MikeLigalig.com

gikan na tog. nya dokdok na pod.

Quote from: aduy on May 04, 2009, 03:22:16 AM
mura man og dili makapasmo kay kanang uban mosud og motel unya inig kahuman maligo kay arong dili hibaw-an sa asawa nga gikan og motel.

wa ka kabalo, aduy, nga inig abot sa balay inum dayon na sila og ininit tubig kay galain ang kotokoto hahaha.

Quote from: Bambi on May 04, 2009, 03:34:38 AM
pwede pa glacier kay upat pa man iyang anak sa sulod 

hahaha. aw, ikalima ko, bambs. di siya magmahay. di ko laagan. poyo ra ko balay permi. di pod ko kalas og pagkaon kay mototoy ra man ko ni jinkee. hahahahaha.

nindot lagi ni gie. naay ingong ani pod diay sa bohol ha. how far is Kawasihan from your place?

Quote from: ms da binsi on May 03, 2009, 10:10:51 PM
kanang nangatagak acidic man na! dayun siguro nagka bulingit ang kamot dayun nangawot sa mata! mao to...NABUTA! hahaha

kung mao kana, bantog ning uban posteso na'g ngipon kay nangahilis...di lang makabuta, maka-pangag pod diay.

The Case for Objective Morality
by Francois Tremblay


Short version:

The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).

The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.

By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system â€" we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.

Long version:

Objective morality, that is to say a morality based on reality (instead of subjective beliefs, desires, whims, etc), is usually claimed to be the province of religion. Atheism, on the other hand, is supposed to have nothing to offer but evolutionary or emotionalist explanations. In this article, I will defend secular objective morality against both religious absolutism and skeptic subjectivism/relativism.

First, it is important to understand that the skeptic answer can be seen as simply absurd and hypocrite. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default.

One may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism. But that is unacceptable: in the absence of objective evidence for a proposition, we must remain silent. We must go to the extent that a rational evaluation of the evidence will take us, and no further. To do otherwise is to indulge in fantasy, which can be very good in art but a detriment in philosophy as well as in our daily experience.

I already mentioned that the standard skeptic, and humanist, answer to morality is evolutionary adaptation. But evolution does not give us objective morality, but rather explains why people hold the moral positions they do. It explains why the whim exists, but not what reality actually indicates. Evolutionary adaptations are based on a non-directed process, and are based on the human species and environment as it existed millions of years ago. Even if the evolutionary process was flawless from our perspective, it would hardly make the moral instincts of a tribal, status-based species living in an ancestral environment, devoid of almost all technology, applicable to today’s world.

We can say that the morality-as-evolutionary position is flawed precisely because it is subjective: it uses objective facts (evolution and evolutionary psychology) but uses them to falsely deduce moral facts. If there is to be knowledge about morality, then it must be objective, that is to say, based on Reason: beyond that, we must remain silent.

To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality â€" actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological and social laws. If you stop eating, you will die. If you stop drinking water, you will die even faster. If you break the social mores of decency or peaceful behaviour in your relationships with others, your life will be affected and even endangered. If you do not pursue social values in general, you will live isolated from the benefits of civilization. If you do not pursue mental values, you will not have the mental capacity to reason our way through life. Without such values, you would easily fall prey to any received idea, any scam, you would have no capacity to manage your life. Causality is universal: actions have consequences, causes have effects, if we fail to follow the requirements of life we will fail to live.

Whatever the moral system upheld by the individual, we can express the general value-judgment process simply in the following manner:

1. There is a moral choice, with two or more possible actions.
2. Those actions exist in a context.
3. The combination of that context and our hierarchy of values (whatever its form) determines the values effected by each action.

We already have a hierarchical system of values in humanistic psychology, which is called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and is generally accepted in the field. David Kelley gives a similar account of human needs in “Logical Structure of Objectivism”, albeit one that also includes vital philosophical concerns (bold his):

” Material needs such as needs for health and food: these values contribute directly to survival.

Spiritual needs such as needs for conceptual knowledge, self-esteem, education and art: these values are spiritual in the sense that they primarily pertain to consciousness, and contribute to survival by helping Reason to function properly.

Social needs such as needs for trade, communication, friendship and love: these values are social in that they occur only through interaction with others. Logically, their status as values is due to the fact that they contribute to the fulfillment of spiritual and material needs.

Political needs such as needs for freedom and objective law, which are needs concerning the organization of society. These provide the context for fulfilling our material, spiritual and social needs”
(p81)

I think it is pretty clear that all of its parts are objective. They are based on existing physical and psychological causal facts that we observe in ourselves and other people. It is also a hierarchy, given that the needs at one level need to be fulfilled to a suitable extent before we can be concerned about the others.

A value is a goal that our actions seek to accomplish. Objective values have a one-to-one correspondence with objective needs, because needs indicate the goals that need to be fulfilled. As David Kelley judiciously writes in “Logical Structure of Objectivism” (italics his):

“The place of biological needs in the logical structure of Objectivism is this: since one’s life is one’s ultimate value, one has to know what one needs for the maintenance of life in order to know what to seek as a value.

