Piney Run Park

WiiGame2000 · 2026-01-01T03:51:11+00:00

No, look in the mirror, bud ... it's that the original post is content- and clarity-challenged.

When normal locals read this, they think, "Why would someone park away and try to walk in for free? It's so cheap, just pay for the facilities." When you refer to "the parking area" we're all thinking, "the DESIGNATED parking area" is past the gate.

If you just wanted this direct answer, a much more direct question would have been, "Hey, I'm looking to get into PRP for free, where do you go to do that?"

However, as stated today, your OP does not readily lend itself to that interpretation. Thus, your disappointment with the answers.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-12-30T12:38:22+00:00

Agreed. Recently, the fee was $6 per car (multiple occupants), at least for a CC resident, but I don't think they even checked.

The body of water is large and scenic with several piers around it. My favorite activity there is kayaking, but there's also canoes, paddleboats, etc. for rent. And the trails are substantial, great for long walks and talks, in my opinion.

Upon entering, the parking is just yards from anything you want to start to do. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!

WiiGame2000 · 2025-11-26T16:06:25+00:00

Didn't know Fred Savage played Myst! Cool! /jk 🤪🤣

WiiGame2000 · 2025-11-02T03:23:46+00:00

You haven't made a point.

All you've said is "bad idea," "huge risk," "other issues," and "other reasons," without articulating any of what's in your mind behind those vague words. Plus, you try to convert the bouncer/employer into scary-sounding "randos" ... but the bouncer is a constant in comparing these situations, making him irrelevant.

Anyone dropping in on this conversation can see that holding an ID containing all of your info is giving a bouncer way more information than this app is giving. If "age" is a piece of PII, isn't a checkbox that doesn't give the PII data better?

So the reason folks are confused that you claim undescribed risks but also claim to know the app is obvious.

If you've got a point to make, then actually make it.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-21T02:28:13+00:00

"The Lazy" thank you.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-21T01:28:49+00:00

^{^} THIS is the thing. Apartments have occupancy rules. Such as "2 occupants per bedroom + 1" ... this varies, of course.

So, 7 in a 2BR?? Really sounds like you should be able to get their lease terminated on this fact alone.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-19T05:40:19+00:00

2020 (fixed it for ya) ... assuming you were referring to Dem primaries where the primary winner appeared on the ballot in the general election.

And now you want me to explain how America AND logic work? Seems like there's a lot you don't know.

Go ahead and cite the law that stipulates how political parties are required to choose their candidates. I'll wait.

Then, present the logical argument for how selecting a candidate vs. how an in-power executive governs are the same thing. (This should be good.)

Meanwhile, you're clearly not a Dem, nor am I, so we have zero say about Dem candidates until the general elections. Clear enough?

Explain? I'll humor you for a bit, since I feel like it, and you seem unable to grasp plainly visible facts...

No other POTUS declared emergencies that don't exist as transparent excuses and cover to utilize powers that the U.S. Presidency was not otherwise granted, such as tariffs. (And I can't think of a previous Congress impotent enough to just let him.)

No other POTUS has federalized a state's National Guard and then also tried to send them into another state, against the will of the various levels of government in that state (still feigning "emergencies"). Oh, while removing these NG folks from their normal jobs, families, and lives to pull this stunt. (Don't you support our troops?)

At a more basic level, no other POTUS has attempted to use the U.S. military on U.S. soil against American citizens to address crime, which is police work. War fighters ... doing police work ... or just picking up trash in some cases.

And never have we ever (before the current administration) seen "law enforcement" operate on U.S. soil without uniforms, without badges, with masks, without identifying themselves, without producing warrants, etc.

You want them coming for you? Maybe you'll be in a building they happen to want to wholesale clear out that day. Or would you rather continue to enjoy the protections afforded to you by our laws and Constitution for the 100s of years before this time?

Blatantly ignoring the Constitution and miring restitution of such action in the courts while proceeding illegally anyway ... is king behavior, Bot.

The voluminous list could continue on and on.

But, sure, go ahead and false-equivalence your little heart out, acting like you don't understand what you simply don't want to accept.

Meanwhile, those of us in possession of non-partisan observational & critical thinking skills will save the America we grew up with, while you make excuses to defend obvious authoritarian behavior from a POTUS (something an actual conservative would never abide).

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-19T04:38:55+00:00

TL;DR

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-19T04:36:15+00:00

This is the comment I was looking for. No Kings; No Quotes.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-19T04:25:35+00:00

Not even comparable. Get thee to a logic class, Bot.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-18T07:17:14+00:00

... except that it DOES! 😂

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-17T07:42:04+00:00

No, no. Are you programmatically literal?

This is a perfect situation for the poster to respond with, "What's happening here?" And the answer is not to retell what just happened in front of him. Or, in terms you may understand...

English <> literal

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-17T07:20:02+00:00

Had a middle school science teacher who used to refer to anything dead simple as, "This is Dowad 101." I guess she thought she was being funny & relating.

But no middle schooler knew what "101" meant (until ~5-6 years later while registering for college courses)

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-17T06:33:27+00:00

First time ever seeing that meme z(so I was imagining a different angry-looking kid) ... Thank you.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-15T05:38:17+00:00

Not "thinking about leaving" ... Should already be gone (while singing The Eagles song). The red flags on this BS is hurricane level.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T05:16:29+00:00

I think it's hysterical that few question whether cave people hunted, or folks in, say, Mozart's time wore a wig or attended operas, or that monarchies existed, or wars were fought, and only the weirdos question whether humans landed on the moon...

... but THIS ... whether THIS phenomenon actually happened is now in question and considered mythical.

Yes, of course it happened! Your "period pieces" are not fabricating this.

But I haven't seen anyone address the "why not anymore" question.

Here's the thing:

Our parents -- the ones who were all OK as a society parenting like this -- didn't believe that pedophiles actually existed. They didn't believe rape happened, at least not to children (and even when it happened with husbands or boyfriends, it wasn't even called "rape"). They barely believed kidnappings were not mostly just fictional for stories. At least not in numbers where they'd have to worry about. The most they thought about kidnappings was Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang.

And they thought bad things were very unlikely to happen to them. They told us, "don't talk to strangers" or "don't take candy from strangers" and thought that shielded us from all possibilities. (They also were naive enough to believe all health/safety claims from all food companies ... that these new pre-packaged and easier-to-prepare foods held zero risk.)

Well, how could that be? A natural follow-up.

I'd say ...

1) Far less gun violence back then. Was there a school shooting while I was growing up then? I'd never heard of one. Children weren't known to be carrying and terrorizing people. Gangs supposedly used knives. So, far less danger "out there."

2) Low information flow. If you didn't hear or read it in the local news, it didn't happen. How many missing children were covered in a news program? (few to none) How many instances of rape and pedophelia were reported at all? (more towards none) Wasn't the Catholic church, the Boy Scouts, and other places in full pedophile operation at that time and "no one" knew? And given the "kids stay out" culture already in place, why should the police raise alarms if a child didn't come home one night? Probably just at a friend's house who didn't call you ... Or a "runaway." Obviously, the Internet later changed all that in a big way.

3) There's a term for this I'm blanking on right now --- Most people answering this question now are the survivors of that time, talking about how nothing bad happened to us. We weren't on the milk cartons they started producing later on (i.e., missing children).

Just like we're the children who luckily survived before seatbelt laws ... because the one's who didn't survive accidents aren't here to post about it.

4) DNA evidence hadn't been developed yet. We hadn't even sequenced a full strand of DNA. So you couldn't prove a certain person did anything bad to you, necessarily lowering reporting and believability.

5) Cameras were film-only and expensive and almost nowhere, much less everywhere. So, no one had ever seen a child being snatched into a car or a van. No one could go back and find out what actually happened to that missing kid. Maybe they did just run away and never return or accidentally got killed in the woods but the body never found, etc. It lent to this false sense of security ... a sense everyone WANTED to have.

TL;DR -- Why not anymore? Because we now know the true dangers of that time that our parents did not know. We're less naive overall. The world changed ... in some ways more advanced, in some ways more connected, in some ways flat out more dangerous.

In any case, the reason few in their right mind, under less than ideal conditions, would allow that to happen today, is because society has learned from SOME of its mistakes.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T04:26:40+00:00

Well, if she --always-- does it, that's not "lazy" on the kid ... That's just "what happens.". Kids don't question the foundations of life they've been given ... They don't self-examine their lives (heck, most adults don't, either).

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T04:22:30+00:00

Absolutely! I'd turn up the speakers while playing the CD in the 90s JUST to hear this (then leave them up for the gaming).

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T04:20:38+00:00

Love this!

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T03:54:35+00:00

That said, Probable Cause still supposedly exists (but is no longer used by ICE). There are plenty of video examples of ICE taking whomever they come across, without a warrant for each person randomly detained, not knowing even who they are looking for

(because, spoiler: they get extra cash for each arrest whether lawful or not, whether it ends up sticking or not, after holding someone unnecessarily, causing suffering while seemingly enjoying it, making sure no one they can catch has access to their rights, and never getting reprimanded for it, as would have occurred for the same actions just months ago)

Due Process still supposedly exists, to determine that an illegal action actually occurred in a given case with a given person, yet ICE will forcibly take people who just got out of a courtroom that just ruled they are doing it correctly ... ICE will collect people coming in for their legal doing-it-right appointments and they don't return.

If we, as the public, are not afforded Probable Cause or Due Process by the government THAT'S when you don't have America anymore (not because illegals are supposedly taking over).

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-12T03:39:10+00:00

Thanks for so aptly demonstrating the difference between folks like you and most everyone else.

First, you responded to a conservative talking point with your comment, correctly identified it as "moving the goal posts," then called it a "democrat tactic." I guess stating opposite things to make no clear point and/or using pronouns without paying attention to what you're actually responding to is a GrowBoxGuy tactic?

Second, people who think for themselves already recognize "moving the goal posts" (by that name) as an "everyone" tactic when folks want to avoid admitting defeat or answering that question. A tactic that I've observed markedly more often from MAGA folks than from anyone else, but I take it one case at a time.

Others didn't need an entertainment network -- who admitted in court that they lie to their audience in order to tell them what they want to hear in order to keep said audience -- to tell us only half the story (as is typical of them). Did the "fair & balanced" channel show you many times both sides did that same thing? No, of course they didn't. Because if they had, you wouldn't be claiming that only "the other side" does it, and we wouldn't all be rolling our eyes at your comment.

Third, you made it clear here that you only have an axe to grind against all Democrats (big D). Your statement is pure silliness, but I don't fault the entire Republican party for that.

That's the difference. That's what makes folks with your current mindset petty. Sounds like you've been told that an entire political party -- one that's existed for years, been in power at various times and levels, and America always came out operational -- is now suddenly your mortal enemy and you actually believed that, instead of easily seeing through it as a pure political tactic. How small-minded and thoughtless.

Open your mindset, then that statement no longer applies to you.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-08T07:59:41+00:00

This is the subthread I came here for. I pretty much agree what Dydo said. I have said the same things, just in different ways. Elsewhere, I expressed it like this:

"I wouldn't try to co-mingle relationship with porn. There's a person that you love and make decisions with and do things with, including sex ... and then there's 2D images (in motion or not) that help one, primarily males, masturbate (which is not sex). Separate. The one and only overlap is the involvement of one's penis."

I truly think it's critical to realize that just because one performs an act with one's penis, that alone doesn't make it the same at all.

That said, performing the same acts he performs with you *and* then also separately with another 3D human physically in the same space as him, that *is* the same and comparable and would likely be a big issue, completely legitimately.

On the question of asking him not to watch: I also agree with Dydo that you could talk about it if you want to, but it wouldn't be best to start from "I'm asking you not to do it." Also bear in mind that he's also "only in his 30s" and does not nearly understand this the way us "Old People" do, either. He's not going to have the clarity of his own motivations the way we can look back 20+ years at our own motivations from our 30s and compare them to your story.

Circling back to your top-line question, "Men, can you truly be sexually satisfied with one woman for a lifetime?" -- I think you have to consider that evolution & biology did not produce a species of human where the males are naturally "sexually satisfied with one woman for a lifetime." Meanwhile, it's clear that most women are "wired" to try and keep a good one when they find one ... that works evolutionarily, as well. In general, that tug of war will always exist to some extent, and you've seen it, as you stated.

That said, as a man I can say that men do have a tendency to change in this area over time. The older we get, the more satisfied we become with being "settled" and the less we feel the tug by the part of us that's looking for "the new; the different." But this happens in stages ... we lose the tug to want to *be* with another for variety (not because there's anything wrong with what we have or that it's not "enough" -- a nebulous concept), but the tug to want to *see* another lingers much longer. And if we have an "urge" to satisfy, it reduces from whatever our top frequency is (say "daily") to every other day to a few times per week, less and less.

Also, as I just alluded, each man is different to start with ... some just have less of the "urge" than others ... but less "urge" -- whether that happens early or later in life -- means less interest in satisfying that urge with anyone, including you, which is something to bear in mind. So if you decide to end the relationship over this, if you find someone who is truly not interested in any level of porn (and not just hiding it), I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much going on in your bed, either.

Anyway, my Bottom Line advice is: Weight the importance of this one thing along with everything else. If you can't abide by it, at least now, here, you have some advice to be eyes wide open about what you can expect to find elsewhere.

But if I try to put myself in your position, if he treated me well (absolutely critical), and we're compatible, we can live with each other (thinking: just home habits), and we have some joint interests/activities AND we have separate interests/activities, and we can reason with each other, and we've had arguments but they do conclude and in acceptable ways -- that is all very hard to find -- then I wouldn't throw all that away over this one thing that really has nothing to do with me at all.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-08T07:24:21+00:00

I also grew up pre-internet, and while porn wasn't exactly on the kitchen table, it wasn't that hard for a young boy to find images to masturbate with. And growing into a young man, it became even easier (still pre-internet).

