dcshaw.en

Stranger in a Strange Land is supposedly a really good book. (One which I've wanted to read for a while; no copy of it within access though) From what I remember reading about it, Stranger in a Strange Land is about a man who's born on another planet (Mars, I believe) and raised by aliens. In his adulthood, the man is retrieved by astronauts and returned to Earth. I don't remember much else about what the book is about, I don't really want to say much else anyway, lest I accidentally say a bit too much and give away vital parts of the story. This thread, however, has moderately inspired me to go work on my own science fiction story again, that I've been horribly neglecting for the last like... Five, six years.

I was just getting ready to type a reply to this thread... When I realized I'd already replied to it a couple months ago. So I'm not really going to repeat anything I've said. (That's a lie, but it'll be quick) It does make me a little sad though that there are still people in this thread that just say "KILL THEM!" Think your answers through, people. Reply with logic, not your stupid spite. And if you do happen to lean towards the side of the argument in favor of the death penalty, at least back yourself up with some reason. From what I've read here Pretty much no one who was in favor of the death penalty for rapists actually gave a decent post. Yet, Essentially everyone who opposes it took the time to explain* themselves. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in a little update. However, when I'd posted originally, there wasn't really anyone who was looking at the topic subjectively and without a degree of bias. Now that I've come back and looked at it again, Since my last post, there have actually been some good replies. Kudos.

I'll be honestI didn't actually even know a Firefox 3 was out in Beta yet XDIt seems like just yesterday Firefox 2 was in Beta D:AnywayI downloaded it as soon as I read this thread here,I haven't really gone through using it much yet though,mostly because I'm too lazy to transfer all my bookmarks over.AnywayI'll look at it a bit more in a little while,So I'll expand on this post after I go through it a bit and make a formal opinion(If I remember)

I was interested in this topic more when I first started reading the thread...When I saw it was posted in 2006 however, anything I could have had for a real constructive response pretty much went down the drain with that.AnywayDoes anyone know if this was resolved?I can't imagine after over a year, Microsoft would still be reporting false positives.Wait, sorry, I kind of mistook Microsoft for a competent company.But with all insulting wise-cracks aside; anyone know what came of this?

I don't really know what to say about it.To be honest, I can't think of much that I liked.No offense.I'm not going to talk about the content/purpose of the website at all,Because that stuff is all subjective.Well, more subjective than the rest.Anyway,the whole site just has a VERY late 90's feel to it.Hell,That's the kind of site I was making back in Grade 5 when I spent all day on Neopets.In fact, I think the navigation menu and the banner at the top of the page were taken from pre-made sources that I used to USE on Neopets stuff.Also, the background doesn't help.It just doesn't seem to be in the standardly accepted style anymore to have a background -image- directly behind the content.Maybe if the body image was behind a Div or even a table, but not directly behind the text.Also,I'd consider breaking the index up into more pages.And taking away the centered everything.It makes it look really tacky... And as I said before, like a personal website site from the late 90's.Sorry I couldn't say anything better :/I actually came into this wanting to say something positive xD

Fly fishing is honestly something that I've always wanted to look into learning how to do.With any luck, maybe this year will be the year.The only reason why I can't really learn RIGHT now is because I'm not at all equipped to go fly fishing in any manner.I have no rod and no lures and... Certainly no one to teach me how to fly fish.Perhaps most importantly, I have no where within my traveling distance that I can actually go.But I've wanted to learn for years now, so maybe I'll make a better attempt at it this year.I need to get a job anyway, so I might be able to afford to buy myself a fishing rod.And I'm sure I can figure out how to fly fish on my own. With or without the aid of the internet (Internet is good for anything, after all)And......I might be able to convince someone (Like my cousin, who has a car) to take me to a place where I can actually fly fish.

HahaI love when people with glasses fall into the stereotypical mindset of hating them XDbut honestly,I don't have glasses.I know I need themAnd I'd love them.I really can't wait to get myself a pair of glasses.I've wanted them pretty much my entire life,And as soon as I noticed my vision was starting to go, I got really happy.The only problem is, I think, that my mother is lazy and we can't really afford glasses or anything right now.So it'll probably be a little while before I actually get to have myself a pair of glasses. >:

Badminton is probably one of my very favourite sports.I haven't played it in a couple years now, but that's just because we never touch it in school anymore and I don't really know anyone that I can play it with anywhere else.Regardless,I'm pretty much completely arrogant about my badminton skills...I consider myself relatively unstoppable at it.SoYeah.Whatever,Badminton is a good sport and I think I'm going to try to play it more this summer.

