Meso

"Sexy underwear' is over-rated, although crotchless can be fun at times. Find it far more sexy when a girl feels comfortable enough to wear what makes her comfortable. Nothing is sexier than a girl who doesn't feel the need to try be sexy. Not to say that she mustn't care at all and avoid all things that are typically seen as hot. But a girl in normal underwear who looks cute without any makeup on does a lot more for me than a girl who tries to look like a porn star. Hell, with the right makeup and trying hard enough even a guy can look like a hot girl (google Bailey Jay) Maybe it's just me but I'd rather have an average looking girl who is true to herself than a model looking girl who spends her life trying to please everyone else's desires of her.

oh, facebook... really...facebook? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K68otRfgmEk And again you address something with zero relevance to the conversation, seems like 90% of your posts are doing that. Maybe spend less time on youtube and more thinking about what you want to say when addressing something. No it's not, he said nothing about malice. You're the one bringing up extremes of rape and murder as if that drives your point home because, "oh, I don't commit THOSE sins." ...but here's a direct quote from you that drives Jaybird's point home: So you see, you must understand Jaybird's point. Perhaps it's just that you may be a bitter apostate who subcribes to a non-theistic santanistic ideology and are just being difficult by simply grasping for straws while attributing your shallow, short-lived christian experience onto the rest of us. Aww you seem a bit angry, may want to control that, it will lead to hell, dontcha know. I'd be bitter too if I were you, all caged in. And you'll notice that the lists I made above never hurt anyone, they're actions that are calculated to not hurt innocent people. And sadly for your argument, I am yet to meet a Christian who actually practices the 'turning the other cheek', so they're pretty much in line with me anyway. In fact, all of those things are done by the vast majority of Christians too, the only difference is that they believe they have to repent afterwards, but you know as well as I do that they go back and do the same thing again. If anything God is a big get out of jail free card, and it's the believers who choose to believe because it sets them free from their actions. It's very easy to sin, ask for forgive and then go back out and do it the next day, which most people do. People don't sin once. And if you're trying to tell me that true Christians actually try hard to keep themselves from these actions, then I am yet to meet a true Christian. To live on this planet and to not be pissed off would take some kind of delusional act, oh right... Christianity works. Just believe that everything has a purpose and is God's will and everything is butterflies and rainbows. It's the people who don't have these feelings that are the ones at fault, they are lying to themselves, and maybe it's just me but I'd rather act off the truth than lie to myself to have a happier and carefree life. You may lack self-control and you may need God to help you believe that only he can prevent you from acting out on your impulses. Some of us though, we don't need reassurance or some helping hand to help us refrain from acting on thought. I have the self control and frame of mind to think something, have the desire to do it but refrain from it because I don't want to hurt anyone, not because doing so may be against the lines of what God teaches. The reason why we have feelings of hate and lust is because they are natural. And no one will ever be able to stop them from occurring, the only difference is that I am able to decide and control which emotions to act on by myself where you seem to need God to guide you through yours. And once again, it shows that Christianity is something that YOU needed, not something that everybody else needed. Just because without God you made bad decisions and acted on impulse, doesn't mean that everybody else who doesn't believe follows the same path of destruction. As mentioned before, a simple calculation of the impact of your actions is all that is needed, not God. And so it ends up back to it being a personal decision, except it also shows that not everyone needs God to be a good person and that he isn't the saving grace for everyone, just you. And again, that's an issue with you, not anyone else. There are plenty of non-believers out there who don't feel the need to follow the laws of God and suppress certain feelings, who live complete happy and fulfilled lives and are loved by many. Nothing but a wretched, dead corpse in a wasteland destined to oblivion by an all consuming fire. Enough to scare anyone Christian right? Since when are you all about natural human emotions? You think that lust isn't a natural healthy emotion? Without lust, there would be no human species. Mourning, which I have nothing against - can also lead to emotional trauma and in turn lead to feelings that lead to negative acts. Pretty much the same as hate, lust and other actions, as I said before... It is all about how you handle the feelings, God or no God. As for conversations above on how it's not the religion it's "man" distorting religion. Really?! One is going to use that argument? Religion has been distorted by man from the beginning. Pieces of the bible were omitted by MAN, MAN wrote the bible in the first place. MAN were the ones who had to translate the bible through time. MAN decided which parts should be relevant. MAN decided which parts are metaphors and which should be taken literally. Assuming there is a God, the religion has been out of his hands since the death of Jesus and since that time, it's all been handled by man. Everything you hear about religion and everything you read in the bible, it's all just man's portrayal of what he thinks Christianity is. Unless of course God was talking for the fun of it in the scriptures that were omitted from the bible. (And now to make sure that I don't open this thread again and get sucked into never ending debates)

