Valkaneer In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2017-10-03 01:16:41 +0000 UTC]

Human..Duh...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReclusiveChicken In reply to Valkaneer [2017-10-03 05:35:58 +0000 UTC]

nope, astral amoeba.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valkaneer In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2017-10-13 22:49:59 +0000 UTC]

Or.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to JaliosWilinghart [2017-04-10 09:32:59 +0000 UTC]

It was interesting.

Respect:
Your personal ideals have no baring on how I view your work or you as a person. You are who you are, and your passions are your own. I think a little was missing on environment and religion, they are a bit too black and white for me, or I'd have gone the extra mile and filled out my choices on the chart. Authoritarian would have been in the red however, as I'm sure you know.

Past:
I never read the final word I let you have on your video log. I made my point I believe as best I cared to attempt it, and felt any further return might seem like I was being combative for the sake of argument. I never intended that, and it being your discourse, it's better that you retain rights to the final word. I was very crude in the original post, and it colored the entire conversation after that, but rest assured. I find you very fascinating to talk with and eye opening on each topic we raised.

Opinions:
I'm sure my dismissal of evolution is a major divisional point. And I laughingly gave a trite summation of how I believe without delving into supporting science like I most certainly could. I felt it was a fruitless exercise and your main body of readers and followers likely champion your opinions, whats more, so I left it for you to sweep away my 'nonsense' with a flourish of contemporary logic.

Future:
I hope we can remain cordial in all things in the future and perhaps someday, if I feel like taking a bruising I'll return to that reply. As yet, its a dead topic from my end, and I wish you the best, and hope you can take from it the main lesson I intended on being softer in your disdain for my faith.

Goodwill:
I'm praying for the Scandinavian region, that the recent violent crimes making headline do not be come a trend, and that not more innocent people are hurt. I realized this is a useless endeavor from your perspective, but this isn't a farce on my end, and I truly hope for the best outcome, using energy to drive physical change. I can only do what my heart feels, and right now, that's asking mercy for the innocent in many parts of the world.

Well-wishing:
Stay safe, and be rational, but be ready to act to defend the innocent if you should be forced into a dangerous situation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaliosWilinghart In reply to Valkaneer [2017-04-10 14:15:23 +0000 UTC]

Respect:
... I would be lying if I said I was surprised you would prefer the option of "Radical Order". We have our disagreements. Some greater outlined than others.
If I may, what do you think is missing from the Environment and the Reality categories?

Past:
You dont have to go back there and reply if you dont want to. I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel like you were a massive frustratingly infuriating d-bag in the conversation... though the fact that you are trying to clarify, and make things right says a lot of good. 
If I am allowed to ask, how was the talk eye opening for you? Anything specific?

Opinions:
Yup... major divisional point. The grand canyon would not be large enough to represent that gap. 
And not to be rude... but yeah... you really need to not be as......... well 'that'... when arguing. It comes off as quite arrogant and dismissive, while showing nothing that resembles intellect to back up the zero substantive counter claims. I mean this with no malice intended. You just...... you gotta do a bit better ok?
And you have a strange way of... I dont know if "surrender" is the right word... "sweep away my 'nonsense'". But that was quite unexpected.

Future:
We can remain cordial... Back there I simply blew up completely. Pointing back to my plea for kindly debate, rather than blank oversimplified and frankly arrogant assertions, while ignoring counter arguments... Even if that was not your intention, it sure seemed that way. Which set me off completely. The topic can die if you keep it buried in the ground. Though truth be told, I will put it right back if I see no reason for discussion without getting me to the point where my eyes pop out of my skull in pure rage. 
And on the topic of your faith... I honestly dont ever think I can get to the point of not having a seething hatred for faiths like yours. Simply being honest. Though I do have several christian, muslim, wikkan, and non descriptive "spiritual" friends. My disdain wont flow over to hating the person. Not unless they are a massive prick... but then I think I would not like them regardless. I ain't ever claiming that atheists can be massive assholes.
On not hating people's personal beliefs, I have a simple example.
"Do you believe literally all who are not believing the same as you, are 'lesser people'? Do you think greedy believers of your faith are better than the emphatic non believer? Do you believe non believers will or should be punished? Do you the think the greedy believer should not receive punishment? If the answers are 'yes', then I am your ideological enemy." 
Most faiths dont pass that test. Which is why I hate most of them. Again, I mean no malice in saying any of this, as I am sure you know by now.

