Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, the answer is obvious to me. Let's see what you think and then I'll pop in w/ my view later

Both

Genetic?...
only if their born a hermaphrodite

It's not something that can be changed, so it's genetic.

Genetic of what? It is a feeling of affection and those cant be inherited.

Exhibit A: A man sees an aesthetically pleasing woman and has an erection. That same man sees an aesthetically pleasing man, and has no reaction.

Exhibit B: A man sees an aesthetically pleasing man and has an erection. That same man sees an aesthetically pleasing woman, and has no reaction.

Neither man chose to be the way he is. Both were born that way, and they will die that way.

c : the man get an erection on both males and females.

still feelings aint inherited familywise.
It is just nature of things

Yeah, when I said genetic I meant it's something having to do with a chromosome in their brain which makes it impossible for them to decide if they are or aren't homosexual.

yeah I gotcha, off course too late to edit the post though

Yeah, I should have made it a bit clearer

Chosen or Genetic? your missing a very important vote option my friend. Just because it is not based upon genetics does not mean its a matter of personal choice. I do not believe that being a homo is either a choice or a genetic trait, but rather a matter of environmental influences. They are numerous things that can affect an individuals sexual preference and while not all homosexuals exhibit these traits there are certain things that make a person more likely to have trouble finding positive, meaningful relationships with the opposite sex, ie: maternal or paternal negligence, maternal or parental dominance (authoritarian influence) in the home, relationship between parents (abuse, separation, or divorce), relationships with adults as a child (molestation, abuse), or things like marching band, theatre club, or the high school wrestling team.

I stress that none of these above things I have listed definately makes someone gay. I know plenty of people that have had divorced or separated parents, or experienced abuse and they, for the most part, are no different from anyone other heterosexual. However the above list will affect a persons emotional development, including relations with members of both sexes and things like physical attraction.

While I know that some of those in the above list are stereotypes (i hope you can realize on your own that i am only joking about a few of them), there is still some half truth to some of those statements. While I am not argueing that those things will definately make you gay, I instead suggest that they are factors which affect individual character development, including such things as sexual preference.

This is written from the perspective of a heterosexual male, so if you disagree with me feel free to attack me on the grounds that I don't really know what makes a person gay. But I don't think gay people really know either. Some gay people perfer to say things like "I was born this way," but there is no isolated gay gene: By attributing homosexuality to their individual human nature is a cop out answer, because the idea of human nature is related to something genetic that makes us a certain way. It is much easier to believe that the relationships and situations encountered as a developing child has a larger impact upon forming relationships and creating a sexual identity than some certain genetic quality..... If it were a genetic trait the trait would die out in a few generations because if you have a genetic trait that makes you gay, there is no passing it along to your offspring, duh.... It may just be easier to attribute it to some broad, meaningless term than to question the possiblity that the was they are today is the result of somethigns that happened to them while being raised. I know that the gay community takes alot of crap already, if you add in personal crisis of identity you get a recipe for a kind of mental breakdown. The idea that someone chooses to be gay seems riddiculous to me too. I mean, they do dress snazzy, and have a superiour sense of style, and drive expensive european cars, but it still doesn't make sense to a purely hetero male. While I am niether gay, nor do i really know a lot of gay people personally, I have taken a couple of human psychology classes that examine the process of human character development. And based upon what I learned in class as well as what I've heard on talk shows like Love-Line I have come up with this explanation.

Someone let me know if I'm way off here.

Your on point, I agree

I agree with you, Turban-Cajun. Once again.

as do I.

I was going to say that...but then i got down to your paragraph.

Are there any gay people out there who can confirm or deny? I feel strongly about what I wrote, but I would like to hear from someone who swings that way if I am mostly correct or mostly incorrect.

Genetic..
God i love these threads

Chosen. It all has to do with preference in the first place.

I had a conversation with a gay guy about what made him chose the aforementioned lifestyle. He said he preferred the sound of a mans groans.

You cannot really help who you like, love, etc. in the first place. It is chosen.

As I said earlier, how do you inherit the homo gene? Gay people can't get pregnant that way...

As far as I know there isnt any evidence to support that claim.

I would say that your choice to exercise your homosexuality is CHOSEN. Just like you can choose to be single or with someone (if they're willing)

But your sexual preference is something that is established through the environment you grow up in. It's a mix of values and culture...well...sort of.

