It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Leggo My Ego

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I'm replying to this thread with my ego. An ego so comfortable in it's own ideas that it doesn't care if this post will be wildly unpopular. Because my ego recognizes the equally valid egos of others, the fact that others filter thoughts and ideas differently is alright. My ego does not seek to dominate, only to gain knowledge. It's unfortunate that in this age of supposed altruism that we seek to destroy the thing that elevates us. The ego has undergone a smear campaign and it's role is almost wholly misunderstood. Instead of abandoning the ego people need simply to re-train it.

Pure selfishness is not a negative thing. Pure selfishness is individual truth.

We have been trained to use our egos in utterly petty ways. This is not the true ego, this is an ego conditioned by outside sources. The person who must dominate others, have the last word, and have many possessions is not operating on the ego, he's operating on a bevy of insecurities instilled since childhood to make him conform to the status quo. Control the ego and you control the population. There are two ways of going about this.

1. (for the average mind) Create insecurities and a feeling of lack. The ego will focus on consumerism and possession.

2. (for the educated mind) Kill the ego. Make the population believe that the ego is the cause for global catastrophes; global warming, overpopulation, pollution, war, etc.

I think it's unfortunate that so many westerners confuse eastern religion. We've usurped it and redesigned it to fit in with our new age ideals. I think a better way to gage a belief system or a religion is to look at the culture that surrounds it. Surely no one would say that eastern cultures, with their rigid and sometimes cruel social codes, are any more enlightened than western ones. Practice will always give theory a run for it's money.

Our egos are little children in their development, but they can be wise. We are trained only to use the ego in terms of possession but forget that the ego is the ultimate filter of our life's experiences, and because our lives are uniquely our own, this ego is something to treasure. It allows us to further the human experience.

Here's an example:

Think of the books you've read, and the authors you like. Your preferences are based on your ego, if they weren't, you wouldn't have a preference, but would read anything from Nora Roberts to Plato without opinion. I"m sure you can think of books that have moved you in some way. Those books wouldn't exist without the author's ego. It was his or her ego that filtered their empirical observations into a work of art, and it is your ego that identifies and through that identification you increase your understanding and elevate your mind. This is the pure ego at work. This is not domination or possession. It is the miraculous exchange of ideas.

I have to ask one simple question for those of you so convinced of the ego's duplicity; Why have an avatar? Why do you feel the need to single yourself out with images your ego has chosen as it's representation of itself?

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:24 AM

Paying attention to one's feelings is always a good start getting know the psyche of human being. Then again, it is all right to fly with "autopilot" on

the feelings you think your having are not even real.
they are part of you being still on auto pilot.
thoughts/feelings/emotions all predetermined by your mind.

and no its not OK to be on autopilot.
your not here?, right here, always, in every way HERE, in every breath?
where are you then? in your mind?

next you will be screaming stuff like "i wont be responsible for my actions"

Kinda dangerous if you ask me.
then you probably resort to saying but thats free choice. its my "will" i have a right.. haha. do you? to defend the disgrace?

[edit on 2/9/2010 by Ashyr]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:27 AM
middle way...

I am not a Buddhist – I’m not really anything that has a name

I’ve finally tired of the label agnostic – I need a new word...

in any case – the middle way – the only philosophy that ever made any sense to me

Golden mean (philosophy)

Beauty is truth, truth beauty," -- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
John Keats

Golden ratio

Logarithmic spiral

math as philosophy – if there is such a thing as magic – this is it

a kind of incantation - just a formula for the way things are

(I suck at math - but that doesn't mean I can't see it for what it is)

balance and growth

the beginning and the end – the difference between the two

what comes between the two? at least as important as what comes after - whatever that might be

look at my avatar (this will be meaningless perhaps in the future): she sits in a field of poppies under the moon – staring at a horizon no one else can see - happy, happy, happy...

