As I pointed out in the thread when the court case started, the irony is that these muslims were charged under the same law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11. Other groups were added to the protected class, with gays being the last. Of course it took so long to add gays to the list because religious groups kept having hissy fits.
“Removing fat from around that area can make what’s left look bigger,” he says.
This is true, but as he says, it only looks bigger, while penis enlargement actually makes it bigger.
Dead people skin inside my cock just seems gross.
Another rule that needs to be enforced, is the naming one.
Too many people are just uploading VIDEO_TS folders and it causes problems when you try to download a couple of DVD-Rs like this. This needs to be put in a 2nd folder with the video's proper name.
@ Uwe
While all that is technically true about the definition of DVD-R, the way DVD-R is used here, the R refers more to "replica".
Otherwise I can upload tons of multi converted trash and call it DVD-R. Using "DVD-R only means it's recordable media" definition means I can drag a video through RM converters 30 times and rip every shred of quality out of it, then make it into a "DVD-R" and all is fine.
The same for the UK.
This guy might be a sex offender too, since part of his crime was sex in public bathrooms.
Ironically, these muslims are being tried under a law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11.
One entire series/season of a TV show can be posted at a time.
You will need to make a torrent for series 1 of the UK version and a torrent for series 1 of the US version, and so on.
DVD-R is the format, regardless if it comes in VOB or ISO.
DVD9 and DVD5 are different, so that is an allowable difference. However, I'm not sure this should be allowed, see below.
Modern porn (last few/several years) is being done in DVD9, so a DVD5 is either "shrunk" or had parts removed. Shrinking DVD-Rs tends to reduce quality quite a bit, while removing parts defeats the naming of it DVD-R.
Murdoch has publicly stated that he views people being able to read/view anything from his corporation without paying for it as theft.
Families can be really fucked up, to say the least.
I eliminated the fucked up parts of my family from my life, despite my partner always trying to get me to give in, and I'm much happier for it.
Sadly, I realize you can't really do that due to your situation, but you can limit your exposure to the bad elements in some ways, by being short with your conversations with them and not giving into them; ie not lending them money.
@ Spintendo
Your attitude from your very fist post in this thread has set the tone of my responses. You attacked anyone who liked monogamy by calling them possessive and controlling among other things.
I also noticed that you needed to eliminate any relationship that wasn't good, to prop up your idealistic views of open relationships. If you are willing to take the "good" ones, then you must also take the bad ones.
As someone who has never been in an open relationship, nor ever plans to be in one, I fail to see what it is that you can bring to the table in any discussion about open relationships,
I don't see what you have to bring to the table when I busted your rubbish and you need to lie about what I've said.
well as your belief, not expounded upon, that these relationships are wrong
This is not the first time you lied about what I said.
I never said they were "wrong", other than many times one party is forced into it. I explained this several times. Just because you don't like my answers does not mean you can lie about what I said.
++++
You are treading very close to getting banned. Any more attacks on me and you will be banned. This is your 3rd and final warning.
Yet another dig at me, should I be surprised?!
There is a huge difference between expressing opinions and your posts in this thread.
I'll repeat, either post something constructive in this thread or leave this thread. The choice is yours.
Let me see if I got this right.
Romney said;
"At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view," he added. "If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people – that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me."
Santorum said;
When the moderator asked Santorum if he would be a voice for "speaking out for gay rights" in the Republican Party, the former Pennsylvania senator replied, "I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity. That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do with changing laws, with respect to marriage or respect to adoption or things like that. You can be respectful. … But just because you don't agree with someone's desire to change the law doesn't mean you don't like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them."
What they both said is that gays are equal to heteros except in all the areas we aren't, but they don't see that as discrimination.
It's not anything from us, just that no one has been uploading them here.
Religion was used because of the historical evidence, not that any religion is right. Besides, I'm an atheist so I hate all religions.
