how stupid is it to ask how many threads you're blocked from

[Skittles]

when you're using the function yourself? SO THE PEOPLE YOU BLOCK CANNOT EVEN RESPOND.

[hickman]

1. This is where DU is at? Bring back the sex threads.

In 2004 I followed a thread to DU. The lounge was just a sex meet-up. Skinner pinned a "OK, fun's over" The Lounge bloomed. Now this? Really?

[JVS]

2. Those who are not allowed to love will inevitably fight

[SPKrazy]

4. good point

bring back the sex threads

[JackBeck]

5. Those who choose not to love will inevitably fight.

[JVS]

6. But can one chose to love, or does love call one?

I'm a love-Calvinist. There is no free-will when love is concerned.

[JackBeck]

7. You already concluded that people are not allowed to love.

"Those who are not allowed to love will inevitably fight"

So where's the choice when you already establish that there are people who are not allowed to love?

[JVS]

9. When people are not allowed to do something, they don't choose.

I see no conflict between the idea that the individual cannot choose whether to do something or not and the idea that an outside agent can coerce a result.

I cannot choose whether I breathe or not. I breathe naturally, someday I will not have the ability to breathe. Still, it is within your power to stop my breath at any moment by killing me.

[Skittles]

3. SUCKS, doesn't it???

the sex threads got out of hand but at least the posters weren't a bunch of cowards

[hickman]

8. I remember them being very funny.

EOM and n/t were used all the time. Until some blozo started linking DU to conservative blast sites. that was the end.

[buddhamama]

10. Locking...

From the Rules: Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member.

Please contact Admin directly if you have a question or concern with regards to policies, procedures, enforcement, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html


Sincerely,
buddhamama-DU Mod