Topics created by agis

Posta que a galera baixa.

Cheryl Cole

@pastol:

You selected a great "teacher" in Ray Bradbury. I love that man and his writings.

Your post was moving and enjoyable. The English was nearly perfect. One note: stay away from slang. Your writing is better than that. (thingies, fellas, wanna) Use the proper words (things, fellows, want to) your writing deserves it.

Thank you pastol. Let alone the contents Ray writes in a very Italian way.
Concerning slang I was trying to remember but, as far as I can dig back, you must be the first to ask me for that. 🙂
After all it could be the generation gap indeed. I'm 52.

Thanks for posting. It doesn't have to be porn to be beautiful & those two are beautiful… :love:

:thx: for the links Hot Men indeed!!!

I like Sylver.
Sylver - Skin

These are amazing. Where can I see more?

OK Jonathan  I could follow your line!   ^-^ But, every time  a new word is proposed as it has happened now, it seems to me  there should be an agreement based on a good/thorough explanation (age quod agis  😉 ) made by the proposer followed or less by a sufficient acceptance within a social group. Even if you/I/we all gave good explanations as we have done here, this doesn't seem to grant an acceptance in itself though cause words like farnhamality or agis could be rejected for some reasons: the already accepted existence of other words or circumlocutions up to come to the same point or an unavailablity of the group to share the goal/mind operation denoted by the new term for instance. Especially in the case when a word is proposed and accepted without an apparent quid to point to, in any case, a thorough explanation should make possible to understand to everyone what has been made/done and, in principle, to unmake/undo or remake/redo it. So the challenge of Tom - the apparent contradiction/ambiguity  of a straight sex in a gay forum - could be fixed specifying the original mind operations and the conditions/reasons of an undo-unmake/redo-remake. Couldn't it? 🙂

Changing topic I was reading  one of those very ancient agises writing about a mole named agis who was the XVI of a series. That blind animal was really dumb go  figure!   :blink:  He couldn't understand why in the  human languages both the terms pointing and not pointing to something are denoted with similar sounds and/or writings. Don't ask why they lost their time making such queer questions; I dunno.  :afr2:  And anyway since that agis was very ancient and incomplete the answer got lost too in the past fogs   :cry2:

I'm not Muslim and never have been, but I come from a Muslim family. I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try:

Before praying, you make wudu, which is cleaning certain parts of your body with water. It's supposed to wash off impurities, both physical and spiritual.

Five times a day there's salaat, which is a ritualized form of prescribed prayer. There's similar traditions in Catholic or Orthodox Christian ritualized prayers, with motions and prostrations. (I think Catholics these days do kneeling instead of prostrations, and a lot of the Orthodox do a sort of bow-touching-the-floor thing instead of prostrations, but prostrations are native to both traditions). It also has to be made in Arabic, because it is supposed to be the language that God himself spoke to mankind in when he sent down the Qur'an.

The heartfelt and personal prayer is dua, where you send up petitions to God in your own language and your own words.

Then there is Qur'an recitation, which is akin in spirituality to taking communion in the Christian traditions.

Sure LBC we look for and find the values and maybe, if we happened to be a little pissed off, even the… "disvalues" 🙂 . So one could even emit the hypothesis that we put more than find these thingies somewhere.
Back in topic though, the lesson Bayazid felt to give us may be seen as interesting and useful but, at a given point, since  all the mystics coming from different religions (the sufism was and is an islamic form of mysticism) end with resembling each other, the most interesting lesson we could get from the all of them is about a vision of a "god" who speaks for my/your/oursingularselves common denominator. Mysticim was seen in fact as the purely individual art of penetrating the "secret", the mystery (mystikòs) hiding in the nature of the things through not conventional instruments: neither the words, nor the writings, nor even the thought. Its instrument was the breath: breathing first the air, then the environment, the beings populating it and, in the end, god. So, like the apophatic god, not an authoritative god but a god who cannot lend her/him/itself to a human, too human will to power. Including the power of bashing some other than ourselves ones: gays, jews, niggas, women… 🙂

NP. Thank you.Very clear. Trying someway casually I had already come to understand the possibility of forcing the manual tracking update which, in my personal experience, worked quickly only with at least two leechers. Nothing to be worried about I'd say though.
A negligible, at least in my case, bandwidth waste  🙂

:hiya: