msdeeva

Alright, I'll show it to you a third time...  Last time though! 

Christ specifically states that IF YOU DIVORCE OTHER THEN FOR FORNICATION YOU COMMIT ADULTERY.  Plain and simple. 

 

As for the dinosaurs, I could go into the behemoth and the great creatures to walk the earth, but I'd like to go into the Leviathan for now   Read Job chapter 41, in verses 19-21 it even speaks of it being able to breath fire, so apparently the dragon legends are based on this very real dinosaur, which is probably where plesiosaur skeletons come from.  In verses 15-16 it says the leviathan has airtight scales and in verses 31-32 that he dwells in the deeps of the sea.  I can go further, but 41 should give you a lot of what you can learn about this creature.  By the way, according to several verses I can give you, it would seem it will dwell in the depths of the ocean until the final day of judgement, meaning it's still around.

 

The key to finding eternal life is trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save us, not Mary, the pope, or anyone else.  If any were sinless they could have died on the cross instead of God's perfect Son, but they weren't.  We also CANNOT earn our way to Heaven, if you think you can you're not trusting in Christ's payment alone to save you.  I will happily show you out of the Scriptures where any of the major Catholic doctrines are wrong.

175674[/snapback]

So are you saying that said Behemoths existed along side humans? Could it be possible that these behemoths are something different. In addition, where does the Bible talk about galaxies, planets, etc. Point me toward those scriptures. I suspect that they aren't there, but I could be wrong. If they aren't there, I am not suprised.

 

On the Catholic references: I'm not Catholic, so you don't have to convince me of anything. I was just simply pointing out the fact that they created the King James Bible and use it. So obviously they're seeing something you don't and vice versa. I don't get the praying to the saints thing myself. So you don't have to convince me.

I would say that rather the Bible is subject to misinterpretation, as is any great work of literature.  All it takes is a little willful ignorance and deaf ears to shape or suppress things according to your desires.  Just because others can misinterpret something does not mean the message is not usually crystal clear. 

 

Hmm...  since Christ was a Jew it was probably olive skin coloring, and a few years as a child in Egypt probably wouldn't have changed the skin sufficiently, but that's beside the point. 

 

I still think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "judge" but if you don't want to talk about it, as you wish.

175671[/snapback]

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 just saw your little comment on how I'm supposedly against the Bible.You are so funny and self-righteous aren't you. Show me something in the Bible that says you cannot divorce if your husband beats you and threatens your life.Better yet show me a verse that talks about the dinosaurs that lived thousands of years before man.FYI: Just becuase it wasn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't exist.In addition, did you know that the Catholic Church and King James went through scribes and scriptures (that came from Eygpt no less,) and hand picked what they thought was best to be put in the Bible?Anyway, I don't know who you think you are to tell me that I'm not a Christian, and I don't follow God's path. Only God knows what is in my heart. You are only a man, and you need to remember that.

You never did answer my question.  Why did Christ say not to judge and also not to judge righteous judgement?  There's a difference between judging within yourself concerning what's right and wrong (which Paul says to do-1 Corinthians 11:13) and judging as in condemning others, putting them down to show they're worse then you are.  I think you're missing this crucial distinction and it's what I've been trying to get you to see. 

 

You yourself admit that there is a judging within the Church to put away those not living rightly according to the Gospel yet are still failing to realize the ways in which the word "judge" is used here. 

 

And no, Catholics and Christians don't follow the same Bible, the Catholic "bible" declares a lot of dead saints who basically bribed the RCC to get their names put in, as "saints"

 

Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't make them one, it isn't about demographics.  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.  The Bible gives an example of Paul doing all in his power to have a slave freed, the Ethiopian eunuch was of African heritage obviously and one of the first Christians, the Bible never gave an excuse for slavery.  The Catholic Church has not changed their ways in condoning slavery or in allowing torture, it still supports its actions in the Inquisition, and has never apologized for them. 

 

Some of the most clearly supported facts I could give you about Hitler being backed by the Roman Catholic Church are those the RCC refuses to acknowledge, despite all the undisputable evidence.  Would any evidence I could give you ever be enough if you will simply suppress it?

175661[/snapback]

See, you can tell that to someone who's racist and a supposed Christian until you're blue in the face, but since the Bible is subject to interpretation by so many people, what you see is not necessarily what they see. People will continue to believe what they believe to be true Christianity, and you aren't going to be able to convince them differenlty, and vice versa. When you speak of the murders of Black people under the guise of Christianity, I don't care how you spin it, you can't tell tje persecutors that they're not true Christians. They don't believe that, because what they found in the Bible tells them differently. Do you catch my drift.

 

The same can be said about the Catholics and the Inquisition and the Crusades. You say those were true Catholics, but isn't it possible, that some individuals somehow misinterpreted the Bible to justify what they wanted?

 

As far as the first Christians, we don't need to get into that, because I don't think you would like what I have to say. I will tell you one thing, whether you are informed of it or not -- Jesus was Black. So, it is no suprise to me that the Bible would not condone any murdering of Black people. I was just pointing out that many so-called Christians draw different conclusions and interpret the Bible differently.

 

On the judgement issue: I think I've said all I'm going to say. I do not judge those outside the Christian Church, okay. It's that simple.

Joshua,

 

Just in case you didn't understand the Bible reference above:

 

When I read that scripture, I interepret it to mean - I, being Christian, am not to judge those outside of the Christian Church, whether they are part of another religion, or they are morally bankrupt and not part of the Christian Church.

 

If you see something else within that scripture, let me know. In my previous arguments the above is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

Anyway, you still haven't provided me with any "proof" alluding to the supposed fact that pathogens can impregnate, or can go through, intact latex condoms/gloves. Being that I'm in the scientific field, I'm truly intrigued and would like to know why researchers and medical staff alike have been able to go this long without contracting disease through intact gloves.

 

Thanks.

I don't have a religion, a religion is man trying to work His way to God.  I'm a Christian.  I follow what the Bible says, what Christ told me, and which you are clearly against.  Christ clearly says that any reason for divorce other then for fornication is committing adultery:

Umm...  you mean this???

Well, this is a very good passage for showing that we SHOULD judge people by their actions...  Are you SURE this is what you're thinking of?   

 

Because it would be highly ironic if so.  Here Paul is specifically stating that those in a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel are living in rebellion against God and as he says those that are within the Church are judged by them.  (verse 12)  The Bible in Basic English translation for verses 12 you might find easier to understand:

 

1 Corinthians 5:12 For it is no business of mine to be judging those who are outside; but it is yours to be judging those who are among you;

So you see my friend, while this passage is again vulnerable to the same critique I made earlier, of what is meant by "judging" (whether as condemnation or a simple moral evaluation) the passage clearly states that those that are within the Church are indeed to be judged in the sense that they can be not included in the Church so long as they continue living in active rebellion to Christ, unrepentant sin involving the aforementioned sins.  What you've effectively just done is led us to one of the best passages for evidence of why we SHOULD judge within the Church, and that is why I laughed

But did Henry know any consequences would follow of his choice?  Yes, strong feelings can exist, that can be simple lust, and he did end up sleeping with the woman, didn't he?  I still fail to see your point there.  *shrugs*

 

You are right that Catholocism and Christianity are drawn together, in that a lot of Christian saints have been persecuted by Catholocism as they were burned at the stake, murdered through horrible tortures during the Inquisition, turned out in the cold with their garments cut short to freeze to death, etc...  So yes, I'll grant you that, there is a connection in that the Catholic Church is more responsible for the deaths of Christians then any other institution in the world.

 

Well, good to hear you use a KJV I suppose.  *shrugs*

175581[/snapback]

You're hilarious. Did you read the same Corinthians I 5:12. In my version it states this:

 

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.  "Expel the wicked man from among you.

"

 

That and the aformentioned is what I'm was talking about. Those outside the church, whether immorally, or those following a different religion, are not to be judged, by any man, but by God himself as stated in Corinthians I, Chapter 5, verse 12. ON the same token, that verse states that we are not to deal among those who are wicked. Which is understandable.

 

As far as King Henry VIII: yes he did know that he and his country would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church if he divorced his wife. Remember that since Catholics and Christians follow the same Bible, divorce is supposed to be illegal under God. He didn't care, he wanted what his "heart" wanted.

 

As far as Catholics killing more than Christians. Are you kidding me? How many Africans/African Americans were killed in the name of Christianity (um, did you forget the trans-Atlantic slave trade, The U.S. involvement in slavery?). You really need to review some history before you get into a historical debate with me. Try in upwards of 4 billion people, murdered, tortured and enslaved in the name of Christianity. Christianity was used to explain why slavery was just. Slaves were taught the Christian faith, and that a life of slavery was what God wanted. Black people were supposedly cursed according to the Bible, which justified their enslavement -- according to Christians of the day. So called reasons to justify slavery were found in the Bible and were propagated and these ideals are still being propagated today. So don't tell me that Catholics have killed more then Christians.

 

It's funny because you still haven't told me anything remotely disproving what has already be shown to be historical facts. If you have anything else to say, please do some research first.

Thanks for the heads up. Man, I hate M$. If I wasn't so lazy, and had more time, I'd learn how to used Linux.

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

Ok,

 

I found something that alludes to the fact that the President is going to use a study conducted by the government that shows that there is no conclusive evidence that latex condoms protect against STDs. Well, duh, if not used properly, condoms will probabl,y most likely, not work.

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

What I haven't found was what you tried to say earlier: Pathogens (microorganisms) can pass through an intact latex condom/glove. Please, I am begging you, show me a study that states that. I would love to see it

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

I also wanted to add that I tend not to trust medical information from a publicly traded newspaper. Most of my medical information comes from medical and nursing journals. You cannot rely on one study for accurate medical information, because there are a lot of variables involved. If you have taken a statistics course you'll know what I mean. As far as the article, I would still like a link. In the meantime, I will be scouring the web for said information.

 

Thanks.

Christ said not to judge, He also said not to judge according to appearance but to judge righteous judgement?  Why don't you explain just what you think He meant in both cases by the word "judge"? 

 

The Bible says just lusting after someone you're not married to is adultery.  I don't get what your Catholic reference meant, I thought we were talking about Christianity here...

 

Ultimately it comes down to whether you obey God or your own judgement I guess.  You yourself say that by your own judgement you think God should have added another "deal breaker," but as the Bible says, let God be true, and every man a liar.

175362[/snapback]

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth. Never did I say, God should have added another deal breaker. I said, I wouldn't stay married if my husband put my life in danger. Sorry if that goes against "your" religion. You, as an individual, are free to interpret the Bible how you want. I know in my heart that God wouldn't want me to let my husband beat on me or threaten my life (i.e. Marcus Wesson who killed his nine children in Fresno, California). If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you will be judged when the day comes.

 

As far as judgement goes, I read in Corinthians, that we are not to judge people by their actions. If they are not leading a righteous path, we are to disassociate ourselves from them. I found this after have a so called "theological" debate with an individual who had a Masters in Theology, who could not show me any passage in the Bible that said we are allowed to judge others. After he was trying to draw his own conclusions from various "metaphors" he chose from the Bible, I was led to a passage that clearly stated that we are not to judge (which just so happened to be in the same area as a passage he was showing me). If I find the scripture, I will definitely post it so that you can read it for yourself.

 

As far as the Catholic reference, I was only pointing to the fact that strong feelings can exist for someone even if you're not sleeping with them. King Henry VIII had such strong feelings for someone he had never slept with, that he had his whole country excommunicated for the Catholic Church. You really need to read my post thoroughly before you post that you do not understand. So your reference to Christianity vs Catholisism is really off topic with the conversation at hand. But even if I was to address this newly proposed topic, I'm really shocked that you can't draw a simple parallel between Christianity and Catholisism. They are historically tied to each other. You need to do a little research. For goodness sake, we use the same Bible. Or you didn't know that either?

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

The reason why condoms don't stop HPV, is because The HPV virus creates warts, therefore if you have HPV on let's say your scrotum, you can definitely pass it on from skin to skin contact. Only the penis is protected, the scrotum however is not. When in the hospital, though, I would definitely use latex gloves when dealing with any patient that had HPV, and that would protect my skin from contracting it. Do you understand the correlation? Skin-to-Skin contact versus blood-born/bodily fluid pathogens. They are two different modes of infection. So you are definitely correct, you can still easily contract HPV if you use a condom, only because the mode of infection is through skin-to-skin contact as well as blood born. If you have any more questions or are confused about something, don't hesitate to drop me a line. I would be more than happy to explain it to you.

 

As for the article that you saw, please post the article when you find it, including the source.

 

Thanks.

I am thinking of dumping the girlfriend I have now. Not really for anyone but because we just never get to see each other anymore. We're both busy and it turns out when one of us is free the other is busy. Oh, I just found out this Eric dude lives in like Conneticut, so no worried I guess. I think I'll go for the ignore her and play hard to get kind of thing. My friend Ryan told me to do that. I didn't talk to her for like a month, then she talks to me and asked why I never say "hi" to her anymore. So I started talking again. Now I think I'm giving too much attention. Maybe I'll just go for a little bit of conversation every couple of days. I don't know. I'm busy with football so it'll prolly work out anyways.

175384[/snapback]

Well do your thing. I always found that it's so much easier to play hard to get when you really don't care about the person. But it turns out that you have to do it sometimes when you do really care , because otherwise they'll take you for granted and walk all over you because you let them. It works both ways. As far as she is concerned, you can see her almost as much as you want, just so long as she knows that she's not the only one. If she knows that she doesn't have you exclusively, the hard to get thing will still work. Also, if she says something like, "how come we don't hang out?" or something lame like that, just say you've been busy, and act nonchalant. Soon she'll be practically throwing herself at the "New and improved" you. Just act confident and act like your sh!t don't stink. For some reason this stuff works. It worked on me, and it worked on the guys I tried that stuff with before I got married.

 

Make sure you post updates

Breakups are only hard when you really love someone, and I'm not talking about puppy love. You you like someone, it's not difficult at all. Before I met my husband, breaking up with someone, or even excommunicating someone from my life was extremely easy. You can call me a b-tch, but it was very easy. I may have felt sorry for the person for a couple of days, but then I went on carefree.After I broke up with my now husband when we were dating, I was very depressed. I was so in love, and had a huge void to fill. I had no idea what to do with myself. Needless to say we're married now, and we never take each other for granted now. I know now, that the only time you really care is when you're in love.

Ya, Kati knows I have a girlfriend. I got her right after we broke up. A little bit of it was to make her jealous. Damn, I seem to be worse and worse of a person everyday. Anyways, I think I'm attracted to her because I know I can't get her. Apparantly she wants this guy named Eric all of a sudden, and she's under the impression that everyone that shows an interest in her is trying to use her. Ah, I am so confused with her. I think that's another one of the reasons why I like her though. She's unpredictable. I can't figure her out. It seems like their will always be something new and exciting with her, but I don't know.

175109[/snapback]

Well like I said before, if you choose to go that route with your ex-girlfriend, don't let her know that you're eager to get back with her. Act like it's no big deal. Once she sees that you're not falling all over her, she'll be attracted to you more. Think about it. How do you feel about her when she's playing all these mind games and sending pictures of her boobs, all the while telling you she's interested in some other guy. You are goo goo ga ga over her. So it's now time to flip the script. Don't let her know your interested. If you go out, don't call her right away, wait for her to call you. Act like your a major stud and keep on steppin. Date other girls and don't hide the fact that other girls are interested in you. That will send her over the edge of trying to hook you and reel you in.

 

I don't know why any of the stuff above works, but it does. In a way were like animals and very territorial. We compete for mates like animals, and don't like to share. I think this is innate in all of us. Once you start acting uninterested, you just become more interesting to the other party.

 

I guarantee it will either work, or during the process, you'll finally see her for what she is and get over her.

 

Hope whatever your choice is works out for you. As far as your other girlfriend -- I know it's not my business, but I feel that she has the right to know that you're not that interested in her so she knows where she stands. Cause it's kind of like you're playing the same games with her that your ex-girlfriend is playing with you. So just remember: "What goes around, comes around. Times 3."

 

Good luck

The question is: Does she know you have a new girlfriend?If she does, she could just have a little bit of the "That-will-always-be-my-man" syndrome. I don't know if it's because we are all just animals with an innate sense of possessiveness or what. But most people don't want to see their former significant other move on with another girl/guy. It's wierd. It's like we're attracted more to someone that's playing hard to get (at least it's like that for women). Although I find that a man reacts similarly. As far as dumping your new girlfriend for her: I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. Your old girlfriend is probably playing mind games with you. But when you really think about it, that time before you become really serious about a person, is just a big game. So it really depends on what you want. If you want your old girlfriend back, you cannot let her know that you are interested, or desperate, as she will just use you up and spit you back out. You will need to seem somewhat unattainable, until you can trust that she is eating out of your palm. Otherwise you'll just get hurt. If you feel that you don't want to waste your time with her, move on and be happy with your choice.Good luck

When sex involves 2 or more partners how can it be safe?  I read about how the latex gloves that are basically the same material condoms are made of can't keep the STD germs or whatever from going through them.  They can go right through gloves and the safest way is simply abstinence before marriage (and it needs 2 people to work). 

 

Anyway, it seems like that's a common misconception that using a condom makes it safe....  Any thoughts?

174923[/snapback]

Ok, I think you should stop relaying false information. If latex gloves can't keep STDs from going through them, I believe that doctors and nurses would stop working. I'm a new graduate RN, so I think I know a little bit about Universal Precautions and the use of latex gloves when dealing with bodily fluids. You can rest assured that if we healthcare workers were being easily exposed even after putting on latex gloves, or synthetic ones, we would probably stop working, and all patients in the hospitals would be at risk of contracting, HIV, HPV, or any other STIs, ok.

 

If you want to start spreading rumors about that, maybe you should tell everyone the safest thing is to not end up in the hospital, because all the nurses/doctors/healthcare workers will have been exposed to STIs, and will expose you too.

 

I think you should really start reading some medical/health journals before you decide to comment on stuff like this. Just a thought.

 

(STIs: sexually transmitted infections - the new "correct" verbage)

While I accept the Bible as an authority and know it doesn't equate "partner" with "spouse" the simple fact of the matter is that "partners" do not have the bond to each other which marriage brings, which is why I'm surprised that they should expect any kind of devotion or commitment from the other person to them.

 

Personally I think it's precisely the sex factor that makes jealousy and the possession factor so heightened.  The Bible says that through marriage a man and woman become one flesh, I think nonmarital sex creates something of the same effect but without the bond to each other.  Thus the other person feels that a part of them is being used but without the bond the other person is not obliged to act as such. 

 

Emotional "cheating" can still happen but I highly doubt most people will be as jealous, if jealous at all, if they're assured the other person is not sexually involved with anyone else.

 

You're other argument, that it's ok because the other person will probably do it is not an argument at all in my mind.  It's like attacking another country because they "might" attack you.  Doing evil is never right irregardless of what good may come out of it, the Bible makes that plain in Romans 3:8. 

 

With your final paragraph, what if one wants to split up and the other doesn't?  The Bible says divorcing is always wrong unless the other person was sexually unfaithful (fornication).  You see, marriage means the two became one, and the Bible says that what God therefore has joined together, let noone break apart.  Sexual activity for any reason other then divorce because of the other person's unfaithfulness is impinging on something that belongs to the other person-you. 

 

That's what God intended marriage to be, a sacred bond where both people belong to each other, and what should make it so intimate.  Disagree with me if you like, but I strongly believe that doing so is defiling something that belongs to the other person, no matter what some man-based court may say.

174468[/snapback]

See, I think you are trying to get into a theological debate. I never said that those things are not the values that I hold true to myself. I, myself, am Christian, thereforer, much of what you are saying -- I agree with. But I'm also realistic, I know that there are other people that do not follow the Christian faith. All of what you are saying will be null and void, as far as they are concerned.

 

And being that I am Christian, and therefore not allowed to judge others, I do not pass judgement on other people because they have pre-marital sex. That is their choice, and has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.