Goodwill:
... Sometimes its the thought that counts. In Denmark, after a terror attack, Muslim and Jewish communities formed a circle around the temple that was attacked in Copenhagen, as a sign of solidarity. In reality, that of course did almost nothing, but the fact that they banded together, to send a message of unity... sometimes its the thought that counts. So does your belief that your lovely thoughts will make the world a bit better of a place. Even if I dont think it will have much bearing. Your thoughts are well meant. And I respect that.

Well-Wishing:
Be well, be logical, and I hope you will better the lives of those around you. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valkaneer In reply to JaliosWilinghart [2017-04-10 17:40:58 +0000 UTC]

Respect:
Ecology:
I believe in antiquated Marxist views as pertaining to the now. That cities exist merely as commercial hubs for making money. If we suppose we are building a world to last (say a space colony on a new Eden) then we should avoid centrism in the population.  Spread over the environment the entire population should be rural/semi-suburban, and factories should be set on a schedule that caters to the distance patron workers would need to travel, and the alternative is full automation with humanity focused on esoteric pursuits, but also on food production. Families should grow food in private (technology rich) greenhouses that take the hard labor aspects out of their lives but not the fulfillment of hard work. Plants need living organic stimuli to be healthy, if you don't believe me, buy a plant and leave it in a lit corner and forget it except to water it. Then set another in another lit corner and touch it constantly. The plant with interaction will likely bloom, the plant without it will likely wither. We should apply this to crop yields too. And mankind should weed and tend his natural crops without synthetically altering the geneseed. Worms and bee's are a vital part of farming, but caterpillars, weevils, most types of ants and aphids, grasshoppers and other non-vitals should be ruthlessly persecuted as undesirables. If one is evolutionist the justification is: as a party to nature, we naturally select beneficial or extinct undesirable life that does not cater to humanity's prosperity and aid our collective existence in harmonious equilibrium. As any fully sentient AI system would surely do to "us" for example. Most parasitic creatures would be targets aggressively for termination. But general wildlife refuges for non-harmful creatures and the most oblivious, (meaning not commonly interacting or seeking to interact with humanity regularly or in predatory or parasitic ways) I doubt anyone would miss highly dangerous or nuisance creatures, and the streamlined ecology would mean greater habitat reclamation for human occupancy.

Reality:
Approaching this the same way, (as if building a new colony world) I believe in imposing the belief on all people, that no one should impose their beliefs on another person, and that all faiths of Earth should be taught in the venue of cultural literature. No one should cloud or impose any opinionated bias or higher regard for any of the core texts but each child should be allowed free development of whatever belief they take to heart, based on studious examination of all core texts. Save for the unifying philosophy that pure logic should embrace all aspects of reasoning as kindred albeit less refined in simplest terms. I would subversively imprint, from infancy, the rule that the "soul" is the measure of electrolysis stored in the human brain, and is the functional "self" of all individuals that can not be subversively imprinted upon from infancy. If the child becomes negative based on a firm attitude against another philosophy they should be corrected via education towards the psychology of all faiths being equal, even if the philosophy is pure logic. Psychology should be applied to prevent superiority feelings arising in any belief structure, and the law must be clear on zero tolerance for intolerance of other philosophical beliefs. The overriding philosophy is that the mind is an expansive universe of creative and rational capacity and no personal philosophy should ever impinge on the ability of another to express its own personal truths. But the expression outside of the immediate household should never threaten or demean the outlook of another individual being, either in seriousness or in jest. But that the defined "soul" clause, is exclusively recognizing the right of the individual to claim as property of the virtual theater of the mind, any such belief that is not destructive to the collective society. Ideals which are in conflict with the oversight philosophy will be eradicated and their teachings stricken from the archives if deemed to be in violation of the agreed upon cohesion, respecting reality to all men is the same physical experience, whereas philosophies designed to interpret it are varied and welcome. "Puritanic Logician", would be the most guarded against form of philosophy in such an inclusion of personal ideology.

I don't see this a unscientific or unreasonable at all, and I respected each of your topical headings on the chart, but on these two I had more divergence then the few examples you gave, as well tooled as they were, and I realized just how hard it was to fit every view into a few short universal quips.

