Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from MovingOn Admin Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi, just a quick note to let you know that you've exceeded the 100 image limit for user accounts. If you'd like to upload more images, please consider removing some of the older images first. Alternately, if you honestly feel this site is better suited for you online portfolio than flickr, snapfish or even myspace, then please consider making a contribution to help cover the hosting costs of this site. Thank you.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry about exceding the limit. I've designed my own online photo gallery app, which I'm happy to share with others once the intellectual property is firmly under my control. In the meantime I'll delete some older images. What are the monthly hosting costs? I'd love to contribute sometime. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

from tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007 - 17:16 (Agree/Disagree?) To anonymous stalkers/attackers: I'm not especially fearful of the various anonymous character assasins at work. I'm not concerned that criminally minded anonymous persons accuse me. I am concerned that people use my sister in attacking me. My sister has DID and borderline personality disorder compounded with CPTSD and a couple other disorders. Those are the facts. Those disorders are classified into the same catagory as serial killers and child rapists. They are very dangerous to society and others, my sister is not an exception, even though she started life as an innocent, like Bundy and others with similar disorders. It's the truth. It's not pretty. My sister does lie. She is a sociopath. You think that's attacking her? You're wrong. That's stating the sad truth of what the abuse has done to her. Borderline personality disorders can get better, with the right therapy, usually it takes 5-8 years with a subject who is cooperating with a therapy regimen, which I've made available to her and other survivors. Most of these survivors have indicated to me, my sister as well, that they don't want to do the hard work required to get healthy. Go to therapy, take their drugs, discontinue alchohol use and the abuse of prescription tranquilizers such as Xannax, Lorazapam, etc. ... How is that a lie or an attack? It's the truth, and it's an attack against the abusers 1st, and secondly those persons who want to continue being victims rather than do the hard work required to live honest honorable lives. Don't attempt to use my sister against me again you cowards, specifically anonymous sorts. After you've brothered her for 32 years, you're my equal, until then, don't presume to speak of things you don't know about, and prove your intelectual and moral bankruptcy by attacking her brother. Get lost. Regards, Don Irwin

From the DSM 7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 18:01 (Agree/Disagree?) "DID"? Isn't that exactly what Jim La Mattery claims everyone appears to have? Did you do your fellowship at the same medical center?

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 18:46 (Agree/Disagree?) If we did fellowship that a medical center, at least it was there, and not a bar over a Xanax spiked Bacardi. If you do not believe that she has this disorder, then be my guest and come out to California, we will go to the UCSD medical center, and review her file with the resident clinical psychiatrist and professors of psychology at that university. You can make your decision after that. Your call. Whether you choose to acknowledge the truth or not, there is treatment available to her to help her have a beautiful life. At this point she chooses not to avail herself of that treatment. That is her decision I disagree with it very strongly. She also chose to drop out of university one semester shy of a degree in sociology, that was her decision only she could make it. I disagree with her decision very strongly. I'm a survivor of the abuse, as such I have his orders which no human would choose for themselves. Thankfully medical technology has evolved to the point where I can avail myself of it to have a healthy life. I'm very thankful for this and have no pride that prevents me from seeking those things that cause me to have a healthier life. If you're another survivor of abuse, you are truly blessed. I did not choose the circumstance of my entrance to this world. What I do choose, however, is whom I choose to associate with, and the path I choose to healthy life. I enumerated my disorders, and the treatment I was seeking, under a separate thread, Nancy's post about the Montel Williams show. That threat has mysteriously disappeared. I wonder why?!! Disorders do exist, I have some, I seek treatment. What do you do?--that is besides attack me? Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Monty Python's Valiant Knight Friday, March 23, 2007, 19:24 (Agree/Disagree?) You sure it wasn't pot and Ridlin? Or did you quit that when you got cited by the police the first time? Or was it the second time you were stopped by the police doing 90 miles an hour stoned with a child in the car for whom you did not have custody? Why don't you stop banging the sister drum already? She's suffered enough without you diagnosing her with your psychology minor to anyone who will still listen. I have sisters who've been abused. I just choose to allow them their privacy and let them decide to whom to disclose their private medical information. I certainly don't use them as a crutch on which to prop laymen's psychobabble or excuse the aftermath of my self-appointed knighthood. If you think you're anyone's shining white knight sent to come and rescue them from themselves, you may want to look around you, as you've apparently gotten lost in the forest.

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 05:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, it's probably not a good idea for your sake, and that you visit the UCSD medical center with me. You would probably be involuntarily committed on the spot, and have to try to lie your way out of it. If you have sisters, you are probably in the business of exploiting them, I doubt very much that you've been of any help to them or anyone else. you obviously care nothing for me, my mother, or my sister. Discontinue using others to support your positions in attacking me. Speak for yourself. Stop making liars of these other people whose names you are using to support your insanity. You had better stop using my sister, and any other member of my family for that matter, to support your insane positions in attacking me. Speak for yourself, you anonymous Coward. If you have an issue with me, don't use my sister or any other person to support your position. Now, run along a little liar. Ugly liar I should add. Don Irwin

From Irwinator Friday, March 23, 2007, 20:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Anonymous lying stalker: Okay, hypocrite, you're whinning about spilling dirty laundry. Whose doing what here? If I was stoned with a child at 90 I'd imagine the cop would have the responsibility to arrest me rather than citing me for speeding at 75, and wishing me a good evening. Get lost. ... I don't beat the sister drum, but I am allowed to defend myself when anonymous stalkers use her to attack me. Or is that not fair by you? Who are you anyway? Off to re-stock on both cannabis and rittalin. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Judgmentalists R Us? Friday, March 23, 2007, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you have an equation for how many people you help push over the edge before it's not worth it? If only God can judge you, why can you judge everyone else? Most people I know who are struggling try in the way they think is most likely to improve their lives. People are not always able to fix everything the first time around. I am not aware of any rule that says that once tuneman7 has decided it is time for you to straighten out, you are evil if you continue to struggle.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 19:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I am evil now, am I? Says who? Says you? Who are you? Oh, wait that would require you to stop being an anonymous evil little lying stalker and ID yourself, you haven't done it yet, I doubt you'll start now. Prove me wrong, or get lost. Don Irwin

From Judgmentalists R Us? Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Please read comment. Please understand comment. Nobody call you evil. Until then, please achieve the level of relaxation you deny your targets.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:05 (Agree/Disagree?) working on it. I'd say it's pretty evil to steal from me, but you can disagree. If you're not one of my targets good for you, safer for you that way. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From says someone else, but I say... Friday, March 23, 2007, 19:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Babydoll, you're communicating with more than one person. But, I have to say evil is a little strong. I would say lost, confused, in pain, lashing out, narcissistic, projecting, in denial, angry, bitter and not able to see that you are your own worst enemy. Whenever you attack other people and blame them for your circumstances, you are over looking the real culprit. You. I know. I've been there. I've done the very same thing, just not on the same scale as you. You are unmatched in that capacity. You claim to not be afraid, but you are. You can't be so angry without fear. You fear losing something. Well, your anger is causing you to lose it, all those things you desire so much and felt you never received. The respect, the love, the attention, the need to be needed, the appreciation, the friendship. Now, that's not psychobabble, that's experience. How do I diagnose you? I recognize your symptoms. How? I've seen them before in others who are in crisis, and I've even experienced them. Somehow, someway you have to get passed the raging anger to acceptance, and it will only come from you, not anyone else. Otherwise, you may not survive. You may continue to live, but you won't really survive in the sense of being whole, not just the person you once were, but someone even better.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 06:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure.... Sure Run along scared Little liar.

From Irwinator Friday, March 23, 2007, 20:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Babydoll are we now. Strang creature u anonymous stalker. Stop trying to pretend that you're concerned with anything other than perpetuating your lying character assassination. You're certainly not concerned about either my sister or I or anyone other than your lying self, from my perspective. I'd recommend that you stay relaxed, but staying lost is good enough for me at this point. Don Irwin

from Phoenixkidd Friday, March 23, 2007 - 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Tuneman7 everyone deserves to be able to rant and share their feelings and how they are making their own way through life on this forum. Kudos to you. I am mildly outraged and totally annoyed at MegaGroan's mean comment below of making this website or this article named tuneman's forum. He then goes on to state" PS: I don't know you or any of the other people involved, and I have not made any previous comments on this issue. I am speaking only as a baffled and increasingly bored MovingOn reader." Although I understand outside interest in us ex-2nd gen, still they will never fully comprehend what we have gone through and the maximizations of the emotional trauma we experienced growing up. He has absolutely no right to criticize your comments as he has not grown up like us, and will never understand our struggles in our 2nd life. Again kudos to you and Jules and all those brave enough to start out on their own and rally our ex-2nd gen family together.

From Uhh.... Friday, March 23, 2007, 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) "He has absolutely no right to criticize your comments as he has not grown up like us, and will never understand our struggles in our 2nd life." What makes you think he wasn't in the Family? I know MegaGroan personally and without getting into details I can tell you he has more of a right than most of the people on this site. You have no goddamn idea.

From Phoenixkidd Friday, March 23, 2007, 11:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Well then how come he doesn't know anyone on this site???? Either he is: A. Grew up in an isolated community such as Tahiti, which had a home B. Younger ex-2nd gen, although I don't think we older one's in any way better or have gone through more heartache, I dare say that many of us older one's experienced a lot more trauma and difficult times than the younger one's. I know my younger sisters don't know what it's like to stand for hours postering, constantly moving homes, having not many of the same children your age to play with etc... their experiences in the cult are very different from mine. C. A New comer who genuinely is sincere and grew up as an ex-2nd gen, (of which I apologize by my blatant misunderstanding) Still your comments to Tuneman were harsh and is in no way an accurate portrayal of the communication on this website. Let Tuneman express what he feels without your harsh criticism.

From rainy Friday, March 23, 2007, 16:26 (Agree/Disagree?) MegaGroan's been on this site a long time, and I have enjoyed many of his acidic observations. I remember him back when that dude who fancied himself The Postman was running rampant.

From MegaGroan Friday, March 23, 2007, 15:43 (Agree/Disagree?) A: I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, I am an SGA, more importantly I'm a Pre-LOASB* SGA. I am not involved with Tuneman and his crowd, that is what I meant to say. B: Like I said, I have nothing against Tuneman, but I resent having this drama shoved in my face. I don't understand his situation, and do not wish to make the some superficial judgement when I don't know any of the people involved. C: While I don't know any of them, ironically I DO know you. I'm glad you made it out of the Family, you were way too cool for that herd of sheep. (*Liberty Or A Stumbling Block)

From D. None of the Above Friday, March 23, 2007, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Why do you assume that it is either A, B or C? It is entirely possible that Groan went through far worse than Tuneman7. It is very possible since Tuneman7 spent much of his time in the Family tucked away in luxury, by comparison, WS units complaining about his lack of getting laid in comparison to other boys his age. Tuneman7's allegations of abuse, which he has made here in this site, have all been derived through his sister's abuse, not any abuse he himself suffered. All of my many siblings suffered abuse, but you don't see me attacking other people pretending to be entitled somehow due to derivative abuse suffered by my many sisters. I even have more than one of them. Tuneman7 even goes so far as to attack his sister calling her a liar and sociopath. How can he have it both ways? He attacks her while using her as his excuse for his suffering. Also, the people Tuneman7 alleges to have helped, other people who suffered far worse than he has ever experienced, have been many of the very people he has attacked viciously and without provocation. He is the first case personally encountered where he blames other victims for his issues. He's not just whining about the Family. He's attacking the Family's victims. He's trampling all over their rights to privacy and to be free of extortion, coercion and harassment in his crusade to reclaim his purported honor. Well, folks, I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but there are no such rights as the majority of those claimed by Tuneman7. In fact, it flies in the face of free speech to claim that there is some sort of constitutional right to be told the truth. If there was, the line would be a long one to bring a claim against Tuneman7. It was pointed out in a comment below the subjectivity of Tuneman7's “truth.” Well, the "truth" of which he speaks is factual based allegations, and therefore, by definition, subjective. Even his legal arguments are subjective and not applicable to his alleged fact patterns. The bottom line is that Tuneman7 isn't a misunderstood Family victim whose civil liberties have been infringed upon, despite even his most lucid arguments. He is one thing, though, and that is unique. There has been no precedent for his behaviour. Don't waste your pity. Realize that there are real victims out there he is attacking. What about the people whose real names he's used on this site? What about their privacy rights, a real constitutional right? What about their private information he's divulged and distorted and twisted in his gradual decline in order to illicit sympathy? He states that he doesn't care about them, their children, their privacy, their suffering, his actions, and the effect of his actions on their families. Well, that's pretty much the most honest thing he's said in his campaign of destruction. It was also pointed out below in a comment the balance which exists between the rights, or in Tuneman7’s case, the alleged rights, of one person and the rights of another. There are very real limitations on ones rights when the exercise thereof infringes upon the rights of another. One cannot yell fire in a crowded building. It’s a crime. Is it an infringement upon free speech? Yes. There are limitations to pornography, both production and distribution, which has been defined legally as speech. There are limitations on ones ability to mention bombs on an airplane. Infringement of free speech? Yes. Why such limitations? Because of the balance between exercising ones rights, those real constitutionally granted rights not just those which exist in ones narcotic enhanced opinion, and infringing upon the rights of another. Therein lies the line between freedom, true unlimited freedom, to do and say whatever an individual desires and the laws enacted to protect the rights of others’ freedom, which we currently refer to as the criminal law. That is why the example of 10 men gang raping a girl is absurd within a discussion of freedom of speech and democracy because the mere application of such an inane example completely ignores this balance which exists in the very foundation of the law, which is the protection of ones freedom from infringement by the exercise of the freedom of another, in this case, the girl. There are also civil limitations on ones freedom of speech. That is where the entire line of related claims of invasion of privacy, false light and defamation sprung. This elementary understanding of the law, especially where it concerns freedom of speech, is essential to any discussion of the blue ribbon at the bottom of the page. The blue ribbon on this site and all it represents is very alive and well, despite Tuneman7’s unceasing pushing of the envelope. In fact, the administrators and even “owner” of this site have gone to such lengths that the line has been moved on several occasions in Tuneman7’s favor. Unfortunately, the balance of such rights between individuals is a zero sum game. As such, when Tuneman7 is given even wider latitude than the actual law allows in many civil settings, it is at the expense of those other individuals for whom he attacks, reveals their names and private information, information which has been filtered through Tuneman7’s admittedly chemically enhanced mind and repackaged and dispensed as the “truth” to which he repeatedly refers.

From Privacy Rites?! Friday, March 23, 2007, 17:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Privacy rights are never explicity outlined in the constitution, idiot. One or two Supreme Courts have translated the constitution as suggesting that we do have the right to privacy. It isn't explicity stated in the constitution, or is it? Where, lying idiot? Now, you want to serve me with court papers for imaginary wrongs, move foward. I'll serve you with court papers for real wrongs, violation of property rights, fraud etc. ... Wanna play with the judges as our umpires? I'm game. You're probably not, too cowardly to even use your own name while you attack me. Keep digging lying coward. Regards, Don Irwin

From little fyi Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:31 (Agree/Disagree?) In general the constitution gives americans rights against their government. Are you in government right now? The american constitution does not contain all of americans' rights.

From A little reality and sanity Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:39 (Agree/Disagree?) The point is that the anonymous stalker's ascertations that I've been busily at work with some master scheme to violate the right of innocent women etc., is a bunch of crock. Even more so coming from someone who dares attack me publicly without even using their name. The cultists play a tad fairer than this other anonymous crazed individual. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:47 (Agree/Disagree?) You're like the dyslexic version of multiple personalities. You argue the same point with the same individual as if you're addressing another person while assuming another commentater is also the same individual. Get this looney tunes, not everyone you're addressing is the same person, unlike the voices in your head.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:39 (Agree/Disagree?) That's nice, how am I to know that? No one is IDing themselves, and their stories are changing rapidly. Now, you looney, nameless crazed individual, get lost, or ID yourself, stop calling me what it is that you are: INSANE! Whew, I thot I saw the last of these characters when I left the cult, boy was I wrong. ~D

From textualist Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:34 (Agree/Disagree?) It does if you don't believe in a "living constitution" or your name is Scalia. (wink)

From Polisci Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Not even Scalia would claim it has all american rights, because then he would not be able to disclaim so many "federal" rights by saying they are in state law already and if not states can make them, so don't make them constitutional.

From federal rights = individual rights Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:57 (Agree/Disagree?) True. He would not have been able to basically create out of thin air all those 11th Amendment "rights" that pretty much don't exist, well, not pretty much, they just don't.

From The Little Princess Friday, March 23, 2007, 18:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I forgot that you're both psychiatrist and lawyer. Did you get a double minor in political science and psychology? Or did you just pick up your license to practice at the library where you "spend a lot of time"? Regards, "idiot"/"lying coward"/"lying idiot" (Your wit and oral advocacy astounds. No wonder you won that debate contest is "University".) Isn't this a Shirley Temple movie? "I know my rights! I know the law! What I say, I saw! I saw!

From License Holder Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Where did you get a license to be a human? Pop Quizz #1: You see a cripple walking around without crutches falling over everything in sight etc. ... Do you need a license to diagnose the person as having difficulty walking and recommend that the person see a physician? A. Yes B. No Pop Quizz #2: You see a blind person wandering into incomming traffic. Do you need a license to determine that the person is blind and run out into the street and prevent them from being killed or mamed by uncoming traffic? 1. Yes try to help the blind person 2. No, you don't have a license to practice, stay where you're seated and watch to see if the person actually is blind and gets killed in a collison with oncoming traffic. Know how to read, reason etc? Or wait, do you need a license for that too? hee hee Don Irwin

From quiz has one z, Einstein Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Quit while you're ahead. When you've been chemically enhancing your arguments passed your bedtime, it begins to show. No license needed to notice.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh yes, the dangers of voice recognition software on Friday evening, the spelling of quiz asside, did you get the answers right? I doubt it. Stay relaxed, I'm off to be my sinister, up too late self. Don Irwin

From As Prevously Announced Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Go ___ yourself, and enjoy :-)

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 01:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll try to get a healthy hetro woman to help me with that task. Stay relaxed, Don

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Why is the law so threatening to you anonymous stalker? I don't need a double major in poly sci or psychology to know how to protect myself from crazy criminals like you. I've got plenty of friends who are poly sci and psych majors, not to mention my mother who is a psych nurse and holds a degree in psych. I am a computer information systems major, option in business, minor in psych, I spend the rest of my time reading, and observing. I don't need to be a lawyer, to listen to the advice of a good one who's interested in protecting me from a bad one. You got a problem with that? Why? Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From impressive Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:28 (Agree/Disagree?) "And I'm not just the Hair Club president, I'm also a client!"

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly!!!! Now you're staring to get it. 1st you got an education (or not), now you're getting smart!

From All Hail! Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Can I be like you when I grow up? Can I win debate competitions and go to "University" and be the architect of some computer gibberish? Show me the way oh wise one.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I doubt it, I was using my real name to attack others since I was 2, I'm assuming you're older than two, could be a dangerous assumption. Find your own way, I'm busy trying to stay relaxed. Besides, I don't think you'd much care for my way, there's too little deception/anonymity involved for the likes of you. Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow. ... "As such, when Tuneman7 is given even wider latitude than the actual law allows in many civil settings, it is at the expense of those other individuals for whom he attacks, reveals their names and private information, information which has been filtered through Tuneman7’s admittedly chemically enhanced mind and repackaged and dispensed as the “truth” to which he repeatedly refers. " If he law didn't allow what I do, you or any money wanting attourney would take me to court. Anonymous stalker and character assasin, you lie, as expected. If not ID yourself and we'll let a judge be the judge of your comments. Hee hee. I wonder why you're nameless and why the truth is so threatening to you. With friends like these. .... right?

From what friend? Friday, March 23, 2007, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I suppose it's never occurred to you and your narcissistic brain that you may not be worth the time it takes to do so. "Why the truth is so threatening to you"? - a brilliant question. You should explore it with your shrink. "With friends like these..." You assume too much. "Anonymous stalker" - get your own material "you lie" - Here we have yet another example of the subjective "truth" of which you continually prattle. When are you going to "retire" already? Isn't there a "lady" who needs saving somewhere? A windmill to tilt at? You get so aggressive when faced with just a small measure of the ilk you dish out to dozens of people. Here's a metaphor for you. Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Dozens of people, I suppose that would be you, and your army of multiple personalities. I assume too much, do I? Do you know how many words in Greek, we translate in English as simply a friend? Two words come to mind, the Greek word Philos, and the Greek word Hatari, we translate both as friend, in English. The true meaning of Philos, go and look up. Look up Hatari as well, it means, "false friend", or enemy. There is a duality to the word friend in English, at least every time I use it, because I study Greek. Now if I'm not worth the time to take the court, presumably I'm not worth the time to spar with online. The truth is I am Don Irwin, I post under my own name, I attack others under my own name. Who are you? What is your name? What beef do you have with me? Do you have a telephone number where I can call you? Get lost.

From my bad Friday, March 23, 2007, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) You can count a dozen you've slinged mud at just in this thread alone. But, I forgot you're a philosopher and linguist, too, you jack-of-all-trades you.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 19:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure am. Aced symbolic logic in the Philosophy department, speak 15 computer languages and several human ones. Have figured out the difference between 0 and 1 or true and false in most, more than can be said for you in English alone.

From Oddman Saturday, March 24, 2007, 17:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Speak several languages, yet communicate in none?

