|
|
 |
|
Getting Through : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
Magic and Madness | from Jules - February 22, 2003
accessed 2807 times This Article is not in the Trailer Park. Go To Article |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from alacey1981
June 5, 2006 - This comment is in the main site
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from cyborcosmic
March 24, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Anthony
February 27, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | from FlamingAssbestos
February 26, 2003 - 17:51
...because we all know Harry Potter is real...
(reply to this comment) | from Jules is dumb fatass
February 26, 2003 - 15:50
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
Jules is dumb fatass
(reply to this comment) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From JoeH confesses
Friday, February 28, 2003, 15:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I posed as Churchill to give Nan a friendly ribbing. Actually, she was right, but neither of you know exactly why. The fact is that "up", in the context that she used it, is neither an adverb nor a preposition. It's part of the verb "to follow up." Make sense?
I used the name Churchill hoping that someone would remember this quote that is frequently attributed to him: "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!" (Expressing his distaste for the rule that forbids ending a sentence with a preposition). Here's an article that explains where and when this rule should be followed and ignored:
On TARGET="_new">http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions1.html
On a related note, maybe Jules should just give me my grammar section already, 'cause this doesn't sound like the kind of discussion you'd hear in ANY trailer park, much less hers. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Alf
February 23, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | From -
Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Know what you mean, kinds of questions which you get when teaching English as a Second language. Questions which come to mind: What would Einstein look like with hair moose? – Is suffocating in front of an aquarium the same as drowning? – Any escape from the monotony of merely working to survive, cause that’s what many of us discover we are left with when leaving. Do we even have any idea what interests us? We haven’t even heard of half of what’s there, it all seems out of reach sometimes. You have to know yourself to know what you want (or what wants you). I have often felt so far behind in that area, my understanding of self was and has been so incomplete or simply a product of what I was conditioned to believe was what I “should be” when told I was “God’s little chess piece”.
I think its reasonable to say that some of us find it harder than others to find what interests us, what we want to do, or even what we’re good at. For example, if all you ever wanted to be was a salesman or handyman, you can do that in or out of the family. The same if all you ever wanted to be was a strip dancer, a pimp, a baby sitter, an abusive boss, or a government sponsored welfare recipient. However, what if you want to be a farmer, a physicist, a zoologist, a professional sports person or a lawyer? – What outlet was available for people to become aware or exposed to these occupations? – I’d say nil or close to it. Of course this stand-point is circular. The people who find it easier to find similar occupation once leaving the cult may argue they didn’t have any options either they were only doing what they were taught.
Well, they can keep their argument, they only go to show that some people when placed in a box, either don’t try to get out, try to establish themselves as “bosses of the box”, try to make those who want nothing to do with the box (and who therefore don’t care whether they’re successful in it) their subjects, or just try to cause as much harm as possible because box rules let them do so. I saw a movie called “Jacksonville” the other day. Its about Union prisoners in a Confederate prison in the American Civil war (American history is pathetic & boring I know). The story is really about a fight for survival in horrible conditions & the lengths which some people will stoop when lawlessness prevails. The defence of the mob of people who thought they could excuse murder, violence & robbery was that because no one was enforcing the law therefore law did not apply, therefore it was perfectly legitimate for people to revert to killing, robbing & stealing in order to live in the prison camp. Thankfully, these people were hung in the end. To me the story exhibits the fact that some people are only too eager to revert to excusing themselves for cutting others throats when they can blame the situation or circumstance for their behaviour. Just the same we have people on this site trying to excuse that the behaviour is natural “survival of the fittest” mentality, or somehow explain that according to the handbook of anthropology incest was the norm in the past, so it must be accepted as normal human behaviour today.
Jules has blatantly shown which side of this she’s on. She’s perfectly willing to kick people out of the site, or cut out comments from people who are pissed off about being pushed around in the cult as if they are wrong. She has not banished, kicked out, attempted to isolate the SGA’s who are responsible for unconscionable behaviour in “the group”. Again this stand-point is circular, Jules likes to point the finger at the flamers, at myself or anyone else who speaks up about this as being abusive. To take Jules’ mentality a person who was being raped would be an abuser for fighting to get free or a person would be an abuser for confronting someone who has harmed them or their friend. – Who’s the abuser? According to Jules it’s the person who reacts to being harmed by fighting back. According to Jules’ reality you are an abuser for confronting someone who has hurt you or your friends. According to Jules, once you have been hurt (probably due to fate, or natures course, or your own fault for being vulnerable), you should just lie there and say nothing, because once you do, you are the abuser, right Jules. – Some people lie down and give up to aggression, some people learn to fight. Worse still Jules likes to make snide insinuations that the people who realise the abuses, past or present, are “paranoid”. What Jules, “paranoid” because it didn’t happen to you? “Paranoid” because you don’t believe it happened/ happens? “Paranoid” because in your reality, survival of the fittest is natures law?
