Twilight
discussion
Can TWILIGHT get ANY MORE SICKER?
Wolves ftw:P
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella."
This is an inc..."
Queen Victoria may have spent a long time moping but she nearly lost her throne because of it and she pulled herself together pretty quickly when she realised how her peoples' opinions were turning.
A monarch is married to his or her country before anyone else and the well being of the country has to come before personal happiness. That's the duty you undertake at your coronation.
Throughout their marriage, which was certainly stormy, one source of tension between them was her refusal to allow him more authority in state administration. He felt useless but she knew that ministers would not take kindly to his interference and he was still regarded as a foreigner by many people. All through her life it Britain first and Albert a very close second.
In the same position I'd like to think I would do the same. Duty first, self second.
This is an inc..."
Queen Victoria may have spent a long time moping but she nearly lost her throne because of it and she pulled herself together pretty quickly when she realised how her peoples' opinions were turning.
A monarch is married to his or her country before anyone else and the well being of the country has to come before personal happiness. That's the duty you undertake at your coronation.
Throughout their marriage, which was certainly stormy, one source of tension between them was her refusal to allow him more authority in state administration. He felt useless but she knew that ministers would not take kindly to his interference and he was still regarded as a foreigner by many people. All through her life it Britain first and Albert a very close second.
In the same position I'd like to think I would do the same. Duty first, self second.
@Suzanne, We were talking about people or fictional characters who grieved for more than a few months at the loss of a loved one. All the information you give does not change the fact that Queen Victoria still fits in that category.
Suzanne wrote, "...she pulled herself together pretty quickly when she realised how her peoples' opinions were turning."
After years of mourning, right? She still continued to mourn in certain ways for the rest of her life. She didn't even function as well as Bella, who at least went out. Where are you getting your information?
This is a summary from her biography about that time:
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/v...
Some highlights:
Perhaps the most significant turning point in Queen Victoria's life was the death of Prince Albert in December 1861. His death sent Victoria into a deep depression, and she stayed in seclusion for many years, rarely appearing in public. She mourned him by wearing black for the remaining forty years of her life...She wrote to her daughter Victoria shortly afterwards: "How I, who leant on him for all and everything—without whom I did nothing, moved not a finger, arranged not a print or photograph, didn't put on a gown or bonnet if he didn't approve it shall go on, to live, to move, to help myself in difficult moments?..."
This [public] unease [with the ferocity of her mourning] was aggravated by Victoria's refusal to appear in public except on the rarest occasions. She made her first public appearance only on October 13, 1863, and then only to unveil a statue of Albert at Aberdeen, Scotland. She appeared publicly in London on June 21, 1864, riding out through the streets in an open carriage. She did not personally appear to open Parliament until the 1866 session, and then only reluctantly."
Just because a person loves deeply does not mean that they are weak and contemptible. The person I was responding to was questioning whether any woman, real or fictional, had ever mourned as deeply as Bella did.
That is nice Mickey. For your information, after Prince Albert passed away, Queen Victoria was not living with only her love for him. It was considered rumors, but John Brown was said as her lover. I do not think there will be any valid evidences recorded regarding this matter. It will ruin the opinion of Victoria mourning and had only in love with Prince Albert.
From Wikipedia:
After Albert died in 1861, Brown became Victoria's personal servant. She was so grateful for his service (and his manner toward her, which was much less formal than that of her other servants, though extremely protective of her) that she awarded him medals and had portrait paintings and statues made of him.
Victoria's children and ministers resented the high regard she had for Brown, and, inevitably, stories circulated that there was something improper about their relationship. The Queen's daughters joked that Brown was "Mama's Lover," while Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby wrote in his diary that Brown and Victoria slept in adjoining rooms "contrary to etiquette and even decency".
Additional from other sources:
Queen Victoria passed away with 2 rings on her fingers. Albert and John Brown.
So Bella is still a terrible sample of someone in love.
@Nurley, I know about John Brown. What does that have to do with the discussion?
Are you saying that she couldn't have mourned while he was in the picture? Look at the relationship of Jacob and Bella, which, from the outside, might've looked romantic.
@ MickeyIt does have relation to how Queen Victoria was not that 'deep' into her love with Prince Albert after he was gone.