First off,I'd like to say that two cans of pop a day is really not enough for anyone to really consider it in the range of being addicted to it.There isn't enough caffeine in pop for it to actually get that much of a hold on you from two cans a day.I used to drink two litres of pop per day and I never really got addicted to it.I know everyone reacts different0ly to addictive substances, but I'm just saying that two cans isn't a lot when in reference to pop.Caffeine in coffee though, is a different story.I was addicted to coffee before,more than once, really.I would get really bad headaches if I didn't have coffee for more than a day or so.But I just kind of ignored it and it went away; no need to give in and drink more.But I'd just end up drinking more coffee again a few days/a week or so later after the headaches have worn themselves off and then it starts the whole process all over again.But whatever.My point is that ...Kay, I never really had a point.Just felt like sharing a story of experience.

I like Milk.To be honest, I should probably be drinking a lot more of it than I do.The only real reason I don't drink more of it is because I spend pretty much all of my time in the basement and I generally take to not drinking anything that needs to be stored in a fridge.It's really too much of hassle for me to go all the way upstairs to get a glass of milk, as opposed to sitting here and drinking iced tea or water or something that I don't need to worry about it like... Dying on me if it's left out of a fridge for more than an hour.I do try to get a drink or two of milk in every day though.My bones need it.

I feel almost obligated to post something here that isn't related to the proper pronunciation of 'Schwarzschild'. Wormholes are a funny thing (For lack of a better term to start this post off) I've looked into them a bit a few months ago. I'd be interested in looking at the roots of the theories. Like, equations for the theoretical existence of wormholes. Wikipedia (And other sources, I suppose), often make references to 'solutions' made by Physicists about the plausibility of wormholes; traversable or otherwise. But I would like to see some of these actual solutions. I could probably find them, I haven't exactly made much effort in that direction yet. Maybe I'll go see if I can track one down after I'm done writing this post. With little knowledge on the subject, what I'd like to think is that a wormhole kind of acts in a higher dimension to allow traversing around space. For example: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ (The above image was taken from Wikipedia) The image is described as "Analogy to a wormhole in a curved 2D space" If you take the plane labeled as "Space outside Wormhole" and imagine it as a 2D plane (I chose this image for simplicity, I apologize if the explanation seems poorly worded, I'm being a bit distracted while writing this past) The wormhole would be a route taken through a 3 dimensional path to reach another area on a 2 dimensional area. If you don't take Time as a Fourth Dimension in our universe, then perhaps the method behind a wormhole would be a path through the fourth dimension to travel around a large portion of the 3D universe. Again, this may require for Time to not be the fourth Dimension. However, if you do take Time as the fourth dimension, this theory could still work, but you would have far less control over where you ended up (Or When you ended up). Because the universe is constantly moving, and galaxies, planets and solar systems are all rotating, orbiting and moving. If a wormhole was imagined that traversed purely through the Time plane, you could go in one end on Earth, and when you came out you could be in another time you could be on the opposite side of the universe. Let me provide an analogy (Albeit a poor one), because I'm aware that my explanation is lacking in certain linguistic fluency. You are standing on top of a quickly moving train as it goes into a tunnel. You, however are not smart, so you jump up as the train goes into the tunnel. You do not go into that tunnel. Instead you find yourself embedded (And likely dead) in the entrance to that tunnel. After a few seconds your body falls and lands several cars behind where you jumped from. This is how a Time related wormhole could work. It could suspend, or alter the position of Time (Not space), so that when you exited the wormhole your planet and solar system, maybe even galaxy would have continued moving on without you. Like jumping on a moving train. Even going back in Time, you could end up several billion light years ahead of the path of your solar system. Because really, I'm sure we haven't seen enough of the universe yet to really understand how it moves. Our planets, rotating around our Sun, to make our Solar System. Are probably (This may have been proven, I really don't know, so I will form all of these sentences as possibilities) orbiting around a central point of our galaxy. It's believed that there is a super massive Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way; we could be orbiting around that. Hell, our Galaxy is probably orbiting in a group with other galaxies around a central point far away. And this could continue on for potentially hundreds of steps. With the possibilities in mind, we could be moving much faster than we believe we are. We don't fully understand the behavior of Light yet. We could be moving close to, or even faster than, the speed of light as it is. If you came out of a Time related wormhole, you could be much further away than one would initially believe. Anyway, I've started to ramble too much. And I admit that I don't know as much as I should about the subject I'm touching on to be making my own theories about it; especially not enough to begin making my theories public.

