Do you ever remember him/her....?
You know who I mean; your first real crush....The main guy/girl who had the power to make your heart beat a little faster just by smiling at you....We all had one in our teenage years....didn't we...???
If you ever got the chance to see him/her again....We'd look our best....to show him/her what they missed when they walked into the sunset without us....and perhaps broke our hearts...?
Thing is....when life throws us several curves....can we still have any faith in such things as happily ever...?....In the magic that surrounded our first flush of love....?
I hope that everyone who has as many curves thrown their way......Gets the chance to try again for that love of a lifetime....
If you met them again.......would you try....? I know....I would..:)
I noticed on the Questions and Answers posted by Optimyst......that there was a clash of spellings....Well in the Queen's English.....Favorite (US)....is spelt...Favourite (ENG)..Color (US)......Colour....(ENG)..
Was it Churchill that said...."We are two nations divided by a common language"
In the spirit of fun....Here are some variations in our language....ENG/US.
3.Mobile Phone......Cell Phone.
8.Wind Screen.......Wind Shield.
9.Estate Car.........Station Wagon.
10.Fire Engine.......Fire Truck.
11.Fly Over........Over Pass.
19.Post Code.......Zip Code.
20.Post Box.......Mail Box.
These are just a few......Feel free to add yours.....lol
There are many definitions, theories and debates surrounding the concept of ' media violence '. Many commentators have accused the media - mainly films and television - for the general rise in violence in society. On the other hand many media writers, directors and producers have been telling us that the violent content of the media they create plays no role in making society more violent. They point to the rise in unemployment, poverty and social deprivation as a much more significant set of factors to explain the phenomenon. Before we can assess the pros and cons of these arguments we have to come to some form of working definition of the term ' media violence '
According to Watson, at its most basic, " violence - so long as it is legitimately wielded - is the power that restores states of dissonance to states of consonance, re-establishes equilibrium. Things 'will turn out all right if we are on the right side (or look as if we were)". Therefore for Watson media violence is, " a political scenario working on several levels. As a symbolic exercise it is a demonstration of power, of who has it, who uses it, and who loses it", (Watson 1998)
At a deeper level Gerber, shows that media violence is not just a symbolic demonstration of power, but is also an integral part of the wider forces of control and conformity exercised by the agents of global capitalism. For him media violence is but one strand of a whole web of controls established by the forces of capitalism in order to sustain the correct conditions in which ' the market' can spread and flourish (Gerbner 1992). As he says, " who can resist the flood? Few countries are willing or able to invest in a cultural policy that does not surrender the socialisation of their children and the future of their language, culture and society to "Market forces" (Gerbner 1992).
Taking these theories into account, one could therefore define media violence as a multi-layered concept, benignly entertaining and informing at one level whilst serving and reinforcing a wider set of social, economic and political values at another. Of course this is just one definition that draws heavily on a certain view of the world. Other commentators would question even if it is worth trying to define such a meaningless concept, arguing that the rise in violence has nothing to do with the media at all, but is simply down to human nature and a general failure in policing society. All in all media violence is a very complex theory and whatever view you ascribe to at the very least the concept is certainly worth investigating.
