msdeeva

You may wish to try the shopping cart application of shop-script "http://www.shop-script.com/;, a free downloadable shopping cart application.  When a product is sold out, a "not in stock" line will appear next to this product/product's description (the not in stock tag is displayed depending on the quantity of this product which is left over in stock - this shopping cart application keeps track of how many items of this product have been sold and dynamically modifies the quantity which is left over after each sale of this item - there is an "in stock/not in stock" column in each item's row which is updated corresponding to these values in these columns as well).  Each time the page for this item is loaded it will display the updated versions of these values.  You have the option to not display the "add to shopping cart" next to this product if the "in stock/not in stock" value is "not in stock".  Although this will not remove the product entirely from your database table that stores teh product information/inventory, it will not make the product available for sale to any subsequent customers.  I do not know if there are any other shopping cart applications which offer this feature automatically, but I do know that this particular shopping cart application offers this feature without the requirement of any additional plug-ins, scripts, etc...

189167[/snapback]

This is a pretty cool cart. I went to their website to check out the specs. Before I settled on osCommerce, this is probably what I would have went with had I known. But since I already learned how to use osCommerce I'm happy with it. Although I had to learn how to modify it (since I had no prior knowledge of php), I'm happy that I chose it because there's so much community support for the application. I saw that shop-script's free version did not allow you to modify shipping options, and does not support newsletters, among other things. With osCommerce, newsletters are already integrated. I've installed a modification that allows me to show whether an item is sold out (I'm so proud ), and I modded my shipping module so that a customer can choose shipping insurance. I still have a lot to learn, but I love the fact that I can modify it to my needs. Like when I have more time, I'm going to install a mod that allows me to provide gift certificates and discounts to certain customers. Needless to say, I am happy with osCommerce, overall.

PS 3 is gonna knock out all the competition. Have you read the specs on it yet. The graphics are supposed to be like the movies. If this is true, then it's a no brainer on which gaming console will sell the most. I've only used other people's home gaming consoles (playstation, nintendo, sega genesis - hee hee, etc). We have a psp, a playstation 2 and a game cube for my son (snatched his zodiac cause he wasn't using it, plus it's a palm), but I don't really play them (guess I'm getting old ). I thought we were done with the gaming hardware, but if PS 3 is what they say it's going to be, I might have to snatch that up for the fam bam. If the graphics are good, I guess I'll have to play, even though I get my a$s beat every time. hee hee

Hey everyone,I'm trying to find fellow Tapwave Zodiac owners who can point me toward some resources that will help me mod my Zodiac. I've had mine for about a year, and have recently come to find out that the manufacturing company, Tapwave, just went out of business a couple of months ago. They didn't really publicize it (they only posted their condolences on their website, and then promply shut it down), and now I'm stuck with a great palm/gaming console, but no support. If anyone can point me toward some helpful websites/resources, I'd be really grateful.

The thing about real players, is that you wouldn't know they're playing you, until it's too late. You will have already "fallen" for them. Anyways, it doesn't feel good to get played either way you look at it. That's why it's better to know what it looks like so you can deal with it head on. I don't care what anyone says, everyone plays games. Whether people want to admit it or not. If your a female, your not going to admit to a guy right away that you like/love him, especially if you don't want him to get scared and run off. So what do you do: you keep it to yourself until you feel the time is right. That goes both ways. Either way you look at it, you're playing games, b/c you're not wearing your heart on your sleeve. You're not being "honest" about your feelings right away, which is just a protective mechanism that most people have learned to employ when dating.

And by the way, Josh:I equate being omnipotent with being all powerful, thus being able to destroy Satan, AND take as many virtuous souls with Him as he chooses. So I don't understand why he couldn't destroy Satan, AND take away Satan's rulership of the world/death/etc, all the while saving as many souls as he wanted.Please explain how God can be omnipotent, and have to "trick" the devil into getting what He wanted, at the same time.I'm really trying to understand.

So my response is, that He couldn't destroy Satan until taking the power of death from him, else the souls of those who died including those of His faithful servants and prophets would not be freed.  And so He had first to trick Satan into trying to capture Him in death and then taking the power from Satan, He is now free to destroy the prince of this world.  It would seem His only reason for waiting is to see who will side with Him and who will remain with Satan, that He may have a chance to save more that they may enter the kingdom of Heaven. 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Notice from cmatcmextra:

Edited as per request

176632[/snapback]

Very well put. The only thing I have a problem with is this. According to Revelations, God does know that he will win this war, and according to the Bible he has the power to destroy the Devil. And according to your own words: he has the power to look into each of us and know our hearts.

 

If this is so, why does Satan exist, why does this war between them exist, and since he can see the future if he desires to look "in the window," why would there be a need to "see how it all ends" as far as our souls are concerned?

 

I emphasize more on the question of: Why does this war between them exist, if he can destroy Satan, and he has already stated in Revelations that he wins?

Ah, now my girlfriend broke up with me today... I asked why, she said it is gettin old. I'm sure my best friend had somethin to do with it but then again this really isn't affecting me much. I agree with what she said, but all of a sudden it seems like my life is going downhill.

176838[/snapback]

Since you didn't really care about your new girlfriend whose now an ex-girlfriend, you guys shouldn't have ever gotten together. Right now, I think your in a space where you need to just date people. Stop trying to commit to someone when you're not ready. As for the ex-girlfriend you want, continue to play hard to get and don't fawn all over her when she gets back. When she calls you the first time to hang out, let her know that you already have plans, and you'll have to catch her later. She needs to know that she can't take your friendship for granted and that you have a life too.

 

Keep us posted.

Ok. Where can you get it?

176947[/snapback]

If you're hosted here, you can automatically install it through your cpanel. It's under "fantastico."

 

If you have some other linuxed based host you can download it from http://www.oscommerce.com/. Once you download it, you will need to follow the installation instructions yourself.

 

What's nice about Xisto hosting, is that it automates the process for you in like 30 seconds.

Well, I believe she should not and it seems plain to me that Christ would not approve of it, for He said that to do otherwise is adultery.  And it does say that our bodies become the temples of the Holy Ghost once we're saved.  (1 Corinthians 6:19)  But it would be an issue to talk with the person about, not something for me to use to put them down.  Church leaders might have to talk with her about getting right with God concerning it.  One of the things I've heard preached on is that God forgives but you do not forget.  If you are truly repentant (and true repentance abhors its mistakes, doing all it can to turn from them) and ask God for mercy He will forgive you of the mistake (note that He would not bring wrath upon a Christian, He might chastise them as children to bring them to the right way, but the wrath is already paid for, rather it is for the sake of relationship with Him).  But because it was not according to God's will you will have missed out on the potential blessings that could have come through following God's willl.  God wants the best for our lives. 

Oh, I just recalled the perfect verse on the subject!    I'm surprised it didn't come to mind before...  Oh well, maybe God just didn't want me to see it until now  

So even in the case of an unbelieving spouse, one is not to depart.  And as verse 11 says, if one does depart they should remain unmarried or else be reconciled.  Hope that verse helps as well.

 

No, I don't.  I don't see why God can't be just in not condoning sin and merciful and loving in trying to pay for that sin.  God can't help or else won't change who He is.  He is a just and righteous God who utterly abhors evil, and He will not tolerate it.  Since it was brought into the world, and with it, the consequence He made for it, death (Romans 5:12), He intends utterly to destroy it even as He destroys Satan whose work it is (1 John 3:8). 

 

God doesn't just worry about us, He worries about His whole creation.  He wants a perfect creation, like the one He made that's gotten messed up because of sin (Romans 8:22).  He can't permit evil to continue to the next creation when He will destroy this universe to make a new one, including new heavens and a new earth.  (Isaiah 65:17) 

 

It is righteousness and justice that causes Him to destroy evil.  It is longsuffering mercy and love that made Him refrain from destroying us all at the beginning so He could come to die on our behalf that we might have a chance to be in the relationship with Him He first intended. 

I see the whole situation as a murderous convict standing before a judge.  The convict says "Judge, I know you're a good guy, and I believe that since you're a good guy you're going to let me go!"  The judge replies, "You're right, I am a good guy, and since I'm so good I'm going to have you locked away so you can't hurt anybody else!" 

 

You see, if God permits evil to coexist with righteousness it will by nature persecute the righteous.  If God permits those who hate Him to coexist with those who love Him, the haters will end up hurting those who love Him just as they've persecuted and murdered them here on this earth.  And so, a righteous God to allow such people to coexist with the righteous, can only let them coexist if they are changed to become righteous.  And the only way that can be done is if they trust in Jesus Christ, and being born again, become new people. 

