# UNCONDITIONAL MEANS ... WELL, UNCONDITIONAL!

Category: Dating and Relationships

## Post 1 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 11:09:44

Well, I CERTAINLY WON'T GUARANTEE that I'll stay within the 8000-character LIMIT, but what I DEFINITELY WILL SAY, which DEFINITELY DESCRIBES THE VERY GOAL of which MY PERSONAL PROFILE DESIRES TO FULFILL, is that REGARDLESS of what ANYONE SAYS, there's ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY to be in THE ONE AND ONLY RELATIONSHIP OF ABSOLUTE, WHOLESOME QUALITY, than to be TOTALLY RID of YOUR OWN PREFERENCE/PREFERENCES as to how YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER OUGHTA BE. YOU oughta be WILLING to THROW ALL CAUTION "TO THE WIND," TO "risk ALL of YOURSELVES, for the VERY ABSOLUTE SAKE of ALL OF EACH OTHER," challenging, VICTORIOUSLY, ALL BARRIERS THAT COULD DIVIDE, REGARDLESS ITS NATURE, according to GOD'S PREFERENCE/PREFERENCES, ONLY, as HE SHOULD be the HEAD, ANYWAY.

## Post 2 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 11:23:19

In reply to my OWN POST, I would DEFINITELY ADD that this is DEFINITELY the POSSIBLY UNFATHOMABLE, and you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, if you were to admittedly say so, but you would DEFINITELY NEED to ask THIS question: "How should I be wanted by the one that I want?" THUS, fulfilling JESUS'S saying of "DOING UNTO OTHERS as YOU would want done unto YOU," or to NARROW IT TO the very ONE: "DOING UNTO ONE ANOTHER" likewise.

## Post 3 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 15:17:14

well, firstly you are about 7500 characters inside the 8000 limit, well done. Secondly if you have no pereferences for how your partner ought to be it means you could be with absolutely anyone, a 60 year old man, Bin Laden, Bush or a cheating drug addict of questionable sex. It is healthy and right to have preferences, your partner may not fill all of them necessarily and may have qulities you never looked for before but once you have discovered them find them amazing and something you always wanted in a partner. But indiscrimate dating isjust for those who want to be with anyone at all and I do not believe anyone out there has no preferences as to how one's partner should be.

## Post 4 by Winterfresh (This is who I am, an what I am about. If you don't like it, too damn bad!!!) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 15:57:56

I agree with wildebrew. After I got fucked over by a guy, I prayed for someone to come into my life, someone sweet, nice, hot, and such. I wasn't at all specific about age though. Now, the guy I'm in love with, I canot date yet cause he's too old for me, but I'm head over heals for him and when I'm 18, I hope we can be together. I do have preferences though, but sometimes wht u get can surprise u.

## Post 5 by changedheart421 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 16:04:43

o my god get a life.

## Post 6 by Meka (carpe Diem!) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 17:39:22

If I am reading this correctly, you are basically saying that we shouldn't have preferences in terms of what we want in a mate, but that we need to change our stinkin thinkin and let preconceived ideas of what we want just fly out of the window? That's some interesting reasoning, right there.
Personally, I have preferences and I am not ashamed. It doesn't mean that I can't love that person unconditionally, but I do have some requirements. Honesty, sincerity, and a good sense of humor rate right up there on the 'Meka's snobby date requirements list'. I couldn't agree more with Wildibrew. I, for one, am not willing to back down on certain preferences. I don't think that makes me a shallow person. I think it makes me a pretty darn smart one.
Do you know what I think is incredibly sad? I think it is sad that a person cannot respect the preferences of another. For example, when a person says that they don't wish to date someone else due to their age difference, I think that said person needs to be man or woman enough to respect their decisions without throwing a hissy fit. While throwing caution to the wind and taking risks are good in many respects, forsaking your preferences because being with someone is better than not being with anyone at all is a dangerous concept that speaks of desperation and simply not caring. And I, for one, am better than that.
I hope that my fellow zoners are, too.
Meka

## Post 7 by SingerOfSongs (Heresy and apostasy is how progress is made.) on Friday, 20-Jul-2007 20:04:01

Maybe it's my lack of sleep, but those 2 posts make no sense to me whatsoever. (When I say 2 posts I'm referring to the first 2 posts that were made as the origin of the topic.)