This is an Intriguing Article....By Adrian Barnett.....: Brimstone And Sulphur. There is a special toasty corner of Hell reserved for scumbag atheists like me, or so I'm told. If that's where I'm headed then I think it's only fair to cast a critical eye over the concept. There are various definitions of Hell according to which religion you follow, and to which sub-branch of that religion you subscribe. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, don't think that Hell is a place of flames and torment, but simply a place outside the sphere of God's love. When you pop your clogs, good JW's get into Heaven (which may actually be on Earth anyway), and everyone else just.... doesn't. It's a bit strange and vague, but that's the JWs for you. Most people are familiar with the common concept of Heaven and Hell. Nice people go to Heaven where they get a harp and sit on a cloud for the rest of eternity; bad people go to Hell where demons poke them with sharp sticks for the rest of eternity. Heaven is ruled by God and Jesus, Hell is ruled by Satan and his minions. Oooh, you'd better be good or you'll burn in Hellfire forever!! And you don't want that, do you? This is all well and good, if that's where you stop thinking about it. Unfortunately, some of us have inquisitive minds and can't help but probe a little deeper into this odd aspect of Christianity. Where is Hell? Yes, yes, we all know there are several towns called Hell or Hel, but I'm talking about the hot place ruled by the big red guy with horns. Is it an actual physical location? Some seem to think so. Some people believe that Hell is located at the centre of the Earth (there was even a story some years ago about Russian miners going so deep that they heard the screams of the Damned). You can understand how this belief came about - thousands of years ago, people seeing erupting volcanoes probably thought that Hell was leaking. It gave them a startling insight into the world below. This could well be how the whole Burning In Hellfire idea came about. If there really was a huge hollow cavern in the molten mantle, I can't help but wonder why it hasn't yet shown up on geological/seismological surveys... Others seem to think that it is on some other dimensional plane of existence - it really does exist, but not in the universe as we know it. What happens to your body? Back to the idea of demons poking you with sharp sticks. Hell is portrayed as a place of eternal torment - every possible torture and atrocity that you can imagine will be inflicted on you, forever. You will be in constant agonising pain for all eternity (so you'd better repent, or else). How does this happen then? When you die, your central nervous system stops functioning and your body is buried or burnt. There is a well understood process for the transmission of pain signals from your nerves to your brain. No nerve cells, no pain. In order to be poked by demons and feel that as pain, you require a physical body with all the appropriate nerve connections. How does this come about then? Is your body mysteriously transported from your grave / cremation urn to Hell and brought back to life again? Is your "spirit body" altered to let you feel pain in the same way as your long-dead physical body used to? What if you're a masochist and really quite like it? After all, if you don't have a real body, you could even start suggesting new and interesting tortures for the demons to try. "Hey, this pitchfork stuff is getting a bit dull, don't you have any red-hot pokers covered with ants instead? Ooh, ahh, up a bit, YES! YES!!!" It could also be argued that the threat of eternal torment loses effectiveness after a while - if a person who actually believes in Hell commits a number of serious crimes, what is to stop him from thinking "Well, I'm going to burn for eternity for killing those ten people... What's going to happen to me if I kill another ten and rob a few more banks? It can't get any worse - where's my gun?" If he commits twice the sins, he can't exactly suffer for two eternities, can he? Or would he experience double-infinite pain? How do you get there? What you actually have to do in order to go to Hell varies wildly depending on your interpretation of scripture. For instance, some people say it doesn't matter what crime you commit - as long as you truly repent before you die you'll go to Heaven. On the other hand, some catholic nuns give the impression that you'll suffer eternal torment just for looking at them funny or making jokes about the Pope's silly hat. All this can lead to some bizarre inconsistencies. A good example is the recent case of Karla Faye Tucker (and I mean no disrespect to the families involved when I use this as an example). This case made headline news in early 1998 - Karla Tucker had been involved in the pick-axe murder of two people and sentenced to death. During her time in prison she became a born-again Christian, turning her life over to Jesus Christ and repenting for her crime. This stirred up a hornet's nest as people like Pat Robertson suggested that she should not be executed, as she was a changed person (of course, many other people find Jesus/Allah on Death Row, but Tucker was A: a woman, and B: a christian, so she seemed to get preference in the eyes of Robertson and the like). My point is this. Depending on your particular interpretation of the Rules Of The Afterlife, Tucker either Went to Hell for being a drugged-up pick-axe murderer. Went to Heaven because she repented and found salvation through Jesus. Also Her victims went straight to Heaven because they were innocent murder-victims... Or, if they had not already accepted Jesus as their saviour, they went straight to Hell. This leads to the insane possibility that the murderer went to heaven, and her victims went to Hell. Or even