| Forum | Topic | Date | Replies |
 |
|
|
|
| The Lounge | What book are YOU reading?!?! | Jan 23 2008 02:26 (UTC) |
75 |
| Terry Prachett's Fifth Elephant. Ever since I found out he has Alzheimer?s, I have decided to reread all the disc world books. I love the characters in them. Anyone who reads Disc World will understand that it is quite hard to describe what they are actually about, they are extremely "crazy" books... but the characters in them are written to perfection. Samuel Vimes and Havelock Vetinari my favourite characters (especially when they have to interact). Brilliant. It will be a sad day when Pratchett can no longer write because of his disease.
All fantasy lovers have to read Mickey Zucker Reicherts Renshai trilogy. Seriously, it is amazing if you love traditional sword/warriors/wizards fantasy. |
|||
| The Lounge | Would you trade 3-5 years of your life to reach your weight goals | Jan 03 2008 00:05 (UTC) |
5 |
| I would.
But I do have my reasons: 1) I have been very much obese all my life. Since the age of 7, when I realise I was bigger than everyone else, being slim has been my major goal, the quality of my life has suffered due to my weight. 2) I'm only 21, if I was 70 then I probably wouldn't make the swap. I can have over 60 years left, so I wont exactly dramatically reduce my future. I have probably spent far too much time worrying about my weight, looking for clothes that fit, feeling guilty about what I've eaten, etc, so it will probably balance itself out anyway. Other times I would swap quantity for quality: Being a millionaire- probably about ten years for that Married to Viggo Mortensen- Would definitely give up years for that- Hell I would give up most of my life if he dressed up as his Aragon character! |
|||
| The Lounge | I have a dead hamster in my freezer.... | Jan 02 2008 23:49 (UTC) |
18 |
| we had a hamster almost freeze to death one winter in the laundry room. I thought he was dead but wrapped him up in a towel and open the oven door turned it on and layed the towel on the open door and thawed him out in about 30mins he was okay. Pretty weird but it worked. This is what I’ve heard: In the wild hamsters hibernate, but pet hamsters do not do this because indoors there is no dramatic change in the weather. But if they do get really cold (due to someone leaving the window open, etc) then they think they should be hibernating and go into a deep sleep. Usually just warming them up will wake them, as they think winter is over now. But apparently it is easy to confuse them hibernating with them dead. |
|||
| The Lounge | Ripped off on Ebay! | Jan 02 2008 23:39 (UTC) |
|
| I got my money back!
I sent one more message to the seller telling them that I will escalate the dispute to a claim if they do not reply, and then a couple of hours later I checked my paypal and it told me it has been refunded. (Though still no word from the seller- and I will not be sending the counterfeit back to him in case he tries to resell it). Woo. This has not put me off ebay one bit- In fact I have now bought a (hopefully) genuine Ipod from there. As for paypal, if anything this has made me like it more. If I had paid by other means, the whole thing would have been more complicated. |
|||
| The Lounge | Ripped off on Ebay! | Jan 01 2008 15:39 (UTC) |
3 |
| I did use paypal (thank god).
I have opened a dispute with them, but the seller has not replied to any of the messages- I have tried again today, and I'm giving him two more days to reply before escalating the dispute to a claim. I'm just worried that for some crazy reason, paypal will side with the seller and I will totally lose out on my money. I have recheck again and again the item’s description, and it definitely claims to be an apple ipod nano, third generation. For Christmas I actually got a nano from my parents. This has allowed me to compare a real one with the fake. The differences are quite obvious (eg, the fake doesn't have the touch sensitive scroll). I can't afford to get my friend anything else until I get my money back. It makes me feel bad because she got me something great, and I have nothing for her. Thank you all for your help |
|||
| The Lounge | abortion. agree, disgree? | Dec 27 2007 15:50 (UTC) |
281 |
| Tut, saw this thread a bit late.
Haven't read all the posts- no time now. But I just can't resist a good debate :) Anyway, I'm pro choice. Always have been. In England I think abortion is legal until 24 weeks (although if you do have an abortion at such a late time, it is a whole other process, which no woman would take likely). If I got pregnant now, I would likely have an abortion, and I wouldn't feel guilty about it. I am in my second year of my journalism degree, so even if I decided to put the baby up for adoption, it would still disrupt my life too much, which could lead me to fail my degree (which has cost me a fortune in student loans, so failing is not an option). If people do not agree with abortion, then fine, don't get one- but don’t you dare tell me what to do with my body, just stick to your own. |
|||
| The Lounge | Happy Solstice, everyone!! | Dec 22 2007 21:26 (UTC) |
1 |
| This year I have decided to do something different, and celebrate the god Mithras' birthday (he was also born dec 25th). So happy Mithrasmas to you all! May the sun god make the days long again! |
|||
| The Lounge | A touchy subject | Dec 22 2007 21:22 (UTC) |
27 |
| You would have thought that a married couple would be a bit more secure.
