have to be a hardy Michigan Neanderthal like myself to withstand that.[/size]

[font=Verdana][size=2]If you're looking for help, then it might be a good idea to tell us just exactly what your friend has gotten into. Without that information, we can't provide our own opinions on the matter, and we can't present any factual information to support or deny the severity of the situation.[/size][/font]

[size=2]Of course the things I mentioned have precedents, and have a place in our government. What you've done is broken what I've written into segments and told me that none of those parts were anything new, when it was my intention that something new be constructed by those parts. Here's an analogy. Let's say our government is made of Lego's. Now, dismantle our government and separate it nicely into its parts. Take my idea, and do the same thing. "Look, they're made of the same things, so they are the same thing!" seems to be your argument. You're forgetting the fact that different structures can be built from the same materials.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The idea behind communism is to make everyone equal. As a governmental system, it fails. My suggestion is to set up a "little communism" that operates within the confines of capitalism. If it doesn't work on a large scale, could it work on a smaller scale in a different environment? I had hoped that my long-winded explanation of basic functions would flesh out the idea by identifying parallels to other systems, showing that it could operate as a separate, but enclosed entity, but I appear to have failed. If this is the case, then please address the concept, rather than picking apart my futile attempt at drawing comparisons.[/size]

[size=2]I think it's obvious that Communism doesn't work as a form of Government, but that's not what I'm suggesting here.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I wonder if Communism could operate within a capitalistic society. Of course, it wouldn't be called Communism, it would be called The Community. It would take one person, or a group of like-minded individuals to start something like The Community. They would really have to put themselves on the line. They would pool their assets, purchasing a building to become the center of The Community, or the "Hub", as I like to call it. In the surrounding residential area, land would be purchased and relatively small homes constructed. This would mark the beginnings of The Community.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Next, the function of the Hub must be addressed. The Hub will serve as a center for entertainment, public gatherings, and an eating area. It's size and functions could be modified to suit the resources and desires of the community. The Hub will contain many of the resources required for daily living, so that the residential areas need not be very large, though still spacy given that the Hub takes care of most things that can be accomplished in a community setting.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'm not a lawyer/politician, so I don't know exactly what rules must be set up to maintain such a place, but I will lay down a few of the basics. Those entering the community must sign a contract agreeing to the rules of the community. Part of that contract requires that the applicant set up a 'retainer' of 50,000 dollars minimum, so that should the applicant wish to leave, they will leave with their retainer. This also serves to rule out applicants without the ability to acquire income. The applicants may bring any number of family members with them, though each married couple must set up a retainer, and each unmarried adult must have a retainer. All applicants must agree to make their tax returns available to the accountant, who will be elected within the community. The accountant will be on a tight leash, since he/she will have access to sensitive documents and money. Money will enter the community's general fund through donations by its members. Donations are completely voluntary, and the amount deposited is always anonymous, except to the accountant. After tax returns are filed and a yearly income is determined for all members of the community, the percentage of donations in relation to income for each member of the community is made public. The amount each person makes is private, but the percentage donated is public. This serves as a way to allow members of the community to see the generosity of their fellow community members, and the community members may decide on a certain percentage as the minimum donation. They may also vote for a reasonable minimum income. The members may then call a vote for the exile of such members from the community, or some other penalty. Percentage can also be gained by working within the community for no cash, reducing the amount of money lost to outside contractors. Percentage cannot exceed 100%. Percentage can be used for various things that the community decides. Although percentage is expended doing such things, the amount the individual started out with is the only thing that is required to be public, and spending percentage can never be the cause of community action against the individual. At some point in the year, it will be time to decide what the money in the general fund is used for. A certain amount must be left for necessities, a certain amount for emergencies, but the rest can be used for anything to benefit the community. Perhaps at this time the votes cast must be cast in percentage, so that members who didn't use up their percentage for personal gain will have more influence on what the community gains. The estimated (or exact) cost of each thing being voted for will be known, and after votes are cast, the thing with the highest percentage will be accepted, followed by the next highest percentage, and so on until the money in the fund is exhausted. If there is money left over, then it will go into the emergency fund, an investment, next year's general fund, or something like that which has been pre-decided by the community. All things that are voted for must not benefit a single individual or group within the community. All things purchased must be available to the whole community. Purchases for the community necessities will be made in bulk, reducing the price.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Well, I've spent a long time brooding over this, so there is much more. If you have any thoughts, comments, or suggestions, please feel free to share them. If something is unclear, I will attempt to resolve it. If I cannot, then I will admit now that my faculties in certain areas that concern this idea are perhaps not up to par with your own.[/size]

[size=2]If you are happy with who you are, then you shouldn't regret anything. Every moment of your life contributed to who you are today. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop brooding on the past and learn to accept yourself for who you are. The past can not be changed, and if regret shows you something you don't like in yourself, then change it now.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I regret nothing, because I fear that if my past had been different in any way, I might not be as blessed as I am today.[/size]

[size=2]Chabichou, it is possible to know of God and still not choose Him. When God gave us that choice, I think He knew that there were some who would take it. Why this woman chose this path is as much a mystery as why God allowed her to follow it.[/size]