Since its passage by the Senate, Nigeria has received strong criticisms and warnings from the British, Canadian and the United States of America governments, which have individually threatened to withdraw aids and other forms of assistance to Nigeria, if the law is allowed to exist.
Sadly, the US, UK and Canada still send Nigeria and all the other gay hating countries foreign aid. That means we are being taxes to support people that hate us.
If you only intend to keep insulting me, don't bother posting in this thread again.
No, you're intolerant and pejorative of whores because their lifestyle choices are sub-human in your eyes, worthy of only disdain and disgust ― when in fact those types of relationships and the human beings who are in them are seperate from you, have nothing to do with you, and don't require your pity.
Again, your entire rant is that I'm evil because I'm not a whore nor will I ever get into a relationship with a whore. And you call me controlling.
Be the biggest whore you can be with your fellow whores. Why do you NEED those of us who aren't whores to change to suit you?!
I'll say it now, you are extremely intolerant of anyone who does not worship at the alter of whoredom. Just look at how you describe people that like monogamy in your various posts.
You mentioned that you practice serial monogomy.
EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?!?!
I have been with the same person my entire adult life.
Maybe you are desperately trying to include the dating I did in high school, in your attempt make me look bad in your eyes.
Would you want perfect strangers to pity this relationship of yours just because it wasn't their type of relationship, before there was understanding of how these two differing types of relationships either work, or don't work, for the people involved in them?
Go ahead and pity my relationship if that makes you feel better about yourself and your "relationships", at least my relationship has lasted more than 2 decades.
Again, because I'm not a whore nor do I want a partner that's a whore, you paint me as evil.
A requirement that the previous 250,000 years of human existence and their relationship trends/data cannot be variables which matter in any way.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
A requirement that you possess something that is, for you, the one-and-only idealized type of relationship. Nothing else will do… and not just for you, but alas! it shouldnt do for anyone else either! Reserved unto you, are the powers of deciding which relationships are worthy, and which ones are trash. Heavy indeed is the head that wears a crown.
Didn't you accuse me of creating strawmen arguments?
I never said that any other type of relationship should be under the death penalty or some other form of criminal punishment.
That this requirement of selflessness need not apply to you personally is assumed, if you believe that any misery you would possibly face could never be worth anyone's happiness.
So you are agreeing with me.
Giving in to these whoring relationships means giving up some of your happiness, to make your partnerS happy.
To sustain a desperate argument requires opponent as well as proponent; which without your help would have been impossible. Smiley
It can be unsettling at times to have the safe and secure world of what we comprehend placed so closely next to and compared with what others comprehend. The usual response to this upset of our own ethnocentric ideas on a topic such as open gay-relationships is stress, anxiety, and the urge to cling tighter to our own epistemological underpinnings of these views.
Because you are a whore, I have to be a whore and be in a whoring relationship or I'm evil. That's your entire rant. Do you see how screwed up your argument is? It's extremely hypocritical to say the least.
But be assured raphjd, that this type of response is patently maladaptive. Your idealized relationship does not lend itself to entertain even for an instant any narrative which is alien to your own. Somehow, instead of exploring other's ideas about these relationships, you've taken to hybridise the topic of open gay relationships with that of plural marriage (or, more accurately, "forced" plural marriage) in a conceptually bizarre manner; probably because framing it to the content and conventions of your own internal relationship-schema is a safer, more familiar, and more appropriate manner for you – and god help anything that readily contravenes this idealized narrative that you've identified with for so long, and with which your chimeric-arguments protect at all costs.
Yet again, I'm evil and fucked in the head because I'm not a whore nor do I want a partner who is a whore.
You are quickly running out of any respect I've had for you.
I mean really…what does a woman being stoned in Isfahan have to do with Kyle's wanting to sleep with Derik & Sean together in San jose?
But you said that we have to take their claims at face value.
So the world in a great place and no one has ever been forced into a relationship they didn't want.