My mum is a yo-yo dieter (gaining and losing 50lb kinda yo-yo, not just a few pounds), and my dad sometimes puts on a lil bit at times too. And they can just joke about it together, not feel unsure if they should keep silent. |
|||
| The Lounge | Women wityh six packs? Gross or hot? Should we leave to the men?? | Dec 22 2007 21:15 (UTC) |
20 |
| I know I shouldn't judge, considering my body is far from perfect, but hey, we all judge sometimes :)
Anyway, I think women should look womanly, and to me that means a bit of curves- a UK size 10 (not sure what that is in America) is what I consider perfect. They always look the best in swimwear too (think Kelly Brook). |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 21 2007 00:56 (UTC) |
46 |
| Ok, here are my predictions:
In my lifetime, there will be no coming of Christ In 2008, a country will suffer from a natural disaster- thousands will die In my lifetime there will be no world peace/ nor will world hunger be resolved Somewhere in the world a war will break out in 2008 In my lifetime, flying cars will not be the norm A computer virus will be invented that will devastate millions of computers An anti virus will be invented that can protect you from the virus above Ipods will be replaced by a much better version- causing apple ipods to become nothing but a memory. Ok, I can go on and on. If all my above predictions come true, you may indeed worship me as a God- and I have no problems with graven images, as long as they make me look 50 lb lighter :) |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 20 2007 01:21 (UTC) |
53 |
| "On the first inspiration, God said, "let there be light."
"On the second inspiration, God created the earth." I've already explained that in Genesis a day DOES mean a day, just look a couple pages back- I've used several points in that post explaining why a day has to be a day- one of which is that genesis was written in Hebrew, and they used the word "yom"- yom meant literally a 24 hour period- they used the word yom many times in the OT, some in the context that if it didn't mean 24 hours, but inspiration/thousand years, whatever, then the sentence wouldn't make sense. As for the predictions in the bible, they are too vague to prove anything. The bible has the same predictive value as Nostradamus, Uri Geller, and any other street corner christalball gazer. And don't even get me started on the "bible code". Also, predictions are very easy to fulfil, people know what predictions the book has made, and can quite easily gear things towards that direction to see it fulfilled. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 20 2007 01:19 (UTC) |
54 |
| FITDAN
Creationists are extremely biased about the conclusions and assumptions they make, because they have it in their mindset already about the age of the earth, and the origins in it. They have a lot to lose if they turn out to be incorrect. A scientist has nothing to lose, because they are not trying to prove or disprove beliefs, they are just trying to understand. They lose nothing if they found out that they world is only 60k years old, in fact it means that could write a great deal of papers on the subject and get quite a lot of many. So who do you think are going to be more accurate and unbiased on their findings? Also, what you fail to understand is that we do have visual proof about the age of the earth too. Its like aging a tree, we don’t have to have been there when it was a seed to estimate how old it is, it gives us visual evidence. We have stratigraphic records, many means of dating things (yes I’m well aware that carbon dating is only accurate to about 60k years, but that’s just one of many). And we even have simple mathematics and astronomy, such as: “in 1987, a supernova, was observed. About eight months after the explosion was observed, reflections from the explosion were seen in a distant gas cloud ring that circled the supernova. The ring can be seen as an orange circle in the photo above. The reason the reflected light was delayed eight months was that it took time for the light to travel from the supernova to the distant gas clouds and then to reflect from there back to earth. (See illustration below.) And so we can conclude that it took about eight months--or 0.66 years-- to journey from the supernova to the gas ring. Knowing the time it took to reach the ring, and knowing the speed of light, we can calculate the distance to the ring. Knowing this distance, and measuring the angle between the supernova and the reflection as seen from the earth, we can use simple trigonometry to calculate the distance of the supernova from the earth. Astronomers have calculated that the distance is so large that it took light 169,000 years to make that journey.” If the universe was really that young, our night sky would be incredibly dark, most lights from suns wouldn’t have even nearly reach us yet. Oh and we can observe infant stars… and tomorrow they will STILL be infant stars, because it takes millions of years, not just one day- why would God make the universerse in a day, but then continue letting it grow in a considerable much slower pace. Why on earth we he make such a gigantic universe? One galaxy can have up to a trillion stars. Why does he blow up planets, just because supernovas look pretty perhaps? You say you have witnessed God working miracles etc, but people from ALL religions claim they have witnessed their god/s working miracles, changing lives and so on. What makes you think what you felt and saw is any more valid to what they felt and saw? People claimed to see Odin before a battle, and felt renewed strength when calling his name. Should I dismiss the many accounts of people from other religions as foolishness, apart from the ones of Christianity? Why? They all have the same “evidence”, thoughts, feelings, miracles, etc. For all you know, Zeus might be getting really angry that your claiming his miracles are the works of another. |
|||
| The Lounge | Rude things people do @ the movies | Dec 17 2007 01:19 (UTC) |
18 |
| I'm an usher- Although I’m employed under the name “team member”.