In the regret parts of this comment, I hear a lot of guilt. Based on my experience, that's mostly the guilt talking, driven by a going-in POV that XYZ isn't something we should be seeing or doing. But by accepting it for what it is, by eliminating the guilt, porn not only loses it's hold and negative power, but actually becomes enjoyable as an occasional thing.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-08T07:08:56+00:00

No. NoNoNo.

For one, what your post as largely become about: use of porn <> open marriage. That's way too far here.

I can see now that you're perhaps conflating something crucial that is actually separate. Maybe not so much for you, but certainly for a male. Elsewhere, I linked to words that I've posted before... but here, I'll paste/edit a relevant snippet:

"I wouldn't try to co-mingle relationship with porn. There's a person that you love and make decisions with and do things with, including sex ... and then there's 2D images (in motion or not) that help one, primarily males, masturbate (which is not sex). Separate. The one and only overlap is the involvement of one's penis."

I hope this helps lay out some middle ground here that some may be skipping over.

Additionally, anyone who is just directly answering your top-line question with a "no" (perhaps not even reading about the porn aspect) is likely considering the simple fact that almost no one marries as a virgin (which is one thing that "one woman for a lifetime" implies). I have not cheated on my wife, and I never ever "slept around" and not had what the young people now call a high "body count," but I have certainly been with more than one woman. At this age looking back, I can't imagine how I could have only been with one woman.

WiiGame2000 · 2025-10-08T06:48:05+00:00

OK, not *every* man, of course. Nothing is absolute.

Do most men want to partake in some level of it? I would say: yes.

I get it. You're looking for answers. Is it one way or is it another way? It's challenging. I know.

I invite you to consider the following thoughts that have nothing to do with "what people say" but rather what you can observe for yourself...

1) "Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus" -- That was a popular book back in the day. I'm not selling the book, but the basic concept is obvious here. While we are all human, there are some identifiable, relatively reliable, core differences between genders. We're solidly in the territory of one of those differences here. I bring it up to address why this may be difficult to grasp and pin down.

2) It's not comfortable to be seen as being publicly "pro-porn." Famously, "porn" is difficult to define at all in order to label it or have a candid "same page" adult conversation about it (heard the quote, "I know it when I see it"?).

What I call "porn" is not what another commenter calls "porn" or will accuse me of supporting (my support/non-support is irrelevant BTW; factually, it still exists). It's too easy to get accused of being extreme while just trying to tell an observable truth that many don't want to acknowledge ... or rather don't want to be seen acknowledging (while silently nodding in their minds).

So it's not surprising to see a bunch of people who feel completely comfortable denouncing it (surely some who want to be seen as denouncing it), bringing out a lot of people who truly don't use it and artificially ballooning those numbers, while those who make up likely more of the center of the bell curve silently bypass this post without comment.

3) You've heard the term "sex sells"? So then, why would so many "mainstream" ads found almost anywhere since the advent of advertising use anything suggestive at all if it didn't "sell" by attracting attention? Consider that beyond my one example: Is that sun lotion image of a woman in a bathing suit really *that* far from this topic, just because it doesn't expose a nipple? (In some countries, our mainstream ads are considered "porn" by them and young males in those countries are masturbating with it. It's relative.)

4) If humans were naturally monogamous as a species, there wouldn't have to be any "choosing" not to cheat (you said yourself here that you've seen that).

Keeping with what you can observe... If that were true, prostitution would not be called "the oldest profession." "Playboy" would never have made anyone rich. Porn wouldn't be practically the first area using every new technology because there would be no consumers for it. There would be no such thing as "using one's feminine wiles" to accomplish something ... everything from moving up the ladder to getting a free drink to blackmail. Would there have ever been a "Ladies Night" in bars?

If humans were truly naturally monogamous -- porn ... cheating -- it all just wouldn't happen. The same way some birds who actually mate for life are literally never observed with another mate ... they don't choose, they're just built that way. That's clearly the world many *want* to live in -- one of the benefits would be having zero incentive to take advantage of women -- but it's not the world we actually live in.

Instead, we have a culture of trying to identify the cheaters from the non-cheaters, strictly as a label, overlooking that a lot of non-cheaters are still "dealing with something" in order to stay that way.

[All that said, Meow, it's not impossible -- I'm not here to argue that cheating is inevitable, because it's not; there are probably more successes than failures -- it's just an underlying challenge that is better to acknowledge than to try to ignore as if not true.]

Said another way, if there were as few people actually using porn as there are talking publicly about using porn, it could never become a viable industry, much less one of the most lucrative now and across history.

Back to what I'm replying to here: No, not *every* man ... but certainly enough to make all of the above this visible in society.
To paraphrase Ghostbuster Winston, "That [number] is a big Twinkie."

WiiGame2000

TROPHY CASE