Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"They evolved" IS the design, that's what the formula required. Why do people not get that, and deny the design in the process of it? makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Oh sweet, you can watch it from the beginning really, they all are entertaining TBH. I've been outa the forum loop for a couple weeks, have you watched any yet? sorry I missed your topic! I thought you might like it because of the individual aspect rather than the drama created by several cast members, I like it because it takes you to the core of man when they have no distractions. Almost every one of the contestants get "spiritual" by the end of the session, it's interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That's cool, it's not for ALL teachers, only for those that wish to be a part of protecting their students. I thought the idea of rubber bullets someone mentioned was a great idea personally.
Created:
Posted in:
There are two kinds of people in this world, would you consider yourself a greaser or a soc?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
Really, you think it would be unusual to find survival in the western world with all the deserts, vast wilderness, forests, homeless people and countless people getting lost and dying in the wild? that's strange, perhaps you mean its not very common because of civilization and I could get with that but the western world has much wilderness, and many survival situations. Maybe not if you're a middle class, upper class city slicker but there are plenty stories of survival.
Why would you never participate in a reality survival show if you love the subject? that's the point, to survive and show/experience your own skills I don't see why you would not want to do that unless you just don't like the audience factor. Maybe you would prefer to put yourself in your own situation rather than having a production team create a scenario for you?
Anyways is there one of those books you would recommend? I won't probably get to them all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And to add, it's not incoherence rather it's your beliefs and worldview that might make it a hard reality for you to accept. That's not incoherence Secular, that's called opinions. If you don't wish to accept that souls do in fact exist even though there is ample evidence, then say so, don't claim the nature of the soul/spirit and its definitions are incoherent, two different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean coherent? we've been through this already which is why I regret discussing with DDO members that had no purpose or ability to follow simple concepts. The soul/spirit is the observer of the body, mind and emotions. The body, mind and emotions are what they are, they are not the observer they are what the observer is experiencing.
Soul-
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person
Spirit-
the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
What is INCOHERENT about those definitions?
Incoherent-
expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vagabond
First stick to what I actually write, not that I expect a Bullproof to do such a thing. A rock is a crumble of material so no I'm not claiming a "rock" is designed. However, solid planet material exists for the purpose of building planets. So yes, rock MATERIAL is included in the design of planets but rocks themselves are just rocks, pieces of broken planet material.
ROCKS-
"Rocks come from magma, which is the molten material found within the earth. When magma cools, either above or below the earth's surface, it crystallizes and forms the igneous rocks that can later be changed into metamorphic or sedimentary rocks."
The question is not whether rocks were designed, the question is whether PLANETS were designed.
Having fun Bully? lol, how can you stand yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I could go along with that, only I would add that to every aspect of the human experience including the body, mind, emotions and soul/spirit. The influence to harm any one of those aspects is what I would consider a negative. The opposite it true for positive, that we would enhance and aid any one of those aspects of the human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not necessarily though I never discount that there is a "devil" that may in fact exist, which is why we as individuals are totally responsible for the choices we pursue and the decisions we make. If we begin to blame experiences on some "devil" out there somewhere reeking havoc on creation then the line between consequences, personal accountability and blaming become blurred. That's why it's more reasonable to conclude the "devil" is a universal phenomenon that can related as the negative forces not some entity roaming loose and causing everything that's perceived as negative. Though higher states of reality and spiritual beings can influence the souls in the lower worlds its all in line with what the individual is operating in, their thoughts, intensions, desires and actions....but they can be manipulated for the use of a higher purpose or goal, likewise the same for the positive forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why need we distinguish what we believe is negative for the fact of the matter to exist? I would say a negative is causing harm to the self and to others in any way, sure we can argue all day about what that entails but lets keep it simple so we can progress for a change.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
You could start with a less absurd premise perhaps because in reality I'm not sure what natural forces have to do with gods or demi-gods as actual entities, whether or not the demi-gods had any influence or part in creating the universes is irrelevant to their existence. What Polytheists believed at particular times is really irrelevant to polytheism as a concept (which is also seen in the Bible), which simply recognizes there exists many incarnations and embodiments that channel the powers and creativity of God or the first Source, and these are known as demi-gods or incarnations.