## Post 8 by softy5310 (Fuzzy's best angel) on Saturday, 21-Jul-2007 2:07:27

I agree that the first two posts in this Topic made absolutely no sence. I was wondering if it was just e, but apparently not, which is good. I agree too that throwing all caucion to the wind and just getting rid of all your preferences in a potential mate is is dangerous, risky and should not be done. I've developed mine over many years experience, thans and I'm not about to get rid of them. As far as loving anyone unconditionally, I tryo to do that, with Herbie, my fiance, but with all of my friends too, because isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Take Care,
Dawnielle

## Post 9 by speedie (move over school!) on Saturday, 21-Jul-2007 8:37:37

Someone's acting the maggot and what's with the shouting?
Stevie.

## Post 10 by speedie (move over school!) on Saturday, 21-Jul-2007 8:39:47

Read this eejit's profile and I bet 1/2 of you will have him on ignore,
he's behaving like a catholic priest, who's been shut away in Wicklow.
Stevie

## Post 11 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 21-Jul-2007 10:03:55

I couldn't even read all of the initial posts. Much much too wordy for my taste. Probably more preachy fluffy-bunny idealistic blither-blather. *sigh*

## Post 12 by Manwe (The Dark Lord) on Saturday, 21-Jul-2007 11:27:08

hmmm. how sad. the only reason this guy hasn't got anyprefferences, is because he's not had a good session of bedroom athlettics in such a long time he's willing to do anything to get some. talk about desparatte! lol sorry to be blunt guys and gals but that's what it boils down to at the end of the day. he's desparatte for abit of the other!!

## Post 13 by speedie (move over school!) on Sunday, 22-Jul-2007 9:18:27

Your right so poor feicken sap..lol
I get more than him with a limp dick
Stevie.

## Post 14 by Blondie McConfusion (Blah Blah Blah) on Sunday, 22-Jul-2007 20:35:57

meka i love you!
i totally don't agree with yous&a. i've made some interesting choices in my past relationships because of the fact that at the time my preferences weren't set as high as they are now. i will keep my preferences the way they are. sad to say but if i hadn't of opened my eyes and got some higher set preferences, i possibly wouldn't be here to write this today.
i don't agree that having unconditional love means not having preferences. in my opinion it is more finding someone that you can love no matter what flaws they have. and compromise is a big part of it too.

## Post 15 by speedie (move over school!) on Monday, 23-Jul-2007 7:53:07

The battered women would agree so
Stevie.

## Post 16 by reclusive thinker (Veteran Zoner) on Monday, 23-Jul-2007 17:27:08

If it's unconditional, it's not love.

## Post 17 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Thursday, 26-Jul-2007 0:11:22

"If it's unconditional, it's not love." Would you mind explaining that, please?
Thanks,
John

## Post 18 by reclusive thinker (Veteran Zoner) on Thursday, 26-Jul-2007 18:34:53

John, back in May there was a topic on "unconditional love" in the Let's Talk section, and I explained my views on the concept there. I think it's still around, but you'll have to go two or three pages down under Let's Talk to find it.

## Post 19 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 26-Jul-2007 23:41:01

WELL, LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT: when I said that I have ABSOLUTELY NO PREFERENCES, I ONLY MEANT THAT FOR WOMEN, AND WOMEN, ONLY--not to PROTEST, but JUST to MERELY clear up ANY MISCONCEPTION: I'm neither GAY, BI, NOR TRANSGENDER; NEITHER AM I "HOMOPHEOBIC," as a STRICTLY HETEROSEXUAL, because I happen to have VERY CLOSE FRIENDS that are gay, and we DO respect each other's boundaries.