We all hate "talkers" where I work, and are very thankful when someone tells us about them so we can kick them out, or at least give a warning. The cinema is pretty damn expensive, and people that don't care about ruining it for others are rude and shouldn't be allowed out in public until they learn some manners. Anyway, as I work in a cinema I've other things that annoy me that haven't been said yet. Angry customers: Yes I know the tickets and food is expensive, but do you think yelling at an usher is really going to make any difference? Do you really think ushers enjoy charging people so much? MESS!!: I know I know, even I have dropped food and wrappings on the floor in a cinema without thinking about it. But really, do people just casually drop rubbish on the floor anywhere else than in the cinema? No, so why do it there? Ushers have to make sure screens are clean, before the next film starts- sometimes we are only given 3 minutes or so to clean them. My cinema has 6 screens, so often we have two of three screens coming out at around the same time, whilst also having some go in. If screens were left relatively clean, then we would have more free staff, which means more people manning tills, which makes queues much quicker. Also we’ll be able to do more screen checks- and screen checks equals a lot less noisy people watching films. See, works out for everyone. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 15 2007 18:37 (UTC) |
62 |
| Fitdan If would be very hard for me to answer your points when you seem to assume the findings made by scientists are just theories, or that not everything needs explaining because it was done supernaturally. Did you know some people today still believe we live on a flat planet? Any one with any sense obviously thinks this is crazy. We have scientific evidence that shows our world is far from flat, so how do flat earth believers explain this? They say that our facts are theories, and when that doesn’t work, they say there are conspiracies involved. Now think how your brain would hurt if you had to try to debate with them, but they are discarding what science tells us. Well sorry to say, but that is how I feel when I talk to young earth creationists. They often discard common science for whatever they read in the answersingenesis website, which distorts things shamelessly. And when that doesn’t work, they throw in the word “conspiracy” (I’m not saying you have, but I’m sure you’ve heard some people explain away dinosaur bones, and religions that predate the bible, as conspiracies- or sometimes ploys the devil put in place to full people). The thing is, science isn’t at war with anyone, as a whole, its essence is truth, exploring the facts. If the world were flat, they would damn well say it is. And if they could prove religion conclusively, they would in a heartbeat (especially as any scientist that did so would become an overnight millionaire). |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 13 2007 18:37 (UTC) |
66 |
| Erm, ok did I read wrong, or was someone asking for evidence on evolution? I've already explained why it is still called the "theory" of evolution, so please don't get confused by its name.
Sadly large-scale evolution takes too long to "witness" but we do have the bones. And, duo to fast reproduction rates in a certain type of moth (if I remember correctly) they have been able to witness caught a large scale of evolution in motion in just a few years (Well large scale when you consider landscape and climate hasn’t effect it which it would in “usual” evolution). I would find sources, but I've two mins until I have to go get drunk :) Hence very rushed message. News stories I read yesterday said human evolution is actually speeding up, and people from continent to continent are become increasingly different (this is dues to population changing from millions to billions). Its an interesting read, just google it, too much in a rush to find direct link but I read it on MSN news originally, and then several other sites. FITDAN Sorry that I can't post to your points one by one right now, when I have more time I will, and if I forget, then remind me :) One quick word though, if you agree that a day does mean a day in the bible, then surely you'll have to go on the idea that the earth is about 6000 or so years old. Now do you really think that is enough time for mount Everest to change that much in height, esp at its current speed (I think 4mm a year) so that when there was a great flood, the highest peek wasn't that really high? And, going on the same idea, if there was only a few species of animals during the whole Noah’s ark thing, is 6000 years really enough time for them to breed into as many different species as we have now? Ok now I'm late, I've a bad feeling when I return (hung over) tomorrow, this might have jumped forward somewhat. Who knows what the topic might be then :) |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 13 2007 16:19 (UTC) |
90 |
| Personally I don't see why people get so annoyed when a religious debate takes place. I remember clearly that there was a gun debate (being English I didn't get involved with that one :) and it wouldn't surprise me if there has been hunting debates.