If God wants to express something or create something as an outlet for Gods creative abilities it does this through forms in creation, otherwise the Creator has no way to express Itself. If the first Source wants to govern a division of creation It does so through a type of embodiment of an overlord/spiritual entity or incarnation and man perceives these beings as God. But in creation there's a hierarchy set up within the worlds and universes of God and varying states and levels of consciousness where the individual soul progresses in its journey. There are countless souls and as well there are several overlords but all entities and all souls come from the same Source, yet develop their own personalities just like we do in this realm and in these bodies. When a created soul leaves the Godhead as a seed it literally takes on a fresh new experience and develops its own individuality through its own experiences and perceptions but the channel of awareness of the observer is one and the same, the conscious awareness that comes through the embodiments is the very same, of the same origin, of the same nature. This is the same for very entity or embodiment that exists.
You can look at it like God shooting Itself in the foot but there is no alternative, there is no other methods of creation and can be no other way and it's the only way to have experiences away from a singular reality. The upside is that the actual entities experience is that there in fact does exist other beings to have relations with, and this works because as I said above each soul develops its own personalities and unique forms. When the seed/soul left the Creator It departed within that seed a unique expression of Itself and a unique creative ability.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
BTW, demonstrating does not only come in one form, in which you prefer it to come. Demonstration " to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove: to demonstrate a philosophical principle. 2. to describe, explain, or illustrate by examples."
give a practical exhibition and explanation
to show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence
In this context, there is NOTHING that cannot be "demonstrated" to you about Theism and spirituality.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
There's many things that you believe are a reality you cannot demonstrate to me over the internet in a discussion. You can make claims based on your encounters, but you can never "demonstrate" them. Neither with personal experience, they can only be testified to not demonstrated.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not at all, that's why we argue, explain, articulate and have reasoning coupled with logic, common sense and personal experience. That's why there is a thing called debate and discussion. If everything could be handed to you on a silver platter we wouldn't even be talking.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Most of the Christians I meet in real life are not as rigid as asserted on the internet really, not quite as close-minded as many believe even though those exist. They listen to what I have to say and I listen to them as well. Christianity is my foundation so I have no problems with articulating and bridging the gaps except with real hard core fundamentalists I usually encounter on the internet and not in real life. Actually many Christians too are looking for answers because their beliefs are not based upon experience and articulating what they believe so they are many times open to truth outside their own perceptions.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I would add that I'm not making a claim that "all" perceived and recorded gods exist. What I'm saying is that the Creator channels its power and creative forces through vessels and demigods in the multiverses or God-worlds, and these beings rule over their domain like kings. How many "gods" actually exist I have no idea, what I do know is that humans perceive these powers and personalities as god, and there really is no fault in that, only matters and variations of perception. One might not be aware that there is a higher reality behind and beyond their god in form, and it really doesn't matter because these Beings have existed long before you and I, they have earned the right to be perceived as God, even though the original Source manifests through many forms not just one, there is a hierarchy in creation and in the heavens. Not a hierarchy ruled by tyranny but by experience and knowledge. There is power in surrender, speaking in spiritual terms.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
May not be physically "demonstrated" to you in a physical form of evidence but certainly observed nonetheless. Two different facts really when it comes to spiritual encounters. One can observe something but not necessarily be able to demonstrate it.
In spirituality, which you've been told before many times assumptions are no longer necessary in ascertaining truth. Spirituality is based on observation not assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The devil could in fact exist as some being or some renegade soul who rebelled, but it's much more reasonable to consider the "devil" in scripture as representative of the negative forces and what we contend with in the worlds of duality where good and evil have relevance. Even if the devil exists, one can still interchange this idea with the devil being representative of the negative side of creation in all respects. Just like one should correctly interpret Adam and Eve as being representative of mankind and not just two people that happened to disobey God.
