NationStates Jolt Archive

For 12 years. I gotta say something about it.

Met him at church back in 1994, and I've known him pretty well since then. We've been good friends, and I love him dearly, even more than my (Ex) fiance, and then the girlfriend.

Should I be ashamed?

Didn't we call this yesterday?

I've been hearing that joke on the radio commercials for the last month--for the new tv show "It's Always Sunny in Philadephia."

Yes, you are gay for God. Try some original material.

No. Why should you be?



EDIT: I just got it, I have never seen that show so I didn't know what you meant. GAY FOR GOD!

Have you fucked him? If you haven't, then you haven't loved him.

Have you fucked him? If you haven't, then you haven't loved him.

Fass does have a point.

For 12 years. I gotta say something about it.

Met him at church back in 1994, and I've known him pretty well since then. We've been good friends, and I love him dearly, even more than my (Ex) fiance, and then the girlfriend.

Should I be ashamed?

Who says She's a man?

:D I loved Dogma.

Fass does have a point.

It's an annoying habit, I know.

Who says She's a man?
All the religious types who are trying to convince women that their purpose is to be cumcatchers and little else.

Have you fucked him? If you haven't, then you haven't loved him.
So it's impossible to love someone without fucking him or her? I'd hate to be in your family.

All the religious types who are trying to convince women that their purpose is to be cumcatchers and little else.

Lucky bitches...

So it's impossible to love someone without fucking him or her? I'd hate to be in your family.

So you're "in love" with members of your family? I'd hate to be in yours, buddy.

Have you fucked him? If you haven't, then you haven't loved him.

To rephrase: did you kneel down, praise him and did you then feel his salvation all over your face ?
With thanks to Cartman.

Oy, this is going to be a very interesting thread.

*gets crappy american beer from minifridge*

Should I be ashamed?

Yes. You are infatuated with a fictional character.

So you're "in love" with members of your family? I'd hate to be in yours, buddy.
Sure--it's not erotic love, but it's love all the same. There are different types, you know.

Jesus Christ.

This thread gets 14+ replies in 3 minutes. I love posting things that look one way but are actually a totally different thing. it's so funny watching the reactions!

Sure--it's not erotic love, but it's love all the same. There are different types, you know.

"I am in love with my mother" and "I love my mother" are two very different statements.

To rephrase: did you kneel down, praise him and did you then feel his salvation all over your face ?
With thanks to Cartman.
Or Jesus is coming and I want to feel his salvation on my face?

"I am in love with my mother" and "I love my mother" are two very different statements.
Very different? Please explain how, without any of this "they feel different" stuff. How are they very grammatically different? How does the inclusion of those three words am, in and with, drastically change the meaning of the sentence?

Yes. You are infatuated with a fictional character.

And given American celebrity culture, he is in no way special. :p

Then again, at least the celebrities technically exist, even if they aren't what people fall in love with, so maybe he is.

Sure--it's not erotic love, but it's love all the same. There are different types, you know.

Being "in love with someone" is romantic/erotic love. So, you interact with your mother using that tongue?

Being "in love with someone" is romantic/erotic love. So, you interact with your mother using that tongue?
Why? Because you say that's what it means? Get over yourself, Fass. You no more dictate the meaning of the English language than I do.

How does the inclusion of those three words am, in and with, drastically change the meaning of the sentence?

It's this pesky old thing called "grammatical syntax"

Jesus just read this thread and threw up in his mouth a little.

Why? Because you say that's what it means? Get over yourself, Fass. You no more dictate the meaning of the English language than I do.

I apparently am able to speak it better than you if you don't know what the idiom "in love with" means. The thing is, I don't believe you are that ignorant of the languages - you're just refusing to admit your very obvious defeat.

It's this pesky old thing called "grammatical syntax"So bring it, smart guy. Break out your knowledge of English syntax and parse it out for us all.

So you're "in love" with members of your family? I'd hate to be in yours, buddy.

If I'm not mistaken you just repeated what he said, maybe you should pay a bit more attention and remain silent, being thought a fool, before speaking and removing all doubt.

You're in love with a man that isn't real.

Have a cookie.

All the religious types who are trying to convince women that their purpose is to be cumcatchers and little else.

It's a ridiculous notion. Almost as ridiculous as the notion that love of God can be equated to erotic love of humans.

So bring it, smart guy. Break out your knowledge of English syntax and parse it out for us all.

No, I believe I'll let you go around saying you're in love with your mother. How that ends up reflecting on you is too creepily hilarious for me to want to stop you from doing it.

I've been hearing that joke on the radio commercials for the last month--for the new tv show "It's Always Sunny in Philadephia."

Yes, you are gay for God. Try some original material.
That's a good show, why did DM have to kill it? :(

To rephrase: did you kneel down, praise him and did you then feel his salvation all over your face ?
With thanks to Cartman.

Now that was funny. If a little too easy.

The English language is stupid. I see what you're saying, FTW!!!:headbang:

If I'm not mistaken you just repeated what he said,

He said I could not love members of my family, but the OP talks of "being in love" - not just "loving."

maybe you should pay a bit more attention and remain silent, being thought a fool, before speaking and removing all doubt.

Oh, the irony.

It is too exquisite. *savours it slowly, almost erotically*

I love posting things that look one way but are actually a totally different thing. it's so funny watching the reactions!

If you are for some reason under the impression that most here didn't get exactly what you meant, and simply did not care and decided to have their (our) own bit of fun with it...you're far stupider than you think the rest are.

Now, the important thing is...did he touch you with his noodly appendage?

Show us on the doll where Jesus touched you.

No, I believe I'll let you go around saying you're in love with your mother. How that ends up reflecting on you is too creepily hilarious for me to want to stop you from doing it.In other words, you can't, because while you can claim there's an idiomatic difference between the two, you can't make a syntactic case between the two. And since idiom varies from culture to culture, it's impossible to defend a blanket statement claiming that to be "in love" with someone necessarily means erotic love.

When it comes to matters medical, I will gladly defer to you, Fass, because that's your speciality. But when it comes to matters of the English language, I defer to very few--I've studied it too long to do so.

Show us on the doll where Jesus touched you.

You only do that if it was a 'bad touch'.

OK then, I'll leave you self obsessed, oblivious wankers to your blasphemy.

Jesus Christ.

This thread gets 14+ replies in 3 minutes. I love posting things that look one way but are actually a totally different thing. it's so funny watching the reactions!

Hey, I figured out what this reminds me of. Anyone know those fake cans of peanuts that fire spring loaded snakes? You know how little children just love "tricking" their parents into opening them?

You know how the parents already know the joke but do it anyway, because it amuses them to see the kid jump up and down laughing? So while the little child thinks his parents "got tricked", it is in fact the parents who get the real laugh?

You're the kid, we're the parents, this post is the fake can of peanuts.

You can figure it out I'm sure

You can figure it out I'm sure
You're giving him a lot of credit.

OK then, I'll leave you self obsessed, oblivious wankers to your blasphemy.

Awww don't do that, we'll miss the wisdom displayed in your...3 posts so far.

Well two not counting that one.

Which I can't really be bothered to look up.

But I assume they're brilliant.

In other words, you can't, because while you can claim there's an idiomatic difference between the two, you can't make a syntactic case between the two. And since idiom varies from culture to culture, it's impossible to defend a blanket statement claiming that to be "in love" with someone necessarily means erotic love.

Sure honey. I suggest you call your mother and tell her "Mom, I'm in love with sister and she's in love with me" and tell us how she reacted...

But when it comes to matters of the English language, I defer to very few--I've studied it too long to do so.

It is sad to see that personal longueur of yours be for naught.

In other words, you can't, because while you can claim there's an idiomatic difference between the two, you can't make a syntactic case between the two. And since idiom varies from culture to culture, it's impossible to defend a blanket statement claiming that to be "in love" with someone necessarily means erotic love.

Doesn't "in love" carry a different impression of time span, and perhaps of emotional intensity, than "love"?

When I say I'm "in love" with somebody, generally it's somebody I haven't loved all my life; at some point I've been "out of love" with them. Thus I don't say "I'm in love with my mother," unless my affection for her has recently intensified.

Also, while "I love someone" is an emotion, "I am in love with someone" is more of a state; it is something prominent, something active, not like the love one feels for a parent or for an old friend.

Thus, Designated Marksman's use of it doesn't seem too off, even though the meaning wasn't erotic. The terms, however, are clearly not entirely interchangeable.

There's nothing wrong with being in love with a fictional character, DM. Don't worry. It'll all turn out okay.

...

All things considered, though, if I were Jesus I'd be freaking scared. DM is NOT the kind of person I'd want loving me, by ANY definition of the word.

Yay for simpletons who are easily amused and can't think of anything humourous to say, so just regurgitate other people's lame attempts at humour.

I mean without them, Adam Sandler would be out of a job and reduced to panhanding and searching the trash outside McDs for sustenance.

No, wait. That's a good thing...

Jesus Christ.

This thread gets 14+ replies in 3 minutes. I love posting things that look one way but are actually a totally different thing. it's so funny watching the reactions!
So that would be...trolling?