User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 205

  1. #121
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The two are not mutually exclusive. A good restaurant pays close attention to what the public wants and caters to those desires. It's self-serving but both parties benefit.



    An employer who mistreats his employees won't stay in business long. That too is the beauty of a free market system. There is competition for labor. I'm opposed to a minimum wage because it hurts minorities and those with limited work experience; minimum wage prices out those at the bottom who are struggling the most. A business is less likely to hire an unskilled teenager when the minimum wage is $15/hour. We're already seeing the devestation of a $15/hour minimum wage in San Francisco with a very popular bookstore that's been in business for 30 years being forced to close its doors.



    Read the Grapes of Wrath; migrations for better work happen everyday. People are leaving California and New Jersey by the millions to places like Texas and North Dakota, where the jobs are.
    Your arguments suffer the same problems as those who argue for a dictatorship to make government more "efficient". You presuppose benevolence.

    A good restaurant is where people want to eat. Does this mean they look after their customers? Not necessarily.

    A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

    If a restaurant is feeding you mechanically recovered, previously unfit for human consumption meat, you'd think they'd go out of business. Apparently not so. You become a global chain instead.

    Not sure who brought up AMD versus Intel but that was laughable as both have been reprimanded for anti competition practices. Oddly Intel much more than AMD, which correlates well with who is currently doing better. Almost like they shored up their position by manipulating the market. The end result is that for a serious desktop PC there's only one choice. Now all they have to do is maintain this position and they can charge vastly increased prices.

    Like I said, you want the model in action? Drugs trade.

    Perhaps we should have a separate thread for the free market component of this discussion though. This could take some time.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

  2. #122
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    It isn't the norm, and that is irrelevant. You're derail the issue at hand that I am discussing: the validity of being homosexual, and if that is inheriently right or wrong. Every time this debate comes up, you yank it into your little pet "the majority is being oppressed!" debate. Quite frankly, that argument itself is a steaming pile of horseshit. I am not going to address it any further if you continue to bring it up, as it is a derail.

    Madness against heterosexuality? Jesus christ you're paranoid and sensitive. That isn't even an issue! There are some in the movement that are complete fuckheads and think that straights "don't understand our plight and are lesser than us", but they are quite few and far between. If you're basing your stance on those individuals you really need to rethink your position because the level of influence they have is just a flash in the pan compared to everything else.

    I'm sorry, but this is just laughable, silly, and sad (I actually laughed out loud about this for the record, startling someone in my office). I have no idea how your views on this became so twisted and fucked up. I mean it's just, where do I even start? No matter, this is another derail attempt. I had to pause to laugh at it though.
    Mmh... the smell of #GayAgenda : 47.

    It is quite fascinating how the conservative majority always fancies itself in perilous danger of going extinct. Or maybe not. It may well be that urge to conserve reflects a deep-seated fear of the future and change in general. Add paranoia to it and you get the most annoying bullshit arguments.
    Likes Hard, Passacaglia liked this post

  3. #123
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Mmh... the smell of #GayAgenda : 47.

    It is quite fascinating how the conservative majority always fancies itself in perilous danger of going extinct. Or maybe not. It may well be that urge to conserve reflects a deep-seated fear of the future and change in general. Add paranoia to it and you get the most annoying bullshit arguments.
    You'd think I'd be the one having the issues too considering how stubborn and a stick in the mud I can be. Add in I knee jerk react to change all the time. Luckily, I know when it's proper or not (for the most part), and don't hold onto it when it's hopeless.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #124
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Mmh... the smell of #GayAgenda : 47.

    It is quite fascinating how the conservative majority always fancies itself in perilous danger of going extinct. Or maybe not. It may well be that urge to conserve reflects a deep-seated fear of the future and change in general. Add paranoia to it and you get the most annoying bullshit arguments.
    I haven't noticed public social mores in the United States trending more towards conservative goals for at least forty years.
    But liberals combine narcissism with dishonesty : witness e.g. Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the dogwhistle meme of "Koch brothers" and compare these to the reality of Journolist, George Soros, and the almost complete takeover of foundations (Ford Foundation, Annenberg) by leftwingers.

    Or the abortive "Ban Bossy" campaign which appeared out of nowhere.

