To my mind (and not the dictionary definition) 'a professional' is someone who gets paid for what they do. Such as a professional footballer. In that case I (and any employed person on this site) is a professional. To describe oneself as simply 'professional' though is a bit different. It implies a professional attitude to others or to their own behaviour. While I would expect anyone I employ, from builders to doctors, to behave professionally during our dealings, professional behaviour on a swinger's site or during a meet is irrelavent.
When people put 'we are a prefessional couple' on their profiles I wonder at their motiviation. WOuld they refuse to meet someone who they felt was in a less 'professional' career? Why does someone's source of income make a difference to whom you will choose to have sex with? Why would you even enquire? Or is it more about putting on a front of being rather better than the typical member on here?
I'm completely uninterested in how much money a potential sex parter has or how they get it. I am totally interested in their attitude to me and to the time and activity we are planning to share.
It is one of those phrases that rings alarm bells sadly. That the people who use it may be looking down on others based on income/employment or that they may have some kind of self-esteem problem that their status in employment bolsters. Neither of whom would attract me.
We have straps with velcro ends - no tying involved. When they are fastened they arevery stable without having to risk cutting circulation. And if you have a bed with a wood frame, restraint points are provided naturally.
The only thing is - removing them is rather noisy - so if the in-laws are staying - - - - - - :giggle:
Enjoying the unseasonable warm, pleasant weather and wondering why this didn't happen in that other season - the one laughingly called 'summer'.
Why make it different when it's already the best? :evil2:
When was the last time the US extradited saomeone to the UK on our request?
The dates are fairly arbitrary. Fighting did not end on the 11th November 1914, and the suffering caused by the fighting ceratinly didn't. People were still fighting and dying after that date.
It is a convenient date/time though and it serves its purpose. To be a focal point for people's remeberance - whether that is of nations at war, nations (temporarily) coming to peace, or my Great Uncle Joseph who died on the Somme and left a 4 month old baby.
Over the next few years we have a number of significant anniversaries - already mentioned including Paschendale etc. It's also the last 'significant' set of anniversaries that may be attended by people who remember the events. The children who grew up with fathers damaged by the experiences in the trenches, for instance.
The point where living memory becomes 'dead' history is (to my mind) really important and should be recognised.
I've no doubt some people - not just politicians - prefer to see the commemorations as an opportunity to further their jingoistic, nationalistic or personal advancement agendas. I choose to use them to consider - and research - the people, actual living breathing people with feelings and hopes, from my family that experienced the horrors of war and the fears of those left behind, like Gt Uncle Jospeh.
It is not to honour war, but to recognise that war is a human, personal thing. Without people it simply doesn't happen - war does not exist without people.
I see no reason to avoid commemorating the start of war as if that would glorify it. It is that moment (roughly) that people's lives began to change.
For a really good, and human-level, insight into that whole period you may like to read Fall of Giants by Ken Follett.
I have to agree with you there. I'm not sure any so-called civilised countries (by that I mean the people running them) have actually learned anything from the last 100 years of politics-war-politics apart from how to do the middle one better and the first and last worse.
I do feel we should commemorate the experiences of those men and women who lived through the 'Great' War. But it should be at a local level and kepp the current batch of politicians as far away from it as possible.
On a side issue. When kids are collected from Infants/Junior school - why do the parents always (as far as I can see) choose to carry the child's book-bag/lunch-box? Do the kids develop paralysis of the arms as they leave the school? Youngsters have 10x the energy of any given adult - let them carry their own bags.
I helped out at a school trip once, a lad turned up - no disability identified to the adults in charge - and his Mum hauled 3 bags of stuff out of the car and proposed to carry them all onto the bus for him. This was for a 4 day stay 10 miles away. The head stopped her and asked who was going to carry the bags at the other end. The mother obviously expected one of us to porter for her darling boy. She was told very pointedly that there were 30 kids going and everyone was going to carry their own bags. The phrase "If he can't carry it, he can't take it" was used. They rearranged his stuff into 1 bag and he dragged that with much sighing onto the bus. Of course he managed - all the others had one or two bags and dealt with it. I can only imagine how that unfortunate child might have turned out thanks to his ridiculously doting and servile mother.
Why are we assuming legal drugs are socially acceptable? Maybe statistically. But smoke near me and you will discover that some of us find nicotine socially unacceptable. In someone else's house I would move away. In my house, the smoker would be leaving - promptly.
Well, my feeling is that 'substances' should be graded as to harm. And that should be assessed to the individual, their family and friends, their ability to work (and therefore the need to steal), and the impact on support services such as rehabiliation and medical care.
Yes, that would make it complex and subject to constant re-assessment as more data is obtained. But isn't that better than pseudo-science and religion ruling the legal side and the help and support side being almost entirely dependent on charity?
There is already a reasonable stab at damage assessment and that needs to be developed.
Throwing the criminal system at someone who is already addicted is the epitome of shutting the stable door - the horse being in the next county. But if we must do that - prison should be where the addiction is dealt with and the sentence should be "until yuou are clean and employable".
And marijuana should be grown, harvested and supplied in the milder, 1960's form to any and all adults just as alcohol is now. They have limits on strength, duty based on content and laws against public drunkeness - isn't that enough if we can remove Skunk from the market?
) - what's the problem with Unions?