From his exact words: Friday, March 23, 2007, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) "PS: I don't know you or any of the other people involved, and I have not made any previous comments on this issue. I am speaking only as a baffled and increasingly bored MovingOn reader." He didn't say he didn't know anyone on this site, he said "you or any of the other people INVOLVED." Meaning involved in the drama he mentioned. He's been on this site longer than you have. He does know many of the people on this site (probably more than you), and a select few know who he is. Ever heard of anonymity? From a couple of sentences you've assumed some grossly incorrect information about him. His comments to Tuneman were pretty mild compared to some I've read. These arguments are getting petty and boring. I don't care what Tuneman's issues are. He's behaved like a jackass on this site. If Tuneman has the right to say whatever he wants, then so do we.

from Jules Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 20:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Don, it's been me resizing your images for this article. I know, very Freudianly significant, (the sword, the car) but frankly it was just because I had to scroll horizontally to read all the comments, which was very annoying and since I could change it, I did. I know that being an intelligent man, you obviously understand the cognitive dissonance within people who think they are progressive but don't see their own innate prejudices. I think you have made that case quite well regarding Jolifam's racial stereotypes. Just because he perceives certain things to be fundamentally true based on his own experiences, his own analysis of those experiences and other information he has interpreted to confirm his conclusions, his conclusions are not necessarily what anyone else would conclude and are not necessarily ultimate truths. The reality is that life is not Boolean. Not to be all Pleasantville, but in my experience the world is not really black and white. We all, every day make decisions based on the information we have and how we interpret it, but none of us are pure computational devices. We are all biased by our genes, our experiences, our education and socialization. A logical conclusion for one person may not be the same for another. One of my favourite recent books is called "Geek Logik". It's a hilarious (yes, I know it's geeky, hence the name) compilation of equations regarding life choices. Some of the highlights: Should you let your significant other meet your embarrassing family? Should you let your boss win? Do you have the right to be pissed off? Should you admit incompetence or just fake control? How many beers should you have at your company picnic? Should you do today what you can put off until tomorrow? Should you eat from the back of the fridge or just order Chinese again? Is it time to see a therapist? Should you do it yourself or call a professional? I actually solved for x for myself for some of these, mostly to annoy my therapist who tells me that I have major uncertainty anxiety (translation: I am a control freak). Of course I let her know that I needed to see any and all information, research, diagnostics, supporting arguments and background regarding this opinion on me having issues with control before letting she could make such an opinion. :) Can you explain to me what the difference is in making a racial slur (slant-eyes, nigger) and a gender based one (whore, bitch) is? I don't really understand the difference between these. I think that those influenced by such slurs have the right to their opinion on them and as a woman, I have the right to say that that slurs against women are not acceptable to me. MovingOn (if a web site can have an opinion) respects the right of each and every person raised in TF to their own views based on their own experience. In wearing the hat of Creator, which is even a more fun self proclaimed title than Founder, all opinions are equal. However as an actual person and not the blissful Buddha I think my therapist thinks I might think that some people think I should think I am sometimes, I grew up in TF as well and I have personal and purely subjective opinions also. Gender specific slurs (whores, bitches) are personally offensive to me as a woman. We as survivors don’t always (in fact usually don’t) all get on or are friends with everyone else. Thank goodness for that. I’m sure we all went through our childhoods having to be nice and pretending to like people we really couldn’t stand in the group. Personally the only people I ever contact at all now are persons I genuinely like as people. My point is gender slurs are as unacceptable to me as racial slurs are to you. Please don’t make me look this all up in my Geek Logik book, or my other standby, Logic For Dummies. I am sure you can put together a solid equation regarding your viewpoint, which I would really like to see. Do you mind posting it?

From Benz Saturday, March 24, 2007, 21:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I hate to be drawn into this type of argument but since I'm too tired to play anymore football today here goes. Your question: whores/bitches vs. slant-eyes/ nigger - what's the difference? I should start by saying I don't condone the use of any of those words as part of ordinary polite conversation (but think they are useable depending on the type/context of a given conversation/debate). I say this in order to clarify my position on the use of these words as I know from experience how contributors on this site tend to miss the main point of an argument/discussion, instead finding some word or concept to which they can more easily regurgitate some PC or moralistic disputation, or just pick from their box of rehearsed selection of ad hominem varieties. I’m not more moral or decent than anyone else on this site, but lame off-direction arguments annoy the living shit out of me so I thought I'd pre-empt those expected comments. To begin with I take issue with your remark that the terms "whores/ bitches" are gender-specific. What??? Jules are you actually telling me that as a man I can't be a whore or a bitch? What's this, equal opportunity? My understanding is I have just as much opportunity of being a bitch or a whore as you women. Is the Movingon website special in that regard, Creator (how very Douglas Adams)? Is the right to be a whore/bitch reserved for those born with female genitalia, or are transexuals allowed, how about gays - men trapped in a woman's body? Consulting an online dictionary I am provided with the following definitions: Whore 1. A prostitute. 2. A person considered sexually promiscuous. 3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. Bitch 1. A female canine animal, especially a dog. 2. Offensive a. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing. b. A lewd woman. c. A man considered to be weak or contemptible. 3. Slang A complaint. 4. Slang Something very unpleasant or difficult. - As you can see Jules, with the exception of our four legged friends the dictionary seems to indicate that the words whore/bitch are not gender-specific, giving me and my kind the ability to excel in these categories as equal-opportunists with women. I understand the historical association with these words in connection with women, but hey Jules, welcome to the 21st century. Back in the day women didn’t have the vote, few held professional positions and so forth. There are many derogatory words/slurs which you would normally associate with men yet you don't hear us jumping up and down. Words like, dickhead, wanker, faggot. Men also bear the stigma of being far more associated with words like abusive, violent, cheater/infidelity yet in this day and age women's association with these traits are far more usual than they were before. What I do think about these comments, strangely is not all negative. I see Tuneman’s emotionally charged use of whores/bitches pointing to a deep desire for more quality relationships. Rather than focus on the anger and name-calling I prefer to see that both persons have placed a high priority on the importance of trust, loyalty and understanding (and in time forgiveness). I think some people are just not made to be together, and that trust/or lack of trust plays a major role. If both people are looking for an extra level of loyalty from the other due to past trust issues they are unlikely going to be able to find it from eachother, despite how much they value and desire such a relationship. They will probably be unwilling to accept that they were "wrong" in the relationship because hey, they had the best intentions, therefore the negatives must have come from the other party - who then becomes the embodiment of all anti-trust, evil and despicable qualities. Relationship breakdown, so common, yet apparently unavoidable, we all have to believe in our own goodness/right/value after all - at the expense of that person who was involved in our "failure", who is making us look bad. Anyways, I really should stop my amateurish pontificating/philosophising/rationalising psychobabble and just say, Jules for the love of God/Douglas Adams, please allow us guys the right to be a bitch/whore on this site. Looking forward to your response (although if the past is any indicator I may be waiting longer than it would take for Tuneman to prove his manhood-fatherhood eligibility).

From neez Thursday, March 22, 2007, 23:53 (Agree/Disagree?) That book doesn't sound very geeky to me. With a title like that, I would've thought the questions would be more along the lines of "Should I wear my storm trooper outfit on the first date?".

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 02:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for re-sizing, that horizontal scrolling was getting tedious! Always great to have Miss come back to the classroom and bring all the little schoolkids back into line ;)

From Jules Thursday, March 22, 2007, 02:43 (Agree/Disagree?) That would be Ms. and no I am not going to spank the naughty ones.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Oi! What's with editing your comment after posting - no fair when the rest of us don't have that option. I'm gonna report you to the Head!

From Jules Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I am the Head. A little respect would be nice. I seem to recall Oddie removing his socks.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm happy to let Oddie be class SWOT.

From Oddman Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:56 (Agree/Disagree?) But I've got so much more experience being the class brat.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 04:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm the smart arse in here, you can be either swot or teacher's pet :P

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 02:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Not in this country, it's not! Teach is always 'Miss' - regardless of marital status! As for spankings, that was done away with years ago - how else do you think we ended up with our scourge of hooded chavs?

From Jules Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I hate to disillusion/overexcite you but spanking is still doing quite well for itself in the UK.

From definitely "overexcite" Friday, March 23, 2007, 13:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I always knew I lived in the wrong damn country. Sounds kind of kinky, for an adult that is. I should get a bumber sticker, "Spanking is R rated for adults only. Not a kiddie activity." Or how about Nancy Reagan's old drug slogan, "Kids, just say no to [spanking]." No, no, I need a sign from a bar that says, "We card for [spanking]. 21 and over only admitted."

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever, I wouldn't know, I never got them :D

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Slant Eye vs Bitch / Whore vs Lady No one chooses to be born a race or a gender. One is born into being a slant eye, but chooses to be a whore or bitch, that's my view of if, perhaps bitch shouldn't be used, and whoring female rather, that's fine. But a woman chooses to be a whore. An Asian is born a Slant-Eye. Big difference. ~D

From Elementary Watson Friday, March 23, 2007, 20:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Then, presumably a man chooses not to be a gentleman.

From Irwinator Friday, March 23, 2007, 20:43 (Agree/Disagree?) A gentleman may choose to treat a whore like one. That just proves that he's chosen to treat the woman like the whore she is, doesn't prove he either is or isn't a gentleman. A man may be treating a whore like one because he is a ruffian, or because he is a gentleman. The gentleman may choose to have nothing to do with lying, stealing, whoring women other than exposing them and requesting that he get his stolen goods back. That doesn't make him less of a gentleman. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Oddman Saturday, March 24, 2007, 18:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Utter nonsense! Treating a lady or gentleman with respect doesn't make one a gentleman. Any scum of society can be nice to people who are nice to him/her. A gentleman treats other humans as human. You could call this woman whatever you like in private, but labelling and throwing around petty insults that would make schoolyard boys shake their heads in pity, on a public forum? Not in any way describable as gentlemanly. A true gentleman -like the Samurai- follows his codes of conduct for his own merit. It matters little whether you are speaking to a lady, a friend, an enemy, or a lying stealing whoring woman. What matters is, are you responding like a gentleman?

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 18:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I very much agree with you in principle and in general. However, there comes a time when you encounter females of criminal composition and element, in that case, you defend yourself from their vice. You do this by first calling them what they are, criminals, etc. ... ~D

From Elementary Watson Friday, March 23, 2007, 20:53 (Agree/Disagree?) What is the male equivalent of "whore"?

From what is a unicorn, Alex? Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) That would be a unicorn. It doesn't really exist cause ain't no women paying for it.

From Oddman Saturday, March 24, 2007, 17:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Wouldn't that be a Gigolo? As fantastical as it may seem, there are plenty in existence. Some professionally, others essentially.

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Spoken like a true man of the world. An observer of human behavior at it's best, at the watering hole. I mean that with respect. I've found out a great deal about people by watching them inebriated. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Probably a man who uses sexual services to extract cash and favors from either other men or other women. The concept of whoring has been around for a long time. There's not much I can do to change that convention in society disapproves of it as I may. The pernicious combo which I am particularly adverse to is the lying whoring combo. Got any questions about that? Don Irwin

From clarification Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:25 (Agree/Disagree?) But only if they never gave you sexual services, right? Becaus rember that "whoring" is also a description of whoremongers.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Glad I never got conned into sexual services with those/that whore, probably would have lost the use of my unit. Yikes!!! I don't need sexual services from whores. I did treat one whore like a woman one time, left her a very expensive present with her brother which she received after I left, and spoke my mind without reservation. My mistake for not knowing she was a whore. Well, she let me know soon enough, by stealing and lying etc. ... Glad I didn't hitch the bitch, probably would have lost my ability to hitch if I did. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Looney Tuneman in Wonderland Saturday, March 24, 2007, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you have no capacity for the truth or are you pathological? Is your tender ego not capable of excepting that you were rejected? When lying to get sex doesn't work, you try to recreate reality. It's not possible to con all the survivors of sexual abuse into sleeping with you. But rather than accept that, you began your incessant campaign of harrassment with you 12 page hand-written letters begging for love and attention, claiming you were entitled to have been given sex, your nonstop incoherant emails prattling about your drug use, your demands for a psychology book you mailed to someone unsolicited and then claimed was "stolen," your inappropriate behavior and discussion of drug use around children, your defamation campaign against the very people you have claimed to champion, your invasion of their privacy, your lies and fabrications, your sexist and racial slurs, your school yard bullying, your drug induced calls to multiple women demanding that they marry you, etc., etc. BTW, your unwanted, unsolicited, tacky 1980's glass went into the garbage along with all your stalker letters that came on a daily basis thereafter. When you refused to respect the home of an individual with your inappropriate behavior regarding drug use around a child, you were written off. It's taken you two and a half years, your emails being blocked by multiple people and phone numbers changed, but you still can't get through your head. Your fragile, unstable and dangerous disposition now only allows you to reinvent the past in order to protect your ego. When you didn't get what you demanded, then you snapped. Now, all you have is your school yard taunts. Grow up and move on!

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 17:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, it's you! I would have never known! So Yooooooouuuur the onlike stalker. Hmmm, I should have known as much! Now, get lost!

From MovingOn Admin Saturday, March 24, 2007, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) If it makes you feel any better, Don, you haven't been corresponding with Nancy very much in this thread. Most of the anonymous posts have been from other users.

From Lost in Translation Saturday, March 24, 2007, 19:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Listen, ninja turtle, if assuming that everyone who finds you tiresome and pathetic is Nancy, Sunny or the pink elephants in your head makes you feel like the savvy little gumshoe that you aspire to be in your Sumo-wrestling sexual fantasies, then by all means. Whatever it takes to satisfy your inadequacy issues so that the tsunami of your toy gun/sword/canine fetish/Halloween costume overcompensation photos subside. We need a foundation dedicated to raising capital to pay some destitute woman enough to finally sleep with you once and for all in order to spare us the "computer architect" geek machismo. Whatever you do, puulllleeeaaazzze do not think that another snapshot of your shady tattooed mug with some random female you met off the street or some poor unsuspecting homeless dog in your bed is going to make anyone think twice about how bad ass you allege to be.

From clarification Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:24 (Agree/Disagree?) But only if they never gave you sexual services, right? Becaus rember that "whoring" is also a description of whoremongers.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Methinks the whore protests too much to be a lady. Derived from: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." -- William Shakespeare ~D

From Yeaaaahhhhh...... Saturday, March 24, 2007, 14:29 (Agree/Disagree?) We got that.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Today it's "We" is it? Who is we? Speak for yourself. Oh, wait, it is yourselves, you and your army of multiple personalities. Okay, now it makes sense. Get lost! ~D

From Tuneman Gump Saturday, March 24, 2007, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Silly little boy! If it makes you feel better to think that everyone on here is one person, then by all means.

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 17:03 (Agree/Disagree?) sure, sure, run along little anonymous coward.

From I Think... Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:15 (Agree/Disagree?) The male equivalent of Whore? That would probably be "Stud". It's amazing how that word has taken on a positive aura, when it refers to a horse that just eats, sleeps and has sex all day. Wait a minute, that's not very amazing at all. Here's a good example: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49842

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, a human stud generally doesn't charge for it like a whore. A equestrian stud has no choice but to eat sleep and have sex, a pretty good life if you ask me. But in the human vernacular a stud would only be a male whore if he was extracting cash and non-sexual favors from his male or female palymates. Stay relaxed and studly if possible, Don Irwin

From Mr. Ed? Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:38 (Agree/Disagree?) So basically you're equivalent to a horse's ass?

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 21:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess if your definition of not having to pay for sex or requiring payment for sex is being a horse's ass, I'm guity as charged by your definition which is valid to, let's see now, hmmm, you alone! hee hee, Off to increase my level of relaxation without charging or being charged, I recommend you do the same if you can. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Nick Friday, March 23, 2007, 14:06 (Agree/Disagree?) A slur is a slur is a slur, no matter how you slice it.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:10 (Agree/Disagree?) There's a difference between a slur and an insult. Slant-Eye= slur Whore=definition/insult depending on how you look at it. ~D

From Jules Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 23:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Still waiting.

From waiting with you Friday, March 23, 2007, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh, when is Tuneman7 going to respond to this simple question with more than "stay relaxed," aka stay high and wacked out of your mind on anything you can get your ninja paws on?

From EyesWideShut Saturday, March 24, 2007, 18:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Lol!

From Irwinator Saturday, March 24, 2007, 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) wow a site where a "lol" gets 5 thumbs up. Gota be some hilarious stuff, even more hilarious 5 mintutes from now when this comment gets a thumbs down. Look -- I can predict the future. Fun stuff man. Off to the movies. Stay relaxed. Don Irwin

From waiting with you Friday, March 23, 2007, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh, when is Tuneman7 going to respond to this simple question with more than "stay relaxed," aka stay high and wacked out of your mind on anything you can get your ninja paws on.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 23, 2007, 16:40 (Agree/Disagree?) You may or may not get an answer. Depending on how I happen to feel. I'm high on life, I augent with legally available controlled substances. But legends of my relaxation, "aka stay high and whacked out", are overdone. Stay relaxed, Don

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Whore: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money. I personally think this is a rather ridiculous insult, as I'm not against prostitution. Sue me. If a whore is a whore, it's hardly an insult, and if she isn't, then the insult is misplaced. I also seem to find the whoremongering male far sorrier than the enterprising woman who sells what could be had for free, to the men who are too lazy or incompetent. I mean, I would sell sex if women were equally lazy. :p

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I partially agree. I just don't like the lying whore combo, not positve. Stay relaxed, Don

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Stay relaxed, I don't think this site is seriously as many do. You are entitled to resize images, or delete them for that matter. Whatever increases your personal level of relaxation my friend. Regards, Don Irwin

From Jules Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Very relaxed. Waiting for your equation that explains your logical stance.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:13 (Agree/Disagree?) If you're very relaxed that the positive. I am too. I'm celebrating several very life is near events in my personal life, that being the case out for growth providing the formula, and continue communicating in English until such a time as a time to construct the correct syntax in the appropriate language. Stay relaxed my friend, Don Irwin

from Lance Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 16:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you trying to tell us that you are leaving from this site? If that is the case, than I am happy for your decision. I remember watching you on Motel Williams and admiring you for standing up and saying those truths, in spite of the consequences. Some of us don't have the balls to do that. Kudos to you brother! Be at peace and have a great life; raise children who will be dignified enough to never fall victim to a cult. This is the most successful thing that you can ever do.

From tuneman7 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you sir. I didn't do any of this for thanks, but for the truth. I know that a lot of people have information, people were in Maccau, I wasn't, many have gone through what I have. But we need to start standing up and telling our stories, the silence needs to end, and it will only end if we are brave enough to put our cowardice aside and our reservations of how it will impact our lives tell our stories, get the professional help we need, educate ourselves and integrate ourselves into our respective societies. I know it's not practical for everyone to stand up, but standing up makes a difference, even if that difference is only between oneself and one's concience. Take care, Don Irwin

From v Sunday, March 18, 2007, 17:03 (Agree/Disagree?) No no no, please, god NO! The most successful thing that he could ever do is to successfully avoid breeding.

From Samuel Sunday, March 18, 2007, 18:06 (Agree/Disagree?) That was cold, v. I don't care what Don has said to you, or how he has annoyed you recently, wishing someone to "successfully avoid breathing" as you put it is about as cold as you can get (especially if you've been paying attention and noticed how he takes everything so personally lately). Don doesn't deserve that. The man is trying to find his identity, cut him some slack.

From Uhh... Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:29 (Agree/Disagree?) That was "breeding" not breathing. I don't think it's that cold.

From Samuel Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 19:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I'm sorry. I misread that word. Sorry, Vix.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) It gets colder, if you don't believe me tange with one of the ice queens, Zerby is one, Sara D is another, this gen has it's vesions of the ice queens as well. See you when you get there. ~D

from tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:17 (Agree/Disagree?) JohnnyWalker asked a good question. What has changed? I'll put what I wrote to him below up here and wait for the attacks from little cowards of the nameless sort. =================== Here's your answer: 1. I've been stolen from. 2. I've been lied about. 3. I've been lied to. 4. My mother has been lied to. 5. My mother has been lied to about me. 6. My friends have been lied to. 7. My friends have been lied about me. 8. People have the audacity to tell me what to think or how to behave, or what to write. I repsect your opinion, it's decidedly different from my own. I've thought long and hard before doing any of this and gave the liars chances to mend their ways. They haven't. I'm doing what I need to now. Rights do come with responsibility, namely the responsibility to protect them. I have property rights, they have been violated, I protect, defend and fight for them. I have the right to be told the truth, that has been violated, I protect myself, and fight against the liars. My mother has the right not to be lied to. That right has been violated, I fight in reaction to that violation. The list goes on. But I doubt that you or others are interested in listening. At least that's what it appears like to me. You're interested in sanctioning my behavior / activity on this board. That's your problem. I'm interested in sanctioning the behavior of lying whoring bitches. Do you have a problem with that? Probably so. I don't care. I do what's right for me, not you, and certainly not what's right for criminally minded, con persons and lying whoring bitches. Got it? Probably not. Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 11:23 (Agree/Disagree?) One thing I'd add is that I do this because I want people in this community to know that these types of individuals (liars, theifs and criminals) are out there in our community and I give them no quarter because they are survivors, women or mothers. If I did that I'd have to not warn people Zerby, who was viciously beaten by her father through childhood and is a bipolar, and a borderline personality etc. ... as the result. Same pattern, different people/persons. Other gullable members of this "community" need to know who these people are, so that they aren't stolen from, lied to and otherwise abused by them. Believe you me, these people will continue in their con person/predatory styles of operation, until confronted and/or stopped. That's what these types do. That's why child molesters in general leave behind 72 or so victims, they don't stop. I don't want this person / these people to have the opportunity to victimize and otherwise con, lie to and steal from other survivors. Period end of story. If that makes me a bad/illogical guy in your book(s), I just won't read/buy them.

from sar Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 21:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Tuneman Having not read any of your posts or comments in full, I think it would be fair to say that I cannot properly critisize them. I have not read any of your posts or comments in full because I find them boring. I admit to the fact that I cannot get past the first couple sentences. Since I am not in a position to criticise your comments, I won't do so. I just want to ask you to stop posting so frequently. I am not only bored by your comments, but, in general, by the replies to them. I think this is in part because people quote you. I really wish you would stop. Perhaps you could read your post before you post it and if you can't get through 2 sentences, think about rewriting it... please.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 07:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry that you dislike my posts. I'm sorry that you wish I'd stop. I'm not going to stop, regardless of how that makes you or others feel. People who are very threatened or very intimidated generally are that way because they are either afraid or intimidated by what I write. Some people have called me arrogant. Perhaps I am. Men should be confident. Cult idiology was to turn men into women, controlled by women, saying love words to Jesus etc. Well, I left the cult because I'm a man and think like one, independently that is. That means I don't care what you think. If I was looking for a situation where I could adjust my thinking to that of an unhealthy woman, I'd go and joing Zerby's gang of whimpy criminals. Discontinue reading my stuff if you wish I'd stop. Start wishing that you'd stop reading rather than me stop writing. On the issue of arrogance I can't help you with that. I am unconventional, no question about that, the Californian University systems encourage unconventional thought, it's what has made our State have the largest economy in the nation and the 7th largest in the world. A recruiter recently tried to test me when I was aiming for my current job. Unlike Hanibal Lecter I passed on eating the recruiter's liver with beans and a nice glass of chianti. I did respond with this sentence: "I'm unconventional but second to none in this particular aspect of the industry." The test stopped, I got the interview and I got the job. Now, I doubt that you have an interview or a job to offer. Or do you? Since you have nothing to offer, not even wit, or intellectual curiosity etc., your opinion means nothing to me. I will say though, that you aren't anonmyous, but pretty close to it. No one knows where you study, where you work, what you look like etc. ... All things I've made public about myself. You have nothing to offer, not me at least. I don't care about your opinion. I'll keep typing similar sentances until persons such as yourself have the ability to read and understand them and react with something a little more creative than "I really wish you would stop."