    Nice try, though.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  5. #125
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    "Success" is a dubious term, statistically. Even the main religious organizations to "fix gays" typically keep falling into disrepair as their leaders become ex-ex-gay. Everything is hearsay; and often results are "temporary" and could just be out of personal conviction / willpower versus any kind of actual treatment (aside from what amounts to aversion/abuse therapy).
    I've often wondered what kind of effort has been put into tracking people who have been through this therapy. Because I'd think that would be the strongest evidence of whether or not it's effective- the percentage of 'success' stories *and* whether or not the 'success' stories last. [I do understand the point brought up about how court-ordered conversion therapy results could interfere, since obviously they're less likely to yield a 'success story'- but I'd also think that could be accounted for ultimately (and removed for more 'people who WANT conversion' results)?]

    I surmise from this response above (and from the fact that no one has posted any such statistics) that reliable effort wasn't taken? If so, that's unfortunate. Arguing the theory of whether or not it can be effective (and/or how damaging it ultimately may be)- because people can be so incredibly attached to their own polar end of this that it's offensive and threatening to them to even hear opinions from the other polar end*- is practically pointless.

    *As offensive as it is to me, I can understand how religious folk might see this verdict as threatening if there aren't solid statistics to irrefutably prove it's psychologically damaging. (For example, if I believed my child's immortal soul- or that of a sibling, or any loved one who happened to start 'believing' they're gay- could be in danger of eternal damnation now because therapy to 'fix' them has been taken off the table... I don't directly understand that belief system, but I can't imagine how scary that would be.)


    This is a key point that establishes more credibility for the judge, as he allows for "change" to mean not necessarily "change" as in "not being gay" but simply that one could learn ways in which not to choose to act on homosexual inclinations. And that seems to be the way these ministries have been slowly changing over the years -- admitting they can't actually change the orientation in the typical situation.
    Has anyone seen the show My Husband's Not Gay? (Has it even aired yet?) I have wondered in the past if it would be possible for someone to accept their orientation, to either live without ever having a partner or to have a partner in spite of being oriented to want to other gender- and to be happy with that. I can actually see it working for some people (say, least sx instinct variant people, maybe?), but probably not the majority. (Again, reliable efforts would have to be made to track the efficacy.)

    eta:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post

    Read the Grapes of Wrath; migrations for better work happen everyday. People are leaving California and New Jersey by the millions to places like Texas and North Dakota, where the jobs are.
    The Grapes of Wrath is about how the Joad family (after losing their home) heard there were jobs in California- along with many, many other people in similar situations in need of livelihood- and the consequent job competition made people desperate and willing to work for wages that didn't begin to cover the cost of living. The novel is about how the migrants were totally exploited. They went hungry and a couple of them even died. So I don't think this makes the point you were trying to make?
    Last edited by Z Buck McFate; 02-18-2015 at 04:45 PM. Reason: correct grammar
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari
    Likes Ivy, Passacaglia, Hard liked this post

  6. #126
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I've often wondered what kind of effort has been put into tracking people who have been through this therapy. Because I'd think that would be the strongest evidence of whether or not it's effective- the percentage of 'success' stories *and* whether or not the 'success' stories last. [I do understand the point brought up about how court-ordered conversion therapy results could interfere, since obviously they're less likely to yield a 'success story'- but I'd also think that could be accounted for ultimately (and removed for more 'people who WANT conversion' results)?]

    I surmise from this response above (and from the fact that no one has posted any such statistics) that reliable effort wasn't taken? If so, that's unfortunate. Arguing the theory of whether or not it can be effective (and/or how damaging it ultimately may be)- because people can be so incredibly attached to their own polar end of this that it's offensive and threatening to them to even hear opinions from the other polar end*- is practically pointless.

    *As offensive as it is to me, I can understand how religious folk might see this verdict as threatening if there aren't solid statistics to irrefutably prove it's psychology damaging. (For example, if I believed my child's immortal soul- or that of a sibling, or any loved one who happened to start 'believing' they're gay- could be in danger of eternal damnation now because therapy to 'fix' them has been taken off the table... I don't directly understand that belief system, but I can't imagine how scary that would be.)