I am attached – you betcha

even to all the pain and misery and confusion that comes with - very attached

attached to myself - my own ego - I am not you

and there's nothing wrong with that :-)

Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl

(my ego is very pleased with itself at having been able to work a quote from Madonna into all this)

also a quote from Popeye: I yam what I yam


[edit on 9/2/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog



here we go again

When the mind attaches itself to thought and personalizes it, it strips that which it is trying to express of all truth.

So you are saying that a thought is essentially true but because our self defined identity is biased, it strips everything about that thought that does not comply with it's definition of the truth??

Where did the self defined identity get it's version of the truth from?? Is it not the logical accumulation of previous thoughts and experiences?

At least it suggests that the self defined identity, in the beginning, is based on thoughts that are true and unstripped.

For when a thought becomes a personal possession it becomes part of the mind's self defined identity.

What is my self defined identity? According to my self defined identity it is the accumulation of all previous thoughts and experiences, right? So, by definition, all thoughts that I was/am/will be aware of automatically belong to my self defined identity. There is no selection going on here, no active decision in what is or what isn't my "possession". All thoughts that my self defined identity is aware of make up my self defined identity!!

It can be questioned if the quality of the thought is trustworthy but it I do not believe my self defined identity will choose between possessing a thought or declining it. After all it is the accumulation of all thoughts.

I like metaphors (I know you do too

Say I give my son a box of Lego. (Each Lego cube is a conscious thought or experience). I give him the box and tell him to build something with only the cubes from the box. The floor is scattered with Lego cubes (unconscious thoughts) but he start to build something with only the cubes that come out of the box. When he is done he tells me he build a truck. I am looking at the thing and I cannot recognize a truck. The best I can see is an incomplete structure slightly resembling a truck. So he starts to explain that he not only used the Lego cubes from the box but also the Lego cubes scattered on the floor. Only the cubes are still scattered on the floor!! He explains that he didn't actually incorporate them into the structure but they are there.

Were I to ask the incomplete structure what he is, it would answer that it is a complete structure because all the cubes from it's box are used. (self defined identity)

Were I to ask myself what it was, I would reply an incomplete structure of what may become a truck. (independent observer)

Were I to ask my son, he would say it is a truck...(the conscious and unconscious mind)

So what is the difference between us three?? Well, between me and the structure there is only the difference of reference. I had a picture of a truck which the structure does not meet. And the structure can only see itself and conclude that it is whole. We have different frames of reference.

But what about my son? Why does he not see what I see, or better, why does he see more then me while we are observing the same thing??

He is using his imagination!!!

I have no idea what I wanted say with this metaphor but I kinda like it so I will leave it....

Oh yeah, could imagination be the connection between our conscious and unconscious mind? the thread and it deserve a big S+F.


PS: oh if you are going to throw Descartes out of the window (to which I fully agree) could you open up the window a little more because his notion of free will won't fit through it.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Can't a thought be just a thought without having it be personal?
Why does anything have to be yours or mine?

Your post raises some very interesting question for me. I guess we could delve into the relationship between thought and language and how it may relate to the OP topic.
But that is probably a whole other thread.

One question that I ponder immediately after reading the OP is: do I want to disassociate my thoughts from who I am(or think I am) personally?

Let me explain.
When I think and express the thought that I love someone, it is personal and it always will be. I want to own that thought because when I share it I want others to see it as a personal thought and as an expression of what I think and that it represents me, personally. It is the fact that my thoughts of love are personal, owned by me, that they become the truth in that love. That love as a thought and an expression are defined by me and it is only true because of that attachment. I want it identified as my thoughts of love.

I want my thoughts of love and the expression of that thought to be recognized as being meaningful and significant to the person I am when some person encounters that thought from me having expressed it directly to them.

I personally want others to take that thought personally. In some cases I want them to take ownership of that thought too, because that thought of love directly relates to the person they are too.

So I guess, when I ponder that there are thoughts that I do want to take personally and that I want to own, this also raises the question: Which ones do I not?

And, now I find myself with a paradox.
Are my thoughts relating to how I may or may not personalize thought, is that thought actually personalized or is it not?