It has no effect on the world to understand it, rather it effects the world whether or not we understand it. Negative forces exist both in this realm and beyond and it's advanced through vessels and agendas it effects our world every day why would anyone deny that negative forces exist?
Nothing is inherently evil, rather the negative side of polarity gains traction through creation, through perceptions and desires which manifests itself through beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Without any doubts, without duality and contrast there would again be only a singular omnipresent reality....which is what all creation derives from even if you study quantum physics. Creation starts from the very reality of polarity and opposing forces, this is what splits the omnipresent field and divides the oneness of all conscious awareness into different experiences and forms.....without that there can be no creation, no experience as an individual observing separation from the illusion of forms and contrast.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Precisely! excellent. You can look up "Atman" in Hinduism as well, same thing again. This is actually the theme of most religions and spiritual paths even if you study a more essene message of Jesus, even in the Bible there are hints of this but it has become a separate division mainly because of simple misunderstandings and interpretations of what polytheism actually is. We are actually all sons of God, just trapped in duality and individual perceptions and experiences, desires.
Gospel of Thomas
"3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) imperial ruleis in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you,'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's)imperial rule is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, thenyou will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the livingFather."
Created:
Posted in:
Everything we see and observe in creation meets the of definition of design in its end result. Likewise, nothing in creation contradicts that there is an apparent design for this existence to exist.
Design-
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
to devise for a specific function or end
to conceive or execute a plan
to create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
to have as a goal or purpose, intend
the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details
Un-design-
no purpose, planning or intention that exists or thought to exist behind an action, fact or material object
no devising for a specific function or end
no conception or execution of a plan
no creating or contriving for a particular purpose or effect
to have no goal or purpose, intend
no purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details
One problem with un-design, everything under design is seen in creation and not in the other.
Hence, can you show any "undersigned" thing or object that has an apparent design (according to the definitions) that was not designed.....then, how can you show it to be so. If you cannot, there's no logical, intelligent reason to reject design in creation.
Created:
-->
@Castin
It may help to clarify what we mean by "god", because perception of an entity may vary. In other words any being or creative power higher than ourselves could be considered a "god". However, God in and of Itself is not a Being, It only channels Itself through vessels and forms. So in essence, we all can be considered gods, in that we all come from the same Source and really have no distinction other than embodiments and knowledge, some being much more advanced than others and considered gods. They in fact rule over the created realms, each realm or universe has an overlord that governs that entire realm. This is how the Divine channels Its power and expressions through creativity.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Just as I wrote, the monotheist believes that polytheism is stating that each god had separate origins when in fact that is not true, and the monotheist believes his one god is all that exists, and that's not true. And even though some polytheists may believe that its gods came from different origins it is irrelevant to what I wrote. That all incarnations come from one God, or Creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
God is in fact non-gender, there is no sexual role or anatomy of the Creator. Only when individual souls enter creation, the worlds of duality does any gender play a role or a function in reality. The Bible capitalizes on the masculine nature of God to express attributes not gender IMO. God in the Bible is perceived as protector, leader, head figure, Father, warrior ect ect all the attributes of one who "provides" or covers....and so the masculine expression is pronounced, rather than a more feminine role but again, God is the embodiment and fullness of both expressions and as a matter of fact it's the feminine principle in creation which stabilizes more than the other. Meaning creation is not perfectly in balance with one half or the other, it's slightly driven to one side and so is positive and negative, good and evil, light and darkness.....the positive charge has a slight edge over the negative. Now God in the Bible however is definitely tipped towards the masculine role and which I explained, it's more of an interpretation of the attributes of a God, not really what gender role God would play.