    Has anyone seen the show My Husband's Not Gay? (Has it even aired yet?) I have wondered in the past if it would be possible for someone to accept their orientation, to either live without ever having a partner or to have a partner in spite of being oriented to want to other gender- and to be happy with that. I can actually see it working for some people (say, least sx instinct variant people, maybe?), but probably not the majority. (Again, reliable efforts would have to be made to track the efficacy.)

    eta:



    The Grapes of Wrath is about how the Joad family (after losing their home) heard there were jobs in California- along with many, many other people in similar situations in need of livelihood- and the consequent job competition made people desperate and willing to work for wages that didn't begin to cover the cost of living. The novel is about how the migrants were totally exploited. They went hungry and a couple of them even died. So I don't this makes the point you were trying to make?
    read this there's tons more just google conversion therapy statistics and it is NOT reccomended by the APA http://www.ispn-psych.org/docs/PS-ReparativeTherapy.pdf

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...ed=0CBsQgQMwAA
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so
    Likes Z Buck McFate liked this post

  7. #127
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I've often wondered what kind of effort has been put into tracking people who have been through this therapy. Because I'd think that would be the strongest evidence of whether or not it's effective- the percentage of 'success' stories *and* whether or not the 'success' stories last. [I do understand the point brought up about how court-ordered conversion therapy results could interfere, since obviously they're less likely to yield a 'success story'- but I'd also think that could be accounted for ultimately (and removed for more 'people who WANT conversion' results)?]

    I surmise from this response above (and from the fact that no one has posted any such statistics) that reliable effort wasn't taken? If so, that's unfortunate. Arguing the theory of whether or not it can be effective (and/or how damaging it ultimately may be)- because people can be so incredibly attached to their own polar end of this that it's offensive and threatening to them to even hear opinions from the other polar end*- is practically pointless.

    *As offensive as it is to me, I can understand how religious folk might see this verdict as threatening if there aren't solid statistics to irrefutably prove it's psychology damaging. (For example, if I believed my child's immortal soul- or that of a sibling, or any loved one who happened to start 'believing' they're gay- could be in danger of eternal damnation now because therapy to 'fix' them has been taken off the table... I don't directly understand that belief system, but I can't imagine how scary that would be.)
    There are various problems with tracking.

    - People don't want to talk about it. If they are actually seeking treatment, they typically find it shameful and just want to quickly forget they ever had an issue. They are also under a lot of pressure in their community (typically religious) to not talk about it. No one wants to be 'tracked,' to be honest. Some are also going to therapy out of fear of losing their family or community.

    - People can go to other doctors and likely do, if they "relapse." It's like jumping therapists because either you felt like your prior therapist did not work, or you feel ashamed that you "failed the treatment."

    - Some people lie / force themselves to live in denial, as per the above, to not suffer social stigma and personal shame.

    - They might actually feel like they are "fixed" and/or can make it without falling back into their same-sex attraction and relationships. But as far as efficacy of treatment -- they might actually succeed at this due to other factors such as (1) willpower, (2) sterlizing their environment of all potential temptations, and (3) surrounding themselves by people who will punish them if they slip. Is that a "cure" or even just a healthy fix? If you review the court case and see some of the "treatments" these people subjected themselves to, the treatments themselves might even be worse than the cure.

    - No one is reliably cured. Not that being gay is a cancer at all; but the reality is that you can "be in remission" and suddenly have a relapse years later and that's that. You're simply "living in remission." Short-term "fixes" for being gay are typically running on willpower and emotional energy and the momentarily excitement of "being liberated" ... but long-term is what matters. Were you ever really "fixed"? Not much different than the honeymoon stage of a marriage; I wonder how many people who divorce at seven years raved and gushed about "their wonderful spouse" at the six-month point.

    - It's very easy to write the negative results off as the fault of the person who "failed treatment." it's never that the treatment is bad for someone or that the process was wrong, it's always blamed on the person who just didn't have enough willpower to remain 'ex-gay' or somehow they did something to ruin their treatment. Having a homosexual preference is treated essentially the same as drug or sex addiction regardless of the quality of the gay person's relationships.

    - It's a strong indictment of the efficacy of the therapy when it's very commont for the people leading the ex-gay groups -- the people with the most to gain by pushing the "we can help you cope / fix you" method -- end up eventually leaving the group to marry their same-sex partners and now are EX-ex-gay, and sometimes even shutting down the groups (like Exodus).

