Two months of pretending is over. Oil Companies have run out of excuses

When the price of petrol crept under $2 per litre for 91 Octane, a young woman was smiling happily. "No sign of the price going anywhere but down." If she knew the true intentions of petrol companies she'd know them to be nothing more than cynical opportunists who suck the happiness out of everyone each time a trip is made to the petrol station.

If you are looking for previous excuses and want to compare them to the current piffle being spurted out by spokespeople you can find the post "Oil Companies are running out of excuses" here. Like most selfish conglomerates, each company pretend to show sympathy with the common man, unable to properly accept blame for selfishly pursuing higher profits. "Yesterday BP blamed a rise in the price of international product." http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7478453/Motorists-suffer-as-petrol-price-nudge-record/ If people do not begin worrying about being unable to drive, very little seems to be rattle cages these days. Being pulled by the ear isn't something which should be compulsory. News on petrol prices have shown something. Reluctant price drops kept people at bay, albeit temporarily.

"The price fell six times in June, with a litre of 91 octane briefly down to $1.97 a litre in the main centres - the first time it had dipped below $2 since last August." http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/221325/petrol-prices-way-back. Dropping petrol prices during this period were deemed unacceptable by senior members. As oil companies all work in cartels, easily the worst kept secret, collaborating and agreeing on universal lies to feed the media with resulted in AA spokesman Mark Stockdale succumbing to the reality of not being able to say anything but how much of an increase to expect, rather than the justification of the Oil Companies unjust price rises. "After crude oil prices fell to 18-month lows of US$88 a barrel in June, they then jumped 20 per cent during July,” said Mr Stockdale. It really would be a sad day if Mr. Stockdale delivered such morose news without putting forth a challenge to Oil Companies greed.http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7392096/Fuel-costs-on-the-way-up-again

Caltex, BP, Shell, Mobil, even Gull manipulate all information they present to the public and make it sound as if they had no other choice. No evidence from recent dips in the New Zealand dollar (a pathetic excuse often used by BP in particular for price rises), give reason to suggest such fast, rapid rises are justifiable. Feathered talk about commodity prices rising up translating to increased costs at the pump defy logic and seek to destroy the common sense many smart motorists hold; that is in the premise that when commodity prices were falling, prices slowly went down, slower than any snappy increases from overnight losses in the dollar. Petrol spokespeople all have a PhD in lying, presenting themselves as sympathetic bourgeois business people, they hoof fake sympathy onto their victims, whilst secretly reveling in high price petrol mania, well aware of the fat bonus awaiting them for whipping up propaganda. Jonty Mills and Jonathon Hill are the spokespeople for BP and Z energy respectively. "It's not unusual for things to change from one day to the next though and, if prices do drop, we'll certainly be passing it on to the customer," Mr Hill said. Mr Mills indirectly says customers should accept all their price hikes, however unfair they seem. "We don't base our prices on AA commentary. It's purely a transparent tax that we're just passing through," Mills said.

Oil companies can afford to absorb the price volatility of the commodities market but choose not to. Their lame efforts to sympathise with the victims who reluctantly shell out more of the disposable income on each visit fall on flat ears. They have run out of excuses. The nitwit National Party added an unneeded fuel excise which will be squandered on mediocre transport projects; so much for a brighter future Mr. Slippery (and to you Princess Simon and the wretched creature Steven Joyce).

When it comes to offering a good price, the big name Oil Cartels seem to disappear into the shadows. More pressure ought to be laid on them to begin absorbing costs. All these recent AA incentives merely keep people hanging around. Once electric cars flood the marketplace, do not expect sympathy from victims of price fixing and market regulation. Electric cars could really not come sooner, although politicians, being the thieves they are, will find a way to make motorists suffer.


The brief spell of assuming Oil companies are like any other business, driven by demand and supply has been proven to be a fictitious myth. Secretly they're conspiring to keep the prices high by any means possible and it's leading to all sorts of financial disasters. Maybe once day the Government might actually start caring enough to rid petrol prices of unwarranted fuel excise taxes and the politically correct "emissions trading scheme" tax. Until then, stay put. All excuses have dried up. Hopefully the drought will hit the conglomerates where it hurts the most.