Created:
-->
@Castin
The first statement the Catholic Encyclopedia assumes has truth to it, but the second is blatantly false. Even in the Bible polytheism could be argued to exist, almost all other religions are polytheistic partly due to the fact they understand incarnations. I've said this a million times and I don't pretend it will yet have any significance...possibly later. Polytheism is compatible with Monotheism and here is why...….polytheism is an extension of monotheism, sounds strange but it's true and when people understand this fact it will bring the whole of religion and spirituality together as one. It's precisely due to the nature of consciousness and creation, and why the Creator creates. The illusion of creation is that there is more than one reality, or a singular static reality where all creation derives from. The illusion of separation, division and contrast comes through the creation of forms and embodiments but the inner channel of awareness is the very same in all life and in all forms, there is no distinction just like energy and electricity where the two takes on forms and animates machinery. We could take a trip to Home Depot and look at all the pretty appliances, lights, refrigerators, dishwashers, stoves ect ect and all of them have different features and looks yet they all are operated the same way, through the same source of power. Creation, incarnations work the same way, the very same way.....you have different looks and various forms but the channel of conscious awareness comes from the same Source.
So, while you have many forms and incarnations in creation they all come from the same reality, the first Source....God, Creator whatever you wish to call it. Likewise, the Creator channels it's power and creative energy through vessels, or what we as humans would call god or demigods depending on how you view them. For the monotheist, just one of these variations or channels is "God". For the Polytheist all of these channels are gods....BUT......for the Omnist ALL of these realities come from a single Source. If both Monotheism and Polytheism would bring their conceptions together you would have the truth, and the truth would be magnified and strengthened tenfold because the bridge between two divisions would be nonexistent. The monotheist would understand that other gods and other incarnations also are an expression of the Divine, and the polytheist would come to terms that all gods come from the same source not separate origins.
Polytheism is in no way less evolved, I would say polytheism probably came before monotheism and monotheism only came about as a misunderstanding of polytheism. And this is coming from someone who has held a monotheistic belief most his life, but now I understand the nature of the soul and the nature of creation more precisely than I did. Now I know they are actually compatible and not a separate category at all. Think about it, you have one massive reality that takes on many roles and many expressions. This is why you have so many dynamics and various interpretations of one truth, from one arena. We're talking about an intelligent conscious reality that had no beginning and no ending, to try and stuff this reality in one corridor is insane, especially when you learn what consciousness is, what the soul is and how creation works. I'm not even saying that I'm a polytheist because I don't believe different overlords have separate origins. I'm a monotheist that understands the nature of incarnations and why polytheism fits perfectly within a singular reality. BTW, polytheism states this...…" is the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals. In most religions which accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses are representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles, and can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator deity or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies)."
Note that in that definition nowhere does it state the origin of such deities....only that there are more than one, how this ever got contrasted with a monotheistic theism is silly.....because all creation comes from a singular, omnipresent conscious reality.
These incarnations and channels for the Divine take on personalities and creative roles in our universes. Souls have unique experiences with these spiritual Beings and perceive they are much, much higher than we are and they are....but just as the new souls came from the heart of God all beings, all incarnations, angles, creatures, gods, spirits ect ect also come from that same truth. Even though Christianity is primarily perceived as monotheistic the OT is pretty clear there exists more than a single god.....note I said "god" and not God, because again we have gods coming from one God, or one Source. Yes, in theory these incarnations or lower gods would be considered inferior only in that they do not embody the fullness of the first Source, which is the root of all life. However, some incarnations DO take on the role of a god in creation and for some souls so again, when one comes to terms with what I've said here it can be assured that both polytheism and monotheism are in fact compatible because they both originate from one Source. I hope this is not confusing, some of these questions require a dynamic answer because it's a vast arena not to mention this is a fresh analysis nonetheless it's the truth of the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Hey, I'm an actual 80's kid, it's been awhile for me. I probably didn't even know what that word meant lol.