All this of course is just an observation …
I would say that this is a rather valid and useful one for ATS members like myself. But after all, as much as we may or may not attach ourselves to our threads and posts, in the end we all surrender some personal attachment or "ownership" of our thoughts by sharing them with a community like ATS.

I'm not suggesting it is the whole truth.
Just a tiny tiny fraction of the truth that despite it's lilliputian mass that unless observed, understood, and realized, sure initiates a great deal of unnecessary suffering. Suffering that can easily be peeled away and discarded simply by disconnecting one's identity from one's thoughts and the mind's need to own them.

Yes. But there is also the matter of the slippery slope we descend when we want to discard the discomfort of something like suffering. Do we risk also discarding joy.
How do we decide that distancing one's identity from thought just eradicates the negative end of the spectrum in relation to the consequences of personalizing thought?

This is about peeling learned and conditioned information, one's identification with it, so that all that we all already know can manifest.
I disagree with the above.
I disagree even more so when your comment is backloaded with a promise of the manifestation of "all that we already know".

I hear you say: "Sdog just killed my Descartes and has replaced it with nothing.
I actually thought: "Sdog you could just quote Kierkegaard!"

Well to begin with Descartes was misinformed … there I said it!
Perhaps. Perhaps it was a consequence of personalization of a thought.

What he should have said is not "I think therefore I am" … at best he should have said "I think therefore I think I am" … that is if he should have said anything at all.
That is a bit harsh!
Is that a method of doubt I sense Sdog?
At best, the only reason you are even thinking that Descartes should have said something different is because he said it in the first place in order to share and present his personal thought. A thought which different individuals thought about in relation to themselves in order to come to a conclusion that he maybe should have said it differently, if he should have said it at all.

And as far as what happens when one disconnects their identity from their thoughts?

Everything and nothing … but it happens without resistance, it happens in the present moment, and it happens truthfully.
What is the truth Sdog? Especially as it is a thought?
I guess it is personal, even if truth is the aim of your assertion above it is not a condition that it is the truth. I guess I'll think about it.

and could easily be, and if fact probably is, all bullpoop.
Well, perhaps you can relate to the advice given post Descartes, should you have said it at all?

It isn't meant as a lesson nor do I presume any position of authority on the matter. I just was moved to write it down so I did. I hope no one feels insulted by it, and if you do, perhaps there's more truth to what I am pointing to that what you are willing to concede.

Perhaps, but perhaps if you don't hope people won't be insulted you would not have to presuppose that if an individual is insulted by your thoughts that this equates to your thoughts being the truth. I hope you are not insulted by that, but if you are then perhaps there is more truth to what I am pointing out then you are willing to concede.

What insults me is the concept that Individuality can not be attached to or seen as truth in thought.

In closing ... this is not my thread and these are not my thoughts.
They are all ours now.


"If you think you're free, there's no escape possible." - Ram Dass

If I am free to think I am free, do I need an escape?

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Thank you for so moving a personal disclosure.

The Firefighter's Prayer also deeply moved me.

I think the experience you relate is one of 'going into the zone' a place of great safety, a place of real power.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:56 AM
Alright you silly zenophobes, let's see if we can simplify this further ...

No one is to stone any one, even if they do say ego!

Eek, I barely mentioned that word and the minds are on overdrive trying to defend and legitimize their existence and protect their identity.

So let me repeat this one more time ... no one is suggesting that you should kill or discard the ego, so there's no need to keep saying 'i'm speaking from my ego, I'm keeping my ego, or in fact sdog leggo my ego you jackass, I need that to live!"
I'm not trying to steal it from you or to put it down.

So there's no need to react like this:

I mean honestly, if after reading the OP and what I wrote since, you think this is about attacking the ego, and you feel compelled to defend it because it's yours, then I humbly suggest paying attention to why you are reacting that way because in effect, you are exemplifying all that the OP addresses.

Anyhoot, all of this is just random observations and notations, they're not mine you know ... you can take them or leave them, it's all really the same to me.

But joking aside, and manifestations of unwarranted self importance aside, I have obviously done a piss poor job communicating the simplicity of this dynamic.

