01-08-09 10:33 AM
147 ... 456
tools
  1. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    No, my friend, not even one little bit.

    It is a true historical fact that Louis XIV had mistresses. It is a true historical fact that there was a semi-official position at court called maitresse-en titre and that his mistresses held this title. It is a true historical fact that his mistresses had apartments at Versailles. It is a true historical fact that his mistresses gave birth to his children. It is a true historical fact that some of these "illegitimate" children were recognized by Louis during his life - as such they became "legitimate." It is a true historical fact that these "legitimized" children were given noble titles (Dukes, Comtesses, etc.). It is a true historcial fact that Louis's reputation suffered not one little bit despite *everyone* (including the Queen) knowing all of the above because he largely observed the "formalities" associated with such dalliances that allowed the Queen - in public - to "save face" (in private, she was humiliated).
    You Misunderstood Me.

    I am NOT Debating that those things aren't Facts.

    Your OPINION that those things are viewed as Acceptable in modern times since they took place in the past-

    Is what makes it RATIONALISM.

    /Fin.
    Last edited by xxxxpradaxxxx; 01-07-09 at 02:14 PM.
    01-07-09 02:08 PM
  2. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    If your using that kind of logic, then I would be lead to believe that you still Hold Slavery as an effective form of Labor.

    Do you?

    Because It Most Certainly Was in the Past.
    01-07-09 02:14 PM
  3. mtcl's Avatar
    Hahaha

    Don't Blame me!

    Hahahahahahaha hilarious use of scriptism there my friend but I'm going to have too since I don't know the facts anyway peace out off to marthas you coming? And can you call derrick about that ganje? See you in an hour or so
    01-07-09 02:19 PM
  4. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    Hahahahahahaha hilarious use of scriptism there my friend but I'm going to have too since I don't know the facts anyway peace out off to marthas you coming? And can you call derrick about that ganje? See you in an hour or so
    Now THAT is Off Topic.

    But David and Bathsheba could be distantly related to the topic at hand, since they probably didn't wear underwear-

    Just like Britney Spears. LOL
    Last edited by xxxxpradaxxxx; 01-07-09 at 02:29 PM.
    01-07-09 02:23 PM
  5. PvT's Avatar
    here's a more constructive read...

    http://forums.crackberry.com/f39/bas...r-conduct-114/

    and link in my signature...

    be cool and nice
    No one is Fighting, Name Calling, Etc.

    We are exchanging ideas.

    If anything, we are dancing around the "going off topic" line.
    I'm one with that I'll just dance by myself then...
    01-07-09 02:38 PM
  6. Curve63049's Avatar
    Your OPINION that those things are viewed as Acceptable in modern times since they took place in the past-
    Re-read. I never wrote that those things are "acceptable" in modern times since they took place in the past.

    Instead, I am *amused* that what some *today* consider to be "modern" ailments such things as sex, drugs, adultery, pornography, etc. - even "celebrityism" - have always been with us since the dawn of history. It is pure poppycock that these are "modern" ailments visited upon us by (liberal) Hollywood types . . . as reference to the historical record indicates.

    Given that historical record concerning sex, drugs, pornography, celebrityism, etc., I am also *amused* that certain behaviors - especially those concerning sex and drugs (oral sex, for example) - are *today* judged more harshly by modern society than relatively "worse" acts (semi-publicly keeping a mistress, for example) were judged by society's in the past - especially those societies/cultures of our own ancestors.

    My *opinion* is that - when it comes to matters of sex - perhaps the more "liberal" view our ancestors held at *some* points is perhaps "better," than our own "puritanical" view.

    Put in practical terms, that Louis XIV had mistresses did not affect his ability to govern and, because of that, his dalliances bothered not the nobles . . . in contrast, although oral sex with an intern did not (directly) affect Clinton's ability to govern, his political rivals seized upon his dalliance to derail and distract him from governing effectively.

    My *opinion* is that Louis's nobles put the interests of their nation first by not getting their panties in a bunch over his mistresses, while Clinton's political rivals put their own partisan interests first over that of the nation.

    it is my *opinion* that the former is preferable to the latter.


