When I was in tech school, friends of mine were fond of chatting on the web. They decided to organize meetings for people of our city, once a week, so that they could put a face on the names. They decided to drag me there (even though I don't like chats and didn't knew anyone beside them). Anyway, politely I decided to follow them, at least a few times. This went on for almost one month. By then, I had decided to quit going.

Last time I was to go, I was a bit early. We were in a bar, so I went to order something to the bartender. Then I saw this girl, looking a bit lost, one head shorter than me, jet black hairs. She had been invited by some guy to this small meeting and had finaly agreed to go.

In the end, we spent most of night speaking to each other. We were like two faces of the same coin, different in so many points, and crafted to be bound by the same core. Two days later, we became a couple.

As for what seems to be important, I could only copy what bokuwacherries wrote.

First, I have to admit that I'm some kind of a daydreamer and well... call it a stereotype, but I'm French. Anyway, in French, soulmate is quite close to two other expressions. One implying love and the other one being closer to friendship.

Whatever the case, relations with other people are like flowers. When you put the seed on the soil, you may not always know what it shall bloom into, and you have to care of it, both you and the other one have to take care of it.
I guess you can say that soulmates have a better affinity when it comes to gardening

What I think is that two people can have a natural affinity that can grow to more than that simply by exchanging a few words and a smile.

A soulmate can be cut out of the same wood as you are, but can also be "complementary" to you. There is no alchemical recipe for defining it.

I was working as an intern in an import company. A secretary came in and told us that. At first, I thought it was some kind of a sick joke. It seemed impossible. Then by looking at her face I understood she was serious, and so did my boss. His wife was American, and she was working around New-York. He left in a hurry. The rest of the day (it was already afternoon for us) seemed quite surreal.

I may be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, if you only look at numbers on a planetary scale, there should be enough food. Problem is the adequacy of food stocks and people density.

Should "richer" countries give away their unused food stocks? The answer may not be all that easy to find. Sorry if I sound cynic, but unfortunately, giving food is not the perfect solution. If wheat producers start shipping flour to some countries lacking food, they may help the populations for a few months. On a longer scale, they may disrupt the local agricultural market.

There already is this big problem: survival agriculture has been replaced in many place by "export" agriculture. If you start importing foodstuff, the remaining survival agriculture may suffer a final blow. And if the external help stops for a reason or another, the situation could be even worse than before.

In my opinion, it would be more sensible to help countries so that they could be self-sufficient in terms of food production. Don't give flour, give the tools so that they could produce their own flour.

Fairy tales does indeed contain violence, and quite often sexual warnings too. But fairy tales have and important part to play in raising children.

A couple of months ago, I finished reading a little funny book, "The science of the Discworld II: The Globe" by T. Pratchett, I. Stewart & J. Cohen. In this book, a mix between a novel and scientific stuff, the authors explain why we should not be called "homo sapiens" but "pan narrans," "storytelling apes." We keep on telling stories. Some are called tales, others stories, history and so on. And these tales, along with other rites of passage are parts of what you may call a "make a human" kit.

Tales are useful in carrying messages to children in funny, easy to remember ways. Such stories are rooted in our societies. Parents repeat them generations after generations. They contain warnings, rules of life in a society and so on. They explain in a rather nice way what people are expected to do or not to do. They carry some kind of old wisdom and so on.

Now, I guess that one of big differences between these stories and video games is the role of the children. In stories, they have a mostly passive role: they listen. In video games, they usually have a much more active role. Otherwise, they loose and it sucks. Note that it usually gets really boring to look at someone else playing a game without doing anything else. At the same time, you're usually not expected to have a really active role in listening to a storyteller other than opening your eyes in awe and imagine.

Another difference, at least in my opinion, is that a fairy tale creates images from words. When you read something, it is up to your imagination to "see" things. In movies, you directly see splash of blood and so on. Note that last time I went seeing a movie with a nurse friend of mine we both spent our time laughing. She was laughing because of the medical impossibilities (too much blood or things like this) while I was laughing at the logical incoherences. And it was not even considered as a violent movie...

One of the main thing I regret about movies and games is that they are somehow "pre-canned" stories. You don't even have to imagine how things are, what are the surrounding looking like, what the people look like and so on. You don't have to imagine, to make your mind work, to ask questions. Of course, you can do this about what is unseen on the screen, but most of the important stuff is already shown. In fairy tales, you have to do all the stuff yourself, which is a really good exercise.

Now, if you go back in time, I'm sure that you'll find lots of people arguing about the fact that books should not be about fictional stuff as they would lead the reader to unholy ideas and so on. Yesterday, it was about books, today about video games and television. Tomorrow... we shall see.

To tell the truth I do believe that TV or video games can have bad influence, just as anything else. But what really matters, to my point of view, is the way children are raised by their parents, how they learn to see the world around them and to live in it. I have cousins who were raised without ever seeing the TV and so on. Their parents thought that TV was bad stuff. Nowadays, they're at the end of high school or in their first years of university. Are they any better or any worse than others: no.

I guess it's all about being reasonable, being sensible and not mixing fiction and reality. Now, if you ask me, I think there are stuff I wouldn't show to my kids until they reach some age. I'd rather make them imagine things, use their own brain on fairy tales than be consumers of pre-canned stories.

Well, first, I would have to make kids

Back in high-school, I used to PLAY tarot with friends. This was absolutely not card reading, simply playing tarot... You know, three or five people around a table, spending hours trying to beat contracts, "garde", "garde contre",...

As for card reading, the answer is "no." It may sound stupid but... if you think you may believe this, how can you be sure that you read your "future", or you shape the events of your future to somehow match what you read?

Mushishi... Quiet, really nice. Just as the anime

Seems like Plunkies' right. It has always more or less be the same thing. Hey, even during the Roman Empire you had people complaining that foreigners from the borders of the empire were taking the jobs of good Roman citizens...

Nothing's new under the sun

I would certainly fetch the huge check and just as I take it in my hands I would... Fall from my bead and wake up from the dream...

Just for your information.
In France, there no longer are death penalties (since the early 80's). However, in the last few days, people comdemned to life imprisonment have asked the French president to allow for the return of death penalties, for themselves...

I have to say that I definitely share Anjhurin's ideas about 'counter-culture'.
Where I live, you can see young people who decide to wear 'grunge' (sorry, couldn't find a better word) stuff, because they want to break from social rules. Afterward, they stick with people who share the same ideas and so on... Creating some kind of mini-society of their own. A society in which they respect every kind of social code...

I guess an interesting answer to the question 'should I abide by the social code of the group I try to belong to?' would be: try to be honest with yourself... Codes are parts of what makes a group viable in the long run (and yes, open-mindedness can be part of the code). Now, the big problem is to know what kind of group you want to belong to.