2 - Nat, you havent loved?! Not even once? what about your parents. dont you love them? didnt you love your dead dog. if you did then you HAVE loved and lost... Id say its better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. love is not only something to receive, but also to give. and if you never gave your love to the people\things you have lost, then imagine how they would feel??? (Comment this)
Written by:
Sarah
at 2006/06/29 - 05:02:13
in reply to: 1
3 - Nat, you havent loved?! Not even once? what about your parents. dont you love them? didnt you love your dead dog. if you did then you HAVE loved and lost... Id say its better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. love is not only something to receive, but also to give. and if you never gave your love to the people\things you have lost, then imagine how they would feel??? (Comment this)
Written by:
Sarah
at 2006/06/29 - 05:03:01
in reply to: 1
5 - Grammatical errors irritate me....has no on taught her the proper usage of "you, you're your?" Also, misspelling 'completely'?
To answer the question, no it is not better to have loved and lost for "these moments, no matter how precious they are, are complete evil once they are gone." (Comment this)
Actually I read this about a month or two ago, but I haven't been on the blog at all recently and it's such a damn good book. I read it from start to finish at some bookstore in Oregon, and bought it when I got back to Vancouver. And that means a lot, cause I usually don't buy hardcover books.
and being the pessimist i am...i say forget the whole thing. (Comment this)
(Comment this)
To answer the question, no it is not better to have loved and lost for "these moments, no matter how precious they are, are complete evil once they are gone." (Comment this)