[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Get out your day planner and write this down: I agree with teh Chicken!

It's been recorded in iCal

[MrForgetable]

i don't even try so i don't need to deal with rejection?

[ambush]

Listen to Louis XIV / Finding out true love is blind

[porieux]

...

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by porieux

MAJOR RED FLAG! She's a Jesus freak....RUN fast and far!

You realize I'm going to be a pastor right...

[porieux]

...

[tavilach]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

You realize I'm going to be a pastor right...

You mention that you're going to be going into the pastorate in almost all your threads, and that's really great that you know exactly where you're headed. I urge you, though, to leave your options open. It's never good to be completely definitive about your career path until you actually have to choose.

[Destonius]

You can always go homo. Then the whole world will be your playground.

Or, you can just chop it off. Don't forget live cam broadcast and video camera. Make that HD camera, if you can.

[porieux]

...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Destonius

You can always go homo. Then the whole world will be your playground.

Or, you can just chop it off. Don't forget live cam broadcast and video camera. Make that HD camera, if you can.

Why don't you walk the talk

-t

[Destonius]

...

I remember watching an underground sex change movie filmed in Thailand years ago before the internet age, and it sure wasn't pretty. Needless to say, I really couldn't even bear to see Oscar Meyer products at grocery stores for few days. It did answer the age old question about where McDonald's get their meat from. You learn something everyday, I suppose.

Am I the only one who misread the thread title as "So how do you deal with erection?"

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by tavilach

You mention that you're going to be going into the pastorate in almost all your threads, and that's really great that you know exactly where you're headed. I urge you, though, to leave your options open. It's never good to be completely definitive about your career path until you actually have to choose.

Uhh... well it's kinda relevant here... you know... the whole being told not to look for a Christian girl when it's kinda basic to what I'd be doing... and... my options open? I'm sorry I really don't want to leave my eternal destiny up in the air (not that I could take it back mind you)... you're coming at this from a dramatically different perspective.

[macintologist]

I've managed the workaround.

Don't ever ask chicks on a date! You can bypass that.

Just happen to be with her at a party or something. Get a bit drunk, not too much, then just see if she has the hots for you, and if she does, hook up.

Then the next time you see each other, like the next day or whatever, see how she reacts, and most likely positively, you've got it all made! A girlfriend without having to seek one!

[tavilach]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Uhh... well it's kinda relevant here... you know... the whole being told not to look for a Christian girl when it's kinda basic to what I'd be doing... and... my options open? I'm sorry I really don't want to leave my eternal destiny up in the air (not that I could take it back mind you)... you're coming at this from a dramatically different perspective.

I understand its relavance, but I just think that it'd be better for you to say something along the lines of, "I'll probably be going into the pastorate." Leaving your options open doesn't imply leaving your destiny up in the air. You act on what you assume will be your future, but you don't put roadblocks up at every alternate path. Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread. Carry on...

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by macintologist

I've managed the workaround.

Don't ever ask chicks on a date! You can bypass that.

Just happen to be with her at a party or something. Get a bit drunk, not too much, then just see if she has the hots for you, and if she does, hook up.

Then the next time you see each other, like the next day or whatever, see how she reacts, and most likely positively, you've got it all made! A girlfriend without having to seek one!

The good thing about this technique is that it almost always works. In my experience anyway.

You just have to be carfull for one thing: don't get too drunk so that you start hitting on the ugly ones. Keep yourself under control.

[TubaMuffins]

if the ball is in her court, and she hasn't returned it in a while, go get it and hit it back to her. persistence is key, just like getting a job.

[BoomStick]

All women are shallow and want what they think they can't have.

They like the mysterious stranger, unless you're ugly then you're screwed.

Meh, women have always asked me out so what do I know.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by TubaMuffins

if the ball is in her court, and she hasn't returned it in a while, go get it and hit it back to her. persistence is key, just like getting a job.

