billytea, sending out the ma~~~~
I think we have some weird ideas about addiction. I understand the dangers. But there is a huge difference about a physical addiction that eases a physical problem -- which improves a life and an addiction that wrecks lives.
and how about my friend L. her father killed himself, her mom is deppressed , but won't admit it and her sister sleeps about 20 out of 24 hours. L recognized the family problem and will be on prozac for the rest of her life.
and I take 7 drugs a day -- to keep me physical healthy. Long enough without some of them , I would have some serious health problems , and die much sooner than planned.
When I was in school -- addiction was defined as using a drug/ drinking alcohol with a results that caused a problem in your life. I like this definition because it has nothing to do with frequency, but more to do with results.
This means that if ita has to go to the ER every few 3 or 4 days ( i know you try for only once a week) to be a functioning productive member of society -- it is good. She mayh be dependent, but an addict is the wrong word. Because that would make my friend L, my DH , my sisters, my parents, and me all addicts too.
~ma to your family billytea.
sending pain free ~ma and dealing with smarter docters ~ma to ita.
billytea, you and your family are in my thoughts. Much ~ma for your nephew's recovery.
thanks
and on a different note -- robot army
[link]
She mayh be dependent, but an addict is the wrong word.
I like this distinction. It's like something a psychiatrist told me about OCD--if it doesn't negatively impact your life, it's just a compulsion. When it starts dragging things down, it's OCD.
BT, thinking healing thoughts towards your family.
OMG, it's raining like a mad thing in Tallahassee. This is going to make the Florida/FSU game, erm... interesting.
Personal Ads from an Ayn Rand Fan Dating Site
[I am] short, stark, and mansome.
You should contact me if you are a skinny woman. If your words are a meaningful progression of concepts rather than a series of vocalizations induced by your spinal cord for the purpose of complementing my tone of voice. If you’ve seen the meatbot, the walking automaton, the pod-people, the dense, glazy-eyed substrate through which living organisms such as myself must escape to reach air and sunlight. If you’ve realized that if speech is to be regarded as a cognitive function, technically they aren’t speaking, and you don’t have to listen.
What a wanker. And if possible, this one is even more of a wanker:
I am rational, integrated, and efficacious. So far, I’ve never met a person who lives up to the standard I hold for myself (except online).
I take my relationships seriously. I am simply not attracted to many of the women in this world. I do not “hook-up” with girls. I only kiss those who deserve, and so far I have only encountered one who did. I would love to find someone I can learn something from; someone who challenges me to think; someone I can feel like I’ve won, rather than lowered myself to.
This one is possible as wankerous, but we need more details:
My individualism takes precedence at all costs, if not at all times.
And this sounds like parody:
I love intelligent, sassy girls, particularly those working in consulting or investment banking (but other fields are great too). Really, nothing is hotter than an accomplished girl in a suit, as long as she is willing to settle down and have my children. I want a girl who will support my ambitions against the naysayers in society.
why do you read such scary things, tommyrot?