    Or people like John Paulk, who was an actual poster child for the ex - drag queen / ex-gay movement in the early 2000's (he was featured in Newsweek)... he married an "ex"-lesbian and had kids and were considered the perfect little ex-gay family... and then he kind of disappeared after awhile and was finally located and brought back momentarily into the limelight last year -- apparently he had realized it wasn't working, and so had left his ex-lesbian wife and is now living in a gay relationship. But the people who were using his image to "preach the cure" didn't care enough to correct the information, so gay people were trying to do what "John Paulk" did without ever realizing he had stopped doing it because he couldn't do it anymore.

    There are statements here from himself and his ex-wife. (She still believes homosexuality is wrong to pursue and was part of the "reforming" of the shards of Exodus into yet another organization, since the old name was considered tainted. The new strategy is "change" versus "cure." But it's still the same kinds of treatments under a new label)

    To be fair to the other side, the people who are "successful" in living a celibate or straight life (whoever they are) are typically disinclined to talk about it as well. They either want to move on in their lives or they don't want to expose themselves to the media scrunity. Occasionally a Christian mag will drag one out who is willing to write an op-ed, but it's typically again more about "balancing on the unicycle" versus being 'fixed' and you're left wondering whether they'll be able to continue or whether they'll just being another ex-ex-gay later. You don't know.

    Has anyone seen the show My Husband's Not Gay? (Has it even aired yet?) I have wondered in the past if it would be possible for someone to accept their orientation, to either live without ever having a partner or to have a partner in spite of being oriented to want to other gender- and to be happy with that. I can actually see it working for some people (say, least sx instinct variant people, maybe?), but probably not the majority. (Again, reliable efforts would have to be made to track the efficacy.)
    The show you mention is one of the first times I've seen a widely promo'ed show on the topic. I think in the past no one cared because same-sex marriage was considered a "never happen in the USA" thing, and now the second wave of battle is starting. You can see the strategies changing.

    I would think SX variants might have more trouble with it. The dishonestly and lack of connection coming from trying to be something you're not inclined to be might be more liable to mess you up. I think SPs would have the easiest time, because they minimize needs and reduce contact with others by nature. But that's just a guess on my part.

    I haven't watched it. I've noticed the gay community being conflicted over the show, at least in the online responses. IOW, sounds like a crappy idea on paper; but some said the show wasn't as bad as they thought. Still, makes you wonder now how many of these folks will be ex-ex-gay/divorced in ten years or what their relationships/personalities will be like. Weren't all immersed in a strong religious community, to "minimize temptation" and provides ample source of both support and shaming (depending on who they're around)?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Z Buck McFate liked this post

  8. #128
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Considering that we've spent $20 trillion fighting poverty since LBJ, I think that speaks volumes. Why not end all social welfare programs and give that $20 trillion to the needy via private charities? Also, the most effective anti-poverty program is a job. Why not cut a bunch of job killing regulations such as Obamacare? Let's build the Keystone Pipeline and develop domestic oil resources. That would create lots of high paying jobs.
    As I understand Keystone, it would create about 36 permanent job. Whatever benefits it has do not lie in job creation.

    So, how would you ensure that $20 trillion went to the needy or to job creation? There are probably more effective ways to address poverty than many of the approaches that have been tried. Not addressing poverty, however, is not one of them.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard liked this post

  9. #129
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I am going to start that I find your way of writing very eliptical, unclear, and difficult for me to understand, so if I misinterpret things I appologize.



    Explain. This is vauge.




    This also vauge. You mean that I can't handle this argument? Try me. Er, I am already doing it. There are areas of debate on homosexuality where I'll stop because the issues aren't as cut and dry and they're often just silly. Others though, such as the validity of it, I do not stop pushing back against because it isn't an argument in the first place.




    All people who are homosexual are valid. Being homosexual does not make someone invalid.




    Ok then don't. Lest this derail into something that this isn't about.




    It isn't the norm, and that is irrelevant. You're derail the issue at hand that I am discussing: the validity of being homosexual, and if that is inheriently right or wrong. Every time this debate comes up, you yank it into your little pet "the majority is being oppressed!" debate. Quite frankly, that argument itself is a steaming pile of horseshit. I am not going to address it any further if you continue to bring it up, as it is a derail.




    I did not say that. You're putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding what I said. The danger and harm that comes from bring up false debates over whether being homosexual is ok or not is dangerous, because it leads to society treating it poorly, and treating those individuals poorly. We can look at history to see what this effect is so it isn't even a question.