Jacob and Bella? There is nothing romantic with their relationship. Their friendship is wonderful but the love part is annoying. Bella kept saying that it will always be Edward if she has to choose. And Jacob kept pushing himself.
I'm making a comparison between the possible relationships of Bella and Jacob and Queen Victoria and John Brown. It could've been similar; no one will ever know for sure.From an outside observer, the relationship between Bella and Jacob was very close. Because we have insight into her thoughts, we know Bella was still in mourning over her relationship with Edward. We don't have that luxury with Victoria. We only know what others observed.
Why are you so determined to believe that Victoria was not in love with her late husband or that she did not mourn for him? What do you think it says about her that she could've been grief-stricken for years over losing him? I'm trying to understand people's objection to the idea that a person can get attached to another to the point of missing them terribly and feeling lost and incomplete when they're gone. Surely this isn't that uncommon.
Comparing those couples is quite interesting. While Bella would switch her attention from Jacob anytime Edward showed up while Victoria would never have that luxury.Bella and Jacob were probably close. It was a forever love with Jacob but secured feeling for Bella. Bella loved Jacob but it was never strong enough when Edward was still alive.
I did not say that Victoria was not in love with Albert after he died. She was probably in love with Albert and John at the same time. But Victoria was the monarch. As much as she loved John, she would never announce that feeling. Probably for her husband' sake but mostly for England' sake. She was never out of the Palace with some exception was probably because of her grief-stricken, but was maybe also for being with John. They could not be seen together, so being 'kept' in the Palace had some advantages.
Nurlely wrote: "Comparing those couples is quite interesting. While Bella would switch her attention from Jacob anytime Edward showed up while Victoria would never have that luxury"I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are discussing Bella's behavior in New Moon, when Edward leaves and whether it is realistic (if others, fictional or real, have done the same thing before).
Victoria obviously grieved deeply for Albert. If, several years later, she developed some sort of relationship with someone else, it doesn't negate the fact that she spent years (and possibly decades) in deep mourning. (A new relationship doesn't necessarily mean you're over an old one, after all. Look at Bella.) The criteria that was given to me was to find people who mourned for over four months. That was definately over four months. It was well over four years before the Brown rumors started.
I feel like I'm being asked to explain something very elementary and it seems bizarre because, to me, it's perfectly natural. People get attached to others. There are people who, if they died or if in some other way I 'lost' them, I would be devastated. I'm not simply talking about romantic attachments, but to all kinds of attachments. I think most people are the same. I suppose, in some ways, having such attachments to others could be seen as a weakness, but without those attachments, you wouldn't really be quite human, would you? If I read a story of someone who could simply shrug her shoulders and move on after losing someone she loved, I would probably find that more disturbing and unnatural than someone who spirals into a depression.
Believe me, it gets sicker. The whole of the final book is sick.
Mickey wrote: "I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are discussing Bella's behavior in New Moon, when Edward leaves and whether it is realistic (if others, fictional or real, have done the same thing before). ..."Bella in New Moon is a terrible sample of someone in love. Bella is annoying.
Grace wrote: "Believe me, it gets sicker. The whole of the final book is sick."The pregnancy is weird, the delivering is awful and the imprinting is a total mess.
Nurlely wrote: "Bella in New Moon is a terrible sample of someone in love. Bella is annoying"The point is that it's realistic. Love isn't all fun. How can someone be a sample? Do you mean an example?
I don't find Bella annoying at all.
Bella is a bad sample (example, sorry:) )of a teenager falling in love. She felt happy (thrilled) of having her boyfriend in her bedroom. She wanted to die for losing Edward and did everything so dangerous in order to be able to see 'Edward'. Love isn't all fun but it does not all about dying when you lose one.Surely you can have your own opinion regarding Bella. For me Bella is an annoying character. She can not see things clearly when Edward is gone.
It depends on what you mean by 'example'. If you mean, is it realistic, then she's actually a good example. Women are generally thrilled to have their boyfriends in their bedrooms. Women are generally depressed when their relationships end. (Although I don't think Bella wanted to die, where are you getting that?) Young people in general are known for feeling and acting as if they are indestructible and for doing risky things. These are all pretty common.
I think what you might be saying is that she is not a good role model, which is a separate issue. Realistic portrayals are rarely the same as ideal portrayals. In literature today, novelists usually prefer to write realistic characters to ideal characters.