Kind of brings me back to the Teen Wolf movie, same actor same era lol. Geeze, hopefully you've never seen that one! funny though...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I was saying the original character played by Mel Gibson (Mad Max) was much more dynamic than that of Dan Hardy's character. I like Dan Hardy but I think he fell short of the role compared to the original film. What I meant by "light-hearted" was that Mel Gibson has a unique quality of playing intense characters with a humorous aspect along with it.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the road warrior thing but as I said, it seemed to drag on at the end and was just not as believable especially when it gets too outrageous. And my point remains, the special effects didn't do this film any favors. I mean the guitar player with his double neck guitar spitting fireworks while they attack their enemies was great, but somehow I got the feeling most of the movie was filmed in the truck to meet a budget, could be wrong but watch it again, the ending was just stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Ha! you watched the Bigfoot series already? you're one step ahead of me I haven't seen those yet! except you have to watch some of the other survival shows you missed like Alone and Live Free or Die. Sounds like you're a no-nonsense type of girl, then I would think you would like those two.
Bear Grylls not a real survival expert? have you seen the show where he takes celebrities out to survive, big difference between him and them, I'm sure he could survive alone for a time longer than the average person even if his shows are not 100% survival based.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You've been around the survival block like me haven't you? I really liked Cody but I kept watching because I liked the Joe Teti guy too, he ended up pairing with a guy named Matt Graham at the end I like so I watched all the seasons. I didn't think I would much like it when Cody left but I like the replacements and the shows are still interesting.
I thought the "Alone" series was really cool. I believe they select about ten people to survive in a remote area by themselves and see who can last the longest period of time surviving, for as long as they can go until they tap out. They have to make their own shelter, fire and find their own foods completely alone recording their own footage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It got a little cooky in the ending, and the end seemed to drag out for a millennia. Maybe that's why older movies are more realistic because they couldn't get too crazy with special effects and ruin it. I think you will like the original two I mentioned especially if you like that one, you like guy flicks?? that's cool...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I think some of the drama stuff depends on the chemistry of the people involved in the show too, which then makes for entertainment but for example the "Alone" series only has one survivor so you might like that one, because the drama of adding another player is no longer there it's just about one person trying to see how long they can make it out in nowhere. The Survivor series that came out in the 90's was definitely overly dramatic because it had several contestants competing for money but it did ruin it for me because they played it out too much.
I didn't really like the naked thing either it was actually the last one I considered watching but then I ran out of survival shows to watch lol. But I found it interesting once I got used to it, gross too though. I'm guessing they did that just to add another level of having to survive with nothing, furthering mental deterioration ect but yeah I really like Live Free or Die...no nakedness. Alone is fun to watch as far as surviving game goes. Have you seen Dual Survivor? that's a good one too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Oh heck yeah I've been watching Survivor Man since he came out, I've watched everything on Hulu and Netflix lol....I think he actually has his own channel now, like all his shows and everything on it. I believe his most recent venture is this Bigfoot series, kinda funny but I'm glad he's going to do it.
Have you watched "Live free of Die", that's a good one since you don't like the game play stuff. I also really like Bear Grylls, I'm sure you heard of his shows..."Man vs Wild".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't know where you are from, but one of the more recent school shootings in Maryland was relinquished rather quickly by someone armed. I believe it was an officer but the point is that having protection could prevent further damage by a long shot. I think though having access to fire arms both outside and inside would be better. It just so happened the shooter was outside and there was an officer but had the shooter been inside the school there could have been serious consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I see what you're saying, but it's like a anything else I guess....just having some experience is better than none. We're talking last minute resorts here as school mass crimes are somewhat rare in general but again. If criminals are aware that schools are protected even just a little, it may play an advantage. I don't really know what the answers TBH that's why I'm discussing it here but I think anything is better than nothing in this context. I just don't like the idea of kids being vulnerable especially in todays world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Haha, had I not watched the original I may have liked it better. Mel Gibson has a very charismatic personality so his roles are always serious as well as funny, he has that unique ability to portray those qualities in a single character. You've never watched "Beyond Thunderdome" or "Road Warrior"??? come on now, that's your homework!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Two things I could name off, even though I like the main actor his character seemed rather boring. I know Mel Gibson is a very charismatic person but so is Dan Hardy I think they could have lightened up a little, gave em more of a dynamic role. Also much of the movie took place inside that truck, and the end was a little silly....driving through tornadoes and car accidents and still living lol, I mean it got too goofy. Even though the new movie has all the effects and great cinema it seriously lacked the realistic nature of the first one. The original was much more believable in that sense.