The needs of a living organism determine its goals. In other words, its needs determine its values.”
(p69-70)

We have a hierarchy of values for the same reason than we have a hierarchy of needs â€" because some values need to be reasonably fulfilled (such as nutrition or sleep) before some others can come under the purview of our actions (such as love or excellence). There is a gradient of importances that necessarily enters into account here. That is why one may say, objectively, that eating is much more important than, say, gaining status. But these values are universal: they apply to all human beings, except in some cases where higher values cannot be effected due to physical defect.

It is important here to understand that while values themselves are objective in all ways, their specific implementation differs from person to person and from culture to culture. For instance, we all need to eat, but we do not eat the same things. Someone in Latvia might eat a dinner of bizugis with pea balls and a glass of maizes kvass, and I might have a piece of tourtière with maple syrup and a glass of milk. But it remains an inescapable biological fact that we both need to eat to survive.

Contextuality expresses the fact that an action does not exist in a vacuum. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. This context is necessary to evaluate the consequences of an action, because it informs the values that are effected by the action.

To take a simple example, the action of “killing” effects very different values whether it involves:

    * killing someone who has a gun trained on you
    * killing an innocent person walking down the street
    * killing an animal for food on a hunting trip
    * killing a spider that entered the house

And so on and so forth. In each case, the being that is killed, the state of ourselves and the being, the actions necessary to perform, are all very different and lead to different results. In one case, our life is saved. In the other, we are a criminal.

If we take contextuality out of the picture, we are no longer being objective. At least in that portion of the moral judgment, we are talking about doctrine. We have let subjectivity enter the picture, in our belief in the ultimate authority of our rules to replace context.

In fact, I would contend that we are no longer talking about morality, either. We have taken away a part of reality which directly pertains to moral judgment. Thus we are no longer talking about morality, but rather about a mental abstraction which has no more relation to action in the real world.

We now have the other part of the answer as regards to the lack of religious morality. In the example I gave before, an absolutist rule would be of the type “thou shalt not kill”, which is a Christian statement. By saying this, we assume that this statement magically takes into account the context of any action that involves killing, because no such account is present in the statement itself. Since monotheistic religions do not adopt contextualism in any way, they do not pertain to objectivity or morality at all.

In this discussion, I have refuted skeptic morality, by showing that subjectivity is insufficient, that evolution is not a sufficient epistemic basis for morality, and that the case for objective secular morality is coherent and commonsense. I have also refuted the position that religion can give moral answers, both for its absolutism and its dogmatic subjectivism.

Morality is important to the topic of strong-atheism because of the moral obligation to be rational. If we accept this moral obligation, then we cannot accept any other position. Theologians reject such an obligation as incomplete, and skeptics, having no grounds to uphold it objectively, usually argue from pragmatism. Since it works, they say, we must think rationally, but we have no obligation to do so.

From the objective perspective, rationality is a virtue because it permits me to ground my thinking on reality, which is more conductive to the pursuit of my goals than fantasy. But the skeptic has no necessary grounds to posit this. If he argues from pragmatism, we have to ask him, on what grounds can you declare that rationality “works”, without being able to use reason as measure? When the pragmatist says that reason “works”, he is implicitly evaluating it from either a rational or theological perspective.

In this article, I have not discussed specific moral systems. That is because there are many different objective moral systems, such as Objectivist morality, many variants of utilitarian morality, humanism (when not used with the evolutionary justification), and to a certain extent, rational pragmatism. While I am an Objectivist, and I think that David Kelley makes an airtight case for Objectivist morality in “Logical Structure of Objectivism”, I will leave everyone free to draw his own conclusions.

This is an abridged version of my case for objective morality contra Kevin Currie. For the complete case, see http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/currie1a.html.

Why There Is No Objective Morality
(by Fredrik Bendz)

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
-- William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

Introduction

Some people claim that there are objective values. It could not have been wrong by Hitler to systematically murder 6 million Jews if there are no objective values, they say. Therefore, they argue, we should believe in the existence of an objective morality. What they fail to realize is that if there was an objective morality, it could as well have been morally correct by Hitler to do what he did. Those of us who oppose the killing may be wrong, and Hitler may have been right. At least this would be logically possible, while if there are no objective values, it could not have been right for Hitler to do what he did.

Apart from these arguments not being arguments for or against values being part of the fabric of the world, this is not to the point. If Hitler was right or wrong in killing 6 million Jews has nothing to do with it. These people would have been killed regardless of whether it was wrong or not. What would have mattered is if Hitler had thought it wrong to kill them, not whether it actually was so.

Different people who advocate the idea that there is some kind of objective morality do not seem to have the same meaning of the term. This makes these things difficult to discuss and perhaps the disagreement between me and them is not a disagreement in belief, but on the words we use to communicate our beliefs to others. Therefore I will start this essay by explaining what I mean by objective morality.