I find religion fascinating, and I love furthering my knowledge in the field, and if someone says something I know to be untrue, of have background information on, then I share it. Those that don't wish to debate then that’s fine, I will never jump on someone and begin an argument. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 13 2007 16:14 (UTC) |
91 |
| fitdan Evolution isn’t the only scientifically inaccuracy in the bible, which why I am not saying “conflicts with mainstream scientific theories”. Although science can track conclusively human evolution for 3.2 millions years. I’ve a very long list of inaccuracies, if you want the fall list then I will happily email it to you. But here I’ll just post a few: 1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite. 2) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program. 3) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). 4) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc. 5) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years. 6) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. 7) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record? 8) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 13 2007 15:28 (UTC) |
97 |
| Kate The idea of seeing the woman as some sort of sign from God doesn't make sense. God is apparently omniscient, which means he knows everything. He would know, prior to the encounter, that having the woman talk to schnooder wouldn't work. So he wouldn't have bothered. If a Muslim tried to convert you, would you think than perhaps it is a sign from Allah? If a Hindu approached you, do you wonder if it was a sign from Brahman? Etc etc. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 13 2007 15:21 (UTC) |
98 |
| Kim Genesis: A day DOES mean a day It is no surprised that the bible, considering its age, is scientifically inaccurate- so to put evolution (which has now been proven) into the bible people claim that a day in the “six days” ordeal is actually 1000+ years. 1) Genesis was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for “day” used in the OT is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period. (Just a side note: Some claim the word yom is void because there was no sun until the 4th day, but there was already light, morning and evening prior to the sun being created, so the sun really wasn’t needed. How there was light before the sun, I don’t know, likely it was another science mistake of the OT writers) 2) Lets believe that yom actually meant “era” why are an evening and a morning mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years. 3) If a day means more than 24-hour period, than the following verse, where yom was used, would be rather worrying: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11). There are many other passages that use the word yom as day, just like in the OT, that wouldn’t make sense if yom was intended to mean a longer period of time. 4) Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day, which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 5) Genesis even explains what a day is!! Genesis 1:5 “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods. 6) And one more: even if a day did mean 1000 years, it STILL wouldn’t be long enough to make up for the age of the earth that we now know today (more than 4.6 million years). So the saying “a day can be 1000 years” should really be a million years. |
|||
| The Lounge | Guilty conscience please help i havent told anyone | Dec 12 2007 22:46 (UTC) |
10 |
| I had no idea the age of consent was higher in America- learn something new everyday (I knew the drinking age is different. I'm glad I didn't have to wait until I was 21 lol). | |||
| The Lounge | Favorite author(s)? | Dec 12 2007 22:14 (UTC) |
1 |
| Best-selling fantasy author Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with a rare form of early onset Alzheimer's, he said in a message posted to his illustrator's Web site.
Oh god, this news has nearly made me cry. I know that might seem strange, I don't know him, but his books have been favourites of mine, and have always made me laugh. The thought that in a few years time he may not be able to do what he clearly loves, writing, is devastating. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 12 2007 19:16 (UTC) |
150 |
| Science isn't always changing in the sense that it disproves what it has previously thought.
In fact it isn't often that scientists will say: "The old theory is wrong, this is what is right". They have theories, and they are proven or unproven (tested or untested) theories. Evolution for example is a proven theory, but it will not become "the law of evolution"- this doesn't mean it isn't a fact. They will never say "we have now found out that evolution doesn’t exist," because it has been proven/tested. Science does indeed change, in the way that it finds new things, but it rarely disproves things that they once saw as facts (if ever)- and the things they don't know, doesn't mean that "god dunnit". |
|||
| Motivation | Love of food vs. drive to lose... | Dec 12 2007 17:18 (UTC) |
9 |
| (off topic) celestialwreckage
Every time I tell people my name, they always say "is that short for Maria?" lol, and people often mishear me so think I said Maria anyway. The problem with my name is that my two favourite names are Rhiannon and Riana, but if I ever have a daughter I can't call her one of those because they get shortened to Ria, and that would probably be a bit embarrassing for them, lol. Back to food. It is so frustrating the amount of time I spend thinking about food, I wish it could be just a normal part of my life, but the truth is that it is a much bigger part of my life than it should be. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 12 2007 17:06 (UTC) |
181 |
| woa...woa....woa....now wait a minute...whaddya mean "No Santa".... There is a Santa....there is..... If it helps, you can be agnostic about it: we can't prove to an absolute there is not one, so he could exist :) Just another point on the whole atheist or agnostic thing. Going on the idea that people are agnostic and not atheist because they admit there is no way to gain absolute proof that there is no god/s, and they would convert if there was proof that one existed. Then does that mean all theists are also agnostic? They cannot prove Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Zarathustra, Krishna etc do not exist, they just chose not to believe in them. Although I bet if there was proof, they would all convert. It would be silly not to :) |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 12 2007 16:55 (UTC) |
192 |
| Atheist and agnostics are different.
You cannot prove that the Easter bunny does not exist- does that mean you are "agnostic" in the sense that you believe there could be an Easter bunny, or there could not be. I doubt it. You cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist. Does that mean you are agnostic about that? No- we don't believe in Santa, although we would all admit if absolute proof was found, we all would. But that does not mean we are agnostic about that. You cannot prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn... etc etc I cannot prove to an absolute that there is no god (although I do believe there is enough proof to say that the bible God does not exist). Does this mean that I am agnostic? No, for the same reason that I am not agnostic about the Easter Bunny, Santa, the invisible pink Unicorn. I cannot give absolute proof that any of those things don't exist. So I came to a decision on logic. |
|||
| Motivation | Love of food vs. drive to lose... | Dec 12 2007 16:33 (UTC) |
12 |
| Ahhh me and food, something I know I will battle with for the rest of my life, no matter how much I weigh.
Even now, after I’ve lost nearly 50lb, at least twice a week I go on a crazy "eat anything unhealthy I can get my hands on" binge. And on the days I'm not, I'm battling with myself to not have another one. There seems to be two of me, the Ria that is desperate to be a healthy weight, and the Ria that loves junk. Sadly the junk food Ria is very convincing. I seem to manage to justify eating so much... until I finish that is, and then feel guilty. |
|||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 12 2007 16:13 (UTC) |
210 |
| Wierdkitty, the idea that The Lord and Savior wasnt necessarily born on December 25th doesnt upset me any more than Saint Patrick not likely being born on march 17th, or that Martin Luther King day is not on his birthday either. I thought it was funny that you seemed upset by it though.
Upset? I was just giving the origins of the holiday. What annoys me (see annoy, not upset) is when people imply that atheists shouldn't celebrate it. That’s all. It is like if I went up to someone and said: "you are not Irish, you cannot celebrate St Patrick’s day" its just ridicules. People can celebrate what the want. In fact, me and my fellow English folk celebrate St Patrick’s day a lot more than we celebrate St George’s day. Maybe because it gives us an excuse to wear green and drink beer. Who knows. |
|||
| The Lounge | Love Each Other | Dec 12 2007 16:02 (UTC) |
11 |
| My best friend (who is also my cousin). I swear without her at the low points in my life, I wouldn't have made it. We have the same sense of humour, and have almost a "twin connection". Everyone needs someone that will always be on your side, and I know that no matter what, she will always be on mine, and me on hers. |
|||
| The Lounge | Victoria Beckham Should've Been the One Named "Scary Spice" | Dec 12 2007 15:54 (UTC) |
12 |
| David, in my opinion, was a lot better looking pre Posh+Becks fame, when he was just a young footballer. And of course, when he opens his mouth it totally spoils his image, his voice is not sexy at all, and really doesn't suit him. Oh well, not much you can do about that lol. | |||
| The Lounge | *edit*. the bible.....ugh. | Dec 12 2007 15:39 (UTC) |
226 |
| Yeah wierdkitty, thats almost as funny as an atheist telling a christian that they arent celebrating Christmas properly! Isnt that hilarious!! LOL! Actually if you reread my posts, I was not implying that people were not celebrating Christmas "properly"- more that everyone has a different meaning for it. I just gave the background history of the holiday, I'm sorry if it upsets you that dec 25th was not originally a Christian holiday. But the day was original a winter holiday, and Mithras' birthday- obviously that is not what it is about anymore. I also said that Christmas' meaning is changing- and everyone celebrates it differently. There is no right or wrong way to celebrate the holiday. |
|||
Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Recent Activity
 |
New journal post White and Green by jannid 22:23 |
 |
spirit_me_away added moonikins as a friend |
|
New journal post change by harayoutoday 21:36 |