Past:
The eye opening factor was just how aggressive the counter argument is, it now clouds my every perception of the leftist element here in my own country, which has since shrank to a scowling boiling under the surface departure from that form of humanity. Now I understand that yes, the left is against us being a sovereign nation with a right to self determination under, God. That our opinion on the world scene is seen as archaic and backward. At the same time building a stronger pride in my local government and the denial of a one globalist agenda for all nations in favor of the coined: "nationalism" which in my mind is a pretty word for Nazi or Fascist. Because there are severe threats the rationalist segment seems to pretend don't exist that directly threaten all order and the collective they are trying to have, while focusing on issues that it should not treat as harmful at all (or even vaguely important). Policies they deny as having played major roles in the advancement of society, and irrational opinions hidden in pure rationalist rhetoric. If that's not too strong?

Opinions:
Well, I tried to express my respectful decline of the last conversation by building your ego, but let me be perfectly honest now. Surrender, is a word you chose because it sounded good in your mind when you formulated it (and maybe it translates to a less shitty sounding word in your language). Yield, is better, but what I really did was drop the subject entirely, because it was fostering mutual resentment and ceased to be constructive. In fact, your dismissal of it all being nonconstructive was frankly the biggest insult in the exchange, so I simply attempted with my final statement to feed you the lines you wanted to hear from me, seeing as you stamped it with the "yet another stupid creationist" flag. It seemed the conversation would just go on, me making newer better points and you not shifting and saying the same unsavory and ultra-disrespectful guff, while pandering to secular readers who might follow it as if you were a beacon of tolerant enlightenment. Frankly. And your answer here was also somewhat rude and demeaning. Please don't ask in what way as if this topic needs further elaboration. We can close the wasted chapter on "opinions".

Future:
"Do you believe literally all who are not believing the same as you, are 'lesser people'?"

All you have to do is literally read what I said in any one of my posts, and unless your an trying not to see it, you should be able to gather that I never said anything like this, so I don't understand why it was even touched on even in a metaphorical remembrance.

"Do you think greedy believers of your faith are better than the emphatic non believer?"

No, and once again, I covered this in my previous statements.

"Do you believe non believers will or should be punished? Do you the think the greedy believer should not receive punishment?"

I have to, its a basic premise that the accusations of Satan have to be met either with truth or with rebuttal. Because the accuser is the Devil, NOT GOD, and accusation is the weapon of the enemy. Jesus' said: "Woman, where are thy accusers?" when he spared Mary Magdalene from being stoned according to the law. <
When it comes to nonbelievers, I believe the apostle Paul: Romans 2:11-15

 "11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 ( For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )"

Translation: Good people are not sent to hell for not believing my version of God, or his law, but if they do good according to it they are justified innocent according to the law. Far from strictly condemning them, its a justification of their goodness, and the only measurement they have even if they don't know it. But a serial rapist and throat cutter, he's going to hell no matter what he thinks is right or wrong. PERIOD.

"If the answers are 'yes', then I am your ideological enemy."

As I have said several times, aside from actual belief in a literal deity or not we mesh on may issues, if "you" can divorce those issues from my faith in God entirely which is no threat to you. And you can't think in terms of evil or good, and to me that's all there is in the world. So if you want to make my pious conflict with evil an issue between friends, then friends we can never be, but it was not by my choice, and its regrettable.

Asking me to abandon the notion that a human turd like, Ted Bundy, is destined to burn in hell, is like me asking you to give up on economic equality for all men.

But consequently, Jesus, was an advocate of economic equality too.

Goodwill:
Well said, if sad from my perspective, but God bless nonetheless.

Well-Wishing:
I didn't mean to reopen that same debate here, and it was something I could have sent a letter to you to hide from the public, but I honestly have nothing I care to hide, and you don't either, so shoot away, but I will call you in a lie about Jesus or God, and I will take offense to hurtful names or references that serve nothing but your need to denigrate my faith. Any way, stay safe, and I hope nothing here pisses you off all over again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaliosWilinghart In reply to Valkaneer [2017-04-10 23:15:36 +0000 UTC]

Ecology:
Ehm... I get why you feel like you dont quite fit on there. Though you have to know that I was merely trying to represent the majority groups in this chart xD... Not every niche, no matter how neat or how well they are thought out. No offence xD

Reality:
For you to ever be allowed by me to "imprint at birth" to children that the soul is the electric impulses going through our heads, is if you prove it. Prove that is the case, or leave it out of the 'here's the facts' segment. The rest is... not what I would frankly agree on. No separation between church and state, its seemingly just a complete free for all on who can capture what first... but you mean well, and I legitimately commend you for that. 