You would think in todays world they could capture both, realistic plots AND great effects. In this particular movie the special effects played against the quality of it IMO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Non sequitur, you come from the very Source where all truth and knowledge originate. What I mean by "perfectly" is the same as what I told you before, that there is no cap on what we can learn, know or experience other than what limitations we place on those things. What you may not know now, you may acquire later. The very fundamental things of life and our nature are things that are not out of reach.....you have conscious awareness, you have a mind and a brain, how are you NOT designed perfectly to know whatever it is you wish to understand? what other tool would you need?
Created:
Posted in:
SCARY!
I've done this several times not knowing I was burning poison ivy, it spread all over my head and neck and everywhere but thankfully not in my lungs even though I'm sure I inhaled smoke from it.
I actually never knew this, be careful....
"Even the smoke from burning poison ivy, poison oak and poison sumac contains urushiol and can irritate or harm your nasal passages or lungs."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Lol, that's the thing about bad guys....once you get a defensive plan they restrategize!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
One option a member brought up was a local gun range offering teachers discounts for lessons. TBH all in all it's not a very expensive, time-consuming practice really. It's not like they need to be snipers and know how to traverse rugged terrain. Learning to shoot a handgun is relatively simple and inexpensive. The only other option really is that teachers and all the kids in a classroom be completely defenseless.....if an incident were to take place. As I mentioned above we've had several incidents and threats just in our area. The scary thing is, is that the more these types of crimes happen the more psychos will be conscious of it, back when I was a kid no one ever even heard of such a thing, now it's the norm.
School is a rough place no joke, the school I went to was dangerous enough WITHOUT school shootings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
LOL, yeah I don't think that image they claim looks like Jesus would have too many followers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's one of the things I love about the old life, kids were raised doing work and chores on the farm and they'd learn a lot by just being responsible and hard working. That is definitely almost entirely lost now at least in America.
I'd like to see comparison of curriculum of now and then, I could imagine even the language used by teachers then was not very polished.
I really like that idea of your local gun range that is cool. If kids knew teachers were partially armed and could take control of a situation very quickly, plus the teachers next door, plus security it's gotta mess with the minds of young adults wanting to commit crimes on others in school.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
Poison Ivy Stories....
So I was about 8 or 9 years old and my friend concocts this stupid idea that we need to get out of school a few days lol. So he takes me to this patch of ivy on the outskirts of the woods and tells me "if we rub this all over our entire body we will get out of school", and like an idiot not knowing what it was we both rolled in the ivy. Since I was unaware how allergic I was to the plant I was in for a big surprise.
So I wake up the following day and I can't see out of my eyes, they are completely swollen shut and I basically stumble down the hall and knock on my moms door. She opens the door and screams! she claimed I looked like an alien, we went to the emergency room of course with me covering my head with a jacket. Yes, we got out of school. I was out for over 2 weeks and still had scars around my eyes and elsewhere. Fun stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
Haha, I always thought that car was some type of 1980's Fiero…
As it turns out it's a DeLorean Dmc-12....
Created:
Posted in:
Anybody want to take this baby for a spin LMBO!
Seriously though, this movie began in 1985....how much relevance does it have in the future?
Created: