This is why a lot of men like, and want to marry, a honeybunch. (Gay women, a honeybutch.)

Rarely are any pre-nups all-or-nothing.

A lot of the agreements do give from the wealthier to the poorer in case of divorce, except not as much as a divorce court would decide.

So prenups... are for the rich and poor, to make an agreement, not a slavery or a winfall. But something in between... a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Like a secretary who makes $30K could marry his boss, who is rich beyond imagination, stipulating in the pre-nup that in case of divorce he gets not half of her money, but say, $20,000 a year, or something to the effect.

The possibilities are actually limitless, for all intents and puroposes.

Most divorces could avoid hefty lawyer's fees if a prenup had been arranged. This is another clincher. Both parties can lose their shirt and pants by hiring divorce lawyers. The lawyers eat up a lot of money, because the lawyers themselves are married to lawyers, most likely, and they need a lot of money for the eventually that they, the divorce lawyers themselves, should get divorced.

Quite a story. What a harrowing experience.

What was your job there? What's your original country?

I am struggling with a bad cold today. I beg you all to please forgive my spelling mistakes and mistakes in logic of language, such as negating something I ought not to be negating, such as, for example,

"though I am also unable to prove religious beliefs empirically true"
is false, and it ought to have read
"though I am also unable to prove religious beliefs empirically false".

There is a world of a difference in meaning, but I am so feverish that I can't catch them all now at this point in time. Due to my cold, fever, and antihystamines.

I apologize, and promise to start to make more sense again after I get better.

Mental health professions and their findings are not opinions; they are well researched and tested. That's science, not opinion, it is not for personal acceptance as if it were an opinion.

If a thousand people get better taking Risperdal, and five get worse, whereas with other, earllier drugs the ration of feeling better vs feeling worse was 50-50, AND this supported by conservative measurements, then the fact that Risperedal is a better drug than all earlier ones, is not a opinion, but a fact, a scientific fact.

What I am tryng to say is that being convinced by scientific facts, even if it means to change one's personal perception he or she held before, then it's not a change of opinion, but the only thing to do.

On the other hand, weltanschauung questions, such as belief in god(s) or not, is not provable by facts or observations, so they never need to be changed by an individual.

This is what irks me, becasue even though I am also unable to prove religious beliefs empirically true, they can be show a priori false, which should be a stronger reason, because they apply in any universe. A priori truths.

And yet people reject my convincing arguments, they don't accept them, and that is what I can't accept from relious or New Age people.

Very true. I always wanted to be taller, in order to get the chicks... but I am so afraid of height, that standing on a chair makes me feel unsafe and scared.

Plus my legs would dangle beyond the edge of the bed, and I would need to buy or steal a new set of wardrobe.

Sure, the chicks would like me, I say, but at what price!!

I never bump my head and I can go under any overpass, no matter what truck or car I drive.

The loss fo these can't be compensated for by a few sweet kisses.

How do you do that?

"Look at Boobsy, the midget Pudget... she looks so happy carrying that bone."

Then comes the warm Readers' Digest smile. There wasn't an uncurved set of lips in the audience with the corners of lips tending to point in a slightlypwardly direction.


(I am making fun of you, MsHarmony, but I don't mean it!!)

Fixed it, but not well enough.

She is naked; if so, then how can she undo her bottons.

YES, I did not miss "she unbuttons my soft dress". Reflective third person singular to mean first person plural. Eg., similar "I am a man who likes sex." Here, third person singular (who likes) means first person (I am).

--- Guilty as charged: I am stretching it.

(Whoa, baby, I should be so lucky.)

Then tunnel guy. Tunnel.

Or got to Wyominging, where there are hundred mile stretches of the border on flat land, between border guards.

The Nam draft dodgers used that "overground stroll in the park railway" quite a bit.

I almost replied with "no outing? Well, how 'bout an inning then," and I discareded the idea right away for fear of building a gay reputation.

I find gay lifestyle totally acceptable... I just don't wish to be part of it. Gays are usually more emotional, empathetic beings, I guess, than straight guys, because they suffered through much more and much tougher growing pains than a straight guy.

But still, I am different from them, and I insist on that.

So... players are like the clergy or like women.

Hm. Worth a thought or two. :-)

I stayed straight for the same general reason.

What a player looks like






The green guy looks like he is about ready to fall for the puck.

Some players should not play with fire.

Playing with fire on ice, his food, and himself, especially all three at the same time, are all contraindicative for hockey players. These activites usually (Notice how I am not generzlizing!!) eat into their games.

Don't say that, unless it's true. In very many enlightened and socially inclusive towns you just described the typical gay person cruising on a Friday night.

TXSscroundrel, you and I must organize an outing for just the two of us, and go to those "crazy world of mirrrors" show at the fall fair, and check out which mirror makes us into the closest resemblant of your topic.

In my youth I used to babysit a four-year-old boy, and he lived with his mom in a tiny one-bedroom apartment downtow. She was sqeezed for space, coz she had five thousand books on the living room shelves, she brought them with her from Hungary.

She had the make-up mirror set on "enlarge image", and she kept it on top of the toilet tank.

All men came out of her bathroom with a certain air of self-importance and emotional independence, when they visited the washroom.

I found my play improved each time after I did a baby-sitting stunt at her place.

This is a self-serve cafe. I assume no supervisory role. Participation is mandatorily volunteer, even for me.

Ugh. I call you, those who, like I, seldom have any socializing to do on Friday and Saturday nights, when the world is going out to have fun.

We can have fun here, or co-miserate, or get drunk and show it in the messages.

NO DRUG TALK. Please.

The idea is to have a community of those who never get asked out, or who always get turned down.

There is no other purpose, reason or rhyme to participate here. Just to brag, biotch, or be catatonic; and let the world know exactly how you feel, what you think, what you wish for and what you want to avoid. What you want to change permanently in your life regarding Friday and Sat nights, when you sit there, and do nothing. Or what you want to not change, because you are happy this way.

I am not one of them, but I met a few of those from on here.

I fell short coz I don't have an established life, or even sound mind.

You may have a much better chance at bagging a good un.

I find I learn a lot, if not facts, then techniques.

The one thing I keep repeating to myself is,
"No matter what I believe, if I don't stop this,
I will go blind."

In the orphanage I grew up, most students graduated with blindness, and sixty percent of the teachers were blind, too.

Seriously speaking, I agree with you, OP. I learned that when I was trying to convince Christians to leave their beliefs, because they are false, and can't be right. I never converted a single Christian, ever, in my life.

I also learned that atheist scientists, when they made one mistake in their explanations of anything, and I called them out on that, they would become viscious and so self-defensive, and more and more so, that further discussion was futile. They just insisted on their might, and that they know science. They quoted authorities, and I replied, yes, but you said, A, and then you said B, and then you said B follows from A, because C is true, and then I would point out some discrepancy in their reasoning. They can't handle that. They usually don't have original thoughts, or real analytical skills, they are memorizers, and eventually believe their memories of memorized science facts and theories more than a clear and simple explanation why those can't be that way.

In more recent times it happened on the science and fact forum, where someone was trying to force a theory of a rotating gasoline engine or some heat-and-quick gas expansion engine. He said it was imminent, its appearance on the market, and Chrisler was going to introduce it very soon. I said, the engine diagram makes no sense. He argued, and I argued, and that was maybe a year ago, maybe shorter, but the engine is not on the market yet. Of course I was not going to rub it in for him, this is the first I mention it. They guy was totally relying on authority, whereas anyone could tell from the diagram that the news item was a farce. It irked me, to be frank, that he was so convinced of his truth, when all apparent and readily available facts were presented. All he needed to do was to look at them.

Then there are the skeptics, who oppose everything everyone says, and if cornered, to state how they can have that insensible opinion, they will say "because I believe so, and there you go."

If I ever saw anyone admit to being wrong, it's me; I usually apologize, or simply take the blame; these have to do invariably by my antisocial behaviour when that happens.

And yes, I can be found to be wrong in reasoning or on quoting facts, and when I am shown, I withdraw my opinion. They have been documented in these forums. You won't find them easily, though, because I am a frequent poster and those instances are rare. Maybe I should have tagged them for easy search or look-up.

I don't know how you hear that. A singe tree in a yard is not to be married. An unmarried tree in the yard is to be married.

It's one of those things. You hear it differently, but you don't associate the word with its other meanings, from the generalization of meanings of other things came the transferance to the expression "single man".

This is not placing a judgment or expectation on the man which categorially determines he must get married.

An unmarried woman, or man, however, must be feeling awful. The word comes form "married", which is undone. Something was done some time ago, and not it has been undone. If it was done, it was for a reason, which the person applauded and embraced. Now he became unfettered of that doing. BUT if he wanted to do it once, then chances are he will want to do it again, and remarry.

You can't resingle. If you are single, it's by a choice, and society gave that naming convention to those who are not unmarried, because by their own will or by default (by the will of others) he or she stayed single.

There is determination in the word choice of single, and therefore a level of satisfaction. There is a hapless toying by fate that a person experienced, when he is unmarried. He is less satisfied in an unmarried state.

---------------

In my opinion only 0.02% of a normal population cares to go into debating which of the two expressions are "better". On forms they now want you to say "never married", and "divorced" if you are single. This way they avoid confusion and natural obfuscation by the language's inherent ambiguity with the word "single".