I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing with anything, I just want to clarify some comments. I didn't mean for anything in my first post to appear hostile in any manner, whether or not I was successful in that attempt is probably a matter of opinion, I apologize if I came across as hostile. I also, really, haven't had any bad experiences related to relationships or such, not recently anyway. And I happen to be in a good, healthy relationship right now. My only issue is generalizations which I have a strong distaste for. Also, I'm aware I forgot to mention it as a sort of Disclaimer in my previous post; I meant to add in that I am aware that for the most part, a large portion of men, women, and relationships do fall into the categories he put out. In fact, it's probably upwards of 80%+ of them, my biggest issue with that was the wording of his post. Which may or may not have been intended as a generalization, but could be construed as one. I felt I should toss that in now. Which is the main reason why I try to go an extra step and explain every separate point/opinion that I lay out. I don't want people to be able to mistake what I say for something else. I feel it better for myself to eliminate any irrelevant arguments against my post without having to wait for them to be brought up. Also: I suppose you may be right on some count, I do feel unfairly characterized by 'someone spouting off about this social interaction psycho-babble' frequently. I just have a thing against generalizations. And maybe a bit against amateur theories that aren't verbalized with any attempt at sounding professional. And I do apologize for my use of the word 'amateur', I mean no offense by it. I meant it in its fundamental definition, something along the lines of "Not professional' or 'For pleasure, not payment'.

Volleyball.It took me like 5 minutes to even remember it was a sport.But it has to be my least favourite one.And there are only two very simple contributions to this.A ) I hate watching all sports, so entertainment due to witnessing is clearly out of the question.B ) I hate playing Volleyball, and suck at it to boot.I could be decent at any sportHockey, soccer, baseball, basketball, so they're all pretty much on even grounds.

I disagree with so much of that post (The original one). No intent to be hostile in any of this, just stating my opinion. The first, and most dominant part of what I need to point out, is that the first post took, not only the entire male gender, not even only the entire female gender, but both genders AND every heterosexual relationship and generalized all three under one blanket. Fact is, not all men want to have purpose, not all women just want "togetherness" out of a relationship/not want purpose (Was implied by your post), and not all relationships focus on "Just agree with her and tell her what she wants to know" (Paraphrased). I'm going to tackle those three points backwards. First Point : Not all relationships focus on "Just agree with her and tell her what she wants to know" Personally, the "Just tell her what she wants to hear" part is something I would never do. Honestly... I'm going to be honest to anyone who I'm with. If I think they did something stupid, or if I simply don't think they are right about something, I'll tell them. I see no reason not to. I'd want them to do the same for me. Empty compliments and cooperation doesn't entirely appeal to me. Second point : Not all women just want "Togetherness" out of a relationship/not want purpose (Implied) There are plenty of women out there who want a purpose, just like you claim all men want. Those women will hear a problem and immediately try to fix it. "Your boyfriend is cheating on you? Dump his *bottom*" (<-- I don't even have to hit Submit to know that word's censored) Granted, that may have not been -the- best example for me to use, because I'm sure most of the time, if a female went to one of her female friends and confessed that her boyfriend was cheating on her, the girl would probably be looking for someone to tell her to leave him. But that could be the same as anyone; People have problems that have obvious solutions, but they are reluctant to decide what to do on their own because the solution may not be pleasant, so they confide their problem to someone because they know they will encourage them to take the reluctant solution. This is true of both genders, by the way, and should not be limited to any group of people. I apologize if they above paragraph doesn't make much sense, my vocabulary shot itself a little and crapped out before I finished. Last Point : Not all men need to have a purpose Just to use myself as an example: How many times do you think I've really been hanging around doing nothing and thought, "God... I wish I had something constructive to do."? Now, I know you don't know me at all, but I can tell you... Almost never. I'm fine without a purpose, it doesn't bother me. While I can function fine if I do have a purpose, I know how to delegate my ambitions between constructive purposes and useless purposes. Constructive Purposes are those that are shared between every (Most reasonable) person/people, the basic fundamental desires that everyone (Again... Most people) have. For example : Finishing school, decent education, a job you don't want to kill yourself with, not being homeless, that kind of thing. Back to one of my original statements, I won't candy coat my opinion for anyone, not a stranger, a friend, or a girlfriend. I will also not hold back an opinion unless I know that it would be detrimental to verbalize it. It's just the same basic respect I would want out of anyone else. And yes, I do consider that respect.

It's hard to do really go forward in this direction, really...I know, myself, I generally type with proper grammar pretty much naturally. It takes more effort for me to make the effort to leave out capitols, apostrophes, commas, periods, etc. than it does for me to just type them in.The problem with people who just genuinely don't have enough skills or knowledge for the English language to construct a proper post, is that, I personally at least, feel like a jerk if I sit there and correct every grammatical mistake they make, even if I'm doing it to try to help them in the future and not just trying to be a *BLEEP*.I also realize that warning them for lacking linguistic skills in English is unfair, because it can hardly be considered their fault if English is not their first language, they were never properly taught English, or for some reason are incapable of grasping grammar well.However, I do believe that it's painfully obvious when a person isn't even trying.An entire post written with 'u', 'r', 'i', 'b', '2', and others is an example of this.And even if, let's say hypothetically, that a person is learning English as a second language and their main source of information is from reading it on the internet, and text-speak is what they are accustomed to seeing, I do think there is a limit on what is acceptable. As much as I hate to blame a person for something that isn't their fault, or they aren't doing intentionally (Because I do believe it's frivolous to hold someone responsible for something they weren't aware they were doing wrong or had no way to prevent), I think that there's a certain line that people shouldn't let themselves cross.If you're learning English, you're best off learning to use it properly, for a variety of reasons.I'm no expert at people who have other native languages, but I'm sure it's easy for them to tell when they are typing something that is heavy text-speak.No reasonable person (I apologize for generalization) would logically think that 'u', 'r', 'i', 'b' and '2' could all be the proper words for their respective counterparts; especially '2'.I know a lot of times, my grammar isn't perfect. But at the same time, I don't really expect it to be.I've adapted to my own style of typing grammar, that relies heavily on aesthetics and punctuation.The spacing and punctuation of my posts are heavily reflective on how I would speak the words naturally, it's mostly line breaks, commas, and semi-colons.There are times I also tend to use an unhealthy amount of ellipsis's.PS-Edit (I'm still trying to get used to the censorships on this board, it seems.)

WowI have to admitThis pretty much gets the award for Most Awesome Thing I've Heard Today.Which is an accomplishment, because I spent an hour listening to my Physics Teacher explaining the Duality of Light to the class.And I love the Duality of Light talk.Anyway, awesome story.

I'm sticking with Dreamweaver.I've been using it for a while now, and I like it.Which is a switch for me, because I'm not used to using any editor at all.Before Dreamweaver I just hung out and coded everything right into Notepad.And I still enjoy doing it that way.One of the reasons I switched over to Dreamweaver was because when I was coding I'd end up with like 35 Notepad windows open, in addition to web browsers and anything else I was using.Dreamweaver really cleared up my taskbar, for one.Plus, the interface is nice and lets me code a bit faster, what with not having to type in every element to a code, since Dreamweaver essentially knows what I'm doing.I still kind of miss the hands on approach of throwing *BLEEP* around with Notepad, but Dreamweaver, to me, isn't that far off.I only really use the editor anyway, nothing else.

I have no idea what kind of mobile phone I have.I know the service provider and I know it makes calls.I know it doesn't have a camera.That's all I really need or want to know about it.I've made my opinion on cellphones clear around this forum before (I'm pretty sure, at least)So I'm not going to go into any more of it than that.

I really hate these topics.No offense, but I think they're stupid.The first problem with itYou're throwing every single child on the planet under one big blanket of when they should be able to have a cellphone, which is just not something that most people consider acceptable nowadays.To further on with this point, well, to explain it at least:Some kids mature faster than others.Some kids are just naturally responsible with benefits.Some kids don't give a rat's *bottom* about cellphones and wouldn't bother abusing it if they had one.Not to mention that the majority of cell phone plans around now offer some form of unlimited talk/text time.So it's not like they'd even be wasting money.I'll be honest, I've never sent a text message via a phone in my life. I think it's pointless for any form of casual talk.If there was a specific purpose, that would be a completely different story.But as it is, few people actually use text messages for anything more important than being bored in class and wanting to try to get away with breaking the rules.Alsoby trying to decide on an age where kids should be able to get cellphones is not really doing anything but limitting the control a parent has over their own child.If you're a parent and don't think teenagers should have cellphones, great, don't give them one.If you're a parent and don't care, let them have one.It doesn't really effect anyone except the child and parent in question.No, let me correct myself,The only other parents it effects are the ones who have no backbone and put up with their kids whining and moaning because they're the only one of their friends without a cellphone.And if that is really a reason to try and limit other's abilities to let their child have a cellphone if they think the kid deserves it, then there are other problems involved in that Parent-Child relationship that I won't even begin to dwell into here.Bottom line is (in my opinion):Leave it up to the parent's if they want to pay for their teenager's phone.If the teenager can pay for their own phone or the parent volunteers to pay/help pay, there's no reason they shouldn't have it.