So let us start with the whole ego deconstruction bit ... deconstruction doesn't mean throwing something away, it simply means looking at it from a distance, taking it apart, observing it seeing how it works, and when it comes to one's deconstruction of their self, understanding and being aware of how and why we and our minds operate in relation to each other. It is simply looking at the existential mirror, and it has nothing to do with denying our ego or anything else. Ok? Ok!

So we are talking about ego deconstruction not ego destruction.

At the risk of 'not helping' further, here's perhaps a way to explain it better ...

Imagine if you will all the physical possessions you accumulate throughout your life ... all the clothes, electronics, books, all the stuff. And imagine you don't ever throw anything away ... you keep storing it in the attic every time you move. It's called hoarding. Well the mind often does the same thing, but because it isn't physical stuff that you can see or touch, unless one stops and notes it, the mind will hoard everything unconsciously. Resulting in a 'heavy' mind full of stuff it doesn't need.

All that this is about is stopping, go up in the attic of your mind, look around and see what you want to keep and what you don't. You can keep everything if you want, or you can throw it all away, there is no right wrong and it's all the same to me honestly. But if you do that, what you keep and what you discard is conscious and not a result of unobserved momentum.

As far as the fleeting point of the OP, all I was saying is if you depersonalize all the stuff in the attic that is your mind, one might find that even less is required, needed, defended, and maintained.

That's all, it's just a suggestion.

This is exhausting.

[edit on 2 Sep 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by Ashyr

Originally posted by Ashyr
Kinda dangerous if you ask me.
then you probably resort to saying but thats free choice. its my "will" i have a right.. haha. do you? to defend the disgrace?

Excuse me but I feel like respoding according my past posts... I feel like not typing it all over again:

Originally posted by v01i0
So, if you are proponent of free will, care to explain why? Can you prove that your actions are based on your freedom to decide your actions? Are you sure that you are not driven by stimulus, which you response in a static manner?

Currently I am against the possibility of free will. We humans are organs that response to a stimuli in a programmed way; this programming is based to our genes, racial inheritance, education, personality and so on.

Whatever action I choose to take, there seems always be underlying motifs that determine my action. It seems to me, that there is only freedom of choice, and even that may be illusion.

Originally posted by v01i0
At the best, we may have freedom of choice. Even that may be an illusion. Our choices are results of complex processes of our lives, based on past experiences. One cannot really do anything except what these experiences lead us.

Freedom of choice is lot like a gaussian curve. On X axis, we have "consciousness" or something alike. On Y axis we have the possible choices. Further we advance X axis, less our choices become. Highly conscious being can only do right choices.

Originally posted by v01i0
We are biological creatures, bound on our limitations that are of nature. We may think ourselves as individuals, but regardless of that we are constrained by the bounds of our very existence; culture, biology and laws of nature.

Our freedom is not boundless. Who we are, is defined by our past which includes the things mentioned above. All we may imagine is defined by our culture and our nature. Our understanding and possibilities are hence limited. There are people who claim that we are eternal beings, spiritual entities. This may not be the case. What if we are after all merely biological processes without a spirit, without a soul?

Need I say more?


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

This is exhausting.

Definately, I can relate to that

Hang on there though, I feel you have something to say which hopefully may help someone.


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

As far as the fleeting point of the OP, all I was saying is if you depersonalize all the stuff in the attic that is your mind, one might find that even less is required, needed, defended, and maintained.

come again? what is your point?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:14 PM
Is ego and self the same thing?

It seems to me that each of the esoteric traditions, the paths to enlightenment, require the individual to relinquish the self and become one in the All.

So, if I relinquish my 'self', have I leggo my ego?

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by teapot

I think that ego in psychology and in new-age-indian-metaphysics are two distinct concepts.

Psychological ego is something that you cannot get rid of (concepts of ego, id and self varies little bit depending on psychological traditions). Another ego refers more like into vanity and harmful desires that are not good in order to gain the state some call 'enligthenment' or whatever...

However, it is hard to perceive things from wider perspective if you are very self-centered, so called egoistic person..


[edit on 2-9-2010 by v01i0]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by teapot

Mmm, there's really no such thing as enlightenment, and if there were there's no path to it because you're already 'there' ... we all are.

Self, ego, enlightenment, seeking, all of that are just mind constructs as the brain struggles to touch something that it can't, it isn't the proper tool for that. There's nothing to do and there's nowhere to go to, and it isn't something external to be acquired.

At best, what 'enlightenment' points to as a word, is our natural state. A natural state that is obscured by incessant mental noise like concepts, positions, words, theories, beliefs, furthering the notion that you are what you think you are.

So there's no such thing as a 'path' to enlightenment, it's not in the future or just around the corner, we're all already there now ... if we could just stop putting stuff on top of our selves obscuring ourselves.

Darn buddhists and their paths!

eta: i promise i will try to go back and try to address all the posts.

[edit on 2 Sep 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:33 PM
Also, it is somewhat 'egoistic' wanting to become something else that you are. Wanting to get rid of ego to gain somekind of superhuper state of mind, next to a miraculous being is in fact very egoistic. Wanting to become better person is an extraverted attitude, because you reflect yourself to the social ideal of model citizen.

So all those wanna-be christs out there want that only because of themselves. They cannot really see their error. If they do, they try to suppress that insight by various excuses of good will. They will get nightmares


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:35 PM
To complement sd's last post about hoarding...

The egomindpersona is like a biological computer. It stores energy in the form of emotion. Much of that energy is linked to a few stored thoughts in this little packet of programming. And we can have millions of these little packets of thoughts and energies within our ego.

When we find ourselves in any kind of situation, the situation triggers a little bubble of programming, and we unconsciously react (re-act, act again in a way we've acted before) with the stored-up thoughts and emotions our ego feels best applies to the situation.

The secret is to become aware of all this going on with the programming and observe it. Over time, we've unconsciously built up many programmings that we would rather not have. Once the little energy thought bubble is triggered, it will just dissipate on it's own if you allow it to and then it will be gone.

If you engage it from your conscious awareness, you give it new energy to continue on in the grand program of your belief system. If you resist it, you still are giving it new energy to continue on. The secret is just to allow it to be, without judgment, observe it, feel the emotional energy without the thought story, and it will float away or transmute.

A very base basic example. A man sees a woman. This triggers a thought energy bubble program of "I would sure like to hit that, woohoo" If you engage that thought with more thought, you are unconsciously energizing that particular bubble with more energy from your conscious awareness. If you resist it, "NO, don't think like that! You're married, you idiot" you are likewise giving it more energy to exist. And it will stay in the ego to be triggered again and again. Once you discover the space between consciousness and the egomindpersona, you can observe such programmings and just allow them to fizzle out and away from you they will go.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by v01i0

I often wonder if Jesus Christ went around saying "Jesus Christ" every time he got exasperated or if he said "ME!" instead.

My suspicion is neither, as he seemed like a dude aware enough not to conceptualize the self.

Ugh, it's all fun and games till someone loses an I.

[edit on 2 Sep 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Too bad he couldn't or didn't want to write. Maybe we shoud not take too seriously the 2nd (and n-th) hand impressions about him and his teachings... It is possible that the apostoles might've not leggo their egoes.

Let's not take his physical existence as a topic of the discussion tho

About "me" then - it would perhaps be best to talk about "we" if we have our house full of stuff. And if we've hoarded a lot, maybe then is this letting go some of the stuff a brilliant idea. The We might be able to enter other rooms of our apartments as well.

I've often thought that the quick and obvious results it brings about might be the reason why the people believe without question the rest of the stuff usually attached into ego-detachment programs... Like solar bodies and such. Heck, I don't say that they would not exists or would be mere fairytales - who knows, not me! If someone asks, I'd tell them they are symbols of something, that would be hard to explain with a few brief and simple sentences.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by v01i0]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:08 PM
[inverted sarcasm]

the universe is my personal space.

you are in my personal space.

when someone acts like the above two sentences are true, i have a problem with their ego.

if you have a problem with my point of view, get off my planet.

[/inverted sarcasm]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
It was not the intention to communicate that the ego should be thrown away, that it should be rejected, or that it is in any way unwanted. This process only touches on allowing things to just be without having to own them and the relief, lack of suffering, and peace that such a disposition often manifests as a result.

Think of it this way ... even the ego doesn't have to be MY ego.

[edit on 1 Sep 2010 by schrodingers dog]

I did make a mistake in assuming that "degonstruction" meant the literal take down, piece by piece, of the ego without an actual examination involved.

I am down with that... and then you put back together what you have that fits well together and find something else to fill the holes because what is left doesn't fit well! Or... you could play a little Tetris and figure out how it can all go back together neatly. This side relates to this side and this side is longer and this side is short so, HEY!, look how they compliment eachother.

Actually, that could have been a train-wreck of a tangent. Hm.

It is extremely difficult for me to let go of certain things. My son, Link, for example - I - will - (egotistically as possible) oversee his development as a respectful person. He can choose his creative talents, he can choose his way of life... but I will not relinquish to "the wind" and all people associated with "the wind" Link's development as a respectful human being.

He - will - treat all people, without ANY discrimination of any kind, as he should treat his family.

And of course it is my responsibility to do the same if he is to ever learn to be like this.

I understand there is a great lack of peace accompanying this mission, but that is because I feel that there is a war between the dying respectful and the fast-growing disrespectful people of this planet. And where there is war, there is little peace.

I am at war with disrespect. "My" "ego" challenges disrespect to a duel.

If I can win this battle... this battle of ensuring that, above all things, Link learns to respect all people, then I will have the ability to appreciate the relief of peace.

Which brings up another question for me... Even though the topic isn't supposed to specifically be "ego"... but if we were to call what the subject is "ego", then what are we to call the conscience that guilts if I do not pursue this engagement with disrespect? Is that also ego? Because it feels as though the ego is at war with disrespect but the conscience won't let me step down... as if ego was an instigator and conscience is the mob boss' guard saying, "Nuh uh, punkboy. You init fer good."

The irony is that my hardest battle is fought against the disrespectul... because I must still respect them.

But if disrespect wins, then what I refer to as disrespect must not be the bad thing that I see it as because the "world" has chosen the direction for whatever hidden blessing that may occur. Oh well. The vanity, indeed.

It is indeed vanity. It will all work out. Is it about Link reflecting on me? Hmm... I don't feel like that is it. No. I feel like it is that I want him to respect other people for himself because I want him to be a hero.

But then... I do love everyone and want the best for everyone, regardless of -any- of their mistakes. Do I want more for mine than for theirs? No, I don't, actually. Because it is also vanity... because why take more when I can take less? Why can't they have more? Who will win in the end? Does it matter?

The point is... I don't know. But I have direction this way. And with direction, I have a mission. All things in life are vanity, but sometimes in life it is harder to enjoy the relief and peace if we don't suffer ourselves a little war every now and then.

Edit because "hidding" is not a word. "Hidden" is.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by TarzanBeta]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

i know a little bit about not having an ego, if even for a brief moment in time. whatever "time" is .... it is something different without ego, or rather when ego is not in play.

I know the ego cannot die
But I cannot explain why

i let go of my ego more than once in my life.
service before self, the second core value of the usaf.
i was in for more than decade of my life.

thanks for this thread Sdog.
Leggo My Ego

Hope this helps,
[edit on 2-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Intresting so you were a firefighter, explains why I see you on this site now and again trying to put out metaphysical fires, with your funnyness.
Also is that true that there second core value, is service before can you do anything other but serve before the self, do they think they have a choice? It just goes to show that firefighters have huge ego's, if they think they can stand before the fire, and come out unscaved, only a mater of time...but lucky for them time is relative. Anyways your related story of a moment in your life, was intresting, fire and lightning makes everything more intresting and exciting. Unless offcourse you dont come out unscaved out of such a intresting scenario, then its not so fun.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in