## Post 20 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 26-Jul-2007 23:51:10

You know, EVEN THOUGH my TEXT PROFILE is STILL YET TO BE FIXED, as I've been UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING to update it, and either there were "GLITCHES, SNITCHES, AND/OR SNARES," JUST THIS BOARD TOPIC, ALONE, JUST MIGHT (don' wanna swear to anything) BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE PROFILE, IN THE FIRST PLACE--so, PERHAPS, in the FOLLOWING REPLIES, if ANY LADY, AND LADY, ONLY, who's DEFINITELY AS AVAILABLE AS I AM, and it DEFINITELY DOSN'T MATTER if YOU'RE SNGLE OR NOT, even though I am, CALL ME at (1-917) 406-8310 at ANY TIME, WITH YOUR NUMBER UNBLOCKED.

## Post 21 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 0:57:23

WELL, TO ALL OF YOU PERSONAL-AGENDAS-PREFERENCES-PLUS-SELF-CENTERED-MORE SUPPORTERS, if you were to measure YOURS to GOD'S, as far as WHO your OPPOSITE-SEX SPOUSE should be, IF, AND ONLY IF, you DO recognize Him as the ONE AND ONLY CREATOR of ALL OF US IN HIS OWN IMAGE, what would be the rating, and who'd win?

## Post 22 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 1:05:58

Now, I DID pose THIS "FOR-INSTANCE": should YOUR POTENTIAL SPOUSE (from woman to man) have any requirements, in terms of how YOU'RE to be accepted by him, JUST BECAUSE YOU DO, of HIM, but HE, JUST LIKE ME, ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT, what would you do?

## Post 23 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 1:27:40

ANOTHER CHALLENGE (PERHAPS) QUESTION: IF there's ANY DISTINCTION between "CAUTIOUS" and "CAREFUL," what MIGHT, SHOULD, COULD, OR WOULD, IT BE, IF ANY AT ALL, and why? How would EITHER ONE be more than, less than, or equal to, each other?

## Post 24 by dream lady (move over school!) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 2:42:44

I think what Single is trying to say is, if you're a Christian, let God choose your mate. It's easy, when you're a christian, to lose your head. Am I right, or barking up the wrong tree?

## Post 25 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 5:46:10

What always confuses me in the "let God decide" category. Didn't God give us a brain, intelligence, background, upbringing, senses and reasoning so that we might make up our own minds. I think God would give us the tools to recognize our romantic interests, if God just chose everything in our lives why should we have intelligence at all, we wouldn't need it. Also I think this view on Christianity leaves us no responsibility for anything and I don't think it's the right approach to life or religion even.
And just by posting to this board the guy has already breached his theory, I mean, if God is to choose for him why does he put himself out there, he should wait for God to bring the person into his life.

## Post 26 by Reyami (I've broken five thousand! any more awards going?) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 8:59:03

I agree with WB.

## Post 27 by jessmonsilva (Taking over the boards, one topic at a time.) on Friday, 27-Jul-2007 11:33:29

Agreed with wb. when god made man, he made him in his image, to live life, thiknk for themselves, experience feelings and emotions. He made man knowing that man would stray, so in a sense, it's not about god choosing for you necessarily, it's more about you choosing and if the relationship is meant to be, then fate will make it so.

## Post 28 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 2:44:15

Well, to DREAM LADY, the ONLY "WRONG TREE" that YOU AND I, FOR THAT MATTER, could be "BARKING UP" COULD VERY WELL BE THAT of ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS VERY TOPIC; NEVERTHELESS, I THIK YOU'RE ON THE VERY RIGHT TRAIL, as far as YOUR response goes: in the NEXT REPLY, I'll define "ACTIVELY WAITING," "LOOKING," AND "AVAILABILITY."

## Post 29 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 3:06:11

To BEST RESPOND to Wildebrew, as well as (I forgot who else, but I'll look after I post THIS) SUMS UP LIKE THIS: the ABSOLUTE FACT that I AM on here, DISPLAYING MY AVAILABILITY, as I'll mention about LATER, is what I call "ACTIVE WAITING." "INACTIVE WAITING," such as what YOU defined, as to just "wait for GOD to make it happen," IS JUST AS UNHELTHY AS HAVING PREFERENCES, which CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY DEFINES "LOOKING." I'll pick THAT up in my next reply.