Both

Environment does influence your sexual preference, sure. But homosexuality is not inherited like your eye colour.

A hard on proves nothing. Nor will this thread - other than people who should know better seem to have a lot of certainties about things we obviously cant be certain about.

It could be either, it probably can be either - I could choose to **** a guy tonight* to prove a point, wouldnt make me more or less gay than I already am.

I think the question of choice vs genetics is moot - all sexuality is an aesthetic decision on some level. You might as well ask if some guy who doesn't get turned on by black women or small breasted women or redheads is acting out of choice or genetics? To limit the discussion to homosexual sexuality shows predisposed bias.



*before you all start emailing me asking if you can watch I'm actually going to bed early to it will have to be tomorrow.

How can it be either way? I have already said a couple times now that I think the idea of having genetic qualities that make you more prone to being gay is unlikely, as well as illogical. If anyone has a link saying anything to the contrary about the possibility of a "gay" gene I encourage you to post it. Otherwise I think it is unrealistic to even consider a scientific approach to what you said Mr Zero, a matter of aesthetics. And like you say, just because you **** a guy tonight to prove a point doesnt make you any more or less gay than you already are (although that would be pretty gay)... it shows that niether option is acceptable. Which like I said earlier means that your preferences and attractions (or what you may find aesthetically pleasing or attractive) is affected by your environment and your relationships with other people, especially your parents. This has been proven in heterosexual males. Studies have shown that heterosexual males are more likely to find themselves physically attracted to women who have similarities with their mother, ie: brown hair, brown skin, blue eyes...

I think Mr. Zero that you are agreeing with me more than you are disagreeing with me. And so far no one who has posted any argument longer than 1 or 2 words has really claimed any certainty in this. I am still open to possiblity that I am wrong here, and what I said earlier was that these are only factors which affect you sexual identity and preference, not something that will cause you to turn queer.

I think its medical, maybe genitic maybe not. but i don't think a person would wake up and say " I feel like being hated right now. . so i'm going gay!!!! yipiee!"

It's just plain...abonormal...I mean DUH why did God not make it such that u can have kids when a guy has sex with a guy?!
It just isn't natural.

Yeh, and living in houses with running water and elictricity ain't natural either. In fact, homosexuality is a lot more natural than either of those things, because animals other than humans exhibit homosexuality.

edit: The Omega is a faster typist than me, apparently.

I HATE this provincial 'proof' bullshit!!!Human ignorance amazes me.Just when we THINK we know it all....How ridiculous of us to conclude that ONLY what we can tell from OUR senses is true?!
Utter Crap!Bullshit!

People had 'proof' world was square...

Which people? And you still haven't addressed my points (The Omega made them, too, but they're my points, damnit!)

That proof was obviously unfounded. Asking for evidence of something is not "bullshit" nor is it unreasonable. Just because you can't give valid evidence to someone to show that there is a God doesn't mean you should fly off the handle. It's very reasonable to base your beliefs off of evidence.

Are you for real?

believing in something that no one can prove exsists is about as close to the definition of Human Ignorance.

Uh-uh WRONG there buddy, believing in something US MERE HUMAN'S can't 'prove' is perfectly REASONABLE.

It was us who almost 'proved' that Titanic was unsinkable...

Keyword there is "Almost"

it's completely unreasonable and illogical.

and what does that analogy of the Titanic have to do with anything. SOME people claimed it to be unsinkable, but they were PROVED wrong by a gigantic ice burg.



In that analogy you're the person who believed the Titanic was infact unsinkable....and people who require proof are the ones who are ultimately correct.

Well yeah considering the fact that THEY WERE WRONG. And it was supposedly PROVED that it was unsinkable.

It was never actually proved to be unsinkable, it was believed to be unsinkable. That's right, blind belief that was based not on evidence, but on word of mouth. Sound familiar?

please explain to me how they PROVED it was unsinkable?

Did they crash it into anything before it's maiden voyage? No.
Did they attack it with any form of military weaponry? No

No one tried to prove it was unsinkable, they CLAIMED it was unsinkable.

Cant we all say its Chosogeneric and we all agree then?

Holy shit, we have a new word, someone call Websters!!

haha chosogeneric lol

wouldn't that defeat the purpose of DISCUSSION?