 

Hope that helps,

 

Jz

176496[/snapback]

On the divorce issue: duly noted. Boy am I glad I'm married to a great man! I don't have to worry about all that.

 

The Contradictory Issue:

So are you saying that God is not vengeful, as well as omnibenevolent, even though it says it in the Bible? Or are you saying that He destroys that which is evil and against His plan (vengeance), thereby being benevolent to His children/His plan?

 

I also have one last question that I haven't been able to explain to ppl who ask me. Maybe you can help me with this one:

 

If God is omnipotent, if He knows the beginning and the end, why is He at war with Satan? If he knows he is going to win, and the devil will be destroyed (as described in Revelations), why is He warring with the devil whom He could easily destroy?

Oh, and just as a note:When I say vengeful, I do not mean "just." "Just" implies that the punishment fits the crime (i.e., eye for an eye). When I say vengeful, I'm referring to areas in the Bible, when God, goes all out to punish someone or someones. I don't mean, okay this person murdered this person, so he pays with his life. I mean a scenario in which someone did something wrong, and his whole family was destroyed, etc. Just an example. I do believe the scriptures in which he is described as vengeful against his enemies, in which he states that vengeance belongs to him, and so on and so forth. But I also believe that he can be merciful, to his children, and to his enemies as well. He is also described as a jealous God in Nahum 1:2. All of these descriptions are contradictory, yet he is all of these things.

Agreed with most of what was said. However:I still feel that the whole divorce issue is still shaky. By what you've said, I'm to walk away with this:A Christian woman, who has submitted herself to God, CANNOT divorce her husband if he threatens her life, or if she finds out that he worships Satan, or whatever. She is not to remarry and have children. BUT, if she does she can alway repent for her sins.Okay. Sure. I kind of tend to agree with your other claim that those who go against acts of love are in violation of God's law (see previous post). Therefore, for me, by that standard, a marriage wrought with violence (or if the person is a Devil worshiper, Sadist, criminally insane, etc.), is against God's Law, therefore null and void. I also found something that seems to blend the whole "eye for an eye"/"turn the other cheek" debate. It makes more sense to me. In addition, I still haven't been able to prove your "nothing is contradictory in the Bible" statement, due to the fact that the Bible describes God to be both vengeful and loving/merciful. I believe him to be both of the two contradictory descriptions. Don't you?

I read through some of it, and like I stated before, some of these points are interesting, and I'll be following up on them later. (BTW, I think that the whole notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs is really dumb. No need for that article, thanks).

 

As far as the whole human origin thing goes: I know we probably can't convince each other of anything. I believe that people came from Africa, you don't. There is no way to prove where the Garden of Eden was. Some people believe it was in Africa (somewhere around Cush/Ethiopia - KJV), some people think it was in the Middle East. Both sides of the argument have good points, but since we didn't exist back then, neither of us can prove whether or not, locations were renamed, land masses/bodies of water changed (i.e. due to the Great Flood, topographical changes), etc. I choose to combine my beliefs with the Bible (Cush being in Ethiopia), my theories of the two rivers mentioned in Genesis which still exist today (they were either renamed in a different geographical location, or moved due to the Flood), and my scientific knowledge of the oldest discovered human remains.

 

So as far as that issue goes, it's an open and shut case: Let's just agree to disagree, and move on.

 

As far as the Bible not being contradictory, I've read the Book of Job about 8 years ago (very enlightening), and I cannot for the life of me, understand why, according to your sentiments, that God cannot be both a vengeful and a merciful/loving God. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." I thought vengeful and loving were two opposite and conflicting sides of the coin.

 

The definition of to contradict (according to the dictionary) is: To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).

 

Yet, God is often referred in the Bible to be both vengeful and loving, which are two contradictory descriptions.

 

Just a question: what are your feelings on the "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek" debate? (Obviously two contradictory sentiments. The problem lies wherein, you have to choose which one applies. If you choose the New Testament, then how do we know anything in the Old Testament still applies?).

 

I'm still confused on your thoughts of divorce, as you stated that the woman can leave a marriage if the man is threatening her life, but she cannot divorce him. So, does this mean (according to you), she cannot move on and marry another man, nor have children, without being labeled as adulterous and unrighteous?

 

And in closing with the whole Judgement issue: I just want to say that I take the verse in Corinthians like this: I have the right to judge someone's actions, as far as claiming for myself whether the behavior is right or wrong (unless they are in the Church. If so, they should be expelled from the Church, as stated in the Bible.). But, I do not feel that I have the right to persecute someone. That is for God to do.

Hi Josh,

I just wanted to let you know that I read a bit of your Christian article and found this to be interesting:

Given the wide "bench" of the women, the only female ancestor common to all 4 women who contributed post-flood mitochondrial DNA was the biblical Eve, who lived long before Noah. This fits precisely with the known facts that the common male ancestor came AFTER the common female ancestor.

So these four women, women who survived the flood, had dna from Eve (from Africa), correct? So, according to your Christian source, the female ancestor came before the male ancestor, right? So couldn't you, by the same notion, deduce that the first known woman came from Africa, and so did her subsequent descendents?

Also, before I forget MS, the moderators on this site don't like posting one post after another if at all possible.  You can ask a moderator to confirm this if you wish but they aren't happy about multiple posts by the same person in a row from what I understand.  I'd suggest being careful about that from now on before you get in trouble.  Again, you can talk to a moderator to confirm this if you wish.  I only make this multiple post here to let you know this.

176387[/snapback]

That's funny. Why did you post twice, then? Anyway, I just saw your recent post after I posted the thing on the dinosaurs. Your thing on the Y chromosome comes from a Christian source, no? where did they get their evidence? Can you post?

 

Anyway, like I stated before in the 2001 article (that wasn't written around the same time as your other one), it stated that the common Y chromosome came from Africa too.

Just wanted to say, that I found something on a Creationist site that states that they haven't carbon dated dinosaur bones, because carbon dating can only date something 50K years ago. I've been reading a lot of Creationist arguments that make sense that describe how inaccurate the results are, but I still haven't found their claims to be backed by anything other than Creation Science. When they state something supposedly found in the scientific community, I can't find anything that supports their claim outside of Creation Science (even in their bibliographies). If you could help me with this, I'd be really grateful (not trying to be facetious). I also found a creation science journal, I might subscribe to later. Perhaps, I can finally get some answers to all my burning questions.

Unlike your article on the origin of man which responded to a study completed in 1987,

I found something more recent (2001). This is just a drop in the bucket. There are more studies which you can research yourself.

The researchers screened 12,127 genetic samples from men in 163 populations from different regions in Asia - in such places as Iran, China, New Guinea and Siberia - for three specific Y chromosome mutations that are derived from a single earlier mutation seen in African populations.
All of them carried one of the three mutations, suggesting that archaic humans did not contribute to the origin of modern man. "All these people trace their roots back to a common ancestor who lived in Africa maybe 100,000 years ago," Underhill said.

The Japan Times article

When it states that "archaic humans did not contribute to the origin of modern man," I take that to mean that modern mankind, (i.e., you and me), cannot trace our roots back to archaic humans (i.e. Neanderthals according to the opposing theory). Also, the article you pointed me to, states that mitochondrial DNA could have stopped when there were only males that were born, but the above article found and tested the Y-chromosome (which is only found in males) against their research.

"The genetic evidence implies a recent common origin of our species. The Y chromosome really makes that argument bulletproof," Stanford University molecular biologist Peter Underhill, a study coauthor, said in an interview.

Seems like you chose to pick an out of date source. Try picking something more recent next time.

I told you about 20 posts ago that not only did I not know where I found the article but that since I couldn't find the proof I'd just let you have the point since it wasn't Biblically related, remember that?

While it isn't disputed that the first civilizations were Mesopotamian, apparently this idea of African descent comes from the "Genetic Eve" your site talked about.  It didn't have much at all to say either from what I could find, and the basic ideas are pointed out to have multiple potential flaws by PBS:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

I thought it described them pretty well, how they were created, what their purpose was, some of their characteristics...

I did answer your question, read again...  And I'm getting tired of having to requote myself, please pay attention:

I surely hope you are indeed "done" with me, because it's highly taxing for me to continue trying to talk to someone who's so offensive and relies so heavily on charachter assassination to win their debates. 

Who else was being spoken of but the Trinity?  But of course if you don't believe the Bible is true you wouldn't believe in the Trinity either, now would you...

176336[/snapback]

Since God made all the animals and man in a literal 6 day period, I'd assume the popular date of 6000-8000 years would be about correct.

176367[/snapback]

Okay, I'm not arguing the origin of man anymore with you. There are many sources -- but you can choose to ignore them all you want. The first civilizations don't come from Mesopotamia, sorry. The Mesopotamiam region is not anywhere in the African continent. So I would tend to believe published PhD's about the origin of the human race than someone who doesn't have said experience (humans originated from Africa, not Mesopotamia - therefore it has been argued by many scholars). Just a question: do you have a PhD? Okay, then. The Discovery Channel isn't the only medium in which this fact has been published (i.e. read my previous post as to my other sources).

 

I also went to your little link at PBS, and they still do not refute that Eve came from Africa:

Perhaps the most valuable finding regarding the "most recent common ancestor" is that she probably lived in Africa -- a finding that supports the most popular theories about the worldwide spread of hominids.

Thanks for, yet another, valuable source

 

Your Trinity point makes sense (I indeed believe in the Son, the Spirit, and the Holy Ghost). Although since the "Son" part of the trinity hadn't been born yet (nor even mentioned) I still don't get it. Please explain.

 

And since God made all animals 6K years ago, how do you explain the carbon dating of dinosaur bones to be approximately 225 million years ago?

(If you can explain this fact, then I could see your dinosaur point better, as I have done some internet searches on various sources which I will be following up with when I have more time).

 

In addition, regarding the Galaxies and Planets, your quoted scriptures do not explain different planets and galaxies, or even the phenomenon of black holes -- it only described what you can already see with the naked eye (the sun, the stars, the black sky at night, etc)... Which brings me back to my point: "Just because it wasn't included in the Bible, doesn't mean that God didn't create it."

 

BTW, I do remember your post on the "missing Latex article," but you never conceded in that post, like you just claimed to have (i.e., "I let you have the point" -- Um, no you didn't).

Josh,Just a few questions:1.) How many years ago did this Dinosaur/Human cohabitation thing occur (according to the Bible)?2.) How many years ago were Humans created?Just curious.

Josh,

Here's a link to the Discovery Channel's "The Real Eve," if you choose to gain some knowledge about where the first humans on Earth came from, you can start there.

Discovery Channel "The Real Eve"

I suspect that you won't click the link, because you're scared to learn the truth.

You know what, I figure since you don't want to expound on the "latex" issue, why should be continue to disagree about whether or not we are allowed to judge those outside of the Church even though it's stated in Corinthians I 5:12?On the topic of misinterpretation: I would like to know why you don't think Catholics didn't misinterpret the Bible during the Inquisition. I would also like to know, what makes you the end-all-to-be-all interpreter. How do you know that you haven't misinterpreted scriptures as well? After all, we are all only human, and the Bible states that although the main message will remain intact, the Book itself will be revised/changed/interpreted by man, and there will be error.You can think that Christ had olive skin all you want, if it helps you. I'm not going to argue on this. You can search the scriptures if you want, because I'm not wasting my time explaining how. Just as an FYI, though, the first Jews were Black. That should give you a start. Heck, the first people on earth were African. And if you argue this, I will point you toward a African history class taught by a white man at UCLA, and/or the Discovery channel to get you started on that.

I already responded to the "latex" issue a long time ago  :

And you still haven't answered my question about what you think judging involves.  I repeat, Christ said not to judge, He also said to judge not according to appearance but to judge righteous judgement, meaning you need to examine what the word "judge" involves in both cases then.

 

The Catholics didn't have much to do with a lot of the old NT fragments, those were from the early Church, which had very little in common with the current Roman Catholic Church.  I'd like to see where in the Bible you read that "the Book itself will be revised/changed/interpreted by man, and there will be error."

 

Actually, the first people were believed to be from Mesopotamia, or the Middle Eastern region, which may have included parts of Africa, but was not solely African.  *shrugs* 

When God talked to Job, Job didn't have to ask Him what the different animals were, they were familiar to him, so yes, I assume the Behemoths and what we call dinosaurs were definitely alive when humans were. 

 

As far as what the Scriptures say about planets and galaxies:

And he could have made it to fit together so perfectly without flaw, could he?  The Bible says not only that God gave the Bible but that He preserved it.  There is more Bibliographical evidence, or manuscript authority, for the New Testament alone, then for any other great work of literature in antiquity.  God has given more then enough to give us proof of the Bible's validity and authority. 

 

The Bible is God's Word and it's following God's commandments that make you a Christian (and not by works but as it is written, faith in Christ alone) not by following what someone else feels in their heart. 

Huh?  I never said anything about staying with them, obviously the law should take its course in separating a man who is physically abusive, I just said there should be no divorce.  And God has written His Word in my heart, and I know it to be the only truth I need to live my life by and will never give it up.  The Bible is completely and utterly rational. 

 

Also, the user name shortening was Johnny's suggestion, he noticed noone had picked Joshua as a username and offered to change mine, I accepted, and appreciate it. 

The Bible says that what God therefore hath joined together, let not man put asunder.  (Matthew 19:6)  Christ gave the one thing that could nullify a marriage to be fornication, not violence.  See my above post, I never said anything about her needing to stay with him, I spoke concerning divorce only.

176328[/snapback]

I'm pretty much done with you. You haven't addressed the latex issue at all. you haven't given any proof that shows that latex is permeable to STD microorganisms at all. You just made yourself look like an *bottom* when you tried to say that HPV was permeable. Hello? Anybody Home? HPV causes warts that are obviously contracted by SKIN-TO-SKIN CONTACT!!! Show me how HIV, Chlamidia, etc, can be contracted through INTACT latex. You still haven't!

 

You claim that the first people came from the middle east, yet you haven't even done any research. I've taken many classes from UCLA, from white professors that would beg to differ, yet here you are trying to argue with PhD's. The origin of the human race was in the heart of the Continent of Africa, spreading from West to East, then to Southern and Northern regions. I don't care if you don't want to look it up, because it just shows that you would prefer to remain ignorant. I mean, even the Discovery Channel had a program called "The Real Eve," explaining how the first woman (as described in the Bible), came from Africa. Yet here you come to spread your so-called knowledge. You know everything don't you? These people are all wrong, huh? Only you know the truth.

 

BTW You still haven't shown me any scriptures describing other planets and galaxies.

 

You continue to throw out scriptures, to supposedly "prove" your point, but in effect, you keep contradicting yourself. What about the whole divorce issue? You never answered my question: When you see on the news that a man killed his wife, what are you thinking? Are you thinking "At least she didn't leave and divorce him. She lived the righteous path of God"?

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm done with you.

 

As an endnote, I would like to leave you with something from the Bible. Maybe you can figure out what it meant:

 

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air..."

Genesis 1:26.

 

So what does God mean when he says "us" and "our"? Don't tell me this is a typo, because as you basically stated that the Bible is perfect and hasn't been messed with.

Did that other girl maybe tell you that Kati hated you because there was something in it for her?  Perhaps that other girl had a hidden interest, maybe she doesn't want you two to happen.  It's just something to look into and be aware of, because it's happened to me when I have gotten a slightly altered "truth" from a friend because she had her own seperate agenda.  Just check into that and make sure there isn't any foul play from the other parties.

176205[/snapback]

That's a very possible scenario, something that I thought of as well. When it comes to relaying of information, of course it's better to actually here it from the horse's mouth so to speak. Although in her IM she did state that she didn't mean to hurt you. I still feel that you should definitely continue to play hard to get until she practically can't stand to let you out of her site. She's playing you right now, so you have to break the cycle.

Oh, well just a bit ago she said something to me on AIM when I was away. I haven't talked to her for only like one day and she write " i just want to tell u i care about u and wut u said before was wrong ok i love u ur like my bro i cant bare for one sec to have u think i hate u but i g2g bye." I didn't get to reply because she left. Even if she hadn't of left I'd have no idea what to say. Any ideas?

176086[/snapback]

You have two choices:

 

1. you can reply with "No worries." and nothing else. That will let her know that you aren't even worried about her, because you have other things to do. And at the same time it will stump her, b/c she's used to your attention. She'll be hounding you believe me.

 

or

 

2. you can choose not to respond at all, which will have her wondering if you even got it, or if you care.

 

Depends on how you want to play it. Either way, she'll be stumped and be trying to get your attention before long. Just make sure you act like you have other things to do and she's the last thing on your mind. Give her a taste of you, then just snatch it away, whether you're talking on the phone or aim - just abruptly get off after like 2 minutes. What ever you do, make sure you cut it short first. If you're hanging out with her, don't spend the whole day, just be like "I gotta go, I got a date (this afternoon, tonight, whatever)." She needs to know that you have a life, and she's not the only girl whose interested.

 

Let us know what happens

Well, this will prolly be the last update...Well I was bored a couple of nights ago, and completely ignoring the hard to get idea, I started to talk to her. Saying things I shouldn't of, so she basically knew she could control me anyway she wanted. She sent me another one of those pics, not boobs this time. I'll just say it was another part of her and a couple of her fingers. Anyways, I am talkin to her and my friend Kayla, who is also her friend goes "You really need to stop talkin to Kati." I ask why, so she sends what Kati wrote and one of the things she wrote was "I hate Anthony." That really made me wake up, and really made me break down. So I have decided to no longer waste her time or my time. I realized she's not that great of a person, but then again neither am I. I don't know if she realizes it or not but she has been torturing me ever since she left me, and for some reason I let her do it. Maybe she doesn't know she is. Maybe she knows but doesn't mean to. Maybe she doesn't care and just wants as much attention as she can get. But I am gonna stop talkin to her, if not forever then for a long time. I think I can be alot happier without her in my life, as she can be happy without me also. Thanks for all the advice though people. It sucks that I wasn't really able to use any of it but I really think this is the best thing to do. Ha, this is pretty ironic. I came on this site to get webhosting so I could upload a video of this band she liked, and she'd put it on her Myspace. I guess it really doesn't matter anymore though...

176018[/snapback]

Don't get depressed about it. I know it sucks that you realize that she was just using you to make her feel better about herself (that's exactly what she was doing - torturing you/using you, because it makes her feel desired/wanted/beautiful). Being how I was back in the day, if I was a guy, that would give me all the incentive I needed to torture her right back. But if you are truly over and done with her, don't waste your time.

 

If you still care about her (as I suspect you do), take my previous advice seriously, and don't show her any emotions. You can spend time with her, but leave abruptly and tell her you have to go, cause you have a date. That will send her reeling. If you're on the phone with her, get off the phone with her first. Keep the phone conversation brief. Many of these techniques are used by professional daters to land a husband, but men use these techniques all the time, most of them not even realizing when they're doing it. It's called being a player. And that's probably what she's ultimately attracted to . Most girls are. It's like it's in our DNA. We think if we can conquer a player, than we are like the ultimate woman. It's a game. You just need to learn how to play it better. Women are attracted to confidence, and can tell when a man doesn't have it.

 

In addition, she might have said she hated you to someone else, but suprisingly she might have been just trying to save face. Likewise, feelings like that can easily change to infatuation overnight if you play your cards right. If she sees you as unattainable, she'll be eating out of the palm of your hand, trying to reel you in.

 

Believe me, it works. Just fill your day up with other activities that don't involve her (i.e., sports, dates with other girls, hanging out w/ friends, etc.). This way you won't be obsessing over her. If follow my advice, before long, she'll be obsessing over you.

Hi Josh,

I just wanted to expound on the Divorce issue. You stated:

If you hurt others then you are not fulfilling the Law (Romans 13:10) for love is the fulfilling of the Law because it doesn't harm others. Christ's great commandments were to love others.

Therefore, couldn't you say by the same token that if a man beats on his wife or threatens her life, he is not living accordance to God's law, and their marriage be null and void?

In addition, I have a question for you: When you see a news announcement that a man has killed his wife, do you think to yourself that she did the right thing by staying with him? Do you think "At least she lived in accordance to God's law" (as interpreted by you)?

As far as the divorce thing goes:As I've said before, King James revised the Bible and pick and chose which scriptures were to be included. He was but a man, and could have just as easily interjected his own ideals into it.I know in my heart that God would not allow a woman to stay in a violent marriage. To me, if you feel that she is committing adultery and it's wrong to leave, I really don't feel you're a true Christian. That's just how I and my Church feels. So you can tell us we're all wrong and you know the righteous path all you want, but we will be saying the same to you.