Definition of terms

By morality I mean opinions on what is good and bad. For example, I may say that to exterminate Jews without their concent is bad, and by that I mean that my opinion is that we should not kill Jews. A nazi, on the other hand, would say that killing Jews is very good, thereby giving his opinion that Jews should be killed. It is obvious that I and the nazi disagree on what is good, so we disagree on a moral subject.

Objective denotes something which exists regardless of whether there are beings who perceive it or not. For example, when a tree falls in the forest, it is an objective fact that the tree falls. Those who do not believe that the tree did fall may go there for themselves and look, and they will find out that the tree actually did fall. The word objective only makes sense when it is used for those things which affect reality. For example, if you don't believe that a tree is falling against you, the objective fact that it actually is will very soon make itself very clear to you. Thus an objective morality would be a morality which exists regardless of the existence of beings able to perceive it, and it would also leave its marks in reality. An objective morality, thus, would be empirically detectable.

Often objective morality is confused with absolute morality. I think the reason for confusing the terms is that the advocates of objective and/or absolute morality have not thought things over hard enough. They don't really know what they argue for, or it could be that they use the words differently from the way I use them. The way I use the word absolute, it refers to something that is objective and unchangeable. For example, the absolute truth is that in the decimal system 2+2 always equal 4. The equation 2+2=4 could be objectively true, but changeable so that tomorrow it is false and instead the equation 2+2=5 is true. But if it absolutely true, the answer will be 4 for all time. Thus an absolute morality would be a morality which is part of the fabric of the world and which is unchangeable.

The truthfulness of moral statements

Logical statements concerning the truth are correctly expressed as "it is true that p". For example, if I claim that the president of the USA anno 1998 was William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton, what I'm actually stating is that "it is true that in 1998, the president of the USA was Bill Clinton". If somebody says "I think every man has the right to wear arms" all he says is that it is true that he thinks so. He does not say anything about whether it actually is right, only that his opinion is such. Even if he is wrong, it is still true that he has this opinion.

Since it is quite impossible to know whether it is right or wrong to kill six million Jews, there is no foundation for the statement that it is true that it is right to kill Jews. We could not verify it empirically. If we could, it would be a task for science to find out what is right and wrong, but since we can't it is not a matter of fact, but of opinion.

But perhaps it isn't a matter of opinion after all? When it comes to scientific truth, it may not be possible to know the absolute objective truth either. Often science is describes as getting closer and closer to the truth, but not being able to find it perfectly. Perhaps it is the same with morality? This seems like an absurd idea to me. The reason is that when we talk about objective facts, we are referring to things which affect reality. If someone is throwing a hand grenade at me, it does matter, regardless whether I believe it or not, because when it explodes I will be severely injured. But would it make any difference whether it was right or wrong to kill six million Jews? Would the world look any different if the nazis were wrong than if they were right?

The way I use the words objective and morality, I cannot see how anything could be called objective morality. It is just an abstract construction without any relevance. It is meaningless. What affects the world is not if actions are right or wrong, but what results they have on reality.

So the term "objective morality" is a logical contradiction. Objective facts about reality are objective simply because they affect us whether we believe it or not, but this could never apply to moral values. Thus objective morality could not exist any more than square circles. The term is a logical contradiction and thus logically impossible.

Morality as subjective truth

But even if there is no objective morality, what can be said about moral statements? Wouldn't any discussion about morality be completely irrational without objective morality? Could a logical argument about morality be made? If we again look at how logical expressions are correctly expressed, we see that a statement on the nature of morality is of the kind "it is true that p". Thus when someone claims that "it is right to kill 6 million Jews" what he is claiming is a statement about the fabric of the world, by claiming that "it is true that it is right to kill 6 million Jews". Since there is no objective morality this is false (just as much as "it is true that it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews" is false).

Now, this seems to imply that there are no moral values at all, but that is not completely correct, because though moral values are not part of the fabric of the world, they exist in our minds. Even if there is no objective morality, it may be true that somebody believes that this-and-that is true. The belief may be false, but it is still true that the person holds this belief. Thus when somebody says "I believe that it was wrong by Hitler to kill 6 million Jews", he is expressing an objective truth (unless he is lying), because this is the same as saying "It is true that I believe it was wrong by Hitler to kill 6 million Jews". It is a statement about the person in question, not the fabric of the world.

Morality as subjective opinion

With this in mind, it seems that the moral nihilism I'm proposing has dangerous results. After all, it is our beliefs about morality and not the (hypothetical) objective morality in itself, which affects how we behave. Thus if more people were to know this, they wouldn't have any moral beliefs. Someone who previously believed that the killing of six million Jews was bad could be convinced that after all, it wasn't bad at all. (I wonder how long it will take before some theist quotes this paragraph out of context.)

But, ignoring for the time being that the previous paragraph is no argument against the truthfullnes of nihilism, it should also be noted that it is just as applicable for someone who believes that the killing of six million Jews was a good thing (which actually was what the German nazis believed). Thus it would lead to more humble people and less fanatism if more people were aware that there is no objective morality. This, however, isn't any argument in favor of the truthfulness of my stance. It only says that if it is true, then it would be a good thing if it was wider spread.

