ILIKEALLCAPS

Jon,

Words aren't enough.

Hold her in your heart forever.  She will be missed by all of us.

Cerise and I send our deepest condolences.

When a member posts a question, there's the lovely little request above the window to "Please consider reading the FAQ's and Guides before posting" and the happy little smiley with his signage.

This obviously is not working.

Can we have something a bit more 'out there'? Could it be in RED? Could it also politely say "have you used the search function of this forum to find your answer?".

I can honestly say that today, I see soooooooooo many questions where the answer is EASILY obtainable just by scrolling down the first page of the forum. I know we don't want to be unfriendly to new members or someone with a legit question, but IMO something somewhere is broken.

I purposely have not answered any of those questions today.

I can only speak for myself, but having something in RED makes it pretty much irrelevant to me, and to anyone else who is colorblind. All in all I'm more likely to ignore red and/or green text because it makes my head hurt trying to read it.

Do I think it's possible to love someone and expect absolutely nothing in return? Yes. Can this happen in a marriage? Yes.

Example: When my first wife was dying of cancer, and it had taken enough of her brain that she no longer was who she was.....I loved her. When she didn't know who I was, that didn't matter, because I loved her. When it was a question of when, not if, to let her go....I loved her. I didn't love her only if she'd recover. I didn't love her to have love returned. I love her still, and have no conditions placed upon that love.

I say if you're stuck on the "what if"s of life.....then you can't unconditionally love. But if you're truly there, living in your marriage, loving not to be loved in return.....not for sex, or comfort, or companionship, or even to be in love.....just loving.....then you've got it made.

*goes off to beam madly at Cerise*

“I will love the light for it shows me the way, yet I will endure the darkness because it shows me the stars.”

~Og Mandino

someone wrote a book in God's name? He's gonna be pissed.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if the Bible wasn't written with God's authority and guidance, then there is no God to be pissed about it anyway. As I said above:

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the Bible isn't true.

If the Bible isn't true, then there is no God.

If there is no God, don't pi$$ me off!

God gave us free will. That includes the ability to write an incorrect book in his name. Without free will we would be his puppets.

Ok, so from what I understand, god gave us free will. God, the omnipotent and omniscient being gave us free will. So every decision I make is entirely my own and up to random chance if that's what I let drive it. I could flip a coin and make all my decisions, using heads or tails as my moral compass.

And god, knowing everything as he/she/it does, would have already known the outcome in advance. So my decision was determined long before I used my "free will" to make it so? Or is it that god can't see the decision in advance, making him/her/it not quite as all powerful/all knowing as he/she/it is made out to be.

I believe the theory goes that yes, although he knows the outcome, he lets you decide your path. Just like a parent lets a child learn on his/her own. They know the mistakes you are going to make, but they let you do it anyway so you learn.

So....it's a matter of...."I know my child will OD on drugs but I love them so much I'll let them do that"? Or is it more of the "Well, I gave my child a book about how things are supposed to be and now I'll just sit back and let them stumble around, and if they follow the book they can come back in the house?"

someone wrote a book in God's name? He's gonna be pissed.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if the Bible wasn't written with God's authority and guidance, then there is no God to be pissed about it anyway. As I said above:

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the Bible isn't true.

If the Bible isn't true, then there is no God.

If there is no God, don't pi$$ me off!

God gave us free will. That includes the ability to write an incorrect book in his name. Without free will we would be his puppets.

Ok, so from what I understand, god gave us free will. God, the omnipotent and omniscient being gave us free will. So every decision I make is entirely my own and up to random chance if that's what I let drive it. I could flip a coin and make all my decisions, using heads or tails as my moral compass.

And god, knowing everything as he/she/it does, would have already known the outcome in advance. So my decision was determined long before I used my "free will" to make it so? Or is it that god can't see the decision in advance, making him/her/it not quite as all powerful/all knowing as he/she/it is made out to be.

As far as science goes, I don't accept the view that the Earth was made in 144 hours 6,000 years ago, nor do I believe that is how the text of Genesis 1 & 2 is intended to be understood. I do, however, believe in an actual Adam and Eve, who were created separate from animals, from whom every human being since is descended. I don't think there is any way around that, as far as the Biblical text is concerned.

Ok, so If god created Adam and Eve, did they have navels? If so, why? If they're created in god's own image, would that mean that god has a navel? Why would god need a navel? In what womb was god gestated? Is it an innie or an outie? Why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the bible?