You need to ask yourself by whose standard of proof do we need to adhere? Just because it does not follow the Newtonian definition of science, the abilty to recreate an experiment and to test and retest hypotheses, does not automatically mean that there is not evidence to support an argument for a supernatural diety. Remember, Im not some one who doesnt believe in evolution and thinks the world was created 4 thousand years ago. I am not religious in anyway, however I think that there is a a false trust in the ability of science to be able to prove everything, or to disprove everything. There is tons of stuff in natural world and in the cosmos that we do not understand. If science is unable to explain or to understand everything that we can see with our eyes, how can you expect science to adequately prove or disprove metaphysical and theological concepts outside the area of scientific study?

Chosen or Genetic sounds the same as Nurture vs. Nature. The argument goes nowhere. No point in going further.

Actually, the argument has, of course, turned into a religious argument, so the discussion about homosexuality won't go any further.

Every topic turns into a religious argument. God knows why?

Probably because this is a philosophy forum, and to alot of people philosophy=religion.

Oh, my God! Me and Omega agreed on something! That has to be a first.

After fasting would be hunger halucinations.......


God no!
No more freakin rein-deer!
You should jsut stick it in your sig or something!

I have something against people refering to dark middle-agers and making it seem they are all stupid

lol

Yers> Ah bah, yers! When I refer to the "dark" Middle-ages I always think of "The Name of the Rose", the time when Christians went around and burnt scientists.
Dark means unenlightened... Humans are not stupid, and only as ignorant as lack of education and upbringing makes them

They didn't assume. They did those oh-so-great experiments which apparently to THEM , ackording to their SUCH limited knowledge, 'proved' that the owlrd was square!

Uh...HELLO!
THE WORLD DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND US!!
Things don't suddenly 'exist' when our meger lil brains aknowldge their existance!

pun

yeah, totally understand it ... it's like a saying


erm... how did we get on this subject again?

omega:

Science has long been viewed in a Heroic sense, the view that Science can somehow heroically explain the universe and everything within it. I agree with you when you say that science has brought us along ways from the middle ages. However, in addition to improving lives though industrialization and technological advances in medicine, etc. it has also produced a lot of negative creation. If it weren't for science there would be no nuclear weapons, there would be no excess greenhouse gas emmissions, and there would be no distant wars over fossil fuels. There would be no accumulation of DDT in northern ecosystems, there would be no holes in the ozone layer, and there would be no oil tanker spills. Whether or not you consider all these creations of science, the scientific method has given birth to numerous technologies of mass destruction, undeniably. Science has not always been right on these things. Science cannot explain a lot of things. I asked my psychology profesor once, a man who has devoted the better part of a decade studying in university ways to scientifically explain pyschological phenomena, what is couscieness and well, even science has some trouble dealing with what is the conscieness of the human mind. If you do get an explaination it is usually something like your consciouness is the connections your brain cells make in between one another and the way these connections operate. I can tell you that what I have experienced in my day to day activities that my mind, my conscienceness, my personality even is much larger and more complex than a string of nerve cells making connections. I think that is not unreasonable to have doubts about the ability of science provide explanations and answers to everything.

accually, the Dark ages notion that the world was flat was disproved centuries earlier in Ancient greece. Forget who did it but it had somethign to do with finding the circumfrence of the earth.... (oh and they were right to a coupla feet)
The only reason that existed was because the religious people shut out all knowlage and pointed to the part in the bible where it says the 4 corners of the earth!

I don't think anything's existance depends on human acknowledgement of it.
Can u 'prove' that Aliens are NOT real?!
Muhammad IS a prohphet of God!So is Jesus and Moses!And Adam!
People move things with their mind?!NO comment
Bermuda Traingle isn't my subject of debate.Don't know much about it to conclude anything!

I'm glad someone catch it.

oh... ... would that be the gay pope himself?

'Enlightenment' Wow SUCH a baostful name...shouldn't they be humiliated to understand the world around them SO late?!To understand common sense so late?!

Thank you for that super observation captain kill-joy

God Damn it!!

I guess we have to break out the reindeer!

Let me do the honors!

Me: Flying Reindeer exist!
You: No they don't
Me: prove it

So you have to got and find EVERY reindeer on earth and toss them of a bridge and see if they can fly. Even when that happens I can claim that they only do it under certian circumstances, E.g. the've eaten a pound of cabbage and Brussle sprouts and under the fuill moon on the third saturday of ever 8th year, Or that they are special reindeer from Mars or that they havent been born yet.


