iouswuoibev

Ok, agreed.

1280x1024. And now I've tried stretching the window to the full screen width the banner no longer obscures it. There's another problem though. If the user list length exceeds the size of the user list box, you cannot see all the users except by "scrolling" by highlighting and dragging downwards on the text.

At present the banner add partially obscures the user listing.

Because it usually involves some crass language for added "shock" effect. I wouldn't have picked that name for it, but I know what it refers to.

Actually, this might not be possible. I think there is an idle timeout limit.

No, for a woman it is defiance. Assuming that either party isn't confused about who is the man and who is the woman.

If you stay logged in (at the cost of having an extra window open) it is likely to stop other people from getting this same idea and ending up with a dead chatroom. You don't even have to be around to chat all the time, the mere presence of other people is often enough to keep people checking in.

Well that added nothing to the discussion. Do you have any idea why you like it? And why on earth would it be something braggable? I couldn't care less what you do in bed, and neither should anyone else.

Well maybe you had a taboo about sex, but I certainly didn't. Sex sex sex sex sexy sex. For a man, talking dirty can be a way of expressing ownership of and entitlement to your partner, as well as just showing general masculine boldness. For example, you could announce to her that sometime later tonight she's going to be having her brains f**ed out (for added effect state the exact time). Assuming you're not an idiot and did it in the proper context, and with nonchalant certainty, this can be quite a turn on for her (though make sure you do as promised!). It helps if you don't swear very often under normal circumstances though, otherwise it won't be very effective.

So who's Sauron supposed to be?

250 is quite a peak. Any idea what might have caused it? Something to do with xmas perhaps? Also, did that figure include anonymous users [EDIT: I meant guests]?

I thought it was a joke straight away...

So what ideas have you?

What can money buy for an online forum except more bandwidth? I can't think of anything. Hey, that might be not such a bad idea, then you could raise the flood control threshold which is, at present, very slightly annoying.

Nice work. Post if you get any more positive feedback won't you?

I refer to this sentence when faced with a question like whether to drink or not, "The only reason to do one thing over another is if it will better serve your overall happiness." I think the answer lies in the individual, and depends on personal values and personal circumstances. I see no universal moral evaluation on this issue sans the person to whom it applies.

Yeah, ignore me. I just looked it up on dictionary.com and got devour as a valid meaning. The definition I just gave was from wordweb (an offline software dictionary). It also gives the sole definition of egoism as "Attempting to get personal recognition for yourself (especially by unacceptable means)". Guess I shouldn't rely on it so much.

Verb: scarf 1. Masturbate while strangling oneself 2. Unite by a scarf joint 3. Wrap in or adorn with a scarf (peers at [EDIT: DavidOdden] curiously)

Does anyone here NOT use a specific method for falling asleep, and just do it "naturally" ? I suppose I could analyse my method: I wait until I get tired, go to bed, then let my mind and body do the rest. Now that I reflect upon it, I used to have semi-frequent nights where I would have great difficulty falling asleep. Now I'm going out on a limb here and might be wrong, but I have a theory that it's because I had a neglected mind: I wasn't "expending" my brain-power during the day when I should have been. When you don't think about your problems and use your reason to tackle them promptly, it leads to pent up frustration. and when it comes to the time of unwinding and falling asleep, your relaxed consciousness becomes more acutely aware of the things it was ignoring and says "I'm not ready! I have things to think about!" but then you're too tired to do that thinking, so you get torn between the goals of falling asleep and thinking about things. Regardless, I haven't had problems with falling asleep for a very long time.

Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints.

Sounds like the words of a psychotic hermit (with a jaundiced eye). Whether Valentine's is a celebration or a trivialisation is down to the individual. The content of this post insults everyone who celebrates valentines day, regardless of why or how they go about doing that (I think sex is the best way). Having said that, I agree that valentine's is silly. Why should one's romance it be any more exceptional than the other 364 days of the year? But I think those who celebrate it are just misguided, not "not in love". Sweeping statements like that are overgeneralised and offensive.

Your error is not linguistic, but philosophical. Instead of going by what people mean by something, listen to what they actually do mean when they say it, and what premises are hiding behind it. You'll find that there is a bare definition present - one which an objective person agrees with (e.g. Selfishness = Concern with one's own interests, Objectify = Regarding something as an object) - but on top of that there will be an implicit evaluation or dubious premise that should not be in the definition at all. Your sense of the word "objectify" carries within it a premise that you aren't letting go of. Maybe you should take that premise as the issue at hand instead of contesting the definition.

But this is not a distinctly philosophical topic. To objectify means to regard as an object, but most people take it to mean regarding a person as solely a PHYSICAL object, without any consideration to their status as a conceptual being. Why would they make that leap in logic? Because, they regard consciousness as a mystical, non-objective phenomenon. EDIT: reworded sentence

So noone gets confused: I am no longer in any way affiliated with the position I posited in that thread.

Good question. Men and women have the CAPACITY to integrate a sexual psychology that is befitting the opposite sex. The two poles I describe are not intrinsically masculine or feminine, but there are no better words to refer to them by (words like submissive, controlling, owning are all either imprecise or nonessential- EDIT: or ommit other essentials). Ideally, as a requisite to the happiest, healthiest relationship, the appropriate psychology should be embraced consistently and exclusively, without any trace of the opposite. As to why I think you can only have the happiest, healthiest sex life by this means, that's a question I'll answer seperately on another day (as it requires a much longer answer).