are we still ment for each other

my boyfriend and i are in love and there is nothing that could come between us. exsept life and time. he lived with us in the time that i fell in love with him and then he moved out clear across town. i found a way to see and talk to him, then i moved ferther away from him. i found a way to be with him. he got a job and is going back to school, and i have school and have a job too. now i dont have time to be with him or even call him. i will love him forever but neither of us are good with long distent relationships. is there a way we can still be togther?

Maybe

If you never see him or even call, can you really consider yourself to be in a relationship?

That being said, if you both want the relationship to work out, it will work out. But you probaby need to keep up some form of communication.
66% Voted for by trolly, Oral Fixation.
Add a comment Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

is that

"are we still ment-al for each other"?

Voted for by grant.

View 9 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
TeChNoWC
October 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

grant, that was inappropriate, and unnecessary.
- grant
  October 16, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Only in accordance to your "rules". Do you honestly expect me to adhere to them because you say? If not why comment? I can answer that. Because it is not a "comment". It is a judgement.
grant
October 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

oh I say.
- Applehead
  October 17, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Are you crtitcising the person and not the debate grant if so maybe TeChNo is right. Energizer I hope you don't mind me quoting you. "At allphilosophy we never ask you to respect another person's opinion, only the person."
TeChNoWC
October 17, 2006
Edit | Reply

*"Only in accordance to your “rules”. Do you honestly expect me to adhere to them because you say? If not why comment? I can answer that. Because it is not a “comment”. It is a judgement."* I ask you to abide by site policy, and to do exactly as Applehead just quoted. If the example above is not an intended attack but rather an ingenious critique of some sort, please explain such, or I will be forced to delete the post.
grant
October 17, 2006
Edit | Reply

It is an "ingenious critique". To be "in love", it has been said, is a "state of insanity". It is often so all absorbing. I'm not alone in feeling this state in the past and there are "celebrated" observers who have written about this phenomena (I also took the liberty of using the poster's spelling of meant "ment" for the humour of it). I dont see why my statement should be regarded as negative. It appears these people love each other. And love, apparently, conquers all. Far be it that a cynical old fart with a twisted sense of humour, such as myself through this impersonal electronic medium, could have any impact on two individuals experiencing this "unconquerable love" (and apparently "forever") state. Get a life you guys. You are being over defensive for ones who dont need you to be. I think (or believe, which doesn't make it true) that you guys (or rather your "higher selves" or "soul") enjoy the challenge I present. It is the egoic believing phenomenal human brains of us that does not wish to be challenged and therefore becomes defensive. The "soul" wants to grow within. It needs the brain to be put in it's place (as mere phenomena). Your defencivenesses (plural, there is more than one of you) only suggests HOPE. Defenciveness is a PERFECT indicator of the Desire of Spirit to EVOLVE. So keep it up. When you get bored of being defensive a crisis may arise. Let the crisis be. It is uncomfortable, but actual spiritual growth is not about the pursuit of comfort. Belief is this pursuit. The brain (phenomenal and temporary) does not like to be discomforted. Too bad.
TeChNoWC
October 17, 2006
Edit | Reply

*"(I also took the liberty of using the poster’s spelling of meant “ment” for the humour of it)."* Yes I did notice that, wasn't sure as to exactly what the inference was that was being made. Rather clever though I must admit, although I hope the author gets to read your explanation as to gain the insight that you have provided him/her. *"It is the egoic believing phenomenal human brains of us that does not wish to be challenged and therefore becomes defensive."* I would agree somewhat, and it may be that I have displayed such defensiveness in the past, however, just about all people from all walks of life crack under pressure, and many are so intrinsically defensive that it would appear one is suffering from paranoia (pity). *"The brain (phenomenal and temporary) does not like to be discomforted. Too bad."* As long as it is discomfort, I am all for it. Not that I embrace it, but it is a challenge for growth in itself, as opposed to your view of spiritual growth pervading from ignorance. This is more ignorance and egoic growth. Spiritual growth would rather be coming to terms with such uncomfort and realising that desperation in fact does elevate the effect of faith (when intervened upon). But intervening only occurs when there is an opening provided for such intervention, and not a denial of discomfort in pursuit of protection of self and a barrier for the ego. *"Far be it that a cynical old fart with a twisted sense of humour, such as myself through this impersonal electronic medium, could have any impact on two individuals experiencing this “unconquerable love” (and apparently “forever”) state."* Lol good point. Except that it may not be as 'unconquerable' as first presumed (or his/her version of such).
grant
October 17, 2006
Edit | Reply

If it is "real" it is "unconquerable". If it is the vastly common garden variety of chemical/emotional "love" it must wither and die as all matter must do in order to give birth to more matter (a return to this symbolic earth which then creates more symbols). Matter is chemical. As matter is but a thing it really doesn't matter anyway.
TeChNoWC
October 17, 2006
Edit | Reply

*"If it is “real” it is “unconquerable”. If it is the vastly common garden variety of chemical/emotional “love” it must wither and die as all matter must do in order to give birth to more matter (a return to this symbolic earth which then creates more symbols). Matter is chemical. As matter is but a thing it really doesn’t matter anyway."* If it were possible to vote for a comment, then on this particular 'matter', you would surely see my name side by side yours in all-round agreement of the statement. Bravo.