mrphysics:

Lol. Sorry, I wasn't that observant.

Alright @your belief. Everything about God personal. Miracles can't be mass produced so you can't physically prove the existence of God to anyone. I think its the reason he made Himself God.

Wishing you all the best.

Thanks for your best wishes, but who made himself god?

vaxx:
can I say sorry in his behalf...you have both contributed positively to this thread.......if you permit me ....sorry bro

No, you shouldn't! Listen, I appreciate your conciliatory intervention, I really do! But you have not wronged me, so you should not apologise on anyone's behalf...lol. If it makes you feel any better, I really don't expect him to apologise either. My goal was really just to deflate his self-congratulatory hubris. He's desperate to be identified as a quantum physicist and chemist because it massages his fragile ego, but he is neither. Any physicist who reads his post will quickly see right through his BS.

Anyway, thanks!

mrphysics:

I like this. Supersystemsnig, sonofAllah, and other guys, let's focus it this way.

I am a Christian, and I am convinced through my personal experience and beliefs that God exists. I have listened to atheists on the subject matter, and I am still convinced they are wrong.

Most of them base their belief on a doctrine and not the reality on ground. They may be right, but I think they are wrong. But I need more of this.

sonofAllah, are you an atheist? I have one as a friend. I would like to hear your view

I imagine it's me you've referred to as SonOfAllah? Does my moniker make you uncomfortable?
Yes, I'm an atheist, but I doubt my atheism is based on any doctrine. If anything, it's based on the lack of one.

mrphysics:

Yeah. All true. I was just trying to explain that nuclear reactions that started after Big Bang can't start a Big Bang. I have not in my reading on Big Bang seen it being associated with nuclear reactions.

That's right! Like you have explained, the big bang predates the formation of any atomic nucleus, so it is quite dumb to suggest it originated as a result of nuclear fusion.

I have forgotten but I think the sun releases some ironic materials to the earth. That validates your point that irons and heavy elements don't undergo nuclear fusion.

Some ionic, not ironic materials do make it to the earth from all over the universe, not just from the sun. However, the earth acquired its iron during the formation of the solar system. The iron on earth probably came from the same interstellar cloud whence came the sun's raw material.

mrphysics:

Those who are not physicists make the mistake of speaking confidently about it. I can't, I would rather learn than kill a subject that I am loyal to.

This is the most beautiful remark I've read today, especially the emboldened! I wish more people were like you.

I do like you already!

mrphysics:

You are right if and only if you are talking about the sun or earth. Basically they is no difference between the sun and the earth. The activities going on at the core or the earth is similar to the one happening in the sun. All are nuclear reactions.

While it is true that a small amount of nuclear reactions occur at the core of the earth, it is not quite the same as that of the sun's. The type of reaction at the earth's core is fission, whereas the suns reaction is fusion. The earth's core is mostly an alloy of iron and nickel in solid and liquid forms. As you may know, all heavy elements from iron onwards cannot spontaneously undergo nuclear fusion. Not even in the sun. This is because the nucleon binding energies of the subsequent product of fusion will be larger than the binding energies of the individual parts. Earth gets a significant amount of heat from nuclear reactions, no doubt, but these are just residual elements undergoing radioactive decay.

But when you come to the beginning of things, the universe, then I won't agree with you that it started through nuclear reactions. Lol. I might be wrong at this anyway, but I am sure that energy, time, and densities were at infinity during Big Bang.
Atoms and other subatomic particles were formed only after Big Bang (hope I am correct).

You are right! Although, it is not exactly that subatomic particles didn't exist. More accurately, they popped in and out of existence in matter-antimatter peers. But atoms most definitely formed after the Big Bang.

If something can come out of nothing, then you wonder what is actually nothing. lol. Nothing and infinity are just mathematical words, they surely don't exist

Agreed!

supersystemsnig:

Lol @ poor behavior...its a discussion not a quarrel, dam my phone...

It stopped being a discussion when you evaded my questions with unintelligible obfuscations, and you made it a quarrel the moment you unjustifiably resorted to ad hominems.

Is this where we fight? Where did i ever say Uranium, that shitty element, the aftermath of reactions be the source of all things...plz

Read your shitty comment which I quoted again.

If it's curses, i aint dealing, i provided scientific proof, the last time i carried your so-called textbooks was over 17 years ago, so you can take back the IB tag..

Who gives a fvck about your cussing? You were simply rude in attacking my knowledge and calling my explanation crap without justification. And to make matters worse, you then quote a link which explained exactly what I explained, meaning you weren't even sure about the substance of your own position.
If you haven't picked up a textbook in 17 years, then pick one up and be sure of your facts before you start making nonsensical claims!

No need talking anymore..Be to everyone what he deems appropriate

No, you really shouldn't have talked about subjects you knew nothing about in the first place. Quantum physicist emeritus my arse!

supersystemsnig:
I have been mistakening fusion with fission, Just combining two sub atomic hydrogen particles , men, i wished a chemist was here, anyway see this :

It took you a while, but I'm glad you came to this realisation eventually. For the record, you disparaged my knowledge and outlined a so called map of how all elements came to exist, erroneously claiming uranium as the genesis of elements here:

supersystemsnig:

Lol, the knowledge of physics is inadequate to understand what a fission is, lol, you simply don't understand, you need a chemist to help you understand, by combining just two molecules i will draw a map of how the entire elements that exist is created, allow me sketch it, uranium is produced, it is unstable produces kyrpton, argon, on and on, the cycle continues...I hope you find a more patient Physicist/Chemistry to explain it someday to do...it is unstable, keeps producing, and the massive chain reaction becomes continuous..

You further inexplicably, and hastily dismissed the link I provided you, which would have saved you a lot of embarrassment by clarifying that nuclear fusion, not fission, brought about the existence of elements here.

I won't read crap, spent 20 years of sacrifice learning and watching from the sidelines, you need to go read up on the capabilities of a fission, and not fusion...if you understand what a nuclear fission is, then you'll understand, for now, i'm gone, off to the barbing saloon to gist with my hommies...

With your 20 years of learning, you weren't able to tell the difference between fusion and fission, a mistake that will never be made by an IB physics student. But your hubris blinded you to correction.
I hope you'll now apologize for your poor behaviour.

supersystemsnig:

We have to delve into quantum physics to understand the theory of how just two subatomic particles joined together leads to what we see today, for this we need to understand fission, fission and quanta, quanta been the massive amount of heat released in the aftermath of a fission, bro study half life, radioactivity, it always results in the massive release of heat and sets of a chain reaction, now when two alpha sub-atomic particles are combined, that is targeted at creating streams of sub-atmoic particles that is aimed at creating more, it creates a massive continuous amount of chain reaction in a continuous flow, i'll call it a looped chain reaction, a chain reaction that produces endless chain reaction....this was the beginning, google the amount of energy needed to combine two sub-atomic hydrogen molecules and you'll confirm my claims....


Toza, this is the jutsu of the second hokage he used on obito...I'm sure you'll resonate

Yes yes, please let's delve! I think I know enough about quantum physics to keep up. Now, please explain what two subatomic particles joined together to form our universe.

supersystemsnig:



This is flawed please



Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 1015 Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 1020 Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 1032 Joules


Even electric bulb comes with wattage and denotes different capacitites, Nuclear bombs come with discharge capabilities, that's why we should calculate holistically using the average total number of war heads available on the planet...

I used the upper limit man. (1) I assumed all nuclear bombs are hydrogen bombs. (2) I used the highest estimate of H-bomb energy I know, which is 50PJ. Even if you plugged in 200PJ in the calculation, it still won't be enough to destroy the world. So I don't know what use is the average total number in this due course.

See, brov, from the movement of the air, the wind, the sun, all life supporting systems would be damaged, and the use of seed banks to say we want to restart the human race won't work, are we aware that the placement of the planet in the galactic system has an interplanetary force that makes it stay perfectly in the orbit to support life?

What has life got to do with the existence of the universe? Does the universe need life to exist?

This would disrupt the entire sequence and necessitate an external force towards the end of the destruction of the entire galatic belt to savage what is left, and that being will only reveal himself at this point, but till then is watching patiently...Trust me, 25 years of studies have given me these revelations...

Stop saying "trust me", just provide the results of your study, and let the discerning minded decide whether to trust you or not. Surely, 25 years of study means you have some peer review publications to show for it?

supersystemsnig:



Thanks you so much, oh you made my day, time is limited.


Now, with over 14,000 Nuclear war heads with over 20 Million Kilotons of power, it will destroy life supporting systems and will push the earth towards almost total destruction. Now, the Nuclear war heads released over Japan has taken over 50 years for signs of recovery with a tiny release of energy compared to the current total number of nuclear war heads.

Let me move further away from nuclear war heads and talk about H-Bomb, The H-Bomb, or energy of the sun as its commonly called, has the same power or touted to have the same burning and scorching energy of the sun, it is been experimented in two countries, France and Germany, and is near perfection, this is the final card and not even nuclear head, as it destroys everything completely...

I practically just showed mathematically that it is impossible for all the nuclear bombs on earth, even if they were hydrogen bombs to even come close to destroying the earth. Destruction of life on earth does not equate to destruction of the earth. These are two different things. The earth probably predates life, and, baring any interplanetory collision, will most definitely out last it.

Now with an end in sight, it is okay to say there must have been a beginning that spans before time, which is why i like to go back to sub-stomic hydrogen molecule.

What is a subatomic hydrogen molecule? A hydrogen molecule is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded, so how can they be subatomic?

Now for this universe or rather the multi verse to be in its current form, required a sudden burst of energy,matter which is what a fission reaction represents, now because of the highly unstable nature of sub atomic hydrogen molecules, combining them requires extremely high amount of energy, by which once they combine releases massive amount of energy and sets of a nuclear fusion, the aftermath is a continuous chain reaction that leads to the release of new elements, energy and the world as we see it. Infact, this planet is the product of the cooling that took place by just this two sub atomic particles. The entire world does not have the energy to combine them in a repeated manner, why? It requires the exact amount of energy in the sun to combine them, which further stipulates that the genesis has an independent inventor that supplied the force needed for the start to even begin...

To be clear, are you saying that it was nuclear fission that started the universe? If so, that's nonsense with all due respect! You'll find HERE, a brief summary of the origin of atoms. Atoms could not possibly have predated the universe. At such high energies, it was practically impossible for atoms to exist, so your whole explanation is suspicious.

vaxx:
longest time brol...

How're you doing?

supersystemsnig:



Phuck studies, one a second look, i love your comment...

Thanks, but you didn't answer my final three questions. Could you please answer, I'm really curious!

Do you know the beginning of this universe and what happened ?

No, not really.

Why many will say subjective and speculative according to information available to the scientific community, this universe was said to have been the aftermath of just two ph.ucking molecules, that's how this world came to being, just two sub-atomic particles ( NOT MOLECULES- PARDON MY EARLIER ERRORS ) were added up..Guess what the two sub atomic particles are?

Really?? What are the two subatomic particles that produced this universe? And is it molecules or subatomic particles sef? I'm confused!?!

supersystemsnig:


Chai I am studying oh...OMG...

Will try find time for this, i love your response by the way, speak to Toza, we have been talking about the nuclear catastrophe basedon the nuclear capaity power of the world at the moment...Gotta run, back to studies

Okay. But before we misplace ourselves in the vastness of the universe, let's come back down to earth.

Presently, there are ~15,000 nuclear bombs in the world. Let's assume the worst case scenario, which is that all these bombs are hydrogen bombs.

Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 10¹⁵ Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 10²⁰ Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 10³² Joules

As you see, all the nuclear bombs combined may cause Earthquakes, induce a few volcanoes, perhaps. Sure, they may probably even wipe out all terrestrial life, but they will not as much as shake the world. They will probably not even come close to wiping out all life on earth.

Clearly, the worst possible nuclear catastrophe cannot bring the earth to an end, let alone the universe. To even come close to completely destroying the earth, we'll need about a trillion of those H bombs, and I'm fairly certain we can't achieve that feat! And the earth is not even qualified to be called a dot on the universal landscape, so you may drop that talk about nuclear catastrophe.

supersystemsnig:

If the universe has no beginning, then why are we all arguing about nuclear catastrophy? Doesn't this point to an end? Suffice to say, if there's no beginning should there be an end? Or perhaps the beginning stretches beyond your cognitive reach or can't be defined by the thesis of your self-implied notions. See the universe stretches beyond personal understanding and using the self knowledge to constrain the universe itself is problematic, chaotic and flawed.

What nuclear catastrophe are we arguing about that is capable of ending the universe?

The whole existence isn't matter but science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things, and upon exploration of matter lies energy deep within it...you are not thorough in this field my brother. It has taken e over 22 years of scientific investigation to understand these principles, you need to do more research before continuing the path of self-induced objections...

As an emeritus quantum physicists and chemist, do you really believe that "science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things"?

If the universe can't be made from nothing, then you don't understand nuclear fission. Go and study and you'll find out that just two hydrogen molecules alone when combined can lead to massive split of quanta, great released of energy, and the aftermath would be sub-atomic particles and an existence...Trust me...Read this patiently.

Emeritus Quantum Physicist and Chemist

Few more questions, prof:
(1) What do you mean by "massive split of quanta"?
(2) What is the physical product of a nuclear reaction between two hydrogen molecules?
(3) Is this product nothing?

Samsimple:
My opinion
1. Supporting Religion
Religion is the source of all laws.

Is this so?

I personally believe that without laws such as the Ten Commandments, the world
would be manic and there would be no law or order. Clearly, this would lead to the world becoming extinct as no one would
know that they should "love thy
neighbour as thyself" or never to kill.

So before the 10 commandments, people didn't know not to kill each other?
And why do you think "love thy neighbour as thyself" is meaningful in any practical way? Show me a person who loves their neighbours as themselves and I'll show you a liar!

2. Against Religion
God has no religion. God has no
political party either. Unless we learn to recognize that we are all children of God, and that we should love each other, the
world will continue to run its course.

Society does not need god to function. Society needs authority. Society, in the past, vested this authority in an invisible entity presumed to have agency and purpose, called god; whose arbitrary instructions could only be accessed by a few lucky individuals who then disseminated the instructions to the rest of the populace. However, this god experiment has clearly failed, seeing how society is increasingly becoming secular by the day. No surprises there either: The authority of an invisible entity begins to unravel when the promised consequences of violating the instructions are just as invisible. Another reason why the value of such an authority wanes is because these instructions, once codified as the immutable commands of god, they become fossilised, whereas, societies continue to evolve so that in most cases, the commands are no longer capable of addressing the challenges of the modern era. Simply put, religious laws don't evolve quick enough to serve any long term benefits.

On the other hand, as authority shifts more towards secular principles, we have began to see more methodical laws pass, without recourse to an invisible authority with ineffectual powers. Also, these laws evolve at almost the same pace as the societies they serve, ensuring there are no unpleasant after effects from forcing square pegs into round holes.

In summary, eliminating religion has no bearing on how the world turns out. However, detaching it from governance through the spread of secular principles will most definitely improve the human condition.

shaybebaby:

Apologies for my tardiness, I haven't had the headspace to digest the information you provided on both platforms. Just thought to say this lest you think I'm being rude.

But of course not! In my present situation, I should understand the dynamic demands of existence as much as anyone else, so I know there's never an obligation to respond to casual chats on online fora, nor a deadline within which to do so, should one be so inclined. I wouldn't consider you tardy, but it is always a privilege in fact, for me to be accorded any sort of attention.
Still, it is very thoughtful of you to let me know. Thanks!

selflessmaya:


i dont understand what you're trying to say and i dont want to anymore. i'd rather not continue this conversation, i really dont like the tone of your first sentence and i'm really not in the mood to have my buttons pushed or whatever. of all my recent mentions, yours was the one i answered with the most understanding and i'm being unnecessarily combative... i wont do this, take care.

My apologies to you and your buttons. Any push was unwitting, I swear! I'd rather not push your buttons, either. They're yours to do with as you will.
Although you say you answered my question with understanding, I didn't really sense that you understood my question, seeing as you thought it was an answer to something. Nevertheless, I take responsibility for not communicating my question effectively.

Anyway, I am still grateful that "mine was the one you answered with the most understanding".

Take care too!

Tamass:

Peace be upon you.

Thanks. Happiness upon you!

selflessmaya:


read my comment very well before u answer. i said, in a case where the question of the 2 clauses are removed. then I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM.

You come across as unnecessarily combative! I read your comment very well. What I didn't do was "answer" anything. I actually just asked you a follow up question. I asked the question because the comment you replied to was itself, a response to the statement that "whatever happens between two consenting adults is no one's business". The comment you responded to was something along the lines of: If you say this for homosexuals, you must extend it to incestuous relationships of consenting adults too.

So, even though you were the sole adjudicator in the object of your comment, you were essentially replying to the initial train of thought which posited that "it should be no one's business". This made me wonder if you were arguing that there are special circumstances (violation of the two clauses) under which incestuous relationships should be other people's business.

It was a question from curiosity, which was asked only because I found your remark thoughtful and interesting, Selflessmaya.

Kunlexity:
BismilLah
2. Young Muslim men should hasten to marry women such as these who have been tormented, so as to reduce their suffering and console them, to compensate them for the loss of the most precious thing that they possess, which is their virginity.

Credit: Sheikh AbdurRazaq

So the most precious thing a woman possesses is not her brain, not her compassion, not her humanness, not her humanity, no, it's her virginity!

I guess that makes sense to Shiekh AbdurRazaq since his most precious possession must be his phallus!

Tamass:
assalamualikum,
Please can any help explain the rulling on quranic competitions...i feel its an act of innovation but i'm not sure

Yes, it's an act of innovation...so was the Quran when it was first codified into a book, so were all the rituals you practice in Islam, so are all the hadith collections from which your set of moral instructions are derived, so is the internet you've used to broadcast your question. Innovations are all around you, start getting used to them!

selflessmaya:


the greatest argument against incest is inbreeding and familial influence to child development & formation of personality. if the possibility of inbreeding is removed, we still have issue of familial influence which means that familial bonds are more complicated and a family member is at too close proximity during formative years to be legally allowed to form romantic ties. and no, this does not apply to childhood besties, they dont live in the same house or share family ordeals that bond etc, incest does not carry the same weight as homosexuality, in cases of incest, the person in question is exposed to the other from a very young age when they're easy to indoctrinate or train or brainwash and living under the same roof. the subject of incest touches on minors so it's a sensitive topic.

even if 2 related adults decide to get into an incestuous relationship, ppl still get uncomfortable cos they dont know how & when it all started. once incest does not involve any minors, it's less taboo, if age gap is closer, it's even less taboo cos it seems more a conscious choice cos they're of same mental age so no one groomed the other for the relationship. then the more distant the relation, even lesser the taboo etc. familial influence is why some, including me might have issues with incest despite impossibility of pregnancy.
i would have nothing against incest if they're of legal age, consenting, not replicating DNA and i know for sure there's no childhood psychological damage that caused the attraction(no way to know) eg: in cases of separated at birth where siblings meet in future and fall in love, let's say they've dated 12 years so we know the love is true, if there is no possibility of inbreeding(birth control or same sex or sterility) and dont want kids or choose to adopt, then i dont see any reason why they shouldn't stay together.

as long as a sex act is between legal consenting adults of sound mind. it's really no one's business, irrespective of how it makes u feel.

I really like the clarity of your argument.
You gave two compelling reasons to eschew incestuous relationships, namely:
(1) Possibility of familial grooming, and
(2) Higher possibility of congenital disorders in offspring.

However, I wonder if you're just stating why you, in particular, are against incestuous relationships or if you actually think there should be legal regulations against it? The former, I can understand, but the latter is no more justifiable than regulating same sex marriages or polyamory. What say ye?

Sorry, been super preoccupied today.

shaybebaby:

1) what is the uncertainty principle?

2)explain what the collapse of particulate wave function is.

Then I might begin to even have a clue. [/quote]
Phww! These are super complicated subjects to cover. My explanations would probably be very long, and nowhere nearly as fun as watching Youtube videos from more capable educators with brilliant illustrations. So I would share the videos instead: Enjoy!

1) Uncertainty Principle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rciVgQm-F_U&t=5s

2) Wave function collapse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ddt6J1Bio

@ ancient aliens, it is interesting even though I take it with a pinch of salt. Looking at artefacts, similarities in ancient beliefs of different cultures without a common history, also discoveries that mimic modern technology in a crude way, all very fascinating.

But it's all conjecture so why not? I keep an open mind, they may yet find irrefutable evidence. Besides there is that guy(can't remember his name) on the show with gravity defying hair and serious overdose of fake tan. He mesmerises me with his appearance.

Fake tan: ✔
Anti-gravity hair: ✔
Looks ancient: ✔
Runs the greatest show in the world: ✔
Anachronistic views: ✔
Behaves like and alien: ✔

I think you might be on to something here!

shaybebaby:

Then she needs to holla at me whenever is about, she needs to try that Cantonese place, whoever owns that place is literally printing money, there is always a queue.

I can't even imagine what pillow talk between you two will be like

She's a new age spiritualist, haha! Initially, we used to discuss consciousness and quantum physics a lot. And she seems to believe Quantum physics alludes to the supremacy of mind over matter. Her argument is inspired by the uncertainty principle and the demonstrated collapse of particulate wave functions after "observation". The thing is that in quantum physics, "observation" is just a loaded word for "interaction", and any two things interacting with each other will inexorably collapse each other's wave functions without the need for a conscious observer. But she believes, without any sort of evidence, that the "observation" being alluded to here is strictly of a conscious sort. She's very clever, perhaps, even more so than I am, but when I start to hit her with the difficult questions on the scientific credibility of her claims, she bulks and mentions it comes from an "inner knowing" (whatever that means), then starts rambling on about how I need to open my mind and soul to higher energy vibrations, and other hocus-pocus abracadabra things from new age spiritualism. Nowadays though, we just stick to small-talk like Guy Fieri and his band of gluttons...haha!

I get why she might find FN calming, I do the same but with discovery investigation and history channel(I love ancient aliens ) at bedtime. Knocks me out every time, it's like being read a bed time story.

What with tall whites and reptilians and whatnots! Every now and then, I too dabble into the realm of the tinfoil hatters. Not that I take them seriously, but their imaginativeness can be staggeringly amusing, and, I admit, occasionally insightful!

shaybebaby:


He's lost a bit of weight recently though, had to. That waist line kept expanding.

Funny that, it's my partner who is always on food network, loves Master chef, likes Ramsay but I think he has a man crush on Jamie Oliver

Oh gosh... You remember their names. The only ones I remember for sure are Guy Fiori because he's remarkably fake, and that South African lady..Seba coz she's cute.

Does she enjoy cooking or just loves to watch them shows? Either ways, she sounds like me.. Loves her food. I like her already.

She rarely cooks oh! Spends all that time watching FN, then ends up eating sushi and Chinese fried rice from a restaurant nearby. She finds the channel therapeutic for some reason. She's a theoretical physicist, and she claims watching people cook calms the noise in her mind. I just think she's making up excuses because she likes being perpetually hungry.

shaybebaby:

Their obesity is different from ours, must be the diet. We eat a lot of carbs and protein, for them it's pure sugar, fizzy drinks, processed meats, cheese(I do like cheese though) etc. If you want an inkling into the way they indulge especially Americans, look for clips of this program in america[b]-"man VS food"[/b]

THAT is food porn right there.

Sometimes I wonder how that guy is still alive. And I know about him because: My GF!! She's always hungry, that lovely yeye girl. Thing is, whenever I visit her at home, TV is always on food network. Whenever she tells me she's hungry but doesn't want to eat I usually just ask: "Is there something we can do differently?" While pointing to the TV.

shaybebaby:

I didn't think you did, I had to check myself to be sure of where I've been posting.
Welcome to other parts naira land. Quite different from your usual hunting ground.

Light entertainment can usually be found here. Family section for debates on gender although it has turned into a bit of begging ground. So I don't frequent so often.

Apt metaphor! I feel like monkey in the desert!

shaybebaby:

Don't know why I pictured you looking like Rees-Mogg as you typed that.
Suitably snooty.

Just looked him up. What an uppity prat, complete with the signature awkward demeanour of a true brit...lol
I don suffer!

shaybebaby:

Well he frequents another section and is well known there. Maybe that's why this seems different to you. We aren't really romancelanders.

Haha! You know what? I hadn't even realised I was on the romance section until now...lord! Na follo follo carry me come oh. I feel like one of those noobs who visit the other section for the first time and are shocked spineless by the views we freely express o'er there, only to open the umpteenth thread on evolution theory. My only solace is that I haven't yet opened a thread trying to disprove age neutral romance

shaybebaby:

Too cold hearted methinks. She was fiendish as home secretary and told lies as well, like when she said someone's appeal against deportation was granted by the European high court because they had a cat. She was taken to task on that and couldn't defend herself.

Watched the debates between JC and her. Her performance was overall cringey, but the most pitiful moment was watching fumble through her answer about salary cap that some nurse asked her. I was convinced at that moment that she has lost...

I can wait for her to git, June was supposed to be the end of May. Don't even get me started on Bojo, he's the only replacement they've got. Chanting "ooooooohhhhh Jeremy Corbyyyyyyyyn"!!

Oh lawd! That monumental clown. Kingdom's answer to Trump, I suppose. We might as well declare this the age of Idiocracy! I don't care much for chants these days, but "Councillor Shaybebaby!" might just be a good reason to chant once again.

Moaby:

But still hope say you know u dey encroach into someones property, ain't you see pikin for her profile?

Jesu kristi! Na person pikin you dey call encroached property?? Shaybebaby, you be encroached property?