from MegaGroan Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I have an idea, we should change the name of this web site to: "The Tuneman7 related drama forum." Seriously Don, I wish you the best, but this is getting ridiculous. PS: I don't know you or any of the other people involved, and I have not made any previous comments on this issue. I am speaking only as a baffled and increasingly bored MovingOn reader.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Stop making comments and I'll stop responding. I'd especially like the comments from nameless persons to stop. We'll see what happens. Go to another site or write instead of read.

from tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd like to give some context for the nameless attacker "Someone who knows" and/or Hmmmm. ... First I'd like to give some background. My best friend from childhood slept with a woman when he was 21, unlike other piece of shit men, my friend, whom I respect married the woman, because she bore his son. I respect him for this action, it's what I would have done. My friend is a good father, attempts to be a wonderful husband. He has made every effort to support his family, take care of his son and the mother of his son. This has come at a price, he is controlled by the mother of his son. He has no friends on a personal level beside her that he communicates with that I'm aware of at this point. She is a survivor of gothic abuse, but refuses treatment of any sort. Be that as it may, she is he mother of my friend's son and I respect that while my friend has messed up teeth because he never got medical care in childhood, his wife and his son lack for nothing. He puts his money where his mouth is, in this case it's been thousands of dollars to beautify, not himself, which he deserves and I hope he does at some point, but his wife has beautiful cosmetically altered teeth which he made sure she had. He could/should have taken care of himself first. He didn't. He took care of his son, and his son's mother 1st. I respect that and will till I die. That's real man whom I respect. I do not respect, however, a thought process which tells a man that the only way to be a good father is to capitulate to every demand of a depressed survivor of a wife who refuses professional care of any sort and who has systematically isolated this man from other social company and/or his friends. It's sad that a good father would ever feel the need to completely appease a woman whom I believe treats him and his childhood friends which utter disrespect and dishonor. He is an insecure man because of the insecurity he was exposed to in childhood. He wants to do better than what he was given. I believe he has already accomplished this and I respect it. I do not, however, respect any woman who believes that a definition of a relationship is exclusive control over a man. I will never marry such a woman. Emotional co-dependance is not an option for me in a mate. I had to say goodbye to my friend from childhood. It's been very very taxing personally for me, because I love this man, always will. I love him in a way a woman can never love a man. Men and women are very different from a psychological perspective. Women tend to draw an unprecidented amount of self-esteem from the status of their relationship with their mate. That happens naturally, but it's only amplified if they were abused in childhood etc. ... Now, men go out fishing together, they go out hunting together, they drive fast cars etc., they do that with one another generally. There's a reason for this, emotionally healthy men need the company of other men. Insecure women see this as a threat and attempt to control the men in their lives. The use a number of methods to accomplish this: 1. Sex 2. Sympathy 3. Appealing to/manipulating the man's ego 4. Lying 5. Threats of abandonment etc. ... 6. Making the man's personal life difficult if they don't capitulate to all their demands. The list goes on. ... If I ever have a child I will teach him or her the difference between men and women. Children need a father, and a mother. Psychologically there's a reason for this at least through the formative years through age 10. What I believe my friend is teaching his son, is not how to be a man, but how to be an isolated, beaten down man subject to the mood swings of an ill woman. I had to say goodbye to this association because I determined it was not healthy for me given the way that it was going. This woman has always attempted to pit us against one another owing to her own insecurities etc. ... That's bad for me. It's also bad for my friend because he has to either sleep or not sleep with her depending on what type of weird mood she happens to be in. I'm sure I've made mistakes in my association with her. Regardless I'll go ahead and share her "Goodbye" note to me. Now, this was received by me way ahead of any post I put on this site. I haven't called this situation to the mat. But I know that this women is one of the main protagonists writing anonymous posts etc. ... So, I'll be proactive here. ...

From Broke Back Monday, March 19, 2007, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) One word sums up this whole pack of shit - GAY -

From anonymous female Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:52 (Agree/Disagree?) If you're referring to me, you're wrong, but thank you for posting such personal information and proving my point. Now I understand how you became so threatened by powerful women to become all the things I described of you below. It's something I've seen before in many men. If you seek to define your manhood in relation to women you will never be complete. The same can be said of womanhood.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 15:08 (Agree/Disagree?) When a woman lies she proves she is neither beautiful, strong or powerful. You are very insane, either that or very illiterate, one or the other. Look at your language construct: from: anonymous female 1st line: If you're referring to me, you're wrong. How the world could I be "reffering" to you, when you post as an anonymous female? You must be in the habit of talking with different versions of yourself a whole lot to xfer this behavior over into your communications with others. Run, don't walk, to a psych hospital real fast for your own good. After a long treatment period if the doctors let you go, then focus on the literacy and writing challenges you face. After all that, try conversing with adult human males again, it may go better, maybe not. Who cares anyway? I don't.

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:21 (Agree/Disagree?) The irony of one who cannot punctuate, spell, or assemble his own thoughts into a single coherent comment, accusing someone of illiteracy.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I use voice recognition software. It isn't the best, sorry.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm in no way threatened by powerful women. I've worked for many females and with many powerful professional women in my industry and am well loved and respected by them. I seek to define my manhood how I choose, which is certainly not attempting to do so in relation to women. I do believe, however, that given a choice to fight a sociopathic man or a sociopathic woman, I'd choose the man. They're somewhat more straight foward. I'm glad you have so much insight into men. Are you happily married? I hope so. I love women. I respect women. Especially hard-working, honest, intelectual and emotionally healthy women. They are wonderful and I've been blessed in my life with company of many wonderful women. On the flip side, there's nothing I hate more than a lying woman. One person called me on the phone and told me that I had issues with women because of my mother etc. ... Well, that was completely out of line etc. ... But I will say one thing to intellecutally bankrupt and emotionally damaged people who call me a woman hater. I am a feminist to the core. I believe in equal opp for women at every level. I believe women should be paid as much if not more than men. I believe women should be given every opp for advancement in the professional world based on their ability, not their sex. I love my mother. I disapprove of some of her actions and though processes, but I love her. I learnt from my mother the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy woman. There's one thing that stands out to me, she's flawed, but I have never once in my life, never once caught her in a lie. Ever! So, when I encounter deceptive women, because of my upbringing and the contrast between my mother and some Zerbyite, I despise the deceptive manipulative woman. I'll call the lying woman a bitch, without compuction etc. ... Strong women or "powerful women" as the person wrote shouldn't lie. When a woman lies she proves that she is neither strong nor powerful. If she was powerful or strong she wouldn't have to rest on the strength of lies to support her position. So I'm not threatened by powerful women. I hate lying, whoring, bitches, though. Are you one? If not go your way in peace. If so, well, still go your way with my distain, contempt and disrespect you anonymous female coward.

From I ponder Saturday, March 17, 2007, 21:13 (Agree/Disagree?) What difference it would make if one of these "lying whoring bitches" had a father. If there were mature male in their family that you knew would defend them.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 07:52 (Agree/Disagree?) "Mature men" as you put it, never defend lying whoring bitches. They defend ladies. If you don't know the difference between a lady and a lying whoring bitch, how does that become my or anyone else's problem? Mature men confront lying whoring bitches. If the lying whoring bitch had a father, (which she probably didn't which is perhaps the reason that she turned into a lying whoring bitch in the first place), that father would put her in her place not go out and attack good men on her behalf. You really have it backwards and upside down your mind. Glad I don't think like you.

From u speak the truth Sunday, March 18, 2007, 19:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I like you cannot wait for the day when women again have to be ladies to be respected. What does a "lady" mean? Well who cares. Men should only be held to standards of respect with ladies, not women, whether or not those men are also gentelmen. Because that is men's prerogative. I do think however that we should only partially go back to the old days, because I do not think that fathers or brothers should be expected again to defend the women in their family simply because they are the women in their family. Unless we go by the extreme traditions of muslim honor rules.

From table for two Sunday, March 18, 2007, 23:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Is this what this website has deteriorated to, Tuneman7 posting comments between himself and his other personalities? It's apparent to everyone who doesn't engage in this knights and castles and ladies and respect and women as chattle fantasy world. All this silly, sexist prattling about women needing to earn the respect of men is nonsense. It's actually quite disturbing what this type of resentment and hatred may lead to, especially when it's coupled with nonstop insinuation of violence, threats of violence and mention of guns and knives and street fighting. It sounds like the mentality of a stalker. He sees someone he desires. Often in the case of celebrity stalkers, the object of the person's obsession is completely unaware of the stalkers existance. When the stalker can't possess the object of his obsession, then he wants to destroy her. He resents her and wants her to suffer like he feels he is suffering. He expects something from others to ease the pain and need of the psychosis. When he doesn't get it, he gets angry or violent or both. When he doesn't get the attention or respect or whatever he thinks he needs to protect and build his fragile ego, then he snaps. Notice that Tuneman7 whips out a laundry list of the perceived offenses he's suffered at the hands of "lying, whoring, bitches," when he is asked what lead to his demise and decline from the rational person he used to be. He also goes on and on about how he's "called them to the mat" and all sorts of threats and intimidation he's engaged in towards them in retaliation for his perceived disrespect by these women. He didn't receive what he perceived he was entitled to from others, in this case several women, and as a result he seems to have snapped. It's sad that he doesn't realize that what he most likely needs to be okay is not something that is going to come from someone else. It will only come from himself when he sees and can come to terms with the issues he is grappling with.

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 20:08 (Agree/Disagree?) P.S. PS I'm perhaps you can clarify which women you're talking about and what it is that I didn't receive from them, but I wanted. Perhaps then I could defend myself. That would be kind of fair wouldn't it? I can tell you one thing, none of the women I'm referring to are women that I would ever want close to maintain a relationship with in any capcity. It would be nice, though, to warn others of how these criminally minded con persons have victimized other survivors for years in some cases. I'm sure everyone who truly care about these inividuals and isn't just using them would back me up in this situation and opinion. If you don't care, how does that become my or anyone else's problem?

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 19:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Anonymous Stalker, I was going to pass this up, but your comments on stalking were too juicy to let go. The primary tool a stalker uses, especially in online stalker, if anonymity while it attacks its prey, or stocks its prey. Your behavior, anonymous person, is very much that of an online stalker. You are not interested in truth, you are interested in assassinating my character, all the while hiding your own, accusing me of stalking, while you stalk me online without even revealing your identity. If you are interested in the truth, go ahead and identify yourself and let's work this out like adults. In the meantime, this insane like stalking behavior of yours should probably stop. Although I'm sure you will continue it. I'm an adult, as such, I'm entitled to my own ideas, fantasies, activities, ideologies etc.. I don't understand why any of those would be threatening to you? As an American man, I have the right to defend my rights. At least I have the courage to speak for myself and identify myself and not behave like an obsessive online stalker such as yourself. What about my opinions is so incredibly threatening to you? That's the question I'd be asking myself and it's probably the question a lot of online readers are asking themselves at this point is well. Oddman is the only person on this thread that has had the courage to identify himself. In that regard, my opinion of him as a coward, should probably be reconsidered in contrast to your extremely cowardly, stalker like behavior. Obsessive behavior I should add. ID yourself or get lost, you obsessive online stalker.

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 18:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't post "u speak the truth", Moving on Admins can confirm that. ID yourself and let's have a chat. Otherwise, your mind is pretty tormented to come up with the above. Whaaaatttteeeeeevveeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Don Irwin

From You're sadly mistaken Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Most of the anonymous posts are from people like myself who have never met you, only read your comments and posts here online. I know this because I have spoken with said individuals who did the posting of many of these comments you refer to.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Cool. I'm happy if I'm sadly mistaken. If you've never met me, why do you need to say it lying little girl with your hand caught in the cookie jar? If you're not the person, get lost, I have no issues with you, use your real name to be less of a coward or accept the insults of being one.

From Your sadly mistaken Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm quite entertained really, sorry, not getting lost...

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Fair, but if you want to attack me, understand I will show no quarter, especially to people who are so base they don't even use their own name to attack a survivor and activist. More than likely you're a cultist of some sort, at least in your brain, continue to be entertained lying coward.

From Ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 14:45 (Agree/Disagree?) This is proving my point right here. 'Your Sadly Mistaken' called you no names, only brought up that they know some anonymous said people who have posted and that you could be mistaken that this is the woman you are referring to. You then proceeded to call this person - a cultist -- a lying coward - so please, who is doing the 'attacking' here?

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 08:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I learnt from dealing with the cult that people with this mindset don't respond to logic or courtesy. You basically have to just beat them over the head with the truth, or something. Yep I am attacking, but remember it was after some coward wrote some nonsensical paragraph about how "crazed" I was etc., under an article that attacked no one. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to type that before you have the ability to read and understand it. But I'll keep doing it.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Here is my goodbye note which I received from the girl. As you can imagine. I'm very much at peace as the result of no longer having to maintain a friendship that was abusive to me in the case of the relationship with this woman who in my opinion so disrespects and dishonors her beautiful husband and his friends. ======================== Don, Since your psychotic brain likes things in point form, here’s a little “unfiltered criticism” right back a’cha: I’m elated that you are out of our lives, in fact, I’m throwing a party to celebrate it. I’m amused that you are stuck with a huge, amateur tattoo of two lions: you and your new shitty personality. Have fun together because the other Don is all you’ve got. You may be surprised to know that you have never insulted me. You were never significant enough to do so. I, on the other hand, was able to insult you quite nicely, per your phone messages and e-mails. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If only I had actually been trying to insult you, I could have done a much better job of it. No, I will not be taking your advice and visiting a “professional”. The irony is staggering. Sadly, the considerable intelligence I always admired in you has become wasted on you. My husband is far more intelligent than you will ever be. He has far more common sense, true logic, and social skills than you will ever have—not to mention his LIONHEART. He’s a true Leo while you’re the reject of the pride, like Scar. I’m lucky to have him all to myself now. Send us a post card from Guyana once your cult of yes men (yes, MEN) is up and running. It will be interesting to watch history repeat itself. On second hand, don’t bother with the post card. If you’ve seen one jungle, you’ve seen ‘em all. It has been educational to watch you digress into the depths of delusion. It’s a long way down from here, and just like the ocean, it only gets darker. Too bad you won’t have any friends to turn to when you realize what a whale of a scum bag you’ve been. Goodbye, and don’t reply. You’re on my blocked list. ======================== To this person and anyone who feels similarly else. Good riddance!

From what an idiot... Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would you post something that makes you look so stupid and makes the girl look brilliant? Did you think anyone on this site would side with you?

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not trying to get anyone to side with me. I want people to leave me alone, and let me post something about my retirement without nameless people making comments on how crazed etc., I am. Go and marry the woman if you think she's so brilliant, or try to be her friend, or that of her husband. Enjoy.

From Ooohhhh Saturday, March 17, 2007, 20:46 (Agree/Disagree?) But no one is FORCING you to be on this site. No one is forcing you to read our criticisms, no one is forcing you to comment on them. You say you want people to leave you alone, what a coincidence! We want you to leave us the hell alone. Hypocrite.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Yep, no one forcing me, I do what I want, say what I want, regardless of how it makes idiots feel. Liberty! -- What a concept. You want to be left the hell alone? I don't live with you, never will. I don't talk to you, never will. The list goes on. .... Now if you want to be left alone, follow the instructions below if you know how to read: 1. Walk away from your computer. 2. Never ready anything I write. 3. Never react to anything I write. 4. Never think about me. 5. If I write an article or respond to an attack, dont read it, walk away. Pling your peace on a platter. Now, go ahead and get your last word in, which no one is forcing you to do except your own idiotic compulsions, and faulty logic engine (screwed up brain).

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 15:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Whomever that woman may be, I must say she has a commendable capacity for black humor and wit. Something sorely lacking in certain individuals.

from tuneman7 Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 23:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Many theads have been blocked etc., anonymous people call be crazed, etc., ... below. Free speech rocks. ... From another part of the site reposted here. I appreciate your comments. It's an interesting situaiton, any time you're in California come by my place and we'll chill and reminisce of the gilla monster that terrorized our infinitely small world back in the days. The issue with Silas is that he is a serial predator, I do not trust for one moment that he is not utilizing the services of minors (raping little girls and boys) in the Far East, when he thinks he can get away with it. I have a very strange gift, a photographic memory, I record most things that are interesting to me. I recorded everything I could about Silas, the man is dangerous, an addict from the word go. I didn't realize what it was until I processed the data in retrospect with some university under my belt as context for "normal" thinking. It's true I've done some things wrong, like getting a speeding ticket from a cop with my godson in the car. So what? I haven't lied to anyone, stolen from anyone, raped anyone, etc. ... So these bitches can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. Weird thing about these ex-fam girls, all want to be treated like "normal" girls, but the second that you start to do so they simply use that as a pretext for their pathologies in my experience. The fact that their pathologies are the byproduct of abuse doesn't make me feel any worse about the time I've wasted on them. I've found that I get a lot of respect from women in the world when I treat them with respect. I find that I've gotten a lot of unearnt disrespect from these clowns with agendas. Whatever. Thanks Ben. I do agree with the majority of your assessments, fear is the mind slayer, that's what kept me in for as long as I was, especially when isolated from the world the way we were in Thailand. Fear is the mind slayer. ... Take care, Don Irwin

from rainy Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 01:27 (Agree/Disagree?) The Irwin family - taking on crocs & stingrays. Careful mate. And don't get into a tangle with a box jellyfish.

from tuneman7 Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 19:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Moving Out Lyrics by Billy Joel: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joel+billy/movin+out_10151234.html

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 07, 2007, 19:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony works in the grocery store Savin' his pennies for someday Mama leone left a note on the door, She said, "sonny, move out to the country." Workin' too hard can give me A heart attack You oughta know by now Who needs a house out in hackensack? Is that what you get with your money? Chorus It seems such a waste of time If that's what it's all about If that's movin' up then i'm movin' out. Sergeant o'leary is walkin' the beat At night he becomes a bartender He works at mister cacciatore's down On sullivan street Across from the medical center He's tradin' in his chevy for a cadillac You oughta know by now And if he can't drive With a broken back At least he can polish the fenders Chorus You should never argue with a crazy mind You oughta know by now You can pay uncle sam with overtime Is that all you get for your money? Chorus

from Someone who knows Friday, February 16, 2007 - 20:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't know you personally until recently, when I actually met you and was struck by how crazed you were. In speaking to friends, I find this is a recent development. This post, however innocent it seems to those who have no knowledge of your recent state of mind, is an obvious extension of the insanity that has so unfortunately befallen you. You spoke to me of some relation to Samurai; I see you've aluded to royalty and knighthood here. Frankly, I don't see how your recent state has done anything to "reclaim your honor"; it's done more to destroy it. I'm glad you're stepping away from the fight; maybe now you'll regain some semblance of perspective. It would seem you have done a fair share of good for those you care about, whether it was on behalf of the helpless, or obligation. I hope the good that has been done will be enough to earn back the friendships you've recently damaged. I'm sorry that I didn't know you before this turn of events, and I hope you will one day be back to your old self. Be well.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 07, 2007, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Samurai = Servant you idiot. You've got to be some crazed cultist or very serious menace to society of yourself to have an opinion like this about someone who has spent the better part of the last two years trying to put child rapists in jail. I very much dislike and disrespect you. Moving On Admin, I request that this person's comment be struck from below my article. If this cannot be done, I understand, I respect free speech and the rights granted me under the Constitution of the United States of America, as one of it's proud sons who has done my duty to society above and beyond any reasonable expectation. Respectfully, Don Irwin

From Oddie Thursday, March 08, 2007, 02:48 (Agree/Disagree?) In my opinion, no amount of good can offset bad. It's simply impossible to undo one's actions. There are many people who are remembered for either or alone, the good or the bad. But I doubt you'd find a single man or woman who did not do both. You can't stockpile past positive achievements, and pit them against the wrongs of today. I do respect your past efforts and contributions to justice. That is very admirable. To put ones own comforts and pleasures aside to fight for a higher cause. This is truly keeping with the traditions of bushido. I don't respect your recent displays of vanitas vanitatum. I don't appreciate your illusive allusion to the way of the samurai. Yes, you have a right to put down your nihonsashi, and cease to be a mononofu. That right is a luxury no true bushi has. It seems contradictory that you allude to the way of the samurai, while cutting your topknot. A true samurai is selfless. He does not seek glory or recognition or comfort. Humility is at the heart of the bushi. His sole existence is to excel, that he may glorify his master. Neither Shingen nor Sanada sang songs of themselves. You allude to servitude, and thus humility, but spare us not your meretricious rodomontade. Peace is at the heart of the bushi. He is not easily moved, or angered. You allude to this placidness, yet spew vitriolic intemperate language at every step. Let us remember the eight virtues of the bushi. Truth - Honesty and Justice. Humility - Control and subjugation of self. Honor - Respect for one's word. Courage - Contempt for death. Charity - Sympathy towards others. Respect - Politeness and regard for manners and etiquette. Loyalty - Absolute obeisance to one's master. Duty - To defend the honor of one's name and clan. The river has no shape, but it takes on the boundaries which it carves out for itself, so is the mind boundless, until it creates a prison for its own thoughts. Very true words. Water can cut even the hardest diamonds, but only when it is flowing. Don't dig yourself a rut from which you cannot escape.