## Post 30 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 3:32:57

"LOOKING" defines (AS CLEAR AS A BRIGHT, SUNNY DAY) "HAVING PREFERENCES." How? QUITE OBVIOUSLY, "LOOKING" means "SHOPPING," or "PICKING ..." WHATEVER OTHER DESCRIPTIVE FORM OF "HAVING PREFERENCES," THUS, automatically making you "UNAVAILABLE." CLAIMING to be "AVAILABLE," just as you're "LOOKING" is the same as claiming that you ONLY NEED THREE PENNIES, AND NO MORE, TO MAKE A DOLLAR.

## Post 31 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 6:06:27

GUARDED: ANOTHER FORM OF "NON-UNCONDITIONALITY," if you will, is when EITHER WOMEN OR MEN, BUT TOO MANY TIMES, WOMEN, are "ON THEIR GUARD" to protect ONLY THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN (IF ANY), but who's protecting the man, WHO WANTS TO BE INCLUDED, BY INCLUDING HER, in HIS protection? Now, what's this "PROTECTION" from? OBVIOUSLY, for the WOMAN, WHICH IS ONLY RIGHT THAT SUCH PROTECTION BE, ABUSE (AFTER THE FACT, USUALLY), be ie PHYSICAL, VERBAL OR BOTH--CONTINUING in my NEXT REPLY ...

## Post 32 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 6:22:23

As far as any CHILDREN INVOLVED, THEIR PROTECTION is usually from, THE MOST/OVERALL DANGER, PETIFILIA--OF COURSE, these are ABSOLUTE, GENUINE, VALID CONCERNS, because of the way things are in the world THESE DAYS, but now, LET'S TALK ABOUT PROTECTION CONCERNS on the MAN'S BEHALF: it seems that the VERY SATANIC LIE that's been one of the VERY MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS to the TOTAL MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES is that "THE MAN" is supposed to be this "MACHO HE-MAN MONSTER, who's ONLY EXPRESSION of ANY EMOTION, would ONLY be that of this TOUGH-GUY CHARACTER, and that ANY LESS THAN THAT IS NOT A MAN, AT ALL, NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE.--TO BE CONTINUED

## Post 33 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 6:34:34

SO, it would CERTAINLY MAKE SENSE, as unfortunate as THIS is, that "THE MAN, AND THE MAN, ONLY, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THE WOMAN, be it GIRLFRIEND, FIANCE OR WIFE, AND CHILDREN (again, if any), but LET'S MOVE BEYOND THIS OVERPLAYED ROLE STATUS, so hat e can REALLY GET DOWN O THE REAL NITTY-GRITTY--WOMEN, who ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DESERVE to have EXPERIENCED ANY EXPOSURE TO ABUSE, caused by the MEN THAT RE RESPOSIBLE, USUALLY make the ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS ISTAKE of becoming SCORNFUL.--TO BE CONTINUED

## Post 34 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 6:45:38

NOW, I'm gonna say something that JUST MIGHT BE PROVOKATIVELY-CHARGED, but I'm gonna say it, ANYWAY. It's NEVER, EVER, EVER THE WOMAN'S FAULTthat she's HURT AND ANGRY, but if she's DISILLUSIONED THAT ALL MEN are a reflection of THAT MAN/THOSE MEN, so WHY NOT give him a taste of HIS OWN "MAN KIND (instead of MANKIND) MEDICINE." BRB.

## Post 35 by reclusive thinker (Veteran Zoner) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 14:19:41

Your writing style is bizarre, resembling the sort of word salad produced by many schizophrenics. As far as I can determine, what it all comes down to is that you'll screw any woman you can get, and you want women to see you as God's gift to them, whom they should accept unconditionally. Have I got it right?

## Post 36 by jmbauer (Technology's great until it stops working.) on Saturday, 28-Jul-2007 14:54:17

those are about the same conclusions I came to, reclusive thinker. single: either you are a certifiable lunatic, or a pimple-faced kid who doesn't get out much and is putting all this up here for reaction's sake. Either way, I'd say it's safe to presume you delusional.
You're the best case yet for a rebirth of the twilight zone.