    That I embrace this fact of the human condition - namely, that the flesh is weak when it comes to sex - rather than be repelled or "ashamed" of it it, by no means implies that I embrace every *other* thought/idea expressed by our ancestors.

    By your "logic" I must also accept the fact that the Sun revolves around the Earth because . . . well historically that is what the ancients believed.

    Of course, nothing I've written here compels that conclusion.

    For the record, I reject ancient forms of torture (e.g., the rack) and ancient means of execution (being drawn, hung, and quarted, for example) as being unreliable (in the case of rack) and unneccesarily barbarous (in the case of being drawn, hung, and quartered).

    And slavery? I abhor the unjustified impingement of one man's liberty and freedom by another man. Of course in some situations - imprisonment for violations of the criminal law, for example - the impingement of one man's liberty and freedom can be justified.

    Clear now?
    01-07-09 02:56 PM
  7. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    I don't really care at this point.

    Whether it ailed society then, or now means nothing to me.

    As it affects me now.
    01-07-09 04:00 PM
  8. Curve63049's Avatar
    As it affects me now.
    I submit that you have no control over what other people do and given the overwhelming history of mankind and sex, you're unlikely - make that very unlikely - to change things.

    To be less . . . "bothered" . . . by what's happening now, you may want to consider changing something you DO have control over: your mind.
    01-07-09 04:08 PM
  9. asylvia's Avatar
    to be honest i have yet to see a bold, storm, or 8900 in public aside from my very own storm.
    01-07-09 04:11 PM
  10. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    I submit that you have no control over what other people do and given the overwhelming history of mankind and sex, you're unlikely - make that very unlikely - to change things.

    To be less . . . "bothered" . . . by what's happening now, you may want to consider changing something you DO have control over: your mind.
    I am unaffected by the media-

    I Could Care Less About The Antics that Occur in a Celebrity's Life.

    But for the Sake of this Topic, I made my views known.

    to be honest i have yet to see a bold, storm, or 8900 in public aside from my very own storm.
    Me Too, Unless I go into VZW or AT&T.

    Me Neither!
    01-07-09 04:36 PM
  11. ballroomdru's Avatar
    My $0.02. (And totally on topic.)

    Celeb = International traveler = ATT or T-mobile. Cause "renting" a GSM phone for travel is too hard.

    ATT = GSM easy enough for when I am flying to Europe for whatever.

    VZW = Doesn't work in Italy?!?!? Why would I have them????

    Thus ATT blackberry is more likely to be the top choice.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-07-09 04:44 PM
  12. Curve63049's Avatar
    I am unaffected by the media-

    I Could Care Less About The Antics that Occur in a Celebrity's Life.
    Try as I might, I'm unable to reconcile what you just posted (above) with this (below) - which you posted only moments earlier:

    I don't really care at this point.

    Whether it ailed society then, or now means nothing to me.

    As it affects me now.
    01-07-09 04:47 PM
  13. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    The only reason it affects me, is because of the sheer exposure that it has on my impressionable younger siblings, That I obviously Care About.
    Last edited by xxxxpradaxxxx; 01-07-09 at 05:37 PM.
    01-07-09 05:27 PM
  14. Curve63049's Avatar
    The only reason it affects me, is because of the sheer exposure that it has on my impressionable younger siblings, That I obviously Care About.
    Well, in this thread it *appears* that - when it comes to your younger siblings - you're intent on marching down to the shore and trying to command the waves to stop (so to speak). All the while ignoring that the waves were there yesterday and will still be there tomorrow (I get that impression from your statement that you don't care what happened yesterday or 10 years ago).

    I apologize if that's not your position or meaning, but it sure seems that way to me.

    For my part, I find it better to teach my child that waves are . . . well, waves. And they behave like . . . well, again, waves. I find it better to say that waves have always been there and they always will be.

    So, instead of focusing on the waves, or complaining about them, or even *blaming* them for being waves, I focus on teaching my child to swim - as safely as possible - in the waves.