Moving on to Jesus.....did Jesus have a navel? I mean, he's god, but he apparently was in the womb for 9 months. Would that mean that the triune entity known as "god" both has and doesn't have a navel, at the same time?

I'm now going to add another spoiler--I became a Christian ONE YEAR AFTER I got the MSCS.

I'm not sure it's so much a spoiler if 11 percent are with you. That'd indicate you're aligning WITH the data. It's semantics, but that's generally what the literal view of the bible is as well.

And no, no "Religion Bashing 101" at my public university either. Not sure what department that'd be in....probably philosophy.

(edited cuz I typed the wrong percentage)

While I agree that the censoring of the URL should be lifted, I don't agree with many of the posts in here. I own several websites of my own, including one message board. I did have 3 message boards at one time. If the members had posted this kind of ####### on my board, I would have shut the damn thing down just to show them who REALLY has control over the board. It's not a power thing - it's a "don't you dare tell me what to do with my own damn board" thing. If I can't feel comfortable on my own message board, it'll go bye bye or the entire member list will be deleted and I'll start all over.

Don't be surprised if continually berating Ewok ends up producing the same result.

I don't agree on much with you, but I agree with you on this.

Though I doubt Ewok would delete the whole thing. If he got that tired of us(hehe) he could pass it on to someone else to take over. This website has too much valuable info to be deleted and he knows it. Everyone knows it.

I appreciate all the work Ewok does on this site. But it's the member interactions or information I can get here that makes me want to come back. VJ is a very valuable source of info. I can ask for help in OT on almost any topic and will always get help, not just with visa info.

Ah yes, the "If I can't be quarterback then I'll take my football home and NOBODY can play!" card. Always a hit in junior high.

Let the cowering masses tremble before your mighty wrath! Goodness gracious....if the scum have the temerity to ask to be treated like adults, or to be given the opportunity to help others to the best of their ability, then it'd be best to wipe the membership list clean and start over, building your bloody empire on the corpses of those who came before.

Thank you stina for at least remembering that the purpose of this site is to HELP people. That's right, help them. Not obfuscate, not guide them from forum to forum so you get more ad revenue, not block access to 'competing' sites. All that does is create resentment, and drive off both knowledgable experienced people as well as new people looking for that selfsame help. In the long run, is it more disruptive to continue something viewed as antagonistic, or is it a sign of the proverbial olive brance to make the effort, and perhaps regain some good favor?

I say that we'll know which way Capt. (registered trademark of LucasArts) goes when this becomes legible: www.***removed***.com/forums

Side note: Why is this allowed to continue?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69879

Yeah, I want to know why people are allowed to post links to other posts. Or is the question why people are allowed to post at all? It's a grey area.

Speaking of grey areas, depending on perspective, something posted ANYWHERE could, in theory, come in handy ANYWHERE else (even on other sites). So, say for example someone posts something in the Russian (stay out unless you have Russian mate because you wouldn't understand) forum, but it just so happens to perfectly fit an answer in the sub-saharan forum.....according to your rules it should be moved there.

The only solution is to have 1 forum that's a catch all, for all possible topics. Have fun!

"that site" comes across as blatantly commercial. They smack you with their for-sale product right upfront.

Your point is taken, however, that I don't have visibility into "that sites" internal finances.

Well, I'm not quite so sure I'd call a single product "blatantly commercial". I'd liken being smacked by someone selling a single product as more akin to religion, but that's a kettle of fish best argued in a different forum, like off topic (which hasn't had any really good religious wars for a while....you're slacking).

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

But I have no financial interest in it. As far as I am aware, only AW has a financial interest in it.

Regardless, the site is for-profit. Any promotion of the site is promoting a for-profit site. VJ doesn't condone promotion of commercial services, at least I don't believe it does.

Have you access to the business plan for the site? Are you a member of it's board, or one of the owners? (if not, you've just basically admitted to corporate espionage and I'll expect you to be banned for violating the TOS (lawbreaking) soon.) I'm sure what you meant to say was "I think that site is for profit because they are selling something there, however I don't know for sure as so many non-profits and not for profits actually sell goods and services to keep their programs funded. In any event, I just now remembered that the site I'm currently posting on has advertising and allows lawyers to troll the forums for which I expect they are compensated and we really don't know how much it costs to run the site and how much it makes in revenue so I'm just talking out of my azz and I'll apologize and try to see the playing field as a bit more level now."

