This is more for me to work out my own feelings than needing advice although advice would be helpful. I am still debating on if I want to talk this out or let it go. So yeah, as the title says, only one person from my friend group showed up to my (28F) Birthday Dinner. I am primarily coming to Reddit because it is embarrassing and shattering my vision of myself. I fear seeking comfort from my out-of-state friends because I do not want them to think less of me. I have always been deeply aware of how lonely I feel/am. It is one of my biggest vulnerabilities, so should other people be aware of it? or imply it with none of my friends who came to my birthday dinner? I can open up about anything else, but this feels too exposing.
But yeah, my friends did not show up for my birthday dinner, and I am not sure how I feel about it. One person did, but he(M29+) is my boyfriend's(32M) friend more than mine. To be honest, this makes it even more embarrassing. Having to search The Feelings Chart, I primarily just feel abandoned, embarrassed, fragile, disrespected, etc. Watching the door and waiting for your friends to show up while conversing with your partner and their friend is difficult. Suddenly, I was 17 again, only having one singular friend going to lunch with me before having other friends and dropping me off at an empty house. I think my parents were at a sibling's game or tournament. or a party? I am not sure; I just remember being home alone for my birthday a month after a suicide attempt. Or I was back at 11, having my birthday overshadowed by my sister's first communion. Or I was back on my 20th birthday, taking myself to see Captain America: Civil War.
Most of them did not even tell me they were not coming. That is what really hurts. I know my birthday sucks for everyone, time-wise. My parents made that very apparent by pushing any family celebration to Father's Day/my dad's & uncle's birthday. Yet only one of the four got back to me two hours beforehand about being unable to make it because they were tired from preparing for their family member's wedding a week from now. However, the thing is, I had gauged the group chat about doing it this weekend a week ago. To be fair, there were acknowledgments of seeing it, but no one directly responded with a conflict. I even sent a message 24 hours before letting everyone know I made a reservation, and people, again, liked the message but did not directly say if there was an issue. That is what is primarily keeping me from having a conversation with anyone. There was obvious acknowledgment of the plans, but no one asked if they could go.
It is apparent I have a lot of baggage around my birthday. I worry I unconsciously make it a test for people and myself. I saw how much people love and value me and based my self-worth and relationships on that. Possibly hope they do not show in a sick way of confirming my deepest insecurity. The rationale part of me acknowledges that it is a lot to put on someone, and things, unfortunately, just do not work out sometimes. On the other hand, this is the third event I have planned as the host where people were busy and canceled at the last minute. Usually, I would just take that as a sign of people not wanting to be friends, but some of them were legitimately interested in it when I briefly discussed it in April. Furthermore, they keep inviting me to their events.
Fundamentally, I do not know where to go from here. Only one of them has reached out, apologizing for not communicating more and saying that they will celebrate at a better time, while the other two have been silent. I think I need more time to process it before having an actual conversation with anyone about it. I am still primarily in the hurt phase, and no communication will be about their actual behavior. For example, with the apology, I was dishonest and said no worries. I wish I did not do that; it caught me off guard, but I did not want it to sit for too long and have them think I was ignoring them out of malice. If I had been in a better headspace, I would have responded with a thank you, acknowledged reading their message, and just be honest about needing more time before talking about it. I just feel sad.
Added context: We are all in graduate school. This is their last quarter before graduating, so they are legitimately busy and finishing up their practice experience/integrative projects and applying to fellowships. Ages range from 25-30.

Let’s make it aware that there is a job offer scam that lies and take you to Scam Factories and you become a slave, and you may even die. Post here all cases of Disappearance of people who may be associated with this type of scam.

Know The Signs! Have you been trafficked? * Did you apply for the job via Social Media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram), WhatsApp, Telegram or an online platform? * Did you have an online interview? * Have you been promised a job with a company in Thailand? * Were you promised a lucrative salary? * Did you receive a letter of confirmation for your new role? * Did you investigate the company you applied to and are they registered? * Do you have an agent or consultant handling details for you?
How to prevent yourself or someone you know from being trafficked * Never give anyone your passport! * Research the company you are applying to join. For example, check their website, search for them on social media and LinkedIn, check the legal registration of the company. * Ask for references (face to face or virtual) from current employees. * Ensure you received an official letter of offer and check the email addresses match the companies contact information. * Research the visa requirements for working in a foreign country. * Notify your countries Immigration Office of your intention to travel or contact your countries Embassy once you arrive at your destination. * If you are about to cross a river in north-west Thailand don’t, it is likely you are being trafficked into Myanmar.
Could this be your situation? If you or someone you know has been trapped in forced criminality, contact your nearest embassy or email the Global Alms Counter Trafficking Unit at admin@globalalms.com with the details.

This is a post for awareness. Let’s help each other. Only serious comments.
Below are more links to other related posts.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/asia/chinese-scam-operations-american-victims-intl-hnk-dst/
http://chinascope.org/archives/32233
https://youtu.be/m6qFCdHvYuI?si=rs2J71V1XIeFF7we
https://www.reddit.com/Thailand/s/L8OTm9Lvye
https://www.globalalms.com/protection
(My account created recently for privacy/scam concerns)

General
I am looking for a lady between 28 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I tried to be as concise as possible while still providing what details I think are crucial to know; I realise this post turned out very long, but I prefer those because I can get as good an idea as possible with detailed descriptions, bar actually talking to the person, and find that very valuable, so if that also applies to you, that would be awesome.
Basics
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner (ranging from 5k to full marathon), training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with a fearful avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or in the stadium watching football and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I am looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus (and there have to be at least a couple things we have in common), emotional and sexual compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals (some of which in quite a litteral sense as they make for really amazing pillows) and ideally, you do too.
There is a saying that in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly, like I said, need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well – this just to put the picture I'm (somewhat haphazardly) trying to paint into perspective.
Second, sexual compatibility. I have a high libido and I have kinks, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy them together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, sexual fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. Someone on here has coined the term 'filthy best friends and partners' which I have no shame to be stealing because it's such an apt description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. I love the relationship model outlined in Stan Tatkin’s ‘Wired for Love’ and you should, too. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. I know codependency is the latest thing everyone’s afraid of, but experiencing someone you’ve grown very attached to just bailing because they’re counterdependent and can’t stand working on themselves while simultaneously letting you in is something I’d rather not go through again. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere. If you think’s it’s okay to lovebomb someone and then leave after a couple of months with the minimum amount of information and no proper conversation because you’re not ready to own up to what’s happening to you emotionally, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, be opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: many childfree people seem to be adventurous, but that is a trait I don't associate with myself at all. I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, seeing them change around us, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side (albeit not regarding height), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
The natural progression for me would be to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but having my heart broken because I already developed feelings due to a longer timeframe and then everything unexpectedly turning to shit is not something I want to have to live through again. I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself, I unfortunately had to learn that
Caveats/Possible red flags

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

I am looking for a lady between 25 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner, training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with an avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or at a football game and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I'm looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus, emotional and intimate compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals and ideally, you do too.
Apparently in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well.
Second, intimate compatibility. I am rather insatiable and love to experiment when it comes to the bedroom, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, this kind of fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. I found the term 'filthy best friends and partners' to be a perfect description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
I’d prefer to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself.
Caveats

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I don't want children and had a vasectomy
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

Are cmyk values always going to be the same for the hex equivalent?
For example - #3b2783 converts to 55,70,0,49
Can this change? I’ve received a brand colour guide with this purple and the hex is the same as above but the cmyk value is different - it is: 96,99,5,1
Is this a mistake or can this be correct?
I am so confused.
Thank you in advance :)

Feeling demoralized for struggling with culture fit interviews. Have 9 years of experience.
I really like the company (a successful fintech company) - I have passed technical rounds last year except the final leadership interview.
Now they have tech screening (cultural fit).
ex:- feedback from a screening interview with tech lead.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your application to the Software Engineer - Data role. Your interest in the position means a lot to us. We’ve reviewed your application and, unfortunately, it’s not a match for what we’re specifically searching for in this role.
Here is some feedback which might help you for your next endeavors:
**Pros:**

• You seem to have a good understanding of technology and the end-to-end cycle of software development from a technical point of view. For example, you shared that you worked on a project from scratch - understood requirements, did capacity planning, applied it on load balancers and also mentioned the monitoring aspect of the project.
  