    At some point, though, even how my child chooses to swim in the waves is beyond my control.
    01-07-09 06:04 PM
  15. kylewell's Avatar
    For celebrities a phone is not as much as a status symbol as it may be to the rest of us. Admit it or not a phone can be a status symbol for us normal people. They on the other hand have Bentley's, mansions, etc to show how classy they are. Personally I could care less what they use

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-07-09 06:12 PM
  16. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    Well, in this thread it *appears* that - when it comes to your younger siblings - you're intent on marching down to the shore and trying to command the waves to stop (so to speak). All the while ignoring that the waves were there yesterday and will still be there tomorrow (I get that impression from your statement that you don't care what happened yesterday or 10 years ago).

    I apologize if that's not your position or meaning, but it sure seems that way to me.

    For my part, I find it better to teach my child that waves are . . . well, waves. And they behave like . . . well, again, waves. I find it better to say that waves have always been there and they always will be.

    So, instead of focusing on the waves, or complaining about them, or even *blaming* them for being waves, I focus on teaching my child to swim - as safely as possible - in the waves.

    At some point, though, even how my child chooses to swim in the waves is beyond my control.
    Okay, I'm glad you have that stance.

    I'm no longer going to give my opinion in this thread.

    You have your opinion, I have mine.

    This is going No Where.

    Moving On.
    01-07-09 07:11 PM
  17. Curve63049's Avatar
    Okay, I'm glad you have that stance.

    I'm no longer going to give my opinion in this thread.

    You have your opinion, I have mine.

    This is going No Where.

    Moving On.
    Ah, well . . . there you go.

    I've never labored under the impression that a civil discourse had to end in an agreement or "go" anywhere. Instead, I've operated under the belief that conversation is a good, non-violent way to find out about other people and their views - in a "beyond the surface" kind of way. Even failing that, a good conversation is still a good way to find out something about yourself.

    Fare the well, then.
    01-07-09 07:52 PM
  18. Crackberrykills's Avatar
    So, perhaps, we can get back to the original point of the thread then. I have said my piece, but this thread has gone tragically off topic.
    01-07-09 07:58 PM
  19. Rizzleman716's Avatar
    Well as much as we will argue up and down about it the reality and I'm not saying for ALL. But but I mean celebritys do have an impact on my life. You know what! Scratch that.... Other ppl in general who have different things from us have an imoct on our lives! As an earlier post stayed if you saw the neighboor next door with the most reliable phone, you wouldn't consider it? I sure as **** would if it looks decent or good to the eye I might like it. Or if its very reliable has keen features that are good, and useful. I might consider it. If he had a blackberry, and I didn't and I saw it YES I would consider it. Not to say that the op's post was wrong, because they are actually right in a sense but EVERYONE who has something we don't or want has some type of impact, to make you think "hey I might like that" its life. I mean celebrities are just ppl who are on TV with a lot of money, and everyone knows their business!

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-08-09 12:17 AM
  20. Duvi's Avatar
    Paris Hilton has a BlackBerry, She Also Has Herpes.

    Does that mean I want Herpes?

    No!

    wow... lol. too funny.

    Quote of the Year (I know 2009 just started, but still...)
    01-08-09 12:48 AM
  21. Curve63049's Avatar
    So, perhaps, we can get back to the original point of the thread then. I have said my piece, but this thread has gone tragically off topic.
    The irony, of course, is that a post saying "this thread has gone tragically off topic" is itself off-topic - tragically or otherwise.

    What you really meant to say, though, was "thank you" for providing you with enough entertainment that you stuck with this topic for 10+ pages AND a move from "General Discussion" to "Off-Topic."

    Unless you're being held hostage and forced to read this. In that case, I suggest dialing 911.

    With that I'll leave you with this metaphysical question: when a thread is in the "off-topic" area can anything posted in it be truly "off-topic"?
    01-08-09 08:24 AM
  22. Tlynnsmith's Avatar
    wow... lol. too funny.

    Quote of the Year (I know 2009 just started, but still...)
    Can we vote now? PLEE-EEZE?????
    I'm still laughing.
    01-08-09 10:33 AM
147 ... 456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD