# LET'S HAVE SOME CREATIVE FUN--ALTHOUGH IT'S CONTROVERSIAL

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 5:07:38

It's TOO OFTEN, EVEN IF ONLY ONCE, said that: "if you don't love YOURSELF, NOONE ELSE is going to love you." What message THAT interprets COULD mean, UNLESS OTHERWISE CLARIFIED, is that if you DON'T LOVE YOURSELF, as YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, but you're obtaining love from SOMEONE ELSE, when it was MANDATED that ABSOLUTELY NOONE is to love you, AT ALL, EVER IN LIFE, NOT ONLY are YOU, the one that's LOVED, UNAUTHORIZEDLY (SO WHAT, if there's no such wording as "UNAUTHORIZEDLY?"!), BUT SO IS THE ONE that's LOVING. For as LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING SO, and I DEFINITELY CONTINUE to do THE VERY SAME SO, I have YET to find out the so-called "CONSEQUENCE/CONSEQUENCES" of my "ADVERTENT, BLATENT DISOBEDIENCE." I CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE YOU to show off YOUR CREATIVITY, at THIS point, with YOUR IDEA of what ANY SUPPOSED PENALTY/PENALTIES could-and/or-should be. To make this EVEN MORE DRAMATICALLY INTERESTING, let's toy with this for a bit: YOU'RE the one, handing down the "DECREE," so to speak, of how love is to operate, as according to the above, and I, along with my "ACCOMPLICE," OPENLY VIOLATE this decree--LET'S SAY that THIS IS A ROMANCE between me and whoever the intended woman is, and we were BOTH in violation of this decree, as we BOTH, WITHOUT "AUTHORIZATION," wer in ABSOLUTE, ENDLESS, LIFE-LONG LOVE WITH EACH OTHER; YOUR order of "RAMMIFICATION/RAMMIFICATIONS" would be ...

## Post 2 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 6:44:49

What?...

## Post 3 by fuzzy101 (The master of fuzz!!) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 10:10:06

I think he's trying to say that if you dictate how love is supposed to be and someone violats that then what would you do about it in terms of consiquences.

## Post 4 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 10:54:36

post one is a load of bollocks. I didn't understand shit. my take is that, if you haven't got inner peace, it's hard to be peaceful towards others.

## Post 5 by Albanac (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 10:57:24

rofl shakes pb's paw and agrees.

## Post 6 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 12:13:24

Polar bear returns the listener's paw shake, but this board isn't for rpg so will stop there *smile*

## Post 7 by jamesk (This site is so "educational") on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 15:54:15

what's he smoking?

## Post 8 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 15:59:37

what's who smoking?

## Post 9 by YankeeFanForLife! (Picapiedra: king of the boards!) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 16:15:28

Weed!

## Post 10 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Sunday, 26-Aug-2007 16:24:09

ah yess, my weed, the polar bear smokes that quite often. jk.

## Post 11 by Reyami (I've broken five thousand! any more awards going?) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 8:53:23

Are weed and crack the same thing?

## Post 12 by YankeeFanForLife! (Picapiedra: king of the boards!) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 11:38:52

Hell no!

## Post 13 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 14:00:49

No, if you smoke crack you write something like post 1.
If you smoke you write something like post 5.
Bob

## Post 14 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 16:59:48

post one made no sense whatsoever.

## Post 15 by Texas Shawn (The cute, cuddley, little furr ball) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 17:15:44

I did read singles profile the other day, he did admit to having mental issues in there. Duh right?

## Post 16 by tear drop (No longer looking for a prince, merely a pauper with potential!!!!!) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 17:42:32

*shakes head*

## Post 17 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 17:56:34

i made a mistake, welsh jordie is not the listener, arhrhrhrhg! sorry! dam!

## Post 18 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Monday, 27-Aug-2007 18:28:47

lol, you would have to have to write that.

## Post 19 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Tuesday, 28-Aug-2007 4:51:53

yes I screwed up. I don't know what I was thinking. maybe I had a pqn from the listener at the time? dam!

## Post 20 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Tuesday, 28-Aug-2007 5:12:28

it is the same user. look atht the profile. name was changed last night...
as to the op... what the hell are you on about? no wonder you're single, lol.