Get it, Its impossible to prove a negative! I can't disprove God, because of above reasoning, so you have to PROVE him.

Oh and aliens probably do exist, but not the was we imagine them.

In the words of Zero:

Your mind is like LASER!!!!

While the reindeer analogy is cute and all there are people who have had a spiritual experience who don't need science to prove that it exists, because well, if you expecience something you know that it happened, and generally you don't care too much if others beleive you or not. They know it exists because they experienced it. If you want proof, generally there is none that will stand up to the scientific method that you accept as your scientific bible. You guys criticize the religious types for being blind to science and refusing to consider the possibility that you are wrong while you yourselves are refusing to consider the possibility that there is something else out there that science is unable to explain.

ok... I had a spiritual experience... this heavy low voice told me that science is right and religion sucks

proof me wrong about this turbo-cajun

That is something that Humans are better known for. Can't be right all the time.

TC> We may be wrong!
If the proof come along and shows us that we are wrong then we will execpt it, its how science works! But I have seen NO proof of any sort of god, none whatsoever. I have seen proof of science. So I go with the proof.


Anyways, if God did provide prrof than religion would become science. That would be a fun argument...

I told you f-tards before, I am an aethist. Don't call me religous.

I just think its dumb that you guys think that science has everything figured out and everyone who does not buy into science is some backwards bible-bashing creationist. Any absolutist claim is riddiculous to me. The idea that science has all of the answers to understanding everything in our world is just as stupid to me as the claim the Christianity has all of the answers to understanding the world. There needs to be a healthy level of skepticism when deconstructing peoples arguements on both sides of an issue.

I think that that is a fair statement. You guys are devout when it comes to your beleif in the power of science to solve all are problems. You should hear some of the stuff that scientists during the enlightenment said... one of them said something aobut "the truth of Newton's ideas overcoming the powers of darkness with light..."

Sounds pretty biblical to me. Fools.

language please

and I think you are dangerously low educated in the field of this all here... science NEVER claims it has ALL the answers NOR that it's definitive... that's the bible that claims such things, scientists have made millions of theories and thousands have been either utterly bashed, proven wrong or refined. That should make it clear that at least they do evolve (pun not intended).

And yes, I do believe that science can solve a lot of problems... thanks to science i.e. we know that the earth is round ... if it was up to the bible, we would still think it's a square. Science has made us go from... how you put it "f-tards" to people that can at least understand the big parts of what's going on here.

Excuse my language, I despise be labelled. But i do not believe that my use of the asterisk sign invalidates my arguement.

I maybe should have worded it in a way in which you can understand. Science may not claim to have all the answers to everything, yet, but from what i get in this discussion it claims the only truths that exist are those which are able to be scientifically proven. So while science may not have all the answers to everything, you claim that the only real truths that exist are those reached through science. Which still makes it the only "true" way to gain knowledge. I still believe that you are just as uninformed about somethings as are the hard core Christian extremists.

that wasn't what I said either

that is simply becauase at least science evolves and isn't afraid to change or retract theories... it is religious people that up to now have not proved anything or just take an ancient book as the only source of knowledge... I don't know about you, but I want my believes and truths be the real deal and that's science, they explain it

As I said, I already know what my opinion is. Actually, it has been proven that homosexuality is due to a chemical imblaance in the brain.

Well, that was never my intention, I was wondering what people think. I'm actually a fierce advocate of gay rights

Yerssot, well I don't think you have a good grasp on what I said either.

I do not advocate the use of religion

What I said, is that both Christianity and Science claim to have a monopoly on what truth is, and that by making the claim that you are correct and no one else is, or that no other source of knowledge exists you are being just as ignorant to the possibility of alternate models of knowledge as the Christians are. Even if there was some big display of god-like power there is no way that it would even mean anything to a scientist. If say for example that an incident like Moses and the burning bush took place, today, in front of a thousand spectators, science would still say that that is not sufficient evidence to prove there is a god. The bush? oh well... see it was a very dry bush and it happening to become ignited when static discharge from when Moses's positively charged robe came into contact with a negatively charged dry bush. The voices? auditory disorder, possibly brought on by trauma of having a bush suddenly ignite in your face. There is no amount of evidence available which could erase all doubt in the minds of scientists why there is religion, just as there is no scientific reasoning strong enough to convince christians that there is no god. And since they are both essentially extremist positions, I choose to remain skeptical of both science and religion. Did you get that?