• You have worked closely with the product manager (in the context of the above project) and knew the business impact they were measuring.
  
• You have experience working with data scientists - in the same project.
  
• You didn't mind working from the office. We pressed on the office first and the 3-day policy. You were comfortable with that - seemed neither excited nor against.
  

**Concerns:**

• **Concerns on Explainability:** You went into a lot of unnecessary details while explaining the project as an example. I would expect someone with your experience to read the room and give the details required for the key points of discussion.
  
• **Concerns on Cross Team/Cross Function projects:** We asked about the challenging parts of owning the end-to-end project - in light of the project example you had given. You mentioned the technical part of caching and the application crashing due to garbage collection. We pressed a bit on the non-technical challenges. You said one of the teams did not want to support their use case so you built it on your own. We pressed a bit more on any challenging experience you have had in your career and how you resolved it or learnt from it. You told a story of the two engineers in your team having an argument over a design, where you implemented two solutions and then the EM in the end resolved it. My feedback on this is that you don't have the experience on the "end-to-end" ownership apart from technical design, especially in cross-teams projects.
  
• **Concerns on Experience:** For all the questions we asked, you gave answers in the context of just one project i.e., the system that you worked on previously. We also asked about your experience in your recent companies but no projects came up in the discussion - only that you don't like the way of working in your current company.
  

Finally: Should I fabricate stories from recent years where I don't have examples in reality. I have decent stories from 5 years back which are not too strong sometimes.
Honestly I am not a confrontational person.
What the fuck should I do? even sometimes I am not getting opportunity to shine in technical interviews.

Hi all, I'm a freelance illustrator and I can draw unique pieces of lettering, artwork, poster design, logo and cover art for your brand, game, book, etc. Feel free to see my profile here: https://www.artstation.com/mushroomboyz Contact me via DM or my email namhung454art@gmail.com. Thank you!

Sorry for bad punctuation and grammar, typing on phone!
This happened in 2022, not long found out about it as trying to boost credit score!
I used to be with vodaphone, on pay monthly, paid everything on time not one slip up, got a new phone and sim with vodaphone, I had a phone call with vodaphone to cancel the old sim and they said they would cancel it but never did, few months later I get a letter from (Zinc credit management) demanding I pay £100.10 before a certain date or it would go into default and affect my credit, so as soon as I got the letter I paid the debt. Even tho it’s not my mistake and have even asked vodaphone for the phone call when discussing canceling my old sim but they wouldn’t send it over.
I paid the debt in full to zinc 25 July 2022 and a default was added to my credit on 1 December 2022 still saying I owe the debt!
What can I do and how can I protest this? Thank you in advance and sorry for bad grammar

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.

Here we have been loyal cardholders to a company for several years. We recently got a letter from this company stating that due to economic factors, our interest rate is going to increase from 29% to 34%. While we never carry a balance so we can never be charged interest, this is just insane. What "economic factors"? Are you following inflation? Is it due to most of your customers defaulting on what they owe since 2020? No idea what "economic factors" they are writing about, but we will not be paying 34% since we pay off everything every month. But, seriously? Seemingly "punishing" the ones who are responsible? Thanks a lot!

Fellow Redditians,
I am in this Switzerland to seek advice, hints, tips, insights... Maybe there are also other groups that I could inquire about my questions but let's start here. I'm trying to keep it neat and short :-)
As the title suggests, I am looking for jobs in Switzerland, roles that manage the APAC region, specifically Market Manager, Sales Manager, BD Manager in that direction. Besides jobs.ch, indeed.ch, jobscout24.ch, jobshot.ch and linkedin.com, could you please recommend any other specific sites? Maybe recommend recruiters?
Long story short: In 2023 I almost got a dream position: Market Manager APAC for a Swiss Railway company. I believe I was one of the finalists but ultimately the role went to someone else. Anyhow... As far as my observation goes, many Swiss companies related to Tourism are now slowly looking to attract more APAC travelers. A leading and good example is the KDrama Crash Landing On You.
Maybe some of you are in this specific role and working in the Tourism industry, could you please share your experience as much as you can?
Although I am starting to getting used to reddit, please bear with me and thanks for your patience :-) Wishing you all a happy day and I'm looking forward to your feedback and further conversations!