UhhD is my first initialC is my middle InitialShaw is my last nameAnd En is short for EnRohbiWhich is a whole other story which goes back many years when I first thought of the name.The end result, though, is that EnRohbi is simply a name. It has no real meaning, it's just a name I thought of, though perhaps a bit abnormal.I've told the story before, and it really isn't that interesting.Nothing worth repeating.

I find this... So... Stupid... It actually makes me sad to see these "KILL THE RAPIST" posts. Honestly, try just for a moment, to come at this with a legal viewpoint and not a moral issue. (Since really... When a topic is about a criminal punishment for a criminal offense... It deserves a response formed with some legal logic. Or at least a well thought out opinion that doesn't look absolutely obsurd with no supporting arguments.) First off, let me clarify, I'm all for capital punishment for heinous crimes. Serial killers, serious threats to national security, etc. I feel no remorse for their death. Rapists, they don't fit into that list of heinous crimes that deserve death. First off; rape is probably one of the vaguest terms in legal history. Sure, on the surface it's pretty much just "forcing another person into sexual intercourse without consent" (Paraphrased), but there are probably about 2,000 different ways you could rape someone, and 95% of those ways aren't violent, brutal scenarios. And not to belittle the crime, but rape via drugging a person unconscious (Or even taking advantage of someone who's drunk) is very, very different from snatching a 14 year old girl off the street, and beating her into submission in and abandonned wearhouse, then leaving her there with no clothes or protection when you're done. The latter is definitely much more traumatic for most people. A person might feel extremely violated if they were raped in their sleep, but that can't be anything to be raped while conscious and being beaten into submission. To further my opinion: I don't believe that even the latter deserves death. Most rape victims (Forgive me for generalizing, but I know there is a large, large portion of rape victims who fit this statement) will not be tramautized by the incident for the rest of their life. Sure, a portion of them will be forever scarred and never trust the opposite sex again (Or strangers, whatever the case may be), but they are not the entire rape victim population. And why should a person lose their life for raping someone who could be over it in a year? Or less? Death it permanent. Hell, you have no idea what kind of punishment death really is. You don't know what happens to a person after they lose their life. Taking it away is something that should be reserved only for those people who have no hope of reform. Rapists have hope of reform. I know I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and no one should ever put up a defense for rapists But listenning to people screaming "CASTRATE THEM! TORTURE THEM! KILL THEM!" (Perhaps a bit exaggerated) is probably one of the sadder things I've read in a while. I don't think I have any points of my opinion left to make that wouldn't be redundant. So I'll end it at that. Just please, in these topics in the future, try to give a well thought out response that actually looks at the situation and isn't absolutely drenched in heavy personal bias.

Yeah, I actually saw a report on that on TV a few hours ago.I was barely paying attention and caught the words "150" ... television" and thought "Holy %$@#!"Then I started paying attention to the TV, although by the time I'd looked over it was all shots of the Television alone, which makes it hard to get an appreciation for the actual size of when viewed on a 19" television.But when I saw the pictures in the link of the author's postWhere a person is standing beside the Television...-That's- where a true appreciation for the size can come from.