[size=2]Hell is a nine-month sentence to the womb, and God's gift to the world through the sacrifice of his son was an opportunity to escape it and live forever on earth as we were always meant to be. These things don't sound very "Christian", and that's because they aren't what the vast majority of Christians believe. However, in reading the Bible, I have found these things to be the truth. People shouldn't turn away from God just because they don't believe in the widely accepted interpretation of His word. Panda has confirmed what I already believe; that Christianity as it is today turns people away.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If the widely accepted view of Christianity were God's word, then it would be acceptable to all good people who hear it. I know good people who can't accept Christianity as it is now, and that is a sure a sign as any to me that Christianity today is not what God intended it to be.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]It should require only faith to accept God, not a hardening of one's heart to the eternal torment of innumerable souls.[/size]

[size=2]Nobody believes completely in the words of any religious text. Your faith is not in the bible, quran, or whatever. Your belief is in an interpretation of those books. You can scold people for picking and choosing things from religions, but it should be obvious that every denomination of every religion picks and chooses different things. If there were an interpretation of a holy book that was absolutely certain, then there wouldn't be denominations. What does that tell us? It tells us that either one of the denominations is correct and all others are wrong, or all the denominations are wrong. The latter seems more likely to me. Don't judge others for making their own interpretations. Our ancestors did the same thing, as can be seen by the different denominations. What has robbed those of our time that right? Is it because those interpretations are aged that they are to be accepted without question? With age comes not wisdom, goodness, or infallibility. Bad things come with age in the same amount as good things. If the old (or new) ideas don't appeal to you, then reject them. But, reject them within yourself, and leave all other things be.[/size]

[size=2]Could you expand on the specifics entailed in, "increas[ing] the restrictions on the media"? If they're just going to make games more age specific, then I really don't care. However, if they're going to try and ban every form of violence in computer games, video games, and anime, I'd be with you. However, since something like that is nigh impossible, I'm guessing that my former statement is true.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Can you not wait a few years to be able to buy your own violent video games? It's not like you can't get someone to buy them for you, anyways.[/size]

Implementing a dress code requiring uniforms eliminates apprehension about choosing what to wear to school. It also eliminates the freedom to choose what to wear to school. Ultimately, it is a choice between the reduction of apprehension, and freedom. Moving towards freedom increases apprehension. Moving towards the reduction of apprehension decreases freedom. So long as the decision doesn't have a significant effect on the balance between the two, it is a feasible decision. An interesting study could be conducted drawing a random sample of students, requiring them to don a uniform for a period of time. The other students could wear whatever was acceptable to the current dress code. One could then observe how the two groups operate and interact, noting any differences and ultimately allowing one to see the favorability of each choice. If there does not seem to be a difference, don't enforce uniform wearing. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

If you want to date someone online, I would suggest not being overt about it. The more you talk to honest people as friends, the more you'll learn about them. If you've got the whole 'dating' thing over your head, you will act differently from your true self, and so will the person you're 'dating'. Just talk to people, maybe you'll find someone you like who likes you too. Let it grow from there, it did with me.

[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]From what I can gather, it seems obvious that Dominic and Ashley are human. Judging by their actions, names, speech, facial hair, food preference, date-time system, etc. it just wouldn't make sense for them to be anything else. Consider Ockham's razor. The 'roaches' seem to be an intelligent life-form, which isn't too implausible, given the advanced technology, which must be far into the future. I like the way that despite all the achievements, humanity has stayed the same. This story is worth reading twice. Read it once to let the end grab you, then read only the italics, because the mini-story is quite interesting, and it gives us insight into how humanity doesn't change. This seems to be the main focus of the piece, and although it's not easy to pick up in reading, it comes together lucidly at the end.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Beyond that, I think you spelled 'their' wrong somewhere, but a spelling check should find it (I forgot where it was).[/size][/font]

In an old D&D computer game called 'Torment', the main character had a choice to lie about his identity sometimes. The name of that lie was 'Adahn'. Otherwise, the character is referred to in the game as 'Nameless One'.

[quote name='Pumpkin][size=1]And men arn't vulnerable to scrutiny right? Just the women? I suggest you watch the documentary film [i]"Tough Guise"[/i'] just to see that men have an image of masculinity. Violence is considered the normal for guys, it's almost expected. If your not tough or violent apparently you get called a "***" or "not a real man". Men have to live up to the image of masculinity just like women have to live up to the image of beauty. (although its not as bad as women it's still an issue) [/size][/quote] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]You are making an incorrect assumption of me, and one I have already addressed in my response to Red.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][Quote=Adahn]The overwhelming evidence gathered by sociologists supports the fact that aspects of femininity and masculinity are social requirements. For your benefit, I will attempt to describe it for you. Throw away your masculinity. Back down from every confrontation. Take every insult you hear and don't return anything. Stop dressing the way boys dress. Stop talking the way boys talk. Start wearing dresses and start conversations with your friends about Soap Operas. Defy all the unwritten rules of masculinity, and tell me who you have become to our society.[/Quote][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]But, I have thought of another thing that is important to me as a man. As a man, I want to be able to protect the people I love.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Dagger, a while ago I read a long, interesting novel titled '[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385246323/qid=1131031193/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-6787539-2004810?v=glance&s=books"]Raptor' [/url]where the protagonist was androgynous. It was...explicit in some areas, but very well-written and interesting. The main character played both roles equally, and his/her dual-nature was an essential part of the events that took place.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]Brasil, you remind me of Maddox.[/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][/size][/font]