Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 02.04
I thought you said you had indulged in sexual activities with 2 members of these fora?
Page 2 of 5
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 02.33
That was a ploy to get people speculating! Never worked though!!
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 02.48
Thankfully I've never bummed Ison.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 03.09
James "Wacky DJ" Martin was otherwise engaged trying to mount Pat Sharp.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 08.38
It's a whole lota fun, there's prizes to be won!
Sorry.
Sorry.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 14.38
Don't diss him, he's actually a really nice guy!DAS wrote:James "Wacky DJ" Martin was otherwise engaged trying to mount Pat Sharp.
PS: Dan (and other Media UK members!) - look out for a new demo in about 6-7 weeks time, I haven't updated the last one because we've been on holiday thus not on the radio, and I don't see much point in including my CMP stuff, so it'll be mainly material from the Fresher's Week broadasts.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 15.06
I agree re: the last point - that you shouldn't lose it for the sake of it.nodnirG kraM wrote:I believe that your first time should be the most special, and should be with someone you really care about; rather than doing it in an alley with some pikey chav just for the sake of losing your virginity as soon as possible.
My first sex-experience was about three years ago, but it was not spectacular.
Of course, having sex and making love are two very different things.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 15.50
Well I wasn't going to post, but this has actually become quite an intellectual thread, which is good that we can all be open, but honest about experiences.
Personally, I was 14. And although at the time I thought it was the bees-knees, I wish I had waited. The first time I had it for the correct purpose, showing how much you love your partner, I was 16/17.
Personally, I was 14. And although at the time I thought it was the bees-knees, I wish I had waited. The first time I had it for the correct purpose, showing how much you love your partner, I was 16/17.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 16.53
I hate the argument that love is just some sort of chemical reaction, etc. (You sound like that pillock from NY-LON, by the way).
If you want to have that approach to live, you may as well not exist at all. Our entire attitudes and our very existence is made up thanks to chemicals... unless you want to kill yourself, you have no choice but to live with it.
You are almost suggesting that people have a choice - that we should never ever allow ourselves to be in love because, oh, it's just fake, it's a chemical.
What a nonsense. Stop being so silly.
If you want to have that approach to live, you may as well not exist at all. Our entire attitudes and our very existence is made up thanks to chemicals... unless you want to kill yourself, you have no choice but to live with it.
You are almost suggesting that people have a choice - that we should never ever allow ourselves to be in love because, oh, it's just fake, it's a chemical.
What a nonsense. Stop being so silly.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 17.41
I am tempted to respond to your points, but you strike me as being a distinctly odd person, so if it's OK with you I don't think I'll bother...
All I would say is that I am entitled to my love and happiness - chemical or not - just as much as you seem to revel in your misery and turpitude.
All I would say is that I am entitled to my love and happiness - chemical or not - just as much as you seem to revel in your misery and turpitude.
Posted: Sat 04 Sep, 2004 19.11
Well at least we can all take solace from the fact that the chances of someone falling in love with such a pitious soul as yourself are so slim that we will never be subjected to one of your nauseating blatherings about it on here.
Amen to that.
Amen to that.