Okay, I'm just going to go through one of my many theories on the subject.YesI fully believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe.As I'm sure was mentioned many times in this thread, if you take in the sheer size of the universe, and take in the massive, massive amounts of rock bodies and planets, all with slightly different compositions... There has to be life on other planets.Didn't scientists find a planet last year or the year before that they thought had an atmosphere similar to Earth's, or they thought humans might be able to survive in?I mean, that has nothing to do with my theory, but if my memory serves me correctly, that there proves that Earth isn't all that unique. And neither is life.However, I try my hardest not to share the same arrogance that most of the human race does when they theorize on this subject.And I apologize for the use of the word arrogance, but it's what I see it as. I don't see this as a negative use of the term though.I don't see why, if there is other life in the universe, that it would be civilized in any way such as humans.Think about itThere are thousands, maybe millions, of different kinds of life on Earth alone... And only one species managed to civilize themselves, and managed to make the (what has to be) one in a million chance pass over into starting to evolve into discovering things like technology.While I wouldn't be surprised if there were species on other planets that, say, had technology similar to prehistoric man, or even with a language. I just don't see it likely that there are other life forms in the universe hanging out behind the computer.I don't see any reason why an alternate life form, billions of light years away, would follow the same path in evolution that humans have found.---On a slightly more pessimistic note:If there are other life forms out there, I don't think it will ever be revealed to us.As much as I hate to put limits on possibilities,traveling at a speed above the speed of light doesn't seem much like a possibility. None the less, several million times the speed of light.Which is what would be required to travel to one of these distant stars, that are billions of light years away, in any amount of time comparable to the human life span.So something tells me our universe is going to end up like North America and Europe before the 13th century (14th? 15th? Whenever Columbus sailed his *bottom* over and said "hey, there's inhabited land here").There's life out there, life living,But we just won't know about it.And just to add to the first part of my post, because I realized something as I made the Columbus analogy,When Columbus did, indeed, sail across to North America, it was revealed that Europe and Asia's technology was vastly superior to that of the "New World"'s people. In fact, I'm near positive that European explorers referred to the First Nations people as 'Primitives' or 'Savages'.Finding life on other planets would probably be moderately similar to this.It could be there,And it could be living perfectly adequately for itself,But it won't be living like us.

*Shrugs* Bare in mind, I can't exactly speak in any certainty (But I'm sure you know that). While the fact you hate her boyfriend for seemingly unrelated reasons definitely speaks better for you than hating him because he's with the girl you have feelings for. But I still can't imagine that she really wants to create undue tension between one of her friends and her boyfriend. Which is what would, or at least she might fear would, happen if you and her boyfriend co mingled too often. Point is; When or why you started to hate the guy may very well be insignificant, the fact is that you do hate him. And that is very likely to put some stress on her or make her uncomfortable when she's around both of you at the same time. Or even when she's just around you. I mean, I don't know how much you bring it up with her, but if you make a habit of frequent conversations with her about your feelings towards her and her boyfriend, it doesn't take long before she's simply just tired of hearing about it and might start avoiding you altogether to get away from it. Also; sometimes it's just the simply, inconvenient fact that schedules make it difficult to spend time with their friends. One of my best friends, who I've known since I was in grade Three, I only get to see in one of my classes now. There are actually a lot of people I know like that now. It's just the way things turn out as you get older, and start to get more responsibilities and demands on your time. Anything I said in terms of advice or instructions in my previous post still stands. This post is mostly meant to clear up any uncertainties about what I meant.

Blunt opinions coming.First thing's firstNo matter what you say, what she says, or what your perception of the situation may beIs not reliable in any form.You say you haven't hung out with her since early DecemberConsider this may be because you've made her uncomfortable with how you feel about her and her boyfriend.You can't expect to tell her that you -hate- someone she cares deeply for and that you want her all to yourself instead of letting her be happy (Whether you said those words exactly or not; it's likely something she got out of it), and have her still be your best friend and wanting to hang around with you.So I'm prone to agree with her here;Either get over it and salvage a friendship,or if you see it worth itPretend you've gotten over it and hide your feelings and anguish(I know the latter isn't the greatest option; but if your friendship means much to you, it seems like a likely solution)Either way,Bringing the subject up with her all the timeActing depressed and uncomfortable whenever you're around her and her boyfriend togetherOr even refusing to hang out around them/her because of itIs only going to make her grow more and more distant from you.---Now, some people will argue that if she really considers you a friend she'll try to accommodate your feelings, may even go as far as breaking up with her boyfriend because "Friends are supposed to be more important".Honestly, this is almost never true in practice.Especially for teenagers (Which I'm assuming you are, just by the structure of your post. I haven't actually read any of your other threads; to which your post hinted there were more of)Another counter to that point:Though you may expect her to accommodate your feelings and anguish because you're one of her best friendsIt can also be construed as your duty to accommodate her feelings and wishes of being with and happy with her boyfriend because -you're- her friend. And friends are supposed to be more important than romantic feelings. (For the purpose of this discussion, I am encompassing everything you refer to as a 'crush', 'feelings', 'love' or any other variation of the term as 'feelings')Straight to the Point, you have three options:-Get over it, like she says. Your friendship is worth more.-Hide your feelings for the purpose of the friendship.-End the friendship now, because if you head down this road for too long, you'll do nothing but push her away until she doesn't want to be around you or talk to you at all anymore because of how you make her feel (It really doesn't feel good when you're in a relationship with someone and someone else is constantly pestering you with "I love you", "You should be with me", "Your boyfriend is a jackass and I hate him")