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.

Hello everyone,
This is my first post on Rediff, and I kindly ask for your understanding if you find any mistakes in my language, as English is not my native tongue. I hope to find some guidance here.
I am from India, and I have been married to my wife for 10 years. We are both in our mid-thirties, and our marriage has been quite happy overall, despite occasional disagreements. We dated for three years before tying the knot. Recently, I came across the concept of emotional infidelity, and it has left me feeling troubled about a past experience involving my wife. I would appreciate your insights into whether my wife's actions constituted emotional infidelity.
This incident occurred before our marriage, during a period when we were in love but temporarily separated. My wife had travelled to Bengaluru(another city) for a one-month project, and her parents arranged for her stay in a ladies' hostel through a relative's acquaintance. During this time, we were on a brief break from communication to reassess our relationship. However, my wife informed me about her travel plans and the assistance she was receiving from this relative. This was our last conversation before the break.
Throughout her stay, this relative consistently (daily some times, two days once some times) communicated with my wife, primarily discussing her accommodation and work-related matters. They met only once to arrange her stay, and there were no phone calls between them. Upon her return, this relative unexpectedly proposed to my wife, which she promptly declined, affirming her commitment to our relationship. He persisted in contacting her, prompting his mother to intervene, urging my wife to console him (that he wants to ask sorry with you). After their conversation, my wife gradually reduced her responses to his messages as our break period concluded.
Once we got back into our relationship my wife told me about this instance that’s how I came to know this. We have shared our password, I checked their conversations by accessing my wife's chat history, which mainly revolved around office matters, city details, and travel logistics. He shared some of his personals like his borughtup, family problems etc..There was one instance where he asked about her relationship status, to which she responded vaguely due to our decision to keep our relationship private within our families, fearing societal repercussions. Additionally, he occasionally used terms of endearment like "dear" and "honey," . I never seen my wife addressed him using hone or dear. She addressed always by his name.
Before our marriage, I confronted my wife about any feelings she might have had for him, and she assured me that she had none. She explained that she maintained occasional communication with him as per his mother's request not to abruptly end their friendship.
Since our marriage, I have not observed any communication between them. However, my recent encounter with the concept of emotional infidelity has stirred doubts in my mind, causing distress and affecting my relationship with my wife,
I am torn between addressing my concerns and not wanting to further burden my wife during this challenging time.(as she deliver our third baby three months ago) I feel uncomfortable knowing that someone addressed her with affectionate terms, even if she did not reciprocate. why did she allow the space to him to propose. I am considering revisiting their past conversations for a deeper understanding, but unfortunately, my wife has deleted her Facebook account and now only uses Instagram.
Can you confirm was this a instance of emotional infidelity
I seek your advice on how to navigate this situation sensitively while maintaining the well-being of my family. Thank you for your support.

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.

Believe it or not, offshore bookkeeping offers more than just a scenic backdrop. In today's global economy, businesses are setting sail towards offshore solutions for their financial needs, and the advantages are as vast as the open sea. Therefore, it is essential to know how it can help you achieve your financial goals in life.

Offshore Bookkeeping: What's the Buzz About?

Offshore bookkeeping is when you hire a team in another country to handle your financial record-keeping tasks. Some people might worry about sending financial data abroad, but the benefits often outweigh any concerns.

1. Cost Efficiency

One of the biggest perks of offshore bookkeeping is cost savings. Thus, outsourcing your bookkeeping services to countries with lower labor costs, you can significantly reduce your expenses. It’s like getting top-notch financial assistance without breaking the bank. Here are some sample scenarios:

• Labor Cost Savings. For example, a small consulting firm in Australia can save money by outsourcing bookkeeping to countries like India or the Philippines, where labor costs are lower.
• Reduced Overhead Costs. Offshore outsourcing minimises overhead costs associated with in-house staff, such as office space, equipment, and benefits.
• Access to Specialised Expertise at Lower Costs. Offshore firms provide access to specialised expertise in accounting and specific industries at a fraction of the cost of hiring locally.
• Scalability without Increasing Costs. Offshore bookkeeping allows businesses to scale services according to their needs without incurring additional costs.
• Risk Mitigation. Diversifying service providers geographically reduces the risk of disruptions due to local issues, ensuring continuity in bookkeeping operations.

2. Time Savings

Outsourcing your bookkeeping tasks frees up your time to focus on core business activities. Instead of drowning in spreadsheets and receipts, you can invest your time and energy into growing your business. Therefore, offshore bookkeeping helps you work smarter, not harder.

3. Access to Expertise

When you opt for offshore bookkeeping, you gain access to a pool of skilled professionals who specialise in handling financial matters. These experts are well-versed in the latest accounting standards and technologies, ensuring accurate and efficient bookkeeping help for your business.

4. Scalability

As your business grows, so do your bookkeeping needs. Offshore bookkeeping provides scalability that allows you to expand or scale back your services according to your requirements. Whether you need help with day-to-day transactions or year-end financial reports, offshore bookkeeping has you covered.

5. Enhanced Data Security

Concerned about data security? Offshore bookkeeping firms understand the importance of safeguarding your financial information. They implement robust security measures to protect your data from unauthorised access and cyber threats, giving you peace of mind.

6. Flexibility

Offshore bookkeeping offers flexibility in terms of service options. Whether you need full-time support or occasional assistance, you can customise your bookkeeping services to suit your business needs. It’s like having a financial team that adapts to your schedule, not the other way around.

7. Focus on Core Competencies

By outsourcing your bookkeeping tasks, you can focus on what you do best—running your business. Leave the number crunching to the experts while you concentrate on delivering value to your customers and driving growth.

Offshore Bookkeeping with Alli Accounting

Remeber, offshore bookkeeping isn’t just a trend; it’s a strategic move for businesses looking to streamline their financial operations. With cost savings, time efficiency, access to expertise, and enhanced security, offshore bookkeeping offers a plethora of benefits. So why not explore this option and give your business the bookkeeping help it deserves?
Offshore bookkeeping with Alli Accounting provides businesses with a reliable solution to manage their finances efficiently while reducing operational costs. Our team of experienced professionals ensures accurate recording of financial transactions, including accounts payable and receivable, payroll, and general ledger entries. Reach out to us to learn more!
Believe it or not, offshore bookkeeping offers more than just a scenic backdrop. In today's global economy, businesses are setting sail towards offshore solutions for their financial needs, and the advantages are as vast as the open sea. Therefore, it is essential to know how it can help you achieve your financial goals in life.

Offshore Bookkeeping: What's the Buzz About?

Offshore bookkeeping is when you hire a team in another country to handle your financial record-keeping tasks. Some people might worry about sending financial data abroad, but the benefits often outweigh any concerns.

Hey Reddit,
Ever wondered about those official documents service dog users carry? Today, we're diving into the world of service dog letters and what they mean for you and your furry companion.
What is a Service Dog Letter?
Imagine it as an ID card for your service dog. It's a formal letter written by a licensed medical professional that verifies your disability and confirms your need for a service dog to assist you.
Why is it Important?
This letter can be a lifesaver when navigating public spaces, traveling, or even seeking pet-friendly housing. It essentially cuts through the red tape and ensures your right to be accompanied by your service dog under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
What's in the Letter?

• Your Info: Basic details like your name and contact information.
• Doctor's Credentials: Verification from your licensed medical professional, including their name, license number, and contact details.
• Disability Verification: Confirmation of your disability status as defined by the ADA.
• Service Dog Necessity: A statement explaining that you require a service dog to manage your disability.
• Task Description (brief): A general description of the tasks your service dog performs to assist you, without disclosing private medical details.

Important Reminders:

• No Online Shortcuts: While online services might offer pre-written letters, these hold no legal weight. A legitimate letter requires verification from a medical professional familiar with your situation.
• Not Mandatory, But Powerful: The ADA doesn't mandate service dog letters, but they can be a powerful tool to demonstrate your rights and avoid unnecessary challenges.

Do you have any questions about service dog letters or service dogs in general? Let's chat in the comments!