Heh, check this out from bash.org:

DragonflyBlade21: A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired.

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by tavilach

I understand its relavance, but I just think that it'd be better for you to say something along the lines of, "I'll probably be going into the pastorate." Leaving your options open doesn't imply leaving your destiny up in the air. You act on what you assume will be your future, but you don't put roadblocks up at every alternate path. Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread. Carry on...

When God talks to you in a near audible voice and says "you're going to be a pastor." After a while you drop the maybe... by the way there's a decent chance I'll be interning at a church this September, which would depending on how they want to do things, give me the office as well. In addition I'm already fulfilling a pastoral role with many of our youth.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

You win some, you lose some. Don't make the mistake of thinking you're the only one who loses more than they win.

Keep at it, and you'll become desensitised to it eventually; and that's when things will start to turn around.

Agreed.

I like to look at it as a game. A game I can't lose in because I'll always have the entertainment value, the drama, the laughs and cries. The hunt, the hope, the desires, the poems, the thoughts.

Even when you don't get the girl in the end, you'll have a funny story to tell and enjoy.

Be brave, be foolish. Go with the flow and keep your eyes open.

cheers

W-Y

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

When God talks to you in a near audible voice and says "you're going to be a pastor." After a while you drop the maybe... by the way there's a decent chance I'll be interning at a church this September, which would depending on how they want to do things, give me the office as well. In addition I'm already fulfilling a pastoral role with many of our youth.

When God talks to you in a "near audible" voice, you should write it down and treat it as scripture. Everyone should learn it and it should be treated on the same level as the Bible.

By the way, what does "near audible" mean? I'm serious.

[dav]

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

ladder theory.

ahh, so he's trying to jump ladders.

buy a multi-million dollar lottery ticket. win, and the girl is yours.

[historylme]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

By the way, what does "near audible" mean? I'm serious.

I was wondering the same thing.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Trust me, the ladder theory is bullcrap.

cheers

W-Y

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by history1me

I was wondering the same thing.

Alas, we still await...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Trust me, the ladder theory is bullcrap.

cheers

W-Y

But it has songs to back it up!

[scaught]

Originally Posted by macintologist

I've managed the workaround.

Don't ever ask chicks on a date! You can bypass that.

Just happen to be with her at a party or something. Get a bit drunk, not too much, then just see if she has the hots for you, and if she does, hook up.

Then the next time you see each other, like the next day or whatever, see how she reacts, and most likely positively, you've got it all made! A girlfriend without having to seek one!

this is really fscking lame.

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Alas, we still await...

You know... I have never had what I stated questioned by just about any long time Christian adult or younger person... both my pastors smiled and nodded understandably, even the girl I'm talking about did, as well as the worship leader at church, and any of my profs I've told the story to... hmm... seems you're left out Kilbey. I'll wait till you seek out an intimate relationship with God and then you can understand what Him talking back is like.
That said, this sort of revelation is widely accepted by most major Christian bodies, however none would suggest that guiding revelation as to the course of one person's life be canonized. There are many cases of people having experiences or prophesies given about them at some point or another. Spurgeon had one given by a missionary about him when he was just a boy. Are you that ignorant?

[Kerrigan]

"Leave your body, become emotionally dead".

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Are you that ignorant?

Christ Almighty! He asked you a question; you didn't bother answering/clarifying. Instead: you say well other people just accept it. Why don't you just answer his question instead of name-call? Clarify. Explain.

[Kerrigan]

SuperChicken has again managed to craft a thread that reads like something from a dream. Nothing seems to make any sense, and normal rules do not apply. The dialogue he gave us between him and the girl is either empty of all human feeling, or is too realistic and depressing for us to accept, it is hard to tell. The Ladder Theory offers us a bit of humour, but paranoia quickly surfaces when Chicken mentions talking voices in his head, and at the end one is left with a feeling of sadness.