## Post 37 by Reyami (I've broken five thousand! any more awards going?) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 16:24:27

lol

## Post 38 by Winterfresh (This is who I am, an what I am about. If you don't like it, too damn bad!!!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 18:27:30

Um y did I just read this? Jesus Christ. Single, Dude, your not a doctor. Nor should you write in fricking 6 posts in a row like some famous doctor doing a fucking seminar on something important. Just... Stop

## Post 39 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 22:56:05

I'll stop when I get GOOD AND DAMN WELL READY, and ONLY I DECIDE when THAT'LL be--as far as YOU'RE concerned, REPULSIVE STINKWEED, the VERY CHALLENGE that (I would need to check your profile to see if you're male, tranny, or female) if you ARE a woman, you could NEVER handle is to see ME, NOT the way YOU would see me, or the way that I would see MYSELF, but the way that GOD, AND HE, ALONE, sees me, as THAT, being the basis of ANYWOMAN AND I, MARRIED. You JUST MIGHT DIE from the UTTER SHOCK from such a challenge; better have a will made out, just in case (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA)!

## Post 40 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 23:09:59

PICKING UP FROM WHERE I LEFT OFF, AS OF YESTERDAY MORNING, AND KIND OF REPEATING FROM THE IMMEDIATE TOP: ABUSE, as we DEFINITELY ALL SHOULD, IF ALL ARE NOTALREADY, BE AWARE OF, is ABSOLUTELY NO JOKE, and although abuse NEVER DISCRIMINATES, the VERY-COMMONLY-HEARD RATIO is that the "VICTIMS" are USUALLY WOMEN; now, whatever TERRIBLE PAST that may have VERY WELL OCCURRED, IS NOONE ELSE'S "MEDICINE," except the ONE, AND ONY ONE, HIMSELF, THAT CAUSED IT, NOONE ELSE, REGARDLESS.--BRB.,

## Post 41 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 23:22:28

OOPS! In the PREVIOUS REPLY that I submitted, I meant to write "NOT ALREADY" and "ONLY," as in: "ONE, AND ONLY ONE." ANYWAY, it takes THE VERY WOMAN, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GUARD, AT ALL, or that if there IS, I'M ALSO INCLUDED WITHIN THAT "WALL," so to speak, and it's ONLY when I'm included, that I would respect whatever "GUARD" against ANY-AND/OR-EVERYBODY ELSE.

## Post 42 by Harp (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 23:28:52

don't waste time correcting yourself. You don't make any sense corrected or not. For that matter, if you could try and write a single response instead of 5 or 6 at a time, and proof read them, you'd never have to repost. That said if you proof read this dribble, you'd probably never post in the first place though being honest, that works just as well for me.
Dan.

## Post 43 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 29-Jul-2007 23:51:18

And just to show how FAITHFULLY COMPLIANT to ANY/EVERY ADVICE that's given, ESPECIALLY ANY FROM YOU, I SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO OBEDIENTLY CONTINUE TO OBNOXIOUSLY MAKE CORRECTIONS, SO HELP YOU, IDIOT!

## Post 44 by Harp (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 0:04:25

If you can't write a 50 word response to something without repeatedly making mistakes then who here looks like the idiot? For that matter, if you can't order your thoughts well enough to write a single post instead of posting 5 times, then who is the idiot? Mind you, given the impression you've made on people round here so far, why worry about a little thing like looking idiotic.
Dan.

## Post 45 by jmbauer (Technology's great until it stops working.) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 0:25:26

wow, we're to post 43, and he finally writes something that makes a modicum of sense. good job, bubba!
Jim, The Zone's One True Idiot

## Post 46 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 0:36:41

FRANKLY, it's those that are IMPRESSIONABLE, NOT THE ONES that are NON-IMPRESSIONABLE, that are the so-called "IDIOTS," which KIND OF GIVES ME AN IDEA for a BRAND-NEW TOPIC, by the way; ALSO, it takes THOSE VERY SAME IMPRESSIONABLE SO-CALLED "IDIOTS," NOT the ones that are NON-IMPRESSIONABLE, who DEFINITELY AREN'T IDIOTS, to COUNT EVERY WRITTEN WORD up to WHATEVER LIMIT, RATHER THAN GO WITH THE FLOW OF ABSOLUTE FREE AND UNINHIBITTED WRITING, and FURTHERMORE, it's those VERY SAME IMPRESSIONABLE, WRITTEN-WORD-COUNTING SO-CALLED IDIOTS that are TOO PROUD TO PUBLICLY CORRECT THEIR OWN MISTAKES, REGARDLESS IF IT'S REPEATEDLY.