One little problem that destroys your theory....there's a small difference between God's laws and Man's laws. Apple/oranges. You'll find most of the things God frowns upon in the bible are the same things that are regulated by law. At least in the commandments. As with the example above, robbing is wrong with both counts and yet you'll find many Christians who will say it's wrong because the bible says so, instead of being wrong because they know in their own mind it is. Waaaaaaay off the mark. I wonder what is making you think that the combination of how one behaves and having religious beliefs results in a disclaimer for the aspects of those beliefs. He has hinted several times that moral values come from religion and that non-believers are rogues who just want to escape punishment and be free to act as they please, which is total bullshit. I get the feeling that you really don't understand the basic concept of "religion"...of any type. I get the feeling you must have missed about 30 posts in this thread and previous threads in SC which have directly stated that morals are the result of religion. Hmmmmm...because some bozos do that, you blame the religion itself? Why not focus on the bozos that attempt to make you feel that way? Do you really think that any religion is guidebook on how to make non-believers feel like "bad guys"? Well the crux of the bible promotes the idea quite publicly that non-believers are lost and need help and that it's the Christians duty to save them from themselves. Well, you missed the point. "held responsible" in this case means abiding by the tents of the religion. It has nothing to do with why. If one commits to any religion, one commits to abiding by the tenets of that religion. It has nothing to do with WHY that decision was made. Your scenario assumes that making the decision to commit to any religion is because you fear its "judgement", If that is true in any individual case, that person blew it and should have stayed the atheist or agnostic. No, my statement is based on what the previous user stated. And that those who aren't religious are doing it because THEY are scared of the consequences that would occur if they were - which makes no sense at all and if anything works the other way around. And my analogy remains unchanged. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you, but there is no difference between him saying that and me saying that the reason YOU don't believe in Santa is because if you did you know that you'd not get any presents if you weren't well behaved. Well, there comes the tired old argument of the requirement for physical presence to prove existence. It'll never fly. Never has, never will. That has nothing to do with physical proof being needed? It has to do with reaching a point where common sense kicks in and no matter how much you want to believe something, you know that it's not true and no amount of desire can make you believe again. If I told you that you had to believe in Santa now, you wouldn't be able to because you now know better, exactly the same principle. As for following the laws of God, it's a joke. The so-called laws of God change every few decades depending on how liberal the church is feeling at the time or how progressive society is. Picking pieces out of the old testament and throwing others aside as they suit the believer. "Oh no, times changed, things are different now... that wasn't meant that way". People sure do a lot to manipulate these so-called laws of God to fit their desires. Even you Christians with the same god damn faith are so divided on what each part stands for and which should be taken literally, sure you can say that it's a personal thing and everyone interperates it differently, but then one can't go talking about laws that are passed down through the bible, because then they need to be completely personal too and one can't use these laws to try justify someone's lack of belief. The person who omits a passage from the bible for any reason is then just as Christian as the person who decides the entire bible is out-dated and the 'laws' of the bible were only important for social issues 2000 years ago.

I see more nudity on a public beach than those photos.

Well considering I am quoting something that I have seen mentioned a few times by people on facebook, it's still a saying. That's the gist of it anyway, the phrasing may be slightly different. And trying to nitpick at the term I used will not be able to hide it's validity. It's exactly in line with what the person I addressed was saying, that the reason they behave 'well' is because of God and they think that without God people will act maliciously. And it's the people who believe God is holding them back from committing atrocities that people need to watch out for, they're the risk to society, not the non-believers who have no urge to be a bad person. But you go ahead and address the meaningless semantics.

Haha, that's almost as pathetic as saying that if there were no laws everyone would run around raping and killing everyone else. Quite an ignorant and baseless comment. As the little saying goes: "Being a Christian is walking into a bank and deciding not to rob it because God will punish you for it. Being an atheist is walking into a bank and deciding not to rob it because it's a dick thing to do." One doesn't need to be religious to act in a kind manner that avoids harming others, the idea that one does, just shows how lost one is to the real world outside of their religion. If your flawed little theory had any substance, Christians would be the only people in the world who act with kind nature, and yet that's not the case. When animals share food, does this mean that they had to be religious to do that? Why is it that people somehow tie common sense and basic human emotions and desires to religion. Just a misinformed way of trying to make the non-religious people seem like 'bad guys'. Your little argument holds no validity at all. Furthermore, your statement of "You choose not to believe because you will be held responsible" is just as an accurate statement as me saying you don't believe in Santa Clause because you don't want to have to be put on his 'naughty' list and you're just scared of his judgement. I would love to believe, I'm sure most people would prefer an eternity of joy over just dying. But as per above, it doesn't matter how much you want to believe in Santa, once you're aware of the fact that he doesn't exist, no amount of desire to have him exist is going to be able to convince you otherwise.

BANNED FOR LIFE!!!