Women are thrilled to have their boyfriends in their bedrooms? Where did you get this?Teenagers, as Bella is not an adult, are not supposed to feel anything but terrified.
Bella did not want to do anything for months. That is not what people do when they want to live. And what would you call jumping from a cliff is? Bella is not a were, who will heal easily. Teenagers might feel the whole world has befallen them but they do not go with a scary stranger in a motorbike.
Bella is a bad example of a teenager in love. Lots of Twilight teen fans would think that it is okay to do what Bella did when you are in love.
Hahha, this post makes me laugh. I admit, I LOVED Twilight for a while. Then it got too hyped up and now I'm kind of neutral. I can't say I love it or I hate it.
Personally I don't think it's that well written, but it's a hell of a lot better than I could do, so I still give her credit.
Yeah, it got incredibly big. People love it. Others hate it. But isn't that the same with everything else? For example, I am absoluteely in LOVE with Harry Potter but I know some people who could never get into the books 'cause they were "boring". That doesn't mean it's a horrible book, it's just their opinion. I guess what I'm saying is it's all about perception. You might not like it, but other people think it's amazing. So that's why it's big.
(Sorry, I'm pretty sure this doesn't all make sense, I'm incredibly exhausted and I'm sick.. so don't blame me, hehe! You get the main idea though..)
I like Twilight. I like Edward, Carlisle, Jasper & Seth characters. I do not feel the same with its sequels. SM should have written romance series. Her fantasy part is weird and funny. The ending of the series is a total mess. Why did Jacob need his love of life's baby mated to him? For the fans? And I wanted to throw up reading the part where Edward called Jacob 'son'.
Nurlely wrote: "Women are thrilled to have their boyfriends in their bedrooms? Where did you get this?"Experience. I think if you step back a little from that sentence, you'll see what I'm talking about without me having to explain it. What you probably meant was 'Women who find uninvited men in their bedrooms should feel terrified (or at least annoyed, even if they want them there), not happy.' The fact is: Bella wanted him there, and she handled it the way she handled it.
Nurley wrote: "Bella did not want to do anything for months. That is not what people do when they want to live.And what would you call jumping from a cliff?"
This just isn't true. Just because you're depressed and moping doesn't necessarily mean you're suicidal. I would call jumping off a cliff reckless behavior. What evidence is there that she was suicidal at that moment? She didn't intend to die. We know that.
I don't agree with your idea that now teenagers will act crazy when they are in love because of Twilight. Generations upon generations of teenagers have done it before Meyer was even born. They don't need anyone's permission.
Mickey wrote: "Experience. I think if you step back a little from that sentence, you'll see what I'm talking about without me having to explain it."Ahh...I don't feel that way. And lots of my friends too. And Bella was not yet a woman. She was 18.
Mickey wrote: "This just isn't true. Just because you're depressed and moping doesn't necessarily mean you're suicidal. I would call jumping off a cliff reckless behavior. What evidence is there that she was suicidal at that moment? She didn't intend to die. We know that. "
No we do not know that. Bella did not care about the result. She only cared for one thing. To see Edward again. She did not die not because it was never the case but because Jacob was there to save her. Even Jacob was shocked enough with her action. No human beings jumped from that cliff. Only ones who become shifters do. Because of the height and the stream.
Mickey wrote: "I don't agree with your idea that now teenagers will act crazy when they are in love because of Twilight. Generations upon generations of teenagers have done it before Meyer was even born. They don't need anyone's permission."
Did I say that? I said they will think it is okay. But their brain probably are not as clouded as Bella. Generation upon generation? LOL! Which generation? The Romeo and Juliet or else? They are not living the same lives as teenagers nowadays. There are fanatic -too young fans- nowadays who think characters from books are real.
Nurlely wrote: "I don't feel that way. And lots of my friends too. And Bella was not yet a woman. She was 18."I believe she was actually 17, not 18. Our reactions may be a cultural difference. A 17 year old American girl having her boyfriend in her room is not generally a terrifying experience to her.
Nurlely wrote: " Even Jacob was shocked enough with her action. No human beings jumped from that cliff. Only ones who become shifters do. Because of the height and the stream."
According to the book, Jacob offered to take her cliff jumping. It's not that humans didn't or couldn't jump off. Jacob was shocked because Bella did it when a storm was brewing and the water was less calm than usual.