I do not know what to make of this thread, except that it is very similar to that other peculiar thread about SuperChicken traveling 2,000km with a tie hanging from his pants to visit an Apple Store.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Christ Almighty! He asked you a question; you didn't bother answering/clarifying. Instead: you say well other people just accept it. Why don't you just answer his question instead of name-call? Clarify. Explain.

Because he's insecure and his only defense is an attack on my level of faith.

Look Chicken, I know thousands of VERY strong Christians, and none of them experienced a "near audible" conversation with God. I used to interview Missionaries who were in the field for 40-50 years and were now retiring. None of them claimed to be sent a "near audible" message. They all have a literal message. The Bible.

Do not become a Pastor Chicken. If you claim to be hearing voices, then you are probably crazy.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Because he's insecure and his only defense is an attack on my level of faith.

Look Chicken, I know thousands of VERY strong Christians, and none of them experienced a "near audible" conversation with God. I used to interview Missionaries who were in the field for 40-50 years and were now retiring. None of them claimed to be sent a "near audible" message. They all have a literal message. The Bible.

Do not become a Pastor Chicken. If you claim to be hearing voices, then you are probably crazy.

i was waiting to see this reply. it did not disappoint.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by scaught

i was waiting to see this reply. it did not disappoint.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by scaught

i was waiting to see this reply. it did not disappoint.

Don't you just hate unpredictable people?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

You know... I have never had what I stated questioned by just about any long time Christian adult or younger person... both my pastors smiled and nodded understandably, even the girl I'm talking about did, as well as the worship leader at church, and any of my profs I've told the story to... hmm... seems you're left out Kilbey. I'll wait till you seek out an intimate relationship with God and then you can understand what Him talking back is like.
That said, this sort of revelation is widely accepted by most major Christian bodies, however none would suggest that guiding revelation as to the course of one person's life be canonized. There are many cases of people having experiences or prophesies given about them at some point or another. Spurgeon had one given by a missionary about him when he was just a boy. Are you that ignorant?

What did his voice sound like? Anything like James Earl Jones? Or was it more nasal? What did he say exactly?

[TailsToo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The dialogue he gave us between him and the girl is either empty of all human feeling...

Like a Lucas film?

[Superchicken]

1st Kings 19:11 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord. Look, the Lord is ready to pass by.”
A very powerful wind went before the Lord, digging into the mountain and causing landslides,17 but the Lord was not in the wind. After the windstorm there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 19:12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a soft whisper.

If God is the same today yesterday and forever, then it makes sense that he may act in similar ways today yesterday and forever (aside from the fact that situations will change). If this is true. Answer me out of scripture as to why you wish to challenge my calling. Otherwise, realize how foolish you are, repent and bother to get to know God. There are lots of people who will talk about hearing God, not even in exclusively charismatic circles, I would hardly be seen by most as being a charismatic. However to condemn even this most basic type of spiritual experience, is to condemn such ancient practices as, "practising the presence of God".
In addition by suggesting that there is no possibility that I have talked and do talk with God in a back and forth manner is to suggest that the very basis for groups like the Pentecostals is inherently flawed. Christianity is not simply a moral code that you happen to ignore Kilbey (and for anyone who finds that offensive simply look at the way he posts on here, his tongue is hardly trained, and I have yet to see the fruit of the spirit from him.) it is a living, breathing, dynamic relationship with a living God. If you do not understand that, odds are you might not even be in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, which would mean you would not be a Christian. The fact that you balk at such basic things makes me genuinely worry for your soul.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Christianity is not simply a moral code that you happen to ignore Kilbey (and for anyone who finds that offensive simply look at the way he posts on here, his tongue is hardly trained, and I have yet to see the fruit of the spirit from him.) it is a living, breathing, dynamic relationship with a living God. If you do not understand that, odds are you might not even be in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, which would mean you would not be a Christian. The fact that you balk at such basic things makes me genuinely worry for your soul.