Hi all. Just wanted to try getting a narrowed down idea of my type. Feel free to comment your thoughts! Thanks!
• How old are you? What's your gender? Give us a general description of yourself.
I'm a 25 year-old male. I'm a diligent student and am living away from my home country for now 9 years. Ive spent those 9 years trying to understand the way the society works here and have adapted rather well, to the point where people can't tell I'm a foreigner. I'm pretty active, although it's more so activity for the sake of activity. As such, I'm kinda fit.
• Is there a medical diagnosis that may impact your mental stability somehow?
Yes. GAD and PTSD.
• If you had to spend an entire weekend by yourself, how would you feel? Would you feel lonely or refreshed?
I would have fomo if I were to see everyone else that I deem as friend doing something cool on socials. Then I would become resentful. However, I myself am perfectly okay being in my own company. I prefer it. That is not to say I don't like being with my frens. I would feel refreshed but there would come a point where I would feel as if I can't bear being so alone. Especially after long periods of time. However, I am accustomed to being alone and finding the joy in it. Like I said, I would resent the very sociable folks because I felt left out
• What kinds of activities do you prefer? Do you like, and are you good at sports? Do you enjoy any other outdoor or indoor activities?
I like activities that i can enjoy anywhere. Though i think this is because of how used to using a phone i am. Mobile gaming etc... is pretty neat. I like activities in which i can see a story unfold. Reading is one of them, iwas a huge reader as a kid. But i gravitate more so towards watching cool shows. However i much prefer shows and things that arent as popular because then people wont annoyingly yap about the surface level of the shows that we mutually have watched. Though I do like creative activities, like painting, I also like shopping and walking around. I like doing things that I feel are leading towards something grand. So, for instance, journaling and practicing a skill daily brings me some pleasure. I used to be a huge football fan until I realized how corrupt the sport was. I do like some sports though. I've always liked tossing and catching balls, playing with bouncy balls as a kid etc... I like skateboarding, though I haven't owned one in years.
• How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
Quite curious. I'm sometimes out of touch with reality just entertaining my mental musings. I will be sat and thinking about some random topic or thing iused to hear about and then research it. I'll try to make sense of the world and the "why" behind things. For example; why do I have nightmares when it's cold? Why are xyz so unreasonable? Why am I so attached to this toy? Why don't people do instead of y? I feel like social media has influenced this process tho. Giving us random things to consume, it leads us to clicking on videos and articles that spark new interests so easily and quickly, so I'm unsure. Though I tend to want to know why certain things are happening or WHAT is happening. Especially if theres like a crown gasping at something, for instance.
• Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
i have taken leadership positions in the past, and I did well. I much prefer to appeal to the good nature of my "teammates" and encourage them to do a good job.however, I prefer to select my team. I do not want laziness or incompetence in my crew. So I will scan my options and choose who I will team up with. If I have options that are limited to not-so-skilled individuals, I will play a leadership role and do most of the thinking. Tho I don't enjoy it.
• Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
i'm coordinated, yeah. I actually prefer situations where I can grasp the essence of a problem and use my hands. I prefer writing over reading, so I guess I like using my hands fo effect the mediums I work with. I used to want to be like a spy who is interacting with a bunch of gadgets and mobilizing himself towards a goal. My activity is usually at my own pace. I frequently try to finish tasks ahead of schedule because I want to spend more time lazing around and doing whatever I want. I tend to seek clarity in instructions I am given and sequentially take care of each piece of the task I am given. I recently started using to do lists because the workload became HUGE. I will, however, not compromise my comfort.
• Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forms of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
i am. I am skilled with pencil shading and line art and do pretty well with colours and aesthetics. I know what I like and try to make something that appeals to me and is objectively nice. I tend to also make pieces that resonate with myself, so things that I like. I even sought to learn to draw faces to draw myself and my friends ad fantasy characters. I'm good with visual arts but I'm also a pretty good actor. I've always excelled at making accents and role playing. I like thinking of people in terms of the archetypes they fill and even portray my friends in memes
• What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
