Mm, fair. Depends on what you mean by "met". I consider talking to a fetus to be about as much "meeting" as, say, getting to know someone online: distance causes loss of nuance but you can still gain some familiarity.
Well, it's kind of the obvious discussion to have when one or more of one's parents have LiveJournals.
I mean, I think there are actually four or five people on my friends list who have been friends of my parents continuously since before I was born, and therefore might be able to be considered to have known me pre-nataly.
Of course, this whole discussion is NOT counting people who've known each other in past lives and so forth -- THAT could get even LONGER.
Yes, especially if the two people in question don't agree about having met in a past life (or which one).
And what happens if you don't consider the timeline to be continuous, so one could live in the 16th century after living in the 19th?
I mean I get what your saying by chosing rebmommy, but I think I've known you in a previous life (and will know you in a future one too); but I'm pretty sure you don't think you've known me...
Maybe more data than you need to know, but I mentioned to your mother the next morning that we weren't alone anymore. You didn't get to daylight for another eight months. Still, i don't have a LJ account, so maybe she still has the honor. Duzzy
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This discussion is SO YOU. BOTH OF YOU.
no subject
no subject
I mean, I think there are actually four or five people on my friends list who have been friends of my parents continuously since before I was born, and therefore might be able to be considered to have known me pre-nataly.
Of course, this whole discussion is NOT counting people who've known each other in past lives and so forth -- THAT could get even LONGER.
no subject
And what happens if you don't consider the timeline to be continuous, so one could live in the 16th century after living in the 19th?
I mean I get what your saying by chosing
Kiralee
no subject
no subject
Just not QUITE as early as
correction
(Anonymous) 2009-04-26 10:18 am (UTC)(link)