This last sentence may seem like a logical contradiction. If there are no values, how could it be good or bad to spread the kowledge about this when good and bad are in themselves values? The answer lies in the subjectivity of values. Even though values are not part of the world, and even if someone does not believe that they are, he may have an opinion on what is desirable of undesirable. For example, a nazi who was convinced that the killing of six million Jews was not right, may still desire it. Either for personal reasons, in which case his opinion would not have much to do with morality, or because he would find a higher value to it. This higher value would be his moral opinion, but it is important to realize that this has nothing to do with faith or belief, but with his personal opinion.

Thus, even though I don't believe that killing off 6 million Jews is a bad thing, I feal awful at the thought of it. I am detested by it, and find it undesirable. These are the underlying emotions which makes me think that it was bad to systematically murder 6 million Jews. I don't believe that it is true that this kind of killing is wrong, I have an opinion against it.

And... back again

I've just picked morality apart, now let's build it up again. Language is a tricky thing, and even though objective values are ontologically impossible, we can still make objective definitions of words. Even if we are aware that "nazis were wrong to kill 6 million Jews" is just our opinion and not a fact, it is possible to formulate the sentence as if it were a factual statement. If we by the expression mean, not that it is actually true that this-and-that is wrong, but that it is true that our opinion is that way, we may still use that kind of language. And I think that is what most people mean when they make statements about reality. Moral statements do not say much about the fabric of the world, but much about the person who utters them.

There is also the question of what we mean by the term moral. I can hardly believe that a normal human being would find the killing of 6 million Jews a good thing, unless he had been brainwashed by the nazi ideology. We all find certain things desirable and other undesirable. Thus it is likely that people will agree on fundamental opinions about what is right and wrong. As long as we are aware that these opinions are just our opinions, I think that we are justified in expressing them as if they were factual statements. To be honest, when you say that "this-and-that is wrong", don't you really mean that it is your opinion that it is?

However, it would decrease the risk of confusion if we admitted that it was our opinion, rather than stating it as if it was the objective truth. Thus we should avoid general statements about the fabric of the world, and instead express them as our opinions. That's my opinion.

Moral Objectivity is a kind of subjectivity

Another argument against the objectivity of values is that it is intrinsically contradictive. The reason is that moral objectivists treat moral judgements the same way they treat scientific facts. They stick to the most plausible explanation, they say, and change their minds when new facts arrive. The reason why this is contradicitive is that they give moral statements the same weight when deciding the truth as they do factual statements. The most obvious example is when they criticise moral subjectivism for leading to unpleasant results. For a moral subjectivist this would not be a problem, because how evil the truth is, it is still the truth, but to the moral objectivist, an evil truth can not be true, because it is morally wrong. If it is morally wrong it is false according to moral objecticvist, and hense scientific or philosophical explanations should be discarded if they are judged to be undesireable -- thus moral objectivism is in the end one of the most extreme subjectivisms.

This is the exact kind of thinking pseudoscientists such as the lysenkoists in the soviet union, racists and creationists. They all have a pre-conceived idea of what is good, and this idea leads them to reject solid scientific facts and to invent their own "facts" to suit their political agenda. One of the most common arguments against evolution from creationists is that if evolutionary theory was true, then it would have bad consequences for morality -- the exact same argument many moral objectivists have against the subjectivity of values. They commit the same fallacy and this they do for exactly the same reason. How evil they think evolution of moral subjectivism is is not to the point, because that has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the theory.

In the Soviet Union they had a problem with the laws of heredity proposed by Mendel, because they thought it was against marxist theory. While Mendel explained that evolution proceeded by a selective process in which the least productive species are replaced by more successful ones, the bolsheviks thought that the main cause of evolution was that the weak were strengthened by harsh conditions and that acquired qualities could be inherited to the offspring. Thus evolutionary scientists were sent to Siberia and a man by the name of Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Science with disastrous results for Soviet agriculture. That is the result of disguising subjectivism as objectivism.

Of course, that moral objectivism leads to bad consequences is not a problem for a moral subjectivist, because as I stated above, that a position is bad does not make it false. However, since moral objectivism claims that moral values are objective the conclusion of a moral objectivist would be either that these consequences are desirable, or that moral objectivism is in itself bad, and therefore contradicts itself. According to the laws of logic, a contradiction is always false, so this would make moral objectivism false according to its own premises.

Conclusion

The obvious conclusion of this essay is that we must take personal responsibility for what we allow to be the motives of our actions. We can't blame it on "objective morality", or that we were only doing our duty. If a nazi says that killing 6 million Jews is right, it says nothing about the fabric of the world, and everything about himself.

Additionally, moral objectivism is a kind of subjectivism where opinion is confused with, and given the same weight as, scientific facts. The result is all kinds of pseudoscience, which in some cases have had disastrous consequences for entire nations. This is a problem for the moral objectivist, because the only possible conclusions from those consequences is that either they are desirable, or moral objectivism is false.

katugon...

pwede pa-adopt ko nimo Manny? hahaha

thanks mikey. mga gwapa sad.

naa na poy mga baboy i-massacre ron sa canada.

ako papa sa una, kasab-an ni mama kung motan-aw og boxing ni pacquiao kay unyag motaas ang blood pressure. . hahaha.

Quote from: mistyeyed on May 02, 2009, 08:28:32 PM
Ok ra dong glace,ambot ba tong paknera oi nga mobiya man jud. Nasugatan naku siya ganina sa pikas,sige ra man ug ngisi-ngisi.

malipayon diay nga milayas diri. wa man nimo pugngi, mist

heheeheh, naa man gud koy nakita nga tindahan diri nga para kono ingon ana ang ilang mga gipangtinda.

daghan. di lang ko magsaba unsa

noodles

Pacquiao (49-3-2, 37 knockouts) earned $12 million for the fight, while Hatton (45-2) was paid $8 million.

mura pod ka, fr. chico, dapit ni Martin Nievera og dating sa pagkanta ba. hugjaw sad ang mga tawo. murag padonh naay boxing. hehehe. thanks for sharing your nice voice, pads. it`s been an honor to hear you singing.

dili. he will post as either Dot(.) or H. pareho ra man ni silag style. murag mais ba, bisan unsaon og bukot, muguwa gihapon ang bungot. lelz.

Quote from: grazie7y on May 03, 2009, 12:17:43 PM
nah, kana di na jud na nako mabuhat.  di man gani ko mo tan-aw ug gasabong mga manok, kana pa bang mga tawo! pastilan jud!

ingon ko ni Hazel: unsa man ning dulaa oi na barbaric man ni kaajo!  ingon nya, sports na oi! hahahaha

hunahunaa lang, graze, nga inig tan-aw nimos boxing, mura kag gatan-aw og X-rated. mao-mao ra ma na silang gahukas, nagbinirahay, nagginaksanay, unya naa poy break. hahahaha

Quote from: Ginger on May 03, 2009, 12:16:33 PM
Glace, kung in ana man gani. Mag dala ta daan ug paramedics kay basin una pa matumba si Grasya kay sa kontra ni Manny. hahahaha

isulod na lang daan ni si Graze sa ambulance, ginger, pero naas ringside. hahahahaha

suwayi og tan-aw kanang Live jud, graze.

Quote from: grazie7y on May 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
hahaha na tralala ay!  nangurog pa bya akong kaunuran sa kahadlok! pastilan talawana jud nko oi!

nanawag na kog 911, graze. huwata lang. hahahahahhaa

Quote from: grazie7y on May 03, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
hahahaha na unsa ka diha, glace!  basin analog pa na imong tv. bwahahah peace, glace!

oy napildi pod si hatton...gailis-ilis diay ni sila og kapildi, graze. hahahaha

napildi man lagi si pacquiao diri sa akong TV. hahahaha

ako suwayi og "ASK" kay kamo akong ikiha. lol.

kumusta na ang boxing, gie?

thanks, MDB

ambot unsa kalawma na, pero molapas pa pod na's kiting. hehehe

Quote from: benelynne on May 03, 2009, 06:51:17 AM
For eligible bachelors, tips on how to be as attractive and popular as GEC:

1) Keep the mysterious aura. Keep them guessing who you are, what's on your mind, where you are.

2) Make sure your presence is always felt, you are the center of gatherings and exchanges of posts. But don't plaster the space with your photos (or run the risk of looking like a tarsier), never use an avatar, and just keep telling them you were at the EB hearing everything from across a table.

3) Be a man of few words, as men should be. Speak in poetry, balak or haiku or in anything with measured cadence. Poetry makes the ladies' hearts beat to your rhyme.

4) When commenting on posts, use one-liners, punctuated by an emoticon.

5) Even if you're aloof or sparing with your words, don't give them the impression you are a kill-joy. So join their toast to Cabernet Sauvignon, tuba, o-sake or whatever celebratory drink.

6) Make them feel they have actually seen you elsewhere, not in their dream or imagination,  but through an avatar of your most charming portrait BUT under another username.

Sige, tabang mog dugang sa uban pa nga tips...

so are we planning to "clone" more GECs?

i think these tips are good enough. first 3 pa lang, medyo lisud-lisud na sundon. hahaha.

nevertheless, i still maintain to let GEC, be GEC. and let others be themselves.

Quote from: grazie7y on April 28, 2009, 11:33:51 AM
Glace, I don't know you more than our interactions here but with that limited knowledge, I have no doubt that your Dad is so proud of you. 

angay lang jud pasidunggan atong mga ginikanan samtang buhi pa sila.