Nurlely wrote: "Did I say that? I said they will think it is okay. But their brain probably are not as clouded as Bella. Generation upon generation? LOL! Which generation? The Romeo and Juliet or else? They are not living the same lives as teenagers nowadays. There are fanatic -too young fans- nowadays who think characters from books are real."
Teenagers aren't any different now than they were 50 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. They aren't any more or less gullible than they ever were. I'd say every generation has people that act crazy when they're in love. I shouldn't even limit it to teenagers. If, by crazy, we mean those who are upset for more than four months after a breakup, I think every age group would apply.
Mickey wrote: "I believe she was actually 17, not 18. Our reactions may be a cultural difference. A 17 year old American girl having her boyfriend in her room is not generally a terrifying experience to her."
She's got her birthday. You surely forgot her birthday incident. Based on what you said, American girls are okay with a boyfriend inside their bedroom in the middle of the night, watching them sleep. Wow!...
Mickey wrote: "According to the book, Jacob offered to take her cliff jumping. It's not that humans didn't or couldn't jump off. Jacob was shocked because Bella did it when a storm was brewing and the water was less calm than usual. "
Jacob would protect Bella. Storm or not, it is not likely that Jacob will let Bella jump on her own.
Mickey wrote: "Teenagers aren't any different now than they were 50 years ago. "
They surely are. People change. Teenagers from 50 years ago are different with teenagers nowadays. They may be fall in the same 'trap' of love, but they act differently.
I figured you were talking about when she first found out he was in her bedroom, which happened before her birthday (which was at the beginning of New Moon). They'd been regularly spending the night together from Twilight on. I think I can safely say that a large percentage of American girls would be okay with their boyfriends being in their bedrooms. Bella certainly was and I don't think she's unusual in that. I'm curious as to what you find so objectionable. It can't be sex, since Edward ruled that out. Cuddling? Humming lullabies?
Nurlely wrote: "They surely are [different]. People change. Teenagers from 50 years ago are different with teenagers nowadays. They may be fall in the same 'trap' of love, but they act differently."
How so?
My objection was for Bella to feel happy when Edward appeared in her bedroom. She may be in love with him, but to feel happy? She should have been worried and scared, at least a bit. And love can be also shown in lots of different ways outside the bedroom.Mickey wrote: "How so? "
Why do you think lots of parents think so? Parents with teenagers. Or in this case, with 50 years distinction, grandparents with grandchildren. You can goggle their worries down.
Are you saying her reaction isn't realistic? To find your boyfriend in your room would be more scary than thrilling? (Those feelings are not mutually exclusive, of course.)Nurley wrote:" Why do you think lots of parents think so? Parents with teenagers. Or in this case, with 50 years distinction, grandparents with grandchildren. You can goggle their worries down."
I haven't the slightest idea how teenagers are different now than they were fifty years ago. You made that statement and I disagreed. So, I asked you why you thought so. I'll ask again, how are teenagers different now?
For the first time? Nope, not exactly. They were not that close that time. She should have at least screamed.Mickey wrote: "Teenagers aren't any different now than they were 50 years ago. "
They act and react differently due to their era. One example, 50 years ago, if a girl got pregnant, she can have a secret abortion or marries the guy. Now, a girl can keep their baby. 50 years ago, how many girls had sex before a marriage? What about now?
You can be diligent and google down the information.
Nurlely wrote: "They act and react differently due to their era. One example, 50 years ago, if a girl got pregnant, she can have a secret abortion or marries the guy. Now, a girl can keep their baby. 50 years ago, how many girls had sex before a marriage?"Bella and Edward didn't have sex until after they were married, so I don't know how that fits in with Twilight being a bad example for this generation.
Mickey wrote: "Bella and Edward didn't have sex until after they were married, so I don't know how that fits in with Twilight being a bad example for this generation. "Bella is a bad example of a girl in love. She was not worried or a bit scared of having Edward in her bedroom for the very first time. And for endangering herself because she lost Edward. Teenagers who watched Romeo and Juliet would not rush in riding a motorbike with a total stranger.
As for your opinion that teenagers 50 years ago are the same with the Millennium era teenagers, sex is only one between so many differences between teenagers 50 years ago and nowadays. There are clothes, their views on issues, the culture.
