Celibacy.

[Rufus]

What do people think of a self-imposed ban on sex in order to avoid unwanted and untimely pregnancies?

Is it healthy? Is it admirable? Is it downright cretinous?

[Plette]

[s]Rufus wrote on 00:43, 14th Apr 2004:
What do people think of a self-imposed ban on sex in order to avoid unwanted and untimely pregnancies?

Is it healthy? Is it admirable? Is it downright cretinous?


Well, it's one way to prevent them, and of course the only 100% effective way. There are also a lot of other methods of birth control that are very simple to use and can provide up to 99% effectiveness if used properly. So unless you're choosing celibacy for moral reasons, or are trying to make a statement, then I would certainly think that some of the other methods would be a lot more enjoyable.

I don't see anything admirable about it, or anything bad about it either...it's just a matter of persona choice...but then I have nothing against sex before marriage, etc. As for health, I don't see any way that it could be considered unhealthy, unless perhaps for your mental health if it was causing you a lot of stress. Although there's really no reason why it should, as many people go without for a long time and stay healthy/sane enough.

[Midget]

[s]Mod edit: Please respect other users' privacy.[/s]

[Midget]

Oh come on!!!

[s]Mod edit: Please respect other users' privacy.[/s]

[Midget]

I was respectful, didn't mention real name, didn't say anything that wasn't true.

[Midget]

Bloody censorship. Like Nazi germany.

[Midget]

Censored TWICE!!!!!

For what for God's sake (the Catholic one)?

[Midget]

This is reilly getting annoying.

[Pilmour Boy]

Sorry Midget, but if you carry on posting, I'll carry on editing it.

[Midget]

Why don't you post?

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Midget wrote on 01:49, 14th Apr 2004:
Censored TWICE!!!!!

For what for God's sake (the Catholic one)?


If you have a problem with the editing, you might get a quicker reply if you use my email address, which I know you have, as I don't always have the time to read every post.

[LeopardSkinQueen]

As someone who saw the original message, I'm not really sure why this was edited. Am in state of bafflement, really.

[hr][s]Log Lady: I heard you speaking about Laura Palmer?
Dale Cooper: Yes?
Log Lady: One day my log will have something to say about this. My log saw something that night.
Dale Cooper: Really. What did it see?
Log Lady: Ask it.
[Cooper hesitates]
Log Lady: I thought so. (walks away)
[/s]

[Wong]

[s]Midget wrote on 01:43, 14th Apr 2004:
Bloody censorship. Like Nazi germany.


That's going too far. I have not seen the original post, so I can't tell how severe this was, but you should have known that posting it again after it was deleted would just get it deleted again. Having had my own adminship elsewhere compared to the Nazis is one of the most insulting things that I've ever experienced, and I doubt Pilmour appreciates this either.

[S.P.I.G]

[s]Mod edit: If the original post was going to be deleted, wouldn't it the same happen if somebody else reposts it?

If you have concerns about the moderation, then please email Oli.[/s]

[Mr Comedy]

Now all we need is some funky sashes and a guillotine, and we have a party going!

[Clonion]

I didn't see Midget's original post, but I did see S.P.I.G.'s - what was so wrong with it? And no, I'm not going to repeat what he said for the greater benefit for the other Sinners - no excuse to delete this one.

[hr]"If I want to quantify anything, I measure it against Clones. There is nothing you will ever encounter in life you haven't seen in some form in Clones"
Neil Jordan

[Pender Native]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 10:58, 14th Apr 2004:
Now all we need is some funky sashes and a guillotine, and we have a party going!

At this rate there won't be any posts on this thread that haved been edited. What was wrong with S.P.I.G.'s comment? All he was doing was questionning the impartiality of the moderators.

[Pilmour Boy]

I've just had a talk with Oli, and we've agreed that there doesn't seem much point carrying on editing and deleting seemingly every other post on this thread, so here's the original post for all of you to see and enjoy:

[i]Ask Pilmour Boy.[/]

[Amanda]

good plan, comedy.

but seriously, to reiterate the bulk of S.P.I.Gs post, for those unable to see it because of the banning of any post that has anyones user name in it (oops, i mentioned S.P.I.G - how naughty of me - will this be deleted?) perhaps moderators should be banned themselves from editing posts purely because they disagree with the comments in the posts. personal feelings shouldn't come into play, and if a post is deemed unnacceptable by one moderator, maybe we should have someone else to moderate that thread - if someone is maybe opposed to a thread (i suggest this not because i *know* that this person is opposed to the subject, but purely because, knowing that this person 'outed' themselves for elections, so i know which election campaign and sinner persona match up, so possibly it may be a subject close to their hearts) then they shouldn't be allowed to touch posts on it nless they're offensive.

i didn't see the second of midgets posts, so i can't comment on that one, but the first seemed harmless - indeed, worse things have been said - i don't see the moderators deleting posts in which people swear at others or call others rude names - yet if you mention a username in a post it gets deleted - why?

nazi comments aside, the sinner is getting ridiculously edited, and i echo the comment of 'viva la revolution'. or maybe i just think that the moderators need to moderate impartially, as is their job.

[Amanda]

Ask Pilmour Boy

oh my god! how offensive! how rude! how entirely innappropriate! how could someone possibly ever stoop so low as to say something like that!

seriously, some people need to get a grip.

edited because i can't spell