As for the chart, it was sorta made just as a quick shower thingy. Flashy and "to the point". Never meant to be completely accurate xD... though I did try to look up common arguments for all sides in this, and tried my best to show the distilled view in a flashy quote. If you think I failed to represent you personally, then I hope you dont take it personally. Because I was legit not trying to piss anyone off with this.

Past:
... Well... your lovely comment at the bottom, hoping that nothing pissed me off, sorta failed completely here. On almost every level. I wont go into details, since we both seemingly want peace here... so agree to let it be? At least in the name of good will between whatever-the-hell-we-are?
But... please dont dismiss how serious neo nazis have just tried on a new set of clothes while hiding behind the "nationalist" label... please dont think all those lables are given out thoughtlessly. 

Openions:
On the surrender thing, and hypothetical ego building... I literally did not know if it was the right word to use. So you can calm down now thank you very much. 
And instead of lying to me and yourself, you could have just said "I dont want to talk about this anymore". You know you dont have to force yourself into conversations you dont want to be a part of right? And I mean this in a friendly way. Not an insulting one. You dont need to waste your time.
And kindly never ever think that I use my arguments to pander to literally anyone. I treat comments like I am in a closed room with the other participant. Not as a stage. I say my opinions not as fake politicians fishing for applause. I could not care less for that. They are my views. Not born out of fake masks I wear for any crowd. You have all in the right in the world to find them reprehensible. But they are still mine.

My criteria for respecting someones religious beliefs were a general list. Not directly pointed towards you. It was more trying to outline "what it would take for me to not hate your faith". If that made sense, then yay.

On your clarification on what you personally believe the criteria for all that stuff is, then you have a much less hateable view than some. At least form my point of view. There is at least justice in there enough to not want Gandhi to burn forever, while Hitler gets to goose step into the pearly gates. And this is a compliment to you, believe it or not.

On the broader topic of hell, punishment and suffering... I am a billion procent against any of it. Torture is one of the most horrible things imaginable. We humans are byproducts of our experiences, genes, and upbringing. None of witch we choose. I literally cannot understand the thought of wanting someone to be tortured eternally for being born into being a massive dick. I of course hate plenty of assholes like mr "Lets murder our way to peace!" Bundy... for sure! Though I dont wish for that guy to suffer eternally. I want him to do something productive for humanity or even if it has to be something 'more brutal', then at worst a quick painless death. We should be better than folks like him... cheering at the thought of their ideological opponents suffering eternally for simply disagreeing. I cant stand that thought honestly. Its the definition of cheering for tyranny. At least it is for me. But yet again, I have to state that you are a lot less disagreeable on the specifics than many others. I am trying to be nice, since you are trying to bury the hatchet, and I am trying to do the same, because we both dont want this... conflict. I said all this on the opinions thing to clarify, not to needlessly continue it.

Goodwill:
I meant it in a more "objectively they hardly did much". A powerful symbol. That showed the city and the nation that neither the Jewish community nor the Muslim community, would let a jihadist asshole tear their community apart. It was not meant to be laced with nihilistic apathy, and I guess I can see how it could be interpreted in such a way.

Well-Wishing:
Not to be a dick, but if you want to separate the person from the faith, then why should you not do the same? In the sense that you of course wish for me to not insult that witch you hold dear, while I wish to state my opinions freely. I dont intend to insult you as a person. Same way you probably dont either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valkaneer In reply to JaliosWilinghart [2017-04-11 23:19:31 +0000 UTC]

Lets stay here then;

Our Conflicting Ideologies:

From my perspective. Your perspective can only accommodate the views it welcomes. Meaning: I can not mention moral certainty or the need to take actions against obvious evils, nor ridicule those evils in compare to my own moral logic because my logic is perceived by your perception to be morally evil. In any situation the only way I can find agreement with you is to abandon my spiritual beliefs. I'm sure you can see why that is a self perpetuating conflict. In my perspective, you can be as derisive as you care to be, it changed nothing for me, nor did it craft a need to abandon any of the lunacy you perceived in the statements. Same with me. We are "Yin & Yang" to my estimation. Two sides who can not mesh, and yet there is a tiny portion of you in my idealism and a tiny portion of my morality is in your rationalism, therein is the centrism we should promote and develop. And I except that. All I'm really looking for is an admission that you are less tolerant than you claim to be. A finally truthful statement since I know empirically that you are contentious to all religious notions personally. And by "contentious" I do not mean you are combative. I mean you think its all bullshit, literally. So, admit to me and the world that you are not tolerant of any belief except atheism. Then we can move on. Because your personal belief is why you judge things the way you do, and can not be divorced from relationships, attenuate attempts, parties, classes, organizations, or societies as you interact within our shared world, as you contend is the case. What you continually re-clarify as my misunderstanding of the notion is to my literal eschatological summation a bald faced lie, and an over pensive denial of your actual nature. Either one, the other, or both, as you are not suited to defending the notions unless attacking contrary opinion. It Est: My belief in God, and you interpretative suggestions of the true meaning of what you don't believe in. The prey item of your ethos is seen as a thing verifiable, and the same time its relegated to untruth. Pathology is contiguously applied to the being in question. But not recognizing a mind as factual. The argument is that the pathology is the mental representation of the writer of the script and not the authorship. But yet, the contention will not be allowed to extend to mistranslated, or to improper word uses, or antiquated word shifts from modern vocabulary to the origin texts, and when one in my position, attempts to correlate the validity of the document rationally they are bombarded for even considering the frame of reference at all. It is in my mind a very easy position to take, requiring no real intellectual backing, under the pretense that intellectual logic banishes every aspect of the core in context. Science, held in chief to refute the ancient texts, and the summations of moral character in one fluid action. By doing that, you disregard any possibility that errors in the text, or added inflection could be added by the writer absent the authors dictation. As if ego of the personality pinning the text was a non-factor in antiquity, when the contemporary equivalent as compared as nothing but ego with very little fact. These contradictions cloud an honest assessment of scripture, but mostly, contempt for the scripture prevent even a modest desire the seek the contradicting evidence. So you are defeated on outset, as a secular champion of a bias established and generally accepted logic that is not experimentally established science itself. I would think a rationalist, if one were, would make greater inroads into the substantially disproving material, yes, but also the objectified genius of the comparative data. As it was Tesla who wrote famously: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." I find it the same today. That math is used to justify "theory" as law, and accepted theory is held to be "law" if the supposition remotely backs the best guesses of scientific postulation, not "method". My contention is rather, not towards atheism itself, it is instead against lazy science. The accepted truths of reality that have correlating physics, but not real correlating "facts". Dates of bones, dates of ice, dates of actual tissue, dates of elements, dates of soil, dates of fossils. All of which come in the form of calculated numbers with the use of admittedly genius calibration in specialized tool/mechanisms that are designed to test for traces and clues that back "theory". Theories in physic's are highly problematic, because there is so much assumption placed on previous proof's. If a thousand years from now, or one year from now, a person as ingenious as the person/s who calculated "gravity" were to discover a new missing portion that fundamentally changed its nature, or if they found a gross error in the original equitation's of the formula that made it not true. Then what does that do to all the proof's written to add on to the "theory" which is perceived to be "law"? Speculative? Yes, but pure science is speculation and rigorous experimentation, but no true scientist would ever deal in the finality of thing's that are not testable. God, is untestable. Dealing with finality that he is imaginary is not scientific. Testing ages based on elements is more bothersome. Carbon dates are useless after a few thousand years in most remains of organisms or plants. The dating system is based high on speculator science that takes the mathematical age of Earth and confines all thought toward proving that "assumption". But no matter how well you prove a falsehood it doesn't change the fact it is untrue. And to say that scientists have made error isn't a slander, error is the true teacher. That's why experimentation is so much better than formulation. Nothing a non-believer can argue will change the fact that 88% of all Noble Prize winners were Christian's, or religious in another form, and 7 converted after winning it. Contradictory evolutionary examples exist but the academic "faith" is so rooted and vested in the sciences crafted around the underlying "assumption" that they loose millions in funding and many doctorates devoted to studies without true scientific merits would be jobless if they were to rock back the last 175 years of science "fact". But I didn't dig that hole, nor did the current scientific community, they are however resistant to alternative science explanations and vested in preserving prevailing logic. The current science community happens to back your beliefs, but highly advanced technology would appear as what? You know what I'm going to say. "Magic".... Science at its highest level would appear to be magic in action. And super intellect would be needed to create that magic. My thing, is not trying to arrogantly be certain of anything. The nature of matter, the nature of the universe, the nature of nature, the nature of God. But somehow my scope of intellect is condensed by attempting to be impartial. And my morality is in question because I follow the code that invented the legal books of the western world. Indeed, most sciences in existence were invented by Christian's. Astronomy and Math are universally ancient concepts from many cultures. But the majority of any study ending in "ology" comes out if Latin and Greek word application in the collegiate institutions of Europe. The reason they apply such words is because Latin and Greek were the primary languages of the Bible in the west. Copernicus, Galileo, and other scientists being suppressed by the Catholic Idiocracy was never a Christian repression of science. It was a barbaric repression of anything but the Latin Canon and supreme majesty of the usurpers of the true church. And Christians were its greatest casualties for ages. But refusing to make this simple distinction because you simply don't want to waste thought on trying to find any rationality in the faith, you illustrate the uncompromising intolerant nature of modern atheism. Which is as militant towards other ideals as Islam in my book. Sorry I assigned to you the quality of acting on a stage, but you seem to build every reply to a punchline, albeit not a very funny one from my perspective, it was like it was meant for someone else. Spoken at me, and not to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Blades-123 [2016-10-12 11:11:05 +0000 UTC]