I'm sure you see 'www dot amazon dot com' (didn't know what all might get edited as "advertising") as a wonderfully philanthropic lending library as well. Hmmm....now that I think of it....USCIS asks for money when you put in paperwork....they call it a "fee" and I'm sure it funds "people" who provide "service". We'd best ban them too, right? And, speaking of the ads on VJ, we'd best ban VJ, if we're against sites that might be making money.

I mean really. Were you even thinking?

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member’s advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Ah, my dear self-appointed Sheriff,

If I may refer you to your own signature, where you refer to several non-VJ links, you will find you yourself 'advertising' according to your own definition. I believe the appropriate response is to remove the offending links and put "www.***removed***.com" in their place. Or at least that appears to be the official action.

It's not as if we'd know what the real discussion is, since it seems to be requested to be in non-public forums, leaving things open for interpretation any number of different ways. I personally wonder why the answer can't be discussed in some publicly accessed way, as cloak-and-dagger secrecy tends to give off an unsavory aroma of coverup.

I am all in favor of civilians owning firearms; however, I do think there needs to be stricter background checks and perhaps a psychological evaluation performed beforehand. Maybe a firearms safety course as well. Unfortunately, there are too many unstable people out there giving all the sane gunowners a bad name.

It's not necessarily the "beforehand" that'd help. It'd cut down on the immediate (within a month or so) issues, but if they passed a screening 15 years ago, and then something triggers a psychotic episode, that initial screening didn't do any good. Renew your license every year, or 2 years....and get a screening then. Yep, a lot of red tape, but not anywhere near as much paperwork to fill out as for funeral arrangments or wrongful death litigation.

There also needs to be some responsibility here for gun owners. If someone 'borrows' or 'finds' or 'steals' your weapon....you should be subject to criminal negligence charges. You have a right to bear arms, you don't have the right to endanger others through your careless lack of control.

You are a wonderful woman for Sujeet.

It's very true. You can see it from the joy in his face in all the pictures of you two. You can tell just by the way you write about him. He's lucky to have you, and your in-laws need to wake up and realize this, and soon. In the meantime, you keep being a wonderful wife, and they'll have to realize just how happy you make him.

So I say again, you are a wonderful woman for Sujeet. Just please, whatever you do, don't start calling me your surrogate mother-in-law.

Right, Ok then.

Statistically, a C is average. That means little when you look at the overall grading in the public school system, but it is definitely something to consider when you're looking at the big picture. 1 D, the rest higher than C. For a 13 year old (ish), likely going through puberty, and getting all kinds of uncomfortably distracted by his classmates, that's pretty dang above average. Do I think a D is acceptable? No. Do I think the threat of a summer of restriction if all grades aren't in the A range by the end of the year is too harsh? Yes. By all means have high expectations of your son, it sounds like he's quite gifted, and deserving of the extra support that entails, but don't set up a scenario that's likely to be viewed as no-win. Are you willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure his success? You want his grades up 30%, are you willing to devote 30% of your time to supporting him, helping with homework, research, etc.? (and yes, I mean an additional 30%. Above and beyond what you do now. Will you restrict yourself to an equal amount if you fail to support him reaching his goal?)

Decry the D, accept the C, praise the B, and heap reward upon the A. But don't start the summer of teenagedom with a firm foundation in sullenness.

5....and I can't get any more until Cerise gets her next one.

because that was the deal.

Of course, I was reading too fast and read this: "mawilson's posts are over-the-top and genuinely offensive to most people" as "mawilson's PANTS are over-the-top and genuinely offensive to most people"

which I totally agree with!

If you want a real challenge, take up your own education and prove to yourself that Jesus DID NOT raise from the dead.

Don't take my word for it or any other man, you find out for yourself...unless of course you dont really want to

Rob

Right. A man like Mark, or Luke, or John. They were men. Oh sure, they were writing "the word of god" so that doesn't count. Isn't that convenient. Unless you can show me the original, verifiable manuscript, handwritten by god, then everything in the bible came from man. Oyes, I know you'll say it was at the impetus of god, and that it says so itself right in it's own pages, but using it's own text to validate the same text takes you down to "I know you are but what am I?" playground games.

I have been challenging everyone on this forum to think for yourself and do your own research, DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, THINK FOR YOURSELF, FIND OUT YOURSELF... but all I get accused of is thinking for you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I on the other hand, I have challenged YOU to do something with your claim that it didn't happen, find out for yourself.