The confusion was my fault as the press release referenced two competitions and I had listed one and used the top headline which was for the other. As for the question marks instead of apostrophes, I think that may be a character setting on your side that displays ` as ?. I have amended the article and adjusted all instances of `s to 's.

Thanks for the heads up. I am working on fixing the confusion at the moment. As for the writing, it was in the form of a press release sent to us via e-mail.

The sad thing is that some 'journalist' found it worthy of writing an article about and some news source was actually willing to publish it. What's next? "Rapper claims bran muffins aren't as good as chocolate muffins". An opinion given by a terrible 'artist' is hardly news worthy. :|

People worry to much about what other people say, if he has no respect for the troops that is his decision. One doesn't need to agree with it, but people are too easily offended. I don't believe in the whole respecting a person or organization because you're supposed to and that it's the socially acceptable thing to do. Some people do not agree with the thought pattern held by the majority of people. With that said, Soulja Boy is a shit rapper. And I hold more anger towards him for adding to the destruction of the genre than I do about him expressing his opinions on the troops. The worst part of this I feel is that he went back and apologised. Clearly he wanted to say something, and if you're going to step out and be controversial, don't take back your opinion because people moan. And this goes further than just this incident. People should be free to say fuck whoever. Fuck Jesus, Fuck Atheists, Fuck Guns, Fuck Gun-o-phobes. I mean really... Who fucking cares, it's someone expressing their opinion. Just because you believe someone may deserve instant respect doesn't mean everyone does.

Haha OP made me laugh. I'm fairly sure 1/2 of it is said in trolling jest, and that he is going to pop on back with a "Y U MAD?!"

I also think there should be another topic on most screwed-up sex stories of your life ;p

In short, I had a crush on a girl who had been raped since she was 9 years old by her father for 8 years of her life. Only found out when her father killed himself while on the way to jail after being convicted. I should add that they were my next door neighbours and I went over often, I can recall her father having clothes pegs laid out in sex positions on the kitchen counter. I guess I could be glad that I was too shy to act on the crush.

Not on this site! It just makes me feel wanted, everyone here loves boobies, even the girls...So if you got 'em flaunt 'em. Unless you're calling me a pre-pubescent sisters, in which case... How dare you.

If someone is asking me, I will answer them straight. If they don't want to hear the truth they shouldn't ask. Though it depends on the person asking, if I'm having a shit day and a stranger asks, I will give a "meh, you know..". But if it's someone I know I will give them a 10 minute long rant on the situation and my desire to kick peoples teeth out. I don't do the whole 'pretend everything is okay and hide emotions' thing. I raaaaaaaageeeeeeeeee at everyone and everything. They better damn well listen to my raging and they better feel privileged that I allowed them to.

The creepiest part of those photos was the painting of Table Mountain I'll never see it the same way.

That's exactly what it wants you to belief...

God damn rich smartphone people with your fancy games.

Please read if you use the classifieds Given a bit of an increase in scammer reports this month I feel that it's the right time to just remind users of the safest procedures when it comes to buying and selling on dropzone.com and address some of the frequently asked questions. First of all: Be sure to check our listed scammers database before any transaction. In fact, check it as soon as you receive an e-mail response to any ad of yours. If the person is listed in the database, cut all contact immediately. You can see the list here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?forum=44;do=forum_view_collapsed; How can I tell if the person who contacted me is a scammer? More often than not it will be fairly easy to see whether the user is a scammer or a legitimate buyer from the way they phrase their e-mail. Nine times out of ten they will not do any research into skydiving prior to messaging you and as such their message will be generic and could apply to any sale item on any site. They will often refer to it as "the item" or "your item", they will also copy/paste the name of the ad when referring to it. eg: "I saw your ad for the Velocity 90 - brand new lines and wanted to know your lowest price" Another indication from the above example that it could be a scam, is the double spacing just before the gear item's name. This is caused from the copy and paste process. Now it's not to say every time someone copy and pastes the title that they're going to be a scammer, but it's another thing to look out for. You should also note the language used in the e-mails, if the person is listed as being from America or England, you can generally expect decent English. Phrases like "I saw you canopy online and want buy it" from English speaking countries is another alert that it may be a scammer. A big red flag is the buyer saying that he will send someone to collect the item or has a courier service that will pick it up. Most of the time this will be a scammer. But of course there are legitimate users who use this method, so as long as you can verify that they're a skydiver, the chances are much less that it's a scammer. Check their username on the dropzone.com, while there are a lot of buyers who are not active on the forum, you can use it as a way to unflag people who may seem dodgy. If a user has thousands of posts on the forum the chances are that they are not a scammer. Finally, if you end up failing to spot the scammer before he sends you payment, you should be easily able to recognize one once the payment arrives. They will often send a cheque for an amount greater than the item. Someone suspicious has said he'd like to pay with paypal, that's safe then right? Paypal is a lot safer than the cheques that most of the scammers use, but as of late there have been scammers targeting Craig's List and a couple here too who claim to be willing to pay via paypal. Some times these scammers are using stolen credit cards to make the payments through paypal, which are then reverted later on when the theft is reported. Be equally as careful here. I think a scammer contacted me, what should I do? If you receive an e-mail from what looks to be a scammer, you can forward the e-mail to [email protected] - I check this account daily and perform any necessary actions on scam users involved. This usually involves disabling the username from the account, investigating their IP address and blocking the IP from the site. If you are not quite sure if it's a scam or not, you can always contact the buyer and ask them for a reference to their dropzone and their skydiving license number. Scammers will typically back off completely when asked such a question but should they provide a response and you still feel it's a scammer, give the dropzone a call and get a reference. I received a cheque in the mail and it is from a scammer, what do I do? If you have the misfortune of being contacted by a scammer and receiving a cheque from them for the sale, only to realize upon receiving it that it was indeed a scammer. We recommend firstly that you cut all contact with the scammer. Secondly, while I'm not too sure of the laws regarding the handling of fraudulent cheques, the best thing to do would probably be to take it to the bank and explain the situation or take it to the police. It's a certified cheque, does that make it trustworthy? Nope. Some of these scammers are using fraudulent cheques which can even clear the original bank clearance process, only to be noted as fraud at a later time, where-after you will be the one responsible for it. Be carefully with certified cheques too. We do our best to keep the list of scammers as up to date as possible, and make any additions as soon as a scammer is identified. We also make sure that we disable the scammers account and have recently resorted to blocking their IPs too. Unfortunately some of the scammers send out mass responses in a short period of time and by the time we have listed them a couple of hours later, some users are already having an e-mail exchange for them. The best idea is to check the scammers database on receiving a response and again before sending out the item. Hopefully this will help some of the classified users.