Quote from: bulak on May 02, 2009, 10:56:24 PM
Ajaw amen diha Glace kay dile ko imong maninay maajo pay mutabang ka ingon sa atong mga silingan nga ang calendar dile ihapin unja ag condom dile a buhuton

mo-amen man jud ko basta akong maguwang. 

amen, bulak. amen.

hahahah, kolokoy. angayan man jud si pacquiao bisan asang lawasa ibutang

kung naa sa bohol, kinahanglan kang mo-check kanunay sa imong gipagama aron masunod gyud imong specifications ug gusto sa restoration. daghang mohimo ana, basta naa lang tay kwarta magamit para ipagama.

Quote from: ms da binsi on May 02, 2009, 09:47:24 PM
huy kamog duha hapit na mo ma X rated! hahahahha

unsa bay tawag anang mag-sex nga mogamit og kadena, da bins? kanang ihigot ang partner sa punoan sa kahoy nga balite. unya, latus-latuson.

Quote from: st. agnes on May 02, 2009, 09:24:58 PM
nangaligo mig sapa. hahahhaa. together with my hubby, and friends.
sapa nga pwerting bugnawa.

kumusta ang bagong kasal? apil na nis inyong honeymoon, ags.

Quote from: glacier_71 on May 01, 2009, 03:24:03 AM

The Magapit Suspension Bridge. It's , accordingly, the longest suspension bridge in the Philippines.

One of the first of its kind in Asia, it spans the Cagayan River at Lallo and is 0.76 kilometers long.

The hanging bridge links the first and second districts of Cagayan going towards the Ilocos Region via the scenic Patapat Road on the Ilocos Norte-Cagayan Inter-Provincial national highway.

Travellers can have a good view of the hanging bridge on their way to Aparri. Barangay Magapit in the town of Lallo is about 74 kilometers from Tuguegarao City, or a one hour travel.

Quote from: glacier_71 on May 01, 2009, 03:25:24 AM

The Quezon Bridge, formerly the Claveria Bridge, is a suspension bridge that connects districts of Quiapo to Ermita over the Pasig River in Manila. It was built in 1930 to replace the aging Colgante Foot Bridge.

Quote from: grazie7y on May 02, 2009, 01:44:41 PM
i am sorry, glace.  what can we do to cheer you up? 

am ok now. thanks, folks.

Tood, asa na man si A Layman? nawa man sad murag tagulilong.

how do you understand this phrase "The Word of God"?

it's because some people in this business are irresponsible, acting like pigs

mga wakwak sa siquijor nag-boxing na lang kono...whahahahahaha

Hatton's Interview...in Bisayan

Quote from: Vito Andoline on May 02, 2009, 12:28:53 PM
Dear,
        Last  na nakong post  ni karon  kay mo tago napud ko wa ko kabalo ug mobalik pa ba ko o di na.Kapoy na so  layas  sa lang ko.Goodbye.Magkita nalng ta sa laing planeta.


Imong amigo sa kahanginan,
Vits2008

nakakat-on oroy nis Vito sa style ni janjan...mamiya. pero, mura'g tinood ni, mura'g dili. hehehe.

Quote from: janjan on May 02, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

oy pahawid sa vits oy kay daghan mingawon na me nimo diri

na hala, jan. pugngi kay basin ikaw makapogong anang Vito.

Quote from: mistyeyed on May 02, 2009, 05:28:58 PM
Bitaw di me manag-uyab ni pareng Vito.Magkajamming lang me.

ako ra tong yaga-yaga, mist. pero, unsa ba gyud diay iyang katarungan nga mobiya man? kamo man jud ang pakner diri.

i agree too

Don't panic. Just be careful.

Hope this virus won't reach as far as here--my place.

Quote from: Lorenzo on May 02, 2009, 09:53:20 AM
Sir, I really like this video, pila edad imung itoy?

asa nga itoy, enz? kay naa ra ba poy itoy nis chico nga ka-edad ra niya. hahahaha peace, enz.

Quote from: ms da binsi on May 02, 2009, 09:33:09 AM

Glace madungog gani ko aning virusa nga H1 murag VISA! hahahha

hahaha. mao ba. sabagay makalisang man pod ning VISA baya. labaw pa nas H1 virus.

you're not easy. hehehe.

shall we treat him now as TB  property?

personally, i don't want to. i am afraid it might encourage others to do the same. besides, GEC shoes' size is 15, too big to fill in. 

you can write a book out of this, enz.

Quote from: Lorenzo on May 02, 2009, 09:48:20 AM
Keep the anonymity, GEC.

I beg you, you've already unbuttoned your suit, pray I ask, don't take off the mask.

yeah, keep it.
cherish it.
laugh about it.
but don't change you password.

i can see 3 GECs here. hahahaha.

for hatching such genius plan, cheers to you!!!

i'd like to believe this obviously-mysterious-character-sort-of-thing manner is what makes TB more unique than other fora. wanna bet?

many people today like to keep nails over the front door of their lives.
it's a pity many of us don't realize it is there. we believe it is only a natural flow of life. To hate. To pry others with pride. To be bitter. To be judgmental. yet, overtime, they begin to corrupt our lives and make it unlivable.

thanks for sharing such beautiful story, ginger.

wish i am in the philippines kay pertinggggg inita didto...syarog di mo-surrender ning virusa. hehe

51 H1N1 flu infections confirmed in Canada
(Updated Fri. May. 1 2009 7:31 PM ET)

Alberta and New Brunswick were among five provinces to confirm new H1N1 flu infections on Friday, the same day that the total number of Canadian cases jumped to 51.

Four new confirmed cases of the H1N1 flu in the Toronto area have pushed the total number of infections in Canada to 51.

This is in addition to 13 other new cases reported across Canada on Friday.

Alberta's chief medical health officer confirmed the presence of two more H1N1 cases in Calgary, where two additional women are sick with the virus, previously known as swine flu.

Dr. Andre Corriveau said one of the women had recently travelled to Mexico, the other to Tennessee.

Earlier on Friday, New Brunswick's chief medical officer, Dr. Eilish Cleary, confirmed that a woman in her 20s had a mild case of the virus, previously known as swine flu.

"In terms of severity of illness, she did not need to be hospitalized," Cleary told reporters. "We have no reason to believe that our case is putting anyone at risk based on what we know about the duration of symptoms."

Cleary added that the case is "not any worse and maybe even better then the regular flu we see."

It marks the first confirmed case in the province. 

By early Friday afternoon, B.C. had reported an additional four cases of the flu and Nova Scotia reported another six.

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said all 15 people with H1N1 in his province were either recovering, or already recovered, from the flu.

But he said he expects the number of B.C. cases to rise, some of which may turn out to be fatal.

All of Canadians who have fallen ill from H1N1 so far have suffered only mild symptoms, and none have died as a result of the flu.

On Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he believes Canadians are concerned, but not panicked, about the spread of the H1N1 flu.

He told reporters in Edgeley, Sask., that Canadian health officials are working in a co-ordinated manner to keep track of the flu and deal with the outbreak.

The presence of H1N1 in Canada was officially confirmed last weekend.

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced at a Friday afternoon news conference that the government would be placing ads in Saturday newspapers to raise public awareness of the flu.

(CTV news)

this is more contagious than Swine Flu Virus...

from being employers to stalkers.

it's funny how Net connects us really.

the more we demand privacy, the more we become open.

good job, bedo. manguli na ta.

Quote from: kiamoy on May 02, 2009, 07:58:31 AM
nindot glace sa?

for me, yup. u saw it na?

World's Biggest Cave Passage Found?

(April 30) - A group of cavers exploring the Vietnamese jungle say they've come across the world's biggest cave entrance.

The massive passage, which measures 656 feet high and 492 feet wide, was found by a British-Vietnamese caving team this year in the country's Nha-Ke Bang National Park, according to a report in The Sun newspaper.

A 13-member British-Vietnamese expedition, assisted by representatives from the Hanoi University of Science, found what could be the world's biggest cave, above, in Vietnam's Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park.

The newly uncovered Hang Son Doong -- or Mountain River Cave -- appears to be almost twice as large as the current record holder, Malaysia's Deer Cave, which is 328 feet high and 295 feet wide.

"It is a truly amazing sized cave and one of the most significant discoveries by a British caving team," said Adam Spillane, a member of the 13-person expedition. The cave, according to Spillane, was originally located in 1991 by a local man named Ho Khanh.

"Khanh has been a guide for the team in many expeditions to the jungle to explore caves and this year he took a team to the cave which had never been entered before by anyone including local jungle men," he said. (AOL)

watched movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine

down.

a little bit depressed.

a wonderful outburst of emotion. loaded with hope. very nice, kiams. i just read it. as in, today.

Quote from: H on May 02, 2009, 07:10:51 AM
Is there any meaning of GEC? Are these letters the initials of his name?
What's 348? March 1948? His birthmonth? If he's Mike, dili tingali pud coz Mike is in his still young, di ba? So dili tingali ni birthmonth.

GEC?

G = garaon (kay gibitin ang mga fans)

E = egat (kay gibitin lagi)

C = cute (resulta sa pagka-egat)

hahahaha, peace.

voted as Number 1 one-hit wonder according to VH1 in 2002

kini...

Quote from: Lorenzo on May 01, 2009, 11:17:24 PM
ako be,



What is it? And where is it at?

Mother Motherland
Kiev, Ukraine

Height: 62 meters (203 ft)

Stands on 40 m pedestal, 102 m (335 ft) total monument height

Completed in 1981.

Quote from: kiamoy on May 01, 2009, 11:09:58 PM
huhuhu..unsa na nga mga bridges?

hirit?

not many boxers have that charisma Pacman has. filipino or not. whatever the outcome of this fight, he is still my champion.

Quote from: mistyeyed on May 02, 2009, 12:00:16 AM
Deaf nalang ko kay ug awayon ko di naku madunggan,ug buta ko di ko kita ug naa siyay lain agbayan.hahaha.

ayaw gyud buhii, mist, aron imong mamatikdan kung naay nisapaw lain.

gatiwas sa piniritong tilapia

OT: Thanks to Vito for this thread. 3596 replies and 80936 viewers and counting. not bad.

mga gwapo ug gwapa silang tanan...

human na ma'g pista sa tagbilaran, panghugas sa GEC sa mga plato...hehehehe

mic-test to, enz, iyang gi-pasabot. hahahahaha. dili written or oral exam.

good luck, GEC. i am privileged to have you using my account, even for few seconds.

from GEC...to TB folks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3MLUR0FB2E

giuli na ni GEC ang akong account. ga-test lang kono siya. dili test nga exam, enz. hahahaha.

this is GEC using glacier_71. test! test!  (glacier lends me his p-word, folks.)

Quote from: Lorenzo on May 02, 2009, 06:40:34 AM
O really, Glacier?

yup. i think you got it now, enz. hahahaha.

the GEC virus has mutated. it is now airborne. it's everywhere. anywhere.

Quote from: chicogon on May 02, 2009, 03:37:56 AM
Kanta2x ra jod ako itampo Enz kay most of the time uninspired ko basta discussions hehehe. Si Glace na lang ato pasuwaton ug drama2x kay morag inherent niya ning karisma sa balak2x ug story-telling. Pakantaha lang ko ajaw laman ko patindoga sa stage hahaha!

chico, kung naa kay giganahan gam-an og music sa akong mga jamajamang drama2, gam-i ha palihog. bahalag kanang kinolokoy. hehehe.

Quote from: ms da binsi on May 02, 2009, 06:05:08 AM

bwahaha! lunlon murag ug pure jud kaajo!

i missed this word LUNLON!

pure jud lagi. as in. 

i think BEC hasn't gone to bed yet. May 1-Flu caused it. 

too bad, almost everyone has been infected with the GEC virus. and the May-1 antidote never worked. the infected still have the symptoms. so how are you gonna cure it GEC? you can definitely make another strain but I doubt if it would still be as contagious as you were--and mysterious at that.  i pray i am wrong.

is there?

i'm looking forward to see this movie.

Quote from: Ginger on May 01, 2009, 07:40:35 PM
H could be Hazel, too!

hmmmmmm. so.

Quote from: H on May 01, 2009, 07:06:12 PM

I think GEC is already at Brewpoint right now, this very moment, sitting the same table Mike is occupying. And you know what? There is only one person at that table.

Gotcha, Mike!

Mike is waiting for you H. Gotcha, H! 

it makes you really think what future holds for our younger generation. it is however inspiring to know there are still people like this author who have acute sense of what's going on around our country.

i am glad to see a revolution from the young people. a revolution of national spectrum--from moral to political. they should be trailblazers of change in elections. not be cowed by traditional politicians. they should be the energy to inspire fresh opinions; to encourage virtue; to sustain courage and deliver the kind of leadership our nation needs. but how?

pangprisohon unta ning mga tapuwan. hehehe. akoy una.

beautiful, Mike.

Quote from: Lucky09 on May 01, 2009, 06:43:43 PM
Hi!! I am new here in this website. Koddi, do you know the history of the Salinas family of Loon? The mother of my lola is a Salinas from that town. But we are not acquainted with them. She left when she was still in her teens I think.

Welcome To TB, Lucky09

Sakpan!

Quote from: Lorenzo on April 27, 2009, 11:39:24 PM
Busy doing what, Glace? Work work and work napood?
Take pic of your work, Glace.

So maka kita pood ta ba

can't do it, enz. bawal sa regulations diri.

Quote from: grazie7y on May 01, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
unsay Dydy ba glace?

ako ra nang jamjam, graze. estasyon sa mga drama. lelz

Quote from: chicogon on May 01, 2009, 12:29:40 PM
Pwede god pero basin ma criticized ta na ana kay basin di magka dimao ang lyrical content hahaha. Naa man daghan si Glacier na kanta para haranaay!

naa bitaw, lunlon kinopya sa youtube. hahaha

Quote from: grazie7y on May 01, 2009, 01:54:25 PM


half raised bed of lettuce.

kanang pinya naas kilid, mautan sad na, graze?

Quote from: mistyeyed on May 01, 2009, 05:50:31 PM
Humba sa fiesta,laoja,letchon,menudo ug uban pa.

perte. galaway na lang ko sayo sa buntag

Quote from: miguel on May 01, 2009, 04:05:01 PM
Hi! I'd really appreciate it if the name of multi-awarded actor-director Cesar Montano is included in this poll. Many people would surely want to know how he would figure in the surveys as interviews in both local and national media stress his intentions of running for governor.

Thank you very much!

Welcome Miguel to TB

an art of deception perfectly woven into the fabric of many curious minds. bravo GEC!

GEC => Mike => Graziey => Lorenzo => Balong => Sigbin => Ginger => Buwadsanga => Calle => Datu Dagohoy => Glacier => the possibilities are endless. hehehe.

2nd hand Chrysler cars here are getting very cheap. mamalit na ta.