From tuneman7 Thursday, March 15, 2007, 23:14 (Agree/Disagree?) No disrespect man. But in honesty, do you think that it's in any sort of good taste to chastise someone about their mis-application of Bushido under a post that doesn't even deal with Bushido at all? If you do, my opinion is that you posess thought patterns which I attempt to disposess. If you need to, go and do a post and name it "Don Irwin's Mis-Understandings about and Mis-Applications of Bushido", I hope the admins won't block it and that lots of people read it and rate it highly. In the meantime anonymos posters and un-solicited distributors of advice or misadvice about bushido and it's applications can get lost. Whew! Addiction to illogical thinking is not positive and certainly not in keeping with any sort of Bushido I'm interested in. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Oddman Friday, March 16, 2007, 00:24 (Agree/Disagree?) When you initially began this self-obsessed hotdogging, I displayed more respect than most, out of a sense of "giri". You are at the moment, the most "unrelaxed" MO participant around, and continue to chip away at what good reputation you've had for yourself. If in your state of intoxicated abandon, you like to tell yourself you are a Samurai, that's cool. But I can't help but kibitz when a misguided whitepanese gaijin is publicly spreading misconceptions. Yes, you didn't mention bushido, only Samurai. There can be no Samurai without bushido. Bushido is the heart and soul of the Samurai, without which the swordsman is but a armed scalawag. I commented because in my opinion, your autophilic collection of photos depicting what you are trying to pass for a Katana, and incessant desultory allusion to the Samurai gives the Samurai a bad name. Samurai is a title we Japanese do not casually hand out. That's all I have to say to you, and I bow out of this thread.

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually he's a geek trying to pass for a tough guy. It only leaves people confused.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 00:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Cool, you really have no idea what you're talking about my friend, I do suggest that you avoid Cali, or LA, or SO, or at least my street(s). I made no claim that the sword was/is a Katana, what are you talking about? I have several swords, some are Katana, others are not. Where did I mention Samurai in my posts? I enjoy my abandon, find some for yourself. Wow, weirdness never ceases to amaze me.

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:34 (Agree/Disagree?) What do you expect from a slant-eye?

From jez Sunday, March 18, 2007, 19:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I really don't believe this is the proper venue for racist bigotry. Perhaps you should save comments of that nature for a white-supremacy site, the addresses of which I am completely unaware. However as a self-proclaimed computer nerd, you should have no problem finding one. No doubt your comments will be well-received there and hopefully after some interaction, you will notice how ignorant those people are and change what is a hopelessly out-dated view. I remember that racism was ingrained in us by the idiot Berg, which is why, despite the utter contempt I have for racists, my comment is this tame. In other words I'm cuttin you some slack, because of your upbringing. BTW I'm WASP

From jolifam77 Monday, March 19, 2007, 10:37 (Agree/Disagree?) To you it may be just "racist bigotry" but to me it's something else. If you could only understand how difficult it was for me radically alter my belief system at age 21, you'd appreciate what I've been through. After two years in the Indian Subcontinent trying to do missionary work, I was worn to the bone and amidst a crisis of faith. The only thing that kept me going, and what perhaps all missionaries going, is the belief that people are worth saving, and it's our duty to save them. What I saw in India contradicted this belief. I came to realize that people are not worth saving in the Christian sense, that is, trying to "save" them by getting them to repeat a prayer after me is futile. Seeing the teeming masses of illiterate, stupid people got me questioning the fundamental ideas of Christianity. That's when I realized there are differences between the races and I begin to quantify those differences in my mind, and this having never read a scrap of racialist literature. The idea that some people just do not have the intellectual capacity to grasp the concepts of Christianity goes against the whole premise of Christianity; i.e. that we are to preach the gospel to every creature. Realizing this I began to doubt Christianity and the Family. IT IS ONLY THEN that could justify abandoning the teeming masses, and try to save myself from the life of hell that I was living. And so now you see how my newfound beliefs about races and people saved my life.

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 19:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever man. Sounds pretty bogus if you ask me. I have the greatest repect and admiration for Indian software engineers I've worked with. I'm the developer/architect I am not because I had opportunity to work with brilliant Indian engineers during the course of my career. You really have no idea what you're talking about. If those masses were born to riches and access to education there would be no U.S. economy because the sheer number of those brilliant minds in India would overpower us. India is a country from which the greatest luminaries and most industrious minds of the last century came from. The female software engineers and systems analysts I've worked with are likewise the best in the business and I have the utmost respect for their capabilities. Sorry man, but you are way, way out of touch with the reality of this world at this point. I'd say just reality period as it pertains to the races and humanity.

From jolifam77 Monday, March 19, 2007, 20:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Please don't speak to me about a tiny percentage of Indians who happen to software engineers. Don't speak to me until you've lived in the slums of Kathmandu and Madras for two years. Speak to me then. I'm insulted you speak to me about Indians. I've lived with indians, rubbed my nose in India. India is the cesspool of the world.

From rainy Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 03:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I lived there. I loved the poorest slum people the most. They taught me so much about humanity, about quiet strength, about acceptance, about happiness. How can someone living in a mud shack share a genuine smile with me, when I spend as much in a month as they will see in their life? How can a mother get out of bed in the morning, adorn her baby's hair in flowers although she has no clothes to put on it, and go to work all day carrying enormous slabs of concrete which I, with my adequate diet, could never lift? Where does she find this strength? How do they smile and chat with one another as they wash their clothes in the river? Most Westerners would commit suicide over much less. I didn't care for the wealthy Indians, their attitudes disgusted me. But amongst the poor of India, where money barely exists, I think you really get in touch with what it is to be a human. A human with everything else stripped away, but you can still smile. It must be unimaginably hard, and I am shamed by their strength of character. Blessed are the meek.

From moon beam Thursday, March 22, 2007, 05:23 (Agree/Disagree?) What a beautiful comment Rainy. So true. If it were not for those very people and the kindness of strangers, my life in the communes would have been even more unbearable. The biggest lesson they taught me was how they appreaiate life and that makes a big diference in how you live it and treat people around you.

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting point. I definitely would commit suicide in that situation. I have in fact pondered that there's another factor to consider in racial differences analyses: the tolerance for discomfort factor.

From Anti Cordless Bungee Jumping Coallition Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you would definitely commit suicide in said situations, it is our unanimous vote, that you avoid, like the plague being born into a family, or in a nation where you are a minority, poor, have no access to education, and have to struggle for the bare necessities of life. We recommend, that under no circumstances, do you attempt to be born into poverty as that would increase your likelihood of committing suicide. This is our unanimous decision, and we submit it to you as a recommendation without reservation.

From Anti Cordless Bungee Jumping Coallition Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you would definitely commit suicide in said situations, it is our unanimous vote, that you avoid, like the plague being born into a family, or in a nation where you are a minority, poor, have no access to education, and have to struggle for the bare necessities of life. We recommend, that under no circumstances, do you attempt to be born into poverty as that would increase your likelihood of committing suicide. This is our unanimous decision, and we submit it to you as a recommendation without reservation.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:18 (Agree/Disagree?) In my mind, the conditions very much individuals willing to strap dynamite onto themselves for $20,000 to their surviving families. Let me tell you something, if you are born into a refugee camp, with no country, extremism is the quick way out. And if on the way out you can provide your family with a little bit of cash, all the more of an incentive. As a nation, we should be giving poor nations incentives to live, as opposed to incentives to die. The resilience of the character of these poor people, in these nations, refugee camps, slums, etc.. It's a testament to the fact that they are stronger, not weaker than many of their Caucasian counterparts in the first world. That's my opinion at least. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 22:40 (Agree/Disagree?) You are the suicidal one not me. You betray your race, you're a self-hater. You are the worst scum on the earth.

From Race Traitor Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:18 (Agree/Disagree?) You got that right Joli, to hell with my "Race". I am a human being, first and foremost, my allegiance is to my fellow human beings, regardless of their color. I am deeply disappointed that someone who grew up in the same environment as me would choose to be so willfully ignorant. Most racists at least can blame it on their parents or background, but you don't even have that excuse.

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 00:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I have the entire third-world to blame. and as for "fellow human beings," why stop at humans, why not extend your allegiance to primates or further down the evolutionary chain to mice and so on. After all, all mammals have around the same number of genes. You should extend your allegiance to mammals then. I don't know, maybe you do already.

From rainy Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:17 (Agree/Disagree?) If you look at the slums of London 200 years ago, you will find very similar conditions.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:37 (Agree/Disagree?) True. ... true.

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) "India is the cesspool of the world." That's your opinion, and you're entitled to hold it. Having never lived in the Indian subcontinent, I'm in no position to correct your views on the country. However, if your argument is that (and this is the impression I had) "the quality of life in the slums of Kathmandu and Madras prove that persons of Indian lineage are genetically predisposed to inferior performance in comparison to those of white descent.", then I would have to consider your reasoning fallacious. I lived in Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa. Kwa-Zulu Natal has the largest population of Indian immigrants, expatriates, and nationals of Indian descent, outside of India itself. Many years ago, the British brought in Indian workers to build the railways, much like the Americans used Chinese. If you study South African history, you will see the Indians played an enormous part in bringing down apartheid. During the course of my business there, I actively supported a court case the local clearing agents were filing against the local port authority and department of customs and excise. The entire legal team surprised me with their work ethic, their knowledge of law, and their results. We also had to cancel an exclusive contract with a contractor. We were sued for another contract violation. We had to salvage our produce when a contractor went insolvent, and their subcontracted provider placed a lien on our warehoused product. Every time, I was saved by Indians. When we were fighting for every minute, every second, it was the Indian staff who stayed with me till 4:00 AM every day. It was Indian staff who muscled us through customs backlogs. It was Indian lawyers who protected our property. While in international business development, I've worked with lawyers and attorneys of many races and nationalities. None proved as hard working, creative, determined, well versed, or as effective, as our Indian team in South Africa. This to me indicates that they as a race, have just as much potential. I'm inclined to think the reason they excel far beyond the local elite -even in the most inimical environments-, is owed to the economic retardation and hardships in their home countries. They have it so bad at home, when they go abroad, all they see are opportunities. Much like when we left the cult. Perhaps, the successful Indian is a gross minority, compared to their large population. That is because the Indian with the right opportunity is the gross minority. A simple look at Asian history and achievements, proves that Asians are far from unintelligent. How you come to the illogical conclusion that the race that blessed humankind with math is genetically predisposed to inferiority, is extremely puzzling. If it were not for the Chinese and Indians, we would not have math. Few things in this world are as logical as math. Aside from the obvious 10 base system, Indians created the basis for calculus and trigonometry. And then the muslims spread it. Indians were trading with Rome when the white man was still a horde of angry barbarians on a remote island at the edge of the world. If anything, the appalling conditions in present day India are a direct result of the white man's colonial rule. In the crafts, philosophy, maths, arts, technology, trade, the Indians taught the Arabs, greeks, and Romans, who taught Europe, who taught America. That an American finds it fit to label the Indian race as sitting on a lesser plane of intelligence is as laughable as it is illogical.

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) The typical counter arguments. It's natural to be sympathetic to a race if someone from that race saved your life at some point or something. By the same token, those races, albeit indirectly ruined my life. So I'm naturally unsympathetic. Our experiences color our opinions and we choose to dredge up relevant or irrelevant facts to support our positions. The fact is we will never agree, and my beliefs will never change. My beliefs in this matter are proven over and over again every day by what I see in the streets, in the workplace, and by what I read in the news. No amount of liberal whitewashing is gonna change my mind. I don't give a shit if ancient indians accomplished something. What matters to me is what occurs in front of me. Seeing is believing. And if an kindly Indian helps me up when I stub my toe, I say thank you and so forth. But little things like that don't change my mind about what I believe to be hard coded genetic materials in our fibers. Genes don't change no matter how badly we wish they would. Genetic traits are real things. There are inferior traits and superior traits depending on how you look at them. I've expressed my viewpoint. Now I have to get back to work supporting all the Somalians on welfare.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Idiot! Your dumbass cult loving criminal following parents destroyed your life by following a serial child rapist David Berg. How is that the fault of the Asian nations they were conning for their next meal and the 10% to send to Berg's Child Molesters R'Us compounds worldwide? Very weird, Get lost, Don Irwin

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Simple. if the third world didn't exist, I wouldn't have had to grow up in it. I blame it on their existence. Just like I hate flies and cockroaches. I hate discomfort and filth. The third world has no excuse for their condition, unless they can't control it, which I believe to be the case. I'm a lover of truth, and well, if the truth kills let it kill.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 02:14 (Agree/Disagree?) If criminals (Berg and Zerby) didn't exist, and weak people willing to follow them (your parents), you wouldn't have to have grown up in the 3rd world. You know nothing of History, do you know why the Chinese got addicted to opium? Because the nice, educated, rich wities, the Brits, forced it on them and used the military to support their drug trade when the Chinese tried to assert their independence. If Berg was a criminal and your parents were stupid, and the result was that you grew up in the 3rd world, like me, how is that the fault of the 3rd world? Get relaxed, Don Irwin

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:01 (Agree/Disagree?) To paraphrase your response, "I don't care about history or facts. I want to blame somebody for the results of my own inadequacy, and it's convenient to blame it on melanin. I couldn't find an illogical point or fallacy in your argument, so I choose to bulldoze with stubborness instead." How did Indians ruin your life? Last I remembered, TF leadership were predominantly caucasian. Did a couple of Indians suffering from bad genes really manage to ruin your life, triumphing over your superior white man genes? Your perspective maybe yes, but is your life really ruined?

From jez Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said that (Odd) man! My point exactly (albeit not as elonquently).

From jez Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said that (Odd) man! My point exactly (albeit not as elonquently).

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 20:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I've been to Madras and lived in India, dude, and Pakistan, and Bangladesh the 2nd poorest nation on the planet. I know what I'm talking about. Yes, there is extreme poverty. I ask you this, did those people ask to be born into poverty any more than we asked to be born into a cult? Children born into Indian families from the upper casts or the ones that have access to education far surpas children in the U.S. on all stardardized test scores that have been administered fairly to date. Of course there are illiterate masses. But if they were literate they would be literate mases, not their choice to be born into poverty, and when given equal opportunity, I've seen them surpass the average American time and time again.

From I have been in India too Friday, March 23, 2007, 06:16 (Agree/Disagree?) and i know for a fact that there is opportunity for people from the lower castes and small villages to make something of themselves. All Indian universities, schools and distance learning institutions have mandatory spaces and scholarships reserved for the lower castes and poorer areas of the country. If they really wanted to and had the motivation to, they would be able to do something with themselves. Obviously perhaps the quality of education is rather poor compared to "western" standards, but at least it is available to them, which is more than what i have been given. Not only was i raised in India AND a cult AND in extreme poverty and lacking even the standard of education most middle class children there get, i had to leave from there on my own, travel half way across the world to my home country -- the language of which i was never taught, support myself fully from day one find myslef a job and a place to live and get myself enrolled in night school, ALL completley without the support of friends, family and relatives AND i never once requested or recieved support from the government, despite my right to it and am proud at how far i have come in just a few short years. I feel it is wrong to compare as if India was able to be equal to other first world countries then it would have done so by now. The fact is that If it wasnt for the British empire India today would still be a million little city states killing eachother. Most of the infrastructure (if not all), was brought by the British and "western" civilization and there has not been much in the way of progress since that time (some, but not much). The simple fact is, the culture breeds laziness and they are generally not motivated enough to change. The ones that are smart and motivated take the only sensible step and move to Europe or the States, leaving rural idiots running the country.

From Yeah but.... Friday, March 23, 2007, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) It's true that they have mandatory spaces in colleges and technical institutes, though I haven't heard about scholarships I'm sure they have those too. In January of 2006 they announced that nearly 50% of seats would be reserved for lower castes and other backwards classes which sparked a huge protest from upper caste students. These colleges are incredibly difficult to get into, so even though they are making it easier for lower castes to obtain a college education, the problem is there is still a lack of quality education at the primary level, so they don't have enough people to fill these seats. Primary education is mandatory, however, they can't really enforce that since most of these children have to help their families or simply can't afford school supplies and drop out of school. Private school education is still significantly better than public education. Upper classes can afford to give their children all the resources they need and send them to private school; they can have private tutoring and devote their time to their studies; they are stronger, healthier, and well-fed. Malnutrition has been shown to impair cognitive ability. I'm not saying that's everyone's problem, but there are a number of reasons why simply reserving seats at the college level is not enough to catapult the lower classes to instant success. Those who enroll find they can't compete with the rest of the students who have had a much more of head start. A note about the economy: India and China were once the largest economies in the world and are projected to become so again. I don't know if you read the news but India's economy has been growing quite steadily. A note about the culture that "breeds laziness": There may be some truth to that. I know little about Hinduism but a superficial understanding tells me that actions and circumstances are largely left up to fate. If you are poor it's because you did something bad in your past life. As such many lower castes lack the motivation to improve their lives, thinking that fate is working against them and they are deserving of this punishment. Anything bad that happens to them is bad karma, punishment for your sins in another life. This also allows the upper classes not to feel responsible for the poverty and strife that the majority of the country suffers. They can simply dismiss it as karmic retribution and revel in their good fortune. There is still wide discrimination against lower castes and classes, but laws have been passed, much like some affirmative action laws in the U.S., that prevent employers from asking about caste status. However, there are ways to tell caste status both by appearance, family names, and speech, so these laws may take a long time to produce any change. India has a lot of factors working against its development, but they have made significant strides in building the economy and improving conditions for its population. It has the potential to be greater than it already is.

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't talk to me about equal opportunity. I had no opportunity, but fought for my life and made something of myself. What does it take drag these slum dwellers out the slum? You seriously ponder that question. I'm just so so sick of all this liberal nonsense about "they didn't have an opportunity, therefore it's our duty to feed them, blah blah." People are genetically predisposed to be what they are. That's why there is not one first world country in the world composed of brown people.

From ..... Thursday, March 22, 2007, 07:42 (Agree/Disagree?) maybe jolfam will reincarnate as a black man in the USA

From tuneman7 Thursday, March 22, 2007, 16:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope he's reincarnated in the past, in the south, before Rosa Parks decided to not give up her seat to some clown like him in a public bus and pay the price. Racists, petty tyrants, and the like are not remembered kindly by history. A poor black women who insisted on being treated as an equal human being, is respected, and the legend in her own time, as well as a lesson to humanity. This clown, is a lesson in the dangers of maladjusted thinking. Think clearly and stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Who writes history these days? I'm not even going to answer. It's rhetorical. If you think modern day history books aren't colored by modern day politics, then you are severely delluded. And if you don't think the agenda is being written, then you are brainwashed, probably to the extent that you watch TV or read the newspaper, both of which I avoid like the plague. And as for being born black, with my current consciousness and the knowledge of my state I wouldn't fight it, I would just do myself in, same as if I were born to a beggar in Haiti. It would be the honorable thing to do. Like the book written by I forget who about the woman raised on a plantation; she had fairly light skin and was supposedly the daughter of a white family. It was later found out that she had a black parent though, and her ancestry became known. She wasn't made a slave or anything. However, she was so overcome with feelings of inferiority that she committed suicide. I think it was a true story. That's what I would do. And if I had any racial pride, or believed that I was equal, I wouldn't try to change white society and force them to change like socialist Rosa Parks. If I truly believed in my race, well, I'd fucking go to my homeland Africa, back to paradise. Hell, if it's so great being black, then I'd go live with all my fellow black people in Africa far away from all the white racists. Hell, there would be so much opportunity in Africa because 1) there are plenty of natural resources and 2) Africans are just as smart as Americans--and they're independent, have been for a long time now. It's a win win situation to be black. These are the things I'd have to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Of course I don't believe that, and if I were black, I would just crawl under a rock and die.

From neez Friday, March 23, 2007, 01:01 (Agree/Disagree?) "reincarnated in the past" my brain hurts now.

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 23, 2007, 00:44 (Agree/Disagree?) If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.

From Hansel Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Read "Guns, Germs & Steel" by Jared Diamond. NY Times best seller. It is the best truly scientific explanation for why as you say "there is no first world country composed of brown people." The fact of the matter is that pre-Helenistic times, the opposite was true. The book is premised on answering why Europeans conquered and colonized the new world instead of the Aztecs or Incas sailing over to Europe and doing the same.

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 22:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, I agree with a portion of this. I don't believe in handouts, I don't believe in massive aid programs. I don't believe we should baby the less developed nations, and I don't believe in laws regulating what percentage of your workforce should be men or women, what percentage should be pale or of color. Seeing first hand how the western aid progams have caused a dependency on foreign aid in Africa, I stand staunchly against uncontrolled and unmanaged aid. I don't think the rich have any obligation to feed the poor. I don't think the educated have any obligation to educate the uneducated. I do however, think the rich have no business standing in the way of poor people who are trying to get richer. I do believe educated people have no business trying to keep uneducated people uneducated. And that's what the first world has done, and is still doing. That is what most aid progams are doing. It's "take these morsels. we'll give you this, as long as you know your place in our world, as long as you don't step up and get ahead of us. That attitude is what caused the economic retardation in third world countries. The western world colonized much of Asia, Africa, and South America. If they immediately started educating the local populace and worked on enhancing the quality of life, then there would have been less of a gap. Instead, the western world raped and pillaged the new found world. They immediately put in place ceilings and walls and discrimination. When the people would take it no more, they just dropped everything and left, sometimes fighting wars and destroying infrastructure in the process. Now they support governments that are not capable of managing, so they will stay where they are, in poverty.

From vacuous Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 05:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Just for clarification purposes... In one respect you say that the rich have no obligation to help the poor and then also mention that the rich should "not stand in the way of poor people trying to get richer". If the process of becoming rich is a process of a successful imposition of self interest with view towards attaining wealth and the model of capitalism is about self interest and competition of those interests; isn't the same mechanism at work in preventing people from getting richer? In a knowledge based economy it is in the best interests of the knowledgeable to have people who are not educated who require their skills and expertise. Before and during the process of industrialisation, during the colonisation of Asia, Africa, and South America it was in the pecuniary interests of the people governing the western world to have a large uneducated work-force as cheap labour. The result of this exploitation has given way to the hyper power of the world today..the USA. But this isn't particular to the west, pre-industrialisation owning a slave was often more common and a lot cheaper than owning a pet. Most of the grand monuments of the world were built on slave labour. All this to say that when your statement "the rich have no business in standing in the way of poor people getting richer or more educated" needs clarification as often the rich have made and do make business more profitable through the poor and uneducated. Outsourcing is a prime example, and while it may be argued that this eventually increases the wealth overall (which I agree with) the motivation is to exploit lower wages.

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I hate to admit my response to your comment would have to be a regurgitation of old man Sam's comment to master Jackson. I am so chipper that somebody has forced me to sit in my thinking chair for a change. But I'll get to it, Vac.

From !? Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 20:29 (Agree/Disagree?) How many first world countries are composed only of non-brown people?

