Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Smilin · 04-21-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Annabel Lee

Lunachick...I remember first running into you on CF in the Oral Sex thread. (amusingly enough, the name was changed to Alternative Intimacies) then clicking on a link to II and posting on same subject. That was fun. I got about 5 pms from CF people questioning me on what I wrote in II.
It amused me. Thank you!

You're kidding?
Oral sex was discussed?

I bet it lasted as long as the 'big masturbation party' we had as well... huh?

Smilin · 04-21-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
Lunachick...I remember first running into you on CF in the Oral Sex thread.

Hey Lunachick..
Don't let her harrass yah!!!

When I first joined II.. I found Annabel in the INTERNET SEX thread...

SULPHUR · 04-21-2003, 10:50 AM

What about me

lunachick · 04-21-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
..I remember first running into you on CF in the Oral Sex thread. (amusingly enough, the name was changed to Alternative Intimacies) then clicking on a link to II and posting on same subject. That was fun. I got about 5 pms from CF people questioning me on what I wrote in II.
It amused me. Thank you!

I remember that! That was hilarious. I received a few PM's from one of the mods there about my candid language, because i was using the correct terminology. LOL!!!

I thoroughly enjoyed that thread.

Oh, and you're welcome. Thanks for sticking up for me there, and coming across to join in over here.

seebs · 04-21-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Annabel Lee

Lunachick...I remember first running into you on CF in the Oral Sex thread. (amusingly enough, the name was changed to Alternative Intimacies) then clicking on a link to II and posting on same subject. That was fun. I got about 5 pms from CF people questioning me on what I wrote in II.
It amused me. Thank you!

Heh. I think it's funny how obsessive people are about sex, as though the existance of "sexual immorality" as a concept is enough to make it VITALLY important that we carefully consider ANY possible sexual behavior and avoid it unless we can find Scriptural support. It seems silly from here.

crazyfingers · 04-21-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
Heh. I think it's funny how obsessive people are about sex, as though the existance of "sexual immorality" as a concept is enough to make it VITALLY important that we carefully consider ANY possible sexual behavior and avoid it unless we can find Scriptural support. It seems silly from here.

No kidding. You'd think that it was the 0th Commandment the way some people concern themselves over what others do in bed.

seebs · 04-21-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers
No kidding. You'd think that it was the 0th Commandment the way some people concern themselves over what others do in bed.

I think the problem is massive and widespread ignorance of the sexual mores of the time when all this stuff got written down. There's lots of stuff in the Bible about "sexual immorality", but very few hard and fast definitions. I have yet to see someone actually come up with a clear claim that premarital sex is sinful in the Bible; whatever the position is, you're just supposed to *know* - but of course, people have social mores, and can't distinguish between social norms and moral law.

I am particularly disturbed by the obsession with OTHER PEOPLE's sex lives. I mean, it's one thing for someone, unsure on the boundaries, to sincerely seek input on whether or not a given sexual behavior is compatible with a faith which claims to be interested in "sexual purity". It's another thing entirely to assert that people who do a given thing are necessarily BAD PEOPLE.

Lasher · 04-21-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristie
For debating...

CF is still relatively new, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let the staff have two usernames but it was allowed. It wasn't supposed to be a bad thing, it was just a innocent decision made so the staff could feel free to debate without making the members feel imtimidated I guess.

I don't think Erwin or the staff in a whole should be judged by this as it wasn't meant to hurt anybody.

And I am just wondering how it can be proved that gunny is 2PAC when people share IP's. I mean I share a IP with half of CF. When I checked IP's there was always more than one person with the same IP.

Not sayin your wrong, just don't want to believe gunny is 2PAC.

Each TCP/IP host is identified by a logical IP address. This address is unique for each host that communicates by using TCP/IP. Each 32-bit IP address identifies a location of a host system on the network in the same way that a street address identifies a house on a city street.

Just as a street address has a standard two-part format (a street name and a house number), each IP address is separated internally into two parts ,a network ID and a host ID.

The network ID, also known as a network address, identifies a single network segment within a larger TCP/IP internetwork (a network of networks). All the systems that attach and share access to the same network have a common network ID within their full IP address. This ID is also used to uniquely identify each network within the larger internetwork.
The host ID, also known as a host address, identifies a TCP/IP node (a workstation, server, router, or other TCP/IP device) within each network. The host ID for each device identifies a single system uniquely within its own network.
Here is an example of a 32-bit IP address:

10000011 01101011 00010000 11001000
To make IP addressing easier, IP addresses are expressed in dotted decimal notation. The 32-bit IP address is segmented into four 8-bit octets. The octets are converted to decimal (base-10 numbering system) and separated by periods. Therefore, the previous IP address example is 131.107.16.200 when converted to dotted decimal notation.

Because IP addresses identify devices on a network, a unique IP address must be assigned to each device on the network.

No two systems at any one given time will have the same IP address.

Lasher · 04-21-2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristie
AOL and MSN, dial ups like that, many people can share the same IP. I shared an IP with amie, and many other people no where even close to my state. Same with many other people I checked IP's on. I have seen up to 50 people that shared an IP, usually AOL or MSN.

They can share the same ISP, and have IP's that are very close, or if they use dial-up they can post with the same IP but not at the same time.

Example I have two computers in my home, I dial-up on one, one day and use 234.345.43.567 and the next day the other computer may possibly have that same IP when I dial-up on it, it is unliekly but possible. Once the IP is realeased it goes back in the IP pool and then is assigned randomly to the next user that dials-up.

Lasher · 04-21-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristie
No I am thinking of IP's I was also a senior staff member, I had a list of all the IP addresses, AOL is dynamic and changes addresses often. AOL for instance routes their customers service to a hub or a proxy, therefore many people can share an IP.

207.65.28.75 for example could be shared by several people at any one time. I have seen up to 40 or so people share an IP address.

Cable and DSL are usually unique and localized to a city as far as I know.

And I don't believe GTX misrepresented Christianity, he may have misrepresented himself, but he seemed to post about the same as Badfish.

Even with DNS the IP's are static and unique to each system.

04-21-2003, 10:50 AM	#223
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	sniffle What about me

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.