I dont think that either religion or science is capable of knowing all the answers, which makes me a skeptic, not religious, skeptic...

So is depression... that doesnt mean that everyone who is depressed was given a depression gene that caused that imbalance. People can develope that imbalance due to social pressures and environmental influences. I can't remember what your angle was on this again, but that fact really doesn't prove anything, other than Gay people have a chemical imbalance in thier brain.

Really? Could you please indicate where this "proof" can be found - rather than me just sit here and think you are full of shit.

It hasn't really been proven, but it is a very viable theory that's going around.

A person chooses it of course

if it's a chemically embalance in the brain, then why hasn't someone made meds to take to cure it? I mean if you're not chosing to be that way, and peeps get criticzd alot for being that way, then why not take meds to help??

hiiiiiiiiiiiiii everyone

Because besides being an imbalance, if that is what in fact causes people to confuse their sexual identities, it has become part of their individual character developement and who they are as a person. Imagine taking a pill fiery eyes and waking up strongly attracted to other women sexually. It would confuse the hell out of you, you wouldnt probably like that very much. I do know a few gay people, and once they find a comfortable place and supportive network of friends they often have no problems being who they really are naturally, and most i assume would not want to go straight. By prescribing drugs to make them attracted to the other sex is they same as you taking pills to make you attracted to your same sex.

I'm not the one that brought up that it could be a chemical imbalance, cuz of course i don't believe that, but why would someone not want to take it, if they are chemically imbalance, then why would they not want to balance theirself out? ADHD kids do all the time, and it helps them to learn better. If you're adnormal (chemically off) why not balance yourself out? It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo i think, cuz if it was a chemical imbalance someone would have already been working on or had a new drug out for it to cure gays. it's choice.

i kinda agree with this guy, most of the ppl here think that sience is the answer to every single thng... yes science is really important, but it isnt everything!! oh and i dont think... "gayism" is genetical

u make it sound like its a disease

"I'm not the one that brought up that it could be a chemical imbalance, cuz of course i don't believe that, but why would someone not want to take it"


Because it's not harmful, obviously.

thank you... i had to say some of that stuff because its been on my mind lately. And it was starting to feel like talking to bricks, you made my day dude...

I would attribute almost all of it to genetics because of the fact that it occurs in nature.

how do you pass the genetic trait of gayness on to offspring if that trait causes someone to be a homosexual? Homosexuals don't typically produce offspring, they might try but it just does not work.

No one has attempted to answer my question of how does this mysterious gay gene gets passed along. No scientists here who believe that it is genetically caused want to take this up?

Even if it were a genetically reccessive trait, it would eventually get weeded out. As the great Charles Darwin said it, survival of the fittest. Survival of those species in a population that are best equiped to reproduce pass their traits onto thier offspring, they pass it on to their offspring and so forth. Eventually these traits that are not carried by the heterosexuals members of society will die out. Since humans have been around for many many years and there are still homosexuals today proves that it is unlikely that such behavior is caused by genes alone. I might concede the possibility that genetics plays some minor role in how someones personality is developed and what kind sexual preference is then formed as a result, but it is far more likely to be environmental influences than either choice or genetics by themselves.

I don't know, I'll be honest. But genes can be passed by the parent that don't affect the parent. Just a thought.....
It does occur in nature among animals.

Thats called a reccessive trait... it was addressed in that arguement.

Hmmm......
I see. What would weed it out, though? People can have gay and straight offspring. Sorry if I'm appearing dense, its kind of late here...

Yeah well, if you are poccessing traits that make you more likely to successfully reproduce you will have children that have the potential for showing these traits or carrying them reccessively. Members of society who have traits which negatively affect their ability to reproduce will be less likely to have offspring at all, passing none of their genetic information on the future generations. If they do have offspring the offspring may or may not show signs of carrying this negative trait, but they will carry it reccessively. However, a major part of evolution is that these negative traits, traits that negatively effect the abilty to reproduce, will eventually become so infrequently passed that they become extinct.

What would weed it out is that someone displaying this trait is probably not going to have kids, they could potentially, but most do not. If they do not have kids they do not pass on the genetic traits which cause people to be gay.

