Crushes, BF and GF, and more!

Country Girl · Post by **Country Girl** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:47 pm

Your post
this is the stupidest and most imature convo we've ever had on this board. nobody should be getting uptight. I just feel like saying to you guys that your all hopless and losers (well exepete the ones that agree with me that this is retarded) but that wouldn't be very nice.

My reply
Mellow, I think an appology is due to some people. I know it wasn't again me... though, if I wanted to, I could take it as that, I suppose. However, we weren't the ones being immature. You are... Calling people names, and being rude is the epitome of immature. Two wrongs don't make a right. And if you're so worried about people getting uptight, then cool your jets first. Calling people "hopeless and loosers" is extreemly rude. And calling a thread, or replys to a thread "retarded" is close to the same thing as calling the person who posted retarded.

I don't rule over your life. Don't want to either. But I do post on this board, and I do think that an appology is in order. Yes.. a public appology. I don't see how your gripping, and name calling helped anyone. Perhaps it made some mad, and hurt some feeligns, but that's not what we are here for.

Mellow, I changed my mind... you said it publicly, I'm replying publicly

And AM..
I have no idea what you mean...
However, I did not in anyway mean to insult you... I do still hope we can be friends...

mr. mellow · Post by **mr. mellow** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:48 pm

uh you sent me this in a PM a little while ago didn't you?

Eugene Blackgaard · Post by **Eugene Blackgaard** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:49 pm

Ok, everyone, listen up. We will now cease getting on AM for her outburst. She has been spoken to and realizes that it was uncalled for. So let it be. Continuing to press the issue will result in mass rediculousness, I fear. So, it's in the past, leave it there.

Now, can we please continue discussing the topic?

Country Girl · Post by **Country Girl** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:49 pm

yes, I did..
and if you will read at the bottom.. you will see why I posted it in here

EB... AM...Mellow
I am sorry... I wasn't aware that it had been "taken care of"

Eugene Blackgaard · Post by **Eugene Blackgaard** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:51 pm

Please?

Oy Gevalt! Such people I am put over! Moses has nothing on me!

Country Girl · Post by **Country Girl** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:54 pm

I am withdrawing from this thread... sorry to have caused an upheaval so it seems... I didn't mean to.

Andrea Meltsner · Post by **Andrea Meltsner** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:55 pm

Eugene Blackgaard wrote:Please?
Oy Gevalt! Such people I am put over! Moses has nothing on me!

uhh I don't get it?

mr. mellow · Post by **mr. mellow** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:56 pm

Eugene Blackgaard wrote:
Now, can we please continue discussing the topic?

well I dont think anyone is going to post about who they like anymore. the theards turned into more of whats your oppion on dating... can we talk about that?

Andrea Meltsner · Post by **Andrea Meltsner** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:06 pm

Mr mellow wrote:
Eugene Blackgaard wrote:
Now, can we please continue discussing the topic?
well I dont think anyone is going to post about who they like anymore. the theards turned into more of whats your oppion on dating... can we talk about that?

No! lets make up a whole new thead that will go on for sixty pages! no wait that is at the TH...

mr. mellow · Post by **mr. mellow** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:11 pm

Andrea Meltsner wrote:
Mr mellow wrote:
Eugene Blackgaard wrote:
Now, can we please continue discussing the topic?
well I dont think anyone is going to post about who they like anymore. the theards turned into more of whats your oppion on dating... can we talk about that?
No! lets make up a whole new thead that will go on for sixty pages! no wait that is at the TH...

lol yeah that one convo at the TH is pretty intrasting. yeah the good old times....

Baragon · Post by **Baragon** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:16 pm

Dr. Watson wrote: Dating seems to trivialize it, and unfortunately, it allows for "experimentation" that EB alluded. This is certainly getting the cart before the horse, as any successful godly marriage must be built on committment on God and each other--not on a passing crush.

My parents dated before they were married; been married a happy 20 years. Does that mean their marriage is trivialized? I'm not meaning to start a heated debate, but I thought I'd continue the discussion on everyone's opinion of dating.

While I can indeed see some faults with secular dating, I don't particularly care for the concept that all dating is wrong, and the view that seems to imply that no happy, godly marriage can come from dating.

Anyway, there's my (poor) attempt at getting the topic (slightly) back on track.

pianokitty · Post by **pianokitty** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:01 pm

i think dourting is the best way to go. [my cross between dating and courting] i like aspects of both..but not the complete picture of either.

as for this topic..i think it should be locked as it will soon/and already has become a rather heated debate..

Eugene Blackgaard · Post by **Eugene Blackgaard** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:03 pm

Nothing wrong with debate as long as people act like adults.

I'm monitoring this thread, no worries.

Anyways, as for dourting, at first I thought "How on EARTH could she have made a spelling error THAT terrible?"

pianokitty · Post by **pianokitty** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:04 pm

lol...im not that bad a speller EB. dont worry

Dr. Watson · Post by **Dr. Watson** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:07 pm

Continental Admiral wrote:
Dr. Watson wrote: Dating seems to trivialize it, and unfortunately, it allows for "experimentation" that EB alluded. This is certainly getting the cart before the horse, as any successful godly marriage must be built on committment on God and each other--not on a passing crush.
My parents dated before they were married; been married a happy 20 years. Does that mean their marriage is trivialized? I'm not meaning to start a heated debate, but I thought I'd continue the discussion on everyone's opinion of dating. While I can indeed see some faults with secular dating, I don't particularly care for the concept that all dating is wrong, and the view that seems to imply that no happy, godly marriage can come from dating.

Anyway, there's my (poor) attempt at getting the topic (slightly) back on track.

A matter of personal curiousity: what do you think the difference between secular dating and non-secular (Christian?) dating?

Eugene Blackgaard · Post by **Eugene Blackgaard** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:12 pm

Personally, I think a lot of christians treat their dating no differently than a non-christian would. To make a long story short:

"Wow. You're hot. You must be a girl."

"Gee. You're cute. You must be a boy."

"Let's date."

"Ok!"

"I'm totally crushing!"

However, there are some christians who truly seek the lord, and the couple seeks his guidance in their relationship.

pianokitty · Post by **pianokitty** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:15 pm

i think that..for me..what EB described is just a little crush. thinking someones cute..and hey..hes noticing me! but you actually start to dourt when you have a mutual attraction for more then just their looks and want to 'dig deeper'. thats kind of the way i see it. but im definetly no expert on the subject. lol

Dr. Watson · Post by **Dr. Watson** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:18 pm

Eugene Blackgaard wrote:Personally, I think a lot of christians treat their dating no differently than a non-christian would. To make a long story short:

"Wow. You're hot. You must be a girl."

"Gee. You're cute. You must be a boy."

"Let's date."

"Ok!"

"I'm totally crushing!"

Sadly, that humorous example is nearly accurate.

Shad Lexer · Post by **Shad Lexer** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:21 pm

Dr. Watson wrote:
Eugene Blackgaard wrote:Personally, I think a lot of christians treat their dating no differently than a non-christian would. To make a long story short:

"Wow. You're hot. You must be a girl."

"Gee. You're cute. You must be a boy."

"Let's date."

"Ok!"

"I'm totally crushing!"

Sadly, that humorous example is nearly accurate.

Sadly, I must agree.

pianokitty · Post by **pianokitty** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:23 pm

i must be the only one that has a different idea of 'secular dating'...cause ive never seen something like that...