## Post 21 by Godzilla-On-Toast (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 28-Aug-2007 19:47:28

OK, headache-inducing as his writing style is, let me see if I can decode post 1. K, so this dude estimates that the reason he remains a single person and not in a relationship as he wishes or expects or thinks his deity demands is that he has concluded that his deity is punishing him but refuses to come forth and tell him what the actual charges are. I s'pose our poster thinks it's the cosmic equivalent of being told "If you don't know, I sure as hell won't tell you." Now, what creativity he asks of us and in what direction or to what ends, I don't know. Does not compute, Will Robinson. Here's my estimation, and I hate to ridicule folks because I most certainly wouldn't want it to happen to me, but methinks our original poster spends so much time pontificating about being single and hating it that he hasn't a nanosecond available to actually go forth into the world and remedy the situation. OK, that too wacky a theory? No problem, here's something a little more universal. Just by observing people, I observe one thing and all y'all can tell me I'm a few tacos short of a combo platter, but here goes. One of the most common and easiest ways people make themselves miserable and keep themselves that-a-way is expectations, as in putting them way too high. You want perfection when there is no sech animal, or you want what's too rare in the world. I'm not advocating that one has to settle for what nobody else wants, but just be realistic and not idealistic. Look around you instead of at the clouds, to put it metaphorically. OK, so much for that.

## Post 22 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 02-Sep-2007 4:42:23

FUZZY101, you're the ONLY TOPIC-PARTICIPANT that DEFINITELY AND DIRECTLY ADDRESSED the VERY JIST of THIS TOPIC. OBVIOUSLY, that says more in YOUR FAVOR, than in those, who haven't the courage--but as powerless as THEY are, no "COURAGE" would be expected of them, anyway--losers that THEY are!

## Post 23 by Stevo (The Established Ass) on Sunday, 02-Sep-2007 5:01:13

if you want people to directly address the gist of the topic, then perhaps try writing it in plain English...just a friendly suggestion.

## Post 24 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Sunday, 02-Sep-2007 5:38:32

actually, th listener and TheListener were two diffrent users. I know one of those users from pre zone da, and he's explained why he changed his name from the listener with a space between the words to welshjordie, to avoid the confusion. *smile*

## Post 25 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007 0:02:21

When reading the first post here, I was reminded of those philosophers we had to read in college. Perhaps he, too, is a philosopher.

## Post 26 by Albanac (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007 12:13:12

philosopher? na he's just some fuckhead who's full of shit, grin. speak sense single and forever available, and perhaps we'll address the issue lol. oh and yes, welshgeordie, is the artist formerly known as TheListener, but hey just call me simon.

## Post 27 by Hilikme (Veteran Zoner) on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007 14:19:03

I understood the first post fine, but I don't think I have an naswer to it at all, purely for the reason that I don't view that cliche that way.
"How can you love others if you can't love yourself?" is more of how I have used it, and it's more of a trend then a rule. Thus far, through my own experiences and through friends' experiences, I've found that if one or both people involved in the relationship are not at peace with them self, not comfortable with them self, don't have confidence in them self, or otherwise are unhappy with their own being, their behavior is greatly affected and it had a tendancy to interfere negatively with the relationship.
These people I knew that were continuously unhappy with them self were also very jealous, paranoid, posessive, controlling at times, clingy (in a bad way), had troubles communicating with their significant other, etc.. and this caused an unstable relationship.
So I guess, it would be more correct to suggest that if you are not happy with yourself, it could be difficult to maintain a healthy relationship, but in no way does the actual feeling of love come into play here, in actuality. The reference to love is purely there for cliche sake.
Someone above had mentioned expectations as being a main factor in people being unhappy with themselves, and I agree with this 100%. I wanted to add though that it's still quite possible to be happy with one's self, while still understanding your own flaws, this allows someone to realistically improve them self -- I believe a good relationship also naturally causes one to want to be a better person and strive for self-improvement and happiness, so it's rather like asking the infamous egg question of which comes first... I think it's just as possible to begin loving yourself after being loved and loving others, just as for some, you need to love yourself to have better success with loving others and being loved.
Anyway...that was a lot of rambling. I'll stop now.

## Post 28 by forereel (Just posting.) on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007 16:59:41

No currage here. To much thought,.

## Post 29 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 7:20:51

Well, in ALL TOTALLY DUE DISRESPECT TO WELSHGEORDIE, the very SMUT OF ALL SHITSVILLE that IT IS, as well as in response to the idea of THIS, as being a "TREND," rather than a "RULE," if YOU were to, momentarily, imagine that such ACTUALLY WAS A RULE that I and MY SIGNIFICANT OTHER SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED, THE OBJECTIVE for THIS "TOPIC PROJECT," if you will, IS TO LET YOUR IMAGINATION RUN YOU AS WILD AS PERHAPS what THIS TOPIC MIGHT BE--WHERE'S YOUR CREATIVITY? Ok, I, MYSELF, am CERTAINLY NO EXPERT on IMPROVS, BUT I'M NOT LOOKING FOR PERFECTION--all I want, JUST AS I'M DOING, MYSELF, is for YOU to FREELY WRITE AS YOU SPEAK FROM YOUR EMOTIONS, as to WHATEVER FRAME OF EMOTION that THIS MESSAGE MAY CREATE FOR YOU--FOR EXAMPLE: going back to what I said in the BEGINNING of this post: LET'S SAY that this IS A RULE, NOT A TREND, the RULE was, NOT ONLY CHALLENGED, BUT CHALLENGED SUCCESSFULLY, and as a RESULT, WHATEVER CONSEQUENCE/CONSEQUENCES INCURRING OR INCURRED, are ALSO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED. According to YOUR CREATIVE INPUT, as YOU (HYPOTHETICALLY), being the one WHOSE SAID RULE, AS WELL AS CONSEQUENCE/CONSEQUENCES AS HAVING BEEN BLATENTLY DEFIED, AS WELL AS SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED, THE VERY NEXT LEVEL OF RAMMIFICATION/RAMMIFICATIONS (IF ANY) ISSUED FROM YOU WOULD BE ...
P.S. I PURPOSELY OVER-KILL CAPSLOCKED WORDS, SIMPLY BECAUSE I CAN, and DEFINITELY KNOW that I'll get away with it, JUST FOR THE REDUNDANT RECORD.

## Post 30 by Albanac (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 7:29:16

single. the reason why i said what i said, is because you, for some unknown reason, use 40 million words where only a few will do. so perhaps, good sir, if you stopped fucking about, and actually got to the point, we'd all know what you were on about, and participate.

## Post 31 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 7:38:40

i can describe a situation to the enth degree, as I am a writer, but shit! fourty billion zillion words and nothing makes sense? dam!

## Post 32 by Albanac (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 7:40:20

my point exactly. and not just my point either, grin.

## Post 33 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 15:19:08

Single dude, look. Its as simple as this... No one can understand what the hell you're on about half the time. Actually make that most of the time. I read your post and start to get a headache just reading them. This is a forum on the zone, not a colige corse. Just writing in english without being so redundant would probably get more to respond to your topic at hand. Frankly to put it bluntly, people do not respond because we don't wanna have to constently take your wordage and translate it into something understandable. This is not the same as ESL, this is more like translating a colige textbook or something. I prey you don't talk like this in person too.
John

## Post 34 by Albanac (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 15-Sep-2007 15:23:53

the thing is john, college textbooks dont' spout this shit either! it's grammatically, syntactically, and vocabularywise, unadulterated, complete and utter, bullshit! no other way to describe it. As everyone has said mr single and forever will be available, make sense, and we'll listen and respond.

## Post 35 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Saturday, 22-Sep-2007 15:37:22

I just read one of the beginning posts from Single.
If you don't learn to love yourself, and respect yourself for who you are, then you won't draw to yourself people who will treat you with respect.
How do you see yourself, Single&available within the realm of this discussion? What is your hypothesis, is it important that people love themselves? I so, why and if not, why not?

## Post 36 by Harmony (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 25-Sep-2007 11:54:44

I don't understand the first post on this board. The only thing I'll say at the minute is that I love animals and get on much better with than with people.

## Post 37 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Wednesday, 26-Sep-2007 0:22:49

I think he was asking if a person should love him or herself.

## Post 38 by Mystikil queen (The one and only Dark Princess!) on Wednesday, 26-Sep-2007 11:38:58

Wow.
This guy is Whacked. But I think we all new this.
Now, one can't have love without loving them selfs first. You have to be able to respect yourself, before you can respect another in a relationship. You can think your in love all the while you don't respect yourself, but it will be a faulse love. Never filling.

## Post 39 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 04-Oct-2007 18:05:36

Ok--now, I have an even GREATER--PERHAPS, THE GREATEST--IN FACT, DEFINITELY, THE GREATEST--ADDITION to this challenge--to answer NIGHTBIRD'S question is that since GOD is the one to love FIRST, in order to love, ESPECIALLY MY SPOUSE, and that how I see MYSELF as being ONLY how GOD sees me, as HE'S the CREATOR, I'M the CREATION, and that EVERYONE ELSE, created by the VERY SAME CREATOR, made in the VERY SAME IMAGE, DEFINITELY EXPLAINS ALL THAT THERE IS, as to why we're NOT to love OURSELVES, JUST AS WAS ABOVE-STATED.
OBVIOUSLY, to those of you that "CLAIM" that you DON'T UNDERSTAND my "or "COLLEGE-COARSE VERSION" of the VERY ABSOLUTE CHALLENGE that lies before you, BECAUSE YOU CLAIM that you "CAN'T," EVEN IF YOU COULD, which I think that SUCH IS THE CASE, but you just SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO, WHY NOT, and WHAT COULD/WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DID?

## Post 40 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 04-Oct-2007 18:24:11

Ok--that was DEFINITELY A BIG, HUGE, TREMENDOUS BLUNDER in the IMMEDIATE-PREVIOUS MESSAGE--what I MEANT to say was that if you couldn't, AS THOSE OF YOU DID CLAIM (which is a crock of BULL SHIT), my "ESL"-TYPE OF WRITING, which ACCIDENTALLY came out as "OR," followed by the remainder--ONE THING THAT'S DEFINITELY SURE--for those of you that just HATE whenever I PUBLICLY CORRECT MY OWN WRITING ERRORS, COULDN'T HAVE THE VERY SAME ABSOLUTE NERVE to do the VERY SAME THING--and although that EVEN THE CORRECTION, ITSELF, may not be %100, EITHER, AS LONG AS THE ATTEMPT WAS MADE, and that I, INSTEAD OF YOU, recognize it, EVEN BEFORE YOUR RESPONSE COMMENTS, DEFINITELY SAYS AND MEANS MORE than ANY OF YOU could EVEN BEGIN to EVER THINK ABOUT comparing to, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, OR EVEN DON'T SAY.

## Post 41 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Thursday, 04-Oct-2007 22:42:13

Are you a computer program?

## Post 42 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Wednesday, 10-Oct-2007 4:21:04

Single&available: Are you saying then that you shouldn't love yourself because God created you and loves you? Or, perhaps, it's that old religion again--the feeling of unworthiness, that one should not love oneself and become self-righteous and arrogant. Is it some type of unworthiness you are getting at? (We are unworthy sinners...?)
perhaps, on the other hand, perhaps you cannot even imagine loving yourself even a little. Why is it that you would love a spouse but not love yourself? Do you love anything about yourself?

## Post 43 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 18-Oct-2007 17:50:29

WELL, Mommy Nightbird, FIRST OF ALL, ALL OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF, ARE UNWORTHY SINNERS, PLAIN, DIRECT, AND THE ABSOLUTE POINT. JESUS, who DEFINITELY IS ABSOLUTELY SINLESS, LOVED, STILL LOVES, AND CONTINUES TO ETERNALLY LOVE US, BECAUSE OF THIS FACT; it is BECAUSE He LOVES US, DESPITE OUR UNWORTHINESS, that we're DEFINITELY ENABLED to FIRST LOVE HIM, whereas, through loving HIM, it's HE, AND HE, ONLY, that empowers US, ESPECIALLY SPOUSES, to LOVE EACH OTHER; THAT'S EXACTLY WHY that the ONLY WAY TO LIVE A WHOLISTICLY, WHOLESOME, HEALTHY LIFE, which DEFINITELY INCLUDES "LOVE-LIFE," if you will, is when WE LOVE EACH OTHER, BY LOVING GOD FIRST, AS HE LOVES US, without US, EVER LOVING OURSELVES. "THAT'S THE TICKET," so to speak.

## Post 44 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 18-Oct-2007 18:00:36

OOPS! I forgot to mention THIS IMPORTANT FACTOR in the PREVIOUS message: it's DEFINITELY QUITE OBVIOUS that it was JESUS'S ETERNAL LOVE FOR US, UNWORTHY SINNERS that we'll ALWAYS be, in THIS LIFE, which is why He died, so that WE wouldn't EVER HAVE TO, in the FIRST place--PERFECT LOVE--now, how much better can ANYONE get, than THAT? How does "LOVING OURSELVES" equal and/or surpass THAT?

## Post 45 by Austin (the magic fan!) on Thursday, 18-Oct-2007 22:42:00

hahahahhahahahhahaha you may be the dumbest fuck i've ever sceen.
the only date you have is your dick and your right hand.

## Post 46 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Friday, 19-Oct-2007 5:27:50

So, what you're saying, is that because we're "unworthy sinners" the only way we can love others is through Jesus as a mediator or "transmitter". When we want to love another, it is Jesus' love that is received becausewe are unworthy to love or, perhaps, incapable of loving.
Let me ask you this. In your opinion, is a person capable of loving another person without any intervention from Jesus or any other being?

## Post 47 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Wednesday, 24-Oct-2007 20:33:50

ALL OF US, whether we USE it WISELY OR NOT, are given COMPLETE FREE WILL, to either choose to LOVE THE-VERY-AND-ONLY-WAY-that-CHRIST-LOVES-US EACH OTHER, or we're JUST AS COMPLETELY FREE to ONLY LOVE EACH OTHER OUR OWN WAY, WITHOUT CHRIST'S EVER INTERVENING, AT ALL. The END RESULTS are CLEARLY DISTINCTIVE of each, whether we're CLUELESS to them or NOT.

## Post 48 by nightbird (Generic Zoner) on Tuesday, 30-Oct-2007 1:47:41

But, my question is really about loving oneself. Why should a person, in your opinion, not love him or herself?

## Post 49 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 02-Nov-2007 17:08:30

OBVIOUSLY, this is CERTAINLY NO OPINION MATTER, it's DEFINITELY A FACT MATTER--LOVE was created to be given TO OTHERS, AND OTHERS, ONLY. "Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF," NEVER MEANT that we're to LOVE OURSELVES, THE VERY SAME WAY that we're to LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR, but that we're to LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR, the VERY WAY that WE'RE to be loved BY OUR NEIGHBOR. The VERY SAME APPLIES in a SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP, as we're to LOVE OUR SPOUSES, NOT OURSELVES, JUST AS WE'D WANT OUR SPOUSES to love US. SELF-LOVE is destructive; OTHER/OTHERS-LOVE is productive, healing, etc.

## Post 50 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 04-Nov-2007 7:47:31

"EACH-OTHER LOVE," just as "OTHERS-LOVE," if you will, as in a SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP, THAT'S GOD-SENT, ONLY, is DEFINITELY ALSO "productive, healing, etc."

## Post 51 by morgoniousmonk (Generic Zoner) on Friday, 21-Dec-2007 1:34:11

I bet Jesus could spell...and He did not use sentence fragments. He is omniscient, you know!

## Post 52 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 20-Jan-2008 16:44:59

QUITE OBVIOUSLY--what does THAT have to do with the MESSAGE, not the WRITTEN STRUCTURE of this topic?

## Post 53 by Dubstep1984 (I just keep on posting!) on Monday, 17-Mar-2008 13:55:40

you need to stop writing in all caps. furthermore, you need to put periods at the end of your sentences, not commas. my damn head spins everytime i read your run on posts.

## Post 54 by Caitlin (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Monday, 17-Mar-2008 22:10:46

Dude...mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally...I don't understand what you're saying. Seriously, man. Am I dense or what? But can you, like, repeat what in the helicopter you're on about?

## Post 55 by cattleya (Help me, I'm stuck to my chair!) on Wednesday, 19-Mar-2008 3:46:30

I think "Self love" is only distructive if it's the wrong kind of self love. Self love is often seen as a self centered way of viewing the world and everyone around you. IE, believing that the world revolves around yourself, that you are the best of the best and no one is better than yourself at anything. However, in my opinion self love is respecting yourself enough to not allow yourself to be used or abused. IE, I told my husband when we first got together, "Adultry I probably could forgive once or twice, but never hit me and never think about becoming an alcoholic". I know now that the last part wasn't exactly worded correctly, but it got my point across at the time. Here is a better understanding of what I Meant; (I hope). First, when I love others I try to love unconditionally, but I won't love to the point where I'm only being hurt through use and abuse time after time. Also, when I love I don't look at the ones I love as perfect; (if I ever conceive this might {probably will} change). LOL. I try to take in to account the fact that each of us is only human, and because of this very real fact I'm faced to except that no one is perfect. So, I can understand a possible bout of adultry; it would hurt, but I think I could bring myself to forgive it. That comes back to being only human, sexual desires/needs, ETC, but there are two things I could never forgive. (1) I will not be abused. If you have such anger management issues, IMO, you shouldn't be attempting a relationship until you've gotten help. This is out of respect for those who you could love and yourself. Who needs that as a constant merry go round? (2) I will never tollerate an alcoholic. My Dad was one, and I simply will not allow myself to be subjected to that again. It isn't that I would stop loving him should he become an alcoholic, but I will not live with him do to my own self preservation (self love). I hope that makes since, and questions, feel free to ask. But, please try asking in English. LOL. I don't do well with foreign languages.