Homosexual Marriage

Many people have been complaining that this blog is too biased and one sided. This is an opinion news blog. The views given are a demonstration of why someone can believe in something, backing it up with reason and evidence. You, the readers who come here are the main reason the blog will continue, so if it's an objective analysis of something you want, it's an objective analysis you'll get. Subject under discussion. Homosexual marriage. Homosexual is used because the word 'gay' is a rather ambiguous, indie word. Brief reasons from both sides will be given and no conclusion as to which is the better option shall be given in the post. Please note that any comments which use the words "queer" "ignorant" "intolerant" "bigoted" "haters" "homophobic" "abomination," that stupid word "offensive" or any other such language will not have their comments posted. Keep it civilised and keep it on topic.


Homosexual marriage should be legalised

Supporters of homosexual marriage profess the legalisation of homosexual marriage is to allow equal rights. Marriage, they say is something two individuals come together to celebrate. Love between two males of two females is exactly the same as the love a man and a woman share with each other.

Homosexuals point to the law, which is supposed to treat and respect everyone as equal, irrespective of their skin colour, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Allowing homosexual marriage will bridge the gap on inequality and prevent social discrimination from following through.

"You're either born a homosexual or you're born straight." Advocates insist one cannot choose their sexual orientation and being homosexual is a something natural to them, so ridding them of the right to get married is discriminating against them because they cannot change how they are born.

As many people today enjoy thinking about themselves in every way imaginable, the premise "It won't affect me at all," is also given to support homosexual marriage. The argument here is people will still be respected for having a relationship status as married but so to will homosexuals.


Homosexual marriage should not be legalised

People who do not support gay marriage cite religious reasons for not supporting homosexual marriage. Religious texts in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism talk about disapproval of gay marriage. The bible calls it an "abomination," while the Qu'ran speaks of it as "transgressing beyond bounds."

Marriage was designed for men and women. It is said that the man and woman become one once they're married. This is said to be because only a man and woman couple can have sexual intercourse which can reproduce and repopulate the planet, while homosexual couples are unable to do that.

There are people who are traditionalists who believe that the original view of marriage was between a man and a woman. Homosexuals, they say, can still live together, but under civil unions, rather than marriage.

Supporters of keeping marriage between men and women state the upbringing of the child is better in a traditional household where a child is subjected to a male and female influence. This is said to have a healthy and positive impact on children.



Four reasons people give in support of gay marriage, four reasons against. What are your thoughts? Remember to keep the debate civil. No name calling from either side.

Generation Zero

Throughout New Zealand, lives a group of people which live within a Utopian bubble, spitting out ignorance and spreading propaganda for very harmful purposes. Some of the strange events Generation Zero have done are stripping naked on trains to promote an idea of alleged under funding of transport, running ridiculous flash mobs to promote messages about rising sea levels,(which have yet to drown anyone) and holding bake sales in car parks to raise money for student transport. Generation Zero proposes their ultimate goal is a Zero Carbon Aotearoa, a goal which is actually very possible...if bankrupting the country is their other goal. No good evidence to believe a word of what they say has been brought forth, with their ideas being nothing quite convoluted and for a good reason.

Where can one begin to comprehend the enormity of what such a group is trying to achieve? Nice to know the Wellington group have a sense of humour, hosting a bake sale to try raise funds for student transport. One member, who seems quite proud of his group's ingenious idea says "we've put together a bake sale to raise money for smart transport, which the government has been neglecting." He goes on to say "the government's not pulling their weight, so we're having to raise funds for them." Unwonted, considering many spending cuts were made across multiple sectors within the last budget. Mr. Slippery's and his deputy Princess Simon have had to shuffle State Asset along a conveyor belt to raise capital. A Labour and Green Party coalition would have increased taxes on everything and likely still have been stupid enough to waste it on useless ideas. For students to talk about money being so openly available to be used is rather astonishing. Why don't they all go work and send all that income earned to the Inland Revenue Department? Last time, paying more taxes than necessary was more than welcome.

Things only began to get a really worrisome when Louis Chambers, the founder of Generation Zero appeared, looking gaunt and miserable saying "Climate Change is one of the most urgent threats to our future." No surprise hearing someone say that on television today. Many intelligent people have been drawn into the climate change cult. It remains quite interesting that despite the continual warning Louis gives about climate change, he happily jumped into an airplane and flew thousands of kilometres to Copenhagen, listening to the world's greatest liars fail to agree on one binding lie to tell the masses. Louis says this compelled him to make a change and found Generation Zero, a green movement which has found trivial, as well as humorous ways to spread their message. One such event was a flash mob where they warned against alleged rising sea levels. Nothing can top their efforts to expose transport funding problems by stripping down naked on train lines.

Many of the group members seem motivated for a cause but fighting for a Utopian ideology brings out disjointed ignorance, overflowing lies, mutual discontent for the other side. Generation Zero are much like the Green Party. For starters, they have yet to give an answer as to where all the money is going to come from to fund such high cost ventures? If money comes from their own pockets through higher taxes,, you'll hear Generation Zero complain and moan about not having enough income left over from their jobs. They're spreading lies and wishful thinking by pretending C02 emissions will make New Zealand a very toxic country to live in. According to recent study, New Zealand has a life expectancy rate which is among the highest worldwide; clean air and a good environment are two big contributors to that. Much of New Zealand's emissions come from Dairy and Agriculture too, a massive source of Gross Domestic Product for New Zealand. Farmers shamefully pollute many rivers and lakes (often getting away with it). Local towns and boards should be harsher on farmers, rather than give these radicals a voice to impose mass regulation and taxation, which everyone is better off without. If they want to reduce New Zealand's carbon output to zero, the best way is to reduce Dairy and Agriculture, something which is neither realistic or maintainable. Something which stands forth more than anything else is the obsessive and insistent emphasis of a high spending state. Generation Zero are like many people within generation Y, smugly assuming the world owes them something. To the contrary, a more workable solution would be for every member of Generation Zero who are currently have a job be subjected to a special 75 cents to the dollar tax. This tax shall be used on the harebrained ideas they want to see implemented; climate research which will supposedly save New Zealand from environmental doom, public transport good enough to their meticulous standards. An increase to 85 cents per dollar earned ought to be administered to the higher earners. If high spending proposals is what Generation Zero members desire, the best thing which can be done for everyone is to have them pay for it out of their own pocket.

Generation Zero seem like quite an interesting group. Too bad the group is full of Utopian ideas.

A generation that is stupid enough to ignore every warning sign

Once again I'm returning to a first person point of view, addressing the topic of Alcohol which has huge relevance to the generation which I am a part of.

Today, there is more information available throughout the world than ever before. My generation, heading forward will create so much more information that, within fifteen years a lot of current information will cease to have any relevance. We're also chauvinists, proudly holding our noses above older generations. Nobody can out do the way we talk, the music we listen to, clothing we wear, or the lifestyles we follow. An anything goes attitude stands strong. Truth be told, my generation aren't as clever as they assume. Despite more young people than ever attending University or pursuing apprenticeships, this alleged 'superior' generation lacks the intelligence to notice, or care about heavy alcohol consumption's damaging effects. I'm not talking about alcoholics, a problem which can impact people within any age group, no. This is about people in my generation who hold stupid parties, where copious amounts of alcohol get shoved down people's throats. Ridiculous nights out where people become a threat to everyone with their wily behaviour. Vomiting fests, passing out on stranger's lawns, fatuous schmuck talk. How stupid can we be?

Many of you young people will say "How can you say we're a stupid generation?" Good question. First, there is something that has become universally available for everyone. Information. More so than ever, people can now access information on almost every single topic possible, be it scholarly reports, expert opinions or reading reviews from users; all of this without even leaving one's house. Most people, before looking to apply for a job, do some research about the company. Who they are, what they do, their areas of expertise, their reputation, why people want to work there. Many lovely folk are smart enough to contact old employees to get their personal word. Like so, more information has come out regarding alcohol and the damaging effects which it has on the body, which are listed below. Scientists are now finding links heavy alcohol consumption at a young age has in relation to diseases picked up later on in life. Such harm continues through with young people more likely than any other age group to get behind the wheel intoxicated, believing they can overcome the law or any breathaliser which comes their way. Doctors warn that my generation does not hold enough sensitivity into the very real dangers binge drinking persists. My generation are definitely aware of the health risks but a "live it up today" urge overcomes self control and the prospect of having only a few drinks never seems good enough. An interesting picture at my old Junior High said "If the effects of smoking happened on the outside, would you still smoke" depicting a tar laden woman looking like an ashtray. If an poster was released showing the damning effects of alcohol in the same way, I think my generation would look at it smile, then carry on down to the bar, too phased to let some poster ruin their life. No surprise the generation I live in go about life with blinkers on, shutting out any signs of warning.