If you have time look up on Mendel's Square... its kind of how that works

Straight = RR, Rr
Gay = rr

i say it is unnatural for us to be that way so it is not inherited it just the result of a sick and perverse world

oh a bias little dude, well kind of the definition for religious ideology

OK, thanks. I'll have to check that out.

It is perfectly natural for some people to act in a certain way and others in another. Who are you to judge who is natural and who is not? Using a computer is unnatural... if you have problems with all things unnatural, I reccommend you stop now.

Animals do it....
Somtimes.

I've heard (or seen) the chemical imbalance theory before but I've never found anything to back it up....

animals dont have the knowledge of good and evil either. biased? well either you believe it is or you dont something affects your reasoning so we're all biased

why is using a computer unnatural?

yeah some animals are bisexual

If someone has an imbalance of some kind, isn't that part of
god's creation? If everything is created that way......

well this perfect omnipotent being seem to have screwed up on several occasions

if you believe its an imbalance. depression is an imbalance. homosexuality is just begat from an abusive childhood or a perverse mind in my view.

If god wanted you to use computers he would have given us computers when he gave us the ten commandments... Im sure it is an abomination of god's good creation and looked down upon by those of your faith. When jesus comes do you want to be using your computer?

how did he screw up? he didnt make people gay he gave them free choice. you dont have to have sex with people of your own sex you do it willingly.

god also said to live up to your potential. and if living up to their potential is what the guy was doing when he invented the computer than why is it wrong to use it. if the internet can be used to preach the word of god then im sure hes ok with it.

The only problem with that, and I didn't say it was a screw-up, is that the books were written by humans who have their own issues. If they thought something was EVIL they could just slip that in while writing.

I'm just theorizing here.....

take a look at the world, it aint the creation of a perfect omnipotent being

cipher what are you talking about my comment was in regards to fintis. youre doing a great job.

right not anymore. reason stated in GENISIS

doing ok so far

who are you qouting?

Genesis is a load of BS

The internet is evil! it is filled with pornographers and fornicators! GOd hates the Internet and will strike down those which use it! If you wish to enter the kingdom of God you must change your evil ways and repent unto the lord. Stop using your computer!

read the posts and you find out

Cool, I got into a serious dispute yeseterday and its not worth the trouble because, as in politics, people haved their own beliefs and they can't be argued from them. More importantly, its not anyone's place to change a person's mind because they should make their own choices. Anyway, I'm just discussing, in case you were getting offended, I mean.

yeah change your way go into a monastery and grow cauliflowers

impecable debating skills." genisis is bs. oh man look at me i didnt no what else to say oooo i can prove its bullcrap to."

turbo...the world is full of sin but gods word still thrives in it. in timothy it is stasted that the tongue is the smallest organ of our body but also the most powerful in good and evil but the word is spread by that as well

im not offeneded cipher you seem relatively coll from this standpoint. but i didnt being attacked and called biased because of where my views came from.

should be stated and....................................cool

im a monk or is it all christians must live in a monastery?

Since you have been the biggest contributer of debating skill
I think the genesis is BS because I dont buy it at all. The creation process by a god. Created the world bit by bit.
At least you show that you are in the posession of irony considering your alias here

preferable all christians who ignorantly expound verses from the Bible to prove everything

right but you didnt state that .you thought it was bs...you said it was. which was hardly even a point.

well atleast you admit i proved it.

I said ignorant too.... and yes you did prove it

would be a good start wouldnt it

but you buy evolution?

evolution is widely accepted by most educated people

i dont ignorantly expound verses i use them at the right time which is far from ignorant unless you have redefined the word. oh all religions must be oppressed for i no longer believe in all of it.send christians to monasteries because they want let me live.

even the evolutionary theory has it flaws, they cant proove all of it as of yet

educated in what? what you deem intelligent is probably different from a lot of other people an vis_versa.

my beliefs arent based solely on facts it is also on faith.

wait now.... why did you take offense to that statement? I am not talking about you. Why are you so quick to take offence to that statement? Does the shoe fit?

hey its been nice talking to you guys im sure somone hates me for my opinion but i'll wait here another minute to see what is written then im going to bed.

you werent talking about me? bullcrap it was directed towards me thats how i knew it was for me. im the only one in here using verses right now. way to go.

i win!

What was this thread about?

Win what?

who knows but i win!

see i win!