From roughneck Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) how about Singapore?

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I met a lot of Malaysians and Indians in Singapore, roughie. I miss that place. I'd almost go to Singapore just to spend a day in Changi International Airport. If spending a weekend there, I'd recommend the Amara or Gallery hotel. Unless of course you can afford the Raffles, Ritz, or Shangrila. I smuggled chewing gum and chewed it in my hotel, just to be rebellious. :p

From rainy Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 04:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, I was REALLY bad. I spat it on the street just to see what would happen. (Hangs head in shame)

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 04:50 (Agree/Disagree?) But the law that bugs me the most.... A fine for not flushing.... How they enforce that I don't want to know.

From roughneck Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You must be forgetting that a lot of public toilets in Singapore are for-pay and are monitored by a no-nonsense sanitation worker at the door. If you were really ballsy, you might have tried enjoying a Happy Meal on the MRT after shopping for the smelliest durians you could find, then pushing the "stop train" button for no good reason. Hilarity would definitely ensue. Not that I speak from experience or anything. :D Ah Singapore, it's a "fine" city, as they say. I'd go back there just to live in a food court. The food is so incredible, they'd have to deport me using a wheelbarrow, if not a forklift.

From rainy Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it's a great law. They do sell chewy in the airport btw. I thought you were only not permitted to chew it in public.

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 21:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Filipinos and Indonesians too, come to think of it. Filipinos are such talented people. I was particularly impressed by the Filipino chef who prepared the best Japanese food I've had prepared by a non-Japanese chef, at the Yamato restaurant in Illovo, Johannesburg, just off Sandton.

From Tell me... Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:28 (Agree/Disagree?) In your opinion, is it okay for me not to hire a black person regardless of his or her credentials simply because he/she is black?

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) good question. In fact if I had a choice between a highly qualified and experienced computer programmer who'se black and a totally uneducated middle aged white person who's never touched a computer I'd of course choose the black person. But I'd keep a close eye on him.

From perhaps this is relevant Friday, March 23, 2007, 14:45 (Agree/Disagree?) A year ago we had to hire two new employees. I came to work to find my bosses interviewing a 30-something black women (she was also short and plump which might be of interest to the person who thinks short, fat people are discriminated against as well) and the first thought that popped into my head was that she would never be hired. I know the kind of people my bosses are, and know they wouldn't want her working there (maybe they were racist, maybe it was just the difference in background, maybe I was projecting my own prejudice onto my employers). They ended up hiring two white girls, both obviously lower/lower-middle class. They were unprofessional, wore tank tops and flip-flops to work, used slang on the phone with customers, and stole money straight from the drawer or incorrectly reported wages and reimbursements. They were both friends but a dispute caused them to have a bitter rivalry that affected our working environment a number of times. In short, they were trash. I understand the desire to employ people from similar backgrounds in the interest of working comraderie, but to ignore past job performance is simply bad business practice. The black woman had far more relevant work experience then the two white 20-year olds. I don't know all the qualifying factors, but I have always suspected she wasn't hired because of her race. In any case, they made a poor decision and it cost them.

From steam Thursday, March 22, 2007, 05:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't get it. You must just be trying to get a rise out of people. You are implying that someone is less trustworthy based purely on skin color? If you are just openely admiting to being racist based on pure emotion due to your own previous experiance or whatever fine, (not fine to be racist, but you are at least being honest about it). But if you actually think there is some level of logic that could legitimately lead you to such a bias, you truely are displaying a level of intellect that would shame a pre-schooler.

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You have no idea what you are talking about, friend. I've got all the statistics in the world on my side, plus philosophy that links knowledge with morality, plus psychology which correlates morality and intelligence, plus biology which correllates intelligence with Heredity. Think I pull ideas out of pure bias? Maybe they start with bias, but I've done my research and corroborate my beliefs with scientific facts. I'm not an idiot.

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Would you keep an equally close eye on a white employee? Or would you just assume a white employee would be less likely to cause the company harm? I'm just trying to remember if Kenneth Lay was black...

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Kenneth Lay may have been white, but the real guy at fault--Andy Fastow--was Jewish. I studied Enron in depth, and I believe all roads traced back to Fastow, not Skilling, not even Lay. Fastow the jew, probably should've gotten hanged for virtually minting fake money out of Enron stock. In the old days he would've gotten hung, drawn, and quartered.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Great Black Men: 1. Martin Luther King 2. Malcom X 3. Stockley Charmichael A great number of our artists. ... the list goes on. ... Great Black Women: 1. Rosa Parks .. the list goes on. ... . ..... Great Latino Men: 1. Cesar Chavez 2. Richard P. Rodriguez the list goes on. ... Great Indian Men: 1. Mahatma Ghandi the list goes on. ... Great Indian Women: 1. Indirah Ghandi the list goes on. ... Great thinkers of the Far East: 1. Lord Bhuddah the list goes on and is too long to even give fair mention of all the East has contributed. Great Irish Men: 1. President Kennedy 2. Assassinated presidential nominee also a Kennedy, the list goes on. ... No hater of fellow humanity is ever remembered kindly, nor is he or she regarded kindly when in the company of humans with the capcity for self-honesty, which you don't have in this instance. Very weird dude, very weird and very bogus. You are definitely an ambassardor of massive bogusness in my book. Don Irwin

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Why do you insist on racially discriminating these individuals? They are all notable human beings - why does the colour of their skin, ethnic heritage, or even gender, have to factor into the equation?

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Normally I'd agree with you, NeO. But used in this context, I think it's a valid point to make. Of course, naming a few individuals or instances is never a very strong argument, as one could easily write off a few success stories as anomalies. I think reactive argument too often only serves as an indication of how little one has actually pondered the position he is defending/campaigning. But when your opponent is an absolute dunce, it still makes for fun play.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 05:11 (Agree/Disagree?) While I do buy your point regarding the value of celebrating contributions from various 'minorities' (rather the misnomer, considering that compared to what is considered the 'normal' white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual male, pretty much every one of those is in fact a majority). The point I was making is that it is just as much discrimination if it is 'positive' as if it is 'negative'. So, in as much as it would be considered inappropriate to list the negative examples of each of those groupings, so should it be to do so for positive examples. That said, I do agree that there can be call for 'categorising' individuals by such arbitrary criteria. The first would be as an informal shorthand ("women are more emotional than men" or "Germans are more methodical than French", for example) to manage expectations of the unknown to a degree. This however should only ever be used informally, and never as the basis for reaching an informed decision. The second is in humour. Controversial as this may sound, I think that stereotypes (based on whatever criteria) are an important, and indeed positive, part of humour. I consider friendly humour and teasing to be a particularly beneficial element of team-building, and find that many of my strongest relationships are with individuals with whom I have regular banter - teasing and being teased. Some would argue that the strong relationship would need to come first, whereas my experience it is typically the reverse. The disclaimer here is that although it is often difficult to distinguish on the basis of the actual words said, what counts is that it is friendly, and not malicious, in intent.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd hire the black, wouldn't hire you, and if you happened to be in the department as the byproduct of a bad-decision which happened before my tenure with the team, I'd have the black guy keep and eye on you man! You are really full of it dude. Some of the persons who have best contributed to my growth have been blacks, that's not to say they're all great, some could be intellectually bankrupt pieces of shit like you. But in this city, in this State, in this Nation, the only people who talk like you are members of white supremacist hate groups. I hope you understand that. Probably not. (sigh!)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 02:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Why don't both of you get over yourselves and your racial stereotypes! Ultimately it's all down to individuals, and what they make of their own lives. It is the act of painting groups of individuals with the same brush as you are both doing that is discriminatory - not the respective merits of favourability you use in doing so. I question the cognitive powers of people who are unable to recognise individuals' worth on their own merits without having to resort to sweeping generalisations and stereotypes, be they based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, political or religious views, or any other such grouping.

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:24 (Agree/Disagree?) the word stereotype is just the pejorative term for category. It's part of the scientific method to categorize likes and ascribe properties to them. I don't know every person in the world, so I have to deal in generalities. It's the kind of bullshit that you spew that makes me question your ability to think independently.

From rainy Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 03:38 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 10:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Cute charts and all, but I wouldn't trust their groupings any more than those they are claiming to oppose - at least not without a whole lot more transparency regarding the methodology used to gather these 'statistics'.

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 16:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh. I thought it was a cleverly selected piece of humor, considering our resident white supremacist's earlier announced support of IQ measurements.

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree it was humorous - but that's a far cry from scientific or reliable.

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 02:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I would bother responding if your comments had even a shred of credibility.

From Double standard? Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 12:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Repeated studies show that ugly, fat, short people face more discrimination in the US than race alone (E.g. all other things equal, a tall hansdsome black man will overall likely get more opportunities/better treatment than a short fat ugly white man). Its safe to imagine that truly dumb people do worse as well. Why the enormous disparity in acceptability of insults regarding race such as "slanty-eyed," compared to the insulting other equally immutable characteristics such as intelligence or looks? Is someone that dislikes associating w/ all ugly or short people better than from one who dislikes associating w/ ...whites or Asians? Discuss.

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting. Finally a discussion where some can staunchly stand against me and bash me for once. Everybody has a different opinion of what beauty is. I suppose Jolifam wouldn't consider my beautiful Asian friends beautiful, and I don't normally care much for pale blonde women. There are certainly occupations where good looks would be preffered. I've done my share of hiring, and I'd say jobs that involve face to face customer interaction demand good looking staff. Why? Because the majority of customers are still biased and discriminatory. Many clients are less likely to hassle a good looking staff member, compared to one who is not particularly attractive. Equally, I would see why certain jobs would be better suited for a slim person over an obese one, a tall one over a short one. Fact is, good looks are an asset. If all other factors are equal, then it makes sense to choose the better looking candidate. While height and looks can't be controlled, I believe weight can. If someone is grossly overweight, I would believe the person lacks self control, lacks a strong will. A physically fit person is often more mentally fit. It would be discriminatory to hire a good looking person who is less qualified for the job, but if both are equally qualified in all other aspects (very rare) then an employer is justified in selecting the one which is likely to benefit the company more. Stoopid people. I think it goes without saying that hiring a stupid person would not be in the companies best interests. Now if there was a job opening for flipping burgers and you had a choice between an idiot and a smart person, you might say it's discriminatory to hire the smarter one, as both could do the job. Wrong. You want employees that could flip burgers, then maybe do some more. You could always raise smart staff from the bottom up. Regarding insults. I don't think I've often insulted someone for being fat. It does little but make me look shallow and petty. However, I would think a grossly overweight person lacks the resolve to lose weight. I think it would be justified to call a lazy fat slob a lazy fat slob. If he doesn't want to be called a lazy fat slob, he should drop and give me 50. People often comment on my height. I'm short. Very short. I wish I was taller, but I accept that I can do little to change it. Normally, height in itself does not draw an insult. It is rather, actions or words that invite an insult. When others cannot find a better place to aim, they choose to aim at physical attributes. I'll take that as a medal. Hah, I tore you to shreds and all you can do is comment on my height or another part of my body which you haven't even seen. Hah hah, I fucked you good. Looks. Again, looks in itself is rarely the culprit inviting an insult. When one calls another a twisted ugly fuck, it's normally because there is something twisted and ugly about the person, or something twisted and ugly about the person spilling such insults. I have little respect for one who insults by calling attention to another's outward appearance. I think it's acceptable to call attention to the less marketable points of a friend, in jest. If you can't laugh at yourself, get surgery. Idiots. Ah, my favorite punching bags. It's rare that you'd find me speaking with a retard or true idiot. If I was, you wouldn't find me calling them such. Most often, insults alluding to impaired intelligence capabilities are directed at people who should have the ability to think, yet choose to avoid seeing the obvious. As they are not mentally impaired, they should see the obvious correctness of my opinion, and agree. If they refuse to see the truth when all logic points there, then they deserve to be called by whatever derogatory comment I can conjure at the moment.

From steam Thursday, March 22, 2007, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) When hiring someone to "flip burgers". In many cases choosing the person with less mental capacity has the highest utility, because they may have less opportunities elsewhere, and thus be less likely to move on and waste your training energy. Also they may have less ambition in the sense that they can find satisfaction in a less "stimulating" environment due to reduced intellectual cravings. This would also make them less likely to "wander". That is why people don't like to hire "overqualified" individuals. They don't think they will stick around.

From steam Thursday, March 22, 2007, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) When hiring someone to "flip burgers". In many cases chosing the person with less mental capacity has the highest utility, because they may have less opportunities elsewhere, and thus be less likely to move on and waste your training energy. Also they may have less ambition in the sense that they can find satisfaction in a less "stimulating" environment due to reduced intellectual cravings. This would also make them less likely to "wander". That is why people don't like to hire "overqualified" individuals. They don't think they will stick around.

From Indeed Saturday, March 24, 2007, 10:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You might appreciate the following link: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28779

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 13:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't see your comment to in any way conflict with my own. My argument being that individuals should be judged on their own merits, rather than any 'commonly shared' by others of a given 'grouping'. On that basis, I personally have no issue with the various terms commonly associated with 'discrimination' - freedom of speech should entitle us to use whatever words we choose to describe something, or someone. Any word can be turned into an insult - depending on how it is used, by whom, and to whom. I question whether 'discrimination' against dumb people (oh right, I'm meant to say 'intellectually-challenged') is indeed 'discrimination'. Most jobs require greater cognitive powers than others, to select only those sufficiently able to do so cannot be 'discrimination', however to rule out someone based on a criteria not specific to their job most certainly is.

From vacuous Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) A just society is often thought about as being something like a large corporation that fairly recompenses those who work for it. Society is conceived as a kind of agent that people benefit from or try to benefit, and that people deserve more or less from according to their contributions or efforts. We typically say the fastest runner or the best trained deserves to win the race. Certainly, in the normal course of events, unless he is tripped or tricked, he would be expected to do so. We also assume that, unless a selection committee were engaging in nepotism or racial or sexual discrimination the best qualified and most experienced individual will get the job. The same pattern emerges with the subclass of rule-based "desert" statements. We say that an elderly person who has worked is entitled to a pension, provided he meets all the conditions for this. However the problem is that chance undercuts deserts. Lets say I lose a book and two equally intelligent friends with equal eyesight spend an equal amount of time searching for it but one finds it by the chance of starting at a certain area of the house. I normally would feel a sense of obligation to compensate the person who found the book..the other may not gain any compensation. This means that no one "deserves" what they have but they deserve the chance. For example it is wrong to say someone who wins the lottery deserves the prize but they deserve the chance of winning the prize. The person who has bought 10 tickets deserves 10 times as many chances...but we would not say the person who won the lottery deserves the prize. This means that the probablity of getting something which is deserved is to be analysed in terms of the probablity that would allow it to be attained in the absence of untoward interventions or circumstances. In other words if I bought 1 of 1000 lottery tickets I deserve a probablity of 1/1000 of winning the prize. The reason is that that is the probablity that would obtain absent untoward interventions, such as the organisers removing my ticket from the box before the drawing. That is life. The losers always deserve more and the winners never deserve as much as they receive. Consider someone who takes risks with their health, driving without fastening a seatbelt. This person only has a 1 in 10 000 chance of crashing, but his deserts in lifes lottery would be only 1/10 000th of the pain he is suffering from going through the windshield. In social policy this means that where people are unlucky and risks turn to disasters, they might deserve to suffer somewhat because they have taken the risks. But they do not deserve to suffer as much. Bringing this over into what the poor really "deserve" or not . Although they might not positively deserve assistance, usually their only sin is recklessness or fecklessness. The most they can be said to deserve is some probablity of suffering a bad outcome (they might not even deserve that if their recklessness and fecklenessness is itself covered by some further excusing condition like low IQ). While these people may deserve bad outcomes in some statistical sense of consequence of reckless or feckless behaviour, statements of positive deserts are without moral warrant. At the very least, we must say that bad outcomes are neither deserved nor undeserved, morally speaking. The appropriate question is not to ask "do they deserve to suffer" or "do they deserve assistance" but whether some social interest is served by assisting them? Similarly (and I hope I will provoke you with this conclusion Neo), when considering whether or not to tax away some of a rich mans fortunes, the appropriate question is not "do they deserve their riches" but merely if there is some social interest served by rellocating the resources.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) vac, this was a very interesting post to read (apologies for the delay in doing so), and I found much in it which I agree with. I do have further comments I would add, but this article is already killing me with how long the page takes to load. Admin - could we please spin these 'racism' threads off to their own article? If that wouldn't be too big already :D

From Samuel Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 09:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for that, Ne Oublie and Oddman, for your comments. I believe that sterotypes, whatever they are based on, were created by ignorant people so that they could have answers simple enough for their feeble minds to understand. As far as faith goes, faith is needed for just about anything, and everybody has it. You wouldn't accept your pay in the form of a check from your employer if you didn't have faith that your employer has money in the bank. You wouldn't put quarters into a soda machine if you didn't have faith the product you want is inside, and will be dispensed to you. Now, I can't prove that God exists, I have to accept that in faith. Atheism is the same way. No one can prove that God doesn't exist, but they accept that in faith. Could I be wrong? Hey, anything's possible. Could atheists be wrong? Like I said, anything's possible. In my opinion, what's important is that we celebrate diversity and keep an open mind.

From Oddman Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 20:52 (Agree/Disagree?) "sterotypes, whatever they are based on, were created by ignorant people so that they could have answers simple enough for their feeble minds to understand." Not a bad string of syllables there, Sammy. On faith and belief, I agree, there is an element of belief, in accepting an athiest conclusion. At the end of the day, we study what we can, and choose to believe certain theories and deny others. On the other hand, that my theories rely on certain unproven factors, is no reason I shouldn't point out that your theories rely on certain disproved factors. :p

From Samuel Saturday, March 24, 2007, 18:45 (Agree/Disagree?) My thoeries rely on disproved factors? Please expound. I researched the question that you asked me before in the chatroom(about Noah's flood), and had an answer for you. Your rejection of my answer does not make it any less valid. I also researched JW's question (about Genesis 1 and 2), and had a friendly, civil, discussion with him about it. Nothing was disproved in either case, but anyone is free to try again. (One at a time, please)

From In defense of stereotyping Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:29 (Agree/Disagree?) That description of stereotyping is incomplete. Two things: 1)stereotypes are often based on some truth and 2) stereotyping makes sense. If a stereotype is even sometimes true, than generalizing is not ignorant. From an economic standpoint, stereotyping is rational whenever you do not have access to all the specific information about the person or situation. For example, if someone walks down the street with a knife, stereotyping tells us to stay away from him, we don't know his intention and they are not worth determining. Avoidance is easier. Assuming the worst is a short cut to safety. When buying a used car, stereotyping used car salesmen as dishonest also protects you by putting you on guard. If it turns out they are not, then no harm is done. The same can be applied to hiring. Say you are an employer that doesn't care about race but doesn't want a drunk. If 25% of Irish are statistically drunks or prone to it and only 5% of Italians are, it is easier and safer to simply exclude all Irish applicants than taking the risk. This is completely rational stereotyping. This is the reason that even in a nonracist world we would have to have laws that ban specific types of discrimination in key aspects of life such as employment and housing. To protect people, not from "the ignorance of others" but their rationality.

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow. someone actually is making sense on this board. Personally, I think those anti-discrimination laws are an infringment on basic human rights. Next they'll take away the guns, then free speech. It'll be like communist China.

From rainy Saturday, March 24, 2007, 19:55 (Agree/Disagree?) What? Did I actually hear you say the words HUMAN RIGHTS? But all the slum dwellers in India deserve their lot in life because they are genetically inferior. Don't you mean WHITE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN MALE CAPITALIST RIGHTS?

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Students pay attention! Here jolifam77 is giving you a live demonstration of the illogical "slippery slope".

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 19:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Illogical? It's human nature, what does logic have to do with it? You'd be wise to shut your trap, asian. You're getting on my nerves.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 19:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude you are a 1st degree counter relaxatonary if there ever were one. Now run along and get your have shaven and join a white supremacist hate group and have werid stuff tatted to your shaven head and get lost! ~D

From Samuel Saturday, March 24, 2007, 19:14 (Agree/Disagree?) jolifam, you'd be wise to shut YOUR trap before someone from my neck of the woods mistakes for a Klansman and has you tarred and feathered.

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I've said this so many times, I'm not against a bit of stereotyping here and there. Stereotyping tells me guys that dress like yakuza, sport tatts like yakuza, and are minus a digit like yakuza, are most likely yakuza. Stereotyping tells me that guys with swastikas on their arms aren't likely to be friendly, and the group of fat American men with teenage Filipinas on their laps are probably sex tourists. No doubt, if I'm looking for a quick lay, I'm approaching the bird with fake boobs, dresses like a slut, talks like an airhead, and has condoms in her purse. But librarian types are often the better fuck. The question is, how accurate is the information you base that stereotyping on? What sort of percentage would be fair grounds to create a stereotype? Say the majority of convicts in prison are black. Are the majority of blacks convicts? Is it fair to label the majority of law abiding blacks as predisposed to criminal behaviour, based on the minority of blacks in prison? I don't suppose anyone in their right mind would agree with a statement like "the overwhelming majority of white supremacists are white. Therefore white people are white supremacists." How about "The majority of lesbians are women. Therefore women are lesbian." Another question would be, how far do you go? Simple stereotyping would say humans as a species, are bad actors, bad singers, bad artists, and bad businessmen. Simple stereotyping would tell us that humans are predisposed to be stupid, poor, religious, and bad.

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:18 (Agree/Disagree?) We'll go as far as we want to go airhead.

From Pro Cordless Bungee Jumping Consorteum Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:35 (Agree/Disagree?) This way sir, you are the ideal client for our new attraction. Niagra: The Last in a Lifetime Wireless Experience. Heee heee. :-)

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Why do I get the impression that somewhere inbetween "logical conclusion" and "where you want to go" lies the place we refer to as "the deep end".

From Indians? Monday, March 19, 2007, 17:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Jolifam, I think its great that you left the Family. I'd like to make a couple ofcomments though. Firstly, judging a race as "stupid" because ILLITERATE members of that race could not understand YOUR brand of religion is not such a great conclusion. In the case of the Indian race that you talk about, the only Indians I have met in the country I live in can speak English, Japanese, their own language (sometimes more than one dialect) and can explain computer related things in these different languages. Certainly not stupid. So the people you "ministered to " might surprise you if they had some education too. The subject of racial differences is very interesting and there are many different opinions. I suggest you read a bit more. Secondly, I have never been in the Family, but after reading a few Mo letters, my conclusion is that literate people who read those, believe them, and want to live by and distribute them are the people who I am more worried about. Sorry for going off the subject of the thread.

