Calandale's turn in the spotlight

[Calandale]

what's wrong?
can't you handle a little blunt honesty?

Not sure. But I wouldn't want to stand around
chatting about boobs and football.

[McGiver]

what's wrong?
can't you handle a little blunt honesty?

Not sure. But I wouldn't want to stand around
chatting about boobs and football.

oh, you know me not.

i can talk about feelings.  you know, the way you make my cock feel when you are sucking on it.

[Calandale]

what's wrong?
can't you handle a little blunt honesty?

Not sure. But I wouldn't want to stand around
chatting about boobs and football.

oh, you know me not.

i can talk about feelings.  you know, the way you make my cock feel when you are sucking on it.

I know. It would just be hard. I cannot,
unless I feel that I know the person well,
and have something in common with them.
I don't feel that we have too much that we'd
find of mutual interest.

[McGiver]

what's wrong?
can't you handle a little blunt honesty?

Not sure. But I wouldn't want to stand around
chatting about boobs and football.

oh, you know me not.

i can talk about feelings.  you know, the way you make my cock feel when you are sucking on it.

I know. It would just be hard. I cannot,
unless I feel that I know the person well,
and have something in common with them.
I don't feel that we have too much that we'd
find of mutual interest.

you'd be surprised.

[Calandale]

By what?

[McGiver]

By what?

I don't feel that we have too much that we'd
find of mutual interest.

you'd be surprised by my depth.

[Calandale]

you'd be surprised by my depth.

No. I KNOW you're intelligent (you said so),
and there must be something there. Plus,
our discussion on equity was definitely interesting.

Still, you seem to have no interest in history, and
little in philosophy, which seem necessary for a
reasonable discussion of these matters, IMHO.

Mainly, it's that I just don't think that we have
a hell of a lot of interests in common. Once, I
thought that didn't necessarily matter - but now
I'm convinced that it does, to some extent.

It's very difficult for me to lapse into the kind
of play that we would both enjoy, without
already having the connection formed on
mutual interests.

[McGiver]

Still, you seem to have no interest in history, and
little in philosophy, which seem necessary for a
reasonable discussion of these matters, IMHO.

oh, i find history to be very important, since life tends to be cyclical.

philosophy is what it is and i have a strong desire to understand, but alas there are no answers.



but i find history to be inconsequential when you are looking for a new way.

[Calandale]

but i find history to be inconsequential when you are looking for a new way.

Yet you seemed willing to ignore the lessons
that history teaches about those who attempted
similar 'new ways' in the past.

[McGiver]

but i find history to be inconsequential when you are looking for a new way.

Yet you seemed willing to ignore the lessons
that history teaches about those who attempted
similar 'new ways' in the past.

no.  you were using them as if they were absolutes, to be repeated.
i believe that the lessons can be used to learn from, to not repeat the mistakes.

[Calandale]

but i find history to be inconsequential when you are looking for a new way.

Yet you seemed willing to ignore the lessons
that history teaches about those who attempted
similar 'new ways' in the past.

no.  you were using them as if they were absolutes, to be repeated.
i believe that the lessons can be used to learn from, to not repeat the mistakes.

Ah. So, by tweaking some little piece, you
think that it can all turn out VERY different?
I don't buy that. It's the fundamentals which
cause the changes.

[McGiver]

but i find history to be inconsequential when you are looking for a new way.

Yet you seemed willing to ignore the lessons
that history teaches about those who attempted
similar 'new ways' in the past.

no.  you were using them as if they were absolutes, to be repeated.
i believe that the lessons can be used to learn from, to not repeat the mistakes.

Ah. So, by tweaking some little piece, you
think that it can all turn out VERY different?
I don't buy that. It's the fundamentals which
cause the changes.

is it.

i believe that it all has to do with time.

[Calandale]

is it.

i believe that it all has to do with time.

Almost entirely. Timing and personalities can be
important, but the grand scope seems pretty
laid out. For example, WWII was predestined,
but the invasion of Russia was not. Either way,
Germany was probably bound to fail though.

[McGiver]

sounds like conventional wisdom.

i am interested in thinking outside the box.  differently that all that i know.

it is a slow process....because of my biases.

[Scrapheap]

is it.

i believe that it all has to do with time.

Almost entirely. Timing and personalities can be
important, but the grand scope seems pretty
laid out. For example, WWII was predestined,
but the invasion of Russia was not. Either way,
Germany was probably bound to fail though.

That's because Hitler micro-managed the war.

Erich Von Manstein could've won WWII if given the chance.