Almost never, unless I'm taking a younger cousin or nefew/niece. I don't really like going, anyways.

Keyboards, no. Pianos, yes. I love the classical genre, andalthough I'm more interested in Baroque and Gregorian Chants (I'm not sure if that's considered classical), I've always had a great respect for pianists. I have no particular favorite, though. I find any decent pianist to be worth listening to just because it's a beautiful instrument.

I've never been a big fan of jazz, though. In fact, I've never been a fan at all.

It's interesting - the other day I was thinking about a similar topic. I was flipping through the channels and I came across an American show (I think) which was showing how various things were made. Anyways, they did a segment on the recorder and featured a brief clip of a very talented man playing the instrument. It sounded fantastic; a highly under-appreciated instrument, in my opinion.

U2smallcaplegend

I can understand why people like them, but they're not my type of music.

My favorite is Opeth.

When you get a little older that will probably change.

When I was younger I viewed dating like a chore. That's what it seemed like. As you said, the dates felt meaningless, and I was more or less dating just because it was the norm, not because I enjoyed it or was even interested in a relationship.

Now that I'm older, I don't see it like that. I see dating as an opportunity for a serious relationship which could potentiallyblossom into marriage, and eventually a family. Not all people are of my mindset, but I'm very interested in having a family. Maybe you'll find yourself in the same position as you grow older as well.

PS: Not that I'mTHATold or anything, but, still,the clock is ticking.

I remember when my friends and I took a trip to Greece several years ago we bought a bottle of Absinthe in a shop in Athens. It was putrid. Granted, I've never been a fan of hard liquor so it should be of no surprise that I found Absinthe to be disgusting. I'm more of a wine drinker.

Anyway, long story short, one of my friends made the erroneous decision of mixing Absinthe with Redbull. We spent the rest of the night making sure he survived.

[QUOTE="Rygaros"]

You guess wrong. I've done my studying of thevarious groups ofproto-Europa.

I don't disagree with your use of the word 'Celt' (although it's certainly arguable), but I disagree with your assertion that '... most ofEurope was created by a Germanic tribe.' The Celts contributed to much of Europe, but it is insane to say that they created 'most of Europe'. Such an assertion is very Kempian and border-line Nordicistic, and frankly, I take it as an ad gentemagainst Mediterraneans and an ad gentes against the rest of non-Germanic Europe.

LJS9502_basic

Created as in gene pool. And I believe I said Germanic tribes which is true. Mediterraen countries are limited to specific areas of which many still had Germanic peoples at one time that contributed to the gene pool. You very obviously did not study.:|

Now I don't want to go off topic.

And such an assertion, also, is ludircrous. By all means, provide me with evidence that substantiates the claim that Celts created, not contributed, but created the gene pool of Europeans.

What you have just said is very in line with the works of Guenther and, by extension, Arthur Kemp. In case you don't know who they are, Guenther was a famous pseudo-anthropologist, racist, and Nordicist (the belief that Nordics are superior breeds of man, and are at the center of all creation [also known as 'Nordocentric'])who lived in Germany during the Third Reich. Kemp is a South African 'white nationalist', racist, and Nordicist who currently works with the BNP and wrote the infamous 'March of the Titans'. Both of them imply or overtly assert that Nordics, and Germanics, were at the center of the creation of every major civilization. Really, this is no different from your assertion except that you haven't attempted to claim that Nordics are superior.

Either way,this notion is false. Celts did not create 'most of Europe' - neither in the sense of gene pool or in the sense of culture and civilization itself. But I'll wait for that evidence.

And in case you didn't know, Mediterraneans are not just Europeans, but it could be argued that "Europe" in Classic times stopped South of the Mediterranean and North of the Rhine limes.

Subsequently equating "Nordic" or"Germanic"to "European" today could be looked at as just as outrageous as equating "Black African" to "European" tomorrow. Not something I agree with, but something that could be considered nonetheles.

Anyways, it's been an interesting discussion. I have some things to take care of, so perhaps I'll get back to this discussion another time.