From roughneck Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 18:49 (Agree/Disagree?) ach, I wish you'd used a different example than tech support to promote the virtues of Indian intelligence. :) I'm not racist myself, (though my last tech support experience left me borderline so) but I am morally obliged to rip on outsourced tech support, taking jobs out of my country (grumble, grumble). :) Carry on!

From gaijin Monday, March 19, 2007, 17:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Jolifam, I think its great that you left the Family. I'd like to make a couple ofcomments though. Firstly, judging a race as "stupid" because ILLITERATE members of that race could not understand YOUR brand of religion is not such a great conclusion. In the case of the Indian race that you talk about, the only Indians I have met in the country I live in can speak English, Japanese, their own language (sometimes more than one dialect) and can explain computer related things in these different languages. Certainly not stupid. So the people you "ministered to " might surprise you if they had some education too. The subject of racial differences is very interesting and there are many different opinions. I suggest you read a bit more. Secondly, I have never been in the Family, but after reading a few Mo letters, my conclusion is that literate people who read those, believe them, and want to live by and distribute them are the people who I am more worried about. Sorry for going off the subject of the thread.

From jez Monday, March 19, 2007, 16:47 (Agree/Disagree?) To classify people according to their race, is racism pure and simple. For you to feel bigotry towards orientals because of your bad experience in the subcontinent, makes as much sense as hating caucasians because of Berg, Zerby and (to the best of my knowledge) all the cult hierarchy. Generalisation and stereotyping don't make sense to anyone with a brain capable of lateral thinking. Regardless of what colour someone's skin is, the act of repeating a prayer to save one's soul seems futile to me. My memories of 'outreach' in the cult mainly consist of begging, or attempting to sell embarrassing, over-priced tapes and posters to the people we'd supposedly gone there to 'save'. These people were poor enough as it was, without having to subsidise our self-righteous arses in exchange for life in a dubious 'Heavenly City'. However, much to my suprise they did in fact give to us and generously, considering their situation. If it was racism that got you out, then fair enough (different strokes... and all that) at least you got out. I would still advise you not to blame the miserable existence you had on the people who's country you happened to be in. I too was in India, one of many countries in which I endured the living hell of which you speak. I soon realised that the hell was indoors and just like McDonalds, those homes were pretty much the same wherever in the world they happened to be. In short, what was wrong with your upbringing was the cult, not the host nation. Lay the blame where it belongs. As for requiring intellect to grasp christianity? That had me in fits of laughter! The most stupid people I have met profess to be christians, in fact any religious fanatic, whether hindu, jew, moslem or christian, strikes me as innately stupid. Besides, what happened to 'faith', doesn't that require the absence of intellectual thought? Try some rational thought, lose the reactionary impulse to deal with the symptom rather than the cause and I'm sure you'll get along fine with this, the real world. All the best!

From sar Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 09:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you consider it sexist to classify people according to their sex?

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:28 (Agree/Disagree?) glad you at least see the absurdity.

From sar Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 09:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Where is the absurdity?

From jolifam77 Monday, March 19, 2007, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) The very fact that everything you say doesn't surprise me shows (at least to me) that I have progressed in my thinking beyond the stage where you are at. You throw out truisms at me so that arguing with you would be futile. You tell me generalizing doesn't make sense. Well I ask is this true all of the time or are you just generalizing. I think you are the one with the lazy mind. I also am rather wearied, even insulted, that you generalize about christians as being "innately stupid." This is just absurd. I don't have to go into detail about how some of the most brilliant minds in history were devout christians or even priests.

From jez Monday, March 19, 2007, 23:05 (Agree/Disagree?) wtf? THEIR INTELLIGENCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELIGION Would that have been when everyone went to church/synagogue/temple/mosque, because they were born into religion? Hence not having a true chance to decide for themselves and went with the flow.

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) You are absolutely right. Intelligence has little to do with what a person actually believes. And I failed to mention it but your astute observation that I blamed the third world on my sad upbringing was quite near accurate. An observation like that is born of intelligence. As for blame, I'm not sure exactly who or what is to blame ultimately. Was it Berg? Was it Berg's mother? Was it the Hippie movement? Viet Nam? President Kennedy? Poor "lost soul" rats in the third world? My impressionable mother? My impulsive father? who knows.

From Oddman Monday, March 19, 2007, 17:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I've met many people who reached racist conclusions in much the same way as Jolifam describes. I traveled and lived in Africa for about two years. Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Malawi, South Africa. And yes, I've seen poverty, I've seen corruption, I've seen crime. Office broken into in two countries, residence broken into four times, hijack attempts in two counties, firearm pointed at me twice, firearm fired at my car once, witnessed police lynching my cab driver, witnessed a police interrogation twice, paid bribes in every country, jailed by "mistake" once too. Airplane almost went down twice. Those extreme situations aside, people just didn't seem to work well. Customer service never existed anywhere. If your hotel booking was correct, if your bill was correct, if a flight left on time, if you sailed through a roadblock, if your dinner order was right, if the day went by without a power failure or internet failure, if someone came to an appointment on time, you were surprised. And granted -The majority of the population being black- most often your problems were caused by a black person. And yes, many are simpletons. But I didn't come away thinking "Blacks are useless, it's cause they are black, they are genetically inferior". I came back thinking, even if apartheid was over, they were far from free. The economic retardation, the educational system, the political landscape, there were just too many reasons and causes for all the problems. Most African countries have only recently become democracies. Some countries suffer under leaders who are no better than their abusive predecessors. Sometimes worse. But can I compare a country with a 50 year history to a country with a 2000 year heritage? Can I compare a cross-border goat-herder who's not sure what country he lives in, to someone who's grown up in a country where education is mandatory by law? Obviously not. It's not like they don't want better. Many of those who have studied abroad and returned to their countries have surprised me with their brilliance. In fact, the Zimbabwean schooled overseas on average, were far smarter than the average pot-head white South African who grew up in the first world half of a 3rd world country. An African mechanic repaired my car with a screwdriver, two wire hangers, rubber bands and pantyhose, where my white certified mechanic said we didn't have a chance without spare parts. They do have the same innate ability to excel as anybody else of any other color. They just think in a manner that best suits their situation. While I wouldn't deny that there are some traits which appear to be genetic, most traits are certainly a product of culture, environment. A few hundred years ago, the average medieval man would have said women were predisposed to idiocy, and as such would never make good executives, doctors, lawyers, or politicians. Only an absolute idiot would make the same statement now. What changed? Did we change something about the female body? Pump them full of male blood? Brain transplant maybe? I have no doubt that should the 3rd world environment improve, the average 3rd world life success rate would also improve. P.S. One thing though, jez. I wouldn't limit that above mentioned stupidity to religious fanatics. Political party fanatics, fanatic sexists, self fanatics, even celebrity groupies, and of course lest we forget, fanatic racists, they all fit the same profile.

From jez Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, fanaticism is exactly what it says on the box; excessive enthusiasm, excessive being the operative word. Too much of a good thing... excuse my use of yet another 'truism', but they're named thus for a reason.

From jolifam77 Monday, March 19, 2007, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) All I can say regarding your seemingly thorough assessment of the races and the sexes is that you could very well be mistaken, as well as everyone else. Medieval man knew instinctly who had the larger brain and the intellectual prowess to get things done. Modern man, I qualify, Liberal Post Modern man (or is that post post modern man?), has chosen to ignore the seemingly marginal but ultimately significant differences in mental power among the races and the sexes. We will see how this plays out. Judging from the economy since the 60s, things aren't going so good. I predict a continuing downhill until it gets to be like the movie "Idiocracy" only much much worse.

From tuneman7 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 19:28 (Agree/Disagree?) In Cali some would spill your blood in the streets for what you've just said or implied, but a thinking relaxationist would probably just say, "How incredibly bogus, dude!" Sorry man, but you'd better go out and find some hate group to join and stop trying to pass yourself off an honest thinker. You're anything but an honest thinker. It was this type of nonsense that gave Hitler the willingness to send millions to their deaths and thousands to weird medical expiriments etc. ..., it was that type of thinking that caused the Armenian hollocaust, the same type of thinking that gave Berg the idea he could rape children nightly without compunction because after all, he was a prophet, and these other humans were less human than him and thus were somehow subject to his ideas and desires. The sheer facts trumpet your ignorance dude. You must know nothing of technology. Do you know who has been pushing the VLSI chip design bounderies for the last 3 decades? Do you know what a VLSI is? Do you know which country has produced the most incredibly efficient and bug free operating system that is in the core of almost every vehicle's computer operating system, regardless of whether the maker is Japaneses, American, Korean, German etc? Can you enumerate the operating systems used in vehicles and motorcycles all over the world today? Most Japanese and Indian engineers could, I can. Japan's University of Tokyo's Computer Science department under the leadership of a brilliant japanese professor at their Sakamura Laboratory have developed the TRON/ITRON operating system for powering the microprocessors running vehicles. Now we can code against it in Java, we can itegrate TRON OS's in networks and code against them using the CTRON interface etc. ... While this is archane to some, it has revolutionalized the automoble industry in an incredible way. While you're driving any Japanese and most American cars the thing that's keeping the engine going is the onboard computer running a TRON OS, which is opensource! That's right, the inventor and the University give it away free, and post it's specifications and source online and support it a great deal for free to the general public and the development commnity. The inventor would have and could have been richer than Bill Gates had he decided to market it. You know why? Because it is a beautiful, beautiful operating system, a piece of art dude. Functional art that gets me to work and back thousands of times in millions of vehicles without a single "reboot" to speak of. Imagine if Windows or Linux or that matter were powering your vehicle at this point. Not a pretty thought unless you like stopping for no reason at high speeds while the onboard computer reboots and then reasserts control of the engine and all the rest of the vehicle computer controlled systems. The list goes on man. ... You are majorly deluded I'm sorry to say if you honestly believe your doctrine of racial supremacy is in any way consistant with reality. The fact that you believe it so vehemently simply is in indication of how incredibly isolationist your thinking has become. Sorry man, that's the truth as I see it at this point. I'm not even going to try to go back and forth with you on every issue as you are so out in left field. But, we have had boom after boom since the 60s, with the per-capita income rising as well as the rich getting a lot lot richer. What planet do you live on?

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually Real wages (that's inflation adjusted) have been falling. As for operating systems, it's not uncommon to craft a special OS for a special purpose. But you knew that. As for blood in the streets of california, I would seriously have a problem with living in that latino infested SOCal area. I lived with latinos for the first 18 years of my life. No thanks. They aren't getting any blood out of me. I work extra hours to live far away from them.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:10 (Agree/Disagree?) You do yourself and further. You don't seem to realize here talking to you, my friend. My best true friends are Latinos, they are good people, at least many of them are. What type of bogus nonsense mongering foolishness are you subscribing to Buddy? Very weird, Don Irwin

From roughneck Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 21:05 (Agree/Disagree?) how do those 5 thumbs up feel for a change? :P

From tuneman7 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:47 (Agree/Disagree?) The masses are fickle and will backstab one in an instant. In this particular case it's not a truth that they are uncomfortable with, hence the more logical / expected reaction. But when presented with a truth that people aren't ready to or don't want to hear, people respond usually by attacking the bearer of that truth. The more they have to loose as the result of the truth being known, the more viciously they fight. Be well. Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 23:46 (Agree/Disagree?) The masses are fickle and will backstab one in an instant. In this particular case it's not a truth that they are uncomfortable with, hence the more logical / expected reaction. But when presented with a truth that people aren't ready to or don't want to hear, people respond usually by attacking the bearer of that truth. The more they have to loose as the result of the truth being known, the more viciously they fight. Be well. Don Irwin

From vacuous Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 06:08 (Agree/Disagree?) The masses are fickle because they are composed of thinking individuals with a capacity to change their opinions. In order to know "the truth" of any one thing in itself you would have to know everything about everything in the universe and possibly the multiverse, since it is all connected. Since all you can know is what your mind allows you to, you will never know if there is something more. Hence truth is subjective to perception and a good way of questioning the subjective "truth" is often by questioning the perception of the "truth" and the "truth-bearer." By taking the same input and stimulus that led him to state a "truth" and by applying a different interpretation it may turn out to not be as clear cut a truth...so you either question his interpretation or you question the influences of that interepretation..his own person included therein. Science asks questions that creates an assymptote of certainty that nears the "truth" but never assumes it arrives. Any bearer of "truth" would have to be attacked and questioned in order for that truth to be discovered...as at least until now there is no better mechanism for discovering certainty as uncertainty. Fickle masses are uncertain, thinking masses, a good sign.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 10:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Another side note. Hitler, Mussolinin, the Kaiser, Emporer of Japan, etc., were wildly popular with the thinking masses as you put it. Hitler mobilized a nation in the direction of hate, all the masses of that nation. I ask these questions. Were they thinking masses? Was it a good sign that they mobilized behind Hitler's agenda? Don Irwin

From vacuous Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually if you read the history you will find that the Nazis were never an elected majority. Hitler mobilized a nation by not allowing the masses to think and dissent. Unquestioned ideology with no room for dissidents. The reason they were wildly popular was that there was no venue for choice and debate to reveal the darker nature of the ideology. Democracy is not only about election it is about the rule of law and about debate and choice. Without this you cannot have truly free-thinking masses. Subsequently the followers of Hitler were not fickle...they were automons. So in answer to your question, no, these masses were not fickle or thinking.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 13:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Fair answer. They were probably fearful masses, which are the most dangerous types, because their fears can be appealed to in order to manipulate them, with very nasty outcomes. Berg is the petty tyrant version of this, he controled through fear. Usually controlling the most fearful, he stacked his staff with females who were primarily the victims or survivors of abuse, he could control them with fear and feed their desires whether they were to control, rape or whatever, thus getting what he wanted out of the deal. Fearful masses are the ideal candidates for being ruled by corrupt tyrants, or corrupt persons peroid, look at our war and the managing of it in Iraq, that we're paying for with the blood of young American men and women. Listen, process, think, form hypothesis, construct, defend, flourish. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin.

From Unfortunately.... Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:40 (Agree/Disagree?) They were the "thinking" masses. They were thinking about poverty, they were thinking about their recent defeat and unfair treatment by allied powers, they were thinking how frightening this new "intellectual" society was that threatened to change their traditional ways of life. Hitler came along and co-opted the past to paint a new future of victory for Germany. He told them the jews were the so-called intellectuals corrupting society with their books, their abstract art, their new ideas, and because of the fear and insecurity and their need for a champion he was able to get mobilize them on his side. The Nazi campaign was an incredibly seductive one. Fascism, communism, socialism all promised the answer to the many problems of society at the time. Don't think it was so easy to resist. Though the majority of people on this site are fairly liberal thinkers in search of knowledge and truth, I'd venture to say it would be hard for most to resist. But many did. I'm not sure what "thinking" masses you and vacuous are referring to, but there was another thinking mass that fought against Hitler, there was even more who didn't fight because they were afraid of the consequences. I think sometimes people take for granted the freedom we have to speak up for truth when the majority stands against us. Truth is subjective. Your truth may not be society's truth, and just because the majority is behind something does not make it true, and neither does it make it a lie. These truths you defend, where did you learn them? Did someone tell you or did you come to these conclusions on your own? Most importantly, who stood in your way? The Greeks, the heroes of democracy, advocated having sex with young boys. Today we condemn NAMBLA for the same thing. For most of history, it was perfectly natural to marry a 13 year old girl and have sex with her. Today we would consider these things child abuse. "Truth" changes with the tide. For that reason, I don't condemn those greeks as child abusers, or those people who believed in Hitler, or Mussolini, or Emperor Hirohito. I know that could have just as easily been me, though I would like to think the truths I hold today would be inherent in me I'm not sure that's the case. It's so much easier to swim with the tide than against it, especially when you don't know that you should.

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow we've gone from equal rights to condoning child rape?!!! What type of sick fuck are you?!!! Humanity changes with access to new data, we evolve intellectually as a species. Women have access to new data and new opportunities in our society today and that's a good thing! The 1st of those rights is the right to choose you condoer of rapists!!! I'm so mad right now if you were here you'd be lucky to make it out of he city before the LAPD arrested me for assaulting you, which I'd probably take my chances on doing. You had better have a car that can outrun at 1800cc bike because I'd be after you. What type of insane bastard are you?!! Girls have the right to choose whom they marry and whom they sleep with and whom they give their young bodies to or not. Just because past societies institutionalized rape of young girls and socialized them into it by a patriachial society does not mean that it was right! If you don't have the capacity to go to school and learn that you are a serious menace to yourself and probably society as well. I mean, sorry, but your writings condone child rape. We have laws to protect our children, and you had better believe that in this country every man and woman is 1st a son, or a daughter, then a brother or a sister and possibly a father or a mother, and if you think for one minute that condoning your thinking which would victimize American children or children of humanity period is anything other than criminal thinking, you are wrong and need to be locked up for your own good and that of society, period end of story. Now, we're going to get the police on you if I have anything to do with it. I'm getting the Moving On Admin team to get your IP and login, the cops should know who you are, you are a very dangerous person, a very sick person, and a danger to any child you may or may not have access to. In the meantime, get lost! Don Irwin

From Once again... Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:34 (Agree/Disagree?) ...you've missed the point entirely. I wonder if I should bother explaining it to you. Once you've gotten up on your soap-box there's no getting you down. I did not mean to condone child abuse. Not condemning someone is not the same as condoning their actions. I used those examples to demonstrate that the truths our society holds as "inherent", may not be so. I meant to ask the question if child abuse was acceptable in society, how many people would still be against it if they were not taught it was a bad thing? In those times it was accepted and few did go against it. That was the truth for the time. Maybe you can so simply write off entire populations as evil but I can't. However, just because it was the norm at the time, if those people who harmed children, supported persecution of jews, and hatred of other people, were faced with the opposing side that having sex with children harms them, as does hatred and persecution of another race and that those people are deserving of respect and basic rights, and still chose to continue in their ways then I can condemn them. I hope that most people when faced with undeniable facts will make the right decision.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Have I now. ... Take care, Don Irwin

From My oh my Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you at a loss for words, or is this but the first of your customary three responses?

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Read Matthew 7:6. ~D

From lesson for SG women Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 20:44 (Agree/Disagree?) givenotthatwhichisholyuntothedogsneithercastyourpearlsbeforeswine lesttheytramplethemundertheirfeetandturnagainandrendyou

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 21:06 (Agree/Disagree?) You lack originality my friend. If the best you can do is regurgitate what I throw out, that's pretty weak logic my friend. Make your own argument, your own insult, stop using mine, the magic only works once. Stay relaxed,

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:18 (Agree/Disagree?) It is never the truth which opposes dissent.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 12:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Truth gives one the right to dissent, then counter dissent, then go to jail when guilty. -- Due process. It's there for a reason, I like the reasons. Stay relaxed, and out of jail. Don Irwin

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 14:48 (Agree/Disagree?) ... and yet you spectacularly fail to distinguish between 'the truth', 'the law' and the misnomer that is 'human rights'.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:04 (Agree/Disagree?) To me the perfect application of truth would be the perfect application of the law. We are imperfect, thus, many of our preceptions of truth are going to be somewhat imperfect as will be the case with the application of law. Doesn't mean we don't try to do / say what we think because it might not be applicable or percieved as truth/reality by another. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Someone oughtta check what that dealer of yours is supplying you with!

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 15:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Or what your dealer isn't giving you. Or in this instance what you're failing to give yourself. Knowledge is my biggest addiction. Age comes, but wisdom lingers, in your case, well it's lingering pretty darn far behind because your walking in the wrong direction. Slow down, roll a fattie, light up, find wisdom, renew your relationship with the dude and carry on your merry way my friend. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From Oddman Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Ahahaha.... Don says you're stoopid, NeO. Oh the staggering irony of it all. I thinketh NeOublie art well wise. He has an uncanny ability to say the wrong thing and still make it sound right compared to the average guy saying the right thing. ;p No seriously, while I don't always agree with NeO, I would never consider him unknowledgeable, unwise, or lacking in logical thought. Respect, NeOublie.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I consider the ability to appreciate the opposing argument to be an indication of both superior intelligence and confidence.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) If 10 men in a back alley decide it's a good idea to rape a girl and go forward with their plan. Is that democracy powered by "thinking masses" and a "good sign?" -- Absoluely not. The example above is one of mob rule, which is usually what you get when the masses dictate policy. Policy that protects the truth and minorities generally has at it's heart a recipie for gridlock. There's a reason for that. History has shown that the masses as they were are more likely to generate conditions or instances which reflect mob rule mindset as opposed to "thinking masses". Some truth is subjective. Some is absolute. If someone steals, lies, etc, presumably outside of matters of concience etc., there is the realm of reality and historical facts, which bear out the truth of the situation: Example, if I go to my favorite Jazz club and don't pay the cover, that's a fact. A true fact. The bearer of truth (bouncer) will show up and put me on the street if I don't meet my conditions of being there like an honest member of the audience. I probably won't like that. Thus if I'm dishonest I'll try to decieve the bouncer and certainly my surrounding patrons to get out of paying the cover. But I probably won't be able to get out of doing what's right. Relflections on truth may be subjective, but our actions either occured or did not. No room for confusion there, not to me at least. Be well. Don Irwin

From democracy as gang-rape? Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:06 (Agree/Disagree?) That's not a very good example of democracy; it's an example of very stupid people. If these 10 men you describe were truly "thinking" masses they would think about the consequences of raping a girl in a community. They are likely to incur punishment by a) the girl's family b) the girl's husband, and c) other members of a community who don't take kindly to these people having the freedom to rape any girl they choose since the possibility of that becoming their own daughter or wife is high. They would also realize that exercising what they believe to be their right to rape a random girl carries implications that other people also have this right, and if these men have daughters and wives they would realize by raping this girl they invite the same fate on the women in their families. Democracy was founded on the idea that in order to live in a community and satisfy the rights of everyone, members would have to give up some of their own rights. Of course there are certain unalienable rights (which one would think would be the right NOT to be raped) which cannot be taken away, but other than that if your rights rob others of their rights you will not be allowed to participate in society. You may think you have the right to throw your garbage on the street but by doing so you take away the rights of others to a clean environment free of trash and disease. In order to participate in a democracy you must respect the rights of others. This is why mob rule as government never lasts very long; no one can fulfill all of his desires or what he believes to be his rights without taking away the rights of others. The members will turn on each other and chaos and anarchy will ensue.