    Madness against heterosexuality? Jesus christ you're paranoid and sensitive. That isn't even an issue! There are some in the movement that are complete fuckheads and think that straights "don't understand our plight and are lesser than us", but they are quite few and far between. If you're basing your stance on those individuals you really need to rethink your position because the level of influence they have is just a flash in the pan compared to everything else.




    I'm sorry, but this is just laughable, silly, and sad (I actually laughed out loud about this for the record, startling someone in my office). I have no idea how your views on this became so twisted and fucked up. I mean it's just, where do I even start? No matter, this is another derail attempt. I had to pause to laugh at it though.




    If the public opinion is harmful, then they absolutely should influence and change what it is.

    This is also leading into your pathetic pet issue and I am not addressing it. The prospective I am getting is you're trying to turn this discussion into a point where you can argue your personal misgivings with homosexuality, and how the norm is being oppressed. Come on.

    Also, on a personal level, I don't give a shit about feeling oppressed or not. Why should I let it get to me? I've been lucky and felt very little compared to the vast majority of homosexuals I've met, but if it becomes a problem I push back against it.
    I dont see any grounds for agreement or even discussion, really, with you on this topic. So I'm not going to waste your time and mine.

    I didnt read that post, if you're wondering.

  10. #130
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    it isnt ever going to be the norm for everyone else and their own personal finding that it isnt for them and isnt valid for them is fine too.
    Which homosexuals, and anyone not straight, agree with as well. no one thinks its outlandish or wrong that heterosexuals exist. No one is trying to make homosexuality a norm for people in society. They want to make it normal to SEE, and normal in the sense that people don't think they're sick, deranged, and need social conditioning. they want to be safe to be themselves in their own private lives.

    And it is really easy to miss how awful the treatment still is now-a-days unless you're in someone's shoes. You're not really in a circle of friends (probably) that actively hates on homosexuals, you're not homosexual, and you probably have little in the way of friendship with homosexuals as a community (maybe one or two in your circle, whatever), and honestly you probably just don't see the issues because nothing in your life is exposing you to them. If you bother to look, though, they're there. Homelessness is still a problem even if everyone around you has a home.

    why should it be in question whether societal expectations validate your private sexual orientation?
    This is the question a lot of homosexuals ask. Because they don't invite heterosexuals into their lives to make determinations on them. It is others forcing themselves onto the situation. "Hey, we're consenting adults, and plenty of non-religious ceremonies for marriage already take place. Let us get married." "NNOOOO!!!!!!!" "Hey, I'm a homosexual, just so you know." 'Okay, son, let's take you to conversion therapy because no son of mine is going to be gay!'

    Homosexuals are not seeking validation from others. They're seeking education, and safety, and legal rights. Someone doesn't have to be gay to empathize with the fact that they don't want their own brother, or cousin, or father to be beaten in the streets for his own private affairs. And if you don't think that sort of thing still exists, it is because you're not looking at all.

    Being gay does not prevent, stop, or in any way interrupt your freedoms and choices as a heterosexual. But heterosexuals, for reasons outside of sexual orientation, frequently infringe on the rights of .. well.. anyone not hetero really.

    Even as a heterosexual my private rights are frequently called into question and infringed on. Why I'm not married and I'm close to 30.. why I don't have children.. why I don't want children... And even when I tell them why, I'm told I'm crazy, or my ideas are dismissed as, 'Oh, you'll change your mind.' As if I don't get a say in my own life choices somehow. *and I don't have to deal with a fraction of the issues homosexuals do.* There are people who's private lives are called into question because they don't meet someone else's criteria all the time. 'Oh, yeah, you're heterosexual, FINE, but you're not the same religion!' 'You're not the same race!' etc. etc. I wasn't scared of being disowned by my parents when I told them I was dating someone I was really in love with. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes on the subject to me. 'Hey mom and dad.. this person is a good influence on my life, they've turned me around and I feel love for life and others again thanks to him.' That could get people kicked out of their entire families forever. It's a sad situation. And it is exactly what you stated... people judging people on personal, private lives and matters that have no influence or sway on their anything but their own private lives.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge
    Likes Passacaglia, Ivy liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-24-2017, 10:49 PM
  2. Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 01:28 PM
  3. all scans says my computer is clean
    By prplchknz in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 07:07 PM
  4. What type would you say this guy is?
    By Samvega in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 05:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO