Heaven's Cloud

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [B][color=green]Just because you are ready, don't try to tell someone else they are ready too. HC, your post sounds like a guilt trip, although I am pretty sure that's the point. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I wasn?t really trying to create a guilt trip, I was just trying to point out that each couple needs to decide where there priorities lie early on in there relationship, before sex ever becomes an issue. If you address it early enough you know exactly where you and your partner stand, and it helps to take pressure off of the relationship. Everyone places a different moral value on sex, at the same time no one should ever feel like they are being pressured into a consensual act?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KarmaOfChaos [/i] [B][color=deeppink] After time, having 'a drink before dinner' will become nessicary. You can't go through the rest of your day without that drink. And after awhile, you begin to drink more and more just 'to cope.' Very bad example here. This is one of those 'harmless vices' that slowly turns into a horrible problem. I've had lots of experience with alchololics, and using such an example just...annoys me because it a common misconception that will drive people terribly wrong, because they think they aren't addicted. Very few people can habitually have 'that drink' and not become addicted. Sure, there are pleanty of people can go to a party, have one or two drinks, and be relatively okay, and I'm not saying that drinking alcholol is a sin. Just don't make it a habit. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Actually it is an excellent point, and although it seems as though you wanted to disprove it, you only added to its validity. More people than not can go through life with having just one drink before dinner, however, people with addictive personalities tend to take things to excess (hence the statement that anything taken to excess is usually not good). Addictive personalities are usually derived from a history of chemical depression. In which case there are very few harmless ?vices?. It seems as though you are referring to the actual addictive properties of a substance. Since you do not get enough of the diuretic properties of alcohol from [u]one[/u] traditional drink before dinner, it is impossible to become an addict from that situation (again, unless you have hereditary addictive tendencies). Obviously if you drink to ?catch a buzz? before dinner than your vice is not having one drink, your vice is ?getting sloshed before dinner?. Again it all returns to excess. Granted, a harmless vice could lead to a crippling addiction, but usually you are genetically predisposed to that disposition anyhow. Hopefully that cleared up my previous post a little.[/color]

[COLOR=INDIGO] [I]*Do you think that things are labeled 'vices' because society shapes them to be 'wrong', or are they born vices out of human nature? [/I] Oddly enough, I would say it is both. People tend to have vices and cling to those vices because it comforts them, it helps alleviate stress, or it gives a quick sense of familiarity. In that sense it is a definite product of human nature. However, as a society we dictate what should and should not be considered a vice. For example, if you had to have a Martini before dinner in order to cope with your family, as a society we would generalize that as a vice. But if you instead had to go for a jog before dinner in order to cope with your family society would say that you practiced a healthy virtue. [I]*Do you have any personal vices, or any that you believe are destructive to yourself or others? [Vices aren't necessarily all morally 'wrong', but are sometimes simply bad habits [ex. smoking] that someone finds pleasure in.] [/I] My largest vice would be the internet. I really should not utilize it the way I do at work, and it could be potentially destructive if my bosses realized that I was constantly visiting the OtakuBoards for pleasure. I guess that it is one of the reasons while I type all of my responses in Microsoft Word, I can leave the OB minimized and hidden. [I]*What certain vices do you find to be the most destructive in today's society? Is that vice considered 'morally wrong'? Are there any vices that you believe to be fairly harmless? [/I] Well my vice isn?t really horribly wrong because I don?t allow it to affect my job. When your vice infringes on another?s lifestyle it becomes morally wrong. For example, if you have a drink before dinner (a glass of wine for example) to help you relax, your ?vice? is harmless. If you have to get incredibly drunk to cope with your family then you need to seek help. I guess, like most everything, you have to practice moderation. Excessiveness in anything will cause problems.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AzureWolf [/i] [B]I don't know... I've always seen premarital sex as selfish, relativistically speaking. If you are willing to go that far with someone and still not marry them, there has to be something wrong in the relationship. Why don't you marry them if they are that central to you? I don't think time would be such a demanding factor. I really haven't seen any core-cutting comments favoring pre-marital sex yet. I mean, brushing it off as something personal is so easy for one thing. Secondly, it is so wrong. It's two people, not one. If you applied this "it's personal" logic to everything else in life, communities would be nonexistent. Also, when you die, are you the only one affected? Didn't think so. When you take a step back and look at the big picture, "it's my life" doesn't sound so meaningful. It would be great if we could all just tell everyone to leave everyone else alone, but we know that's not going to help anyone in the long run. IMO, man's greatest achievements were the ones he made with other people. EDIT: Thought I'd clear up that "selfish" remark. I don't mean you are selfish, but I'm saying when you compare it to people who waited till marriage, it seems [B]a little[/B] selfish. What if the person you married waited for you? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]The problem with that approach is I could say that the inverse is true as well. It is just as selfish for a person to wait for marriage to have sex for several reasons. If you are in love with someone to the point of wanting to marry them, than it shouldn't matter whether or not they have had sex...yet, since you have abstained from sex you have more than likely made your partner feel guilty because they didn't place as much importance on it as you did. Also, if your partner enjoys having sex is it not equally unfair for you to not be adequetly experienced? I don't know, I really don't see how you can truly say you know someone until you've had sex before. What if you were to get married never having sex, and it turns out that your partner doesn't like having it nearly as much as you do and only gets one-tenth the enjoyment out of it as you. You could end up marrying a raging nympho and end up getting divorced...I guess the true question is "what is more sacred: sex or marriage?" Sex is just an act that lasts for moments, real marriages last an eternity.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]I wonder how many people are like me and know that simply because they watched the show religiously. I don't need a stupid documentary show to help me out with that heh. Pee-wee's Big Adventure is the best movie ever made in my opinion. HC: I think it's Ratt, with two T's lol. I can't even think of what they did anymore. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I remember selling wrapping paper in elementry school just to get the awesome Pee-Wee's playhouse binders, folders, and rulers that everyone wanted...they were so cool. And it is Ratt with two t's...I can't believe I forgot the second T stupid, stupid me! There famous (well sort of famous :) song is "Round N Round" I think....[/color]

[color=indigo]I have always been a huge Beatles fan, and to this day I will adamantly argue that they are the best band of all time (although they aren't always my favorite...my favorite band tends to rotate on an hourly basis :)). They were just so good at doing everything. They could write kitchy simplistic pop songs that stuck in your head for hours, yet they could also create these insanely complex works that incorparated drastically profound lyrics with subtle melodic harmonies that could fixate you for days on end. I have a hard time even writing about them because I really don't know where to begin. I guess that the easiest way for me to describe them is to simpl say they define the "revolutionary icon" label that people try and peg so many artists with.[/color]

[color=indigo]Recently, the Durham Bulls had an event to celebrate the anniversary of their ball team and invited several cast members from the movie ?Bull Durham? to come and speak at the event. They invited Tim Robbins to attend but politely declined his request to speak. They didn?t want Robbins? political view points to reflect those of the Durham Bull?s organization. Robbins made quite a stink about his rights to freedom of speech, and how the Bull?s didn?t have the right to oppress that freedom. The Bull?s organization responded by saying that they respected Tim Robbins? ability to practice his constitutional right to freely voice his opinions but the constitution does not require an organization to provide a platform for him. In other words, you have the right to free speech, but you don?t have the right to be heard. [/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]. Of course most of it was hair metal bands that no one should ever speak of again... a lot of the good stuff seemed to be just bands that had been living on from previous decades anyway like Led Zeppelin, The Cure, AC/DC, Rush, etc. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]C'mon Tony, you know that you are a closet Rat fan, and I know I saw you in a picture wearing a Damn Yankee T-shirt...lol The eighties had a ton of good songs, but very few good artists/bands. Take A-Ha for example..."Take on Me" rocks, but what other good songs did A-Ha have? I do like a few eighties bands: INXS, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, the Police, Poison, Van Halen (a la Sammy Hagar), and Billy Idol (although I would never by an actual Idol release, "Vital Idol" has all the songs that you ever need to hear Billy sing).[/color]

[color=indigo]Heh, I was debating whether or not to post in this thread in fear of influencing anybody by my questionable habits. Then I realized that if anyone is influenced by my actions they probably have **** for brains. Anyway, I would guess that I have had more sexual experiences, partners, ect, than most on this message board mainly because I am older than most. I have woken up in a bed next to a girl I met the night before more than once and I have had to take the walk of shame to the doctor?s office for VD tests more than once. But I have always been smart about not being smart; I always wear a condom (well not always, but when I am having sex), and I really don?t think of myself as being promiscuous?although how we define ourselves is always debatable. Good sex is a lot of fun (and there is a difference between sex and good sex), and the best way to have lots of good sex is to remain monogamous, because sex is rarely good until you now how to push the right buttons for your partner. As far as the sanctity of sex, I really don?t buy it. I have had too many relationships based solely on passion and not love. I?m not saying it is right or wrong, but I think that too many people rush into marriage so they can have sex and probably realize that they weren?t really in love, they were just lusting after another person. If you abstain from having sex until you are married, good for you. You have will power that I will never possess?just don?t preach to me and your sister?we are enjoying ourselves :p[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]No clean water, no power, no food, no phones, no law and no support. They had all of these [b]basic[/b] things under the Saddam regime, even if he coursed them to be dependant it still kills off your argument that they are some how better off. But it comes down to which is better, dying from malnourishment while you are a child or living with oppression? This is what I mean when I say America has screwed up running the country; if they had been able to be organised and had these basic things running Iraqis would most likely have moved over to being on their side. This hasn?t happened. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Well, I was going to add a long winded response to this statement, but all the facts that I would relate would just be redundant after reading James' post (which included all the basic facts that I know multiplied by 5 or so, lol). The only point I would like to add is that Saddam was known for periodically shutting off utilities (power, water) to various cities and blaming it on so called "espionage" by the US/UN in order to control his people's opinions toward the US/UN. It seems as though you are attempting to make Saddam out to be a benevolent dictator, he wasn't. Cloricus, are you just anti-war period...if so I understand the passion (not the point) behind your replies...if not why do you constantly rely on out- dated information (that sometimes is based on zero fact) to conduct your arguments? No offense but it seems to have become a constant trend.[/color]

[color=indigo] I enjoy the way that it reads and the uncomfortable picture it paints. It is like a hollowed out film noir mixed with an oddly whimsical poem. I also enjoy the way that you wrote it in first but made a suggestive third person motif. In other words, I enjoyed the point of views subtlety.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LostProphet [/i] [B][color=blue][font=arial]I'll be a first on here and say it worked for me. [/color][/font] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]The Atkins diet is a very effective and good diet for two key reasons. One, it is a high protien diet. Protien encourages the body to build lean muscle, which helps breakdown the natural fats in the body. If you follow the atkins diet and lean meats that have a low fat and cholesteral content your body will break down fat storage and use it for energy, instead of relying/focusing on carbohydrate intake for stored energy. Two, it encourages you to eat five or six times a day. Eating often helps speed up your metabolism. Actually, eating five small meals a day actually encourages a more rapid loss of weight than only eating three of those same small meals... The only major problem with the Atkins diet is how to eat afterwards without encouraging weight gain. Obviously, first and foremost is regular excerise. Although a balance of weight training and cardio is ideal, twenty minutes of cardio first thing in the morning three times a week can really help to encourage a healthy metabolism. When you have reached your desired goals on the Atkins diet the most important thing to do is not binge on simple sugars and carbs, this can lead to rapid weight gain and to bloating. The best thing is to maintain a healthy diet. Continue to eat five or six small meals a day (if your lifestyle is too hectic for five real meals supplement with a protien bar or meal replacement shake) and try to keep a 4 to 1 protien to carb diet. Also, do not deny yourself sugars. This tends to lead to binging. If you have a craving for a candybar, try eating a miniture one instead of a whole candy bar, have a small piece of cake, ect., ect. Anyway, I hope this advice was usefull. I am a bit of a fitness nut (although I have been fighting a slight belly for years, mainly because I don't follow my own good advice ~_^) and this seems to be the concensus opinion amongst most nutrtionists and trainers these days...[/color]

[b]warning: R18+[/b] [color=indigo][center]useless expressions like ?all those yesterdays? and ?always tomorrow? just affirms our inabilities and our insignificance to live for the moment and rise above our incessant ineffectiveness ?carpe diem? baby seize the fucking day grab it by the balls and hoist it up on a flag poll let it blow in the breeze next to Ole? Glory ?cause if you die there ain?t no tomorrow and yesterday was it just was so screw the quest for affirmation, validation, or whatever ?tion? is popular at the moment and just fucking live[/color][/center]

[color=indigo]I'm sorry, but I have to pull this post apart just alittle bit, it really bothers me for some odd reason...[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i] I think that Iraq will be much better off in the long run because of the war/invasion even though I was against it. The problem is that none of the Iraqi's deserved to die because of us (the civilians). [/quote] [color=indigo]Well, I agree with you that Iraq will be much better off in the future, actually I think they are already much better off. I think that most sane people agree that usurping Saddam from his position of power was a good thing. I also think that it sucks that civilians had to die, but I fail to see how it was a problem. People don't deserve to die from cancer, car wrecks, and being devoured by white sharks...at least the civilians that were killed died in the attempt to free an oppressed nation.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i] Its also not fair that kids my age (20's) have to go and die for politics.[/quote] [color=indigo]Since America didn't open the draft, every "kid" was a willing member of the United States Millitary. They joined the millitary knowing that it is their duty to protect America and fight for its ideals. I have many family members and friends that served and are continuing to serve in our efforts in Iraq, I doubt that any one of them would say that it is "unfair" for them to be there...[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i] I think that ideally the Iraqi people should have overthrown the government. It needed to happen, but it probably would have taken a very long time and a lot of Iraqi's would have died under Saddam's rule as well. [/quote] [color=indigo]It would have been very difficult if not impossible for the Iraqi people to have overthrown Saddam's regime and the number of casualties would have been infinitly greater. Saddam ruled his country in absolute. He deprived his people until they depended on him for nearly everything. [/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i] So basically at a large cost, we gave them a revolution which is still at its early stages. If it ends up well for Iraq's people, then it may have been worth it. I still don't think its very fair for the people that died though in bombings or our soldiers.[/quote] [color=indigo]Again, "fair" is a debatable term. If my government was oppressing me to the point where I feared expressing my opinions I think that the sacrifice of my life would be a small price to pay so that generations upon generations could live without that fear and sense of hoplessness[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i] The ugliest thing is the politics of it. Regardless of what good our govt may have actually done, what they said in justifying the war was really weak and dodgy. A lot of people saw that and thus, a lot of protests. [/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Although I still think that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, I will disregard it in my point which is simply: If the ends are just and noble then does the reasoning truly matter?[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Battosai [/i] [B]According to [url]http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=1817[/url] , our President sees little reason to send in more troops to the Gulf; I think this is a [i]grievous[/i] error in judgement. As I've said before, more troops means more eyes in the sky/ground/watchtower, which will add more security and lower the likeliness of soldiers being killed by car bombs, RPGs, etc. I would like to know what others think; should we send more troops to Iraq, do we have enough, or should we pull out altogether and let the Iraqi government (or what's left of it) deal with the problem themselves? [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I don't think that we need any additional forces in Iraq. You need to remember that over occupation could be dangerous when it comes to political and social relations with the Iraqi people. At the same time it is important to remain a presence within Iraq and help the Iraqi people establish a healthy government. If we were to move too many troops out of Iraq there would be too great an opening for left over regimes to tear apart the already war torn country.[/color]

[COLOR=indigo]I frequent a coffee counter Nestled between intellectuals Where a dark eyed girl Smiles amidst the hustle bustle Of today?s French Roast Pouring cuppa upon cuppa A lost glazed gaze of familiarity Mingled with repetition Rests on her face Does she dote upon dreams Of desperate decision Heart and head torn Between two paramours While typing clickety-clack Upon the cash register Do wayfaring wishes And hunts for great white whales Companioned with nefarious napoleons Course through her conscience As the steam machine Froths a yuppie?s soy And when she hands me My hot, steaming brew Do I skitter through her thoughts Or is she pondering plotting A black ops stealth infiltration Of a covert facility in Bangladesh For while she struggles Through the hustle and bustle Of life?s routine I think and ponder Her fantastic dreams And the endless infinite Imagination Of the dark eyed girl At the coffee counter [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i] [B]Well, you must admit, that there was a hell of a lot more peace in Iraq before they got invaded... . [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Why would I admit to a statement that has no shred of truth to it? I fail to see how you could consider Iraq to be even a relatively peaceful country when the average citizen there lives in constant fear of his leader. Saddam long ago set the precedence for not only torturing and killing those that spoke out against his politics, but murdering his nay-sayer family and neighbors. The only regret I have with the war in Iraq is that the US didn?t go against UN protocol during Operation Desert Storm and liberate the country. A poll was conducted several weeks ago by the associated press and it was found that eighty-six percent of the people that live in Baghdad support the joint efforts in Iraq. As for the typical ?we are only there for the oil? argument (not yours Duo, just the general argument)?I will state again that is the most pointless, unfounded, pathetic reasoning I have heard. If the US was solely interested in oil we could have very easily lifted the embargos that we sanctioned on Iraq. It would have saved countless lives and billions upon billions of dollars?[/color]

[COLOR=firebrick]UPDTAED 11/08/03 [B]Real Name:[/B] Jeanette Marie Diaz [B]Callsign: [/B] Santo Muerte (Saint Death) [B]Age: [/B] 27 [B]Gender: [/B] Femme Fatale Extraordinaire [B]Alliance: [/B] Adam's Angels [B]Family Lineage: [/B] For centuries the Diaz family has been a powerful, prominent, and notorious member of the Spanish nobility. Their lineage can be traced back to Octavious Maximus, a Roman general that retired to Spain and married a great granddaughter of Hannibal. Since 300AD the Diaz family tree has remained linear. The marriage rituals practiced by the Diaz family are specific and brutal. For each generation there are two members of the Diaz family, a male and a female. Although they marry outside of their family both of the member?s spouses are expected to adopt the Diaz name. After marriage the male member of the Diaz family is expected to sire one female child, any male children born before the female are drown immediately, all children afterward are aborted. The female is expected to bear a male child; again, all other children are killed. The Diaz children begin schooling early in life. They are taught a fundamental education as well as trained in various styles of business management, and how to create and mix the deadliest of poisons. Provided with the best teachers, the children are encouraged to practice the arts, especially traditional Spanish dancing and the art of rapier and dagger fencing. [B]Business Practices:[/B] Although a member of Spain?s nobility, the Diaz family is hardly noble. The Diaz Corporation owns several large businesses, but the majority of their wealth stems from various underworld endeavors. Drugs, prostitution, fixing bull fights, and assassination, are all staple practices in the Diaz Corporation. [B]Brief Biography: [/B] Jeanette Marie Diaz, daughter of Hidalgo and Antoinette Diaz, was recognized immediately as a prodigy. Possessing a photographic memory, Jeanette always remained several grades ahead of other girls her age. She not only applied her memory to her traditional education, but also used it to memories the intricate patterns of Spanish Dancing. By the age of ten, Jeanette could perform the most complicated of dances with minimal effort. The constant praise showered upon Jeanette, however, belittled her older cousin, Philippe, who soon developed a profound hatred. When Jeanette was thirteen, a drunken Philippe brutally raped and beat Jeanette, leaving her near death and unable to bear children. When she finally recovered, Jeanette begged her family to punish Philippe. Her pleas, however, fell upon deaf ears. The other Diaz? agreed unanimously that preserving the family lineage was more important than punishing Philippe. Furious at her family, Jeanette immersed herself in the art of Spanish fencing and the business of assassination that had long been a part of her family heritage. When she was sixteen, Jeanette poisoned all of her family with the exception of Philippe, whom she dealt with in a much more personal way. After repeatedly running Philippe through with her rapier, Jeanette castrated him, popped his eyeballs out of their sockets. After splitting his testicles in half and stuffing them in Philippe?s empty eye sockets, she choked him to death by making him swallow his own shaft. Since her family?s tragic death she has taken over as its figure head. It is still not known how or why she became an angel. [B]Personality: [/B] Jeanette is extremely sarcastic and sadistic. She finds the suffering of her prey extremely amusing. [b]Picture(s):[/b]See links for larger pictures [img]http://www.members.aol.com/shadowedcloudx/smallirina[/img] [url]http://www.members.aol.com/shadowedcloudx/sexyirina[/url] [url]http://www.members.aol.com/shadowedcloudx/irina[/url] [B]Weapon: [/B] Although adept with a pistol and with poison, Jeanette?s passion is Spanish fencing. Her Rapier and dagger never leave her side [/COLOR]

[COLOR=INDIGO]Let us sift through the ashes And seek our validation For fired pyres Of those long past May sing solace Of unorthodox virtue Let us wade through the water Drifting through life For wakes and waves That rise and ebb Know knowledge Of ordinary omnipotence Let us move through the mountains And forget pondering perfection For beckoning boulders Tell no secrets To the whispering Whipping winds [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]You can't even buy porn in Chicago until you're 21, so there's no fun in that yet either. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]America has a great philosphy when it comes to age restriction...basically they can froce you to serve in the millitary and wage war on people when you are eighteen, but when it comes to R&R you better not get caught buying smut or imbibing alcohol. Those are privilages that you are not yet ready for...[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Manic [/i] [B]Kyle Rayner will never show up on JL. Neither will Hal Jordan. The writers screwed up big-time when they gave Kyle Hal's backstory in an episode of Superman. They aren't planning to open that can of worms again (especially with John Stewart present), so there'll be no Kyle Rayner on Justice League. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember that Superman episode. They really screwed that one up, huh? I think Stewart is the Green Lantern again in the comic book, I guess they wanted a little bit of conformity between the two. I really wish they would just make Stewart a bit more inventive with the ring...all he ever does is form flat barriers and green laser beams. I guess it just goes hand in hand with his millitary background.[/color]

[color=indigo][center][b]voice[/b] a soft quiet timbre invokes cicada song as smoke filled melodies gently, eloquently waft through blankets of night with gentle persuasion i sway to the bridge shuddering through its subtleties and as the inevitable end draws close a tormented torrent of crescendo cascades my very essence and i shiver cold from siren?s song [/color][/center]

[color=indigo]Although this may seem insanly girly, the only manga I ever really thought was great is Chobits. The story line is just so warm and fuzzy, like a good Disney flick. The artwork is also pretty spiffy. Ghost in the Shell is a good read as well. Although the anime was pretty good, the manga is much more involved. [/color]

[color=indigo]For some reason I expect more from someone that quotes Walt Whitman in his sig. Although I guess I have no room to write... I don't remember teachers ever cussing at students, but I do remember a snide "West Virginian" joke that my biology teacher told. It was quite raunchy.[/color]

[color=indigo]I have the problem too, but only when I am browsing using AOL. It really is a pain because it only pops up occasionally, like after you spent fifteen minutes writing a post. I don't always use AOL, but when I do it is a constant pain.[/color]