The past, I have a love hate relationship with it. I made mistakes that I regret and have been through horrible things. But I do appreciate things from the past that bring me meaning. Certain flavors, sceneries, good memories. As for the present, I tend to be locked out of the present moment. I struggle to live in the moment and can seem rather weird. I think more about things than actually doing them. It feels like I play a character at any given moment for any given interaction tho. As for the future, I tend to find it weird. I want a better future and sometimes think, in a tight situation, "don't worry. Tomorrow this will be over." I love thinking that the future is open and that better days are ahead. I often wonder what it will feel like doing things ive never done. Absent of anxiety, that is. With anxiety, whole different story. "Tomorrow is bound to be worse than today" when anxious
• How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
i help those i'm cool with or at least neutral towards. If the individual is full of nonsense and lazy or offers no value in return, no way.
• How important is efficiency and productivity to you?
I've been lazy all mylifr and I never stopped hearing about it. So just to prove people wrong, I will move bricks and mountains. Whichever is important to a degree of thinking "less is more". Productivity is alright too, but at my own pace ofc
• What are your hobbies? Why do you like them?
i listen to music, journal, watch cartoons and movies, work out, walk, try to find ways to "fix" my life (my friends tell me this is what I do most), play games, try some good food, meditate (I tend to neglect this one), research interesting things, draw, accomplish a goal
• What is your learning style? What kind of learning environments do you struggle with most? Why do you like/struggle with these learning styles? Do you prefer classes involving memorization, logic, creativity, or your physical senses?
I hate classes with lots of aural input from a lecturer, If it triggers my misophonia.i prefer learning things practically. explanations will just have me needing to read more and try to focus on boring notes. Using my hands and brains is preferred. I score high in Kinesthetic for VARK tests. Oh, and visual. I prefer classes that involve logic, creativity and physical senses. I can memorize things but this is the most tedious learning style for me.
• How good are you at strategizing? Do you easily break up projects into manageable tasks? Or do you have a tendency to wing projects and improvise as you go?
I can strategise when needed. I weigh the task up first. If the task at hand is hard, I will break it down and dedicate more energy to it. Else, I'll just do what feels right. I even ignore instructions sometimes.
• What do the "highs" in your life look like?
The flavour of the world feels warm, with a tinge of coldness. I would feel as if my suffering paid off and I am nowhere except where I am supposed to be. That there is no rush and no need to care of what others think about me. Where I can just do what I deem best amd find a balance between stability and adventure
• What do the "lows" in your life look like?
Nightmares, hypichondriasis, overthinking, rumination, anxiety, panic, jealousy, having no autonomy
• How attached are you to reality? Do you daydream often, or do you pay attention to what's around you? If you do daydream, are you aware of your surroundings while you do so?
I daydream quite a lot. But I will still feel what's around me enough to get somewhere where I can be in my head in peace. XD
• Imagine you are alone in a blank, empty room. There is nothing for you to do and no one to talk to. What do you think about?
I like empty rooms, especially if they used to be lively and full of people in past events. Goes to show that no matter what happens, some things remain. I would think of what life would be like if I were to live here forever. I would also be reminded of that meme where there's just a futon, a screen, a fridge and a katana: "all men need to be happy". If the room has no windows or doors, I'd be scared. Assuming it has windows and a door, I would look outside, eventually. How big is the room? If it's a HUUUUGE empty hall, that's so cool. I'd walk around and imagine myself in some great elvish building and maybe even lie down to see the roof. I even dreamt of such a building before, hexagon shaped cross section.
• How long do you take to make an important decision? And do you change your mind once you've made it?
I take a bloody long time to decide on anything important. For instance, i took 4 hours to decide what race my DnD character would be. Once I've made my decision, I will not regret it unless it goes wrong
• How long do you take to process your emotions? How important are emotions in your life?
I have always tended to act on emotion but i have been more balanced in the past 4 years. I regulate them to not make a mess and use them to deem what I will and will not tolerate in the future. I enjoy expressing them
• Do you ever catch yourself agreeing with others just to appease them and keep the conversation going? How often? Why?
No. Cause that's fake. If I don't agree, I'll just say "cool" and move on. Why talk if I'm going to say what YOU want to hear? I must say what I want to say.
• Do you break rules often? Do you think authority should be challenged, or that they know better? If you do break rules, why?
Yeah, but I often get told that what I'm doing isn't right and then I just get mad at the person that told me that. "No sir you can't wear shoes in this room" I'll think cwell, screw you too!" Besides that, I often follow the rules of any given institution well enough.