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 11:39 (Agree/Disagree?) There are so many names, definitions and factors being mixed into all of this it's hardly worth the effort to address. Democracy is not what is "founded on the idea that in order to live in a community and satisfy the rights of everyone, members would have to give up some of their own rights". That is the basis of any community - regardless of how decisions are reached or leadership selected. Democracy is one way in which a community can structure itself, it has been described by some as 'the least bad system of government', or 'tyranny of the majority'.

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe that only homogeneous societies are truly happy societies. Heterogeneous societies have too many conflicts of interest within themselves. Any laws formed will not likely be liked by everyone. People will feel left out. The whole voting thing is just slap in the face to people who voted differently. I think if people really had a choice between a safe place to live among people they could trust, people of their own race...and democracy, they'd choose the peace and safety. I don't know how long it's going to take for people to realize that America is not a safe place to live in any more. We in the city have to triple dead bolt our apartments, effectively huddling back to our mediavel-like castles with tight drawbridges at night lest the invaders kills us. I don't know why it has to be that way, or why we passively accept this. Fear has become part of our life. It's baffling how we've come to accept it. I guess things could be worse. We could be in the middle of an outright war or something.

From Oddman Thursday, March 22, 2007, 03:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you gone full circle, returning to where you started? Pointing out the obvious logical fallacies at hard work in your theory -that homogeneity would produce a happy society- would be a moot point. I have a hard time believing one who grew up in TF, left, and gained some form of an education for himself, believes a homogenous society would be a happier society. Who wants to live in a world where everyone agreed with most laws? The closest thing in the real world to a homogenous society, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist China. Not very positive. History has shown that diversity, or the interaction between different societies/sub-societies greatly enhances progression. Humans will always find reason for conflict. A brother is perhaps the most homogenous creature you'd find, yet so often he is no source of happiness. The greatest happiness -or so I have found- comes from defeating the odds and triumphing over obstacles. Not by locking oneself in ones room, avoiding them. I almost think humans will create problems and drama, for the sole purpose of keeping themselves entertained with finding a solution. Unfortunately, -the USA being a prime example- postmodern humankind does seem to gravitate towards safety over freedom, especially when they are the oppressors, rather than the oppressed. But what non-democratic society was there that in the endless pursuit of safety, did not terrorize their own? You either fear the manifestations of freedom, or you fear the manifestations of oppression. I'd take the two in one combo pack that includes freedom.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 02:39 (Agree/Disagree?) What gives you the notion that being of the same race (however you choose to define that) would make it a homogeneous society? I am assuming here that you are a white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual male - yet I'm not detecting a significant amount of homogeneity between yourself, myself and tuneman, for example.

From George Orwell Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 22:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Read 1984 and call me in the morning.

From Neo Nazis Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 10:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Hail Jolifam77! Sieg Heil!

From Der Luftwaffle Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 10:03 (Agree/Disagree?) To hell with you, you racist jerk. There is nothing in your arguments that wasn't already said in Mein Kampf.

From jez Monday, March 19, 2007, 23:22 (Agree/Disagree?) "...I predict a continuing downhill until it gets to be like the movie "Idiocracy" only much much worse." Truly original insight dude. You are a man of vision!

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Tuche' if ever there were one. Carry on and stay relaxed!

From vix Monday, March 19, 2007, 12:57 (Agree/Disagree?) You have discarded everything once before, survived it and built yourself up from the rubble, why not continue that process throughout your life? It may have been useful, maybe even necessary at that time, but surely you can't justify rigidly holding to a set of beliefs simply because at one point in your development they might have served some purpose.

From agreed! Sunday, March 18, 2007, 19:37 (Agree/Disagree?) That was the same Berg who was a chauvinist predator before Zerby took over (after many of the second generation had left the cult and only knew the machista days).

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 14:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I appreciate your attempt to help in the debate and wish you personally no disrespect. I do take issue with the term "slant-eye". I went to University with Asians, worked with them, lived with them. For the most part they are honorable people, hard working people, honest people, smart people. Every now and again you run into a boy masquerading as a man, like Oddman. I'd have a skewed view of Asians and their culture were I getting it from Oddman. I disrespect Oddman. I respect Asians, but understand that respect is earnt on a case-by-case basis. I disrepsect racism of any sort. Your comment smacks of racism. I respect Asians, they have capacity for great beauty and great intellect. Oddman is not representative in my opinion and view. I take offense to the term "Slant-Eye" being used to describe anyone, even Oddman. It is a racial slur which has no place in the thinking or speaking of an honest intelectual. I reject it and it's use entirely. Oddman may be a coward, not answer questions etc. ... but neither he, nor any other human of Asian descent deserve to be called "Slant-Eye". And I am willing to come to blows to support that position.

From steam Thursday, March 22, 2007, 07:04 (Agree/Disagree?) While I find jolifams racist remarks detestable, rather than being willing to come to blows to fight his racist remarks as you mentioned tuneman. I am more likely to "come to blows" to fight for his right to make them regardless of how disgusting they are.

From too right... Thursday, March 22, 2007, 07:35 (Agree/Disagree?) reminds me of the true quote "First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoeller

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 07:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Hear! Hear!

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, your reply is no surprise to me. You are in with the 75%+ of the world that is brainwashed by the TV into thinking that all the races are equal, or "should" be treated as equal. And yes, it's true individuals should be judged on their merits individually at some level, but to ignore the race is factor in your ultimate judgment is foolhardy and ultimately could be detrimental to your success in life. For example the U.S. government is deliberately ignoring the race/IQ factor in hiring, and even going to the opposite extreme and hiring less qualified minorities to prop up the illusion of a color-blind society. These policies are destroying America as we speak. This is a large example, but individuals would do well to consider the race factor when sizing up their friends/opponents. People of different races think differently, have different innate likes/dislikes, and different kinds of intelligence. These differences should be considered in the course of human interaction, or else you continue on lacking understanding in an integral part social interaction.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) All I know is that I took statistics with Asians. The professor graded on the curve, I got the lowest grade of my academic career in that class because a small Asian woman aced every single test on a very hard subject matter. My experience with them proves that they are capable of superior mental processes compared to their caucasian counterparts. I'm a scientist. I like imperical evidence. Asians are extremely smart. I don't agree with all of their positions and cultures, but then again, they probably wouldn't agree with all of mine or those of the Irish. They do think differently than us, that's not a problem unless your ethnocentric in your view of the world, which I am not.

From jolifam77 Monday, March 19, 2007, 05:37 (Agree/Disagree?) They're 1) bad drivers 2) have no sense of humor 3) kill themselves studying to pass exams.

From Oddman Monday, March 19, 2007, 09:46 (Agree/Disagree?) You know, being an Asian myself, I was about to dismiss your comments as typical ethnocentric bias. But is your opinion really wrong? What if you're right? I mean, the whole street racing scene is practically a result of bad Asian driving. Since we Japanese as Asians, can't drive, we resort to downhill drift racing and midnight drag racing, you know, when there is no traffic. I mean, if we didn't make the best cars, we'd never win auto races. I'm sure you agree, 3 Paris Dakar Rally trophies out of the last 11 tries is pretty poor compared to France's 7 trophies. I mean we almost lose to Germany's 1 trophy, and we're only 3 trophies ahead of the USA's 0 trophies. And humor? Oh boy, don't get me started on that. What humor ever came out of Japan? Surely to those of supreme white DNA, Japanese manga like Slam Dunk, One Piece, Lupin the 3rd can't be funny. Japan's oldest book (Kojiki) says that when the God of the Sun got angry and went into hiding, he only came out when he heard the laughter of the other Gods, who were apparantly laughing at the Goddess Amanouzumenokami dancing a funny jig. I mean, come on, wasn't there even one Japanese God who could crack a clever joke? The white man's god is full of laughter, right? Nou, Kabuki, Manzai, Konto, all these forms of comedy (some only 2000 years old) are all we Japanese have to offer. In the great US of A you got Jerry Springer! Besides, the fact that Japanese have no sense of humor was clearly established in 1963, when Kyu Sakamoto was interviewed for American TV after going to the top of the billboard charts with "Sukiyaki". Kyu, -when asked to crack a Japanese joke- was totally unprepared, and shared a pitifully boring pun. But that amazing American TV anchor must have got the joke, since he laughed like mad. He must have had an amazing American sense of humor, cause he laughed before it was translated too. Of course none of the Japanese fans got what was so funny about the joke, so if it weren't for our misunderstanding we'd never have had a turn to laugh. I mean, we thought that TV anchor fake laughed like mad. And oh, cramming. This is just pathetic. This hunger to excel. Who cares about one or two exams? Sheesh, anyone in their right mind would realize they could just redo the course again next year. Why kill yourself over it? The rest of the family in Cambodia could surely churn out an extra few thousand dollars off their farm produce to pay for another year of college, couldn't they? Really, what do we need to do to catch up with white people? If it weren't for Sushi, Toyota, Sony, Nintendo, and Ichiro, Americans would never even know we existed. We can't even gain weight like Americans. Sigh.... We've got such a long way to go before we ever evolve into humans.

From tuneman7 Monday, March 19, 2007, 19:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I love Japanese Animei, and all Japanese art in general. They are very creative people. The world owes them a debt for their contribution to world cutlure, religion, philosophy, techonlogy and business.

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) While I disregard your opinion of me as the immemorable schmendrick of a sinuous character suffering from delusions of persecution (among other path.), I respect your response to the above slur.

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Now where did you learn that word "schmendrick." Please tell me literature or the streets or New York, and not the thesaurus, dictionary, or vocabulary lessons.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:14 (Agree/Disagree?) You're welcome. Slurs are not needed.

From hypocrisy? Sunday, March 18, 2007, 18:11 (Agree/Disagree?) "Slurs are not needed." But, baseless, sexist, untrue attacks on individuals who have nothing to do with you, have cut you out of their lives and have ignored you is?

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, those individuals can defend themselves on this site or a court of law. Everyone I've tangled with has attempted to violate my rights? Who are you anyway nameless person? Do you want to start ennumerating persons and actions? I'm game for that and non scared of your hypocrisy, anonymous hypocrisy at that. If you used your true identity it would just be hypocrisy. At this point it's a tad more deviant than normal hypcrisy in my view, which is a view I've come to after a long period of analysis. Now, I don't mess with the truth, I don't stretch it, it snaps back nasty. You sound like someone who really likes perverting the truth to me. I've had lots of experience with this sort of person in my life and know how to handle them. The 1st thing you need to do is ID yourself, and have them ID themselves, after that you work through the issues in a transparent and honest manner. Something you're not even close to. Run along little nameless hypocrite.

From slant-eye? Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I would hope you're being ironic, but given statements of yours in the past I would not be surprised at such disgusting racism coming from you.

From rainy Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) If the only thing he can find to pick on Asians about is the shape of their beautiful eyes, I really don't think it's much of an insult. It's more of an insult to himself and a compliment to them.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 12:08 (Agree/Disagree?) "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher

From rainy Saturday, March 17, 2007, 18:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Some beautiful 'slant eyes' http://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=123297

From jolifam77 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 10:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The one with the blonde hair and blue eyes is a fine, very interesting specimen. Don't care for any of the others.

From Ne Oublie Thursday, March 22, 2007, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) You clearly missed Lisa Marie Scott (second from last) - stunning!

From jolifam77 Friday, March 23, 2007, 23:53 (Agree/Disagree?) well, you're right. I guess she's caucasian enough and hot as well.

From "Where did I mention Samurai in my posts?" Friday, March 16, 2007, 08:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Everywhere! It's been an underlying theme to nearly every article and comment you've made.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 09:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Nameless, logicless idiot/coward, I'm still waiting for the quote from my post and not your logicless/cowardly ascertation that it's a "underlying theme". Some other nameless idiot mentioned that I supposedly had a conversation with said nameless coward. I believe the coward, not I interjected Samurai into all this thing. I'm very sick of this utter nonsense. Get logical or get lost.

From Hmmmmmmm Friday, March 16, 2007, 09:46 (Agree/Disagree?) "Get logical or get lost"? Puuulease! 1/2 the shit that you post is illogical or borderline insane. And as for the Samurai BS, don't even try to deny it. At the very least you have been trying to liken yourself to one. By denying it, all your doing is making yourself look like even more of an idiot.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 05:14 (Agree/Disagree?) "By denying it, all your doing is making yourself look like even more of an idiot. " And you're making yourself look rather illiterate.... Read.... http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=39&ID=3983#57922 "I don't have the skills of a Ninja, nor do I aspire to. If I were to aspire to a skill set, it would be to the set belonging to Samurai, not Ninja. To each his/her own I suppose." "Claiming the title"? I think not. Learn to read. ~D

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 20:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, the "Samurai BS?" This comment indicates to me that you disrespect Asian culture. I respect Asian culture. I do not deny that I aspire to the code of the Samurai. I do not deny that I study and practice the martial arts of the Samurai. I certainly do attempt to liken my actions to those of a Samurai. I do not deny that. Now, if you want to identify yourself, good! I'd like that, then we can have a honest conversation, with me showing my identity etc., and you showing yours. That would be more honest and more fair. I don't like your dishonest, unfair insults. I very much disrespect and dislike you, whomever you are. That being the case, I'm happy that you disagree with Asian philosophies. I'm happy that you call anything having to do with the Samurai code "BS". I mean, I'd have more respect for your opinion if you said, I think your application of Samurai is BS. At least in that sentence you'd disrespect me, and me alone. You form sentences in such a way that they could easily be taken to mean that you disrespect the code of the Samurai, which I'm sure you probably do. When you're ready to have an honest fair debate, starting by identifying yourself, cool, until then: Get lost! Don Irwin

From JohnnieWalker Friday, March 16, 2007, 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, what was interjected in the original remark was 'Ninja'. You promptly corrected with 'Samurai' and were the first to use the term in connection with yourself: http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=39&ID=3983#57922

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 24, 2007, 04:49 (Agree/Disagree?) "I don't have the skills of a Ninja, nor do I aspire to. If I were to aspire to a skill set, it would be to the set belonging to Samurai, not Ninja. To each his/her own I suppose." "Claiming the title" I think not. Learn to read. Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 19:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Correct, I study the martial arts of the Samurai, not those of the Ninja. I aspire to the code of the Samurai, not that of he Ninja. Still, that was in another post, not this one, and it was in response, not in the post body or article. Context. Regards, Don Irwin

From JohnnieWalker Friday, March 16, 2007, 22:24 (Agree/Disagree?) It was still posted to this site. Context.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 22:44 (Agree/Disagree?) True statement. Fair statement. We disagree on the definition of context. I have a definition which works for me, if yours works for you and/or others, fine. I'm not emotionaly or logically co-dependant by nature. Period end of story.

From JohnnieWalker Saturday, March 17, 2007, 00:57 (Agree/Disagree?) You said "Where did I mention Samurai in my *posts*?". Your context, not mine. Had you qualified your statement, the context would have been different.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Posts<>comments in my mind. Posts== Articles in my mind. Posts in response to others stating that I claim to be Samurai, or more accurately aspire to my personal and individual (hint, I don't give a fuck what other people think) understanding and application of the Bushido code are even less valid in that context. Even more so when I simply seek to clarify that I respect the code of the Samurai more than the Ninja. Context is a biproduct of our interpretaion functions. Mine are decidedly different than yours obviously, which is good, otherwise I'd be you, which I have no desire to be, I enjoy being me. If you don't enjoy me being me, there's no need for us to maintain a relationship of any sort. If me posting on this site means that I need your approval or understanding. I'll build my own, it's an easy thing to do, and I'll then bring the traffic to it, it's also an easy thing to do. Don't suggest to me that your definition of context is valid simply because it exists on this site period. Don't suggest that to me unless the scope of your life, understanding, experience and education is as narrow as this site, which would be very sad for you to my way of thinking. Regards, Don Irwin

From JohnnieWalker Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Posts == anything posted to a website using an HTML form's POST method. If you don't give a fuck what other people think, then why do you spend so much time defending and explaining yourself on this website? You don't need anyone's approval to post here. But a little consideration of the fact that other participants may not appreciate your contributions to this online community wouldn't hurt.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:09 (Agree/Disagree?) JohnnyWalker, What is the issue here? They're not forced to use the Internet. They're not forced to use this site. They're not forced to read my articles. They're not forced to react to them. They're not forced to attack me unprevoked based on an article that attacks no one by name at all. Do you have an issue with any of what I've put above? As for your "community" I'd imagine there are other sites they can go to. There are other atricles they can read. There are other people they can attack. If I'm challenged I fight, and will continue to do so until I receive satisfaction. If I can't get it on the site, I invite people to battle with me in person. Do you have issue with anything I put above. If you do, go ahead and delete the stuff, it's a simple statement to execute against the DB. Do it! Erase the stuff off Movingon.org already. Until then don't give me any nonsense about this "consideration" business. It's reciprocal. I'm very considerate to those who listen and are considerate of me. If they're not. How does that become your problem?

From On the contrary Saturday, March 17, 2007, 21:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You actually have used more than one individuals name on this site in unprovoked attacks. You've threatened to do so even more times. You're on a campaign of harrassment and intimidation of pretty much anyone who has ever questioned your actions. When you aren't lying, you still don't make any sense. When are you going to retire already and leave everyone alone?

From JohnnieWalker Saturday, March 17, 2007, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You ask, "What is the issue here?" The issue is that your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent and abrasive. The issue is that you have become more interested in defending yourself and getting in the last word than in listening to what your peers and friends are trying to tell you. The issue is that in finding yourself, you have become oblivious to the fact that you have lost your balance. The issue is that you have become more focused on doing battle with others than in healing their wounds. You weren't always this way. What changed you? Take a moment to think about that. I see no reason to humor you and delete what you have posted. You have the right to express yourself freely here. But with rights come responsibility. Have you forgotten that? I expect you'll want the last word here, too, so I will now let you take it.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 10:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I respect your opinion you are entitled to it. You ask what has changed? Here's your answer: 1. I've been stolen fron. 2. I've been lied about. 3. I've been lied to. 4. My mother has been lied to. 5. My mother has been lied to about me. 6. My friends have been lied to. 7. My friends have been lied about me. 8. People have the audacity to tell me what to think or how to behave, or what to write. I repsect your opinion, it's decidedly different from my own. I've thought long and hard before doing any of this and gave the liars chances to mend their ways. They haven't. I'm doing what I need to now. Rights do come with responsibility, namely the responsibility to protect them. I have property rights, they have been violated, I protect, defend and fight for them. I have the right to be told the truth, that has been violated, I protect myself, and fight against the liars. My mother has the right not to be lied to. That right has been violated, I fight in reaction to that violation. The list goes on. But I doubt that you or others are interested in listening. At least that's what it appears like to me. You're interested in sanctioning my behavior / activity on this board. That's your problem. I'm interested in sanctioning the behavior of lying whoring bitches. Do you have a problem with that? Probably so. I don't care. I do what's right for me, not you, and certainly not what's right for criminally minded, con persons and lying whoring bitches. Got it? Probably not. Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 10:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Let me know if the above is incoherent to you. If so I'll pass it by a University professor and get tips on how to write it more clearly for the masses, or if it is clear and it's just an issue of selective literacy. My experience is that when you confront people with a truth they don't want to hear, it seems incoherent to them, not because it is, but because they are. When you tell people truth they aren't prepared to hear or are in denial about they react in unpredictable and illogical ways.

From tuneman7 Thursday, March 08, 2007, 07:24 (Agree/Disagree?) The Californian student of Busido is a completely different creature than his counterpart in the East. I reject absolute truth in matters of faith and concience, the application of the law which can equate to justice is all I care about. Regards, Don Irwin Student of Bushido Kendo Artist Shinkendo Student Software Architect lover of self compassionate man brother son

From tuneman7 Thursday, March 08, 2007, 07:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The reason we are different is because the terain here is different. You have to have a millitant mind on the streets of LA otherwise those who do can and will "drop" you, as they say on the streets here. The streets here are very different than those in Japan, the country from which the bushido code originated. In California our University systems encourage creativity over conformity, and we have no draft in the country anymore. Get relaxed or stay out of California, Regards, Don Irwin 2PAC LYRICS "Tradin War Stories" (feat. C-Bo, Dramacydal, Storm) [2Pac] A military mind nigga A military mind mean money A criminal grind nigga A criminal grind mean hustle You know [Chorus: 2Pac (repeat 2X)] We tradin war stories, we Outlawz on the rise Jealous niggaz I despise, look in my eyes [2Pac] Now can your mind picture, a thug nigga drinkin hard liquor This ghetto life has got me catchin up to God quicker Who would figure that all I need was a hair trigger semi-automatic Mack 11 just to scare niggaz Pardon my thug poetry, but suckers is born everyday and fear of man - grow on trees Criminal ties for centuries, a legend in my own rhymes So niggaz whisper when they mention Machiavelli was my tutor Donald Goines, my father figure Moms sent me to go play with the drug dealers Hits fall, we thug niggaz and we came in packs. Every one of niggaz strapped sippin on 'nac (Cognac) In the back, my AR-15 Thuggin till I die, these streets got me cravin thorazine My lyrics are blueprints to money makin Fat as that ass that honey shakin [Chorus (w/ Outlawz)] [Fatal] I bust a trey-trey, buggin an' shit They call it overthuggin and shit But I was just a younger nigga; gettin older and lovin this shit But what was I doin in this place? To the fakes without a pistol in the first, facin termination in the worst But I figured to play the wall; to watch all these playa hatin niggaz position for I could see 'em all Made it up out of there, lucky to be here to tell you But it'll never be a repeat people I'm tryin to tell you. [Dramacydal] Now picture the scenery, I'm thugged out smokin greenery Considered a B.G., but I'm off in this game somethin D-P My eyes only see deez, that's why I'm young and burnt out Learned the know how, well how to do now, by 18 turned out And why I do it - the ridin and smokin Collidin with foes - in the worst place; y'all shouldn'ta fucked with us ,in the first place Y'all real O.G.'s, droppin game to the youngsters Y'all don't want no funk cause y'all be the next in the long line of war stories [Chorus] [C-Bo] I breaks 'em off with this gangsta war story tale Stackin loot up in the coupe that I protect with a Mack 12 Slap my clip in the chamber; fool, your life's in danger No one will remain when I come through dumpin insane Call me Bo-wl of Major Pain, gun-slang and movin 'caine I be the nigga that's pullin the trigga and dumpin the hollow points in your brain Mo' bigger balls that RuPaul, Thug Life ain't a ball We bust that ass up against the wall (up against the wall) (?) Never been no (?) men How we bucks 'em down on the way to the ground ain't nuttin but the hog in me Bust off his dildo, killin (?) and keep mobbin G It ain't no problem (?) funk off (?) blow down punks with my sawed off Bust they dirty-ass drawers off and had them bitch niggaz hauled off [Chorus] [Outlawz] My whole family been raised, on shit that ain't okay Ain't nuttin on this earth will make a nigga like me stay I'm reminiscin, and catchin flashbacks when niggas ran up in my house and I was too young, to try to blast back What happend then? No one would tell me since I was three Heard they got to my peoples, now they livin somewhere free But fuck that, you got what's mines and I want that Never drop my guard, been on the squad, since ways back And now I'm sittin, holdin in anger because my parents missin Thuggin Immortal, got some war stories for ya [Storm] Now look at me - straight Outlaw Immortal Never gave a fuck cause I was nobody's daughter Outlawin from my tits to my clits, don't try to figure cause the murderous tendencies of my mind can't be controlled, nigga So who's the bigger, who's the quickest killer? Would ya try to trip with my finger on the 9 milla When I got cha on kay-nine-fourths Prayin to God as your life goes back and forth We tradin war stories [Chorus (repeats through to end, getting softer)] ['Pac talking] War stories nigga; hahaha, what players do Thug Life, Outlaw Immortalz Motherfuckin Tupac a.k.a. Makaveli Can you feel me? Just so you know, it's on Death Row My niggaz love that shit Dramacydal in this motherfucker, heheheh Yea nigga! Shout out to my niggaz Fatal and Felony C-Bo, the bald head nut, what? You know what time it is

From Oddman Thursday, March 08, 2007, 09:33 (Agree/Disagree?) "The Californian student of Busido is a completely different creature than his counterpart in the East." If there is no adherence to the codes of conduct, morality, and values of the Samurai, on what basis do you claim the title? When reading your recent posts, I'm reminded of Inazo Nitobe quoting Mencius. "How lamentable is it to neglect the path and not pursue it, to lose the mind and not know to seek it again. When men's fowls and dogs are lost, they know to seek for them again, but they lose their mind and do not know to seek for it." Perhaps the streets of L.A. are unrelaxing, (Though I doubt as bad as Johannesburg or Nairobi) and if that be the case, I'll adhere to your advice and stay away from California. I like my mind, and would hate to place it in an environment which appears to be damaging. What your comments on conformity or conscription have to do with the rest, I'll never know. The ethos of bushido very little to do with conformity.