Oh no this obviously doesn't count! It's completely different... And it's totally not the same since it's not as big of a problem! *waits for list of ridiculous ways in which it's different*

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.

It was actually a category 3 hurricane for quite some time and if you want to see what it could have done, just look at what it did to some of the houses in the Bahamas when it passed through there as a 3. On one of the islands I heard nearly 90% of buildings were damaged. Fact is that forecasting is difficult and the intensity guidance from the models was showing a cat 3 storm into OBX, NC. The storm ingested dry air from inland as it approached NC, this dry air disrupts the convection and the convection is what brings the FL winds down to surface level. It likely hit NC, OBX as a strong category 1 borderline category 2 (based off a 120mph wind gust report and isolated sustained reports of around 80mph+-) She then continued to degrade as she moved over the NE coast and hit New York as a strong tropical storm, now I hope the people in NY don't think they got hit by a hurricane, fact is that they got lucky, the winds could have been double what they were. The media did overhype it though, as usual. And the mets are annoyed the most because they realize that it was a lucky scenario and that media overhyping events breeds complacency. Fact is, Irene did have the potential to be catastrophic, but from early Saturday morning it was clear that it wasn't going to be that bad. But the media continued to run with the previous thoughts, can't very well go do a 180 now, all their viewers would turn off the tv The thing that made Irene seem weak to many as well was the fact that her strongest winds were very isolated in small areas by the time she reached the NE coast. So some people may have been getting 30mph and others just 20 miles away may have been getting 50-60mph. It's a catch 22 situation, because if Irene had gone on as forecast originally and as the models had suggested, the evacuations would have been completely necessary and not doing so would have ended up in more fatalities. On the other hand, what happened was that people evacuated, the storm encountered some dry air, shear etc and weakened rapidly, so now everyone thinks that will happen every time and that they know best. Evacuations are needed, and as much as I dislike government interference - some people are just too stupid to be left to think on their own. There were a few of them with Irene which you can see in some of the fatalities that occurred. If they aren't forced to evacuate, people are going to bitch and moan that thousands are dead because storm X hit and there wasn't mandatory evacuations. If they do evacuate, and the storm weakens then they are moaned at for forcing evacuations for no reason. The only difference being the first one has the added cost of body bags. If people along the coast just took the time to learn and understand tropical meteorology, even just moderately so. They would be able to make educated decisions themselves, unfortunately the very very vast majority just listen to what the TV tells them. But yes, any mention of a catastrophic storm from Saturday onwards was a lot of media hype.

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.

The following scam has been reported: Click here to read more about these kind of scams. Remember: DO NOT do business with anyone who offers to send you payment for a higher amount than your selling price with the understanding that you'll send back the balance. Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a "client" or another "customer". Be suspicious of anyone claiming to be from Nigeria or West Africa If you agree to accept a check payment, then do not send anything, gear or "change" before the check cleared. And be careful, if you manage to clear a fraudulent check then you may be liable for the damages if the bank finds out later. Make sure your bank authenticates the check. If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.This username has been disabled.