So Christianity holds a monopoly on "training tongues"? If so, by saying this you are implying that other religions that do not identify their faith around your God do not know God, and therefore are amoral? If I'm still following you correctly, isn't this hypocritical to be calling people on insulting your faith while you insult other faiths?

Please excuse me if I'm making too huge of a jump here. I don't always understand your writing.

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So Christianity holds a monopoly on "training tongues"? If so, by saying this you are implying that other religions that do not identify their faith around your God do not know God, and therefore are amoral? If I'm still following you correctly, isn't this hypocritical to be calling people on insulting your faith while you insult other faiths?

Please excuse me if I'm making too huge of a jump here. I don't always understand your writing.

You misunderstand, I am alluding to the book of James, anyone who has been a Christian for a reasonable length of time should be working to make this passage that talks of training the tongue a reality in their life. This has nothing to do with other religions.
Likewise my comments however harsh they may be are not simply to insult Kilbey though I imagine he feels insulted. They are done to point out how very wrong he is. And hopefully they should bring him to repentance. That said he likely will not, but a the same time saying nothing will also not help. Unfortunately he is likely to arrogant to listen to anyone but himself. The greatest commandment in Christianity is love. This is often mistaken for passivity, and spinelessness. Jesus was known to verbally attack people who pretended to be righteous and were not. The Apostles in their writings regularly wrote about false teachers who they felt no need to be nice when talking about. The Prophet Jeremiah likened an entire nation to a female donkey in heat. Harsh words often come from the mouths of God's people. It is not hypocritical to claim to speak for God and say things about other people to their face that are not seen as nice or uplifting.
The standards that you are measuring Christianity by are not biblical ones but based on skewed north American perceptions of what it means to be Christian.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

You misunderstand, I am alluding to the book of James, anyone who has been a Christian for a reasonable length of time should be working to make this passage that talks of training the tongue a reality in their life. This has nothing to do with other religions.
Likewise my comments however harsh they may be are not simply to insult Kilbey though I imagine he feels insulted. They are done to point out how very wrong he is. And hopefully they should bring him to repentance. That said he likely will not, but a the same time saying nothing will also not help. Unfortunately he is likely to arrogant to listen to anyone but himself. The greatest commandment in Christianity is love. This is often mistaken for passivity, and spinelessness. Jesus was known to verbally attack people who pretended to be righteous and were not. The Apostles in their writings regularly wrote about false teachers who they felt no need to be nice when talking about. The Prophet Jeremiah likened an entire nation to a female donkey in heat. Harsh words often come from the mouths of God's people. It is not hypocritical to claim to speak for God and say things about other people to their face that are not seen as nice or uplifting.
The standards that you are measuring Christianity by are not biblical ones but based on skewed north American perceptions of what it means to be Christian.

skewed North American perceptions? Point to a war in the history of mankind that wasn't connected to the people advocating a religion. You'd have to stop and think to do so.

Why is this? I think that speaking in small-minded absolutes is more amoral than just about anything, since doing so has been the cause and/or justification for countless wars in our history. What is more amoral than mass murder?

You cannot explain your faith in a rationale, quasi scientific way. If you wanted to, you've have to explain why it is a sin to touch something made out of pig's skin, and explain several other passages of the bible that when read in absolute literal ways are not scientifically sound (or simply don't make sense). What you're doing is trying to "explain" your faith to us. I'm not advocating a scientific position here, but if you have read any philosophy you will understand that what you are doing is taking on a rationalist's (scientist's) view of the world by treating language as a vessel for communicating a message.

And, by saying this, I'm not saying that your faith is wrong, naively grounded, foolish, or anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that faith is not science, faith is faith. Your faith is yours and it is neither correct nor incorrect. You cannot "give" us your faith by rationalizing it.

The day that mankind realizes this, the far more peaceful and moral we will be.

[zigzag]

I took Superchicken to mean that he felt that God spoke to him in a prayer-like context, which doesn't strike me as unusual. Being an atheist, I don't believe that God actually spoke to him, but it certainly seems to be an oft-described religious experience, so I don't see what the big deal is. The fact that people like Kilbey believe in miracles and resurrections and an afterlife and the rest is goofy enough to begin with, IMO, so I don't see anything particularly inconsistent about Superchicken's experience.

When I used to debate these things with Lerkfish, he spoke of feeling the immediate presence of God, which for him was proof enough. My only concern is that people recognize that their subjective, internal experiences don't necessarily represent an external, universal reality. Apart from that, to each his own.

I admit to taking some satisfaction in watching the religious argue that one strange belief is more valid than another - it reinforces my skepticism about the whole enterprise.

Is a near-whisper like a near-miss, or more like a near-hit?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I took Superchicken to mean that he felt that God spoke to him in a prayer-like context, which doesn't strike me as unusual. Being an atheist, I don't believe that God actually spoke to him, but it certainly seems to be an oft-described religious experience, so I don't see what the big deal is. The fact that people like Kilbey believe in miracles and resurrections and an afterlife and the rest is goofy enough to begin with, IMO, so I don't see anything particularly inconsistent about Superchicken's experience.

When I used to debate these things with Lerkfish, he spoke of feeling the immediate presence of God, which for him was proof enough. My only concern is that people recognize that their subjective, internal experiences don't necessarily represent an external, universal reality. Apart from that, to each his own.

I admit to taking some satisfaction in watching the religious argue that one strange belief is more valid than another - it reinforces my skepticism about the whole enterprise.

Is a near-whisper like a near-miss, or more like a near-hit?

If you are addressing me, I have no problem with Chicken's accounting of his experience, nor am I intending to mock it. I don't even disbelieve it.

What I have a problem with is small-minded absolutes. Chicken could have told Kilbey to F-off, and that it is in bad taste to make fun of his religion, and that would have been cool. But, he can't try to carefully explain his faith to us expecting that language will be enough (a vessel) for us to "get it" in some sort of intellectual/cerebral/scientific way.

By trying to tell Kilbey all about his shortcomings (i.e. he simply doesn't know God), to me it felt like he was using his faith as a rationale for acting scornful and condescending. Really, a simple "back-off" would have been much less bothersome to me.

I don't know if I'm even making sense, but I'm sick of this kind of discourse. It accomplishes absolutely nothing and causes needless conflict. The science people who are set in their ways will never "get" the religious people, and vice versa. Science and faith are just a horrible mix.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If you are addressing me, I have no problem with Chicken's accounting of his experience, nor am I intending to mock it. I don't even disbelieve it.

What I have a problem with is small-minded absolutes. Chicken could have told Kilbey to F-off, and that it is in bad taste to make fun of his religion, and that would have been cool. But, he can't try to carefully explain his faith to us expecting that language will be enough (a vessel) for us to "get it" in some sort of intellectual/cerebral/scientific way.

By trying to tell Kilbey all about his shortcomings (i.e. he simply doesn't know God), to me it felt like he was using his faith as a rationale for acting scornful and condescending. Really, a simple "back-off" would have been much less bothersome to me.

I don't know if I'm even making sense, but I'm sick of this kind of discourse. It accomplishes absolutely nothing and causes needless conflict. The science people who are set in their ways will never "get" the religious people, and vice versa. Science and faith are just a horrible mix.

I understand and agree - I just wondered why Superchicken was getting all of the grief when it was Kilbey who first passed judgment on Superchicken's beliefs, which strike me as no more or less unlikely than other core Christian beliefs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I understand and agree - I just wondered why Superchicken was getting all of the grief when it was Kilbey who first passed judgment on Superchicken's beliefs, which strike me as no more or less unlikely than other core Christian beliefs.

Chicken: sorry if it sounds like I'm taking sides with Kilbey. I didn't read posts involving your conflict with him too carefully. Consider my posts tangential to this conflict




However, that being said, I do believe that if you don't want to be offended by having your faith questioned then maybe you should think twice about making any sort of faith-based assertions unless you are prepared for (and want) an infinite-amount of bickering and 24/7 cable news-style "debate" (which, anymore, seems inevitable). By making assertions, you are stepping into the science/rationalism rink.

[d0dg3]

...never been rejected lol but if i was i would have a cold drink then move on

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

1st Kings 19:11 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord. Look, the Lord is ready to pass by.”
A very powerful wind went before the Lord, digging into the mountain and causing landslides,17 but the Lord was not in the wind. After the windstorm there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 19:12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a soft whisper.

If God is the same today yesterday and forever, then it makes sense that he may act in similar ways today yesterday and forever (aside from the fact that situations will change). If this is true. Answer me out of scripture as to why you wish to challenge my calling. Otherwise, realize how foolish you are, repent and bother to get to know God. There are lots of people who will talk about hearing God, not even in exclusively charismatic circles, I would hardly be seen by most as being a charismatic. However to condemn even this most basic type of spiritual experience, is to condemn such ancient practices as, "practising the presence of God".
In addition by suggesting that there is no possibility that I have talked and do talk with God in a back and forth manner is to suggest that the very basis for groups like the Pentecostals is inherently flawed. Christianity is not simply a moral code that you happen to ignore Kilbey (and for anyone who finds that offensive simply look at the way he posts on here, his tongue is hardly trained, and I have yet to see the fruit of the spirit from him.) it is a living, breathing, dynamic relationship with a living God. If you do not understand that, odds are you might not even be in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, which would mean you would not be a Christian. The fact that you balk at such basic things makes me genuinely worry for your soul.

First you compare yourself to Spurgeon and now to the prophet Elijah. You are very arrogant. It has blinded you. If you feel so defensive about any questions of your faith and can't answer them with a loving hand you are not fit to be a pastor. You need humility, patience, and wisdom. All of which you are in short supply.

I do question the basis for groups like the pentecostals. The use tongues has a very clear guidelines, and they are not abiding by the guidelines written in the bible in 1 Corinthians 14:27 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret." The pentecostals just babble with no interpretation.

As to speaking of fruit, I believe yours dried up on the forums here when you wished someone dead. Or was it that you wanted to kill them personally, I can't remember. Maybe you will refresh us and explain what you meant then?

As to being "in-dwelt" by the Holy Spirit. When I committed my life to God and Lord Jesus, my heart of stone was replaced. Ezekiel 36:25-27 I felt it and my life was changed. Everyone around me detected it within their first conversation with me after my conversion. Question my salvation all you want, I certainly don't.

I do question your ability to be a pastor. You are NOT ready. You will destroy lives and humiliate the Church.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Uhh the whole naked thing... I'm going into the pastorate, and she wants to go into youth ministry... it would be kinda of a kick to both our integrity to have done anything like that. And besides she's getting over a guy there's no chance I could take advantage of her even if she had offered.

Interesting. What kind of relationship are you looking for then (honest question)?

If having sex is out of the question (does kissing count?), how is this different from "just being good friends" (which by all accounts, you two already are)?

Or does it bother you that she won't go out to dinner with you? Maybe you should find out what her favourite food/dish is, and treat her to a nice evening out (without mentioning the word "date"). Beyond that, the "ladder theory" is pretty much correct (i say this from years of different experiences from all angles).

If she thinks of you in a romantic (right ladder) way, there is not much you can do wrong, if you are on the "friends side", well - just be friends and have a good time together (though you must know that once she has sex with somebody else and you still feel about her the same way, it is really going to suck in a major way).

"A boyfriend is nothing but a really good friend you also have sex with" (a quote from a girl I was having an affair with a couple of weeks ago)

Enjoy your life. Don't rush things...and remember, it's all about the shoes!