It’s also amusing how so many people are so concerned about us not “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. Then we have PJ with the incredible insight that we are in fact “the baby”, and we can’t help being the product of our upbringing. – Seems like little more to me than a fatalistic excuse, saying that’s what the cult taught me, that’s all I can be expected to know (there of course is the question did the cult teach you that, or is that just what you tell people to excuse yourself). My take about this whole “bath water” theory is that we all choose to accept or get rid of the bath water which suits us individually. Some of us feel we have to get rid of more than others, depending on who we are as individuals and perhaps our place in society. So I find it hard to take when people think they have some superior insight into what bath water we all should or shouldn’t keep. There is after all absolutely no way we won’t keep at least some “bath water”, geez, many of us learned to walk (some even to read) in “the family”, I can’t see anyone wanting to throw that out.
Last but not least I thought I’d explain why my name doesn’t show up right away when I post a comment. You see, Jules has decided to log my name in for me even when I don’t log myself into the site. This is because Jules and I have come to an agreement she is like my site secretary, because she values how busy I am & knows I can’t be bothered half the time logging in. – Am I the only one who has lost their right to anonymity?
- Hey, Jules, pop on the photocopier won’t you, let’s get a copy of those briefs.
Now to Jules: Screw you, screw your site & screw the SGA’s you choose to defend. Personally I’d choose the company of people who say it how it is. Not fickle friends who scratch each other’s back while they force us to accept their version of “normal” or “acceptable”, based on their own non-existent standards or twisted ideas.
- Can’t wait for Jules to consider this all one big flame.- Go on Jules, banish this comment because it disagrees with you! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Thursday, February 27, 2003, 22:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ironically, it does. I was puzzled by how this person got worked up over something recently that had no basis in fact whatsoever. I was thinking about how often I do that myself, and how overly defensive I can be and how I am so used to always watching for danger. It can become habitual to always be reading between the lines and watching for the knife in the back. I've robbed myself of a lot of support and friends because of my own paranoia, but it's a ongoing process for me to learn to trust others. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 19:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, it seems that I am now the next one in the long line of targets for your all-consuming rage. For the most part, I usually just shrug off a lot of the stuff here. We all have bad days and sometimes need to vent and I really don’t take it personally. Well congratulations, you finally got to me. There’s a lot going on in my real life, so perhaps I am just fatigued. It’s absurd to even address the things you wrote above because I have already explained my opinion on these topics so many times and the conversation is pointless.
I’m sorry that you feel the need to continually try to hurt other people. I’m sorry that you are so frustrated that I refuse to take the bait and fight with you. I’m not sure what you expect from me, but I’m sorry that you feel that I’m not doing whatever you think I am supposed to be doing. Nan is right though. I am not your mother or your therapist. The only person I am responsible for is myself. As much as I empathize with what you have been through and are going through, you can’t bully me into either raging back at you or backing down at one of your tantrums. We are all solely responsible for our own behaviour now.
In any case I sincerely wish you all the best, and hope you find some peace. For myself though, I choose to no longer respond to you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From -
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 23:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
A lot of people get confused between anger and aggression. Everyone has anger. Aggression is the way anger is expressed. Aggression comes in many different forms.
Your above comment does not dispute the actual issues I’ve raised, merely it objects to it being (according to you) a mere product of my “rage” or a “tantrum”. – This dismissive/ belittling attitude is a form of aggression, if you don’t believe me, do some anger management research Jules.
You obviously don’t face up to some of your own anger, you pretend its not there, it makes you feel you’ve progressed or that you’re better than the angry person over there is. This explains why you don’t know how to understand some of the anger of others. In turn you react, utilising your own form of aggression. Just because it’s controlled aggression (you’re in the box seat after all), doesn’t mean it’s not aggression.
You seem to agree (in overall comments) there are some things worth being angry about, but you think you can tell whether something’s worth being angry about, to someone else, and you think you can judge a person based on the amount of aggression in their comments. – Well Jules, you are mistaken and severely wrong. No one thinks you’re their mama (another little angry/ aggressive retort from you & Nancy), just no one likes being so judged because of your lack of understanding.
But whatever you do Jules, don’t respond to this remark, it is after all just simply a product of angry, out of control rage, a tantrum, not worthy of your deified (yet completely ignorant) response.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From porceleindoll
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 18:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
The thing is nameless, you DON'T have to come and post here, you are NOT paying for this site, you are not handling all the technical details, and this site is not yours. If you don't agree with the way it's run, then leave and set up your own site for goodness sake, where you can implement your own rules, take all the glory and allow anyone to say whatever they like about you or whoever else drops by for a visit. (reply to this comment) |
| | From -
Friday, February 28, 2003, 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes I have heard the notion, "Beggars can't be choosers", your remark says as much (that’s what you equate the contributors of this site to, benefactors of your (or Jules) generosity).
In fact, however, and worse still you seem to infer to “freedom of speech” as if it were a mere commodity.
Regardless of what you think of what I've said or who I am, your above comment stinks of repressiveness. I may be rude, callous and cruel to your mind, but I don’t dare imply that freedom of speech should only be expected if you are paying for a site. – People like you belong in the Cult, you’re just like them.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Saturday, March 01, 2003, 00:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ever heard of the idea of "freedom from?" Some of us have the right to freedom from people like you and your small ideas which you shove on everyone as if you just discovered sliced bread.
There is also freedom of association. Look it up! It's a constitutional right in the U.S. We have freedom to associated with whom we chose. We also have freedom to chose not to associate with others. We have freedom to be free of the oppression of religion if we so chose. Their are also property rights. If property belongs to you, you have the right of alienation. You have a constitutional right to have the quiet enjoyment of your property, whether real or intellectual, and to alienate from that property what and who you chose.
You, my dear anarchist, are impeding the freedoms of those here on this website, which is the property of another, to be free of your oppressive speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is legally limited when it impedes or intrudes on the freedom of another. Further, freedom of speech is also limited by harassment, pornography and defamation laws. Some speech is actionable in a court of law. Some speech, such as "fighting words," are unlawful.
So do a little research before you bang on about freedom of speech.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From pale horseman
Sunday, March 02, 2003, 00:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
On what grounds exactly on this site, stated to be an open forum, are you claiming freedom from oppressive speech against another participant? That is blatant censorship! – Indeed, how is yours or the owner of this sites intolerance of independent or conflicting expression any less oppressive or offensive?
I have only one word for you, “discrimination”.
Now, be gone with you, facist! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From pale horseman
Sunday, March 02, 2003, 00:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy may be partially right about the ownership issue (I doubt she specializes in internet related law). However, the owner of this site, really should warn the participants that they will be discriminated against if they oppose the personal principals or preferences of the site owner.
"Freedom of speech" is present in numerous countries law systems, whose legal definitions are not dictated by the US justice system.
This site is not "Freedom of speech".
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Sunday, March 02, 2003, 11:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Trying to explain principles of law to you is like trying to teach a baby to drive. Freedom of speech is an American principle. It was written in the United States Constitution. Even the most liberal of other countries like the UK and Canada do not have such wide-sweeping freedom of speech. Great Britain doesn’t even have a constitution which protects the rights of its citizens from the whims of their current political leaders and climate. Canada censors pornographic speech much more so than the U.S. You try quoting IRA ideology in London and ranting on about their tactics and watch how fast you find yourself in the old Bailey. You can’t even joke about bombs in certain places, like the airports, and not be hauled off to jail. Italy recently shut down five websites, which were created outside their country, because they proposed "blasphemous" ideas which offended the Catholic church.
I happen to have studied intellectual property in law school. IP includes cyber law which governs the internet. I also studied International law and traveled to Europe in studying their legal systems. So, if you think the U.S. laws are not the most liberal in the world when it comes to freedom of speech, you're just plain wrong. Further, even American laws have limits.
A website’s open support of freedom of speech does not waive the administrators rights to legal protections. You can’t harass people and cower under the protections of freedom of speech, just as I cannot openly defame the protected aspects of an individuals character and expect to get away with it. Further, to claim discrimination, you have to be a member of a legally protected class, and last time I checked, former members of religious cults were not among the protected classes, such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From -
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 10:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to everyone who had to read my long boring post above, I don't know why I feel a need to draw imaginary lines between people, I guess it's just the way my violently suppressed homosexual tendencies choose to express themselves.
Also I want to admit right now that I only ever read the articles on this sight to fuel this same aggression and give me targets to lash out at, this means that everything I have to say is basically worthless mental masturbation.
I am so inconsiderate that I don't even take the average extra 15 seconds to log in, I like to claim it's because I'm too busy with my "life" but then I go on to post longwinded semi-flames that must have taken me at least 45 minutes to compose typing hunt-and-peck style with my left hand while my other hand is even busier than the rest of me. (Use you imagination)
The real reason I don’t log in is because I refuse to back up anything I say, and will not even claim my tired ramblings as my own, I have divorced myself from all personal responsibility for my actions and words, and leaving my name off of my posts keeps people from holding me responsible from my views and opinions.
I realize that this leaves me open to the possibility of some enterprising prankster posting things in my “name”, and even if so much is (indirectly) admitted in the post itself, I will probably pay so little attention to such posts that I will claim I’m being mistreated and flamed, even though only a moron would think this post was actually mine.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From -
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 19:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think we have Nancy to thank for the above case of imposterism – Too dumb to be smart, too smart to be dumb. Yes, we all know you’re a lawyer. – Stick to litigating someone over your extra-stretchy undies, ‘cause that’s what your good at!
All this free this free that, free country talk. – What a bore! – Can’t wait till your good Ol’ US of A, Land of the free, Home of the Brave [sic] brings the draft in again so all you Jerry Springer try hards can get off trying to compete for who’s the “freest”. (– Yes we know Jules is Canadian, not American, the comment is to you Nancy).
On this site you’re free to say whatever, express whatever, so long as it doesn’t disagree with site owners’ personal principles. - Fine, be that way, just don’t hypocritically advertise “freedom of speech on the internet”, Jules, you’ve lost your right to say that about this site – it’s simply a case of false representation. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nan
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 19:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Dumb Ass Dude,
It's not my work, but I'll gladly take credit. False representation?! No such legal claim. There's fraudulent misrepresentation, but the elements of the claim aren't there. Just because it sounds legal doesn't make it so.
And telling Jules she's got no right to say something?! Who are you legal counsel to the ACLU? You're an idiot! Get a life!
And I won't even comment on the reference to my lingerie size (as you've never met me, and never will if the gods are kind to me, and have no idea what my marathon running figure looks like), except to say I'm much more than a flesh eating litigator who finishes off chumps like you in the courtroom without thinking twice. There's nothing more satisfying than watching an idiot with an opinion try to make a legal argument. Just letting you have a forum is like handing you a rope.
So, carry on. You're almost amusing. You need to actually look terms up, though, if you want to sound half credible. Throwing around words like false and representation won't buy you a logical argument, much less a legitimate legal claim, which you might pass off to any moron on the street. (reply to this comment) |
| | From -
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 22:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, where did I say “false representation” was a legal term? – I didn’t. Even so, it seems you (along with George Bush) think the whole world revolves around the US legal system. In the event that you did know all there was to know about US law (astronomically doubtful), you still probably wouldn’t be able to make any informed comment on the legal systems or legal terminology used by other countries, would you?
For the record the reason I think it is a “case of false representation” is simply because her censoring actions contradict what she claims about the site with regards to “freedom of speech”. – I’m not relating legal terms here.
What, next time two people have an argument & one says to the other “you’ve got no right to lie about that”, should we call you, Nancy, over to let us know whether the correct legal term is being used? Sorry, Nancy, you’re the only person I know of who can’t seem to determine a non-legal discussion from a courtroom one.
I’m glad to see you’ve discovered how to channel the extremism energy we were taught by the cult (If you don’t understand what I mean by that, never mind). If I ever do meet you in a courtroom I’ll be sure you get to portray the same vexatious, know it all attitude you always seem to like to push on everyone.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From -
Thursday, February 27, 2003, 00:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was JoeH either.
It would help explain why the writer chooses to relate to things in terms of “violently suppressed homosexual tendencies”.
Seriously, JoeH, if this is you, start laying off some of that gay porn. Some people obviously can’t handle too much of a good thing. ; )
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 09:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Bitter much?! Dude, let it go! Jules ain't your mama! Get on with your life. What the hell do you care so much about what she thinks, or anyone else for that matter. It's a free damn country to think whatever one chooses.
And "SGA's"?! Are we still using cult language? Why not ditch all that garbage when you left?
As far as comments which Jules sees fit to toss in the trailer park, again, free damn country! Her site, her decision, her way!!! Get it? She's been too nice in the past to spoiled little brats running around here stomping their feet and claiming the most absurd crap known to man. I won't even go into the junk Andrew J/Seven posted here. Garbage which is illegal in most countries. So, Jules finally had enough, and now the little culprits are still stomping their feet and banging on about allowing anyone and their half-brother say whatever they damn well please!
Well, buddy, this ain't your mama's cult no more. Jules, doesn't have to "hear from the Lord on the matter." Let me introduce you to the good old capitalist notion of property rights. Jules' site, Jules' way! And no whining cry babies about it!
"But, it just ain't fair!!! Zerby wouldn't approve!!!" Good! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | from Jogger
February 22, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | from Nan
February 22, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Chiyoko
February 22, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]