that they all went to either Heaven or Hell. How many murder victims in Heaven get an unpleasent surprise when their "saved" murderer finally comes up to join them? Who runs the place? Easy answer: Satan (big red guy, horns, pointy tail etc.). Tricky answer: God (old guy with beard and white robe). "Don't be daft, of course Satan runs the place!", I hear you cry. Really? How did he get the job, then? After The Fall, did Satan set up shop in the underworld and send an advertisement to God, touting for business - Now Open - Underworld Torture Facility. Let us handle the tedious work of torturing the Damned for you. Full Repentance Or Your Money Back! 10% discount on first million souls if you call today So what happens when you die? Do you really go up to the Pearly Gates where Peter is waiting with his Big Book Of Your Life? Too many black marks and he sends you down to Hell... Or is there some sort of spiritual Tug-O-War, as angels and demons fight it out over your soul? It seems to me that God and Lucifer have some sort of deal going on here. If we succumb to temptation during our lifetime, we go to Hell where we get tortured until we repent, when we are magically transported back up to Heaven. How does that work? Does Lucifer suddenly realise that after 55,000 years of torture you've suddenly become a good person, and he is contractually obliged to send you "upstairs"? Or does God look down into Hell, notice the change and whisk you away to get your wings? "Oh Darn!", says Lucifer, "There goes another one. Why does that keep happening?" Many people believe that once you are in Hell, you are there for good (or bad). That's it. No parole. Just eternal, searing, excruciating, agonising torture for trillions of years, without so much as a toilet break. Murderers, rapists and drug-dealers, as well as perfectly normal people who simply failed to believe, will have their skin burnt off for all eternity. All sins merit the same punishment, it would appear. If this is so then it seems to me that any God who would send people to such a place can only be described as a mindless monster. Alternatively, if God unconditionally loves everyone and has the ability to pull them out of Hell, but does not, then he is still an insane tyrant. Ah, but (so I am told) God does not send anyone to Hell. They choose to go there by refusing to accept God. Does this make any sense to you? Just imagine : you die, and go up to the Pearly Gates. Well, gosh, it looks like I was wrong all this time! Okay, so there is a God. I pretty much have to believe now, don't I? Can I come in? What, I can't? I have to take the down-elevator? That doesn't seem right... This idea about people choosing Hell just seems like some sort of sick joke, I'm afraid. How can it be said that a person who lives a blameless life, but (for whatever reason) does not accept J.Christ as their personal saviour, is making an active, conscious decision to suffer horrible pain for an infinite amount of time? Why would Satan want us to repent? Would Satan really want to torture you for doing his evil work? Surely he would give you a pat on the back and a pint of cold beer, not tie you to a rock and attack you with a cheesegrater. What's he going to say? "Aha! Right, you gave in to temptation and lived a life of Sin, just like I wanted you to. As punishment for disobeying God, and doing my work instead, I'm... erm... going to torture you... er... Hang on a minute.... Have I got that right?" We are always told "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be punished in Hell.". Well, unless Hell is full of Angels doing the torturing, it seems like the saying should be "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be rewarded in Hell.". You can understand why priests never tell you this when they are ranting on about Hellfire And Damnation. Could it be that Lucifer is working under the direct orders of God - "Now then, Luci old pal. I want you to get some big red horns and go tempt some mortals. If you succeed, you can inflict pain on them until they repent, when they can come here with me. Oh, and be careful
Found this article online.......Thought I might as well share it....
The following....is from Bullies Online...:
I estimate one person in thirty, male or female, is a serial bully. Who does the following profile describe in your life?
The serial bully:
is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive
uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance
is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
cannot be trusted or relied upon
fails to fulfil commitments
is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion
is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water
flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta
is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)
poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation
is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire
is always a taker and never a giver
is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself
knows the words but not the song
is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication
sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic
The serial bully appears to lack insight into his or her behaviour and seems to be oblivious to the crassness and inappropriateness thereof; however, it is more likely that the bully knows what they are doing but elects to switch off the moral and ethical considerations by which normal people are bound. If the bully knows what they are doing, they are responsible for their behaviour and thus liable for its consequences to other people. If the bully doesn't know what they are doing, they should be suspended from duty on the grounds of diminished responsibility and the provisions of the Mental Health Act should apply