Kali wrote: "Mickey stated that many girls would be delighted to have their boyfriends in their bedrooms. She then made a distinction between waking up being watched by a total stranger, and waking up being watched by someone you loved."Just because Bella loved Edward, it does not mean she should feel no weird feeling or even a bit scared when she first saw him. She did not know Edward that well that time.
And nice try with making conclusion of what I actually did with Mickey's comment. That is indeed interesting.
Kali wrote: "You keep saying 'fifty years ago'. I don't think it means what you think it means.This is fun!
"
You need to go back to where the 50 years was initiated. I did not live 50 years ago. I doubt Mickey did too. So the facts that I collected were from google. Unless you are an expert in the teenagers field 50 years ago, then what you said was also based on what you read.
You must think Twilight is not a good book for having it rated 1...
Isn't that interesting?
Jo wrote: "100 Reasons Twilight Sucks.1-It is too copied off Jane Austen’s books. I hate that. Although JA also sucks...
2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated ..."
Really?! I'm not the biggest fan of Twilight either, but what you said about having kids at 18 messes with your health is just rediculous.. back in the day they used to have kids at 14 and things turned out okay.. so before you go into all that please check your facts.. also.. those arent reasons for hating twilight.. those are opinions and you know what they say about opinions.. they are like a**holes everyones got one and they all stink..
Have a nice day.
Kali wrote: "I'm sorry, all I can do is laugh. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you? Get back under your bridge, silly troll.By the way, fifty years really isn't that long ago. My grandmother lost her virginity then, at the age of thirteen, out of wedlock. "
I surely understand your quality simply by reading this comment. Poor thing. I bet your mother or grandmother forgot to teach you that calling people name is rude.
Your grandmother? Thirteen? Who did that to her? A pedophile? What kind of granddaughter are you to gloat something like that about your grandma? Don't you have any respect to elderly? I wonder when that happened, did she proudly tell everyone about that or like other girls living 50 years ago, hiding the incident well.
Kimberly LoVe wrote: "I just wanted to say that while Wikipedia may be right, people can go in and change it, so it's not exactly the most reliable source."Some of files in Wikipedia are reliable although I do not rely on the website every time I look for something. Mine was not from Wiki.
I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
The thing I hate the most is that, as a reviewer who gets all these boxes in the mail, enough already! I am vampired out. I realize everyone is desperately trying to imitate or duplicate because of the cash - but, really, we NEED to move on. As Breaking Dawn ges gently into that good night - let's think of something else!!!
To you people towards the beginning who clearly do not understand Mormonism:
I find it almost funny that you choose to judge a religion so heavily on a book about vampires that just so happens to be written by a member of that religion. The "morals" that Stephenie Meyer's series teaches are from her mind, so wouldn't it make more sense to hold her accountable for the mistakes or offensive content rather than the church that had no part in writing or publishing it?
To generally quote your assumptions: "Only white people go to Heaven." "A girl can't do anything without a boy's help." "If you believe that crap, you're an idiot."
Where, where on this wide Earth did you get the idea that only whites can get to Heaven? You don't know who has gone to Heaven and neither do I, but there are millions of perfectly good people that are of another race. Look at members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Look at the General Authorities, for goodness' sake. Do you see white supremacists? If you do, I would suggest getting a new pair of contact lenses or hearing aids so you can see their skin colors or hear a few of their names. Boye, Uchtdorf, Gonzalez, Aidukaitis, Alonso, Amado, Falabella--do any of these sound American or white to you? Why would the LDS church sustain these people to such high positions if their race was a barrier? "White", in the context of ascending to Heaven, refers to the symbolism of that color, meaning that they will be shining--when something shines, that color it emanates is usually white--with purity and glory. For crying out loud, not everything is literal.
Just because Bella is a dependent, manipulative, insufferable idiot in a book written by a Mormon woman does not mean that she is what a woman should be. All kinds of women belong to this religion, and if you care to glance at women of the LDS church, I doubt you will see a long line of Bella Swans. The Bella Swans of this world exist due to their own choices and decisions, not the religion they follow or claim to follow. It is not the LDS church's fault that Bella is a Mary-Sue, now, is it? The Church did not write the books. Take this issue up with Stephenie Meyer.
As for the last part? We don't believe half the crap that you are saying, besides. So, before you trash my religion and what I believe, have the courtesy to get your facts straight.
I find it almost funny that you choose to judge a religion so heavily on a book about vampires that just so happens to be written by a member of that religion. The "morals" that Stephenie Meyer's series teaches are from her mind, so wouldn't it make more sense to hold her accountable for the mistakes or offensive content rather than the church that had no part in writing or publishing it?
To generally quote your assumptions: "Only white people go to Heaven." "A girl can't do anything without a boy's help." "If you believe that crap, you're an idiot."
Where, where on this wide Earth did you get the idea that only whites can get to Heaven? You don't know who has gone to Heaven and neither do I, but there are millions of perfectly good people that are of another race. Look at members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Look at the General Authorities, for goodness' sake. Do you see white supremacists? If you do, I would suggest getting a new pair of contact lenses or hearing aids so you can see their skin colors or hear a few of their names. Boye, Uchtdorf, Gonzalez, Aidukaitis, Alonso, Amado, Falabella--do any of these sound American or white to you? Why would the LDS church sustain these people to such high positions if their race was a barrier? "White", in the context of ascending to Heaven, refers to the symbolism of that color, meaning that they will be shining--when something shines, that color it emanates is usually white--with purity and glory. For crying out loud, not everything is literal.
Just because Bella is a dependent, manipulative, insufferable idiot in a book written by a Mormon woman does not mean that she is what a woman should be. All kinds of women belong to this religion, and if you care to glance at women of the LDS church, I doubt you will see a long line of Bella Swans. The Bella Swans of this world exist due to their own choices and decisions, not the religion they follow or claim to follow. It is not the LDS church's fault that Bella is a Mary-Sue, now, is it? The Church did not write the books. Take this issue up with Stephenie Meyer.
As for the last part? We don't believe half the crap that you are saying, besides. So, before you trash my religion and what I believe, have the courtesy to get your facts straight.
Oh...no - no ONE should ever knock a religion. That IS wrong.
I know everyone has "knocked" or will probably "knock" a religion sometime in their lives. I just think that if they care enough to trash it, they ought to care enough to actually understand it as well.
Oh, well. I don't knock religion. And, yes, everyone should be educated. I agree with that totally!
Sorry, did I interpret your comment wrong? I tend to read everything with a sarcastic tone when I'm online. Or, if I didn't, that's cool too.
Jo wrote: "100 Reasons Twilight Sucks.1-It is too copied off Jane Austen’s books. I hate that. Although JA also sucks...
2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated ..."
OMG 80-Neither does Bella, which is why Edward can’t read her mind.
Priceless!
Twilight is a terrrible role model for girls or humans in general. But it was kinda addicting kinda like mind crack one taste and you need more.
Kimberly LoVe wrote: "Just curious then, why'd it say "On Wikipedia..." or "According to Wikipedia..." "Maybe because the files are documented not by researcher. You can also submit something to the website.
Kali wrote: "We are discussing a fully consensual event, between two people of the same age. This is something my grandmother is and was very happy to have happen, and something she was happy to discuss at the time, with her mother, and later, with myself and my sister. Some people do like sex. My grandmother is anomaly, and I would not recommend that course of action generally, but your implications are sick and uncalled for.You are purposefully taking the thread off-topic, taking cheap digs, and making nonsensual comments in an attempt to score points. That is trolling. "
I think you are quite fascinating. You came between Mickey and me and considered yourself of having decent discussion with me. Aren't you the troll yourself?
And taking your family as an example did not mean that you were serving the truth about the age differences. I also have grandmothers. They did not experience something similar to your grandmother. People may like sex, but it is not likely to be done 50 years ago as it is today. As much as you like it, not all girls 50 years ago were like your granny.
To score a point? You are indeed interesting. Discussion on Goodreads is never for scoring any point. We share our opinions here. It does not have an agreement as its goal. Yet, each opinion will point out the mind of the reader.
LOL. Not at all. This was a heavy conversation and of course I didn;t 'noe' the religious speakers. :) You did not offend in the least, believe me!
Sorry about my post - spelling would be a good thing this early in the morning. The line should have read I didn't know - LOL
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
And then Bella just never really striked me as the right kind of character for so many people to fawn over, it just seemed like she never had a serious personality.