 

As far as the jealousy thing: I do know for a fact that just because you aren't sleeping with someone, does not eliminate the jealousy factor. So does the bible say that you cannot kiss? I know if I wasn't married and I was in a committed relationship with someone, and all we did was kiss, I would feel betrayed if I saw him kissing someone else. That's just the way it is. You can still have very strong feelings for someone even if you're not sleeping with someone. For example, King Henry VIII, divorced his first wife, and got ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, just so that he could marry Anne Boelyn, who he never got to have sex with until their wedding night.

 

And as far as divorce goes, much of those "rules" that you are speaking of are being taken out of context in today's world. So are you saying that just so long as a man doesn't fornicate, a couple has to stay married? So he can beat her then, is that what you're telling me? There are plenty of women that would beg to differ. Violence in marriage is definitely another deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. And if you want to tell me that I'm not Christian if I would leave my husband if he ever laid a hand on me, I'd ask you one simple question, "Who are you to judge me? God?" I think not. I refuse to let a violent marriage into my life, and would leave in a heart beat. No one should let another person endanger their life, even if they are married to him/her!

Ok,does anyone know how to upload a SQL database (on your hard drive) to your website with phpadmin?I want to try some oscommerce mods, but they require that I upload databases. How do I do that?Thanks

nevermind. I just figured it out in the cpanel. I feel really stupid now (hee hee)

Ok, I feel like a bonehead, but for some reason I can't access my databases with what I thought was my password. How do I access/edit/upload new databases. Where am I supposed to go, and do I use the same password I use for ftp.Tried using the control panel, and MySQLadmin (which would not take my password)Please help.Thanks.

I use a combination of two. SmartFTP is really good and free for individual use. I also use the FTP client inside PHP designer, which I just recently discovered. It's fast, and I like it. It's also free, for individual use or otherwise.

Wouldn't this all be a lot less complicated if people just didn't have sex before marriage? 

 

I notice the use of the word "partner", since when did this become a synonym for "spouse"?

174169[/snapback]

Well, as far as I'm concerned "partner" is synonymous with "spouse" to some individuals. It is not my place for me to tell them any different. In addition, I don't believe it would be any less complicated if people just didn't have sex before marriage, because you can emotionally cheat on someone. The jealousy and possession factor will still remain. Someone will still get hurt.

 

In the same token, not everyone will become androids and keep to this fantasy rule "No sex before marriage." You can bet that while someone is staying true to this rule, the other person can still very well cheat on them and have sex with someone else. Then where does that leave the other person? Will it still be any less complicated for them, because they never had sex? That would be a big "NO."

 

So, with that said, people are going to be people, and will continue to act like they lost their mind. I just know that my husband better not ever cheat on me. We have an understanding. If you want to go be with someone else, it's time to split up, period. Just let the other person know it's over, before you go disrespect the relationship like that. That way, respect will still be kept for the other person.

So what're you guys looking at these days?

 

KDE - I've concidered switching to it because there is some software that I kinda like that was written for it.

 

GNOME - Uses less resources i think, more streamline simpler, the way linux was ment to be.  (I try to stay away from the really "fancy" distros like mandrake, etc.) just more things to go wrong i think...

174334[/snapback]

I use Windows now, but if I used linux, I'd go with KDE, cause they have alot of software that's integrated with it. It seems more user friendly. GNOME is clean, but KDE seems to have a lot of Window conversions.

 

That's just my two cents.

Does anybody in this thread use oscommerce? If so, can you tell me where to find really good modules, besides the oscommerce contributions page. More specifically, I'm looking for an shipping module for USPS optional insurance. Also any leads on where I can find free templates would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Does anybody know where I can find an shipping or total order module for optional USPS insurance. I found one for UPS, but it only allows fixed increments, and the USPS fee schedule for insurance is really off ($1.30 for the first 50 dollars, $2.20 for the next 50, than it goes up a dollar for each 100 dollars after that). It doesn't quite fit with a scheme of picking an incremental amount for each 100 dollars, which is what is only allowed in the module that I found.

 

Would really appreciate any help.

 

Thanks