I never understood the selfish alcohol fuelled desires of my high school class mates, or the insolent manners which were shown to those who disapproved of it. A rather resolute mission to march forth through weekends, attempting to be as stupid as possible, drinking copious amounts of beer, wine and spirits, seeking some unobtainable sensual pleasure which obviously eluded them in their weekday lives. It befuddles me that many of my generation still find pleasure in stupid outings like this, where the coolest person is still the one who can get drunk the fastest or the slowest. Weekend after weekend, this bedlam lingered, through year 12 (11th Grade) into year 13 (12th Grade), people turning up to school on Monday dazed and confused. One such occasion a classmate of mine was telling me about his "cool" weekend. "There was a massive party I went to on Friday. We went and hung out at my mate's house the next day and then we went to his mate's party on Saturday. I only slept for four hours the whole weekend." An effervescent part of me longed to say "shame, that's what you get Mr. Coolio" but like most school boys, it was nothing new from a "good" weekend (for them) story.

The 2009 after ball was held in a conspicuous metal shed in Albany. My parents assured me they'd pick me up promptly at my calling, so I decided to stay the whole night. Apart from being the first experience I had of being among the alleged "popular" people, it was also an occasion bursting with cheap liquor, the kind I've found at other stupid high school and University parties. I can remember everyone who was there, how much everyone had to drink (that wasn't too hard to figure out) and those who misbehaved. The rather timid New Zealand police came in to check around but were far too lazy to even try arresting anyone, as most people were already intoxicated. After about thirty minutes in there I decided to avoid all alcohol. Getting drunk is a stupid person's idea of fun. It was there for the world to see that night. Girls who were classmates of which I'd never even communicated with stumbling up to me and started hugging me, their breath reeking of cheap bourbon. A rugby team mate following me for thirty minutes telling me to take a sip of his lion red beer (he was too drunk and stupid to taste such bad beer). Girls sleazily throwing away their dignity to mediocre, half wit guys who could barely stand.

What a generation I am a part of? A stupid generation who ignores all the warning's about alcohol's damaging effects. A generation which pretends to be health conscious yet brashly destroy their bodies and minds on the weekend. Blurred vision, slurred speech, bleeding throat, memory loss, breathing problems, irregular heart beat, high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, lapses in judgement, decreased reaction times. Long term effects may include liver cirrhosis and kidneys, heart problems, poor ability to remember information, respiratory deficiencies, depression, anxiety and sleep disorders. Everything people of my generation want to avoid, yet they persistently go out on weekends in the hope of getting drunk, suffering from some of the short term effects, which for quite a few will lead to long term damage down the line. The stupid generation don't ever think they'll be forty of fifty one day. Many snobbishly assert invincibility over all the elements, alcohol included.

I must admit to enjoying the odd alcoholic beverage. Champagne on New Years being one of my favorites. The pleasure with alcohol lies in an amazing taste and when used sensibly works wanders at social gatherings and some post sport events, particularly in rugby. No, like anything, moderation is the key. I can only enjoy one or two drinks and leave it at that. Pushing past into a partially drunk state- pathetically known as tipsy- is not pleasant and I've spoken with enough people to know this. I've heard many excuses from people in the stupid generation as to why they persist in their ways, so here are a few. "I drink because it makes people less boring." "I drink because that's how I live my life." "I like to get drunk because one drink doesn't taste good. Six or seven hit the spot." "I enjoy drinking because it's what me and my friends do to have fun." Although many sound like squabbled excuses, each in fact presents a rather sad, inexcusable person ignoring the damaging effects alcohol has on the body.

Massey University's students magazine ran an article on the effects on alcohol. Fascinating, insightful, it dives right towards key problems with binge drinking, particularly how uneducated high school and University students are in this field. The Magazine interviewed three Massey journalism students. One student, Rachael Coomber had the following to say in response to the question 'Do you think Binge drinking is a problem in New Zealand?' "No, binge drinking is not a problem. Everyone Drinks. It's not a problem if everyone is doing it." Not only did Ms. Coomber have many other stupid things to say, she forthrightly admitted to never wanting to give up alcohol binge fests no matter how tough the government got on students allowances. "I have to budget in my goon." Rachael Coomber currently holds office as the President and spokesperson for a blinking minority who pretend there is no problem with binge drinking in New Zealand, something many students proudly put atop of the agenda in their lives.

Yet for some ghastly reason, the insufferable Green Party seeks to treat my generation with pity and make it seem as if we are not the problem. Turei's submission for the alcohol reform bill gave some ghastly and rather suspicious conclusions; one such instance says "it's simply not true" that the U25 generation are responsible for the heavy drinking culture, then giving bogus statistics to back their reasoning. In response to Mrs. Turei's belief on this, which people are making the most noise? Which people are passing out the most? Which people, time and time again feel as if their bodies can handle anything? My generation, the under 25's. It's not enough to say less than 30% (bogus stat) of problem drinkers are under 25 because these things cannot be measured among younger students, who have no families to look after, do not work full time jobs (most of them) and waste vast amounts of money again and again in search of a sensual high. Letting Generation Y off the hook for making the stupid decision to get drunk and create chaos is completely baffling and demonstrates how politicians always seek a scape goat, which can't be found here so they doggedly assume such a problem doesn't exist.


Hopefully my generation can take some accountability. It isn't enough to say "Well I'm not responsible for my actions. I got drunk because I had to. Some one made me do it." The main solutions lie in educating each other on alcohol and how to enjoy it at social occasions, rather than being stupid about it.

Helen Clark 90210

How can the United Nations go about trying to airbrush photos of Helen Clark? How thick do they want current generations to be? Putting forward heavily edited images of a leader who appears to barely look a day past thirty, not carrying any maturity lines along a truly withered old saggy face, you'd think she's trying to enter into the Miss. universe contest. All that's needed now is teeth whitening.

Yet the United Nations obsesses over image and youth, much like many other insecure adults fondle over the thought of getting plastic skin surgery to get that dream face. Not so long ago, many politicians were well into their lives, possessed wide levels of experience from different fields, had raised children and understood, with reason and conviction what they stood for. Young politicians rarely ever make a difference. No one ever pays much attention to them, they're vastly ignorant and have no choice but to default to standing up for every policy their party stands for, with dogmatic rigidness.

These ridiculous images of Mrs Clark seem rather strange, as if she is proud of emulating ignorance. Such pictures didn't belong on Labour billboards in 2008 and should be readily disposed of from the United Nations website. One place where she might be able to conceitedly display these phony images is on the walls on Dr. Rey and the team on Dr. 90210.

She ought to go under the knife. Maybe then she can proudly limn the insufferable ignorance her heart desires.

Why despise the dear leader and then adopt his dumbest policy?

The Olympics had not even begun and a post from Greek athlete Paraskevi Papahristou got her kicked out and sent home before the opening flame had been lit. Ms. Papahristou wrote on her twitter page "With so many Africans in Greece .. At least the mosquitoes of West Nile .. will eat homemade food!!!!" http://www.sbnation.com/london-olympics-2012/2012/7/25/3186140/greek-athlete-racist-tweet-Paraskevi-Papahristou Despite her numerous apologies over the matter, being axed was the only politically correct way to spare the hurt feelings of "outraged followers." Think such occurrences are rare in Sports? Think again. Association Football (Soccer) player John Terry faces criminal charges for "allegedly" (yes there's no concrete proof) calling Anton Ferdinand a "Fucking Black Cunt." Terry has since been found not guilty in court but faces further charges over "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour." As stupid, unfunny and insulting as these remarks are, neither athlete should be branded in such an austere way for sharing an expression, however miserable it may be (these two certainly were). As has been mentioned on this blog (and will continued to be) freedom of speech is a universal human right. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Bad jokes (it was nothing more than that) by Miss. Papahristou should not be labelled. Every view is different. Free speech remains the same.

For anyone unschooled in the proper definition, the core definition is a philosophy all people of a certain race possess certain characteristics. The second definition is the prejudice and discrimination. So, with that aside, being racist is a point of view. A view which, under free speech can be expressed. Many- New Zealanders think Asians are bad drivers, Australians are very oppressive towards Aboriginals, Americans secretly loathe Hispanics, atheist Daniel Dennett says God is "not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in." Free speech has given him the right to speak, enabling Christian apologists William Lane Craig and John Lennox the chance to engage in formal civil debate with him. Just as each person has a right to express views which are unpopular. People who cover others with slime, often reverting to name calling pretend they do not enjoy political correctness but act in an obstreperous way towards anyone disagreeing with them, calling it "offensive" "bigoted" "intolerant" or anyone who disagrees with them. The other examples mentioned still stand yet remain hidden, (not very well though). The United States Government doesn't even allow people to criticise them, unless they enjoy being harassed incessantly by shady Government officials, as Alexander Ronzhes found out here. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5054887075933965458#editor/target=post;postID=4957909100449835168

The totalitarianism which many western countries are creeping towards is alarming if banning athletes and seeking to criminalise anyone from sharing their point of view. Countries refusing entry to Holacaust deniers, people picketing against gay marriage getting arrested for alleged hate speech, whilst homosexual rights campaigners get away with assaulting them. There's supposed to be an impartial law governing all yet one side appears to hold favor with the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond
Pretend as much as possible that this matter will go away. Secretly these undemocratic, unjust, intolerant, free speech suppressors enjoy having high levels of power, spurting out lies that it's all about equality, when mind control is their main agenda; no view but their's can be accepted. So long as legislation continues to pass through (society have little or no input) then rights are trampled upon.

A lasting memorial of what side effects nations who impose such suppression endure need only look towards North Korea to see how disastrous these Utopias full of suppression end up. Kim Il Sung founded this single party state as the dear leader over everything in 1953, when cease fire in the Korean war occurred. He managed to subterfuge everyone into believing such a government will benefit everybody. Since then, nobody has been allowed to speak against the dear leader or risk arrest, there can be nothing but talk of the dear leader (now Kim Jong Un although Kim Il Sung remains president). Go visit North Korea today or see it on television and try believing what is shown. Are these people actually convinced a real life incarnation of (George Orwell's) Big Brother holds all the answers or are they merely asserting he's the man out of fear they may get locked up for treason?

The Soviet Union also encouraged children to spy on their parents and report them for any controversial comments they made whilst Joseph Stalin sat pretty. Such endorsements continue to happen again in America, where children are being brainwashed into believing monitoring their parents is beneficial in fighting against the war on terror. Such a ridiculous war, which to be clear was started by George Bush and Anthony Blair is now stripping parents of a right to a quiet life. Such banter must be swiftly dealt with, or else unsurprisingly there may be less parents having children in areas where such propaganda overrules the First Amendment.

People do not have to agree on everything and certainly not with noisemakers who are unwilling to engage in a civil debate. Independence of mind is fast disappearing. Hopefully people can see the message now and speak up before the transformation is complete. Time to stop pretending nothing is happening. In the words of Voltaire "I disagree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it."

The pretentious word for today-PARTNER

Are romantic couples in cohabitation really fooling anyone when referring to their boyfriend or girlfriend as their "partner?" Small groups may fall for this trickery but many who can read between the lines are aware how inept anyone using this word is when answering what exactly makes them a partner. Most times, these groups admit the word partner means boyfriend or girlfriend rather than husband or wife. Merely using the words makes them seem more sophisticated and committed to the relationship than they probably are. Something seems amazingly adrift when married couples begin referring to their spouses as partners, as if using the words husband and wife is beneath them. Probably no surprise as less people choose to get married now days, drifting in and out of several relationships, unable to settle comfortably. Simply put, the word partner today stands for "current lover; good until I tire of you and/or find someone else."

The word partner can be used in many contexts. A partner in business, a dance partner, a partner in crime and of course a marital spouse. All appropriate and specific. Why jump aboard and offer sloppy colloquial alternatives in describing one's current lover? Pretend married couples (boyfriend and girlfriend) use "partner" to give themselves an elevated feeling of esteem to feel better knowing the fact they aren't actually committed to being in a lifelong relationship with each other but pretend to be so others think higher of them. After all, it sounds a lot more mature and secure than an immature bf/gf scenario. One cannot help but shudder sullenly but if people revert to using such literary iniquities to describe their partner, instead of using simple words "boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, husband, wife." Someone ought to ask next time, to anyone using this vague word, to mention the proper status they share with this "partner."