np, I love your stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to SilentGuy2011 [2016-09-13 15:01:46 +0000 UTC]

I checked out one of your stories a few weeks back, you're getting better.

I get busy with life and hardly log on anymore, but recently I've been catching up on my activity level.

Who know's for how long...

Thank you for the check in, and I'm glad you're well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SilentGuy2011 In reply to Valkaneer [2016-09-14 15:23:59 +0000 UTC]

I know how that is. My job doesn't give me three days off anymore unless the third day happens to be a holiday or something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valkaneer In reply to SilentGuy2011 [2016-09-14 18:02:34 +0000 UTC]

Yep, you gotta cater to the management on some level, unless you're a manager.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SilentGuy2011 In reply to Valkaneer [2016-09-16 04:37:16 +0000 UTC]

I'm not manager material yet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valkaneer In reply to SilentGuy2011 [2016-09-17 06:16:58 +0000 UTC]

Shhhhhhh.....

I'll tell you a secret....

*motions you closer with a finger*

No one is management material!

lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SilentGuy2011 In reply to Valkaneer [2016-09-18 15:24:25 +0000 UTC]

LOL I suppose there is some truth in that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to damaszener2 [2016-08-13 00:27:01 +0000 UTC]

You bet!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Laspe [2016-08-07 01:52:35 +0000 UTC]

You bet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Bit-sweet [2015-12-15 11:59:43 +0000 UTC]

Kewel!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to alwasebeautiful39 [2015-11-14 10:07:47 +0000 UTC]

I remember you. The self-conscious, under-sexed, self-mutilator, who believes in and loves, God, but hates humanity at large, whilst not seeing the majority of it's faults and living under the auspice forgivness for all mankind. Somehow seeing the rainbow's even when the world is up to it's neck in crap.

I reacall you, your either droning dire or optimistic poetry and our debates on matters of faith.

How are you?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to BATTLEFAIRIES [2015-09-18 13:58:13 +0000 UTC]

lol, uh, okay!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Blades-123 [2015-09-09 09:22:49 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Calio4 [2015-09-04 11:11:29 +0000 UTC]

You're so welcome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Valkaneer In reply to Daemonideus [2015-08-29 13:07:25 +0000 UTC]

chu-bet-chu-main!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Daemonideus In reply to Valkaneer [2015-08-29 13:57:36 +0000 UTC]

Yipie-kay-he

👍: 0 ⏩: 0