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 23:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Getting very tired of having to point out your issue with selective amnesia, and lack of objective logic more than likely due to the fact that you are reacting to your emotions as opposed to acting as an observer to them. You stated that unlike Samurai I have the ability to lay down arms at any time. That's true. That's because I'm an American, not a Japanese, while I respect aspects of their culture and they as a people immensely. History lesson: In this country (America), there was a time when young men my age had no choice as to whether or not to lay down arms. This was because of the laws calling for American young men to enter the Armed forces on a mandatory basis. We no longer have those laws in this country, and if we did, I'd be leading protests to have those laws abolished. So you are correct in the ascertion that I can and will lay down arms at any time. If I pick up arms, metaphorically speaking of course, I do so because I want to do it for something I believe in. Or perhaps at times I'll do it for someone I believe in. Now, the person I most believe in is myself. Who else should I most believe in? You?!! I certainly hope not, you seem to lack to ability to hold a logical argument with a peer to save your life. Man, go and study philosophy in general for several years and come back and talk to me. Or, if you want to understand me better, come to California, go to a CSU or a UC then come back and talk to me. Until then, spend some time working on your selective amnesia issues / logic skills, that's what men do. Run along little boy. Don Irwin

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The irony of being chided for reacting emotionally, (Which allegedly has affected my capacity for objective logic) by the man who ends the majority of his posts with an emphatic "Get lost!". "In this country (America), there was a time when young men my age had no choice as to whether or not to lay down arms. " You cannot equate the Samurai to the drafted soldier. A Samurai does not defend his master in war due to lack of choice. The Samurai and the soldier drafted against his will are fundamentally different, in that the Samurai is merely living as he would. At war or peace the Samurai serves, follows and obeys. I only responded on the issue of bushido, as it was my understanding that you were an earnest votary of the Way. Seeing as this is more in the genre of puerile cosplay, I see little purpose in discussing the bushido ethos with you any further. "You seem to lack to ability to hold a logical argument with a peer to save your life." Things are not always as they seem. If you cannot understand the logic presented, that could be due to your comprehension, just as easily as it could be due my representation or due to flawed logic. We haven't discussed much logic as of yet, so how you got that impression puzzles me. I will continue to study philosophy in mine own capacity, as I'm not quite willing to go to a CSU or UC for the purpose of understanding you better. Quite frankly, the trailers have left me with little appetite for the full feature. Hobble along old man, I bow out of your thread once more. I dislike you, you dislike me. Now let's let bygones be bygones. P.S It's a bit off-season to be sporting a halloween outfit.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 05:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope you feel satisfied in the statement(s) you have made. Now, Japanese boy, I am emotional, no question, anger is an honest emotion, which I have no problem directing at you. As far as the halloween outfit is concerned, I wear clothes for comfort, there's a reason for this. If you are schooled in any of the hand to hand martial arts, or weapon bearing martial arts you'd understand this. I'm not concerned that you don't. Now, in my comfortable clothes outside the Irish bar, with my Irish posy (those who haven't whimped out to the wishes of bipolar, borderline, disassotiative, manipulative men or women), I'd kick your ass up and down any block in my city, State or Nation. Stay in Japan little man, and don't tangle with other men until you're ready to play like one. Like I said in another thread, I have no issues taking any issue I may have with you to the street under the protection of the law, yadda yadda disclaimer, etc. ... So, if and when you're game, come out, I'm ready. If you want to do it in an intellectual debate at a University in the State, let me know. Which university, which auditorium, when? I'll be there. I've done it before and won, likely that I'll be able to do it again, especially if it's against the likes of you. So, it's unfortunate that this has had to play out online, I'd rather it played out man to man in an academic, social or martial setting, I have no issue winning in any of the above mentioned settings. What cowards such as yourself, (I should note that you're less cowardly than some not even being willing to identify themselves before attacking someone else's belief systems etc. ...), attempt to do is insult men without being one yourselves. When a woman does it, well I understand, how can you expect them to be men, they're not. When you do it, I say bring it on outside away from the women and others trying to relax and we'll evaluate the outcome when we're done. Sound good to you? I'm ready. Let me know when you are, stop talking/writing until then. Don Irwin

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 06:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Today my last shred of tolerance for your arrogance, ignorance, and imbalance has died. I'll assume "Japanese boy" was not meant to carry racial connotations. You have every right to wear funny clothes and brandish toy swords (where legally allowed). You are even allowed to wear them whilst posing in poorly framed photoshots. You further have the freedom to post on the internet, those photos that would make the likes of Stieglitz, Leibovitz, and Adams cringe. You have every right to babble on with your meretricious rodomontade, and you have every right to shamelessly display your arrant narcissistic traits, anger issues, and progressively deteriorating communication skills. Equally, -this being a public forum after all- other participants have a right to express agreement or disagreement with any material you choose to share within the community. If you don't want to hear a few opposing opinions, I suggest you start your own private blog, minus a comment function. Or you could throw in a comment form as a veneer of fairness, and delete comments that don't read "all hail Donnie". Run it myconclusion.com style. Yes yes, the old "If you come to my town" braggadocio. As I've recently said -to one I'd thought was of lower intellect than you, but I now stand corrected- a truly confident specimen rarely feels the need to vaunt (or threaten). Interesting how such threats often come accompanied by the sly mention of a posse. (Yes, I did spend a few minutes wondering why you'd be waiting with a bouquet of Irish flowers. posy?) Strength in numbers, or strength only in numbers? As for tangling with men, that's an activity I find rather unsuitable to my tastes. Now, we have the means and provisions to make intellectual debate right here on MO. Why would I feel any need to visit a sub-par US institute of education? Are you implying that this forum gives you an unfair disadvantage in any way? And as for "I've done it before and won", famous last words of Hitler? Coward I am not, and man yes I am. The incognito comments on this thread are not my work. If in doubt, ask Admin. "When a woman does it, well I understand, how can you expect them to be men." Does it matter which gender the insult comes from? Take your own advice, Don. "I've found that I get a lot of respect from women in the world when I treat them with respect"

From anonymous female Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Tuneman shows very little respect for women, seeing them as only as vessels for procreation. "I may not present myself to a woman as the perspective father of her children unless I have done so." Context: he believes without fulfilling his duty to his family's military heritage a woman will not want him as a partner. He implies women are such simple mindless creatures that they have no other wants for a man than as a provider and father figure for their children. The fact that he upholds the values of a traditionally chauvinist and sexist society shows that he cannot manage in this new world where women no longer need men only to provide, to take care of them, to father children. As such he has retreated, as many insecure men do, into another time and culture where men were heroes and champions of female honor, and women were subjugated to them socially, emotionally, and physically. His view of the inferiority of women is especially evidenced by the way he brags how he has taken care of his sisters, as if they were incapable of taking care of themselves. His choice of words--"treat them with respect"--shows that he does not actually respect them but knows that he must act like it in order to foster harmonious relationships and not invite attack on himself; something which he desperately fears for he knows the likelihood of his being defeated. I do not mean this physically for he seems to uphold physical strength as a virtue since he cannot dominate women (or anyone for that matter) on a mental and emotional plane, and much like he has retreated to the values of the past he retreats to the values of physcial power for this is the only power he is likely to have over women. He will continue to be attracted to emotionally weak women whom he can take care of and will depend on him, thereby raising his self-worth. This weakness pervades into every essence of his being. Oddman, his insults to you have gone from attacking your intellectuality and reasoning to attacking your race, your physical stature, and strength. The more his intelligence is attacked, the more he will rely on his physical strength. He is utterly pathetic, desperately clinging to his last shred of manhood.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Glad to hear another opinion from a nameless coward. I'm not even going to defending your jibberish. I may not present myself to a woman as the father of her children. That doesn't mean I need to fufill a military heritage you idiot. It means, that in my view, as a man, until you acknowledge the past and the crimes comitted against yourself and your siblings an then do something about it, you are not prepared to be a father. That's what works for me. I'd be a hypocrite if I told my son that defending women and children was a good idea if he knew that I lacked the strength to defend or do something about what my sister and I and others suffered. Men stand up for the women they love. Bitches tear apart beautiful men using the tools availabe to them. You are very confused and even more illogical. I'm very happy, very happy that you regard me with such distain. It would be an insult to me if I was well liked by an individual of your moral and intelectual fortitude. Now, go ahead and get your last word in, nameless coward.

From vixen Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) 'Today my last shred of tolerance for your arrogance, ignorance, and imbalance has died.' Great! Does this mean that in future you'll stop inviting more of the same? I hope so, because I'm sick to death of the tedium of it and I wish you'd just ignore him.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 11:53 (Agree/Disagree?) It's interesting that you feel the need to attempt to defend yourself at such length. Interesting. ... My comments about/opinions of you stand. You're not going to change them on this site. I repeat: If and when you're ready to engage in a fair battle of wits, with a professional (professors and non survivor intelectuals) panel sitting as judge, not you or I or any uncredentialed clown on this site. If you want to engage in a fair battle or physical engagement with me utilizing the Martial art of your choice, let me know. I'll line up the attourneys and the Police departmets so that we get the right permits, let the right people know, sign the right release of liability forms etc. ... Then, we'll roll our sleves up and evaluate the outcome when we're done. Sound good to you? Probably not. Your actions show that you're a cowad, and just want to run around bragging like you've got a big unit. Let me tell you something, people who have big units don't spend much time talking about it. They're too busy using it. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, probably because you're not very busy using your unit, or your head, or anything else for that matter. My time for you is over, and the challenge stands. Pick it up like a man, and let's schedule it, or run off like the scared little bitch I suspect you are and know others (those who haven't used their names) are.

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:34 (Agree/Disagree?) "people who have big units don't spend much time talking about it." We evidently agree on this point (only difference being, I structured an aesthetically pleasing sentence), as I've said twice "a truly confident specimen rarely feels the need to vaunt".

From madly Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) OMG!!...tuneman… you are so put on typing restriction for being completely and utterly incapable of being ‘relaxed’. Talk about someone who has WAY too much time on their hands. I suggest you go and use your ‘unit’ for awhile.

From Ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:10 (Agree/Disagree?) It's interesting that you feel the need to attempt to defend yourself at such length. Interesting. ...

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Run along little coward person of the nameless sort.

From Ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd say the same to you.... perhaps retirement has given you too much time on your hands where all you have to do is look for people to scrap with that are half way cross the world. Internet chat sites are for online debating and discussion, I have never seen anyone challenge someone to meet for a face to face fight off over a discussion online. This shows up your illogical behaviour, not anyone else's. if you can't debate online and take a opinion that defers from your own -anonymous or not, then pls do 'run along' instead of telling everyone else to.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, I gave him the option of a academic debate or a physical display of martial capability. Stop with your lack of reading skills already. If he wants an academic debate, cool, if not, I'm trying to give him more options. Whatever.

From ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) What do you want him to debate? Whether you are a Samari or not? All he did was point out that your agressive behaviour and name calling is not in keeping with the Samari code of conduct. That should be the end of it really. Jonnie Walker already established that you first mentioned Samari in reference to yourself. There's nothing more to debate that I can see.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) If Oddman has questions he can ask them. You don't even exist on my radar because your nameless. I don't care whether or not you think there's something to debate. In another thread when called a Ninja I corrected. What's your issue anyway ironically? I probably won't get an answer. Interesting thing, people are very quick to attack and use shreds of a response to an attack. Now, as far as the Samurai stuff is concerned, I can aspire to that or identify with one, or call myself one if I like. If Oddman, or you for matter think it's B.S. or I'm wrong, that's fine. Just say it, then move on. Your opinion isn't going to change mine, much less my actions. My aggressive behavior and name calling was in response to aggression against me. I am allowed to defend myself against aggression and lunacy in my view. If I wasn't and was concerned with appeasing lying bitches, or dick-head men, I'd go and join the cult, which is where I think you'd be really comfortable if they gave you something to do that appealed to your personal weaknesses. I intend to continue to behave aggressively towards anyone who attacks, hurls unsolicited insults etc. ... As far as Oddman's interpretation of Bushido, I'll call him to the mat on it in an academic setting if he wants, not on this site full of nameless cowards. I suggest you let Oddman speak for himself on what he wants to do. If you want a debate I'll offer the same challenge to you. But wait! That would require you identifying yourself, which I'm sure you have reasons for not doing all of which I view as cowardly. Period end of story.

From Ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 14:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Online discussions don't need a name. Does it matter if I'm Peter, Paul, or Mary? I don't care if your Don, Dick, or Harry. Conversations and pointing out deferring outlooks and opinions are not 'attacks'. If you perceive them as such then it is illogical on your part -- it's a sign of paranoia. Everyone on this site are not 'attacking' you, but they may be trying to point out what is obviously clear to everyone but yourself at the point -and that is that you are lashing out needlessly at people and are displaying uncalled for hostility. My question is, Someone Who Knows said the following in his/her post: - "I didn't know you personally until recently, when I actually met you...." -- How do you then logically conclude that this person is the wife of your best friend who has known you for years as you have stated?

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 15:17 (Agree/Disagree?) If you want ID yourself, we'll talk, then I won't have to guess/conclude anything. Online discussions are one thing. When someone who knows mentions that she was suprized about how "crazed" etc., I was. You're pretty stupid if you don't think that's an attack. You're even stupider if you don't realize that I started responding with hostility after those comments. You may be confused by the facts. I'm not. I'm not lashing out at anyone who hasn't attacked, lied to, lied about or stolen from me. If you support or worse yet are one of those people. How does that become my problem?

From Ironically Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You didn't answer the question -- you're just assuming and making a guess as to who "Someone Who Knows" is -- that is not logical, especially as this person states that they only met you recently. And I am not the same person as 'Someone who knows." I'm not asking you to conclude anything about me - In fact, I've noticed that what you have perfected in your debating style is evading questions by responding with name calling and statements that are irrevelant.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 17:47 (Agree/Disagree?) My point about the losses I have experienced as a result of being true to my own concience is the point. Not who the person is. The scenario is valid even if someone who knows isn't this particular person. Again, it would be fair if people would ID themselves. Why should I have to guess who made the statement "I was struck by how crazed you were/are?" If that person is big enough to insult me when I insulted no one in my post, they should be big enough to use their own name(s). "someone who knows" may or may not be this person. Because a nameless person says that the person isn't, who cares? The nameless person isn't honest enough to back up their attacks with their own name, that being the case I doubt they're very honest in most of their other transactions. I hope that answers your question. "Someone who knows" may or may not be this person, because you say it isn't, doesn't mean that it's so. I hope that answers your question. Now, the point is I've said goodbye to a person with a nice little note coming back etc. ... I suppose my point is, which I'm sure you'll thing is crazy etc., a nameless person is pretty dispicable especially when they attack someone who has stood up as much a I have for the truth. Well, with friends like these. ... right?

From . Saturday, March 17, 2007, 13:02 (Agree/Disagree?) as

From sar Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Tuneman, you're a bore and an idiot.

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for your opinion. The Chancellor of the California University system does not share your sentiments. I respect the Chancellor's opinion much more than yours. So, call me a bore, call me an idiot, society's institutions in this State will disagree with you. I'm interested in gaining approval of society in general for my actions, not yours. I'm well on my way, what stage are you at? If you want to back it up, let's schedule a display of intellectual prowes, and we'll play, see who's right. Until then your comment simply reflects discredit and ignoance on yourself.

From Samuel Saturday, March 17, 2007, 18:42 (Agree/Disagree?) You don't need the approval of society. It appears to me that you problem is that feel that you are inadequate. What you need, is to love yourself. And before you can love yourself, you're going to have to find yourself, your identity. Where you fit in society. "If you know within yourself who you are and who you are not, people's assumptions will not bother you." (No, I can't take credit for that one. That was something Rain Child said to me.) Every day is an opportunity to broaden your horizons and learn something new. Every day is an opportunity to learn something about yourself that you didn't know yesterday. Every day is an opportunity to face your fear, and laugh at them: whatever they may be. The fear of rejection, the fear of not living up to your own expectations, the fear being wrong. Your fears can only affect you, Don, if you hold on to them. If you allow your fears to keep you from living life to its fullest potential, then you are only short changing yourself. Don, I would not be a good friend if I didn't tell you this. You're really starting to annoy people on this site, people that like you and want to see you succeed. This arguement that you are having with Oddman, Madly, and others on the website is getting rather tiresome. I'm not taking their side, and I'm not taking your side. In fact, I flatly refuse to take either side here. Give us a week, and everyone is going to forget about this little arguement, okay? So what if you like Tupac? I like K Ci and JoJo, but you won't find me posting their lyrics to "All My Life" on this site. Just so you know, sometimes when you're raised in a freaky sex cult, and denied a decent childhood and education, people don't always want to reveal everything about themselves too quickly. So some people on this site are going to register and have names that you can click on and find out more about them, and some will choose not to register. Choosing not to register does not automatically make someone a nameless coward. I wish you all the best in your journey, Don. May the road rise to greet you.

From tuneman7 Sunday, March 18, 2007, 10:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks Samuel. I'm sorry I'm annoying people on this site. The truth sometimes does that. Read my other responses. I don't want to repeat myself. Don

From shikaka Saturday, March 17, 2007, 21:18 (Agree/Disagree?) HAHA! you like K CI and JoJo!

From Samuel Saturday, March 24, 2007, 05:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Happy Birthday, Shikaka, btw

From Samuel Friday, March 23, 2007, 07:11 (Agree/Disagree?) HAHA! You posted something funny under a serious comment and got a thumbs down!

From tuneman7 Friday, March 16, 2007, 20:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Where in the body of the posts or any posts I have made have I claimed the title? Where? I am student, not Sensei. I know I did post that. My interpretations of bushido along with any other code of philosophies are only meaningful to me, as all interpretations of codes should be in my opinion. I reject the notion of absolute truth when it comes to matters of concience or faith, those are subjective, and individual. I disagree with you. I disrespect you at this point. Period, end of story. Regards, Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Saturday, March 17, 2007, 05:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I see a thumbs down, but no answer to the question "Where?" Just like any other good little intelectually bankrupt cultists/logicless narcisist. May I have an answer, please? What, no answer? I thought as much.

From tuneman7 Monday, February 19, 2007, 22:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Namless coward, Thanks for your post. I've had to say goodbye to some enemies and other abusive friendships and associations I've tolerated for up to 10 years in the case of one woman who married a childhood friend of mine. My family support my actons. I am the executive in my own life. I've had to make some hard choices. Those who truly care about me understand. I don't know who you are, that being the case, I'm not concerned that you don't understand. I am peace with my own concience. Stay relaxed, Don Irwin

From tuneman7 Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 18:49 (Agree/Disagree?) P.S. No one is forcing you to use the internet much less use this site, much less look at my articles, much less my pictures. If it's making you so unrelaxed, stop doing it. I've said it before, Only God Can Judge Me: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/onlygodcanjudgeme.html

From Oddman Saturday, March 17, 2007, 16:11 (Agree/Disagree?) No one is forcing you to use the internet much less, this site, much less post ludicrous articles, much less post insipid photos. If the response is making you so unrelaxed, perhaps you should take your own advice and "stop doing it".

from Cultinvator Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 00:22 (Agree/Disagree?) The cult will always be around so long as there is a shit hole and people who like to swim in it

from Cultinvator Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 00:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Be beautiful :-P

From tuneman7 Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks man! Don

from susan Monday, February 12, 2007 - 21:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks Don, you are a wonderful human being! Have a happy and peace-filled life.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 07, 2007, 19:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you Susan. Don

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, February 12, 2007 - 19:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Your work has been appreciated. Best of luck to you.

From tuneman7 Wednesday, March 07, 2007, 19:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you sir. Respect, Don Irwin