## Post 47 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 5:33:18

But some women, to whom majesty instills itself ever so silently, tend to stay within the confines of their self imposed pragmatism, such that, if looked through ivory glass, appear to augment exactly that sector which, in itself, would appear dramatic beyond belief if it weren´t for their saucage shaped hearts, beating like a drummer on speed in a heavy metal band, and it is exactly to those, ffeebly though it may be, that this post applies but never so much to that which God sees in them, not in the merest sense of which the other ones appear to misfail to disappear to sort out the nonsense in which this post is written.

## Post 48 by jmbauer (Technology's great until it stops working.) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 11:29:08

Expanding upon this for a moment, WB, to whom litanies of letters can be extended, so that, when played through silk of highest form and factor, augment the ebullient epitaph of idiocy accenting and excavating this more than somewhat impressionable posting...Conditions, especially those which ululate undo uniform attention and unjust, united scrutiny that, when sifted through sieves of canvas, yield God's finest flowers, and the utter senseless spirits of these ramblings.

## Post 49 by Dusty (This site is so "educational") on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 14:22:41

Okay, single&available, I would be grateful if you could do three things, and I'll try to put this as nicely as I can.
1. Please stop using so many capitals; apart from the fact that it's considered shouting it makes your posts and quicknotes considerably harder to read.
2. Stop splitting your posts into multiples; there's an 8,000 character limit so I'm sure you can fit everything into one (and as Harp said, proof-reading means you don't have to correct yourself);
3. Finally, please stop spouting such unmitigated cobblers.
Okay, I tried to keep it nice ...

## Post 50 by DancingAfterDark (I just keep on posting!) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 15:46:45

Yes, finally! Thank you, WB and Jim, for injecting a note of sense into this topic. :D

## Post 51 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 16:39:33

Well, while only THOSE OF YOU WHO DO, NOT MEANING ALL OF YOU, OF COURSE, find that my so-called over-usage of the caps to be disturbing to whichever degree, I WRITE AS I SPEAK--when I'm COMPLETELY TOPIC-FOCUSSED, EMPHASISES ARE MADE, and such is the same for WRITING--because I feel what I write, I write the way I feel, and however the READER/READERS are affected is not for me to be concerned with, IF THE READERS HAPPEN TO BE THE ONES, WHOSE TOES WERE MEANT TO BE STOMPED ON, in the FIRST place.

## Post 52 by tunedtochords (Zone BBS is my Life) on Monday, 30-Jul-2007 20:22:11

Yes, but the point of words, of language in general, is to communicate with others effectively. Your nonsensical ramblings and grammatical constructions do everything but communicate effectively. They do quite the opposite, actually, making those who read your posts wonder what the hell you're talking about.

## Post 53 by Reyami (I've broken five thousand! any more awards going?) on Tuesday, 31-Jul-2007 0:20:19

lol, nicely said, amanda. *smile* I quite agree with that.

## Post 54 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 02-Aug-2007 21:21:25

AGAIN: I MIGHT'VE said this BEFORE, PERHAPS on a PHONE chatline, IS THIS: I don't EVER EXPECT my message?messages to appeal to EVERYBODY, because I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE that it/they'll be meant for SOMEBODY, in GOD'S timing, and MY ONLY JOB, which it's NOT a JOB, of course, is to just WRITE AS I FEEL ... can't get any clearer than THAT, and if THAT'S too much for those of you that NEITHER OR NONE OF MY MESSAGES ARE MEANT, OH, WELL!