Rob

Fine. I did. I used my time machine, went back, watched over all the corpses, none of them got up. Heck, they didn't even twitch. Before you go and say that I don't have a time machine....you have to prove I don't have one. Because I said I have one and it's right there in text....so it must be true. I'll give you the details on how it works, but only if you're truly seeking scientific knowledge. I'll be the only one who can determine if you're a true seeker, however. Oh, and I have a book that supports me. In fact, everything I said came from a book so don't be hating me just because I'm regurgitating a paraphrase of the book. Got it. I was there! I saw everything. You weren't. I looked for you......and I even had your picture with me just to make sure.

I'm so sorry you lost him. Anyone can tell he meant the world to you.

Cerise and I will keep you and yours in our thoughts.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

...and some heterosexual couples choose not to have children which makes the same-sex marriage opponent's argument (that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation) pointless. It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

not really. it's fishing on their part. any trick in the book to get a gay marriage recognized, eh? that's best left up to a state vote by the people, not by trying to sneak in some law that could render someone's marriage null and void due to genetics.

Yeah! The nerve of people saying that you can't be married just because you're physically incapable, or choose not to, have children. After all, if you don't have children, all you're left with is a loving, comitted relationship between two people. And then you might just realize that you could have that kind of relationship as a same sex couple. And then it's anarchy.

I love Wallmart and will always shop there. The low prices and the large selection makes it the best retailer in the US. Wallmart has done more for the working class than ANY government agency. They employ thousands, they let people on a limited budget get the most for their money and it is the greatest success story of all time. Screw the libs that hate wallmart. It's just jealousy.

Oh, organic food is for sissies. (ducks) Give me the bad for you, good tasting, cheap, factory processed stuff!

Gary....what industry are you in? (just curious as I'm sure they'd be interested that you've just told the internet that if they get mad at fraud they're just jealous. Imagine how quick you'll be having to take a 3x5 card with "kreddit Kard" written on it as payment....and that's just the beginning of fraudulent activities you're tacitly condoning!)

Imagine the possibilities! Yay for fraud! Fraud is great! Heck, tell your consular officer how much you love fraud! They'll love it!

I love wal-mart they have all kinds of good deals.

Who cares about there business practice its all about the dollar and thats what business is all about bottom line.

They dont care if you dont shop there for the few that get on their soapbox and so called boycott there are thousands that appreciate the prices and selection of merchandise available.

Darn tootin! To heck with what other people think of them! If it can save a couple of bucks why the heck shouldn't you support Saddam Hussein shop at Wal-Mart? Human rights? Bah! Gimme my low cost ammo and smokes, and mislabeled safe goods. They show what America was built on, hard working Ma and Pa stores that care about the community low priced ####### made by foreigners. And that's all I really deserve for shopping there anyway good enough for me!

Never mind the non-compete clause in perpetuity for the real estate (you know, after they've saturated the market and shut out all competitors, and then start closing stores to consolidate......and the building can never again be used for any commercial business that might compete with the glorious 'Mart)

And, of course, I just looooove how my tax dollar stretches all the way to subsidize their employees! More bang for the buck! Living wage my #######!

No need for prior notice.

From one USC to another though....it does get you special attention when you're in the queue outside the door and the security person comes around asking if anyone is a USC. (and a few glares as well, but this is what we pay taxes for....privledges)

(and there's no place to store electronics on site....leave the cell phone and all that in the car!)

It'll be a breeze. No worries!

The question at hand is "Preference for non-American mates, Is that why you're here?".

The location of my mother on the occasion of my birth isn't the primary factor for how I define myself; in fact, it is a very minute factor.

The perception that America is too young a country to have an ethnic identity is belied by the fact that Americans have little trouble perceiving and distinquishing ethnic characteristics of other "young countries" to its south or even to its north. It's just difficult to see it in your own group.

Ok, we're talking at cross purposes here. I am a Caucasian....where was I born, and does that make a difference in who I find as a mate? That's not the question. You brought up the "I'm not ethnically American." Was it intended to be a red herring? Or perhaps did you see it as adding information to why you made your decisions. What it ended up doing was distract from your question. Do you see that at all?

(And I could point out that your tendency to generalize what "Americans" perceive would stereotypically place you as an arrogant "American" in itself.....but I won't. I'll just ask you to open your own eyes as you're making your declarations. It's all about the "when you point a finger there's 4 more pointing back at you" right now.)