## Post 55 by Harp (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 02-Aug-2007 22:42:03

Now at last I think I'm starting to get it, have got it, might yet comprehend it, may have already known it from the moment I left my daddy's penis, ejaculated, evacuated, or in some other way have excavated my tiny fishy self on my journey to becoming a man. A protector, guardian, over seer of all woman kind and on my quest, adventure, journey, traveling, must I always remember that only must I make sense to myself, God and his preference/preferences and only then may I be set free from the mindless ramblings, discourses and utterly pointless eulogies, set down in print, or text, by a person/persons/people who can't possibly have a clue what they're talking about themselves on account of the fact that everything they're saying makes no sense what so ever.
Is that what you're saying, stating, proclaiming?

## Post 56 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Thursday, 02-Aug-2007 22:46:00

Oh, my, God, Dan. You are too funny.

## Post 57 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Friday, 03-Aug-2007 14:42:30

What the hell?
SingleAndAvailable dude, reading your postage is an exsersize in itself. I'm thinking it makes most brains hurt. Its imposible to read.
I also agree with most on here, you have way too many posts to state one point on the subject at hand. IT would have been a lot faster to read if you had put your intire point to the discussion all in one ditty. Do you talk like this, too? Good Lord. I also agree with a few others who pointed out that God made man and gave us choices. It is of my opinion if you wait for God to plop someone in your lap it ain't gonna happen. No doubt God gave you the intelect to learn through past failed relationships what went wrong, what went good and any preffrences you might have. Everyone havve certain preffrences when it comes to the type of people they are attracted too, and the type of people they like to hang out with. You can't possibly say you don't have a prefference. That makes it sound like you'll except any woman no matter what. Bassed on what I've seen in your profile, you certainly do have prefferences, things you like about a woman in general. Sexually at least, it sounds like you have a pretty high demand. I'm sure those prefferences turn off most women. Besides your profile is so long and just the way you write is actually too detailed, not to mention you post much more personal information than should be aloud in a profile like this.
John

## Post 58 by Blondie McConfusion (Blah Blah Blah) on Friday, 03-Aug-2007 14:53:54

first i think i finally am starting to understand something here. to post 41, terrance, i understand this as you saying that women aren't allowed to have preferences/guards/walls when it comes to you, but once with you, it is ok for us to have them towards others?
and dan i am enjoying your posts more and more everyday. almost actually to the point where i'd consider going back before i joined this place to see what you had to say.

## Post 59 by Blondie McConfusion (Blah Blah Blah) on Friday, 03-Aug-2007 14:57:42

oh and so i can add to this not putting everything in one post deal, i wanted to add that i wish i had the vocabulary and ability to ramble like terrance but for mine to actually be sane.

## Post 60 by Texas Shawn (The cute, cuddley, little furr ball) on Friday, 03-Aug-2007 14:58:25

lol. in reading his posts, single and AV. I've noticed it's some wierd listening. all most like an robot, or, a, strange translated version. lol. Dan good one! that,s was, for the most part, and in hear in saying. very well, done!

## Post 61 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Friday, 03-Aug-2007 15:18:23

Good lord, what is the speach that Terrance writes in called? Google translator, please.
John

## Post 62 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 05-Aug-2007 0:16:48

For as MUCH FEEDBACK that results from THIS TOPIC, that BASICLY INDICATES your ABSOLUTE POWERLESSNESS to the very CHALLENGE that ANY of my EMOTIONALLY-CHARGED PROVOKATIVE STATEMENTS/QUESTIONS/OTHER have initiated, I DEFINITELY find this to be QUITE ENTERTAINING, JUST AS YOU DO, OTHERWISE, NOONE, INCLUDING NONE OF YOU who DID, would've contributed to it.

## Post 63 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 05-Aug-2007 0:24:41

AND, as PREDICTABLE, in THIS case, as YOU are, there's ABSOLUTE, SOLID SURITY (if there's such a word, BUT IF NOT, FUCK IT), that you ALWAYS WILL contribute to it--and if YOU DON'T, others will--you ARE REPLACEABLE.

## Post 64 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 05-Aug-2007 16:57:05

HURRAY!!!!! I FINALLY DID IT! FINALLY UPDATED MY TEXT PROFILE, as you already know, ANYWAY, but I just HAD to express!